So in.
So insane, it's so insane.
Bunker bunker, bunker locker.
I got married. I got married to a funko who.
We got wedded, come joined in the subway, he shocked.
I am married, I'm married.
To a funco. But do we get joined?
Go watch the singer subway? Who shot or.
Specimens and biscuits and minerals they come to me to my whole life is spent?
What to h.
M hmm, what of.
I'm married to a longer who but we got wedding, but we got joining in the subway?
Shut over the roads and minerals they come to you to listen, and minerals they come from this year too, dot for for.
Fuck.
I got married, I got married to my fult goober.
Oh we got waded, we got joined in the subwhere he shut.
The sight?
What should I do with the first sight? Put it in my head, throw it on the ground.
Who knows?
Just what would I do?
Sweet enjoyed the subway? He shut the lover.
The human guinea pig stuff in Africa. It is so insane, the human guinea pig stuff in Africa, it's so insane, is so.
Inc so insane, it's so insane.
Funker Funcker boo fuco fucker bot.
I got a fund.
Come joint.
All right, welcome to another open debate today. Uh I decided to postpone my music industry stream. I know that everyone is concerned. We all hope the best for Diddy.
We're all.
We've all got our fingers crossed. We might have our hands a little bit like this when they're crossed. But listen, as a VG comby said, my favorite brother out there, we all know this is what all the elites do. The only reason that they're going after Diddy is because of his skin color. And look, I know everybody's interested. They want to know what is j Loo up to? Why if j Lo and Baffleck split, were they seen kissing again? Those are the issues that concern us, I know.
But listen, I'm gonna have all the hot scoops, all the hot goss, the hottest gossip around available for you tomorrow. But because Francis seemingly doubled down, and we're gonna look at the responses and no, no, he's not doubling down. It's all misunderstandings. He's talking about diversity amongst Christians.
Is he.
There's stacks of books five feet five feet high. So Jamie, Jamie doesn't know where to set things because there's so many books everywhere. Okay, well that's gonna fall over if you put it up there. Thank you. She brought me a plate of treats. She brought me a plate of treats to calm my beat us rage in case I get mad. So she may be a homemade keto bite and a ginger chew for when the beat us attacks, when I get angry, beat us to the callers that call in. So I got the sugars.
I got a bad case of the sugars. This old Francis over here gets me a little angry. I get bad cases of the sugars. That starts shaking, and I get really angry and screaming and cussing up a.
Storm of people. Mama wouldn't be happy about that. So Mama told me to eat much sugars. Make sure I calm down and not get hungry. I'm drinking too many express Oh I gotta calm down. Oh man, So let's see.
Okay, I'm not gonna play the video because I think it's in a foreign language. My nose hair isn't making me. It's like crazy. Do you two snort cocaine? He snorts cocaine. You get him exposed, exposed? Clip it, clip it, clip it.
He's exposed.
Now the explanation once again, we have Francis here. Let's see to read the quote. Now this is the official Vatican uh whatever. This man is Vatican man here with the beard and whatnot. And doesn't he look like the ultimate trade cat with his tie and his little thin little beard. Man Michael Heenes, I mean, I don't even know how he talks.
But senior Vatican correspondent with Michael Heenes, now he's the one that's really been championing this latest information about Francis.
Unity is not uniformity. The diversity of our cultural religious identities is a gift from God. Unity and diversity. Now, the cope to today's apparent doubling down is, oh, this is just within the Christian sphere. Wait a minute, there's not religious diversity within the Christian sphere because that's the same religion. There might be cultural diversity within the Christian sphere. So this whole cope is preposterous. Every cope is preposterous. It's always the same word games to try to make
it mean anything other than what he clearly says. And what's what's ironic is that what he clearly says is also clearly weaponized ambiguity. So there's a bit of a catch twenty two there. I admit it's a paradox. But how do I know what he quote clearly says. Well, I'm gonna show you how I know what he clearly says, because he's referencing back to and by the way, the fact that he says, well, he talks about Mary's, so he must only mean Catholics. This is what every Roman
Catholic does when there's these problems in their documents. They say, well, here's this other quote over here that is not saying what the first quote says. Oh, well, that's a contradiction. That doesn't mean that the quotes harmonized. That just tells me that he's saying double speak. The Vatican has been masters at this bureaucratic double speak for probably many centuries. To be fair, to be fair, to be clear, here we are all pilgrims of hope walking in search of
the truth. Now here's another problem in this quote, in this statement, which was in the other gaff heresy. Gaff the other day, I think he says in here we're all children of God or something like that. Let's see. Well, No, he says God loves every man and makes no difference among us. No, that's not true. Some of us are wicked, and some of us are sons of devils, sons of Satan, etcetera. Spiritually speaking, so no, it's not true that there's no
differentiation amongst human beings. That's not true. And in the gaff the other day he said that we're all sons of God. No, that's not true. You're a son of God through baptism. You're not a son of God by merely being a son of Adam. In fact, those who are sons of Adam or under the spirit and influence of the wicked one. Now you're potentially a son of God, but you're not de facto a son of God by being a son of Adam. And so there's always this
ambiguous language that goes on here. And he goes on to talk about it sounds like his typical worship illegal migrants type speech. But notice if it was merely a case of my nose, there's crazy. It's because the ragweed in this area is like at a level seven right now. He says, the richness of God wants us to be diverse through different traditions, different religious identities, is a gift of God. Again, if he's speaking to Christians, there's not
differences of religions amongst Christians or amongst Catholics. Maybe in Francis's mind there actually is though, because you know, to be clear, you can be a Uniate and deny half of the papal dogmas and still be a quote good standing Catholic, or you can be a trad cat who thinks that all the things that the Uniates believe are heretical and damnable heresies, because it's the same position of
the Orthodox in terms of Palmism. So maybe he does mean there's a lot of different religions within rogue Thalicism. So that's another option too. And of course, ever so, Michael often says the patriarchs have the humanism amongst them.
Yeah, I know that.
How many times have we addressed this argument? I've addressed it in every stream this week, every video. And why is that a two quoque way, Because if I'm doing an eternal critique of his system, it doesn't work to say, but you have accumunist bishops too. If the argument was the true Church is the one with no ecumunist bishops,
then Michael Watton's reply would work. But nobody has made the argument that the true Church is proven by quote no ecumenist bishops or impeccable bishops, or bishops that have no errors or no sense. That's not the argument. I've figured out that these people are literally incapable of an internal critique. They don't understand that. After that, in almost twenty years of debating with Thomas off and on, and it being a Thomas, I don't care if Sam Schmun
wants to come after me. We had a conversation, a friendly conversation about this, and he wants to do a roundtable where me and UBI and others come in debate. And I said, of course I'm down for that. But what I'm saying about internal critiques, I think that they just don't understand what that is. And they think that, oh, well, if you some problems in my system, you have problems in your system too. But not all problems are the same,
Not all problems are created equal. Some problems are systemic or so fundamental that they demonstrate the incompatibility, the incoherency of the system as a whole. For example, if you remember when I debated tomorrow, I said, what would it take Eric, and he said, if you can produce a papal dogmatic contradiction, that would be enough. Yeah, exactly, it only takes one dogmatic contradiction to invalidate this system, because the system claims that for this entire system there are
no papal dogmatic contradictions. So the burden of proof, by the way, is on those who have the extraordinary claims that the Church always taught the Vatican one views. That's what Vatican one says, that's what Leo the thirteenth stat is called mutum says. So actually the burden of proof with their outlandish claim is on them, I would say, and we've seen over and over that they're actually ever demonstrate that what they demonstrate is reading into various quotes.
So how do I know what Francis meant? Well, Francis is repeating what he said in the Document on Human Fraternity from twenty nineteen which he signed with the Grand Imam. Do you see that? And it was a big scandal at the time because Francis said, God wills all of the religious diversity, all the pagan religions, God wants them to be there. And what did all the Roman Catholics say at the time, Oh, he doesn't mean in terms of his intentional will. He just means it in terms
of lying providence. Interesting. So now when Francis says the exact same thing, and he clearly says that God wills religious diversity, now they're admitting that he is saying religious diversity, but it just means amongst Catholics. So well, wait a minute. When he said religious diversity back in back here in twenty nineteen, it didn't mean that. It only meant God's permission of many different systems, not of the wanted many
false religions. So you see how they will the same phraseology, the same terminology is given a totally different sense by the Roman Catholics to fit the needs to make the system work. So their system is unfalsifiable. But the problem with unfalsifiable systems is that that's actually a demonstration of
its tremendous weakness. Why would you have to be constantly propping up all of these blatant contradictions, all these blatant, compromised papal scandals that aren't just scandals of sin, they're scandals of doctrinal error, contradiction, and absurdity. Why would you have to keep doing this if this was such an
obviously true, manifest, globally universal, unified system. It's like Luigi said the other day when he was debating with somebody, he said, you guys have dogmatized so many things that it's too difficult to keep up with and make the
whole thing work. That's the problem. And just think of the Prima Fassia absurdity of a thousand years ago calling crusades against Muslims, and I'll grant that it was a defensive posture versus now signing joint declarations and documents that God wills Islam and Catholicism and the other religions and then building the Abu Dhabi Faith Center as a result
of this document. Did you know that this document that he signed with the grant Imam was signed as the basis to build the multi faith center where there's a mosque.
And a.
Wait a minute, I've got it right here, synagogue, the cultural landmark of the UAE capital, which includes a synagogue, a church, and a MoMA is meant to be a beacon of understanding and peaceful co exists, bra coexists, brah bumpersticker theology inspired by what the document on human fraternity? What's the document on human fraternity? This thing right here where Francis says, God wills all the religions, he wants
them to all be there. Now again, he just said two days ago or three days ago, that they're all paths to God. Like there's many different languages. Now, that's a false equivalence. The fact that there's many different languages and many different religions does not mean that they all
get you to the end goal. There's only one way to have it, according to the New Testament, according to Christ, and according to even the Roman Catholic teaching all the way up until Vatican Two's no Strataute in Lemagentium sixteen, which again I argued, clearly implies that the plan of salvation includes Muslims. Okay, well, that's kind of ambiguous. Does that mean that Muslims can be saved?
Well?
First of all, who doubted that Muslims could convert and be saved? Nobody? Well, the interpretation that we're supposed to have. Well, that just means that they can be saved. The plan of salvation includes Muslims. Did anyone ever think Muslims couldn't convert to Christianity. That's a preposterous, absurd, you know, non necessary statement. In the first place. Amongst those who can
be saved are those that acknowledge the Creator. So wait a minute, now, Jesus, isn't necessary Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham and along with us they adore the merciful One, merciful God. Now that says that they do adorn it, and every romancality will so. But it suys profess. That doesn't mean that they do. Oh but this isn't the only Vatican through document. There's also no stratate which qualifies this statement and goes even further to
say that they do have the faith of Abraham. No sratat III. The Church esteems the Muslims. Imagine this language. Imagine telling Hillar Belook, the famous Roman Catholic writer and a Paulist from a century prior who wrote famous essays calling Islam antichrist. Think about the medieval popes who called it the wicked, demonic religion of Mohammed, the anti Christ religion of Mohammed. Now, according to the dogmatic teaching a Vatican through the Church esteems Muslims, oh, we esteem Antichrist.
Now we used to go to war and call defensive crusades against the wicked Mohammedans. Now we esteem them.
Just that.
Right there is enough to tell you the spirit of Vatican two, it's not the Holy Spirit. Muslims adore the one God. Well, actually they don't, because every Muslim who knows the first thing about Islam will tell you Allah has no sons. So that right there totally destroys the lie that will.
As Trent Horn says Joseph, Christians worship the sabe Old test of but God because they believe it.
What God.
I'm tritt Hord. Look at my curly haired by triple chit. I'm trit Hord. I know a lot about theology. Look, I don't know what the word triad beads. I think it's a word that beats at Trinitarians will, even though it's the most Covid used day of bebokes.
Greek Catholics for the Trinity. But I don't know what that word beads, a tride horne, no trent horn. The fact that they believe in one God is not even the Old Testament God because Jews, maybe you could make this argument about Jews that they worship the same Old Testament God because they call him Father, He's the father of Israel. Jew Muslims explicitly say no, it is Allah has no sons.
Alaiah is no father.
It's Islam one oh one that Allah is not father. So this statement is false. They adore the one God that lives and subsists in himself. Okay, guess what are you familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity. The Doctor of the Trinity is not Unitarianism, that there's one divine person who lives and subsists in himself. Now, if you're a monarchical Trinitarian, you can say, well, that's true about
the Father. But the Father did not live and subsist only in himself, as if he was there from the beginning. And then there's later on this second thing known as the Sun, and then there's this third thing spirit. No, there was always an eternal triad, eternally begotten. So you see how absurd from the outset this is as if there's a common religion between Muslims and Christians. Because here's
the reasoning. Well, Muslims believe that there's some attributes that overlap with Christianity, So what a Satanist could believe there's some attributes that overlap, and so you can get well, but what about the sense and the reference they intend it to be. It doesn't matter what they intend, and it doesn't matter what the reference is ultimately, because every Catholic that I ask, I said, do you believe that
a Mormon worships the same God as you? You understand they linguistically profess Father, Son, holy Spirit, and that Jesus is the Son of God in some sense. Does that mean because of the linguistic similarities, that we have the same God as the Mormons. Every Catholic tells me no when I ask him that, And then these goofballs turn around and tell me that Mormons don't have that Muslims
have the same God. I mean, if anything, a Mormon might have a closer linguistic grammatical sense than than a Muslim. I mean, I think Mormonism is ridiculous, it's a stupid heresy, But I mean they at least say Jesus is divine. I mean, he's one of many gods. And they at least say God is the Father. I mean they think God has a body, and I mean it's all stupid, right, just nonsense. But like, on what basis is a Muslim closer to Catholicism than a Mormon. It doesn't make no sense. Oh,
because of monotheism. It is Monotheism. What does that mean? Oh, it means, as Trent Horne argued, the Old Testament Unitarian God. There is no Old Testament Unitarian God. Why can anyone not fathom this? Do you know why they can't fathom it? I'm gonna shock you because in the mind of the Roman Catholic there's two conflicting positions. When I was dming with Tim Gordon the other day, we had a long back and forth basically the entire morning we were dming
and voice messaging back and forth on Twitter. And I'm not knocking Tim. This is my analysis of that conversation. There is, on the one hand, the Tim Gordon, who wants to be in line with what obviously divine revelation says Moses and Abraham knew the Son of God directly through the Theophanes and thus had a worship of the Trinity.
It doesn't matter that they knew the word trinity. If they knew God, the Father, his angel, a messenger who they ate with face to face, and that he had a spirit, which is all over the Old Testament, that's sufficient to know that that three person unity in the Old Testament is the Trinity, whether they knew the word trinity or not. And I can prove this again against the stupid Trent Horne thinks, how do.
They know the Trinity when the word trinity wasn't used yet, so therefore they didn't know the Trinity.
Do you understand how dumb that argument is. That means that the New Testament doesn't teach the Trinity because the word trinity wasn't used. That's so stupid. So Justin Martin wasn't arguing for the Trinity against Trifle the jew because he wasn't using the word trendititass Yet, this is so silly. This is the level of argumentation and debate that we have to use with these people that we're dealing with. Now,
we're going to open this up to debate. It's not just about Catholicism today because obviously this topic relates to the Muslims. Well, again, let's go through the rest of the statement again, because this statement, which qualifies limagentium statement, makes it clear that Vatican too is saying, no, they do have the faith of Abraham. They adore the one God living in Saint himself, creator of having an earth,
who has spoken to men. Now, if you listen to many of the streams of Sam chamun Uh, and if you listen to what Islam itself says about Allah, that he is the greatest of deceivers, and that he wills and creates evil, and that he duped his followers by tricking them about Jesus on the cross, on and on on. Does that sound like the one true God of the Old Testament or does that sound like another spirit that Jesus talks about. Jesus said that Satan was a liar
from the beginning. If Islam says there, God is the greatest of deceivers.
Who does that sound?
Oh, that sounds more like Satan, doesn't it? According to the biblical perspective. Now, remember Mohammed had said Allah has no sons in a spiritual or in a literal sense. That means that the God of Jesus, whom Jesus calls Father a zillion times over in the Gospels, is not the God of Islam. That's an immediate disqualifier for them being the same reference or the same intended intentional context because of romancatholical Say, well, here we go. This is
ed Faser's explanation. Muslims have the wrong idea, but they intended to reference the right thing. Okay, but you just if I asked you about Mormons, Mormons don't worship the same god. Oh well, you see, there's basic characteristics of what monotheism constitutes. How do we know what the basic obvious, self evident characteristics of monotheism are. Oh well, we don't. Now doctor Khalil, for example, and I said this to Tim.
I said, Tim, watch this stream by doctor Khalil, because doctor Khalil says, if I begin with natural theology, which Muslims do, and then I reason to what the self evident principles of metaphysics show me about what divine simplicity is, I don't get a triad. I get an absolutely simple Islamic deity of Shia Islam, which is neoplatonism. Now I don't believe that there are these self evident metaphysical principles
like that. But what I'm saying is that here you have doctor Khalil and Tim Gordon with the same presuppositions about what divine simplicity is when it is in terms of it self evidence and the type of absolutely simple God that it demonstrates without any reference to scripture or divine revelation. And doctor Khalil comes to the conclusion of Islamic Shia neoplatonism. But wait a minute, Tim Gordon comes
to the conclusion of Aristotelian tomism. What I thought that there was a self evident, obvious Unitarian monotheism that we'd all agree on. Then we could later down the road downstream from that argue Trinity in the deed of Christ. The whole thing is false. That whole thing is wrong. There is no one Unitarian God that you reason about, and then Trinity down the road, there is only the Trinity.
So the whole problem with all of this is the natural theology, the assumptions of Unitarianism, the belief that is patently false that Abraham worshiped a generic Unitarian God, which Trent Horne constantly repeats, which Jesus refutes when he argues with the Pharisees, you have neither seen him nor known him. I knew him. Abraham worshiped me. Moses wrote about me. If you follow Moses, you would believe in me because he was talking about me, because I ate with him
face to face. Roman Catholics don't read the Old Testament. They are idiots about Biblical commentary. I'm not talking about their jesuit liberal hierocritical scholars who specialize in making the Bible fak and gray. They're very good at that, because they're faking gray. I'm talking about the pawp apologist who
don't even know the Old Testament. And so when I asked him that Tim, there's the Tim Gordon that believes, Hey, wait, the Bible clearly is teaching the Theophanes and that Jesus is clearly saying that he's the one eating with Abraham, and he's the one on the mountain eating with Moses. Have Romcalich's read Exodus? Do they know what's in Exodus thirty three? I don't think they've even read it. Who is being who?
Oh?
Is it's an angel? Does the angel? The angel does eating Theophanes. The angels. Oh, okay, so now you believe in created angels that are called Yahweh, that are redeemers, that forgive sins, and that are worshiped, and that Jesus identifies himself as so are you an arian? Is Jesus a creature now? Because he's the one that was eating with Abraham and Moses? Are you arians? I actually think
they are becoming arians. They are becoming Muslims in their theology, because that's more consistent with their stupid natural theology presuppositions. The Church regards with esteem the Muslims. Although in the Middle Ages we call them wicked Muhammedans, we call them demnable, heretics and anti christ, now we esteem them. How do you esteem Antichrist? I mean, I understand how because Francis is not at all they are Christian in any sense.
