The the the the the the the the the the the I think the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the do 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 do why Hello and hello to all of my beautiful discord listeners. Today I'm wearing a very soft Pastors Cartigan, perhaps something a Calvinists pastor might well, Perhaps someone say Peter mc wilson might well.
I'm a humble pastor for the year of twenty twenty four, and that's because I have been so maligned magnant by the Internet for so many years as a mean man. I want to demonstrate to everyone that my ways have changed. I am no longer a mean Internet debate man, but I am, in fact a very humble, pious, praying lover of the Lord Christian. In
fact, I might even be the pastor of my own internet church. Perhaps you may all like to join and tithe immediately the maximum amount of tithes possible, because I'm very pissed, I'm very humble of the loveving, I'm very loving, I love you so much. I'm a pastor on the Internet. We're the card again. It's Clark Griswold style, but it's a card again. I'm either a douchebag professor or very humble piles pastor man like Fdr sitting
by the fireside jets helping you to understand the world. In fact, I rolled in here on a wheelchair and it wasn't even necessary. I just did it to feel more humble. I can walk fine. This is the year of love, and don't worry, pies. Pastor man Peter McWilson is here to help you on your journey. Just be sure to put a little extra in the gift box, if you know what I mean. In the tithe plate as it comes around. Brother Hensley in the Mad Chat will be passing
the tithe plate around. Feel free. I'm gonna be very hum but to everybody today, nobody will get their feelings huh, because it is the Western Papal fake Christmas Eve, according to the papal Apostate Inti christ calendar. Merry Christmas to all your Apostate Heltics out there. I wish I could say I truly enjoy the season, but as a pious pastor man, it is my duty to warn you of these paper abominations known as the Western calendar. So
is it Christmas Eve? It's Christmas Eve for the millions of heretics out there that I want to help today. Truly, I hope that you will come share your disagreements and so we can find peaceful, fake reconciliation where we pretend to be friends, but we passively, aggressively still hate each other deep down from our hearts. Did you think you were really gonna get Cardigan pastor man? No, you all got trolled. Now you still get me on papal
Christmas Eve, A debate open to what the evil of this man? Oh day? He choose to debate, putting himself up as a pious pastor man in a card and yet he wants to debate on paper on Christmas Eve. Mean as ever, I'm still mean, I'm still mean. I still believe I'm still mean. It's gonna be open for him, and you're not gonna get pious pastor man. You're gonna get the same old mean jay. I was already mean to a Protestant this morning, and I feel good about it.
I feel good about being me let me be mean to your mom and you'll spleen. I said, I feel good about being me. I'm gonna be mean to your mom and your stepdad, and you'll groll and your cousin. It's gonna be a mean Christmas Eve. You all fell for my trolling, my joke that I was gonna be loving, and it was all mobile calling villain. No, what the heck is happening. I said the word villain, and Sirih thought I was telling her to call villain the Armenian dude
in DC. Get out of here, Siri, and not merry Christmas to you. Shut up, Sirih, look at that. I'm being mean even to the robots. Thank you, Chase Haguard. The call in lines are open, and uh, there's really no point in me rehearsing the rules because no one who calls in actually knows the rules or will follow the rules unless they ask questions. The people who ask questions follow the rules. The people who want to dub eate his name's villain, not villain, So sir thought
of something about vilain. I said the word villain. That's funny. The people that actually want to debate, of course, will not follow the rules, so we really there's not any point in you in rehearsing this is there. I mean, we know what's gonna happen. We're gonna get repeating of my name many times. The delusional guy this morning at least didn't repeat my name, so I guess he gets one point for that. Carding and swag baby, carding and swag baby. I'm LARPing as a pastor, man.
