And the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the what's up? Welcome everybody. I got me a nice little cup of effervescence. Evanescence, No, no effervescence. Wake me up inside? Can we gonna say?
Save me from the nothing of me? Go? Oh, it's tickling my nose, the eff a vescence. I got a little bit of eff a vescence in my coffee. What's up? My locks are shining, my nose is tingling. I've been snorting chalk all day long. I'm ready to debate, and I know you are too. Baby Now, I don't expect too many libertarians to actually call in. In fact, we had a libertarian buddy in the chat and he just dropped off, so I don't know. Maybe he didn't like the soundtrack Beep beep, boom, boo boo, boo
boo boo boo boo. Look, it's not just about libertarianism today. That's just on the topic. If people want to call in about that, it's on the topic list. I was kind of hoping we get some more of them BHR boys from across the tracks to call in. BHR boys on the on the prow, drink a little effervescence, drinking a little evanescence. I don't know we're gonna get any vhis to call in, but they are more than welcome my brother to call in. There were so many things that we
didn't get to in that so called debate with the BHRY boys. I wanted to get into history, church history, but we didn't even get that far. A few words on libertarianism before we opened it up, and we're I put that in there because everybody's talking about it today because of Trump talking about because it's gonna be gray, We'll never go after you Bitcoin and Elizabeth Warren and the Democrats self custody it's gonna be great, and then the Libertarians chose
some kind of damn freak whoa shocker. The whole philosophy is freak philosophy, and I don't mean in a sexy freak way, I mean in a just gross way. How is that? How do I come to that conclusion? How could I not be libertarian? Well, the libertarian philosophy is only as
good as the classical liberalism which underlies it. And so if classical worldview philosophy whatever, then enlightenment liberalism mean iss, you mean, then all of the components of libertarian philosophy coming out of the Enlightenment are only going to be so
good as classical liberalism. Now, not everything is wrong in classical liberalism, but you know, any philosophy can have elements of things that are correct, but it doesn't mean that the paradigm or the system is correct, right, So, I mean we could think of things that Karl Marx got correct in his analysis, but that doesn't make Marxism correct. We could think of things that David Hume got correct, but that doesn't make human skepticism correct. You
see. So I would argue, in short, make it kind of brief here before we open it up. What are some of the critiques. Well, we've been making pretty consistent philosophical critiques of libertarianism for about ten years on this channel, and you can go back I put up one of the old videos from about nine years ago critiqu it. Man, I gotta I gotta not drink effort vescence on stream. I just want to freaking burp the whole time. I'm only libertarian about the cocaines. Bro I don't I don't snort
cocaine. I snort chalk dot com right here. You got it all backwards, baby, that's my sponsor. That's a joke too. By the way, don't snort that stuff. I'll kill you. That's only made to go in your gut and turn you into a Sigma alpha chad max out to the map. This is this is what. Look, everybody's wondering what happened to Zuckerberg? How did he change? How did he? Oh oh, how did he start looking like Jay? Oh? What? Oh? Oh? He stole he stole that? Look? See that look right there on the
screen. How did he do it? Chalk dot com? You know, we can't stop even the Silicon Valley overlord oligarchs from buying chalk dot com. Look, even if Zuckerberg gets a hold of chalk dot com, what happens he starts evolving into me? Look at that anyway, that's show sponsored chalk dot Com. Heading over there to get the best in supplementation is J forty four Life. Anyway, where were we at? We were talking about libertarian
philosophy. So some of the basic critiques that I've launched for many years, classical liberalism is premised kind of on I guess what you could say is atheistic presuppositions. I understand that not every classical liberal or libertarian is necessarily atheist. The problem is that the presuppositions are atheist, the assumption being that there's no divine institution that exists in history that has any authority to necessarily say anything in
regards to collective obligations, collective metaphysical realities, and values. Everyone is in a presupposed place of absolute autonomy, and anything else from the exterior is some form of oppression or a violation of the NAP. And I'm not talking about a black Heber Israelites haircut. I'm talking about the non aggression principle NAP.
NAP. The NAP has to do with the supposed assumption that no one should ever engage in any type of aggression or violation of individual sovereignty or rights because that violates the NAP. But it's also a worldview where there are no moral obligations, no oughts, there's no normativity, at least in most of these philosophies, because if you get into David Hume and the is aught problem, there's not typically a solution to this. Why ought we follow this moral prescription
versus some other one or none at all? Oh well, just because it'll help you flourish, Well, what does it mean to flourish? That's another presupposition. That's another argument or assertion based on the idea that there are values. Value judgments can't be derived from the states of matter, And so if you have an assumed a presupposed materialist philosophy, you're not going to have any way to justify or give an account for the moral prescriptions or the ethical norms
that you want to have, and every society requires ethical norms. In fact, to say that it's wrong to violate in the NAP is to make an ethical claim, an ethical argument. It's wrong to do so. But you
can't ground your moral claims if there's no transcendent. And that's the thing is that the assumptions of the worldview of the classical liberal from the outset exclude God's existence and the supernatural and the transcendent, and it begins to argue from a materialist perspective to then sort of leap to these unjustified metaphysical claims about rights. What are rights? Libertarians? Not all, but many are atheists. They're
atheist materialists. And if you're an atheist materialist, there's no such thing as a right. Is it a social construct? Is it something that the government gives to you? Why? No, of course not. The government doesn't accord you rights. You have your rights. Oh, where are the rights under the microscope? Just like laws of logic, just like meaning in terms of linguistic philosophy, just like ideas like love, obligation, ideas like virtue,
vice, the good. None of those things are found under a microscope. And so if you want to have a scientism based, empiricists based worldview, as many of them do, there's no justification for anything outside of bare matter. So all of these other things that aren't reducible to or don't in any way equate to molecules are really fictions or social constructs. So actually, the t R A n Z people and they just elected a skittles man for
who's pro all of that to their libertarian party ticket, whatever nomination. I mean, he's just been consistent with the atheist presubpositions of the whole worldview. Now we've been arguing this for I don't know how many years. Every libertarian debate that we have, the libertarian absolutely collapses into a puddle of whining filth. Like Austin Peterson. They're absolute jokes. They can't handle the slightest bit
of pushback. They don't know anything about argumentation, logic, and philosophy. And that includes Kocash, Austin Peterson, Robert Taylor, and even stuff on Malineu. Now, Malineu I think faired the best of that crowd, maybe Robert Taylor, but all of that crowd, at least the ones I debated, are specifically atheist agnostic and don't even know what the Izzat problem is. Now maybe nowadays, maybe a couple of libertarians have picked up on this fundamental
philosophical problem, even though we've been hammering it for over ten years. But my critiques of Jordan Peterson over the years also fit into this domain. We critique his classical liberalism umpteenth million times, and still people just can't grasp this. I don't know what the problem is, and I don't know what the problem is overall. I guess everyone is just sort of pretending, Like I think people think, well, I just pretend that that's not an issue.
I'll hand waive it, and then I don't care. But it's almost like they never even understand what the issues are. Oh, that's just a bunch of philosophy wrangling. I don't have to worry about that. What do you mean, like your whole ethos comes out of Enlightenment philosophers that I'm talking about. Did you even know that Khan, who, by the way, was
a huge proponent of Neil or liberal wise fair economic theory. Kant thought that if you had totally open trade globally, you would have world peace and world government. He wrote an essay on it. Other Enlightenment theorists of Laise Fair also incline in this direction. Oh, well, you won't have wars anymore because we have free trade. How naive and stupid, as if wars just come from economic factors. Wars come because human beings are fallen and they have
a tendency towards vice. So libertarianism typically it's premised on an assumption that there's not a fallen world, and that man has not fallen. Rather, man's problems are societal and economic. Oh who else has that exact same presupposition Marxists. Marxists also presuppose that there's no fallen and it's just man's badly educated and he's affected by societal issues, and this causes him to choose bad things,
and he's oppressed by the bourgeoisie blah blah blah. Now, the other thing that always blows the minds of the libertarians when we talk about this is that you've noticed some of the popular wealthy people out there, say Klaus Schwab, who are portrayed as global capitalists, which is somewhat accurate. Why do they have busts of people like the Eye Lenen. Why do so many high level capitalists like David Rockefeller have such a fascination and a long history of supporting Marxism.
People like David Rockefeller's professor Harold Laski, Why does he write multiple New York Times editorials praising Chairman Mao. And this is of course something that the boomers can never get. I've only seen one or two boomers ever accept this,
this issue. We were talking about this yesterday after church. For some reason, this is the issue that just the boomer can't get this, and I think it has to do with them being, you know, growing up in the Cold War, and it just seems too difficult to accept the idea that the wealthiest people on the planet. And I'm not talking about local millionaires, Okay, I'm not talking about the local uh you know, auto trim design pimp, my Honda Civic millionaire. I'm talking about the zillionaires. Baby.
Why do they love socialism and re Marxism because Marxism socialism have always been always been a favored element and tool of the moneyed elite, not all the money elite, but many of the money to elite, the point one percent. Okay, the zillionaires. That's precisely why Ford built the Gorky Auto Park for the Soviets. Why would Ford Automotive build a giant Soviet auto automotive park.
Why would they build all these other factories, all these other operations for the Soviets Because they are secret communists, dude, the secret coolb This is a libertarian idiot level argumentation out there right. The people that uh to the people that buy Uribezmano of at face value right even quickly says that the French
Revolution was funded by Protestant and other banking elites. So you go all the way back to the French Revolution with its commune, with its Jacobins, funded by very, very wealthy people, and this is very well documented in history. I can't I just can't fathom why people can't figure this out. It's the conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory. Who is pushing most of what we're going under today when it comes to the socialism, fabian socialism that's emerging.
Is it the government? Kind of? But the government can't do that everywhere. But who has tentacles everywhere to do that? Why the fortune one hundred, fortune five hundred? Why would they be pushing all of this? So you understand this right here destroys the classic libertarian narrative of its private interests versus the state. Now, dude, our state was long ago captured by private interests. So am gov is just another corporation working in lockstep and in tandem
with the other corporations, and that should be really obvious. I can't figure out why people can't figure this out. I mean, the last few years of KOOF not obviously demonstrate to this this to anyone with a decent IQ Was it the state or was it the private interest? Who was doing KOF? Oh? It was all of them. The answer is all the above, that's who, because they're all working for the same entities. And look at the revolving dwarf phenomenon. Okay, who's in the Trilateral Commission? Who goes
to Bilderberg, who's in the CFR? Is it government people or people in the state. You can't figure it out. Bo It's a revolving door. They go from one to the other because the state is a captured corporate entity and has been for a long time. So this whole narrative of the libertarians versus the statists is itself a false dialectic. And it's not that hard to figure that out. How can people not figure this out? This is like super obvious. You don't even have to go that deep into history. I
have history degree. I almost have a double dgram. I'm like two classes from a double in philosophy and history. Undergrad, I had mainline professors explaining a lot of this to me in undergrad, so I is like, but people don't read books, man, they don't. People don't They're not interested in what's actually the case. I mean, everybody's just a bunch of dame slow boys, slow boy nation. Man, that's what I'm talking about.