He's a complete apostate herotic. But imagine the insanity of trying to smush all this together. Imagine Sam Chamount after all the years of talking about how the Allah of the Muslims is Satan, and now he wants to go in the direction of this. He's gonna have to throw out all these apologetics that he's been doing for so long, which are so effectual. I'm not saying he's a heretic. I'm saying if he goes in this direction and he
adopts these positions, that's where he will end up. So do you want to give up all that previous apologetics? And remember every Roman Catholic God I've asked, I've asked. So wait a minute. Is a Mormon worshiping the same God as you? When it's the same terms and same words? Oh no, Well, what does it count? Because you see they're not really mono theos and blah blah blah blah blah. Okay, but what why does that not apply it with a Muslim? Well,
because they do acknowledge one God. Oh but when I'm a Satanist, a theistic Satanist, and I say there's one God, does that count? No, that doesn't call because I'm still talking about the wrong glow of God. Yeah, that's the thing in question. I mean, it's arbitrary, is the point. There's no self evident idea about what the monotheism God is. If you read the Garybee paper, the first five pages
point this out. He destroys Swinburne for making this stupid argument that there's self evident principles as to what tell us what lowest common denominator monotheism is. There is no lois common nominator Unitarian monotheism. It just doesn't exist. And by the way, when you realize that, guess what that cuts off? Judaism, Islam and all this nonsense. All of this goes out the window. There is only the eternal Triad. There is only the monarchical Trinity. That's it from the
very beginning. Do you see now why it's so crucial for them to deny Theophanes? And again, some Roman Catholics are better than the theology. They realize that this is a powerful apologetic, clearly as Church fathers argued against the Eunomians and the Jews and the Unitarian heretics by using Old Testament Theophanies. So maybe I try, I kind of want to use that apologetic, but my dumb idiot Vatican has told me no, they actually all worship the same God.
It's not that difficult. This is just the same arguments I made against Trent Horn in our debate. So do you do you see that all the stuff I argue to Trent Horn is manifesting through Francis himself and what he says, and these idiots double down, triple down. I don't know why. I don't know what is it about this ridiculous system that anybody even wants I mean, unless your skittles, I don't know why you would even want to be in this system. What are you getting out
of this? I mean, do you enjoy going to have some big, fat sixty year old woman on a liturgical council telling you what to do in a church? Do you enjoy altar?
Girls?
I don't know what are you? Do you enjoy the skittles pre trying to give you spiritual advice? What is in the system that you find so wonderful, beautiful, convincing. I don't get it. I don't get it. I mean, do you guys not understand how weak this is on the part of Lofton. This has been Lofton's response for the last seven years on this topic. All he's ever said is they got a bunch of acumenists too. Dog. If I look at the patriarchal whatever, he's the ecumenists too. Look,
you got the same problems, dog. But the argument was never Which system has no problems, which system has no ecumenism? The question is which dogmatic decrees and teachings contradicts such that the system is not true. Now again, Islam takes pains to submit to God's inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, who with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure to link itself submitted to God. So notice here they do submit to God, and it is the faith of Abraham,
just like Abraham. Now everybody who's a Christian knows that the first thing you would do in a debate or in talking to a Muslim if you loved a Muslim, would say, listen, I understand you think you have the Abraham, the faith of Abraham, but you are deluded. You do not have the faith of Abraham because you have a generic anti Trinitarian unitarianism. Do you see? This all comes down to whether Abraham believed in Jesus and worship the Trinity or not. All of this hinges on that point.
And if you go in the direction of Vatican two and it's a humanism, you must surrender that, you must give up the Theophanes. That's why the Roman Calloty Church stop teaching Theophanes in the Middle Ages, in the confrontation with Palamas, Barleam and Acandinos explicitly reject these positions. They say, it is not the uncreated light at Mount Tabor in Matthew seventeen, it is a created light, and by extension that Theophanes have to be created angelic beings and not
the son of God himself. Thus, the Old Testament religion is a unitarian religion. That's the logic of Attican two. That's the logic of Roman Catholicism's natural theology. That's the logic of Islam. The same argumentation, the same presuppositions the doctor Khalil has in his lectures on Islamic natural theology lead to the conclusion of Islamic unitarianism and Neoplatonism. So, Tim, all you other Roman Catholics, when are you going to
become a Muslim? Because they're natural theology presuppositions. Clearly, it's self evident, isn't it. Why wouldn't you conclude with Shia Islam on the basis of natural theology, they find moral life and worship God. Especially, they value the moral life and worship God through prayer, alms, giving, and fascinating. This clearly says again proving my point that when voti continue uses the word adoration, the Muslims adore the One True God,
they mean worship because it's restated. The Muslims worship that is, God, accepts the Islamic prayers and the Islamic attributions of who God is, even though again they don't believe he's a father. Allah is not a father. How in the world are we going to link this to the supposed God of the Old test when one of the most obvious facts about the Old Testament is that the God of the
Old Testament is God the Father. Even if you're a Unitarian, even if you're an anti Trinitarian, even Unitarians and Jews can recognize that the God of the Old Testament is God the Father. So this is how stupid Islam is. They think they have a commonality with the Old Testament while being so foolish as to reject the idea that God is the Father. That immediately cuts you off from the most obvious name of the God of the Old Testament,
the Father. This is so preposterous to me, And yet Vatican two says Muslims worship God through their prayers and their alm giving, and they're fasting. But that is not the God of the Old Testament. I mean, imagine me saying I explicitly reject God, God the Father, and a Catholic says, brother, don't worry about it. We all worship the same God. Again, the point has proven with Mormons. Every Catholic I've asked says, no, I don't worship the same God as a Mormon. And yet they turn around
and say, but it is the same God of Islam. Again, why is a Mormon actually not closer than a Muslim if it's based on the terms that are used. A Mormon says the terms father, son, spirit, and Jesus is divine and is the son of God. Those are terms that's grammar closer to you. Oh, it's not about the words and the terms of what they mean. Oh, it's about what they mean. Oh exactly. So then Muslims don't have the same God because they don't mean a God
who is trinitarian. You see how either way they go in this argument, they collapse, They destroy their own position. And again, why isn't Vatican too simply saying what the traditional trade cat teaching always said that Islam is Antichrist. Why wouldn't it just say what supposedly had always said? Why are we having all of this weaponized ambiguity, which
here at least is not very ambiguous. So when I read these statements and then I go over here and I see Francis saying the Document of Human Fraternity that God wills all the religions, why wouldn't we think that it's the same meaning as what's in Vatican two. I'm trying to find this specific statement in this document because it was it was a famous fussed about thing in twenty nineteen. So remember this is the joint declaration with
the Imam. We who believe in God, Well, we don't believe in the same God as I mom, though, So how is it? How is the document starts out with a ridiculous position. The first and most important aim of
religions is to believe in God. So what I'm trying to get across to you, I think, which is the key point here, is that if you don't understand that the Old Testament teaches the Trinity, and if you don't understand that Jesus is saying that in John five, no, I can't understand or fathom how you could call yourself or be a Christian. It doesn't make sense to me because these are mutually exclusive positions. It cannot be the case that the Old Testament teaches the Trinity and that
Jesus says that, and that the Old Testament's unitarian. But those are mutually exclusive. But it can't be both. I'm trying to find this statement in this document where it says that God wills all the religions. Maybe it's religions. Let's try that, Okay, Let's see. Freedom is a right of every person. Each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression, and action. By the way, that was actually condemned proposition.
Formerly the Ron Macalliy Church used to condemn the Protestant doctrine of the freedom of conscience and freedom of worship. That's something that Vatican two contradicted on. And yes, I know they have a million copes to explain how that's not a contradiction, but I mean, flat out, I mean Martin Luther's positions on these were condemned a the time of the Reformation. There are statements in the Syllabus of Errors that condemned the idea of the freedom of conscience,
freedom of religion. And now this is a vaticant too teaching, and it's restated here. So that's one dogmatic contradiction right there. The pluralism and the diversity of the religions, the color, the sex, the relay, race, and language are willed by God in his wisdom through which he created human beings. There it is so, God, through creation willed there to be various religions. So notice the cope that they used on today's statement that when Francis says, where was it?
Oh?
Oh, when Francis says this, you see, this just means the diversity of the Catholic traditions. That was one of the Catholic apologists copes today. I saw, Oh, really, why if he's speaking the Catholics, does he call it multiple religions? Are there multiple religions amongst Catholicism? I mean, actually there are, which is funny. Unity is not uniformity, and the diversity of our culture, religions and identities is a gift from God.
It's unity and diversity, religions plural Well guess what, that's exactly what his twenty nineteen document with the Grandy Moms said, God wills all of these different religions. So again to highlight be I want you to be clear and understand the argument I make it because a lot of you are not going to understand the argument. When this document came out in twenty nineteen, their explanation was no, no, this just means God wills it in a general providential
sense and that he passively accepts. It's not that he wants it. So the language here is interpreter to mean not diversity, not a real diversity that he wants. The same language over here, Oh, it's a diversity that he wants, you see, but only amongst Catholics, even though it says various religions plural. So they've contradicted themselves in interpreting the same language to fit to make it work. Do you see what I'm saying?
Do you?
That's a very specific, precise argument. Here, various religions does not mean actual religions. It just means God permits it. Oh, but over here it does mean God wills different religions,
meaning different Catholic traditions. That's their code. So the same phraseology is given totally different meanings to make this dumb system work, which means it's an unfalsifiable system, which means it's a weak system, because any system that is constantly propped up with unfalsifiability with Kazustri is a totally weak system. But remember, this was supposed to be the rock of Peter, the rock of the papacy that would stand firm until the end of time, as the visible testament to the
unity of the true Roman papal faith. And that's why I wrote my essay and I made it public. You can go read all the actual quotes that also deal with the copes from a couple of days ago. I'm not going to repeat this. We already covered this in two live streams on a video. I'm not gonna again. They don't read Vatican One. They don't know what Vatican one says. Because Vatican one says there will be popes as the attesters too and the protectors of this visible
global unity until the end of time. So no great apostasy where there's no pope for fifty years or a hundred years. That's not there because it's until the end of time. There will be shepherds until the end of time. This is talking about the Petrine Office. This is Vatican one that institution will be permanent and will retain its nature that it has until the end of time, not until the end times, giving this out for them to
have a vast apostasy. Even if there's an apostasy in the Roman Catholic system, it has to still be the case that the Roman Sea maintains the faith until the return of Christ. So let's say, if we wanted to have an apostasy that fits with the Vatican one view. It means that all the let's say, all the bishops fail, but the Sea of Peter cannot fail. That's the Vatican one position. You can't go with apparitions to Trump. Vatican one,
Vatican one, Trump's apparitions. In the Roman Catholic system, you follow the dogmas, you follow the teaching of the Roman Sea in Catholicism. You don't get to take an apparition and say, oh, well, Lasilette says that there's going to be an apostasy in Rome. Yeah, but Losilette was prior to Vatican one and Vatican one. Trump's las Lette. I kid you not. When I was scrolling through Roman Catholic comments the past couple of days, what are they all turning to a vast clump of them are turning to
Marian apparitions. This is the foolishness of this religion to turn to goofy contradictory Maryan apparitions and not even go with their own freaking Vatican one dogmas, no wonder their skittles in effeminate. They follow a woman's apparitions that they think are merry, which they can never proves Mary, by the way, because every time they try to argue that it's really Mary, and I bring up Mary appearing to the Coptics, Well that one doesn't count. That one doesn't count.
What about Mary appearing to Orthodox churches, Well that one doesn't count.
That's not Mary.
Get out of here. We're not gonna have stupid Christian identity heretics in here. Get out of here. Remember that rom Akelloching a month ago, he literally sat here for two hours trying to figure out how to make the Maryan apparitions work as proofs when he wouldn't accept the married apparitions of the Coptics. And then eventually he was like, Okay, well maybe the Coptic a versions are true, and Mary
is saying that Coptics are also Roman Catholics. Okay, well, thank you for admitting that Mary is telling us now that we don't need the papacy because the Coptics haven't accepted the papacy for centuries. So it's like everywhere they turn, the whole position, the whole system is canceled out and they can't get it wide because they won't think about, or listen or understand critiques at a system level. They cannot grasp this is what I figured out today. They
can't grasp an internal critique. Lofton cannot grasp this, Ibarro cannot grasp this. That's why I Loten thinks that it's a sufficient reply to say you go to a Cumanists too. Yeah, but if I thought that the patriarch of Alexandria was what Vatican One claims, that might be a good argument. Like Snack always says, well, there goes my faith in the infallible, indefectible see of alexand Andrea. It's like, why
can they not understand an internal critique. It's baffling. Remember when I was debating a barrow, it's the same situation. If you could show a contradiction between paopal dogmas, that would be enough. Okay, all it takes is one contradiction, right, supposedly, isn't that enough to I mean, the nature of I'm beginning to think they don't understand the nature of the Roman Catholic system is such that if there's a dogmatic contradiction,
the system doesn't work. It falls apart. That's all that's necessary for an internal critique to disprove the system at a systemic level, and for Michael often to say, but you have the same problem with a Cumuinus bishops dog it doesn't work because he's importing his system on the mind. I mean, this is such a low level response. It's baffling to me that, And I think really Lofton has kind of retired into just going for the lowest common
that like the lowest tier of converting people. He's just going for like super low tier numbers because there's no way he's ever going to debate anybody of anything. He's never debated anybody.
No.
Uh, he challenged you to a debate, you wouldn't do it. He challenged me to a written debate, a written debate in twenty twenty four. Don't nobody do written debates? Dude? Get out of here with that boomer crap. That's the same thing that Lecoutis did. I can't debate you. I have hiccups. That was his excuse. I'm not joking by the way. He then went and debated. Didn't he debate UBI? So he can debate UBI? But he wouldn't debate me because he has hiccup disorder? What hiccup disorder? And then
he said, I'll debate you written for him written. I'm not writing a book against romeccality's. I can just refute this in a live stream. Nobody does book written debates. Dude. This is not two thousand and seven blog warfare. Oh bro, I'm gonna get on my zanga and I will destroy you on my zanga tonight. Do people they don't even know what zanga is. In two thousand and six, dude, all of the warfare was zanga. You gotta go where the battle is. This is a two thousand and six man.
Nobody's on zanga. Nobody's writing twenty page blog responses anymore. This twenty twenty four. Bro, all right, I've been yapping long enough. It's open topics, man, and I want if you disagree, you want to come debate. You come, you'll go to the head of the line. Please don't ask me orthodox FQ questions. Please don't. I'm asking, I'm humbly requesting you to not do that tonight. If you want to answer your Orthodox FAQ questions, guess what you should do.
You should go to your Orthodox church and learn it. Enough of this internet stuff, too much time online. Go to the real church, the actual, living, embodied church, not the abstract one in the internet sphere, because that's the only one. If you want the basics everybody needs to get Orthodox dogmatic theology by Palmazansky. You can go watch FDA's lectures. He's been working through this book for months. Go to his channel Patristic Faith. You can go through
his lectures. If you don't have a priest or anybody, right, that's where you get your catechisis. Don't get your catechisas from debate streams. If they help you out, that's good. But the more that I've read this book over time, I think it is a really good catechism. And most of the controversial topics within Orthodoxy that come up, he's got pretty good accounts of how to deal with those, whether it's Augustinianism or you know, Philly ok Way or whatever.
It's treated very well overall in this book. So remember you need to get the basics before you try to get into the nitty gritty of Oh, I'm gonna jump right into the eternal manifestation of the movement of the Energies. Get the basics down first, Okay, before you try to get into that stuff. Too many people, twenty year old people try to immediately go into the most difficult Orthodox doctrines and that's usually ends up in disaster and then they'll mess up and they miss some basic thing that
they should have laid the groundwork first. So remember what Paul says, lay a strong foundation. You gotta lay the foundation before you try to jump to the THHD doctor Bradshaw level stuff. So if you need Kateakisis, read the Pomazansky book. Don't ask me about your marriage problems, don't ask me about your fasting questions, don't ask me about your canon law questions. None of that is me. I don't do that, and it's not appropriate for Internet nerds
to be doing that. Anyway. We got a couple of supertests, then we're going to open it up for debate. I'm a list of topics for you. If you don't listen, if you don't come with the topics, it's immediate boot. We're not going to listen to your poetry. I don't care about your slam poetry. I don't care how good you think your bars are. I bet I spit better bars. I guarantee you that I don't care how good you think you're sing. I don't care about your What else
is there storytelling? Your gnostic ancient alien storytelling? Actually that's pretty entertaining. So if you're a Gnostic and you want to come tell me about ancient aliens and all that stuff, you go to the head of the line. Chris JD. Three dollars. Is it not exhausting if you're a papist or a papal lawyer to continue covering for this system.
It's crazy. It is exhausting. And I did it. So to again stress this point, all the stuff that you're seeing everybody go through right now, I did all this. I went through all this in the year of two thousand and four or five, six, seven, eight nine. I was doing all I struggle with all this, and that's why I know the Roman Catholic doctrines and documents like Sam Schmoun knows the Hot Deaths and the Qur'an. I know Denzinger. Let's go to Denzinger. You guys have seen
my Denzinger. It's all sticky notes. I live this, I breathe this, the Roman system, and that's why for years their excuse, well, he's you mean bumblebee three dollars. Do you think this is shaping up to be a religion of Antichrist? It certainly could be. We don't know if it's the end of the world. It could be. I do think there are certain prophecies and the Orthodox tradition that we clearly think have to be fulfilled to have me fulfilled. So I wouldn't rush to say, oh, this
is the end of the world. But you know, it's also possible that those prophecies could happen quick For example, the conversion of the Jews, the conversion of the world in mass those could happen within a small frame of time. So perhaps, but then again, we may have another thousand years.
We don't know, but it does look like given the topic that we look at quite often over here on this channel, which is the geopolitics of the papacy and the geopolitics of religion in general, including within the Orthodox Church. So this is another falsehood, the Rome mecaloicy. So you won't talk about ecumenist bishops and the Orthodox Church. Yes I have for years. Not true, but if you don't listen to my streams, you wouldn't.
Know that.
Where was the loss of the super chat But that, by the way, is why we have for many years covered the close connection between the Vatican and the world power of the geopolitical power leader the West, the Atlantis power block, et cetera. And remember when we started, you know, really hammering that home, especially during the Kouf. Remember that Lofton and Trent and probably still have this. They act like this doesn't exist. Trent and Lofton have consistently says
this about twenty twenty, maybe twenty nineteen. There's no such thing as a push for world government. That's all crazy conspiracy. Imagine thinking that these people who have absolutely no discernment about the times and where we are, no knowledge whatsoever of a real push for a global governance world in comy form, Davos, all this stuff. They have no knowledge of this. They still deny it, but they're going to tell you about through their discernment the papacy, Francis and
all this nonsense. How are they going to do that? They can't even what does Jesus say to the Pharisees? Do you not know the times? Are you so ignorant? You can't understand the time? Meaning that they didn't understand that it was the time of his coming, So they had no discernment the Pharisees and the Jews of his day, according to this critique, and I'm saying this same principle
applies to Lofton and Trent Horne. They have absolutely no discernment or knowledge of global governance or the push for any of this. They're still acting like this doesn't exist. These people are completely clueless. And that's why, by the way, I also challenged all the Roman calics. I went out looking for academic Roman Catholics historians to debate me on the geopolitics of the papacy. None of them will do it. I've asked probably a dozen of them. None of them
will do it. I put out multiple public requests with hundreds of likes, hundreds of shares. None of them will do it. They don't want to talk about the wim Hoff book. They don't want to talk about Gladio, they don't want to talk about any of this stuff which I've read countless books on, and maybe they know that they would rather retreat into.