But guess what, every pastor's LARPing as a pastor man. Ah. The mean is coursing through my veins at the moment, and I'm just loving it. I don't I literally can't have a good day unless I'm mean to people. Don't worry, though, I've come stacked with cob drops. I'm prepared. We're gonna open it up so that people who claim that they would like to a debate can come on and say ridiculous things and I can lose my
patience. Just kidding. You noticed the last time is that people came on and said ridiculous things, and within a few minutes of me determining that they're not rational people, I just simply exited the discussion, and yet they still said it was me, not only was it mean to exit the discussion so that I didn't get angry every person I saw that I exited their discussion. Then went on to Twitter to explain that the only reason I exited the discussion
was because I couldn't answer their low tier questions. So you keep telling yourself that, keep telling it, even though it's questions that have been answered probably one hundred times. On the channel. Some other guy was like, give me the video where you never did it? No, lazy, use a search engine. I don't owe you anything. We've become so soft. Everyone
is so soft and so so passive aggressive. So I'm gonna ask the Americans stop eating the diets they're eating, because that's a huge part of it. America, stop eating your garbage diet. It's making you all into soy men. It's making your women grow peeps, and it's making your men grow tatas. Please stop. That's a big part of it. So if you are interested, you can call in, and the way you call in is Twitter spaces, and you can now call in on Twitter spaces on a computer then
used to be that way, but you can do it. So if you don't have the app, you do have to have Twitter. You simply join
the space and you request to speak. We already have many people, many people already requested to speak, many beautiful, many beautiful parishioners in my humble online pastor's chapel, ready to come and ask the questions so that I may give them helpful spiritual guidance as an online Internet pastor, so that they may then place their life savings and the memos life savings into the offering plate.
Yes, we are very humble here so that we might build the Calvinist cigar club and golf course out back of the parish, even though we don't call it a perish in the Calvinist churches. I'm very humble. Did y'all know? I may, in fact hop on the Internet later tonight and tell everybody how much I'm praying and tweet how many prayers I'm praying. Every time I pray a prayer, I will tweet that prayer out so that everyone may understand
how much I'm praying publicly on the internet. Because Jesus himself said, when you pray, go into the widest spaces of the Internet and tell everyone publicly that you're praying and fasting. That is what Jesus said to do. It's open for and the topics are as you can imagine, as you probably already
know. Catholicism, papacy, history, contradictions, Protestantism, logic, laws of logic, universals, logie, church fathers, councils, transcendental arguments, tag atheism, agnosticism, empiricism, epistemology, metaphysics, Koran philosophy, conspiracies, bitcoin, geopolitics, feminism. Of course, no one ever calls in on those topics, but they are open. The only requirement is, please make arguments unless you have questions. An argument is not where you rap.
I know that's hard for some of you slow boys and girls out there and slow wine moms. Rapping isn't an argument. You could theoretically wrap your arguments. That is possible, I suppose if you are skilled enough, I will let you wrap your argument at me. But slam, poetry and rapping is not an argument itself. And I was gonna unmute the guy that I had the debate. I wouldn't call it a debate, what would we call it? I don't even know what to call it. The brief discussion with this
morning, but I can't remember his his handle. I blocked him at lightning speed. Everyone knows I'm a master lightning speed speed blocker. I'm probably block more people than there are blocks in Minecraft. I don't know. I mean, I've blocked half of the Internet, and I don't know. I'm happy I've done that has made my life a lot better. In fact, I wish that I had learned to block people many years before I've blocked the thousands
of people I've already balked. Someone wants that's arrogant to you to black people, to which I say, twenty twenty four will be the year of love and public humility displays. I will display my love and my humidity non stop all of twenty twenty four. I will tweet every prayer and so that you can share my tweets and share with the world how humble and pious I am. It's very easy to get blocked by me. Just say one thing dumb.
It's pretty much it like it's a low bar of what it is to qualify to be magnificent, magnificently blocked by me just to basically just say something dumb and then where I'm out, it's over, goodbye. So the way it works, as you guys know, and as you guys won't do even though we know. We all know it, and I'm saying it, but we all nobody's no, nobody's gonna do it. I'll give you the microphone. You can make whatever arguments you want. You can stay whatever you want.