So back to the libertarian ethos of the Enlightenment. Look, it's only as good as the classical liberalism is. And if the classical liberalism fails, I'm not talking about everything about it. Okay. I understand that there are legitimate grievances in opposition to corruption in the late Middle Ages, well aware of it, and you know the corruption the Romancallic Church, which we have covered a
zillion times on this channel, right, that contributes to it. But not every answer, not every solution that comes out of the Enlightenment, is necessarily the best option. Nor does it mean that the people proposing those solutions, the David Ricardo's, the Adam Smith's, the Emmanuel Kant's, the John Lockes. It doesn't mean that they have the best paradigm either. A person can get certain things right and have a totally jacked up paradigm. You don't see
that. Really, the history of America is this entity with a bunch of colluding and colliding philosophies and ideas, influencing its start, its emergence, its documents, it's founding documents, founding father, et cetera. And the history of America was America figuring out which of its many presuppositions and worldviews and conflicting paradigms it would choose to be more consistent with. Would it go in the
direction of the Christian Biblical Roman law influence. Would it go in the direction of its Masonic Enlightenment Deist influence, because it has both, So the whole history of America, I would say it's kind of the struggle to determine which of these paths we would go, and unfortunately we have continually chosen the worst path. Here. We've chosen more and more and more to move away from the explicitly Christian values which don't make sense with the Enlightenment, natural philosophy,
natural theology, assumptions of America. In God we trust what God? The God of the Deists and the Freemasons, the God of Roman Catholicism, which is also natural theology, the same as the Deists and the Freemasons. Jesus as the one True God, the I am that I am. Do you see how right? Natural philosophy, natural theology, Masonic philosophy, enlightenment philosophy. Oh, where they happen to all kind of oblat don't think, because
they're pretty much the same in their assumptions. So America, unfortunately has consistently chosen for a long time worse and worse and worst options. Like it's like America's here, you know, got two wolves inside of him, like do I want to go with the gay wolf? Do I want to go with the alpha chad wolf? And America is like consistently saying ooh, almost as the gay wolf, ooh, I want you to be more gay for her? Oh right, that's the choice, that's the bad choice, virtue versus
vice. And that's just a philosophical critique. The metaphysical critique. Let's get a little more into the metaphysical critique. They're always talking about rights, rights, rights, freedom, liberty. Okay, those are metaphysical concepts. A giant portion of these idiot atheists don't even believe in free will. They're determinists. So how are you gonna have a libertarian philosophy if you're a metaphysical determinist?
This is just idiotic. I'm speaking to the atheist libertarian ship. Well, I've got a good argument to prove that there is actually libertarian freedom. Even though I have a materialist that I believe that everything is purely typical reactions, there is still freedom. Well, really, what's freedom if you don't believe in personhood. We're not made in the image of God. There is no God. We're just manifestations of primordial mock So what's freedom? Freedom from
what to do? What? So you understand that they have no basis for virtue ethics. The whole ethos of libertarianism is part of utilitarian ethics, ethics based on outcome supposedly and the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. And the idiots at the time of Enlightenment like Bentham, who was a pedo. So guess what libertarianism with its present day skittles people, They were skittles four hundred, five hundred years ago. Okay, Jerryman Bentham and his idiot
cronies think, I'm not kidding. They're the Spurgs of their time. They thought that they could come up with a moral cal an algorithm that would tell you the right choices in different situations. That's how stupid this is. And also they thought, well, we can also come up with pleasure points, and we can figure out the best thing for all of society, the best happiness points, coomp points for all of society to make all society happy,
and we'll do it with math. This is how ridiculous this world view is. Now, I'm sure plenty of libertarians don't believe in any of that anymore, or they don't they realize that that's kind of ridiculous. But this is why you get these weird, bizarre manifestations of their choices for who represents them. I mean, it's just it's pathetic, it's laughable. And this is
not a new phenomenon. They were going woke twenty sixteen or earlier, even when one of the first debate that we did on this channel that was a big public debate was twenty fifteen or so Adam Kokash. Okay, So at that time Adam Kokash was like the front running person for libertarianism, or at least he wanted to be, and maybe he was the Libertarian nominee. I don't remember, but he was like at one time, he was like two hundred and fifty thousand on YouTube, you know, like the big libertarian.
This is even before I think malineu like had like a huge, you know, million million subscriber libertarian channel, And even back then, the debate was exactly the same. Right, So we're talking about the crop of Goober's ten years ago that we had to debate with who completely demolished themselves, and all the debates that we had. Here we are ten years later and we're still
debating the same crop of goober philosophy that is so low tier. And as I said at the time, don't you understand that this is within the circle of a loud discussion. Okay, the system doesn't mind you debating and discussing all this libertarian crab because libertarianism is never going to change anything. So it's
within the acceptable sphere of what can be discussed. Now. At times, libertarians and people from within libertarianism or Austrian economics, they make really good points, they write really good books, they come up with really good inventions, They call out things. Peter Schiff accurately called out the two thousand and eight housing collapse, the cipher punks invent bitcoin. So I'm not hating every person
I'm talking about the Enlightenment presuppositions of classical liberalism. That's the problem here. In all the motivations from these schools, in these philosophies, is never anything more than a pleasure based, outcome based ethics of the common good. So there's no objective right or wrong, there's no duties, there's only outcome based pleasure points com points. So what action am I going to choose? Well, this one gives one million people twenty five com points they can coom twenty
five times. This other option only allows five hundred thousand people to coom twenty times. Therefore, the first option is better. You see how stupid this is. And again there's all kinds of philosophies that we can run through or philosophical critiques to critique utilitarian ethics, because again, this is what is based
on for the most part. In fact, Sam Bankman Freed started a foundation of some kind of nonsense taking from Bentham's utilitarian ethics and this moral calculus idea that they were going to start The Happiness Foundation is some gay title like that, and they're gonna make everybody happy with their coon points and their crypto Oh shocker, it was all a giant quasi cult money laundering Ponzi's game Shocker.
We talked about that with Richard grow but I forget the name of his The Ultrue Society for Society for something Altruism Society for somebody in the chat will know. Put it in the chat, you remember. But the point is that we can give other types of critiques. For example, there's nothing in utilitarian ethics that tells us that we're supposed to prefer the greater number of people's happiness
versus a quantitative happiness of one individual. So in other words, let's say that, to go along with this dumb argument, that we could quantify com points or happiness points. Okay, so let's say that me as the quisas hotock enslaving a giant harem a village of Amazon women to make them into my, you know, my harem of bishes, I get as an individual quisasatock god Emperor, I get like seven thousand pleasure coon points from doing that as
an individual. But on the other hand, we can also dole out one million Kickkat bars to one million people, But that only equates to four three hundred pleasure points. Because you understand a person getting a kit Cat is not one full pleasure point. It's like point zh three pleasure points in the pleasure point moral calculus algorithm. I'm not joking. This is their this is their dumb argument. So between these two, how would we know which one is
the right option to choose? Right? So I can take all my time and effort as the the voluntarily chosen quisots hotter rock of libertarian libertaria. We'll call it Libertardia. I'm the quisas hatka lib Tardia. All right, how do I how do we know which one is the preferable choice? Because you understand that to say, the greatest number of the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people, how do we know that we're supposed
to choose the greater number versus the individual qualitative pleasure? What if I get so much more pleasure as an individual out of having my hairm versus the very minimal amount of pleasure that the village gets by getting a free kitcat. Do you understand this is arbitrary? That's why this is dumb. There's nothing that tells you that that's preferable, and in fact, we can make it more absurd and turn it into things like BDS. You know what type stuff.
Right, If an individual psycho serial killer, it gets high amounts of pleasure from doing those things, versus everybody in the village getting low amounts of pleasure from a free kitcat or something like that. You see how silly this is. There's also all kinds of other obvious critiques of the non aggression principle. First of all, why are we supposed to think that's a self evident principle? When I look at nature, I don't see nature operating on a non
aggression principle. I see a lot of predator prey operations in nature, see a lot of aggression. So why am I supposed to think that I'm supposed to abide by an nap Oh, well, society won't flourish. Well, I want don't give a shit about society. I want me to flourish. I'm the damn quizotes hoider Rock. Okay, I'm setting up my god Emperor dynasty. Give a shit about you. Also, Plus I'm the quiz outsider Rock, so you can't review that anyway. So the point is that this
is a classic ethical critique that's made of utilitarian ethics. And I'm not knocking every libertarian, but most libertarians haven't looked into the critiques of utilitarian ethics. That's the point, and we're gonna open it up here in a second. I'm gonna go to my friend top Lobster. Well, he's the top lobster. He's a top of the hierarchy. You know. It's like it's like one guy calls in and it's like, is he the top lobster? Yes? Yes, excuse me, my My Jordan is a little off today because
I've been drinking evanescence. Wake me up inside, Wake me up inside, CAUSI from the nothing ivy Coom. I'm gonna be burping all time. Now another point about the nap, and then we'll open it up again. I got a million critiques. I'm gonna stop here though, because I've been fussing this whole time. I got a bunch of people on line. By the way, we don't have to talk about libertarianism only today. If you're a Catholic, if you're a Protestant, if you're a Calvinist and evangelical, a
Muslim, an atheist, you're welcome to call in. Somebody said, you don't know what debate Jews? Dude. Do you know how many Jews have ever called in to debate ever? Absolutely zero? So what do you mean. There was one offer to debate a Jewish guy like five years ago, and he wanted to debate masonry and Pythagrenism. I don't give a shit about masonry and Pythagorena. I'm not gonna debate that. And then another Jewish guy the other day said, I want a big debate. You owe me this
debate. I don't owe you a debate. By the way, it was a small channel anyway. So Jews don't believe that they have to go out and proselytize. Okay, so they're kind of like Buddhists. People wold you to debate a Buddhists. I'm literally people were asking me that you don't debate
Buddhists. Buddhists don't proselytize. Jews don't proselytize. So they're not doing apologetics unless they feel like Judaism is being encroached upon or they're having some disturbance in Israelism, then they'll debate one of these messionic people because that's the only time they debate usually Anyway, last point about utilitarian ethics and the idea of the
NAP again going back to to the presuppositions of utilitarians ethics. One of the problems with this is the assumption that most NAP people have is that it's physical aggression. Well, that's not the only way that I can aggress people, Okay. I can engage in subterfuse and economic warfare. I can engage in toxic cultural warfare. If you go back to the Cokeuash debate from ten years ago, he was mystified when I brought up toxic culture and cultural war,
which is a very fundamental aspect of how warfare goes on. Like we saw with all this degeneracy, this is part of culture war. This book that we've been covering sex that's being honest, I mean, the whole damn book that Whitney Webb wrote about, jeff Stein mcguffrey culture War, and then Adam kinquesh is over he who's culture war? What it even is? The what even is that? Yeah? Exactly like Bryce and Gray level what that he
is? What that he is? What that he is? Fallacy is so for example, in a utilitarian system, if we are always, for example, to prefer the greatest number, the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, for example, there's nothing that prevents me in that ethical system from not physically engaging in subterfuge, but engaging in all kinds of underhanded economic warfare or psyops or whatever against my neighbors and my enemy or my economic competition.