Oh, that's a bunch of Jack chick track stuff.
That's crazy conspiracy stuff.
Ha haa.
I'm so smug and so I'm so pious and knowledgeable, and I just still act like it doesn't exist. And my audience is so stupid they follow me thinking that it doesn't exist.
That gets a hand fart, that's what that gets, Dree one dollar. Sam Shimun did a series in the Turn of the Old Testament. I know I saw one of the videos. I didn't see the whole series, and I did a series as well. I did one video on it. We did a three hour a total of almost three over three hours of just Torah Torah Trinity. Sam said that the Angel of the Lord is clearly Jesus. He covered all the theophanies. Of course, He's used that argument a million times for a long time. Has he given
any thought to the Essen Centner distinction? How Roman Catholic doesn't Romantholicism doesn't affirm this. I don't know. That's a good question. I don't know that he has dealt with that, Daniel ten dollars. Mormons do all the same stuff. Once they see that their prophets contradict their teachings and their theology and that they're weird epistemologies all over the place, they then turn to the testimony of Joseph Smith that he quotes saw God the Father. They are cults and
they rely on a lot of mental gymnastics. I think that that is eventually a sign that it's a cult thing is when you start to see people double down and use a lot of mental gymnastics. And think of the commonalities here between Mormons, Muslims, Roman Catholics, who else like you see? You notice the same patterns here, Dance Commander fifty dollars, thank you for these apologetics at a strengthen my faith. Do you know about roma Manian Saints of the Prisons? Yeah, I think Father Deacon has told
me some of this. I've actually met Father Julian, who was very kind to me. And Father Julian was in a Romanian prison for a while. I think I think or he was persecuted and fled here, so he's a pretty well known Orthodox person. But and I've heard him tell the stories of Romanian saints of the prisons, there is a certain commission that is blocking their canonization because they spoke out against the liberalism of the EU. Well, that doesn't surprise me, and I believe that that makes
perfect sense. So justin we're going to open it up right here. Please please do not weigh me down with your questions about fasting and those kinds of stuff. Please don't please. And it never fails because every time we open it up, half of the people just want to ask me questions about what about the jurisdictions of the EP versus the MPU. What's going to happen If I don't know what's going to happen. If there's a ex communication of those two, there'll be a giant split down
the church. That's the best I could tell you. But by the way, that's happened in the history of the Church. There have been patriarch its excommunicating one another. That's happened in church history. So how would that if that is in itself a defeater for the church, then do Roman Catholics not understand that If the Roman Catholic Church is the church of the first thousand years, that's a defeater
for your system. Dummy. If you're arguing that patriarch it's excommunicating each other is a defeater for the system, then the excommunications of patriarchs in the first thousand years of the church are a defeater for your sistem. You don't see how silly that is. It's such a it's like they're they're actually I think they're blinded to these things. I really think you can't. You're blinded to these things.
You don't see these things unless there's a kind of humility and a willingness to to think maybe you're wrong. Jay did a three hour Torah stream on the tour the Trinity in the Torah with who with myself. Literally, just go to my channel. You lazy people that constantly ask me where is this? Will go to my channel and scroll down the Trinity in the Torah. It's right there.
By.
You see, I end up, I end up ranting for an hour.
Yes, hi, I'm learning to ask you about it. I just saw a clip I think it got posted today. Debate you had with the more Men and he had asked you how you know the Bible true, and I believe you said it was the transcendental argument, and that because the the Trinity is necessary for knowledge and the Trinity is only revealed in the Bible.
Is that correct?
Uh?
Pretty much, that's the route I would go, Yeah, okay.
So then I mean, how does that argue for say, the validity of Ruth chapter two or Second Samuel chapter five.
Hold on, you're spitting these things out. What specifically is in Ruth two that's supposed to be a problem.
Oh well, I don't know. I mean, I guess the point is, you know.
What I mean, you don't know? Why are you signing rod too? If you don't know why?
Well, the point is it's irrelevant what's what's in there?
The point is, how does that? How does that prove that the whole Bible is true? Every part of the Bible.
Because part of the worldview includes that the wholest it's a wholestic arguments and arguing for the entire worldview.
So you would need all every every book, every version of the Bible to be true for the Trinity to be true.
Well, God didn't have to reveal himself in the Trinity but that's the means that he chose to use, right, is divine revelation in scripture and tradition. So in the sense that because that's the means he used, yes, but it's not the Bible wasn't necessary, right, I mean God was, God had a relationship with Adam and Eve before there was anything written down, and the Trinity was there in Genesis right before anything that was recorded or written. So there's not there's it's not like it has to be
written or something like that. It's just how providentially within history it came down to us. So what I'm saying is that there's a fixed body of beliefs, and it would still be true even if it wasn't written down because the early Church, many of the many of the members of the Church in the first few centuries, they couldn't read, and they didn't have access to a complete canon of scripture, and yet they still have the faith. So the written version is just another kind of attestation
that helps demonstrate that it's true. It's not like it's it's the religion is dependent upon something being written down per se.
Yes, Okay, I really understand that.
I just don't see how the Trinity being necessary.
For knowledge proves the entire Bible is true and in every job.
In till them, because it's an argument not just for the Trinity before the entire Christian worldview, and part of the Christian worldview is that the Bible is true and that it's necessary for faith, et cetera. So I think you keep thinking of it as an argument just for a trinity. There's no such thing as trinity in isolation from incarnation or trinity in isolation from what Jesus teaches in the Gospels. It's a package deal, is the argument.
Okay, So when you say trinity, that's what you're referring to, is that the whole Christian.
Faith, orthodox Christian faith exactly. Okay.
So, so you need all of Christian teaching that as a foundation for any knowledge, and if any one of those points is missing, then than then justified true.
Belief is not is not founded properly.
Basically, Yeah, really sure. I mean, in other words, it wouldn't make sense to say, well, I believe in the Christian revelation and I can ground my my epistemology in that revelation, but I don't believe in the incarnation like that that's a key piece, right, So you wouldn't be able to ground it anymore.
And so I couldn't. I couldn't affirm.
The fact that A and not A can can both be true at the same time, the same in the same sense, unless I believe the virgin birth.
Ultimately that would be the case.
Yes, could you like flesh that out?
No, because because the principle behind the law of non contradiction requires some kind of metaphysic and some kind of reality to ground it. Namely, I argue and we demonstrate that it is the Christian worldview and the Christian metaphysic, and that's the package deal that includes the virgin birth. So it's not directly the case. It's not. It's an indirect reference to the whole of the of the religion.
But more directly speaking, it would be grounded in the type of God that you're using or arguing for, and that God also says that the vergin of Earth is a crucial part of this paradigm.
Okay, So if if one verse of the Bible were true, or yeah, let's just say one verse.
Of the Bible were not true, it's made an incorrect.
Statement, then then no one would have any any foundation for logic.
For a reason.
I mean, this can get a little technical with the specific verses per se. I don't think that every verse has to be I mean, because there are scribal errors. And that's why I argued a minute ago that it's not a matter of whether everything that's written down is perfectly written down, because we're not Protestants, We're not worshiping a book. You could have the religion with nothing being written down. It could all be or it could listen, listen,
it could all be oral tradition. So I could be a Christian in the year three hundred who can't read and doesn't have access to the whole Gospel. Right, It's not I didn't fart, it's my feet are sweaty. People think I'm working over here. My feet sweat on this thing, and if I scoot it sounds like it farts. We've had this come up many times. But anyway, if I do fart, I will let you guys. I'll let you guys all know, and I'll just fart freely anyway. You
back to your question. Ahead, back to your question.
So I guess what I'm I'm saying is so you said that you believe that the Bible is true in the way you can know that is because the Christian worldview is a foundation for all truth claims.
In other words, the world view, the worldview, and the argument could be the same even if nothing was written down.
Yes, I understand like the Bible didn't hasn't existed for all eternity, but truth in God has yet, so if we were to so I'm just trying to like take that argument and apply it to a specific verse of the Bible. Let's pick a verse that's not content there. Let's say there's a verse that has no textual variants. All manuscripts agree in the rendering of this verse. I'm sure there are many like that that are just exactly
the same and there's no no variation in the manuscript tradition. Okay, So, and let's say that that verse had said something wrong incorrect in it about the location of some you know, village and.
You know, in in the period or something like that.
How would how how So you believe that every verse of the Bible is true, right, and and you believe that because of the Christian worldview as a foundation for knowledge, So how would you how would you deal with that if there was a verse that was was not true or was contested like.
That, Well, if it's contested, that doesn't really mean it's That doesn't necessarily mean it's not true because it's contested. But the fact that I mean, you said, if there's no scribal variations in this in this example, then why would why why what would the presupposition be that it's false? Like, how would I why would I know it's false? How would we know it's false?
Well, you would know it's false by.
I don't know, by his historians telling you that that's not possible, that you know this is that this place didn't exist until later in history or something along.
Those world I mean, that's where it comes down to presubpositions that why am I going to trust unbelieving historians to tell me the truth about my book when the questions are more fundamental that unbelieving historians can't give an account for their worldview, Right.
I understand that, But so so your presupposition is going into it is the Bible is true, this particular verse is true.
Even though people say it's it's wrong. It has an error, And I know that.
Because the Christian worldview is the foundation for knowledge, and this.
Your whole argument is just yeah, this whole argument is just hinging on a Protestant view of scripture, like like that that we're book worshiper. It's like a Muslim idea about the Quran. But that's not the orthodox view of what our divine revelation is.
Okay, so you're okay with with a verse here they're just saying something incorrect.
No, I'm just simply saying that I don't think that there's incorrect versus. I think there's variant manuscripts and there are scribal errors, but that doesn't that doesn't mean that there's erroneous theology.
Okay, Yeah, all right.
I was just trying to use your your epistemology to try and think of like a thought experiment.
No, I'm sure it's it's a fair question. Yeah, it's a fair question to say, Well, like, if it's a package deal, then does every piece of the package have the same necessity? And I would actually argue no. In other words, obviously there are there are some doctrines that are more fundamental than other doctrines. So even though it's a package deal, that doesn't mean that I have to know every aspect of the package to have a justification, because that would be the that would be impossible for
any worldview. Nobody could have all of the facts of their worldview if that was what was needed for justification of a worldview. Does that make sense.
Yeah, there's different tiers of facts, so obviously, like the Trinity, the incarnation, these will be a top tier type of thing. So you said that you have made that argument where you where you go through the full argument of how the Christian worldview is needed as a foundation for knowledge.
Yeah, I've done it many many times.
Okay, do you recall offhand a title or a video?
Well, I mean, how about I just do it right now because everybody always asks this question. So anytime you say predicate at all, if you make a sentence, that requires a certain kind of metaphysic, a certain kind of world, a certain kind of construct to where there's universals, there are particulars, there's identity over time, there is a self, there's a nowhere like, there's objective knowledge, there are laws
of logic. You understand that all those things are necessary to make a sentence, and so that kind of world is the world that they're just so hops the Christian God creates the universals are grounded in him. It's a form of divine conceptualism. Therefore it's Christian theism. That's I mean, there's more to it. But how's that for a short summation.
Uh, yeah, I'll have to listen back to that.
It's kind of a lot fast, and I'm not familiar with a lot of those terms, so I appreciate you for me.
Yeah. No, I mean they're great questions. I welcome those questions.
Cool. Thank you.
X X cyber shout out to fifteen hundred. Uh, this is more than my usual audience, so I'm glad to have fifteen hundred live. That's a little bit more than usual. So the last two live streams have had more than normal. You got to immune x X see why I'm mute.
Thank you for the mic. Well, this is my whole issue.
So my entire life, I identified as being a Christian, and I always felt there was something off with the Bible because it was written by man. I do understand that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but I went through a really hard time and after sitting there and identifying, up till.
The age of thirty six, I had this.
Thought pop in my head, and it was, what if I pray to my father God in heaven and asked my father God to allow my brother to feel the shame of the guilt.
Of allowing his pride to get the best of him.
And what if my brother forgave me for hating him my entire life without ever getting to know him, because it's all I knew, because it's all I was taught. And then what if he accepted Jesus as his Lord and savior aka has check in balance.
To ensure he could never do what he did before again?
And then what if he took accountability and responsibility and went to his father and asked for forgiveness and his father forgave him.
And then what if his father asked for his forgiveness?
Because there's no manual on how to be a perfectly perfect parent, because we're.
All made perfectly imperfect.
We're all pieces of God's creation and He loves us all.
So in that moment, I thought, we've all talked about world peace. Why can't there be world peace?
Was there a question in that somewhere? I'm totally lost?
Yeah, Why why does it say that there's no salvation for Satan.
Wait, how what he's about world peace and forgiveness?
Not? What?
How are you at this? I don't understand.
Right, Well, most most religions have different views on you know, Jesus and whether or not Satan can be forgiven, and Christians they're hung up on Satan will never be forgiven, and I don't understand how that is.
Well. I think the God holds humans less responsible because of the exceeding gifts and higher place that the angels were given. So they're a lot more accountable than Adam and Eve were because of their sin. And so we also believe that in the Christian view, Christ was always going to become incarnate, even whether there was a fall or not. The fall is not the reason who became incarnate.
And so one of the reasons that Satan was motivated to hate mankind was out of envy, because the son of God was going to raise human nature, and that made the angels that rebelled with him envious that man would be raised to that status. They didn't feel like man should be given that. So the the envy and the greater responsibility and accountability is why the demons cannot be forgiven. Hello.
Yes, So I'm wondering if a linguistic.
You're what you're cutting out.
I'm wondering if.
Can you start over your cutting?
Is that better? Ahead?
I'm wondering if linguistic experts ever got together and translated the original doctrines.
I mean, I think every translation is some group of linguistic experts. So what do you mean?
So it's like in the Bible it says at the beginning was the Word, and the word was God.
And that means so much more than we were loized, because.
Words can be either the greatest weapons or the greatest inspiration.
Do you do you know in the in Genesis one what that Greek word is in the in the Steps?
I do not.
Yes, it is phronsia. The Greek term when God creates is phronsia. And then if you go down a couple more verses, you'll see uh Cabernet Sauvignon, and you'll see uh sweet Valley Red to quote Steve sweet Cherry Red. Did you know that?
I didn't do that, But I will tell you I have been looking for, you know, Jesus' words in this and have you been to archive dot organ like the Jesus in his own words.
Uh, no, tell me about that, because I'm going to argue. You can see where I'm going to go with this, right, If Genesis one is using uh, Cabernet Sauvignon and someone on blanc and Phronsia, I'm gonna automatically argue that in the Book of Matthew, the actual Hebrew translation of those texts is the is merlou. And I forget the barefoot because that's another key brand you have to be aware of. Are you aware of barefoot? Yeah? But logos in Logos
in Hebrew is actually Merlou. See, people don't know about the Hebrew translation of Matthew. Everybody thinks, oh, Matthew is written in Greek. No, no, no, no, I'm talking about the original Hebrew, early Hebrew roots Jewish Christians of the first century who translated correctly the Book of Matthew to include Merleau and Cabernet Sauvignon vic. I forgot. Yes, that's a great point, sir. Eclipse a lot Shiraz is also a key a key component as well. Now some say
that there's variant texts that include Virginia Slims. I actually think those are false. Manuscripts. Those were Gnostic additions to include the Virginia Slam variant VIC.
Hey, just a quick question.
I've been reading some of Greg bond Sin's work, and I was curious as to do any of his Calvinists like positions or views influence his apologetic in.
A way that we as Orthodox should.
Be aware of.
Yes, I think the inconsistency about the notion of total depravity. I had a long email back and forth back in the day with John Framan about this, the idea that total pravity is always affecting our noetic understanding, including after we're saved, such that we could never really have a certain interpretation of any text, and thus the Church could never actually after the Apostles infallibly state or believe anything.
But the problem is that, well that's the case, then what did the same thing apply to my knowledge of the Trinity and my interpretation of the text or my deriving the Trinity from the text. So that seems to be me to be kind of an insoluble problem for total depravity believing Calvinists. If you're if you believe in tag. Greg Bonnson has a position kind of similar to James White that he thinks that there's a plain meaning persepecuity of the texts. The text just mean what they say,
and they say what they mean. And yet at the same time he believes that you have to have a holistic canonical view that harmonizes all of these things. And so once again, I think that's a really problem, a real deep problem for a Protestant, because, I mean, the Doctor the Trinity is in scripture and the Saints believed it, but it also requires a lot of these patristic terms and argumentation to solidify it and to make it clear.
And so I think there's a there's a back, and there's an inconsistency when Protestants think that the text clearly teaches the Trinity, and yet they go into all this depth, with all this metaphysics which the Church Fathers explicate to help understand the Trinity, which are not immediately apparent in
the texts. So how is he how are you gonna ground your epistemology in the Trinity if total depravity is true and if the Trinity isn't actually explicitly taught in the way that the New Testament, or excuse me, that the Church fathers teaching in the Bible Bonson teaches an absolute divine simplicity, which is the Augustinian view, which ultimately would collapse nature in person. It would result in a neoplatonic monad. And that wouldn't work to ground that your
knowledge because there's no essence inary distinction. Van Til said the essence of God is a person, which is obviously heretical. I don't know if Bonson ever rejected that or if he ever talked about it, but obviously that's not true. So I mean, it's funny because Van Till has the right idea about making the distinction between nature and person, and he was obviously confused and was grasping for monarchical trinitarianism,
but he didn't know about that. So what he's his mistake is hitting upon what's missing, one of the things that's missing, which is monarchical trinitarianism. Anyway, I mean, there's you could keep going, but those are I think good. You could argue too that their version of tag is because it doesn't have the essence centery distinction. It would be like the way William Lane Craig argues for divine conceptualism, which ends up being platonism. And so if you think
universals are God. Now you got a problem because are they divine essence is a universal the divine person? How is a universal God? I mean in the Orthodox view, their logi or well, the universal are creative, but they're they're based on uncreated logi. So if you don't have a logos, logi doctrine, I don't think you're gonna be able to make it work. Beacon. Those are elements that come to mind.
Hey, j.
So I have two very short questions.
So I'm in the Protestant apologetic The three that you arguments you see get wheeled around a lot, cosmological, teleological, moral, Did you cover any of those three in your debate.
With Trent Horn?
Because I'm trying to find some good resources because I've heard you say that even Bertrand Russell pointed out that the cosmological is a uh non sequitur makes this infinite? Oh sorry, they to my apologies. Do you do you have any good papers or past debates you've done refuting these.
Arguments.
Just read the doctor Gary p paper Theistic Fallacies. That's got it one of the best right here, and we have multiple live streams that we've done for years. If you can scroll down here to critiquing papacy, critiquing the classical arguments Matt Dill Hunty dire debate aquinas in classical theism critiqued right here on the front page of my channel. There's two This is four and a half hours on that.
You can go down here to my traditional metaphysics talks the one, two, three, four right here, Law and natural theology don't exist, God's existence, natural revelation, and logie right there, those all cover that. Well, thank you for those questions, but yeah, go ahead, go ahead. We just hit eighteen hundred. That's crazy. Go ahead.
And me go ahead. I just told you I forgot my own questions that.
Oh I thought you said I have one other question.