That are actual arguments. We don't need to establish whether I'm a KGB, a Cabala wizard sorcerer. We already know that. We already know I'm a Panamanian KGB operative drug lord assassin in a Cardigan, So we can move past that that's been established. You're expose that. I can see you've exposed me. Now what is your argument? Right? Maybe I should put vegans in there. Remember the vegans. I haven't seen them coming around in a long time, and they're an insane cult, so maybe the vegans can pop
up. I forgot to put vegans in there. If you want to convince me of your atheist veganism, you can also do that as well. What is an open debate? You come on the Twitter space and I give you the microphone and you make whatever arguments you want. Where do you talk with people? It is linked in the show description. It amazes me. People don't know what the show like, what the descriptions are on YouTube. It's like people don't have never even heard of this. Here all put it in
the chat for you. You're in the YouTube chat and you don't know what a show description is, call in right there, come on the Twitter space. That's how you It's very simple, is this whole audience? Boomer? I don't get it all right? First up is James Lindsay lookalike. His name's Ricky. And by the way, if you get your feelings hurt then I make jokes. Then don't come on if you get your feelings hurt because I make jokes about people's names, profiles. It's normal, it's it's what
guys do. So if you're super effeminate and you're gonna get your feelings hurt about jokes, then just don't come on. Very Christmas evetube M what's up with you? Yeah? So I was raised, to give a little bit of context, raised Roman Catholic, and in college I got baptized in Church of Christ h I c OC ICC cult And then thanks to Sam Schun you said, yeah, the ICOC Church of Christ, don't that's not the Campbellite Church of Christ. Is it what do you mean a cult? Yeah?
Yeah, so the there's this ICOC branch of the Church of Christ and it's a pretty pretty massive cult. But yeah, in the summer, thanks to Sam Shimon and I kind of returned to Catholicism and then I discovered you and uh, inquiring into Orthodoxy right now, And so most of my debates I've been with the Church of Christ people. And there's just one guy who argues
that for the episcopate that I try to argue for. He uses the Ethiopian eunuch as an example of someone who wasn't joined to a physical church and he just went on his way rejoicing. I guess, So what would you say to someone that uses that argument? Right, So Jesus says in Mark that when the guy's doing can you mute your puppy dog side of things? Yeah,
so Jesus says, when the guy's casting out demons. Right in the Book of Mark, the disciples say, but he's not amongst us, And Jesus says, there's no one who does a miracle in my name who will not who will not eventually be amongst us. So I think the assumption is that just because in every situation an actually don't see them immediately pointing out the
episcopate doesn't mean that that person didn't join the episcopae. In fact, a couple of times in Acts, they actually when the missionaries find people like the Disciples of John or the Disciples of Apollo and Apollo's Shimi Apollos, they tell them that they need to come into the church. So that's a unique time in the Book of Acts when it's called the transition period, right, it's the inter the it's the period between the death of Christ and the destruction of
the Temple. The destruction of the temple is the definitive end of the Old Covenant administration. So there's going to be unnatural or abnormal, or maybe unnatural is not. There's going to be anomaloust situations during that time period that won't be norm normative, or they won't characterize the norm after the destruction of the temple. So once the church is established and the Temple's destroyed, it's very clear that's supposed to be the definitive sign that that that the Kingdom has come
and that it's no no longer the Old Testament Jewish administration. So yeah, there were many people in the Book of Acts who were reading the scriptures and coming to believe and may not have yet even met the apostles like you're talking about. But typically when they do meet the apostles, they are also instructed to come into to the church. And so I think the assumption is that
the Ethiopian unit will come under the episcopate. And just because it doesn't immediately state that in that section, it's not like everybody can just go out and do what they want, because other places in the scripture tell us that you can't do that. In the Book of Timothy, for example, Paul says, I laid hands on you, Timothy, I gave the depositive faith to you. You lay your hands on men after you who will be faithful.