I spread lies in the community about the rival cookie company and that they're putting gay sprinkles in the cookies that are making everyone gay, not just the frogs. Right, did I aggress anyone? It's not true. I didn't physically aggress them, so I didn't violate any utilitarian ethical problems. Another one of the classic critiques, too, is the example of you could actually argue that punishing innocent people is viable in this worldview if it causes a high level of
satisfaction and peace and ease to the greatest number of people. So, for example, let's say there's a serial killer on the loose. We don't know who it is. He's uh, he's just ripping up people left and right in the village. Right, he's Jeffrey Badonka doncin on a daily basis. Uh, And we don't know what to do. So me and the village elder is the council on the quisterat we sit down and say, you know what, we got this slow boy over here that's really annoying. Okay,
and we don't like him. Now he's not actually the serial killer. But you know what, for the safety and security of dire village, we're gonna say that slow boy over here is our Jeffrey Badonka donk serial killer. And we'll hold a public exit you know, trial and all that and uh, because you know, getting justice, even if it's not the right dude, Why, it provides a whole heap of security and ease on the part of the entire village. And so what's better that one man die or that the
whole nation die. That's from the Gospels, by the way. Now, this whole system is only as good as it's classical libertarian ethos and its utilitarian ethics, which is to say, not very good. Now, does that mean I'm against private property? No? Does that mean I'm against having a
business and making a profit. No. There's a lot of good points in this economic system and in these theories, but the presuppositions are off, and so the system is not going to work because it presupposes an atheistic, materialistic ethos It denies obligations and collective metaphysical realities that you're part of a family, part of a tribe, part of a nation state, and then that part in part makes up who you are. Libertarians says, I'm just meet.
I ain't got no I ain't got no obligations to nobody but myself. So you become the atomized individual. By the way, none of this is anything even remotely connected to historic Christianity, which believes in a leader who is anointed and coronated by the church. It's called a coronation ceremony, and that's literally almost always been a king or an emperor. And this is all ultimately to
place economics as the center of man's meaning, life and activities. It's not by accident that after the Enlightenment what becomes the center of every city is that a giant ca you go to European cities, what's in the center, giant cathedral? Now, what's in the center of a city, center of the city. Damn banks, giant ass banks everywhere. Okay, also by the
way, usury is not right. Pretty much every enlightenment libertarian person, going back to their libertarian forefathers classical liberals, is always out there defending usury. So there we go. All right, we're going to open it up. It doesn't have to be about Enlightenment liberalism and all this kind of stuff. If you want to talk about any of the other theological positions topics, you want a debate, you can have the floor. You can talk as long
as you want. Somebody says, do you have an OF? Yes? I do, and it's only me wearing yogurt pants. Did I say yoga pants? I said yogurt pants. You don't know what those are. You're gonna have to subscribe to my OF to figure it out. And it's not pretty and it's not cheap. But hey, I'm providing the greatest number of pleasure points by me flexing my booty muscles in my yogurt pants to the greatest number of people. So go chew on that, son, core Cagri Kagar
can't read your Turkish script? What's up, Turk? You gotta un mute man? Got on mute man, Hello, Sir. I was in another space film and if I may. I want to read you something from regard from what Mary you said, from something. I want to read from something what kouran uh huh okay, I wonder your reaction. Okay, okay, theah, okay, let me give me. I got my Quran right here
where you at. Just tell me the number. I can't tell what you're saying now, you know, I can't tell this number because this course in front of me did not just see it. But let me check it from okay, uh okay, tell you what you go find that and we'll come back to you here in a minute. We'll come back. We'll come back to you in a minute. You find that, just request to speak again. I'll come back to you next, I promise. Knock Castle, what's
up? Somebody said, Amazon and Customer Support called me up top Lobster where you had there? You dropped off. I was looking forward to talk to you. He just keeps popping out top Lobster. You know. It's like it's like the guy called top Lobster. It's like he calls in, you know, and then he squawned. Go ahead, man, guys, you gotta have your mic permission turned on if you want to come on and talk, and then you got to unmute James McPhee, right, yeah, sure,
Hey, you don't want to be there. What how's it going, Jay, how are you? Oh? Yeah, that was a Jordan Peterson. Okay, what's up man? Not too bad? Not too bad? Yeah, I was just wondering, you know, it's it worth having a conversation that in all of Christendom, you know, with after the Reformation, that before the Reformation we kind of lived in a theocracy. God was number
one in our society and our civilization mm hmm. And then you had the Reformation, and out of that you had John Law, liberalism and Enlightenment. And I think the god for for liberal, for liberal and the libertarian is individual freedom. I think that's their god. Oh yeah, absolutely. In fact, it's the same premise as Crowley, right, do what thou wilt? Oh, and Neopagans have, which is wicked people believe in something similar
as well. Well. The neo Pagans and the Wicca actually comes from Crowley. So Gerald Gardner, who's the father of modern Wicca, studied the rank of the Oto, which is Croley's thing before he created wiccaus So's it's a completely ahistorical, made up thing. In fact, we were laughing. I did a whole livestream making fun of his the documentary about his grimoire. Dude literally wrote his grimoire on legal pad. Okay, we're supposed to think this
is some ancient text. It's written on damn legal pad. Bro It is funny. But anyway, Yeah, I think you're right that. And I forgot to mention that Libertarians and Marxists have the exact same end goal. They all believe in the withering way of the state. Oh you didn't know Marx's libertarian digit. Yeah. And for the Marxist their god, you know, more than likely, maybe it's a bit of a straw man, but more than likely their god is the community and equality, as that's the god that
they worship. Yes, at the lower levels, the highest levels of of them are Satanists and Sapparians explicitly so read the book Marks and Satan by Richard Bernbrand for example. Okay, our Turkish friend is back. Can you pronounce it? So what's the surah? Yes? It is three thirty three two, three thirty seven. I will read Okay, okay in beginning, indeed, allah favorite Adam My family of Avadam and family of Immland being from each other's limage over the people of the time. And Allah is the one who
is best knows best. When the wife of Imrand, I'm the mother of the eric, said Myra, I surely don't have the word what's in my womb for you, referring that she wants to raise Mary as a clergy and none of God accept it for me. You surely are the one who hears best, knows best. And when she delivered her, she said, Myra, I have definitely delivered a female. Her aunts is all us speaks now yet knows better what she has delivered. Now, please note this town.
Wife of Emna says she was asking for a male to raise him as a man of book and a man of religion. But as Mary born as a female, she was surprised. You see, she was actually didn't want it because she wants to read the man of religion. And Allah says, here all that knows better was she is delivered. This is in Please notice not and all that keeps talking male is not like female. Sorry, a wife
of emails keeps talking male, male is not like female. There, preferring that females cannot be a clearly yet and surely I have named her Mary, and indeed I make her and her worry. What's the argument here is, I'm conident saw her accepted Mary with a beautiful acceptance. Now I'm rereading thirty seven. And he made her grow as a beautiful plant. Okay, po motisto, he made her grow as a beautiful plant. And and may the carrier I got and told to marry that she did not deliver pieces I love.
I can't. I can't understand half of what you're saying. What's the argument, man? Argument here? Look? This is this is my lated to Mary in all I said while being rifle, Mary's gender? And does somebody question Mary's gender? Yes? Yes, yes yes bro. This is not even on topic, no idea what you're saying. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but man, this is just like, what does Mary's gender have to do with anything that we're talking about? And who even
questions Mary's gender? I mean, sorry, man, I'm just I can't Anglo yet. Hey, j how are you doing? Hey? I had a question for you on Islam. So I'm an orthodox Christian. I was Christmian on Holy Saturday, but I had a question on graduation. Oh, thank you. I had an idea question on this whole idea of Abrahammrick religions.
So you put it on a tweet a couple of days ago, weeks ago, about how we don't believe in the same God, how we don't believe in the same God as Muslims just because they say, oh, we believe this historical person of Abraham, we believe that he worship this God, so that means we believe the same God, but just interpret it differently. And I just want to hear your take on this because you understand, you understand that Muslims will tell you very clearly that it's not the trendity. So
Muslims tell you it's not the same God. So the only people making up this idea that we all worship the same God is the people who believe in the Roman Catholic natural theology. No, I hear this from a humanistic Muslims,
right, right, Okay, but but that's true. But my argument against them usually is that, well, you can't make this lower condom common denominator be the God of Abraham or whatever, because like, who's to say that a Hindu can't claim that oh we believe in the same creed or we believe well, I mean that's what Vatican, Vatican two, whatever, Vatican
Tott says Hindus are part of that. Oh really, yeah, says Hindus also worship the One True God. Well, my my against them is that, well, we can't use that this historical person of Abraham as our indicator of we just believe in the same intended God, but just interpreted differently. And my argument would be like, well, Hindu can just say we believe
the same creator or Zoroastrian or a Jew or Anostic or whatever. So our point has to be Christ because like that's essential to Well, it's Christ and the Triad, right, and every Orthodox person knows that Abraham worship the Triad exactly. That's the point of the Reube love Islond. So yeah, all right, I just wanted to hear. Yeah. I mean there's other points too, which is, like you get really philosophical with it. It's called
the the undiscernibility of intentionality and epistemic context. Right, so just because the word, for example, monotheism is used, we don't necessarily know who the reference is, Like you're pointing out, I could be a I could be a theistic Satanist and I believe in one God. You believe in one God, therefore we believe in the same God. But just because well, well, isn't that the whole point though? You mean, just interpret it differently?