That's fine, Oh I did. I just forgot it.
Okay, that's fine. What's up that boy, that boy in the house. I'm about the foot fart on your face? Boy? Then, and I box wine that Virginia slams is giving me gas. Baby, my uncreated foot had according to the classical traditional sahi hadeth of foot farting. My perfect look. Isn't a foot that farts more perfect than a foot that doesn't fart? If your foot they didn't fart, it would like inflate and pop. So a foot that farts is actually more perfect according to the logic of itment.
To me, what's up that boy, Hello, Pastor Randy.
I'm great. By the way, it doesn't an uncreated farting foot fart perfectly.
H Yeah, I was just gonna say, my foot does not fart.
Wish it did, because it looks like I have elephantitus of the Achilles heel.
At the moment.
So that's gallop, buddy, that's you've got some gollop over there.
Okay, thank you.
If you put your hands on the screen, I can heal your gallop.
Oh okay, I'm actually putting my foot on it.
Oh it's getting dirty up in here. Hey, go ahead.
So my wife and I recently became catechumen in the church, and one thing that's come up for us is the not just the veneration of the Cross, but the worshiping of the cross and praying to the cross. And it seems I guess it's probably maybe obvious why that would be weird for a Protestant.
To see that.
And you know, I understand praying to saints, venerating saints worshiping through the icon of Christ.
But what's up with this worshiping the cross?
Well, again, worship is veneration. It's not the same worship that's given to the uncreated. So we honor the cross because it's the instrument of our salvation. Uh, it's the and so as John Damascus says, the honor given to the type passes to the prototype. So we're honoring Christ by honoring the cross. It's not that we worship a piece of wood.
Okay.
So I guess why is why is their prayers to the to the cross if the cross is not sentient you know, I mean it's a cross.
I mean at the end, it's it's still a cross.
Like well, I mean there's like there's there's adulation to this instrument. I don't know that anyone's asking the cross to do things like it's personal. But if there is a statement like that, the assumption is that the one who died on the cross is it's that it's passing to the prototype.
Okay.
So when when worship or prayer is done toward the cross, it's being pointed towards Christ.
Not yes, not the cross itself. And no one thinks that piece of wood in itself does anything.
But the.
Form of the cross is what burns the demons, because it's the instrument of our salvation.
So the let God Arise prayer to the Holy Cross.
It's the prayer speaks to the cross and then makes the distinction between the Cross and Christ. I don't have it pulled up in front of me, but it's I mean, it's pretty simple to find it. Like the first thing that pulls up and you type in let God arise, I.
Mean it's so. Let God arise, and let his enemies be scattered. Let those who hate him flee from his face a smoke vanishes. Let them vanish as wax melts from the presidents of fire. So let the demons pairs from the presidents of those who love God and who signed themselves with a sign of the cross, and say, with gladness Hell, most precious life, giving cross to the Lord. You drive away the demons by the power of the Lord.
So it's not the wood that's doing it. It's the power of the Lord through the Cross that does it. For it was Christ. It was cruticified on ye, and you went down into hell and trampled on the power of the devil his honorable Cross for driving away the enemies. So you understand that we believe that created things can be endued with this power via the divine energies. This is the whole idea behind icons and why icons are holy.
It's not because they're just because they're creatures. It's because they're creatures who have been endude with this power via the uncreated energies.
Okay, so I guess it.
It would be fair to say it's a poetic or you know, some sort of poetic language to speak to the Cross, but like in the spiritual.
Reality, Yeah, I mean it's poetic language you you drive away the power of the demons speaking to it, but it literally does that.
Yeah, yeah, okay, cool, Yeah, that's a I think that's all I get.
That's okay, that's a good question. I've actually I've actually never had that question. So that was an interesting question. Dallas, what's up, dude, Globe?
Yep, Yeah, I would just argue that the Virginia Slim variant should be there.
Okay. I mean, you're gonna have to give me at least two or three wine moms that have actually within the history of the church back that up. I'm not going to just accept your arbitrary accusation that the Virginia Slam variant is valid unless you give me proof of that. Name three wine name three wine moms that prove that.
Well, think Bud the Wise are actually quoted it.
Okay, that's one. That's one.
And if you actually look in.
The verse before, we also have the variant reading of Paul maul menthol.
And actually, okay, I mean that's contested, but I'll grant you that's only two. Dude, I give you. I said give me three exactly exactly. You can't do it. You can't do it exactly. I mean, you understand the sonoticon excommunicates you for that, right, you understand that. Yeah, I'm nation exactly. So again, the whole chat is laughing at you. You just got refuted, You just got burnt. What's up, man, what's up?
I don't I don't have an organ I just can't believe some of the questions.
People as well.
You know what?
That makes it a fruitful cornucopia of a wide Look, as Francis says, God wills the various religious expressions of all of the wine moms, all of the dostic, ancient aliens, all of the slam poetry people, God wills, all of that. Did you not listen to Francis? It's part of the diversity of the human experience.
Bro Listen if I listened to Francis being haled tonight.
Well just put it that way.
Look, the question really is which are the fart hadiths that we're supposed to follow? I mean, my foot's been fart and since the beginning of this live stream is that sahi? Do I need to do an ablution?
Is it? What?
Was it a perfect fart?
Do we know?
Was it in prayer? Because then you have to total he again?
Right, that's what I'm saying. Does the stream have to start all over? We gotta start all over. I just dirtied the stream by my foot fart and against this sweaty ass chair. So you didn't have a question. You just try to argue with me over the Virginia slim variant. Well, look, man, you gave two arguments and not a third. So you're you're refuted, You're defeated. Context Saint Fransia is one of the most famous Latin saints of the early Renaissance period.
She does have a lot of key argumentation. She's got a lot of wise things to say, but look, I just can't accept that she's a saint. I'm sorry, context, what's up again on you? What's it's called? She's called Saint Fransia the Woozy.
I have a question about orthodox.
Okay, brother? What does your question? Yeah?
Why there's so many gropers in Orthodoxy online?
There's not. The gropers are almost always trad cats. What do you mean.
Now? I see a lot of jew hating gropers in the authosphere.
Well, I mean that's the minority. So I don't know what you're talking about. I mean, literally, they're all tradecats. What are you talking about?
Go check an account called Conscious Philosopher one hundred k followers.
It's not a small account.
I mean, I'm not. Okay, So there's one. I mean, but what about it? Do you have an argument? What's your argument? Yeah?
Well, my argument is that it seems like Orthodoxy is a gateway into anti Semitism.
Oh sure, And what's your worldview.
Christian?
What kind of Christian?
Non denominational?
Uh huh? And why so we're supposed to believe in no denominational Christianity. So you're a social justice for you. No, not really, get out here, magic, Mike, what.
How are you doing?
My foot's farting NonStop? And I need to start the stream over why I in no way?
So I wanted to talk a little bit about the Old Testament and the Trinity. I mean, I've heard you say that there's trinity in the Old Testament and Abraham believed that that God was a trying God. But I mean, how do you justify any of that because, like, for example, when he goes to the Old Testament, right, you see God saying that, you know, if there's a prophet coming along saying that you should worship, for example, a different God, you have to stone that stuff less profit, you know.
Hold on, before you start spitting out these verses. Have you watched my three hour livestream going through all the verses on the trinity in the Torah?
Okay?
Have you read any Have you read any of the Jewish scholars nowadays like Sommer Barn and others that admit that there's difference in persons in God in the Old Testament? Okay, fine, and hold on. I asked you a question, are you aware of it?
I haven't.
Okay, are you aware of the basic text where we make these arguments.
From a little bit of familiarity.
I think, okay, so like, what's what's one or two of the what's one of the two of the verses that we go to.
I think Angel of the Lord Exodus three, that's one. Yeah, yeah, so there. I mean, I can't think of on top of my head, but I do know, okay, that you talk about a few. So for example, I mean, okay, you can, let's say that there is a little bit of multiplicity within the God had the Old Testament, But how do you derive I mean, that's not doesn't happen to be the Trinity explicitly?
Okay, throughout the Old Testament there's only three that are mentioned. There's the Yahweh, his Angel, Covenant, Messenger, and Spirit. Those three are mentioned. So how many how many more would there be?
So for okay, sure you can say that there's three. Why is the spirit?
Well no, wait a minute, you just said why would you just said why would hold on? You just said why would it be trinity? And now you're saying, okay, there's three, So exactly.
I can see I see your point that you know that only three are mentioned I get that, But for example, why does the spirit of God has to be interpreted as a separate person instead of.
Just because he's spoken of as he. He's spoken of as a he who does things.
So why wouldn't the spirit of God, for example, just be like God the Father? You know, just one?
Why do you have to make it because of what I just did? You not hear what I just said?
Your boys could offer.
It's he has spoken of as a he, a person a subject to do or an actor who does things? Who is not the Father?
Can he?
Can he give an example in the Bible or in the Old Testament.
This, let's see, I'm pulling up the text. So just one second. So Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord. And he gathered seventy men, men of the elders and of the people, and placed them around the tabernacle. And the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him and took of the spirit that was upon him and placed that same spirit upon the elders. And then if you read the rest of the text, it goes on to talk about it being the spirit of the Lord. The Lord would put
his spirit on them. The reason it can't be the Father. Is that the Father is not in time and space in the sense of being incarnate or manifesting. No one has seen the Father at any time according to Jesus in John five. There's no image, there's no manifestation of the of the Father in this way. And so the Lord that came down is putting this spirit upon them. So it has to be a third It cannot be
someone else. It's not the Father in this passage. Now there's about hold on to say one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixty seven, eighteen, nine, twenty. I've got and this is not all of them, but I've got twenty two passages of the Holy Spirit's actions and work in the Old Testament. So we can go through as many of these as
you want. I can keep going. We go to Psalm one O three, I think, and what we notice from all of these passages, we can't just we don't just take one passage and say, well, that could be the Father. I mean, it's all he's spoken of as this differentiation, and he's spoken of as having a personal relationship, and that he does certain unique things do you want do you want to keep going through the passages?
No?
I get that point. S For the only reason I was making that argument is because, for example, I wouldn't say that the spirit of Jay is something that's separate from from from you. It's like a second person.
That's a false analogy because I'm a single person, and my soul or spirit would be aspects of my person that would be parts of me. The Holy Spirit is not a part. God doesn't have parts. He's not composed or put together. He always was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So it's an eternal triad. So that's that's why it's a false analogy to a creature.
So is it possible for God to be that? To be a minitarian god or be a quaternity? Is that possible or is it always?
Well, you just admitted a minute ago that it's three in the Old Testament, So how would it be a quatternity if you admitted those three?
Like I'm just like, I'm asking, like, why does God have to be a triune god?
Because he's revealed himself to be that way. That's wine It's that's what his revelation is.
Okay, Okay, I'll get your point. So what about the Old Testament? For example, when the Muslims say, you know, the Bible is corrupted, right, And then even when I've taken some Bible courses at a university and even the professors are talking about how the Old Testament and even the Torah it's put together by Jewish rabbis and they have edited some stuff out, or you don't.
Well, those are that's all assertions. So by the way, Psalm one four in the Mesoretic text, you sent forth your Holy Spirit and they are created. You renew the face of the earth. So here the Holy Spirit is being called a creator. So if the Father and the Son send forth the Spirit and the spirit's creating, then the spirit is divine. Now that there's I mean, we can keep going. There's like plenty more examples. There's like twenty more.
Yeah, I know, I get that. I was talking about the Old Testament, for example.
And I'm reading the Psalms. You don't think the Psalms are the Old Testament?
Yeah?
Yeah, it's the Old Testament. Both Torah for example. Do you think it's a bit edited by Jews, Jewish scribes and the priests. No, it's so who's the author of.
Torah Moses and Joshua, so they both are the author.
There's so that you don't think that there's like there's no part of the Old Testament that's edited out. It's just written perfectly on what they.
So what's the basis to believe that those are just assertions?
Well, I'm just going off of by what the let's say this.
My Bible scholars is saying, what the okay?
Again, those are assertions? So do you want me to cite you conservative scholars that don't agree? What is that? What does that?
Yeah?
Can you name some books too on the Old Testament reliability where you have Moses as the author, and you know, uh, each book having its own author. And for example, even I have an Orthodox Study Bible, right some of the authors are unknown. You don't even know who kind of
like put it together. I think some of the introductions for the Orthodox Study I don't have it with you right now because I'm on in the car, but it says that it was kind of like compiled together by Jewish scribes or priests and the authors.
Kind of unknown.
I think you can some of the books are also the Wisdom books that says that the authors are most like, where's the reliability of any of this?
Well, I mean it's reliable because it's the tradition of the Church. You can't separate the tradition of the Church from the authorship of the text. And what we I mean, the Matthew doesn't tell you that it's Matthew the disciple of Jesus. It's the tradition of the church that says that. So bound up with the text is the pre supposition of the church. So no, you're not going to like just go to texts and like figure out the religion
per se just from tax alone. You can't. You can't divorce the text from the community which has passed these texts on.
Yeah, but the community is thing that they don't even know.
The author, And no, it's not that's not the no you're citing. First of all, knowing the author is not necessary for us to say whether it's part of our tradition or not. I mean, the text cite extra canonical books with true tradition.
Like the Book of Enoch, so the yah, yeah, it doesn't cite those books as scripture. But for example, if you have a book that's considered divine from God right at least you should know who's bringing that message about who's the author, who's writing it down, Like, for example, was.
It a prophet?
Who it was?
No?
It doesn't.
No, So you're talking about wisdom text like cyric or something like that. They don't have to be necessarily from any specific person to be commonly used wisdom text amongst the Jews, like the pi k a vote, which is a it's just like proverbs, but it's a later collection of proverbs. We don't have to know necessarily who wrote every proverb to know whether it's true or whether it's part of tradition or not. Why would we have to know that?
So, I mean, how with that book to considered that's it inspired without you citing your like saying that, oh yeah, that the church, you know, your tradition Orthodox Church accepted that.
Well, but I don't know. I don't say you can divorce inspiration from the from the Church. You can't. That's my point. So you're approaching this like a Protestant or like a like a Muslim. That's not how we view the text and divine revelation. We're not book worshipers.
Okay, I get that, But what's let's say what is the justification in the Orthodox Church for accepting a book without knowing its author.
There's no reason why something like the Proverbs you mentioned an example of wisdom texts that we have to know the author of the Proverbs to know that those are true proverbs or that they have a historical attestation amongst Jewish communities.
No, what I'm trying to get at is like, what is the mechanism for example, Like you know you have a certain book, right, let's look at.
The mechanism is tradition. There's no academic mechanism.
That's my point, Like, what's the crisis because.
The tradition of the church is the criteria. That's what I'm trying to tell you.
I don't know, because the thing is that in the in the New Testament, right, they have certain criterias that.
Are laid out like again noa, NOA.
Doesn't Yeah, I mean that's what the canon or like it has to know.
The New Testament doesn't give you a canon. It's only from the tradition of the Church. You're just asserting all the church, even from.
The tradition of the church, right, like the Church Fathers for example. That's what I learned in my class that there was at least a little bit of a criteria for a book to be accepted as scripture.
For example, it happen, and do you know it, Okay, do you know any of those criteria?
I know, I know, I don't know like every single one of them. But it had to go back to the apostles or their associates, and then for example, it had to like match up to what you know, they already believed.
So there was a little all along. So so so that's not actually so, did the church fathers in general accept the Deutero canon?
Did they accept that? I think there's a there's a difference in there in every one of their canons. I think one church father accepts some of the other one.
In general, did they accept the Duro canon? The answer is yes, they did so. And the Deuero canon is not from the Apostles. Now, Paul utilizes and cites it quite a bit. The New Testament cites it quite a bit. But even citation of the New Testament doesn't necessarily mean that it's canonical, because the Book of nich is not canonical. So again, all all of the things that you're talking about are really just a lot of like Protestant or Muslim sort of arguments that are spat out and they're
based on presuppositions that are Muslim or Protestant. That the only way that we know what the text is is if we do or whether it's true is if we do a bunch of textual scholarship and historical research to find out. And that's not the way that we go about it. It's it's the church is the presupposition. The Church is the pillar and ground of true Paul says, not the texts.
So you do you take that words, for example, what Paul is saying to interpret that the church's infallible. That can't be wrong or what not.
It cannot be wrong in dogmatic universal teaching.
So it's infallible and it's dogma right, yes, So how do you even how do you come to that conclusion without let's say, committing to the fellows to circular reasoning or you know, you know, because it's like the Bible is infallible.
You go to the Bible, and then you have.
To go to the Church, which is also infallible.
And you know, because all world views are ultimately recursive and self referencing and so it's inescapable at the most fundamental level. There's no way around that. So there's that's why I argue tagged.
Okay, I see. So do you think Jesus in your review, do you think he believes in the Judo canon books of the Bible.
Yeah, he cites them multiple times.
He cites can you give me one example.
Where he sides.
He's well, he's prophesied in the Book of Wisdom, for example, he's the righteous man. That's why the church fathers included Wisdom in the canon is there's a significant prophecy of the person of Christ there. But many of the parables Jesus is alluding to or citing the parable of the guy who hastily wants to build his barns and retire.
Jesus says that that will going from memory here because I haven't looked at this in many years, but that is an allusion to something of this in the dudocononical texts. There's many you can search online just New Testament references to the Duro Canon. There's like sixty of them.
Okay, I got you. And why doesn't Jesus, for example, I know he makes claims of divinity for example, why doesn't he explicitly tell his audience that he is God? For example? When he has the opportunity to do so, he.
Does it many times. So this is just your ignorance of the Old Testament and of the Gospels. He does this countless times. I mean every chapter, every chapter of the Gospel of John includes references to the deity of Christ and or the Trinity.
So I mean, why doesn't I know he makes his claims of you know, Divinity for himself, but why not just mentioned the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit altogether?
Have you not read the Gospel of John? He does this all the time, especially John fifteen. John fifteen to seventeen he does this constantly. What are you talking about?
Hello?
Yeah, John fifteen to seventeen he does this constantly. So no, because okay, I mean no, yes, have you read John fifteen to seventeen.
I've read that, but I don't know which is exactly Like.
Those three chapters are constantly him talking about the relationship of the Father and the Son to the Spirit. It's the high priestly prayer. You don't you don't know this, You've not heard of this. It's like one of the most famous things in all the mind.
I've heard, I've heard of it, I've read this in the Orthodox Study Bible.
So but you just said, why doesn't Jesus openly talk about stop talking? You just said, why doesn't Jesus stop talking? Stop talking? Shut up up? Didn't even mention that you are you going to shut up or not? Why are you yapping over me? At every point you get refuted and you just keep yapping. Okay, you're blocked. Are you listening to me? Are you listening? All right? Maybe he can't hear. But like everything I respond with, he blows
past to the next thing. It's like, did you not want to go through the twenty plus text that I have about the relationship the Holy Spirit of the Old Testament? They angered him at the waters of Strife so that it went ill with Moses on account of them, and they rebelled against his Holy Spirit. So I start going into this and he blows past, wants to go to the next thing. Well, what in Jesus talk about the Trinity? He did John seven fifteen to seventeen, and like three,
you can't go read three chapters? Oh well I don't have time for that, And okay, well whatever like, literally, the entire chapter is the relationship of John stepping between him and the Holy Spirit and the Father. Like the whole chapters are about that. What are you talking about? John sixteen, The entire section about the sending of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. It's called the High Priestly Prayer. It's all about the Trinity. I
read all that. Well, then, what do you mean he never talks about the trinity and the relationship of the person. It's like, Josh.