So Timothy is the only legitimate authority in ephesis, not anybody else, not anyone running around doing whatever they want. So in other words, you can't take It's just like when Paul decides, out of pragmatic reasons to circumcise Timothy in the Book of Acts. Technically he doesn't need to do that, but
it would be less there would be less problems for him. Doing that with Timothy than if he hadn't done it, right, So we wouldn't take that one example like Judaizers do and say, well, look, pol still circumcised
Timothy, so you have to always continue to do circumcision. It was what he chose to do at that time in that inter transitional period between the death of Christ, the resurrection of Christ and the astabshim of the Church Pentecost and then the destruction of the Temple. So again, the key here is to understand the big picture of redemptive history. Not everything that happens in the Book of Acts is normative for the entire history of the Church because it's a transition
period. Yeah no, that makes sense. By the way, don't the Church of Christ themselves think that all these things that happened in the Book of Acts, like all these miracles and whatnot, that that's not that doesn't happen anymore. Yeah, yeah, So they have their own position of oh, well, we don't continue those things from the Book of Acts till now.
But then they're picking and choosing, oh, but this one we do, we want, we want that one because that goes against the historic church, right right, So two more quick questions when the Father says, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased, but that be considered an
energetic manifestation of the Father. Yes, okay, And now each person in the triad is still involved in every action of God, because every action of God is triadic, but the actions can still be unique to individual hypostasis. So just like Christ dying on the cross, right, that's a unique action. It's still triadic, but it's a unique action that the son undergoes.
The Father and the spirit don't die on the cross or they don't experience death on la crosse right, right, And yet the action is still triadic because the Father sent the son to die on the cross. Right. So likewise it's not the like actions are proper to the whole triad, but the actions can still be actualized by individual hypostasies. Right. In other words, each person has a unique role in any action. Yeah, got that all right?
So final question, And I always love the argument you make about Nestorian sacramentology, which Protestants seem to have. So what's a good book on U sacramentology? I would just read something like Nicholas Cabasilas's book on Ortho Basic Orthodox Theology. He'll give you a good Orthodox Cristology, I mean ecclesiology there in sacramentology, all right, awesome. I mean also, Orthodox books kind of just tie everything together. They don't typically unless you get into the academic stuff.
They don't typically just write a book on sacraments or just a book on because they all go together. Like our theology of the Church is dependent on Christology, our sacramentology is dependent upon Christology. Christology depending upon our trinitarian theology. Right. Yeah, I love that argument, and it's one that really got me to consider Orthodoxy because Catholicism I just find it like really all over the place when it comes to that. So yeah, yeah, exactly.
By the way, to the people in the Chat that are saying Christmas is pagan, that's idiotic. Christmas is the feast of Theophany, right, It's the it's the birth of Christ. Right, it's not the baptism Christ. It's the it's the feast of the coming of the of our Savior into the world. And it has has its origins in the Orthodox Church. Has nothing to do with sol Invictus or anything like that, and that's why the traditional Orthodox date is January. Right, It's in January, so we'll be celebrating
Christmas January, you know, six seven eight. We're not celebrating Christmas in the Orthodox Church typically on the papal calendar. So the irony here is that all these dumb Protestants that are trying to make this argument in evangelicals and whatever, these people are that Christmas is pagan. They're totally ignorant because they don't even know that Easter is Pasca in the Orthodox Church. Pasca is passover right, and the date the dates in the Orthodox Church has nothing to do with
Sol Invictus or Tamas or any the bullshit. You guys, You guys have no idea what you're talking about. So you can call in all the Protestants that are asking these silly questions in ignorance. You're free to call in and make these arguments. But if you just here to spam stuff, uh, then yeah, celebrating Nativity in January doesn't even match up to the stupid pagan arguments that you're making Christmas because December stolen victors fumbles. If you're not gonna
call in, then just you're just gonna get booted. Nobody has time for your low IQ spamming. And you guys are you're not even You're just spamming crap into the chat anyway, fumbles, Hello, question you're cutting out? Question is maybe try it? Okay. My short question is by the essence of God like man related to absolutely divine simplicity that kind of stuff is is the unity of God as in the monotheism? Right, because we believe one
God? Right, is that the idea that we get one God from three persons, is that rooted in the person of the Father or the essence? So that for the essence of all three of the persons, right, So