Well, yeah, exactly, interpreted differently means different reference. Your one God is Jesus, My one God is Satan. So you can't just you can't get around us by saying, well, it's just interpreted differently, exactly right, because it's also the quantifier shift fallacy. Right, That's like saying, well, I come from one mother. You come from one mother, therefore we all come from the same mother. That's just that's a fallacy. Yeah, thanks for answering that. Yeah, those are good, those are
good points. I think you make a great point there about how to respond to some of these types of arguments. Let's see, by the way, if we got some black Heber Israelites that want to call in, if you we've got Muslims that want to call in, it doesn't have to be about libertarianism. King Alisar, he was in waiting for a long time. Yes, sir, well, I don't want to take up too much time, but I've been kind of just getting into a lot of these differences between Catholicism
and Orthodoxy, so it's kind of sent me down the rabbit hole. But I had personally, I just wanted to pick your brain on this. Are you aware that Bonaventure attempts to ground a type because I'm very captivated by the transcendental argument in rather than natural theology, Like natural theology just seems dangerous to me, so I want to find it sort of and I know you might think this is impossible, but are you with that Bonaventure at least attempts to
ground a type of Catholic presuppositionalism. I have a quotation, but you probably might be aware of this already. Yeah. I mean, I think at that time, when you had more of an influence of Augustinian thought, you might have people tending towards those types of moves. But it's not it's still not going to be tagged. I mean, I think Richard of Saint Victor, like he tried to he tried to show that there's trinities in nature, but I mean he's getting that from like people in the Orthodox East, like
Saint Maximus, who thinks that there's little trinities in nature. So, but that isn't necessarily the same thing as the transcendental argument, where we're trying to ground knowledge as a whole in God. But wouldn't you say that the transcedential argument comes from sort of seblings. It's not explicitly said in the Fathers, but it's based you know, Van Till, I think is a Calvinist. But it's not explicitly said in the Fathers, but we can still use it
as orthodoxical. Well, John Damascus explicitly does use a transcendental argument. So in the Fount of Knowledge, that's the first page. That's Yeah, I was reading that referen Could you explain that a little to me, because I was trying to just say I wanted it inexplicit grounding from the Church Fathers to you know, support it. I mean, it's the first page of the Fountainology says that what would we say to somebody who you know, denied the
possibility of logic argumentation at all? And he says that, well, you would still be using logic and augmentation to argue against logical argumentation. So and he's just pulling out from Aristotle's metaphysics. Yeah, yeah, all right, I think I'll look into that. And then secondly, this is sort of more on topic with the whole libertarian thing. It just got me thinking,
go ahead, Oh yeah, I know you do. You do like film interpretation stuff with the esoteric Hollywood, right, Yeah, I wrote two books and did a TV show. Yeah, so this is it's gonna sound kind of retarded, but I'm kind of retarded in this way. Have you ever been Nolan's a Batman trilogy and the final one do you see? And I know Nolan's all over the place with his sort of thing, but it's still interesting. There's a sort of juxta position between at the final speech of the
antagonist sort of going on and on about a sort of Marxist Yeah. I in fact, I commented on the libertarian elements versus communist elements when I first wrote analysis back at the time. Oh did you did you comment on this specifically? Yeah? Okay, then I thought I was bringing something. But that's interesting, But but you do see the sort of like almost mephistle in. Yeah, I wrote, I wrote a whole essay on it. Yeah you can go. I'm not trying to be rude, but yeah, you
can go read my essay on Dark Knight and all that. Jonathan Ta, Jonathan Tata, what's up, dude? Can you hear it? Say? What? Can you hear me? Yeah? Kind of? What's up? Man? Yeah? What's I'll be photowing you for a while. Uh huh. I have a question about the tug argument. Okay, Yeah, why is it? Why is anything problematic that the argument is is so colored?
I keep hearing you say that it's because the argument is a metad logical argument, but I can't really understand why it's solves the problem, right, because it's making the point that at a certain level, all authority claims will be circular. So it's that's just restating the point that there's nothing that's self evident.
Yeah, but can't everybody can't. Can't anybody just makes such a claim, and can can't anybody just because no, because then you would have to give an account for the possibility of knowledge through how your system is coherent. So it's not saying that everybody's systems are circular, so we're all just caught in circularity. It's saying that, at a basic level, since nothing is
self evident and all ultimate authority claims are going to be self referencing. For example, can you define words without using words or can you explain meaning without assuming that words have meaning? No, So, at a very basic level, a lot of things end up being circular like this. It doesn't mean all arguments are circular. So that's two different things. That's why there's different
types of logic, different types of claims about logic. There's first order, second order, So second order or metal level is like raising it to a higher level. Right, there's the proposition P is true or P therefore q, and then there's the truth of the proposition P there for Q, or a statement about the proposition P there for q, and then there's a savment about the statement P there for q. So these are all these are all just raising the bar at a higher level, and that can go on into
infinity. That's the point of Tortoise and Achilles by Lewis Carroll. So you know you don't understand how that's different than saying that, Yeah, okay, I question why how how do you like justify the author exposition the only fundy So we've done about twenty we've done about twenty podcasts on this. You can go look it up, but I do not really want to do rehash all the TAG arguments today. I've literally done probably twenty podcasts and talks on how
do we get to tag or how do we get to orthodoxy? You're from TAG? Justin what's up? Man? Oh? Hey? Am I have a speaker now? Yeah? What's up? Man? Oh hey? So yeah, I just want to say I appreciate your, uh, your positions on libertarianism. I have, you know, I was very much libertarian for a while and have been moving away from that in parts to people like you really uh, you know, showing it for what it is and how without moral underpinning it is very much yeah, very much more uh you know,
self serving and you know, pleasure seeking than anything else. So yeah, my main question that is going to bring up today was so I'm a Protestant. I guess you could say evangelical. I'm not sure you know really how people defind Matt. But I'm you know, I'm looking at looking an Orthodoxy, you know, pretty heavily recently. And something I've noticed is that, you know, the uh, the procession argument of you know, between Catholics
and orthodox seems to be a very pretty big issue. And I don't know why I've studied, you know, I've been there's a lot of studies of the Holy Spirit. Is this a difference between difference between a monarchical tranitarianism and true monotheism, mainly namely that there's one God, the Father Almighty versus a diad a father son that becomes a new unity that that uh precedes a new a third person. So like the kind of position then is the diet?
Is that what you're saying, because okay, so yeah, so you say the points that the reason that is the point of contention is because it ultimately affects the nature of the God that is being correct and then uh, there's a bunch of things that flow from that mistake. So we think that created grace flows from that mistake because ultimately, even philioqua doesn't stand alone as like
a sole problem in a vacuum. The philioqua is a result of absolute divine simplicity, which is the Latin view of adopting essentially the Neoplatonic definition of what
divine simplicity is. And that's what leads to the speculations about ways to differentiate the persons via a double hypostatic procession, namely the philioque, so that then leads to created grace, which is a romanceelic dogma that then leads to other problems in the papacy, the papacy basically becoming the vehicle through which the whole spirit comes to the church. None of that would have ever had happened had
they not had this mistake in the triad. And if you want to read a good book on that, it's called Church Papsy Schism by Philip Schard. Okay, excellent. Yeah, I was gonna ask for you, how any reference readings, So I will definitely make a note of that and begin and I really appreciate it. Yeah, absolutely good questions. Also, I mean we've lectured through Sashensky's whole uh Philly Oquay book, so you can go find that podcast too. Only feel like Hot Texas Homestead Yikes, it sounds like
that. Sounds like them pig the fat people in the in the Lost Highway filming dirty movies. That's a that's a joke. What's up Homestead home Slide? What's up? Faster balls? Hei? We miss you down at church. We want you to give an offering two dollars, uh, two dollars offering for the for the mega food everything counts. I got a question. So I'm trying to figure out how to I guess how to word, but how do you I guess, rectify with with the with the Eastern Orthodox position?
Uh? With and excuse me for for for signing off. I'm just still trying to figure out how how it words? But how how do you rectify the position with the church to to like American? Uh? You probably discussed a little bit about it earlier. I didn't catch the entirety of the
of the of your of your talk. But how do you rectify it with with the classical liberal I guess position or the the why do I have why do I have the do you mean no, just just the just the foundation of of of the American system with the constitution not really not really rectifying. But how how do you explain the Eastern North position with it? When when the Eastern Orthodox, Uh, they're they're right there, They're part of the part of the state. Is that would that be correct in your in your
argument part of the state. I don't understand anymore, right, it would the East the Church is part of the state, right, the church is because there's not a separation of church and state. Well, we don't try to. We don't try to force we can't force the government to be uh you know, holding to what we think is the traditional position, and the
church is not. The church can exist in any country even I mean the Roman Pagan Empire didn't accept that position of the Orthodox Church, right, so, uh so it really has nothing to do with like, I don't have to reconcile Orthodoxy to American government. Yeah, yeah, I get that, and it's I'm just trying to question how the because you were you were speaking
about the h I guess a preferred system would be the church. Yeah, we don't go for politics first, right, so just like in the early Church, they didn't try to force everybody into some right wing political system. They converted the empire and then the empire converted, So likewise, we would convert America. We're not trying to top down make the government orthodox. That's would be a giant failure. Cash yus, what's up? But thank you
for that question you got on mute man am Iona. So I was curious in there seemed to be these mistakes like the king, we already did this, We've already had this conversation with you, Zechariah. What's up? You got on you man? This guy just loves to call in and like complain about the Book of Daniel. He does it all the time. Go ahead, Zachary, get on you man. What's up? Ja? Can you
hear me? So? I was going over your disproving the five ways of a quietness and you mentioned how the it doesn't logically follow there needs to be an ultimate cause if when you're from empiricism, correct, correct, So with regards to you, you mentioned the Hume David Hume. You mentioned the Bill R. Bulls and the causation that we don't we see it an A and MB but we don't see right, Well, we called that causation. We're not literally seeing causation right right? And I'm not you know, I'm a
Christian. But I just was wondering, obviously we can could it be argued or from my perspective, I just need more clarity. I guess, like we see the one ball hitting the other ball, and we see it. I mean, we call it causation, and I know that's just a name we've given, but I'm just wondering how you wouldn't like we can surely you can imp you could imply tested like the one ball hitting the other or something.
Yeah, but if you read David Hume again, if you read David Hume, he points out that testing this does not prove that it is the thing. So, in other words, you can test it all you want, it doesn't prove that it's an actual metaphysical principle out in reality, because you know, ever know that that regularity in nature is actually a real thing out there, or that it always holds. So the point is that it
assumes induction. How do you prove induction empirically? You can't? Okay, Okay, so you can Okay, so you can assume that that's what's happening. But then you could then say that that's that's just what everything is. Yeah, And it begs the question to assume that that's what's happening, because that's what's in question. Okay. Yeah, And we're we're not saying that it's not what's happening. We're just pointing out that calling it causation is an
interpretation of the phenomena. The phenomena itself does not give you a raw experience of causation unless you assume that it does, but that's the thing in question. So in other words, it ends up being a metaphysical assumption that's not
proven by the phenomena. It's a metaphysical assumption read into the phenomena. And it is true that it is causation is occurring, but the way that we know that and justify that is because we have metaphysical presuppositions part of a worldview, not that the actual empirical data gives us this like raw experience of causation, because you can never approve that empirically. It's always just assumed. So the point is that empiricism is not true, and empirical philosophies that is,
I'm not saying that we don't have an empirical element to our philosophy. Empiricist philosophies are false. So is it kind of similar to the problem of induction, where it is just because you see it absolutely correct. Okay, alright, And if you think about it, humans just making the same argument for these different domains. He's saying t loos is not self evident. Causation is not self evident, induction is not self evident. Laws of logic are not
self evident. They seem to be the case. But how do I justify that without without assuming the thing in question? If I'm an imperial Yeah for sure. I mean, yeah, Hume's interesting because he is, like you say, over time, he's just very honest, and he takes these things logical conclusion. Yeah, kind of shoots the entire empiricist enterprise in the foot exactly, absolutely, And that's why we utilize his argumentation, not accepting his
worldview, but pointing out those are good arguments. If I'm an empiricist, I should be consistent and that leads me to human skepticism. Well, if I'm a human skeptic, then I don't get to use all these arguments as if they're self evident or against Christianity. Now to that guy that was in the chat over here on YouTube saying Jesus is not the Messiah, Jesus was not Hebrew. This is just idiotic. So tenebris, if you want to come into the chat, you're welcome to there's the link to the to the
call in. All right, Dusty Balls, I know I'm gonna get some quality argumentation from Dusty Bowls. He is the cousin of Randy Balls, by the way, like it's all Ja. There after you do there after you they know you, They know you was doing a bunch of money laundering at that pat at that church. What was to me? Uh, Joe, you know you can hear me through ahead. Awesome man, Jay, I'd love to state a position. Get your take on it, Jay, Like you, I'm confusin subject man, your work on the Bad Guys did it?