Out of sheer necessity.
I thought I'd riff on the Fhronsier mom debate there.
Well, bodied, so.
You definitely did.
I also think you should maybe press the cross up against your foot.
It might help to reduce the scent or you know, the sound. A couple of questions.
One is, have you ever read.
The Fire That Consumes?
No, it's it's in my former Protestant days in my explorations.
It was like the guy's name is Edward Fudge, and he's like the point guy.
Yes, yes, yes, no no joking and uh he uh, he's like the point guy for conditionalism or annihilationism. It's like it's like a five hundred page book and it's pretty interesting, even though it's coming from again more of a Protestant bent, But some of how he goes about reading the Ole Testament, like a lot of the.
Passages that talk about Hell or destr all that stuff.
So I just was wondering if you, in your previous Protestant days came across that.
Yes, and the solution is you need to read the book On the Brink by Damon Duck. Okay, awesome, I can only find a good picture of Damon Duck. I remember finding this book when I was a Protestant. Oh, here's a good picture of Damon Duck. Here's Damon Duck, and he will teach you the solution to all Biblical prophecies with On the Brink by Damon Duck. No, I apologize, I've never heard of what you're talking about, and I don't know what that is the point man for annihilationism.
I mean, there's so many passages that pretty clearly teach that the soul continues on after death, like Jesus talking about the rich man and the parable the rich man who dies and goes to Hades and he's there and he's talking about Abraham's Bosom. I mean, is I just where do people come up with these ideas. It's not FAQ day, so we're looking for people to disagree. We've got a lot of people here we get. We hit nineteen thousand, nineteen hundred, a Q minist we hit nineteen hundred,
which was a first. So maybe people dumped their chat into my chat.
I don't know, but.
Darkwing Duck is the best End Times theologian out there. For sure. He's better than John Hagy justin ten dollars an argument for the honorific language. Saint Cyril is closer in approximation to ephesis than Pope Saint Celotine. Celestine. Cyril presides over the council primarily and helps Cyril's Celestine with his within his jurisdiction as an apostolic. See interesting, Yeah, there's a lot of examples of this that really conflict
with the Vatican One presubpositions. In fact, again, Sashinsky in the chapter of the second to seventh century, that's whole chapter deals with all those, and we did a whole we did a whole run through of those the other day. Let's see that got dropped off a qmanist. Are you there, good.
Evening, Joe.
So actually the person earlier who was asking about the relationships when in Genesis won twenty six kind of answer that when it says our image.
Our likeness, it would but only on the trinitarian presupposition, because people always say, oh, that's just the royal we it's just God and the angels. So they already have like a patent response. That's why I think it's better to go to other explicit attacks. I just didn't even get to them. There's many more. He just blew past it. I mean there's judges. There's Joel three, Ezekiel one, Daniel four nine, Exodus fifteen eight to ten, Exodus forty twenty
eight to thirty. Palm won thirty eight seven, so I won forty two to ten, Joe thirty three four, Joe thirty eight one, and two judges thirteen twenty five, fourteen five nineteen. Zech Arie won six. Micah, I can't read what my note is there Genesis forty one thirty eight. I mean, there's there's tons of passages about the the Holy Spirit and the Old Testpent go.
Ahead, right, and then also this is not necessarily an argument against you, but I did see Hebrew roots in the title, and I kind of wanted to ask if there's numbers chapter or verse twenty seven, eighteen through twenty three, wouldn't that be a direct refutation of Hebrew roots considering Moses is laying on hands and.
Transferring hold on numbers? What number one numbers?
What numbers twenty seven?
Verse eighteen through twenty three, because Moses is it's a congregation, it's inaugurated and giving power, it's giving some sort of authority. And I don't think they believe in that at all. So I thought that was their whole thing.
By the way, here's the Holy Spirit. Again, I didn't have this one written down, so let me write that down. Numbers twenty seven and it's eight.
Eighteen through twenty three.
Yeah, I'm just looking for the Holy Spirit reference.
It's verse eighteen, all right, Yeah, the spirit is there.
Take Joshua, the son of non in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hands on him. Right, So yeah, that has to be that's the Spirit of God obviously. And so you're saying, well, Hebrew Richs don't believe in any kind of succession.
Yeah, like you know, the New Testament with.
Breathing on the Holy Spirit and then retaining remitting sins.
I don't think they believe in that for.
Starters, But if they're going to be following the Old test Man, that same thing is in the Old Testament in that scripture.
Right there with Well, what if they tend to default to like rabbinic stuff, So maybe they would say, well, that was what was proper to Israel at that time, but this is before the rise of you know, the rabbinical structure, so they would probably say something like now it's the Israel is governed by the rabbin or something.
It is interesting because they thought it was their whole thing to not be like rabbinical Jews, but to try and reconstruct something that was lost.
Well that's okay, interesting. I mean I think they will default to Rabbinic stuff when it suits them. Like in the debate with Bryson, he would randomly start citing rabbis and rabbinical stuff, but then he's not into that, but he is when he needs it. So it's kind of I think they're just arbitrary. They're there, but that's a good point. So they're trying to reconstruct something ancient. Okay, well, yeah, why wouldn't Why wouldn't this be the case if you're reconstructing the ancient system.
Right, Well, the church would have been you know, case of hell would have prevailed, So that doesn't make sense.
Well, that's true, that's true.
Yeah, all right, thank you so much.
No, that's an interesting angle. I would like to see how if we have any Hebrew roots in the audience, if you want to come explain to us how it's supposed to be governed, and where is your where is your approximation to what's going on here in numbers? You're welcome to hop on. Michael, Michael, your foot's farting. What's up? We can hear you, We can hear you.
What's up out Sidy.
I've been I've been wanting to ask you. I'm glad I was kind of able to come on. So have you heard of Frank Took? I tried to look into him because I know you you a feuded William Lane craig. But I'm pretty sure you've heard of Frank Tuk.
I've heard this name. What is he? I don't I don't so I.
Believe and that that's kind of the question, right, So I believe he's a Protestant, but I don't believe he believed that William Wayne Craig believes, or kids Roll or any of the other people. My question is, I've reviewed your videos on tag and everything, and I reviewed your videos on why you're not an atheist, a Protestant, a Roman Catholic, you know why you're an Orthodox. What do you think of the creation creator argument for like an atheist.
I've been wanting to get your opinion on that. If you don't know what that is, it's well, okay, So what he says is, so we know that everything has a creator, right, Like, uh, you know I have a creator. You know a book, you know, something wrote this, somebody built this, right, And so if we know that we know everything has a creator?
Oh well, I mean I could just if I was a smart atheist, I would just from the outset say, how do we know that? How do we know that that universal claim.
Is the case?
Well, I would say, so, see, that's that's I'm kind of glad that we debate. So I would say that you can look around and see that everything has a creator.
Again, that's well, that's breaking the question. So how as a finite being looking around, do I know the universal claim everything has a creator? That's that's the illogical leap there to get from finite particular experiences to universal state of affairs as a non sequitur.
Yeah, no, I get you. I think. I think because then he goes from well, that has a creator, and then we know that that thing that had a creator had to be intelligent, loving like because we know how we are.
Well again, all of these arguments that are just variations on other classical apologetic arguments. They missed the point of the their They don't even realize how much stuff they're assuming. Okay, so how do we know, first of all, that that's the case, And how do we know that all of this specific attributes that you listed are part of this so called creator? These are all just they're just arbitrary like assumptions. There's nothing about if we're remember classical argumentation
and apologetics is assuming neutrality. Oh we're assuming neutrality, then how are we supposed to Why am I supposed to accept all these metaphysical baggage claims that you're making about something that was supposed to be neutral? Those are all non sequitors.
Okay, well I kind of so, I kind of just putting that aside. I kind of watched your debate on Matt Dilla Hunty and I didn't agree, and I kind of think he's an a hole. Sometimes, I do think that you'll argument, and I talked to my fiance about this. I think you'll argument your orthodox augment pretty much refute a lot of the points that a lot of people make. Like you said, well, that's the Protestant like Protestants believe in solar script. Protestants would believe that as Orthodox, we
don't believe that. Do you feel like as an Orthodox obviously because you know that it's true, But do you think that makes it very difficult, especially when you bring in the tag argument for an atheist to refute you, because I feel like that's what I've seen a lot.
Yeah, absolutely, Yeah, Okay, Well, I mean, look, I've debated a lot of atheists, and there are smart atheists, and so the reason I don't go with all these classical forms of arguments is that smart atheists know how to point out that they're bad, flawed arguments.
Yeah, no, that's a good point. I will rewatch him and then I'll come back on the stream.
Yeah, tell me some more. I'm not familiar with Frank Trick, but he looks like an evangelical, evidentialist apologist so Hades. Oh yes, sir, so.
Saint Phronsie she operated to me appear to me. That was kind of crazy.
Did she give you a new public divine revelation or is it a private revelation? Yeah?
Yeah, no, she told me that the whole church has been corrupt, and I got to start the Phronsie at church.
We got okay, yeah, St. Pronsia the Woozy. I hope that that that you have a special place for single moms in.
It's gonna be it's me all wine moms and there's only be like one male pastor and he's going to kind of like, you know, control all the wine.
Moms the cathedral when you build it. Instead of having gargoyles, you have pit bulls, right, and.
They're going to be having like holding jugs of wine into our fountain.
So that's gonna be pretty cool.
Yeah. Well, single, single wine moms are big fans of pit bulls, so that's that's that's true.
Yeah, okay, Well, first before I get to my question, I want to ask, did you did you see that uh Redeemed Zoomer had a debate with a neo platonic liberal Christian.
I did not.
Well, if you want to get a lot.
Of views on YouTube, you can. You can do a scuff debate review. I would call it like cringe cord. It was like a fun dumb and dummer.
Debating each other.
So it sounds fun maybe anyway, So I'm not gonna I know, I'm an Orthodox obviously, so I know about TAG. But I was talking to an agnostic and I had asked them if they had heard of TAG, and they said that yes, and it sounded unsound, and so I asked for a reason why, and they gave this reason.
I was just hoping that you could go over it.
I did say that they should come and speak to you, but they said they would rather drag their hand over a cheese grater.
They talked to you, what I'm talking about, Well, you tell him, you tell him. If he comes so comes and talks to me, he's gonna get the uncreated farting foot boom.
You're gonna show him that I'm creative.
That's where he's gonna get.
Yes, Okay, So he said that TAG is unsound and this obviously this is on Twitter, so it's a very short on it. He says it unhinges on the semantic tool as five, that possibility can infer necessity something that is not uncontroversial. It also depends on a quite narrow restrain of what logic and reason is. So I was wondering what would be the refutation for that. In regards to tag.
It sounds like more of a critique of It's the type of critique that very Stroud does of transcendent arguments in general, or contient transcendent arguments, which it sounds like it's critiquing the fact that the CONTs way of trying to do or transit arguments assumes a lot of things that are not yet proven or not that are not yet demonstrated demonstrated, like the fact that, okay, let's say that you prove a coherent transcendental system. That doesn't tell
us necessarily that it's working in the world. That's another thing you have to assume. So I think that yes, that is a valid critique of bare transcendental secular argumentation. The difference is that we're not making contient transcendental arguments. We're making a transcendental argument for God and for the Christian paradigm. And I think FDA wants to speak on this. He probably he's he's more skilled in modal logic than me, so he would probably speak to this part of them. I would.
I would like to hear what he has to say too.
All right, forgive me, because I'm.
About to leave a little bit.
I've got to play the bluegrass band called string being. It's like a mix between Heidegger and uh.
Beans. This is precisely a string being that will cause the foot to fart, foot fart.
Yes, So it's interesting he brought this. Somebody brought this guy up, wrote me or something. I got a message about this, and I can't remember. It's the problem with the internet.
You've got going to put you on something you can't remember.
What message right. So from what I remember, I think the individual.
Is possibly confusing with the S five modal logic.
Something that's probably similar to kind of more modern like gradell ontological arguments that the possible being with these properties, then it must be necessary.
I could be wrong on that, but the way that I construte that argument, and it's not dependent on S five modal logic, it's just people wanted to see it done in S five modal logic. None of that stuff is what I did in that argument is formally invalid. That all comes from both the k axiom and the I'm trying to remember the other.
Axiom that I used.
With that, So I don't know what he's really kind of talking about. I know a lot of people might not be familiar with S five modal logic.
He might be one of them.
Too, And so it is confusing.
How can, for example, just from possibility you move to necessity. Again, this is quite complicated modal logic. And again I just used.
The axioms like the k axiom in some various other thing straight just from.
The modal logic.
So there's nothing formally invalid about about that.
Now, Jay is correct if he is hinting at.
An objection to trans in and anal arguments itself, such that they're well, they're fulfilling possibly an epistemic or a modal condition.
But that doesn't get you to what's called a.
Verification principle, that the thing exists beyond the cost space of reasons.
That is the Barry Stroud.
Argument argument, which just misses the whole point that again we're not system building. And my whole argument is our argument is premised on the radical dichotomy between an autonomous epistemology and a revealed epistemology.
So I think that Barry Stroud's.
Argument is exactly the argument when we want I accept and be like exactly like all these So people will point like, well, what do you how do you do with Chisholm's problem of criterion, how do you deal with Barry Straus's army.
Those are all arguments for TAG.
They all prove our point that even if you try to take the form of the argument and do this, try to pull this stuff off, it doesn't work.
Why.
It's not because the form of the arguments, because of the the it's the pretended autonomy starting from an autonomous position.
I see, Okay, people miss that because.
We're just so tall, like caught up in.
And our own autonomy and these systems.
Right, Yeah, I think that was a great explanation. I had it recommended him you because I know that, you know, you're really good of TAG and stuff. But apparently he had better things to do, and apparently he thought that self harm was better than talking to Jay.
So and I was just like, I saw that someone saw something. He says, I'd rather crate my hand through a great.
I mean when you come over here.
You brother, that is haram.
She's greater hand handed, she's greater brother.
You're going to get the farting foot over here. And I don't blame people because that can be a traumatic event. Rash one. What's up, by the way, that's sahe. The farting foot is saw he. For those of doubt, that is not daif that is sah. What's up?
Man?
Hello? Are you an star seed?
Brother? Is it okay? If I ask you some things about council don.
Yeah? What's what's on your mind?
I'm to know, just to introduce some Oriental luisidox.
Okay, Uh, not really the topics, but what's on your mind?
If if it's if it's not appropriate for this live, I can read you in another time.
What what's the question?
Well, it's uh, it's on the letter of the bus.
I don't know specifically or have a hard position on ibs of Odessa and the letters or whatever. I mean, Calcadan, don't they like reject like they say the guys weren't bad, but the letters are false or something like that. I haven't looked so, I haven't looked at this in a long time.
Okay, So so you're not sure on the position whether this letter is Orthodox or not.
No, I'm just trying to remember that doesn't Calcadan says something like the guys are bad, but the guys are okay with the letters are bad?
Is that? Do you do? You?
Is that the is that the point?
I've heard the Oriental argument that the Fifth Council it says that the letter is Orthodox.
So the Fifth Council.
Yeah, like a Constantinople too. Oh okay, so that would obviously propose an.
Issue because okay, so the accusation is about Monopstism, not Thestorianism I thought you were talking about. I'm getting this mixed up with like Theodore of Cyrus and the idea that but the idea is that, uh, he was a supporter of Cyril, right, mhmm.
So I'm just.
Because it's important for me to for you to tell me if the letter is Orthodox or not because the letter, like it directly attacks Cyril.
So oh IBus attacks Cyril. Yeah, I haven't read this letter. I don't remember, honestly.
Okay, So.
Is it okay if I talk to you another time, because because I'm not here, you know, to debate or to expose you or anything.
So so wait, so it is about historian stuff.
Well, no it's not. I'm not accusing you of being an historian.
No, I'm talking about Ibis.
Well, he clearly identifies Cyril as an office.
So well, aside from all this, like I can tell you what the position on the actual theology is like in terms of the Fifth Council?
Is that do?
Is that like a would you take issue with that or would you agree with that?
If the formula and the Fifth Council's Orthodox are not.
Well, I'm saying a lot of a lot of Orientals believe that it is. So are you coming from the like a Coptic type position or like an Eastern Syrian?
Yeah, I'm Coptic.
Okay. So oftentimes you guys agree that the Fifth Council is correct, that it's stating the fact that the subject is only divine.
I've heard that, Yes, I've heard this few.
Yeah, well that's I mean every Orthodox person says that if you read Kenneth Wesh's book, if you read the Gutkans book, I mean, it's that's what he's saying.
My my argument was, if you, as an Eastern Orthodox hold that all your ecmmenical councils are you know, insoluble.
A letter of IBus being Orthodox would propose a huge issue.
I don't have my book, my book which would cover this, so I don't know what he says about the IBIS issue. I don't remember.
Yeah, okay, that's fine, but we don't have to talk about it if you if you don't have it right now.
Yeah, I'd have to brush up on this, honest, I don't remember.
Okay, will you?
Will you in the few sure actually do videos on Oriental Orthodox?
You're not because you you rarely do something.
I mean, we did plenty of those with David Rhim So yeah.
I've watched his debates with Daniel, but.
They were mainly on the definitions of hypostasis in all these words.
Right, so at the Fifth at the Fifth Council, they stress that hoypostasis refers to the subject, not the incarnated nature. And most of the time, most of the time, you guys are sticking with what hypostasis meant at the time of Nicea, and so after the Cappadocians and Letter thirty eight of what's called Letter Basil's Letter thirty eight, hypostasis becomes more precisely the subject that has the nature and
not just the incarnated nature. And that's why you guys thought that we're saying, or Calcidon is saying, that there's two subjects. So my assumption would be that probably they can usion or the debate about this letter would relate to that too.
Well, yeah sure, but I'm my My main point is that if Cyril is a saint in your church, he can't be attacked in But.
If the attack is over the confusion as to whether hypostasis means an individuated nature or the subject, then that's what that's the source of the confusion.
Yeah, sure, yeah, okay, but yeah, I guess your point. It's just that I don't I don't. I don't really understand why. For example, I don't understand.
So according to Orthodox wiki, and this is just like the standard Orthodox position. Ibs later reconciled with Cyril. Cyril and during the Fourth Council of Calcedon, he anathematized the story us both orally and in writing. And so that's that's what I thought was the case, but I wasn't sure because I didn't remember. But that's what I was referring to the getting of this discussion.
Well, I I fully I agree that the Eastern Orthodox Church an athematizes.
No, it's said IBus. Did you not hear what I said?
Yeah, I understand that I was an athematizes, as.
It says, reconciled with Cyril.
Well, when when Ibis wrote the letters through was already dead.
Though, I mean, well, I guess this will be the point of contention then, because our position is that Ibis later reconciled with Cyril, and during the Fourth Council of Calcidon, a mathematized and Astorias both early and in writing. The fathers of the council then rehabilitated and declared him to be Orthodox. So it sounds like you're citing the thing that is not taking this into account.
Yeah.
But but if your counsels are infallible and they called this this letter of accusing Cyril asm and office.
And where is that?
Where are you getting that?
Where do I get that? The letters?
Well, I just read you Calcidon saying that he anathematizes Cyril.
Who anathematizes Cyril?
I mean, excuse me, anathematizing stories, not Cyril. Excuse me?
Yeah, I agree. Here a mathematizes and stories. That's not my point.