the monarchy of the Father, which is what's expressed in the Creed. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, and the source of that unity is the person of the Father. But it's also you can still it's still correct to say that there's one one God because there's one nature, right, Okay, So what makes God one God is the person of the Father,
Yeah, and that he possesses a singular nature. I say, okay, so because I for a long time I thought it was the essence of God, and I was telling people that and I thought to myself, I might be wrong about that half pass. We'll just go watch doctor Branson's lectures on the monarchy of the Father. And it's true to say this that God is one because there's one nature, but that flows from the fact that there's one Father that communicates the nature. So the Creed itself, and even Paul right,
for us, there's one God, the father of lights. Our James says, the one God, the father of lights. Paul says for us, there's one God, the Father of Christ. Right. So the terminology of Paul is the same as the terminology the nice Creed, which is that there's one God because there's one Father. So that places personhood as the first category for which we know God. And Palma says the exact same thing in the triads. So the essence is what the person has. And so it's
true that the triad has one essence. But it's more true to say that there's one God because there's one Father, because that's the ancient Christian creed, and that's the biblical theology, and that's why the Old Testament speaks that way. How does the Old Testament consistently speak of the one God as the Father. That one Father has sent his angel, who has the name of Yahweh
in him has a spirit. So it's more consistent with Old Testament theology than it is to say, as becomes really popular in the medieval Latin West, to say that there's one God because there's one essence, and that one essence is Father, son and spirit. No, there's one God because there's one Father. This is just the classic Cappadocian approach. Okay, I understand. So you can go watch doctor Branson's lectures. He has a whole series of
lectures on his website on the monarchy of the Father. Right, So somebody's saying, oh, but the Russian Orthodox calendar. Yeah, The point is that the argument of the Protestants is that you're celebrating a day. You're doing these rituals to commemorate the birth of Tamus. Okay, so it doesn't matter that it's still believed to be the end of December. The point is that they're saying that the celebration of the liturgy is pagan because you're celebrating the birth
of Tamas on December twenty four or whatever. So thank you for your nitpicking when you're really just missing the whole point. By the way, why are you here to nitpick? Just nitpick somewhere else? Are you were nitpicking the other stream? So go nitpick some other stream. Holly. Let's see, Holly, let's see. We've gotta have somebody. We've got the same people that always calling. I'm not knocking your big chief, but Kaiser Collins, that's an interesting name. Hello, what's up? Man? I have read
this scriptures. The scriptures deliberate to me that you have the anti christ sense to destroy the world. Is that a joke? Nope, I'm the anti Christ. Yes, that is the way you're giggling and your thumb for an accent. You can't even hold it together. You're gonna troll you again? Giggle dummy. That wasn't even the original guy that came on? Don what's up if you're gonna troll making your jokes good? That wasn't even funny. Do you like my European accident? Come on, dude, can you hear
me? Okay? Cool? Sorry, I'm a little bit sick, so forgetting Hey me too, man, that's why I'm eating cough drops. Oh man, I'm just dying over here. But anyways, so I'm a cad of human and Orthodox Church, have been for about a year and a half. Hey, Jamie, did you hand me a coffee? Go ahead, I'm listening. You've been a catechumen, and I know I'm getting stuck up
on some glow level stuff. But one thing I'm getting stuck up on is kind of like this Marcianism train of thought, where you know, the Old Testament God was, you know, an evil God, and then you know vice versa in the New Testament. So for someone who not stupid, but I am a slow boy when it comes to this, so I kind of get caught up on some Yeah, I understand, I did a whole h I did a whole three hour stream just on this topic. So I'm not
trying to bypass the questions. I'm happy to respond to specifics and summarize here. But I am going to link this three hour talk that I did on this topic because this is an issue that comes up a lot in Orthodox circles because a lot of people struggle with the Old Testament or something like that, and there's just sort of this assumption that, well, God was a lot meaner in the Old Testament. But if you look at the New Testament,
it's all peace, love and hippie Jesus or something like that. But actually, every principle that you think about God having in the Old Testament that characterized him, like being a warrior, being involved in providentially sort of ordering historical battles, you know, this kind of stuff, it's all continued in the New Testament for the person of Christ. So in the Apocalypse, for example, we see Christ as a conqueror who literally destroys his enemies. That's very
much the idea of present in the Old Testament. For example, in the Book of Revelation, we also see the principle lex talionisked eye for an eye, right when the martyrs are praying, they pray for God's justice and vengeance upon those who persecue the Church on earth. So again that's eye for eye principles in the Book of Revelation carried over into the New Testament. And I mean, you can keep going through all kinds of things like the death penalty.