Dude lectures on trash and quote man, snap snap snap man. But yeah, I'll be glad to the positioned him. Okay, let's say what are you going? Thank you? Okay. My position, Jay is I start from a way of confusion, a way of confusion. I would think that my position, Jay, is that I see three things. Absolutely. I see infinity, distinction, and the the happening of that. I think, Jay, this is a reflection of the trinity that's you're speaking of. I think that it is. When I see infinity, I see it's kind
of like the imagination. It's kind of I can see all the possible moments that I could be experiencing as my imagination. That's infinity. I see the one manifest reality in front of me. That's the distinct, And I see the happening coming from Infinity to the Infinity in front of me, and it's happening. I think it's the reflective of the Trinity. I believe. You tell me if it is the Father as Infinity, the Son as the distinct and I call it the Mother, but Holy Spirit as the happening between the
two. Jay is this And this is very close to something that Augustine argues on the Trinity. He also kind of makes similar analogy arguments in confessions. So I wouldn't say it's totally out of place, but I think there's a little bit of ambiguity and confusion because, for example, as Bird's not a woman, so she's not a mother. Holy Spirit is a third person of the Godhead of the Trinity, and equally divine to the Father and the Son.
And just because there's some manifestations of the Chicaana or something like that that might reference to the Holy Spirit doesn't mean the Holy Spirit's a woman. So I think that a lot of times the danger isn't are there trinities in nature, it's rather that people think that the trinities that exist in nature are then read back into God and then the triad conforms to the created thing, when it's the other way around, created things conformed to the triad. So we
have to start with the triad, not our speculations about created trinities. All Right, I understand I can use the mother aspect just kind of a cultural see it kind of thing, but yeah, they kind of take the whole position. I do see this kind of way of confusion. In my position is that the reality is coming to me, and I understand I can't control it all, and so with that I yield I say, Okay, there's a higher power than the control I have over my experience. So I yielded
that higher power. So if I continue into what's real, what's not real, what's going on in this kind of in this kind of position where it secure me, what I do know is absolute is that I am. That's it. I can't debate my own existence well, and I appreciate that. I'm gonna I'm gonna move on to the next one because that gets into like daycarts, and I don't think day carts. I think therefore I am is a very good argument. You can look up where we've critiqued to Deaycartes.
But also again I think we have to go from divine revelation first, to know the trinity, at least as far as it's revealed to us in scripture and tradition. And then and then we can say, okay, there's elements in creation which image this triad. But we can't start with all these things about you know, time and distinctions and time and then read that back into God, uh, starting from the created, because that ends up usually putting
us in really weird, weird positions. Let's see Walid Naim Wali name. All right, he's trying to connect, so you might have to come back out and come back in or something. It's not it's not working. So then we already go to you, James, We already did you, man. I don't know. People like why you keep raising? All right, you're going crazy with your hand raising here. But then we already we already did you. What's up? Yeah, I'm yeah, what's up? It
was actually to do with states rights? Okay, what's up? It was to do with states rights? What was it? Huh? The ward to State's eighteen sixty one to sixty five. I don't remember talking about states rights wars? What do you mean? It's just an interesting conversation you know, with the whole thing, and it's probably the most interesting case study you could do in politics, you know. Okay, all right, I'm not trying to be rude. I just don't understand, like, what how does that
fit into what we were talking about? I mean, I understand states rights fits into it, but Matthew, yeah, I'm aware of the Civil War being about states rights. I know all that. I'm not talking to this guy. I'm talking to the chat. I'm aware. Yeah, what's up, Matthew? Oh hey, I was going Jack, can you hear your Yeah, what's up? I was wondering what you would think of a figure
like him and Birch. Shoot, in many ways is a liberal, but I think he, like we would both agree, like private property is not bad. Marcuts aren't bad any of themselves. But a guy like like Birch, you know, he was hierarchy. I think, uh, the thing with Burke though, Yeah, I'm I'm aware understand all that. I think the thing with Burke though, is that he was a I think he was a right wing Mason. So that would be my main critique there, Satyam, we've got a Hindu bro on here. What's up? I don't think
we were. Have we ever had a Hindu bro calling it? I don't think we ever have. How come you don't debate Hindus been? I'm mute, man, you're much done? Good? Can you hear me? Yes, sir? How are you? What's up? I'm doing good? Uh so I'm a Hindu? Will we and I don't see that in the title of this space. But i'd just i'd just like to know about your point of view about Hinduism. I think it's uh, polytheism and idolatry. Oh, you don't think it's monothism. Well it would be a theism maybe,
but not mono theism. Oh it is monothism. Well, I mean if you want to redefine the word to mean that. Okay, Monotheism is about worshiping one God and the induscriptures talk about everything being all right. So that's that's not mono theism. That's pantheism is like a lot of God's right all right. So it's not gonna work. George, what's up? George? Much fun here? Can you hear me? Sir? Yeah? What's that? Man? Go ahead? First of all, thank you for your coming.
I'm always a book Christian in Syria. I live in here right now. I must have a question like outside of the current pop I'm sorry again, it's not I'm not trying to be mean, but every time we do this people call in about not the topic. It drawsn't crazy, So no, tan gee, what's up? Nice to be back to one thousand live stream exactly, we've got over a thousand we only got two hundred and eighty nine likes. Come on, y'all, what's up? Y'all? Don't like
this times? You gotta u mute man? All right? Though, yes, sir, I was curious about, like, there's been these people that I, uh soa I'm the next Protestant, and I've been trying to kind of look forward some type of Protestant justification, and I call them out for a lot of positions like for the quit and talk about the inconsistencies and problems with that, and a lot of times they will just start to adopt orthodox
theology as Protestants. So a lot of times they will literally just like take it and claim like sure you can, we can just take all these things. I'm curious what you think about those people. I just like to start taking doctrines. I think it's a natural move Like I remember being Protestant, and when I was first looking at a Roman Catholicism, I remember thinking, oh, well, I can like be Protestant and then adopt these positions. And what they don't realize is that, first of all, all of the
Orthodox doctrines hang or fall together. So, for example, if I adopt the Orthodox view of the triad, that also necessitates logically theologically the Orthodox doctrine of the essencenity distinction. The essencenitty distinction then affects my view of the sacraments in the Church, So I can't consistently hold to a Protestant doctrine of the church where I'm also trying to have an Orthodox view of the sacraments. It
starts to make absolutely no sense. But an actual process and progress, that's typically what happens. Like it's a natural progression to where you start thinking, you know, oh well, maybe I can hold to you know, some on a real presence in the Eucharist, and then then you kind of grad well, maybe we need to have some kind of hierarchy in the church, so I'll be like a high Church Anglican. And then and then you gradually just realize, Okay, the Protestants are just wrong. So it's a it's
a package deal. It's not a pick and choose thing. But I mean it makes sense because Protestantism is all about pick and choose. You also, I've heard you talking about like this triad a lot. I'm not super deep and orthodoxy. What was exactly the difference between triad theology and Trinitarian theology. It's just the Greek word for trinity. So and by the way, this shows how ignorant Trent Horne is because he thinks triad is an anti Trinitarian term,
which is utterly dumb. I don't know where he got this idea. He by the way, he hasn't changed his statement on this in like a year of saying the same stupid thing. So the top Roman Catholic apologist doesn't even know that the standard Greek term for trinity is triad and that this is used amongst the Greek fathers. So does he supposed that he attends an Eastern right church, you didn't even know this. So anyway, not trying to be rude, but that's what triad means. So anyway, we get mad.
I think I'm being mean everybody know, bro, what what's up? Man? We're not here to We can't debate state rights in the Civil War. Okay, that's not for you too, man, what's up? Did you want to make your final point? How was it going? Yeah? Originally, originally I was trying to make a point that all of Christendom has replaced the one true God with false gods of individual communism, also national socialism. But the Islamic world never did that. Why do you think that is
Well? I think Islam is more directly theocratic, or at least it's supposed to be. But there actually have been quite a few movements that the CIA fostered, like the kla where they did blend communism in Islam. That's what that has actually happened. All these people who've already talked, keep calling, Like, if you've already called, don't don't clog up the thing here, keep calling in Siddhartha, they took their stone from here. They took their
stones from here. Uh rand w would you like to call in? Anybody talking smack in the chat needs to call in. So this is just literally the stupidest idiocy God is is his own son. Okay, do you understand the word God picks out different things. Go ahead, man, what's up? Hear me? Hey? What's up? Yoh? What's up? Man? Yeah? So I was just wondering if you'd, like, if you'd
answer the question like regarding the essence and us distinction. Yeah, right, So regarding this this problem, like would you agree that throughout those scriptures, like whether it be in the Old Testament when God is speaking things into creation, or when he's speaking through the prophets speaking before the Congregation of Israel, or in the New Testament where Jesus Christ is speaking, are the words that God's God is uttering these particular words, Like would you agree that these are
like God's uncreated energies? Yeah, they're called logi. Right. So like when Augustin and I think it's Confessions book eleven, I didn't realm with the chapter away, Augustine is arguing like his reasoning through this thing things and is saying that God's words are like created, so right, correct? Right, So you need to read Saint Maximus who explains that the divine ideas are logie and they're uncreated. The vibe is a book, it's a physical thing that's
created. The words on the pages are symbols, they're created symbols, but the actual referent what it's referring to are the thoughts of the logos, the LOGI. Right, So I was just pointing out accustomed to clarify my statement, So like about that, right, I understand? For example, Yeah, we would, we would reject and critique. Actually, doctor Bradshaw has a good critique of a lot of the uh neo Plutonian arguments in the Confessions,
right, right, So about that? So for example, when Indual Testament, like I just want to say that, I'm like, there is Christ the service of his issue, so like I would put in to like know everything. So but again the Old Testament, when in the Book of Leviticus, where God is giving these temp temporary laws to Israel regarding a Puritan
impurity regarding a sacrificial and temple offerings. Yeah, if the words that God is uttering, if these are increded energies, I think this acologically follows that the words a God saying is a eternity nature Like, then how if God's words are necessary, then how is it that God can give temporary commandments that? Yeah, this is covered in the Triads three, Section two or sat Gregory Palamas says that God can also act within time and space. This is
the whole premise of the incarnation. So even though God's words are eternal. Roh, come on, you're breathing so loud in the phone, man. Even though God's words are eternal, he can still manifest in time and space and also come and go in time and space. There's nothing limiting God from
doing that. That's the whole premise of the incarnation. That the second person of the Godhead, not the Divine Essence, the second Hypostasis, not the Father, not the Holy Spirit, the second person of the Godhead, stepped into time and space, entered into a motive being that the other two persons did not, and he walked around and did things. This is Philippians two.