This is what happens then, So you guys, then this is what you guys tend to do, which is like you hinge on like these really legalistic ideas of like the terms like have you read this first and second letter to six Census by Cyril?
Sure?
Okay? Does he say there's two natures.
After the union?
Yeah? Does Cyril say that in the in the first and second letters to six Census?
No? Not?
Yes he does, Yes, he does. He says there's two natures. This is why you guys typically don't like the two letters to sucsensus.
No. If he says there are two natures after the union, that would be an issue. He doesn't see that.
Yes, you doesn't say that that's the point of those letters. Why would it? And but why would it be an issue? Why would it be an issue to say there's two natures after.
The union, after the union, because that would be him contradicting himself.
Know what, It would be your misunderstanding and would be proving that your position is wrong.
If he uses the words feces to one time only once after the union, then he says two after the union, that would be contradicted.
So you so, so you think that the divine nature suffered on the cross.
The twelfth Anathema states the Word of God suffered in depression.
That's the subject, right, So the divine nature didn't suffer, right? Did it undergo? Can it undergo change?
I don't. I don't use the separation of natures.
It's not a separation. Distinguishing is not separating. That's that's kind, that's kind. Any well then then there's nothing wrong with distinguishing even after the union. Sure yeah, sure, Well then that just contradicts what you just said.
No I said, I I don't. I don't say the divine nature died.
I don't.
I don't persona No I said, didn't undergo any change or any alteration in the death. The answer is no, Right, we don't.
Speak of it that way because we only believe in one nature.
So what died on the cross?
The Word of God.
Died in his In what way.
He died? Is soul separated from his?
Oh, and that's a feature of his human nature?
Right?
Well, he only has one nature.
Now again, so did the did the human nature become transformed into the uncreated? So see, you're making the tertim quid argument. This is why your hair I'm not saying the human this is why your hare to it. But then then what you just said is because you said his death is the severance of his human soul from his human body. Okay, that's not something that's a property of the divine nature.
I didn't say the severance of the human nature.
From the human No, the human soul from the human body. Sure, okay, then the change or alteration or death was what the divine subject experienced in his human nature.
Sure.
Well, that's the orthodox position that contradicts what you just said. A minute ago. You said there's one nature.
Yeah, we believe in one. Composite nature includes both natures.
So a composite nature means that then there's still two. If you say it's composite and that the human nature experiences that severance, then then he retains what's proper to those two natures, even after the union. That was the whole point of two six zerials, two letters to his sixth census. He says, even after the union, he still retains those properties to the things that are proper to those natures.
No, I'm I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
In the Death of Christ, do you distinguish nature in person?
Nature and person? Sure? Okay, do you because I don't really understand?
So this is okay. So the whole debate, which is about nature in person? You say, now you don't understand that.
No, I'm not saying I don't understand what I'm saying.
I don't understand what you mean by differentiating the nature in person.
How do you do the trinity if you don't distinguish nature in person?
Oh?
Okay?
So yeah, I don't believe that Jesus has the same nature as the Father. What are you now?
You're an area? He doesn't have the same divinity as the Father.
No, he has the same essence as the Father and not the same nature.
What's how is nature distinguished from essence? They mean the same thing in the Patristic teaching. No, we don't believe that this is your whole religion is confused and constantly just contradicting over stupid terms. What matters is the meaning of the terms. So is there a distinction in nature in person? In the trinity?
We don't believe that the nature of Jesus right now is the same nature as the Father.
Oh, then he didn't save anybody, and then you're a stupid heretic. Exactly like I said from the beginning, How does he reconcile us to God if he's not both God and man? He is fully okay, But you just said he doesn't have the same nature as the.
Father because we believe that the union.
So that's a tersham quid argument. So he doesn't save anybody. He's a third thing and he's not like anybody else. You just said he's not like the Father, then he's also not like us, so he's a tersham quid. You're not aware of the constant common critique of your position.
No, I understand what you mean.
I'm just how do you answer the tertiam quid critique? Then, since you know about it, I know about it. You just said, all right, you're a liar. You just said you do. You just said you know about it?
What do you mean?
No, I didn't tell you.
I completely told you that. I don't understand what you mean by differentiating the nature at I don't know what you're getting it, because.
How does he reconcile God and man if he's not like the do you think so? It sounds like you think nature is person. What we think person is? You think nature is? Is that what's going on?
Don't I don't understand that. I don't think that nature.
Is First, Oh God, then how is how is he? How does he reconciles to the Father If he doesn't have the nature of the Father, he has of the Father? You just said he doesn't have the nature of the Father?
Oh my God, I said he has.
But it's not that You're a confused quack. Get out of here. I can't take this anymore. This is what you people do. You you wander chasing your own tails in your stupid confusion.
No, it is that.
It is that it is now.
You came here with God, which when I read you our position refuted your gotcha. And then when I start asking you about what you actually believe, you have no idea what you actually believe. In your continued I did because you're an idiot. Hello, everyone heard you contradict yourself as we actually got into the issues. Hey do you hear me?
All right?
Yeah, all right, So a orthodox I just wanted to comment on add something for the Holy Spirit texts in the Old Testament because that was relevant to a bit ago so there's a very clear one in second Savil twenty three. This is, by the way, all from sam chamoun I Binge watched his lectures in the Old Testament, so this records David's last words. So it goes, I'll read from one to three. Now these are the last words of David.
That says David is Jesse. That says, the man.
Raised up on high, the annointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet saw mister Israel. Verse two, the Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and his word was on my tongue. And then notice verse three, the God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me.
He who rules over men must be just realized.
So the Holy Spirit is the God of Israel, correct exactly.
And then there's a very nice passage.
I love it so much.
In Isaiah sixty three. There's nine to ten which mentions the Holy Trinity correct saying in all the affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of his Presence, the Angel of the Father, the Angel of the Lord, and the Angel of his Presence saved them in his love and his pity. He redeemed them, and he bore them and carried them all the days of old verse ten. But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned himself against them as an enemy, and he fought against them.
So mentioning the Holy Spirit here it says grieved his Holy Spirit. It basically an active force or an impersonal object cannot be grieved.
So this person had. And then just a few verses later verse fourteen. Yes, very interesting.
So as a peace goes down into the valley and the spirit of the Lord causes him to rest, So you lead your people, you make yourself a glorious name. What's good to point out here is it says the spirit of the Lord causes him to rest. The Hebrew word there is Nuah, and the same word as an excess thirty three fourteen, where God's where God says, and he said, rather, Moses, I suppose, But and he said, my presence will go with you, and I will give
you rest. The same word that is attributed to God in excesses thirty three fourteen is used of the Holy Spirit in Isaiah Sics three fourteen.
Yes, great points, thank you. Yeah. My list was not in any way supposed to be comprehensive. I had only worked up through the Torah judges and a little bit of the Psalms, and so I had not yet gotten to there's many in Isaiah. Thank you for that one. And Samuel, there's a few in the minor profits, a couple in job that I mentioned, But yeah, there's more to be had. I just haven't even gotten to them all.
But thank you for that. Appreciate that, right. Okay, So to the people in the chat talking smack again, I keep putting the link there for you. So what do you mean? Sam does have an X. Sam Shimun is on Twitter. He wants to have a round table, So I don't know why you're trying to get provoke him into debating. I don't care if he wants to come here and ask questions. He's welcome to anybody on X can pop in here. I don't care. But we're looking
for people who disagree today review. So if you disagree, raise your hand, you come to the head of line. Every time we do this, we get a million Orthodox people and acquire some cate of cumens who want to ask a bunch of questions. And what we're looking for is people who disagree want to debate. The topics are listed in the top of the stream is the pope,
heretic Islam, Protestantism, Gnosticism, Hebrew roots. You can also bring up the Qur'an, Calvinism, etc. We just spent freaking thirty minutes with a Coptic person who literally contradict himself like five times and said he's not and it was a big nightmare. Review Dickers, that doesn't your connection isn't working. Countish Options, what's up? Mm hmm. You gotta unmute, man, you have to unmute.
Yeah, sty.
Listening to.
What's wanting a lot.
What I felt?
I can't You're you're your accident is so thiate bro. I can't understand half of what you're saying. Man, Beacon, what's up? Didn't we already go to you? We're looking for people disagree, so please don't ask me a bunch of inquirer questions like acquirers. You guys can't be lazy. You gotta go and read the books and do the do the research. It's Stephen Cook five dollars. I always enjoyed reading the Cabernet savignan On translation. It is the
most readable and accessible translation. Snago Beasts five dollars. One of the things that easy forgets the demons and angels. They aren't created in the metaphysic of time, correct, They're in the aon So their choice was in an instant and that's why they're not given multiple chances. They do not have a nature that varies from day to day. As man can go ahead, Are you there, shaba Ranks? We got a roster man in the chat. What's up? Shaba rank and file? What's up?
Yo? Yo?
Probably don't have too much to debate with you with although I was talking to a Roman Catholic today and they mentioned how because I was making the argument with him about how and you bring this up as well, how the Pope says that we can.
Pray alongside Muslims and Jews.
And he tried to argue that, well, the Russian Orthodox is doing the same thing by you know, trying to set up a.
You know, a shared space for like a church or templar or whatever.
It is in Russia.
Would you be interested in, like, I guess, given your argument for that, I am inquiring an Orthodoxy and I think it is different.
But what would like you respond to that?
Well, even if it's not different, like a patriarch being a hairtic is not the equivalent of what Vatican one says about the pope and the impossibility of the pope being a hairtic.
Okay, all right, thank you sir.
Yeah, I mean I appreciate that. I mean, again, as we said the first hour of this talk, it's two different systems. Man in the chemo hat. They I mean, they just literally can't understand a system defeater. I think I I just realized why they don't understand that. They don't understand why that's a system defeater because they don't know what Vatican one actually says about the pope. That's why they don't. They don't understand this. That's I think that's finally dawned on me. What's up man?
Oh can you hear me?
Yes? So to the guy in the chat, Christopher Augustin, unblocked me and I will join. I need to know you're handled. Unblock you. I don't know. I have like a thousand people blocked. Dude, I know idea who you are? What's up? Yeah?
So I was wondering, have you heard of a guy named Grayson Brock I think he is on YouTube?
No?
Uh, yeah, he's a he's a Protestant guy who is a universalist.
I guess you could say like he he claims he read the Bible in one day, the Quran in one day.
And like a bunch of other religious books in one days.
And he's like, he's like, well you after I read all these books, what do you Okay?
So he's just a retard. No, don't have time for retards. Sorry, sell By, you didn't read all those books on one day. Sell Biology. What's your handling? Unblock you? Dude? Aug twenty eighteen. Okay, what's up? Man? Got on mute? Hello? You got on mute?
Uh?
Tradcat traditional Latin mass enjoy or and he's sharing Pope Benedict Bishopstright when, oh, all right, you're on muted or you're unblocked whatever your name is, Augie or whatever, Leith, you're unblocked, dude Leth, I mean Augie Leith? What's up?
What's up there?
I just I wanted to see if you could, uh like clarify your contention with the like metaphysics in Islam. Okay, So from how I like see it and from how like I've debated it.
Would it be that the essence is dependent on the attributes to define it, and that if they're eternal and uncreated alongside the essence, then that's why a dependence relationship.
Well, that dependence relationship has to do with when they say that if the son and the spirit lack a sayety, they can't be fully divine because the divinity must have a sayity to be divine. And we make the same critique, then well, don't you think that the attributes are fully Allah even if they're not identical to Allah's essence and
they are other than Allah. So they have the same type of dependence relationship when we talk about the son being dependent on the father, that the attributes are dependent upon a lot. And so hence the critique and the only school that wouldn't work against like a Shia position where they don't think there's a real distinction between all of his attributes.
Okay, that makes sense.
Yeah, if you watch the if you watch the debate between Jake and doctor bo Branson, the whole debate ends of being that question.
Okay, sounds good.
Yeah, it's a really good debate too. By the way, Augie, where are you? I thought you were coming to debate? If he doesn't come to Bate. Just ban him. These people are disgusting magic Mike, Yeah, God, Yeah.
I don't know what happened earlier. I just maybe got disconnected, but it was a good talk with you.
Thank you for that.
I wanted to ask you.
I don't know what were you. I don't remember what we're talking about.
It was like about God and the Trinity and Jesus Christ, and so I.
Wanted to ask you something, right, so for example in yogi, because I'm studying the Bible too, but I didn't Evangelical university.
So now you're getting on my nerves. I'm ready to move on every What's up? Everything I said? You blew past what I said, So that's annoying. Where's Algie? I mean, he's sitting here saying he's gonna come to Bait. I'm even gonna link him the freaking chat here he is, Oh yep, hey Jay.
Actually, I don't know if you remember this, but the stream where pinesapp kind of went a wall.
You and I actually talked for like forty five minutes. I had to make an old account. I don't know why he had to be blocked one here because we didn't actually interact at all.
Uh, well, I probably black people talk a lot of shit and other comments and places, so you probably like some skittles gay crap that I blocked skittles gay. I'm not on board with skittles, definitely not on Now I'm saying the positions that you liked were gay.
I see, Okay, Well, I definitely.
I also wanted to say I didn't have a chance last time, but I wanted to say I got a bone to pick about this.
Whole funko pop song. Do you know how long that was stuck in my head?
Oh that's that's what I do. I fight back in a lot of different ways with you guys. And then, well, I.
Don't know that I have to do with with us. Actually, maybe I missed the point.
Then, Yeah, you guys are the funko pop. You track cats are literally my embodiment of the funk Now, I'm just joking, man, doesn't have to do with you.
I really missed that.
Then.
But last time we did talk about national theology.
We talked about that for a good while, and uh, I remember when we were talking about that. You know, you were running through the argumentation that clearly, Paul, he's not talking to these people.
Like deep philosophy, and that's what we.
Were talking about. Acts seventeen. I kind of remember this, correct, correct, And.
Now after we talked, I did go back and I looked at it, and it does mention that the philosophers were talking to Paul and they were saying like, oh, this is uh, this doctrine that you're teaching is completely different from us, is completely unknown to us. And that's the part that's immediately proceeding when Paul says, oh, you men of Athens, I see that you are in all things, very religious, et cetera, et cetera. So I was wondering, so you said before, you didn't think that he was
talking about this one like a natural philosophy level. But don't you think that him debating with the philosophers, don't you think that that kind of points to that?
Or what's your potential?
I mean, I mean, what what do you guys think? What do you think natural theology is? And by the way, you're saying natural philosophy, I don't know if that means the same thing as what you believe is that I'm not natural theologect What do you believe that is in your tradition.
Well, as far as my understanding, and by new means an expert, but as far as I've understood, it's that we can that there's certain things that we can know through reason alone, apart from revelation about God.
Yeah. Correct, that's the that's your definition of it, correct, that's the John Paul used that definition. Protestants use that so correct. Just make sure we mean the same thing.
Yeah, yeah, I'm sorry I spoke earlier, but yeah. So I think that him talking with the people, the philosophers of Athens, and then immediately following that, obviously it's you know whoever.
It's it's a luke I believe who compiled acts. Correct, So he's telling the story. Uh, And I think that the fact that that that narrative is following in such a way.
He's talking with the philosophers of Athens and then he's in immediately saying, are you men of Athens? I see that you are all, in all things, very religious, don't I mean, do you see the connection there?
I'm wondering what your tagees.
Yeah, but I mean my point has always been on this passage that he says, the one whom you worship without knowing is the one I proclaimed to you. And the whole argument of natural theology is that, well, they do know him because they've reason to get attributes about God. Correct, But he says you don't know him. He's the unknown God, so they don't know him.
I mean, he says what you worship in error and then.
Errorlaim it says what you worship without knowing. I proclaim to you the unknown God.
So is it not worshiping or I means it seems I'm not trying to be like, uh, you know, I guess they were.
Actually that I say, it says worship.
It seems to me that that that is important, you know what I mean?
Okay, So if I worship a stick and I think that stick is the one God? Am I worshiping the same as you as a Catholic because you believe in one God too, I.
Wouldn't say, well it I think that when you're talking about idols and you're talking about it, you know it's the creator according.
To Do you not know that this is an idol where they have an altar to the unknown God. This is exactly what you just said.
Yeah, So the way I've understood that is that they're actually so it's a temple, but there's no idol to the god because it's to an unknown.
No, that's totally false, he says later, that you attribute to the divine nature an idol, a created idle image. He says it in verse twenty nine.
Why I didn't necessarily take it that it was talking about a specific idol in that temple. I thought that was more of a generic So you people in general, you do these things in your worship.
Therefore, here we go with the typical casuistri. Right, So Paul is again saying, you're in you're all under the class of people who attribute to the divine nature of being a created datus. So, no, they're not. They're not unique idolators who think that this God cannot be imaged because the altar is an inscription to the unknown God. And he accuses them of being idol The whole point
of the passages is their idolators. They're not. They're not pagan non idolators here, which is what you're trying to say.
Well, I would just say, even in the case of this stick, I would say that obviously the stick isn't God. But they're they're just applying divine attributes to the sticks, and they're correct by the divine mutes.
No they're not. No, that's a flat out contradiction. So how can is so if I call this this pen omniscient, does that mean that well, I actually mean God the Father, but I'm just mistaking it.
For this pen And I wouldn't say it in that way.
I would just say that if you say that, like, there is this one God, he has this this attribute, and this God is this stick, what's Well, the part that is an error.
There is that that God is obviously not that stick.
No, there's more error, is the point. And the point is that there's no one lowest common denominator list of attributes that tells you the Unitarian God. That's the error.
I gotta uh, it's it seems unrelated. But there was a there was on Twitter today there was some talk about Wagner. He posted something where where he was talking about how if if like the Pope came out.
Tomorrow when he said something heretical.
Uh, somebody said something like, oh, would you just convert to Orthodox And He's like, well, obviously no, because I think I believe in Catholicism.
And if Catholics is more to be proven untrue, I would I would like go off and I don't know what I would believe in at that point.
And I think truly I was in there saying like, oh, these people, you know, they they would abandon Jesus.
So you guys would rather than admit that orthodox is true, you guys would go be atheists. I think that says a lot.
I'm not saying.
What I was getting at though, is is I think that it's kind of, uh, in a roundabout way. I think it's almost you're taking like a low common denominator Christianity where it's like, oh, like the question it would be like if Orthodoxy was fake, would either be like a Protestant then like if Abosolic tradition was like you know, if the Orthodox Church had a council and came and uh, you know that.
They what does any of this have to do with natural theology? Is the lowest common denominator? I don't understand.
Well, so because it seems like it's like, oh, well, if if Orthodoxy is not true, well you know, I still you know, worship this sort of general idea of Christ according to like a general so it just.
Has nothing to do with what's true or false. You're talking about what random Twitter people are saying. How does this translate to the lowest anything to do with natural theology's lowest common denominator?
I'm I'm I was wondering if you had a specific take on that. I wasn't trying to go completely off topic, but my point was that it seems like there is this sort of there was a sort of admission there that there is this there's like a low and what's coming down denominator Christianity.
If my part, I mean, I don't know what Craig is arguing. I have no idea what you're talking about. So okay, all right about I just make the clear point that what are the lowest common nominator attributes? And how do you know?
I think that we would have to look to scripture and.
No, no lowest common nominator attributes means natural theology. That means no looking to scripture.
Okay, but you were saying that last time we spoke, I said, well, it seems like you would have to say that there are anybody who misunderstands God would would not be worshiping you out.