The death penalty is very clearly continued over from the Old Testament into the New Testament. Paul and Romans thirteen makes it clear that the state has the authority to put people to death. So and you know, people who disagree with that just have a problem with the Bible itself. They want to have their own ethic, they want to have pacifism, they want Marcianism to be true. I mean, you could go to the very first apologetic work or
systematic theology after Justin Martyr. I mean, obviously Justin Marty's an Apologists, but the first systematic theology in the history of the Church is Eronaeus is against heresies and against heresies. Therein as is a giant section against marcian and he makes the very arguments I'm making that the God of the Old Testament is identified
by Jesus in the Gospels multiple times over as being his father. And in fact, when we go back and read Exodus, when we read Exodus three and Exodus twenty three, we find out that it's Jesus that is the Angel of the Lord that went before the Jews into the to the Promised Land. So that means Jesus is the Ange of the Lord who went before them to cleanse the promised Land. It's Jesus who's the Angel the Lord that appears to Joshua before the battles. It's Jesus as the Angel of the Lord that appears
to the judges who go out and kill the enemies of God. So all throughout the Old Testament you have the identification of Jesus as the being doing all this. So the very idea that it's a different God in the New Testament
is absolutely counter to the New Testament's argumentation itself. In fact, all throughout this is the key argument, by the way, that I make against the Muslims, because over and no, and ohere this comes up because the Muslim assumption is that there's some sort of different the Trinity and the deed of Christ
for a New Testament invention. And that's why it's so important to stress and to demonstrate to the Muslims that no, this is all throughout the Old Testament, throughout the Torah, right, And that's why it's such a powerful apologetic. But most of this rests on people's ignorance of the Torah. People don't know the Old Testament, they don't know the Torah, they don't know the law, they don't know the prophets. And I really like those texts.