This is the kinosis, not hinosis, kinosis of Philippians too. That he took on the form of a servant and limited himself, meaning that he willed not to exercise all of his divine powers and thus put himself into a mode of being. He was still omniscient, still omnipresident, but he's also uniquely present in Jerusalem, uniquely present in Capernaum. That's the unique mode of the incarnation, and that's part of the essen Center distinction. Correct, not
all of God's actions are identical. So if you if we've already come to you man, we're going to the new people Rice, see what's up? Oh yo? So what's the best way to argue against his black keybrids? Do all that stuff? Because I know people who actually believe this. They just used like the most basic literary arguments like that passes with the hair thing.
I mean, I don't know how you if people are like that, you know, uneducated, and they don't know what a suffix is, and they can't go and see that a Jew or Jews or Jewish refers to Yahudite, that it means the same thing as you can see here in the strong the very strongest definition that that guy read out, Like, I don't know what, like you're dealing with people who like are functionally illiterate, almost, I don't know, Like, I don't know, how do you How do
you explain to somebody what a suffix is if they don't understand it. I mean, that's actually that that's actually a question. I don't know the answer to. Rico Sabe, what's it called? I was gonna ask you about I suppaly the thing this thing recently, the code in the Codex vaticandas if I'm saying that right, I had a little footnote beside one of the texts, one of the Greek texts, and it says something around like it was
like fool and knave, why are you distorting the scriptures or something. It was talking about something like that, And I've heard this from Muslims talking about and they were, you know, trying to get a gotcha moment with that, trying to say how like, oh, that's proof it's corrupted or something. But my kind of response was like, if that's the case, it would be it would be corruption that's actually that's against Jesus's divinity. It wouldn't
have been people. And like the time where Croix's meatchanis was what three fift three hundred and fifty, So it wouldn't have been people trying to make him divine. It would have would have ray been stated. I said, I'm assuming it would have been like Gnostics or Aryans that were the culprits of like
what this little footnote said. And I was just wondering, what's your opinion with that, I mean, yeah, I mean we followed the received text generally in the Orthodox Church, which is not the oldest but is what we accept by tradition, so you can't really divorce tradition from this. But I don't think Codex Vaticanus is therefore like it's not necessarily some trick or they're trying
to like devalue Christ divinity or something like that. But yeah, I mean, if if there was gonna be a devaluing of Christ divinity, it wouldn't be from you know, sources within the church. That's kind of stupid Orthodox. So every time we do this, we don't we don't actually get any libertarians or atheists that call in. It's always just people calling in with a
bunch of Orthodox questions, which is fine. I'm not mad at people, but it's like, like the topic is libertarianism, atheism, Catholicism, Protestism, Islam, Okay, it's not like ask me int jurisdictional Orthodox questions or whatever. And I'm not talking about the previous guy. I'm talk about the other guy calling in about all the stuff off topic. Does any are there anybody nobody can in these positions, like you can just call and make actual
arguments, like where are the people who can make these arguments? Dawn Tredder? You have to ie mute man. Oh, I'm sorry. Thanks for letting me ask you a question. What do you think about the idea that your version of Christianity is, on its face a Jewish slash Roman slash pagan myth and to believe in any of it as literal is the type of insanity? Well, I mean, what's then? What's the other version that we should believe in? Something gnostic? Is that where you're going? Yeah,
ancient alien pantheus gnosticism the true God. Yeah, I mean, let's let's go with that. How do you know that ancient alien gnosticism is correct? Well, we don't know it. That's why it's God, because it's a mystery. Okay, So do you know that we can't know that? Yes, as far as what knowing means to me, Okay, what does that mean? It means I think it's right right now? Oh okay, but maybe not tomorrow. So you don't know it. Well, if it's the
same tomorrow, that's even increases how right I think? Okay? What's so? What's your account of knowledge? What are the reasons what are the good reasons to believe what you're talking about? The Samerian texts and difference? Why am I supposed to believe Samerian text makes more sense than the Jewish myth? How do I know that makes more sense that God created in six thousand years
ago? Okay, So these ridiculous myths, which are even more ridiculous on what you're calling ridiculous, we're supposed to believe that those are the ones that make more sense. Well, I guess I just wanted your response. Yeah, my response is, how do you know that? What's your account for a pistemology? Oh? I told you that? Me think, No, you didn't give an account. Okay, me think yeah, you think that's a good argument. You think that that's a you don't even understand what a
pistemology is. You think that's a good argument. Not knowing things means thinking it's right off to take in and all the information you can. Right, that's not what it means. So you have no idea what you're talking about, Trudor. My account for a pistemology is I think it's right at this point. I mean that's and if if I mean, if you can't see why that doesn't get you to justification. I mean, then there's this conversation is not going to go anywhere. So look, it's open for them,
but you've got to present an argument. And that's not an argument saying that I know it's right at this time, because that's what epistemology is, is knowing what it is at this time. I mean, that's like so just not I don't even know what to say to that. I mean, people have no idea what it means to give an account for knowledge. So it's open for him. For any libertarian, atheist, Roman, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Islam, etcetera. Whatever, call in and you can make
your case, make your argument, request to speak. Nobody ever does. It's just like people who know no clue what they're even talking about, stone out of their mind. I mean, Tudor, you're gonna have to come out and come back in Sean, what's up, Sean? Hi Jay? Hello? Yeah, yeah, I just want to say thank you very much for invites me on the show. Thank you very much for hosting me. I discovered your channel about a month ago, and and you know, I'd
like to say I'm enjoying the content. Okay, I want to I want to ask you. You have said before that if the uncreated eternal being creates both good and evil, that this is gnostic or many can. But if the being or the deity only creates good, isn't evil a philosophically independent existence? Doesn't evil have a philosophically a philosophically independent existence, wouldn't create a dualist reality with two uncreated beings? No, it was precisely while we don't think
that evil has any substance or being, it's a privation. Okay, But if evil doesn't exist then okay, forgive me. Does this mean that evil doesn't exist? Right? It means it's a privation like a lack, right, like negative numbers or something like that. Right, those are analogies, so too. For us, all evil is is the move of the will away from the good. So it doesn't grant substance or being to evil. Okay, So all things I just found on a spectrum between better and nothing.
Let's say, you know you you can only get better anyways, okay, So all evil is is to act against God's law. That's it. So when I you know, if I steal, there's nothing wrong with the goods that I've stolen. Uh, there's nothing wrong with my hand that steals the goods. The evil is in my will against the good, and it doesn't mean my will becomes evil in itself. It just means that I'm acting
against my own nature, in God's nature. Okay, I mean, doesn't that mean that the evil has some agency because you I'm the agent who acts against the good to my own detriment, and it's a privation. So no, it doesn't take on agency because evil is not a thing. Okay, what is that which animated you to to commit the evil? Or? Well? Free will is a potentiality, but potentiality itself isn't evil. Okay, So so I have to read more, but I can show a one more
question. Does evil not have agency through the figure of Satan? How does Satan? You know? Right? No, that's a fair question. Right. So in our view, even the angelic nature itself is not bad, but Satan moved to use his will as something bad. So no, even even angelic nature remains good. Gregory, Gregory something I missed it? What the last name was? So we had a bunch of people in the chatt O here talking a bunch of smack. I don't know why don't these people
call in. That's just so annoying, just uh spamming a bunch of garbage about anti trinitarians and then they won't come debate. There's the link. All you gotta is right there calling Go ahead, gregor what's up? Hey, what's up? Thanks very much for hosting this. I appreciate you putting on. I think you might know my brother Timothy Gordon. I don't know. Maybe you guys have debated before we're discussed. I mean, haven't I debated you? No, No, I've never I've never chatted with you before.
I mean, hold on, are there like multiple Gordon brothers? Well, yeah, there's three of us. Oh, I didn't know there was a third. Excuse me, Well, I know, I'm just I'm the anonymous third brother. Okay, well I said, are you trolling? This is a joke or for real? No? No, no, not at all. Hey, on those I've debated, I've debated David and then Timothy and I have had a lot of conversations. We haven't had a formal debate. Okay, I'm the third brother. Yeah, I don't want to debate you.
I just wanted to add to the conversation. I appreciate you hosting this so as someone who's coming from a libertarian ish perspective. Now I'm pretty much in the post libertarian world, but I haven't entered that libertarian to Orthobro pipeline yet. With all due respect to my Orthodox brothers, I am Catholic, but I wanted to say, there is a tremendous different you know, there's a tremendous variety of different flavors of so called libertarians. Some of them are
completely cringe. You know this. That's why I went to the classical liberal position. Okay, okay, fair enough. No, I appreciate that because there are a lot of radical decentralists who, like myself, come from the American tradition firmly within conservatism, embracing pretty much a non universalist perspective except for certain natural rights, which are the most important for any society. You can't
go kill someone, you can't go steal their proper right. There are a lot of right wing libertarians who wouldn't even call themselves libertarians, I think, who are just in this radical secessionism. Radical let's call it federalism, hard federalism, in the American tradition, and I think that's a really interesting space, right. I was even just talking with my brother about this the other
day about like Tolkien having anarchist leanings. Now he's not a radical cultural Marxist, obviously, he came much earlier than the Frankfort school and cultural Marxists. But the point is, we want to devolve society down to smaller groups of people with common cultural backgrounds, religious backgrounds, and then you don't need the state, you know, almost in the Russoviean sense, in the giant monolithic Leviath in the sense. And I just wanted to have a conversation with you
or what are your thoughts on that. I mean, in terms of the diversity within liberty thought, there are a lot of right wing libertarians and like I say, more localists, like radical local Yeah, I would definitely agree more so with those people. I mean, that's the the more that they're moving in that direction as a libertarian, the more we would overlap, so we would kind of be meeting more and more in the middle there. And yeah, yeah, absolutely, But I would also challenge you with this idea
of natural rights. I see this as actually a very susceptible weak point in the libertarian ethos in general. Going back to the Enlightenment, I don't know what a natural right is or how you would give an account for it. Yeah, I think I think I would be searching to explain it within the solidly than Christian orthodoxy, well in terms of just respecting the person. Going back to the Ten Commandments. Okay, so now, but art the ten
comm right? But art the Ten Commandments divine revelation? Correct? Yes, I'm saying something rooted rooted in that, And of course we can tie it all back to Moses divine revelation, of course. But and I know that there's a lot on the right who object to natural rights, which I understand they could be very revolutionary. Appealing to them, could overturn societies. I mean, look at the disaster of the French Revolution and a lot of what
you're talking about too, the Enlightenment. And this is something that I've been thinking through well, but I'm making a more more more specific critique of natural theology. I mean, natural rights has bound up with natural theology, sure, sure, But isn't this something that's kind of at the heart of the American I don't want to say contradiction. I love this country and I love our traditions, but it's almost again, expound on this, please, I'd
love to hear your thoughts. But we are formed in a revolutionary, almost Enlightenment mindset. But yet that's what I said at the beginning of want to conserve these rights at the beginning of the beginning of this stream was a very point. Oh okay, my apologies to hear that. A great conversation though,
great discussion. I appreciate it. And just I would say, keep in mind the radical diversity and in the fight's going on within the so called libertarian and I get it, libertarianism, especially capital l man, so cringey right now, they just they just nominated this chase all of our guy. Yeah, that's why we're doing the stream, you know, got you? Okay, So there's a lot of pure cringe in libertarianism. I get it.