You said, no, that there's you don't have to understand everything, but there's a certain criteria that you have to you have to believe in to be to call yourself, you know, to be truly worshiping God. Is that a mischaracterization of what you said, No, there have to be.
That doesn't mean there's a lowest common nominator because it's a set of beliefs. So there's a difference between a set and that if you deny one of that set, that you no longer have the correct reference. That's there's a differ between that and saying that I'm saying there's the lowest common nominator. I'm saying it's a holistic set. So for example, all of the attributes that are hold
to us about God are necessary. So for example, if I remove one of those, which is an essential attribute or one of those key components, then I don't have the same reference anymore. This is why a Mormon and a Muslim and a Eunomian don't have the same God in the tradition of the church. That that proves the point, that's the point of the Garibee paper is that think about card games, so's there's certain things that are in common between poker and playing GoFish. They have cards in common,
they have hands in common. Both games have rules, so the having of rules is something they have in common. They don't have the same rules, but they have rules in common. Right, But that doesn't mean we wouldn't conclude from that because of those overlaps in commonalities that there's a lowest common denominator card game that is neither go fish nor poker. Do you agree?
Uh?
Yeah, I think I okay. So in the same way Garibi argues in the paper that there's no lowest and the nominator set of attributes that gets you the deity that isn't specifically Christianity, Islam or Judaism, but is the common deity that if that's true, that refutes natural theology.
Yeah.
See, the thing is is that I don't think that there's like a generic God in that sense.
Then you're not a proponent of natural theology.
Well, no, because the last time we talked about this, I talked about how I thought that Trent the way he spoke about, for example, saying like it's basically is like he completely ignore the theophanies. He basically said, like, oh you know, Abraham, he worshiped with this Unitarian God. We don't have to hold that position, and that's that's he happened to hold that.
But that's not something I hold well.
I mean, every natural theology proponent believes that. So how do you not believe that?
Well, I mean it depends on what you mean. I don't think that that Abraham necessarily knew every little.
Now you're confusing that what. So again, remember what you define natural theology as at the beginning, right, It's what, for example, uh Aquinas does in the Simil Countridge Telays, which is that he uses the self evident principles of philosophy to delineate what an absolutely simple, a temporal, uncaused essence that is one must be. That's natural theology correct.
But I'm not saying that there's like that there is so as a Christian, as a Catholic, I believe that there is only that there is only one God and he has the instributes that he has and people.
So you're missing the whole point again. Do you what I don't know? I mean, do you guys not understand like what's going on here?
Like?
Do you you don't understand and understand how arbitrary that is.
Help me out.
Okay, So did you hear you said that you were talking about when I debated with Pintsapp? Was that the same stream or something I don't remember? Is that we talk? Okay? Do you remember what I was asking Pine Sap or do you want me to refresh you on that?
Well?
From what I remember, you guys were talking about the papacy if I.
Remember, No, No, we're talking about epistemology. So let me refresh you all restate that what I was saying is that this is what natural theology is ultimately boiling down to, Like, how do you know what the essential divine attributes are apart from divine revelation in your Roman Catholic epistemology?
So I would if I'm just breaking it down as there's some things that you can know about God apart from revelation. Right, So if you're if you're mentioning some attributes of God, if you're knowing things about God apart from revelation, then you're simply doing that, right.
How do you how do you know what they are? List some of them?
Tell?
How do you know that those are the ones that are essential?
Yeah?
I guess that I see what you mean in the sense of that that could become arbitrary.
I do it.
It is arbitrary. How do you know?
So?
In other words, you have to start with the tonistic, medieval, scholastic metaphysic of natural philosophy, self evident axioms, first principles. Why am I supposed to start with those? And by the way, it isn't your natural theology then relying on these metaphysical principles, How do we know that those are the case?
Yeah, I'm not an expert in that.
Well, so the whole system is a presupposed classical foundationalist epistemology that just asserts all these things, and anybody who calls these things into question, the whole thing collapses. Why
am I supposed to start with that? This is what I asked Tim Gordon the other day, because Tim and I were going back and forth in DMS about natural theology and its starting points, and I'm like, the reason that Vatican Two, in those documents is saying that Muslims and Christians and Jews all worship the same God is because of the assumptions of natural theology and the metaphysical just givens we're supposed to know, oh well, clearly, obviously,
the one true God is absolutely simple, a temporal, uncreated, uncaused outside of time and space, non composite. Blah blah blah, says who I mean, this is so arbitrary, And if you read the Garabye paper like like, he literally just
destroys swinburn the thumis by just savaging this completely arbitrary nonsense. Like, I mean, if you can come to the debate and just assert all those things, what's stopping me from coming to the table and saying, oh, well, my natural theology is the opposite of all those things.
So how do you think that, like, for example, the law of non contradiction, that sort of thing would play in here because.
I had some I mean, I believe those those are first principles. But that's why we go to tag and say that, how do I know that? How do I know what the self evident principles are? So do you have a do you have a divine list of the self evident principles?
I mean, how would you answer that question?
There is no answer to it. That's why there's no such thing as naturally This is the point. Natural theology doesn't work if you can be arbitr or I could be arbitry. So are you familiar with that? Are familiar with the criterion problem?
Now?
Okay, So the criterion problem is if you think that you have knowledge whatever it is, let's say it's first principles whatever, that assumes that criteria of knowledge, right, a criteria of pistemology. But to have a criteria of pistemology assumes knowledge, So you can't have knowledge of the criteria, and you can't have a criteria without having knowledge of the criteria. So there's an insoluble dilemma for any foundationalist
or any classical foundationalists of pistemology. And the reason for this is that you guys just haven't caught up with the last five hundred years. You guys are living in the Middle Ages as if no one has done anything, and everything post Middle Ages is all atheist and bad. There's a lot of atheists. But that's a genetic fallacy. So when are you, Thomas going to get with the last five six hundred years of philosophical debate and realize
that people have actually asked good questions. And that's why you guys don't do very good against atheist and debates.
So, okay, So if you, for example, when I, uh, I had some Mormons actually coming to my door.
Oddly enough, I had been waiting for that for a while.
Now you want to go to Mormons. We're not going to tell you what I thought. We're homology, natural theology, and pistemology.
I was.
It seems unrelated. But the point was that the Mormons were coming to talk, and it's like, well, you know, They're like, oh, you want to become Mormon.
I'm like, well no, because I can write off Mormon immediately because you polytheism is nonsensical, right, So would you disagree with that, like that that you can't that the one person couldn't, through reason alone, come to the conclusion that polytheism is nonsensical, or.
How I mean, only on the assumption that there is one cause who's absolutely am Only on the assumption of all the I mean, okay, maybe it is, but why and if you're going to start appealing to these other things, how are the all those things also self evident? So I think you're missing the point of Like, I don't disagree with the fact that we can do apologetics and review positions, but if your argument is well, it's all built on things that are self evident and that are
just arbitrary. Well, these are obviously the starting points. How do you know that? Why should I accept your arbitrary list of the starting points? What's the basis for that?
I'm trying to understand. So do you arguing I basically may be the argument from the unmoved mover to them to try and you know, because.
You're missing the point like why why am I supposed to accept that as the starting point?
Well, I'm asking you where where did I er there?
How do you know that you can start with the unmoved mover as your starting point in epistemology?
Well because of the uh yeah, the first principle is obviously.
So that's okay. So wait a minute. So that's a first principle love of causality that I think. Okay, So again, now you're just asserting the metaphysical positions that are in question. How do you know that causality is a first principle?
Yeah, I mean I could. I mean, this seems that this is sort of a.
Human absolutely, it is absolutely human.
Yeah, and I'm not seeing that.
I know that you've mentioned human before, of course, but and then CON tries to reason out of that, and it's just Con has nothing to do with it. He attempted to come up with solutions, but the CON.
Has nothing to do with this objection, which is an objection to self evident first principles from David Hume and other skeptics.
So I help me understand how you would how you would go about it.
I'm not a classical foundationless. I'm saying that's what this is, what tag is all about.
Bro, I'm not like saying there.
Is no answer to these things. There is no solving on a secular humanist route. That's why we believe in a revelational epistemology because these are all dead ends and you can't avoid the arbitrariness of saying, here's my give me, grant me these metaphysics and I'll prove you my position. Why should I accept those metaphysics?
So what things do you would you say that that have to be granted to know things?
There's all kinds of things that there is no there is no basic set of things that's self evident. And then you look, I could give you another way to show this, which is that do you think that some things are self evident and some aren't.
I don't even know how I would answer that question, right.
So the list the answer would have to be if you foundationalists, yeah, some things are self evident, many or not many other things are inferential. Okay, Well, is the differentiation between the things that are self evident the ones that are not? Is that self evident? You see, it's another begging the question. It's just like in the trend debate, like there's just no, there's no it's there's no self evident principles that you allow you to build a system
that aren't arbitrary. And the point of tag is that nobody can get out of this. Everybody's systems are ultimately recursive and self referencing at the starting point. That's why what grounds a position is the worldview as a whole, and not some random thing that Aristotle thinks as a first principle.
I mean, so obviously we're not completely detached from revelation, and I think that we're sort of we're ground these principles are inside.
But that's not going to get you anywhere with what natural theology says about first principles. How So, because natural theology presupposes neutrality, and that you're starting your reasoning without anything to do with divine revelation. You're beginning with reason alone, and you're building on self evident first principles. How do you know what the self evident first principles are without being arbitrary?
So I have a question.
I'm not trying to be a smart ass here. So the if somebody, so you believe that God has certain attributes, and if somebody were to somebody somebody's never had some sort of revelation, if they were to come to conclusions about anything, if you were talking to somebody that they're like, yeah, there's this one God and he has these attributes, and you agree with all these attributes up to a point, would you say like, basically they just got lucky or how would you like they arrived at are a proper
conclusion based off of false reason?
I think, like Paul says in Romans, one God, the Triad, the Trinity, the Logos is not far from anybody. The Word is near you, even in your hearts. Every man has a heart anoetic principle by which he directly relates to God and he has to reattach that relationship, that connectivity which happens through divine revelation. But I don't restrict divine revelation to I mean, the world itself is a theoteny. That's something that Thomas and you guys don't understand. Like
the the cosmos, is that the oftening of Christ? What do you think of that?
I mean, I think that.
I mean I think you would definitely just push back and disagree with this, But my thought would be, yes, I agree, and that's why we're able to know these things.
That's why we But that's now you're violating natural theology. The natural theology doesn't tell you anything about the Trinity. The Trinity is not a principal of natural theology. It's a principal divine revelation. All natural theology tells you is the lowest common denominator attributes of the absolutely simple essence.
I don't think that's necessarily fair.
No, what do you mean that's not fair that that's your theology unless you're like departing from Tumaism or something.
No, I think what's if you're saying that what we're saying is that that humans can't wouldn't know about the Trinity. That doesn't mean that we can't recognize it after knowing it in nature.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the trinity and the incarnation, the virgin birth are doctrines of supernatural divine revelation in Catholic theology. They are not aspects of natural theology. And what we're saying is there is notice that this is a false distinction. There's natural revelation, but that natural revelation is of the triad. You don't believe that. No, Thomas believes that you're not getting Nature is not teaching you Jesus and your theology.
I mean I think that that's.
Have you read the Semicontures in Tels.
I've heard quite a bit of it.
Okay, so volume one, what is it? Is there anything about trinity in there?
No, it's it's the first most of the questions regarding God's nature.
That's from what from natural theology?
Correct?
Correct?
So there's nothing about trinity in there because trinity and incarnation are not part of natural theology. They're divine revelation, they're supernatural theology. This is like Thomas in One on One Man.
So again that's why I was asking you before, So how would you proved God exists to a skeptica.
Have you not heard me make tags as an art. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just saying, like, you haven't heard me do this argument for like twenty years.
Come on, if you've had me, you've had me blanches. I haven't been able to use your content as much as I used to. Please if you want to.
I mean, there's a million public YouTube videos. You're not blocked. It's like you're blocked. You can't watch those?
What do you mean?
I just I haven't. I haven't engaged with your content as much as I used to.
It's fine.
I might have seen something like that and for simply forgotten it. I apologize for that.
No, it's a I mean, you're in a system that doesn't allow you for you to understand system theology and internal critiques because you are in a classical foundation, let's building block system, and you think everything is proven by stacking a bunch of evidences. And when I do an internal critique, you guys go haywiter. It doesn't it doesn't
make sense. Just it doesn't make sense. But I'm not trying to be rude, but like this illustrates I think everything that I've been saying like, there, how are you going to? Let me give you another example. Maybe this will help hammer it home. The doctrine of if you look out of the natural world. Let's say we're going to reason from uh, natural theology principles apart from divine revelation. When you look at the world, doesn't it include death?
Sure?
Would we conclude that death is natural from that?
You could?
Yes, right, you could. But divine revelation tells us that this world is actually fallen and that death is not natural, it's actually unnatural. And so I can't really understand this world? Can I The way that there's a predator prey relationship, the way there's corruption, decay, and death without what's in Genesis?
Right?
How can I accurately interpret nature without Genesis in the fall?
Yeah?
So, I mean I would say, so you can know some things, that doesn't.
Mean that you can know everything.
Well, how do I know the things that are What are the some things that I'm knowing when I look at at the world. And remember we're not going to reference divine revelation here, We're only going to be natural theology principles. You just said that, I mean, couldn't I conclude that death is natural.
You know.
That's that's why.
I'm saying, we're not completely divorce for revelation in that sense, we would say look to revelation to know the things that No.
No, now you're violating the principle of natural theology. So you're saying, oh, well, we can look to revelation. No, we're doing natural theology apart from divine revelation. My point is that you can't interpret the natural world correctly without genesis, because you're going to conclude, as the atheist did of the seventeen eighteenth century, that the natural world shows that death, decaying,
corruption aren't natural and part of the process. And if you're going to say, oh, you're misinterpreting the natural world because of genesis, yeah, now you're not a natural theologian anymore. So you can't interpret the natural world correctly without divine revelation. As the point, yeah, I'm not disputing that that disproves natural theology. You can't even understand the basics of nature without revelation.
I mean, like, for.
Example, like we would a knit when it comes to God, that you can't fully understand God of part natural or a perferal revelation.
That's the whole point.
No, you're missing the point that you have two conflicting systems at work at once. One system is a natural theology atheistic approach, which there's no logical reason why I can't conclude on the base of natural theology that death is natural. And then you're saying, well, but I can also appeal to divine revelation. Well, now you're not doing natural theology anymore. So you're admitting my point that you
need divine revelation to correctly interpret a fallen world. Otherwise, why wouldn't we conclude death is natural.
Yeah, again, I don't see how that's an issue, because.
That's the whole point. That's the whole point.
That's why we have revelation. That's the whole purpose of revelation. I'm not trying to be as smart, and it just it seems to me that that's the purpose of revelation is so we can properly interpret these things.
Then you just undercut the whole point of natural theology. When you try to interpret the natural world, you understand, your whole argument is like, oh, I can look at the world and I see causation, I see content, agency, don't you see death too. The point is that you're arbitrarily picking things and you're relying on your Christian presuppositions to interpret the natural world when we're not talking about
the Christian revelation. We're talking about natural theology. So you're if I'm gonna play an atheist to you, okay, as as I'm playing the atheist, not wortholot so say I'm playing the atheist guy. Your position is totally incoherent and arbitrary and contradictory because you're telling me that without divine revelation, I can look at the world and see causation contingency. Uh, you know all of these principles te los, all these things that work in the world, and I can tell
I can just simply respond by saying, I also see death. Therefore, death is a natural process. And if you admit death as a natural process, and there's no reason why I can't say that in a natural theology starting point position, then you've now undercut divine revelation and refuted yourself as a Christian.
M hm.
Okay, So.
You don't unders saying what natural theology is, you keep importing divine revelation into it. That's not what it is you have to start with your starting points, which are self evident philosophical reasoning, rational principles. You can't appeal to divine revelation, your remember, this is your whole process. Thomas Aquinas doesn't appeal to the trinity in sum Countries and Telays One. He starts arguing philosophical, self evident principles that
you have in common with unbelievers. You're trying to convince an atheist. I'm not going to listen to your appeals to Genesis, okay, And you're gonna say, okay, so you're appealing to things like causation, te los, contingency, the five proofs of Aquitas, the things he appeals to, right, yes, And I'm just simply saying, why are those the things that you pick out in the natural world as self evident principles. Why isn't death a self evident principle that's
natural and part of the natural world. And if you admit that it is, you've undercut your Christianity.
You could just say that, I mean, obviously that we provide reasons for that.
Obviously, what are your reasons?
Well, I mean, and you could say that.
It appears that way due to our current fall in nature.
The fall, So that's from Genesis. Just undercut the whole argument and prove my point. You have to pill to Genesis to unterpret the natural world correctly.
Thank you great again. I'm not so you're separating natural theology completely.
I did it separated completely? No, the point of it in apologetics in your system is to convince unbelievers on the basis of reasoning principles in common. And I'm an atheist who's saying you're arbitrary in what you pick out as the reasoning principles that are true. You're you're arbitrarily picking on the basis of Christian presubpositions, things like causation and order in the world and morality in the world.
And I'm going to, arbitrarily, as an atheist, say I counter that by death, lack of order in the world, lack of design. Do you see, because we're not you can't appeal to divine revelation in a natural theology argument.
Why not?
Because it's not natural theology. You just defined it like five minutes ago as not appealing to divine reply according to you and your church.
Yeah, so what I what I would say is is that like speaking to an atheist, Well, then I would say, well, you know, so there obviously would reach.
I'm an atheist on an accept divine revelation, You're gonna argue with me on the basis of your self evident metaphysical principles and your classical tomism.
So yeah, I mean, if you want to argue that divine revelation is impossible, which plenty.
Of people do, no stop deflecting, has nothing to Maybe it is possible, But why am I supposed to accept your self evident first principles of design and whatever that you see out there in the world apart from divine revelation. You want me to adopt your common ground, and all I have to do to defeat you this is just a simple defeatter for your argument is I pick different starting points from the appearance of the natural world, namely that death is natural and that there is no order.
There's a lack of order and design. There's chaos, there's decay, there's entropy. Those maybe those are the things that I'm supposed to look to. All this is illustrating is that your starting points are arbitrary. It's that simple, And.
I'm not trying to say I'm not trying to say like too quickly or like you know what about it is that I'm actually curious.
So you think that your position or you believe your position.
No, I'm an atheist skeptic. I don't have to say that. My I'm saying. All I have to do to defeat your arbitrary in this is to say, well, my counter with these arbitraries, why am I supposed to accept that the natural world is ordered versus disordered?
Yeah? But I mean you could do the same thing with a revelation.
You could say, oh, why do you keep appilling to bind revelation? You can't do that in natural theology.
Well, I'm saying even if even was to say that, you know, we're just we're doing exclusively revelation, if we were going off of that, I mean.
Why do you keep appealing to the thing that is not relevant in natural theology? So you're proving my point that you can't that you it's inescapable to appeal to revelation. Why Because guess what, I agree that causation, tilos, order, morals, all that stuff exists, and it's necessary, but it's grounded in relation. And the very way that you operate. You keep going back to that proves my point that it's inescapable.
That's why we do that as a better apologetic than this dumb idea that there's self evident principles that you can convince an atheist with. And if a smart atheist comes to this and says, this is arbitrary, why am I supposed to accept those things and not the other things? Can you tell me why.