So for me, I'm very much into those texts. I've been into them even when I was a Protestant, I was a Reconstructionist, and reconstructionism is all about the Old Testament. So in God's providence, I guess it gave me a love for the Old Testament. And I'm not even saying I'm like I'm the master of the Old Testament. There's people who know it way better than me. Sure, But the point is that the Old Testament very clearly
teaches Yahweh has his angel messenger who is also divine and his spirit. This is like dozens of passages all throughout the Old Testament that have this structure, and so therefore it's not a Unitarian theology. If it's not a Unitarian theology, then when the New Testament appeals too. For example, John five through John nine, Jesus says I was on Mount SINAI I'm the one that Moses talked to. That means Jesus gave the law to Moses. I'm the one
who went before the Israelites. Moses wrote about me. Abraham believed in me. That means Jesus is the one who went and eate with Abraham in Genesis. So we see then that Martianism can only rest on certain presuppositions, like the idea that there's a different deity that's presented in the Old Testament and a different deity in the New Testament. Now, that's why Marcian is the first person to draw up a canon of scripture. Do you know the first canon
in the history of the Church of the Bible is actually Marcians. And can you imagine what Marcian's canon was? While it's a bunch of gospels sections and he cut off like the synoptic Gospels. And the odd part is that I think he left the Gospel of John, which doesn't make any sense because the Gospel John is actually the one that most affirms the Old Testament. I mean John five through nine is like literally the destruction of Martianism, and yet Marcian,
in his delusion included that. So but there's other by the way, there's other reasons why Marcianism had the view that it did. Martianism is actually
based on abolute devine simplicity. All of the Rodagawis thesis, which most people don't know, but that required God's goodness being smushed into his essence, and that meant that there could only be one kind of goodness at all times, according to Marcian, because of absolute divine simplicity, and so that meant that there couldn't be In other words, he read it as if there was a change in morals from the Old Testament to the New Testament, and since God
is absolutely simple goodness, there could never be a quote change in morals. I'm not saying that God changes, and I'm not saying that there is a change in morals. That was Marcian's reasoning on the basis of actually his view of divine simplicity. So there's a lot of different errors involved in Marsianism, and a lot of Protestants who converted to Orthodox, who become priests and pastor excuse me, priests and teachers, they still retained a lot of their Marcianite
higher critical presuppositions. For example, I did a video six or seven years ago about Father Stephen Freeman as an example of this. I'm not trying to be mean or rude, but this is a fact, and I'm not calling him out. I don't know if he still holds these views. I've never talked to him, but the fact of the matter is that he consistently has argued over on his blog for many many years at Ancient Faith Radio that the Old Testament God is a different God than the New Testament God. And he
says, well, I learned all this in my Anglican academic career. You know, nobody cares about your England academic career. That should not come into orthodoxy. But that's the basis from which those people are arguing that it's a different God in the Old Testament, the ones that are in the orthodoxers.
I just it's kind of crazy, like I wasn't a raised Protestant or anything like that, but that that version of Christianity is so ingrained in my head, in other people's heads, even though you know they weren't even raised like that. It's just I don't know, it's just kind of there. And then people think a certain way because you know, I get hung up with, oh, well, you know this type of sacrifice and you know God wanted him to kill that person, and it's just like it's hard to let
it go, even though I don't even know where it came from. Yeah, I was raised Catholic, but even stiff well, but hard to let what go because if when you get into actual text, it doesn't present a different deity. Right, But then I guess my point is like my my moral relativism. Oh well then yeah, that's the problem, right, you got to let that go exactly. I mean, I appreciate the honesty, though. One more quick question. Are you still doing cardivoor pretty much?
How do you? How are you able to? Uh? Yeah, because the fasts are made for men, not men for the fast, right, so you get a dispensation or you talk to your spiritual father, that's how. And we've done many talks on that. Let's see David Reid. What's the David Reid. M David Reid. Gotta ummute, man, Come on, guys, gotta ummute as soon as I what's up? Jus. I
just had a quick question for you. I was listening in the Daniel hoku Ka Chew de Bait and when he started asking about the incarnation and does that constitute basically a change in the divine nature or did you you know he was making some kind of critique like that kind of an ormy Muslim critique, and your response was that it was that basically the hypostasis of the sun entered into a new mode. And I was just curious what you meant by mode.
I've understood mode to mean like Michael Humor, to find substance. I've heard him define a substance. He said, this is how he analytic philosophy generally defines it. That No, that's a different way, right. Mode he was saying a substance was a thing with basically properties, and a mode is
a particular instance of a substance. Well, so when we use a lot of terminology for theology that is from the Patristic and medieval era, it's not the same thing as the way that these terms are used in modern analytical philosophy. So that's the first thing. For example, person or hypostasis is not the same thing as the way that we think of person in the modern world
as just a guy over there. Right, person has to do with I'm serious, I mean so so specifically to talk about Intristic and medieval philosophy, the word mode motifers to the way a thing exists, or how a thing exists in what way is that thing existing? Right? So, for example, thoughts, what ontological status do thoughts have? Or numbers? How do those exist? Well, numbers have a unique mode of existence that is not material, so they exist in an abstract mode. It's the type or the
way that that thing exists. So when you talked about an instance, that would just be a particular, that would just be an instantiation. So when we talk about the Son, the Son existed from all eternity as the second person in the Godhead, right, he's the logos. He is the eternally begotten offspring of the Father, from all eternity, as the second person of the Trinity. That's how he always existed, and he still exists as that.