And you're spot on when you say it's kind of like a cringe holdover from the Enlightenments in terms of like, yeah, well, where do we get our rights? Man? I mean, if you're going to be atheistic about this, what's what good is a non aggression principle? Says who, Yeah, I think exactly. Yeah, anyway, thanks very much, I appreciate it. Yeah, pleasure to meet you. I didn't know there was a third Gordon, so that's very cool. Great points, I think.
Yeah, if you go back to the beginning of this chat, you'll notice that a lot of the points I made at the beginning are identical. So we're on the We're on the same wavelength there, let's see. Now. I want to remind you, guys, we got several more people who popped into the chat. Welcome. We're discussing in debating not just libertarianism, but anything to do with libertarian thought, classical liberalism, Enlightenment, philosophy, roum,
Catholicism, atheism, Protestantism, Islam. You're all welcome to call in. I do want to remind you, though, that we do have a show sponsor, and that show sponsor is one and only the Amazing, the Based, the King of based chalk dot Com. I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dies and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy
af there's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences. There's a new certified Sigma male pre workout powder for Sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from the
crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic
caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract, which will get your mind going and pump you up to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind. Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty fake
sucralose. Each dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a cup and a half of coffee deliver bring a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire your boss and dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will make you more dominant
in your daily life, so proceed with caution. It's as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our fine powder into water or juice, providing you with a delicious, energizing beverage featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor. We're back, We're back, We're back. We've got some more people have popped in. Let's see who we're gonna go to you next. Ukraine seven seven seven thought me, we get some vhrs, but no luck today. What's up, Ukraine? Yeah, yeah, hello, yeah, this is
oh yeah, yeah, okay, you can hear me. It does work. Yeah. I was wondering, how so I have a scientific background. I have some interest in quantum mechanics and stuff. Does the fact that that vacuum energy exists and that you get uh you know that that that that even perfect vacuums generate sub atomic particles and things like that. I mean, doesn't is that it is divine energy a possible source for that? And I would also point out you were saying that data can't be sentient. Well, I
kind of disagree with that. If you look at like the Sequel data based programming language or even just Linux bashed scripts, I mean you can have I mean, even if we've never contacted in any non human intelligence at all. I mean that you know, data can still exist in the universe. How would that in any way untail that it possesses sentience or consciousness? So, and I don't know what like all this stuff, I'm a vacuum. I
have no idea what you're talking about. Well, quanta, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, What does that have to do with today's topics though? Well, atheism. I mean what I'm saying is is that if you know, but that energy in a vacuum, it did the scientific instruments basically show it coming from nothing. But I mean, I wouldn't something outside the universe that mensions such as God be a possible source for that? Well, I
mean, if there are energies popping into existence out of nothing. I would say, yeah, there would have to be some kind of transcendent source, but we would say that those are created energies, not uncreated energies. Well, I mean it's at some point if the universe is created by God from divine energy, like divine ESSs to divine energy to created energy, at some point it has to there has to be some crossover from one to the other.
I mean, if you have, like a battery, have a positive side and a negative side, I mean it has to Yeah, I transfer right. Yeah, I would say that God is present in the created order, but that doesn't mean that he has to be equated to the created order. So you can have a both and as opposed to an either or.
There's nothing inherently contradictory about that as a possibility. Yeah, but I mean do you do also do you think it's worth looking in like like what Richard Dawkins was saying, like looking in the human genetic code for some kind of encrypted message in it, And how would that be decoded? If even if you found it, how would you read it? You know, that's the I always wondered about that. I don't find Richard Dawkins to be very convincing
at all due to pretty high level philosophical ignorance. I mean, he might know about his niche field that he studied biology or whatever, but I don't think he's very fluent at all when it comes to philosophical arguments. I mean, I don't know about quantum physics, and I mean at a philosophical level, like, how would you give an account for, you know, your basic worldview if you don't believe in God's existence. Well I do. I'm
I'm actually converting to orthodoxy. I thought you're the idea that science, that science disproves God, not all of it. I mean, the quantum mechanics stuff is strange, it's almost I mean it's it's a lot more like you know, witchcraft or magic than religion. But I mean, you know, if you have stuff popping out of a vacuum, maybe we've seen maybe they kind of found where the rubber hits the road, you know, yeah,
yeah, Well anxiety and the thing is with God. I mean, you have an access to an infinite number of spatial and temporal dimensions anyway, so things like the age of the universe, is the Earth six thousand years old. Don't mean anything. For one thing, where's the clock located? Yeah? I think that's actually that's actually a good question. Yeah, yeah, good good good, uh good challenges good questions there, Bobby C. What's up? Man? Gonna unmute Bobby C. Sorry about that? Can hear
me? Yeah? Perfect. I wanted to try to present an argument against the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist, being that it's the literal trans figuration of trans modification. I'm not sure the exact term. Essentially there is that. Okay, if I go down this and what and what is your position? So at this point I am an Orthodox inquirer, and I was trying to
better understand the position. But this thought that I'm this argument that I'm trying to go through was it was a stumbling block and be trying to figure my way through it. So I wanted to try to present an argument against it if that makes sense, to see how you would kind of respond if that
makes sense? Okay, So essentially my understanding, or at least the argument, would be that the Eucharist, or at least the Orthodox teaching of it, would violate the law of identity because it's if I can just kind of summarize it or simplify it. The bread being transformed into the flesh of Christ would essentially mean without actually taking on the properties of flesh, would mean that it's not actually flesh, but it's still the bread. Does that kind of
make sense, right? So we don't believe that God is bound by Aristotilian logic, right. So, just like you can't use the Aristilian law of identity or other arguments about substance and accidents to refute the triad, you can't refute Christology, for example, by saying that the human nature of Christ is deified. So in the incarnation, the divine person of the Sun assumes human nature and deifies that human nature without it losing its natural properties. It's still
and will always remain created. The same principle is applied by Ephesus and Saint Cyril to the Eucharist, that the Eucharist is transformed into the body, blood, soul, and uncreated energy of the God Man as well. So if you're going to undo the Eucharist and the real presence, you're also going to undo by extension of the incarnation and the deification of Christ human nature. Bobby are either Bobby c I think we lost just so you might want to come. We can't hear you, James. What's up? Yo? Hey?
Hey Jay? What's up? Hey? There just hasn't been a whole lot of Protestant discussion. I'm not going like getting angry or anything. I just had a question about to me. It's kind of like a Protestant argument like verse. I guess, I don't know if you've replied to this before a Protestant verse. How are their Protestant verses? Well, I'm you know, I'm not. I'm it's I might have misspoke, that's go ahead. Yeah, it's just it's in Mark chapter nine. So John tells Jesus that he
saw someone casting out demons in his name. I'm not trying to be mean. We've addressed that probably twenty times. So oh yeah. So it also says that he will be amongst us, So it's not saying that, Oh, it's a free for all. Do whatever you want. Orthodox man, I'm mute, Yes, sir, are you there? You wait all this time and then you don't have your permissions turned on? Can you? Yeah? What's up? Man? Go ahead? Hey, Jay, I got
a quick question. Is it okay if it's about it's kind of about libertarianism. Yeah, that's a topic. Sure, I'm just happy that people are asking topical questions. Go ahead, I just have a question. So, how do you support libertarian or don't support libertarian? Isn't at the same time support bitcoin? I mean, I see those two is kind of the same same thing, if that makes sense? Well, how would the monetary form and policy necessitate classical liberalism? I'm sorry, can you repeat that again?
I'm on my I'm my phones real crappy. Sorry, how would the monetary form necessitate classical liberalism? Because, for example, gold, a lot of people would say, oh, gold is you know, a libertarian currency of choice, probably equal to or up there with bitcoin. Still does that make all of the kings using gold in the Middle Ages therefore libertarian? I didn't think about that. Okay, the form of the money doesn't necessitate classical liberalism. Okay, all right, Yes, I'm just retarded to that. I
also just wanted to say, I do appreciate your content. I was Catholic as of about I don't uh, well, actually, just a year ago I was baptized Catholic, and shortly after becoming Catholic, I noticed a lot of problems with the current pope, and it got me, got me looking into Orthodoxy, and it got me into you. And I could say, because of you, I'm just now and talking with my local priest about joining.
Okay, that's good news. Yeah, And if I could just can I say one thing that I also learned about that helped me for people that might be on the on the bridge of joining one or the other. So I'm I've read. I've been reading through the Apostolic Canons, and I noticed that the Catholic Church has broken several of them. Like one of them was like a clergy can't hold political office. That's correct, clergy can't be involved in the army or military. But the pope can have a standing army.