I would say that you would be I think that it would be you would be unable to reason with.
Okay, maybe we don't. Maybe we can't. Maybe maybe we're deceiving ourselves and we can't reason. You understand, there's giant, giant millions of people that believe that.
I understand.
Yeah, I'm aware and that you know, I get the whole the cog two comes out of that, and yeah, I'm well aware. But well, I think we've uh, we've probably gotten to all the topics that I wanted to talk to, especially.
Well, I mean, it was funny, right, but I think it illustrates we like when we got to the point where I said, why isn't death natural? And it's the act full principle that you usually look to rather than like causation or two last something like that, And you said, well, because of the fall. Yeah, but that's a doctrine from divine revelation. So you're admitting the point that you actually can't interpret the natural world without divine revelation, and that destroys natural theology.
Hold on, I think the whole, the whole, the natural theology, the whole point is that we cannot fully understand the world apart from that from divine repoles.
Okay, you can say that, but I'm pointing out how you can't even arbitrarily. You can't even consistently tell me which principle I'm supposed to follow without being arbitrary because you're saying, no, no, you're misinterpreting. It's not actually death that's natural, you see, because that's part of the fallen world. Well, you wouldn't know that apart from Genesis.
Correct.
I'm conceding that I don't understand.
Okay, then then you don't believe in natural theology anymore.
Thank you.
Yeah, Look, I obviously I think that if you if you read a Quinus, I don't think he's like, okay, so there's this natural theology thing, and then they're like they're built.
Upon a year.
You're no, that's absolutely what it is. The divine revelation. Grace builds on nature, SuperNature builds on nature. Revelation builds on first principles. So you're totally wrong. You don't even know your tumenism. You don't know that that's basic tumism.
No I do.
I feel like I'm struggling to put into words exactly where I think we're.
Well, maybe it's because you're wrong.
So okay, so you're asserting that these things happen.
Okay, So all I've done throughout the whole conversation is illustrate that everything that your argument is built on arbitrariness and ad hoc and these are the self evident principles and we all just know this because it is. And all I have to do is simply say why on what basis? And if you start appealing to other things, guess what? Then they're not self evident.
But can you appeal to radical down for any position?
Say what?
I just couldn't want to kield a radical down for any position. I don't see how that that's truly an issue.
It doesn't even ass necessarily until radical doubts. These are just defeaters for your arbitra In ess, you.
Could just say that any any use line of argumentation is arbitrary. It doesn't it seems like you could.
No, No, it doesn't mean any any position is arbitrary. So your answer is that every position is arbitrary.
No, No, I'm saying according if you want to, I'm saying it in a radical debt doubt sense.
You can radically doubt what are we everything?
I don't know. I don't actually think you can.
Okay, So what sort of things can't you?
Well?
For example, I can't radically doubt the laws of logic because I would be assuming them to engage in denying them.
Okay, And don't you think that like the law of non contradiction, for example, is built on logic.
It is one of the classical laws of logic. It's not built on logic.
It is logic correct correct, so or the like.
So I think you're confusing, like what a thing is versus its justification. So we agree that there are laws of logic. There's a law of non contradiction, but that's different than giving an account for how it exists and how it's the case. So those are two different questions. So maybe you're confusing those two. So we both can commonly agree that there's laws of logic, But on what basis am I supposed to believe that Tonism in your worldview can give an account for the laws of logic?
Well, so let me ask you this, So according to Europe if I wasn't okay, so would you say that somebody who has never received the revelation according you know, according to the Christian worldview, or I guess to your world viewing the orthodox worldview? That basically, like I said before, like if they arrive at these conclusions, like if they're able to talk about logic and the principle of non contradiction, the principles of causation, that.
Doesn't mean they have an account for those things. Using them is not the same thing as justifying them.
But you say that they are right, like they're recognizing things that are real, but they're coming up out it on their own.
How are they doing that?
They're real universal metaphor physical principles in the world. I don't deny them or doubt them. I just don't think that your argument's give an account for them.
Okay, okay, But so you think that they're out there and that people can recognize them.
Of course, they're absolutely necessary for the possibility of predication. They're transcendental categories.
Okay, So.
Okay, so people can recognize these things, but they're an error about other They can recognize true things, but they might be an error about other particular things.
They're typically, in your case, in error about how to give an account for them.
Okay, so you would just so would you say that my the conclusion.
We're using a thing is not an epistemic justification for a thing.
I'm not saying. I'm not not even going there.
What I'm saying is that, Okay, So if I say I believe that there is this law of non contradiction, would you say that that's correct or incorrect based off of how I justified.
You didn't give a justification. You just stated that you believe in it. I'm saying that, what do you think a justification is?
First?
Maybe that's the confusion. What do you think everystem of justification is?
Well, what I'm saying is how one justifies it. If I'm saying if they justify it properly, then you would obviously say it's proper If they justify it in an incorrect way, you would say it's would you say that it's completely incorrect.
Then.
No, it would just mean that they don't have good reasons for believing in it. It still can still be true. Like I mean, I let's say I wash my hands every day after I go to the bathroom because I think it'll make bitcoin go up. I mean, it's still a good thing to wash your hands after you use the bathroom. But I have bad reasons for washing my hands. So it doesn't make the washing of the hands falls. It just means I have bad reasons for it.
So this this seems to me like when we look at we look at other other religions, we say, Okay, they do believe in God.
They just they do so for wrong reasons, or.
They do so, No, they don't have the right deity. They do they they're they're not a on the right God.
So do you think that I'm that I have like a different principle of non contradiction than you do if I justify it wrongly.
How does that relate to the false theology of a false religion and not the principle non contradiction. I'm confused about You're asking one question about the principle non contradiction. They're saying, but the Pagan's attained to the true God. These are these are different questions.
So what I'm saying is that there's Okay, so I can know that there is I could come to the conclusion that there is a law of non contradiction. I'm saying that that's akin to yeah, I could come to the conclusion ont of the things about the world through reason, And I'm saying, okay, so you could reason. It seems like the whole.
It's a false analogy because saying that there's a law of non contradiction you believe in it and utilizing it is not the same thing as saying and I also believe that there's one God, so therefore it's all the same God. It's a non sequitor. It doesn't follow. I mean, do you think do you think Muslims and Christians worship the same God?
Yes?
How I mean everything we've talked about is the exact reason why that's not the case. I mean, I mean, all you do you want do you know what Muslims teach?
Yes?
What do they say about God or the Old Testament?
So that they professed how he that. There's this difine.
What do they say about the Father?
The Father? They they don't believe in a trinity, so there's they say there is only the Father.
Basically, I know.
So you don't know, you do? You don't even know the basics of Muslim theology. They do not believe God is father. They specifically are premised on denying God his father. So you don't know who you're talking about.
What I mean to say is that they know.
Just say you don't know. Why are you acting like you knew when you said He's father? They do not believe his father.
Yeah, I knew that. They don't say that. I understand that. They don't say that.
No, they specifically deny that God has any sons and he is not a father. I are that okay, But you understand one of the most fundamental names or characteristics of God in the Old Testament is God the Father?
Right?
Correct?
And yet you say, sit you saying that Muslims and Christians worship the same God when they explicitly deny God the Father. You see how silly this is. It may seem silly, No, it is silly. It doesn't seem that way.
It is.
So all I'm saying is that they have come to these so they've got me. They're misunderstanding God.
They don't know God as he truly is.
They specifically hate Christ or anti Christ, deny the Father, and you're saying you worship the same God. Correct, Yes, you're stupid.
Look, I'm not trying to be not trying to be stupid. I'm just saying that these people, they are in error. I'm not saying that those things are.
They explicitly deny the fundamental name that you that you recognize as the God of the Old Testament, and you say it's still the same God. You're stupid.
They are. I'm saying that they're attempting to worship God.
It doesn't matter what the attempt is. That people in acts are tempting to worship God and calling him sticks and rocks, and that doesn't it doesn't attain. No, this is how stupid and obstinate you are. Because Paul says it's an unknown God and you're an idolatry. It doesn't work. Do you think Muslims have the faith of Abraham?
No, they did not.
You just contradict yourself. Because Vatican twos and tates Vatican two says they have the faith of Abraham, and.
They claim to Professor.
No, it doesn't. I'm not talking about Lugentium. I'm talking about Tat's claim. So this is where you're again ignorant. Just as Abraham, who with the faith of Abe Abraham takes Islam takes pleasure in linking itself to God.
I'm sorry, let me pull that up real quick.
Tte three, not lumin Gentium sixteen, No Tte three.
Okay? Is there a paragraph three? Three?
Is okay?
Paraph three?
It says, okay, So they adore in the Church regards with esteem ust the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself, merciful and all powerful, creator of heaven and earth, who.
Has spoken of men.
They take pains to submit wholeheartedly even to his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure.
In linking itself submitting to God. Is that where you're getting at?
Or yeah, I missed the passage? Okay, but what does that say that they It says what it says, don't lie?
I honestly, I I really I don't. I don't think your your take on this is is I think you're you're conflating.
The whole chat sees what it says and sees you right here, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself submitted to God. Now look at the last sentence in that paragraph. Finally, they have the moral life and worship God through prayer, alms giving, and festing.
Yeah, I think that worship is not the same as having divine faith.
That's even worst worst because it says they adore the One True God in Lemgitim sixteen and they worship him. Correct, that's not true. They don't you're do you know notice saying your own popes historically called this the wicked anti Christ religion. How do they worship and serve the One True God like Abraham if it's an Antichrist religion.
So, like I said, worship just because somebody's worships like worshiping something, does not mean that they have divine faith.
It says the faith of Islam is the faith of Abraham, just as Abraham. They take pains to submit wholeheartedly to God and his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham. Do you think Abraham submitted to a Unitarian God.
All?
It's okay, So you're a liar and you have to reword what it clearly says.
Again, look, I'm not trying to be I.
Don't care what you're trying to be. This is because you're so hard headed and you're an idolator. You think the stupid heresy is true. You make me mad when you say this stuff.
Okay, So the way that I'm from just going through word.
By word, do you have to yap and try to make this say something that it doesn't clearly say? How come everybody else can figure out what this says?
Everybody else?
I mean, did Francis sign a joint declaration with a granty Mom that God wills all the world religions? Did that happen in twenty nineteen?
And you know about the distinction between pass if an active will? Oh?
Okay, and what was that at work today? When he said the exact same thing about all the world religions?
Which which them are? You're referring to exactly.
The statement that is going all over twitter today from the Vatican.
Well, yeah, there was.
There was two statements that have been going around last few years.
Okay, and so it has nothing. No, the new statement, the new statement that he wills the religions and not one religion is better than another. It's all diversity. So he says there shouldn't be uniformity of the religions, there should be unity in the world religions. So that's an even stronger statement than what was in the twenty nineteen document.
So obviously I heard you mentioned earlier. You're like, oh, this is the code that's going around and and I haven't. I haven't looked into it enough myself in the last.
So again, is this the same church that calls the crusades, the one that says that it is the church regards with esteem the Muslims.
Yes, I believe that.
And you don't see a contradiction there. You can esteem the Muslims as you call crusades against this anti christ religion, correct, Yeah, and that's why you're stupid.
I look, I'm not trying to So what of the things is that you can you can say that there are there's positive things even if they're in error.
Does it say just as Abraham help me open? Okay, So you and you didn't want to, So what you wanted to cope and talk around this and you closed it.
No, I just I just I have I opened up the Twitter page again. I just have to had to open it up again like the tab. So they adore the One God living in, subsisting in himself, merciful and all powerful.
The career of the happening is adoration, worship.
Yes, who has spoken to men? They take pains to submit wholehardly to us.
Even what is the One God? By the way, before we go to that, that isn't the trinity? So you see this is the point right away. That's natural theology. Muslims worship the same one God, living and subsisting in himself. Do you understand that there is no such thing as the one God that lives in subsists in himself. That's unitarian. The One God is only trinitarian. The Old Testament reveals a trinity.
Where are you saying that you think there's more there's more than one substance inside the Trinity?
Did I say there's more than one substance? What the heck are you talking about?
Okay, the subsistence is how do you understand subsistence?
Then it says the one God living and subsisting in himself. That's a unitarian statement. There is no one God that lives and subsists in himself. That's unitarian. There's only the Trinity, the Father, eternally generating the Son and eternally spy reading the Spirit. That's all. That's the only God there is. So this first statement is not true.
So you don't believe that the Trinity subsists in itself.
The Trinity does not subsist in itself. No, that's heretical. This is why you're against stupid.
I'm not trying to try.
No, but you don't have the Trinity. That's the point. There's that is false to say that Trinity lives and subsists in it himself. He is the Father. He is the Father, I'm he There is no one God. That is not a reference to the entire triad. It doesn't that. That's not the case. What does the creed say, I believe in one God?
What?
So that's monarchical trinitarianism. This is saying that Muslims, together with Christians, worship the one living God who subsists in himself. That's unitarian. That doesn't exist. There is no such thing as one God himself. That's Unitarians.
As I'm understanding, this is just saying that God exists by an oven like.
That's not true. The Father does not exist in himself. He exists with the Son and the Spirit for all eternity. The whole point of the whole point is to have a commonality with Muslims, which are Unitarians. So they make a Unitarian statement and this is not trinitarian. There is no Unitarian God. And then you tackle on Trinity down the road. That's your tomistic error.
No, I don't. I don't believe that there is a generic God.
That's the yes you do, and it's right here now you're lying because you're arguing for natural theology and you, by the way, you said while back there is a generic God. What do you mean, don't believe in a generic God?
Yes you do.
Why are you lying?
I've never said that there's a there's a generic God.
By arguing for natural theology that is generic lowest common nominator God.
It's just the things you can know about those.
And we saw those were arbitrary. And the things that you can know are the things that aquinas Lists and Symagotrid and.
Chiles I'm sorry, what's you saying.
The things that you can so called know about God from natural theology are that he's absolutely simple, that he's a temporal, that he's uncaused and noncomposite. Blah blah blah blah blah. That's a Unitarian argument. That's a that's a generic God, that is the generic God. That's the point. You think that you can argue God without trinity that doesn't exist.
Yeah, So I think the last time we talked to I think this came out and I didn't really have a chance.
Well, now I know why I've blocked you because of this.
Well we didn't. We did never even I never even talked on this account before. But yeah, okay, I uh, I'm sorry if I've made.
I mean, I just think that you're completely like hard headed and engaged in the most ridiculous cazustrie. Because what's the next sentence following which one who has spoken to man they take pains? Do you think Muslims take pains to submit to God's decrees just like Abraham?
I think that they're they're attempting to do so, just like Abraham. So Abraham was receiving divine revelation. And I don't believe that the Muslims are receiving divine revelation. I think that they've taken certain things.
What does this say? I don't care what you think. What does this say?
Oh?
I mean?
Does it say that Muslims submit to God just like Abraham?
So?
Does it say that? Just read the text, dude.
It says they take pains to submit whole hardily to even his inscrutable decrease, just as Abraham, with whom the.
Fame of HISLELM takes pleasure in winking itself submitted to God.
What does that mean?
Say?
So, just as Abraham submitted to God?
And Muslims. So you gotta read it for the fifth time. What does it mean? What is it clearly saying?
Ye again?
So yeah, good, get out of here. I'm so sick of these people. These are the most un dishonest pieces of trash. Out of here. I'm so sick of it. Every Well, now I know why I blocked him, and please go back and block him. I don't know every want to talk to him again. I just I can't take these people anymore. I'm mute, all right, he can't connect?
H I mean the pope literally prays in mosques towards Mecca, and this guy is jumping through every hoop, leaps and bounds in every possible mental gymnastics, which, by the way, he never even gave any actual mental gymnastics. It was like, all, just like, I don't think it's saying that. I don't
think that, dude, I don't care what you think. And again, like, if you can't see this stuff, like, go be with Fransis, then go be in your schedules church, Go put stuff in your butt like all your other guys want to do. That's what you guys want, that's the religion you want. Go for it, man. I mean again, if you can't see this, that this is in your face, like at a certain point, there's nothing else that can be it can be said, Is there anybody else? Be sure to
head over to chalk dot com. You're seeing me wear the chalk dot com shirt. Chalk dot com. Be sure and have another user go j forty four life to get forty four all those all those great products, including the performance stack there that includes the tonk Catale that's my favorite. I highly recommend that if you don't keep it on topic, Uh, you're booted. What do you want?
Hello? Uh?
Okay, So I wasn't really ready, but I'm gonna go just because there's nobody else calling.
You weren't ready. Why'd you request to speak if you weren't ready, Well.
Because you're I thought you were gonna leave, and I wanted to ask you or just say a few things. So now I got to regain my.
All Right, So when you said natural theology, I mean, I don't really know.
What are you doing? Like, just trash and ship over there? Get out of here. I can't do it, man, I'm sorry, I can't. I just can't do this stuff anymore. Tonight. Dues over there like wrecking his car crash and trying to talk sounds like a sounds like a comedy comedy routine. Dudes over there doing three three stooges. Uh is Bromco J forty to get forty percent off those great products. Head on over to chalk dot com. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna do another hour on freaking natural theologoy man?
What what?
Hello?
What?
What?
How many people were in here all the way? We got up to almost two thousands to night. That was pretty crazy. Anybody have any topics that are not natural theology. I had nineteen hundred to That was my first unless somebody dumped into the chat that I wasn't aware. Tonight was I think our biggest, our biggest organic audience of hitting nineteen hundred. But you know, I probably should stop
now because I'm getting getting a little too sassy. That guy was getting me really frustrated because just the constant of twose sassy, he wasn't actually being that mean. It was just being so hard headed. Famine, famine, Sam.
How's it going?
Man?
What's up?
I was op with an argument today talking about God created evil. I don't know if you'd be willing to speak on that at all.
Well, it's an impossibility because evil, in our view has no substance or being or real real existence. It's a privation, so it's not a thing. And therefore everything that God created has being or substance. And God created everything and declared it to be good. So there's no way that God could create evil. You would be a Manichean if you thought that.
Oh okay, okay, so okay, could you maybe so?
I hate to ask dumb the argument down a little bit because I was hit with that from a Muslim today, and I didn't really know how to combat it.
But well, again, so if God creates evil, then God is both evil and good because he's the source of good and evil, and thus good and evil become relativized. And that's probably why Islam says, yeah, Allah is the greatest of deceivers. He's also the best at doing evil, as he is good relativized as good and evil. It makes the religion incoherent and nonsensical. And it's equivalent to the ancient Zoroastrian dualist Manichean position that that good and
evil are kind of these eternal principles that exist. We don't believe that evil has any substance. It's not a thing. It's a privation, a lack an act against the good, but it's not a thing that God created.
Okay, do you have any I guess anyone you would recommend specifically to read on it.
Athanasius, the Church Fathers, they discuss the ontology of evil. I think in Adgentes, Ethanaians discusses it. The Kappadian Is discussed it, but I don't remember where else the top of my head. I would just it got like, uh, Church fathers on evil as privation or something like that, and you would probably you probably get some good articles on that, all right.
Uh, not the.
Series of debates that I thought we would have tonight. They definitely went a different different direction that I expected. Still very interesting discussion tonight, But thank you guys heading over to talk dot com. Use promo co J forty four Life, get access to those great products, and I will see you soon, maybe tomorrow. We'll go back to the normal stream.
Uh.
This was a diversion because because of Francis, so Frank kept doubling down, so I thought I would open it up for this. Everybody, have a good night.