Wait, you said he Kenner can't according to oh okay, I was because that kind of confused me. The Borgia popes have a standing army. So I'm making a joke. Oh okay, And if I'm not mistaken, there was a warrior pope too, wasn't there? And and then these have to do it more recent times. But it also says bishops and clergy can You can't enter into a Jewish synagogue and then there's another one after that says you can't even light the candles. If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what Pope
Princess has done. Well, Benedict too, and jump Ball. Oh I didn't okay, I didn't even know that goes back. Yeah, that's repeated, I think, and it's in the canons of either Trollo or the six. Secondical Council repeats that canon, So that's correct. I think it's the six Yeah. Yeah, but they don't care about candons, so I appreciate that we're gonna move over, move on. Yeah, they don't. They
don't care. They just said, well, the Pope can do whatever he wants, so he can, he can, he can trump all those things. Bobby C. Did you want to let's go to Logan. He hasn't talked yet. A Jay. You're hearing me, all right. I know
my audio quality probably isn't great. I hear all right. So I was I was just wondering, like, how do on a low level, how do I like, what would be a good way of going about talking to like just basic low level Catholic practitioners about like orthodoxy and kind of not shoving you in in their face, but kind of trying to invite them into the parish and get them out of the insanity that is the Roman Catholic Church. I mean, I don't know what to say other than just being friendly and
inviting them. I mean, if you're talking about inviting people, then you probably meet people in your immediate sphere, so you're not talking about like discoursing on the internet. But I don't know, like you could just keep sending them, you know, clown mass clips and be like, hey, we don't have clown masses, so why don't you come to our church? Pop Bobby c Go ahead. By the way, I remind you guys, it will be live June twenty second in Las Vegas. It's gonna be a lot
of fun. If you're in the Vegas area, be sure and come on over here to them. Bright. Here's the link I'll put in the show description. We'll be live with Isaac Bishop with my wife Jamie Henshaw and made by Jim Bob. You can't beat this lineup. Jamie Kennedy did have to cancel this event. We'll be doing more events with them in the future. But here you go. Uh, there's the link. Be sure and get tickets right now. Two are amazing Hollywood conspiracy and comedy event. It's going
to be a blast. We'll have books, we'll have lectures, we'll have jokes and impressions. Get your tickets right there, go ahead. What's up, mister C. Yeah, sorry about that. I don't know what happened to argue your evil coop. You know what I'm talking about. Nobody gets my references. They're all this to obscure, do you know, mister, mister C. I say again, mister C. Mister I don't. I
don't know. Go ahead, that's fine. But yeah, so if I understand you correctly, basically your saying I was applying Aristotelian logic beyond what it should be applied to. Yeah, I was saying, you can't. You can't say, for example, that everything that applies that goes on in the theological domain, like the Trinity, or the incarnation or the sacraments, is
subjected to Aristotilian categories and logic. In fact, many of the heretics that are condemned in the Ecumenical Councils, like John philipponas he subjected the Triad to Aristotelian definitions of identity and substance. So that's what led him to say that if a hypostasis is an instantiated substance, then there's three substances in the trinity,
and that's that's a tritheism. So likewise, you can't subject the miracles and the presence and mode of God in the created order, and the deification of the human nature of Christ to some Aristotilian category. Okay, I think that makes sense because it would undo the deification of It's not just a question of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is premised on our cristrology. The deification of the human nature of Christ is the Eucharistic principle. And you can read that
in emphasis. That's that's Cyril's whole argument at ephis Okay, I appreciate it. Yeah, that's a great question. Yeah, thank you. I'm not trying to be mean, but you are, mister C. So we all are aware. We all got to beware of mister C. Tudor do you want to try again, then we'll go to last Supper after that. I'm mute, man, So now it's working. I popped in like a million times, so so I don't want to take up too much time. But because I want to thank you for all the stuff you do. I became
Orthodox this East with my fiance greeting from Germany. Yeah, the country is going to ships but growing so well. Now, I'm I have a few questions. Okay, I just stay on topic, but I don't want to be too annoying. So if it's all right or not? So, yeah, So as well as I understood, transcendental documentation goes like you eliminate the contrary options because they are contradictions, right, that's part of it. But you also present the positive position, not just a negative critique. Yeah right.
So, and also there's like I've gone through many many of your other talks, so I didn't want to annoy with another question tag. So, but I didn't hear I didn't find this stuff I was looking for, so I thought I just told him. So we have, as I've understood it, we have like reproving this transcendentals like math or language for example. And on the other hand, we have the package deal orthodoxy with an essence,
energy distinction and so on. And I've viewed also the video from David Patrick Harry where he explains the step by step tag augumentation and I couldn't get my finger quite on it. So the way that we get to trinity is covered in my talk about ed Fazer philosophy, universals, and divine conceptualism. So that's where I go and argue trinity. So I'm not trying to be rude, but I want to move on. Here. We got Roman Catholic your
last Supper. I'll put that in the chat for you guys. Here it's this one, and then there's another one where I got into that, but I forget which one it is. Go ahead, it was up J. Dyer. Yes, sir, as your roboty last worthodoxe start? Can you start over your robody? Yeah, I said, I got a lot of respect for your work, Brob. I just have a quick question. Who
is the last Orthodox Bishop of Rome? Well, I guess we'd have to say officially it was when the excommunication happened with you know, Photius or excuse me, with whoever the ten to fifty four pope was. I don't remember. On the top of my head, I think that was Leo. And then you have Victor from what I have a list here just on chat. But okay, so would that be technically the gates prevailing against the church. Well, I don't think that we've we because we see the churches decentralized.
We don't negate the entire Western Church because of what one guy in Rome did. But you guys dogmatize the errors that Lions and Florence. So between twelve seventy four to Florence is when it's sort of dogmatized. Okay, gotcha. So we're going with hope WEO. Well you said this, you said specifically which bishop of Rome, and so it would be the one excommunicated. And
I'm saying, does that mean that everybody is damned? No, because you've got a decentralized I think we all we believe the church was always decentralized, even in the West. So the papist assumed that it was like this monolithic entity. It wasn't. Not. Everybody even at this time had the phillioqua in the creed. That's true. Yeah, I'm sure of new to like the argumentation back and forth, but that's why you opinion on it. Yeah. I appreciate that you're calling any time. I'm happy to address that,
uh shmoothly. Yeah, Okay, I'm probably gonna have to head out pretty soon. You gotta, I'm mute put leo the ninth. Yeah, that makes sense, you gotta, I'm mute, man, you want to talk or not? Okay, I'm right. Well, people wait all this time and then they don't talk. Oh g man, what's up? Hello, Jake? Uh huh? What's up? So I have a few quick since I was, first of all, I was an ittheist like two years ago, and from watching you, I just start wondering about Orthodox but I have
a few questions. I am a complete new on this, so take that in mind. Keep that in mind. But I I was wondering about the I know I ard you a few times talking about that, and I can you can I get you a call back in next time about tag because it's not really what I wanted to talk about today, But we do these often. So let's go back to this guy smoothly. I'm you. Yeah, I'm mute to talk, Johnny Utah, trying to get preference to people that disagree. I'm not trying to be rude to that guy, but he can
call back in people that disagree. Go ahead, Johnny, can you hear me? Yeah, there's just one question Catholics believe in polatry. Do you believe in polgatry? No? The Orthodox do don't believe in purgatory, so you have no equivalent to it. Uh, not what they mean. No, So they mean paying for your temporal punishments that are accrued in your life due to the temporal debts, and then you pay it off in purgatory because it's stacked up in the being counter God's mind. We also don't believe that
there's a created fire. God's uncreated. There's no created fire. Uh. Smoothly again, all right, Jah, is a question. It's about the assumption of Mary. Do you guys take it in? A Reeve just said, yeah, we think that Mary was assumed, but that's part of the Orthodox tradition. But not we don't leave immaculate conception. All right, perfect figure, Isaac Johnson, get on, man, h. So I've been
looking in the Orthodoxy lately. I was thinking I was going to become a Catholic, but I started listening to you and some other people, and my entire paradigm is kind of falling down. So logically I'm there the one the one things that kind of a couple of things that kind of keep me from getting there. It's more like it's holding on to me, not so much visions from people like Catherine Emrick, Mary of Agrida, and the one apparition
specifically of why would you believe in these women's apparitions? I mean, what does Paul saying Galatians want about apparitions? Honestly not sure you haven't read galations. I have, but I could just say the Christianity as a whole level only really been open to that for about a year. I was, okay, well, that's fine. I'm not trying to I'm not calling you,
I'm not calling you out or putting on the spot. But you need to be you need to be reading the Bible before you're reading a bunch of apparitions. And so if you're Galatians one, Paul makes it very clear that the premiscy that we give to what judges these things is first of all, divine
revelation and scripture in the tradition of the Church. So there's nothing that's going to come as a new revelation in the year fifteen hundred, thirteen hundred, seventeen hundred that in any way contradicts the revelation given to the Apostles or to the first thousand years of Christianity. And so especially with Anne Catherine Emerick, if I recall she sees visions of Muslims in Paradise, I mean, her proposition is not even consistent. Yeah, it's not even consistent with traditional Roman
Catholic teaching. And that's why we don't judge the position on the basis of these supposed mystics. And that's why Paul says right here, even if we are an angel of Heaven, preach anything other than what has already been committed. That is in the Old Testament and in the Patristic corpus, and excuse me, in the Apostolic corpus, and in the Patristic teaching, the interpretation of these texts, that's the Orthodox for you, we don't listen to it.
And so everybody gets his backwards. I'm not calling you out, but I'm saying people get this backwards, and they judge the religion on the basis of these mystics and visions and claims, and there's just no way to judge or judicate between these things on that basis. And if you listened to this last Sunday's homily, if you're in the Russian tradition, then you got to
hear the explication of the paralytic from the Russian tradition perspective. I'd never heard this, but there are certain details in the texts that indicate that he actually sold out Jesus because Jesus doesn't say to him, your faith has saved you. He blames Jesus for taking up his bed and walking as a paralytic. And the Russian tradition is that he's a guy who kind of sold out. And the point of that is that just even a miracle doesn't prove or cause
a person to believe. You know, Jesus makes the same point to the guy who wants to be who's in Abraham's the brothers in Abrahams Bosom, the other guys in torments, and he says, let me go back and tell my brothers. If I rise from the dead, he'll believe. And Jesus says, well, no, even if you rise from the dead, people still won't believe. So miracles are external things that don't necessarily cause the person
to believe. They might, but miracles accompany the faith. They can't be the thing that determines the true or false faith, because every cult, every sect, every group claims miracles, and as we saw with that guy calling in about Fatima the other day, it's like Fatima, I mean the apparitions in zy tune, does that prove the Coptic Church? You see how ridiculous these Romancholics are. They're totally inconsistent. Chris three dollars day and orthodox.
I was wondering if it's logical to conclude the Protonism as a type of Islam. I mean, they share a lot of common nowties and similarities, but I wouldn't say that it's a type of Islam. I would say that Islam is a proto Protestantism. It's just kind of like it's like a mix of Job's witness in Calvinism. Basically, DC, we're working three dollars, Thank you so much, Jason of fifteen dollars. Is it safe to say that
a protest cannot justify in their doctrines from scripture? Well, I mean it depends on what the doctrine is, because Protestants do believe some things that are true, so they believe in the deity of Christ, and most Protestants who are studied can justify that from the scriptures, but more fundamental to that, they can't justify why they have the right list of scriptures storm of the cap five dollars. I know that Kabbala borrows from neoplatonism. Do you think that
the name is connected to the Kaba Stone of Islam. I don't necessarily think so. I haven't looked into that, but I wouldn't think so. Do you think that there is a connection to hexagram and souturn worship? Yeah? I think the star of rim Fan is believed to be a hexagram, so there could be some overlapping connection there. Also support the show by going to Jasonnalysis in the shop you can get signed copies of my books.