But there's a change in that he stepped into a new way of being that it didn't compromise his prior way of being, It didn't shed his divinity, it didn't empty out his divinity. But if you look at the Pasad in Philippians, when it talks about kinosis, it says that he willingly stepped into our mode of being, and that means that he willingly chose to not
exercise all of the powers that he possesses. So, for example, in some way, because God is above time and space in creation, the second person of the Godhead, and not the Father and not the Spirit, were able to enter into the mode of being that we possess. As humans. So he became man, he became flesh. He the second person that God had adopted and took on impersonal human nature. It couldn't be a personal human nature because if it was, there would be two persons, because there's already
a divine person. That's an Astorianism, the idea that there's a dual subject in Christ. So what he assumed was manhood or human nature, and the divine person of the son is the person to that human nature that he assumed. But he did step into a new mode of being without compromising his divinity or his sonship. So what do we mean when we say that there was a kenosis or something unique here? Well, the thing that the Muslims aren't grasping is that God has the ability to be in time and space in a
unique way that doesn't compromise or isn't identical to his omnipresence. And we see this, for example already in the Old Testament Theophanes. So that Theophanes are all proofs of Orthodoxy as well as proofs of the incarnation, because they're unique manifestations of God himself in time and space. This is where the essence Inergi sinction comes in, because how is that possible if God's absolutely simple outside of time and space. The manifestation is fully divine, but it's not equivalent to
his divine essence. So there's a personal presence of God in an energetic way that still hides and still guards the unknowable essence of God. And so when the Sun becomes incarnate, much like in the instances of him appearing in the Old Testament Theophanies as the Angel of the Lord, when he becomes incarnate. The difference here between the Old Testament Theophanies and the incarnation is that now he's appearing in human nature, in a fully human body, will, mind,
and soul, not a human person, not a human hypostasis. So as he's present in that mode, he willingly limited some of his attributes. Doesn't mean that he lost his deity. It means he he exercises his energies as he wills. Same principle with creation. God didn't have to create, He willed to create. Stop spamming the chat, good grief, guys, Please
just just mute these people spamming. So just block these people spamming stuff, all right, So let me last point here, So motive being just refers to stepping into a new state, and that doesn't require that the previous state that his substance itself underwent change. So he's not changing the existing nature. He's adopting a new nature. So that's the difference here. And so it's like the analogy that afthenations some of the Eastern fathers make is that imagine it's
like a man putting on a cloak. Right, putting on a cloak does not change the existing human nature that put the cloak on, and so they actually will. Athanasius likens the human nature to like a cloak. Doesn't mean that the human nature is just a cloak and that it's like a that it's not fully human. It's just making an analogy to help explain that the adding of the new thing doesn't alter or change the previous nature. Because God was
never bound to actualize every one of his powers. God could have created a universe without a moon. God could have created a universe without Thomas Aquinas right, he has that potentiality, that power, but he didn't do that, did he know? He created this universe. So God doesn't have to exercise all of his powers at once. So when Jesus was president walking around in a body in a new mode of being. The Son of God is present in a new motive being as a man when he's walking around in Jerusalem.
He's uniquely present in Jerusalem in a way that he's not present in Capernaum or in Sodom mcgamora. Right, So how is that though, because isn't the omniscient. Yes, so both things are true. He's omniscient and present everywhere in one mode via his omniscience, but there's a unique mode in presence that's not identical to the omniscients. That's a special presence like that the Oftenes were. Special presence is in Jerusalem. So both things are true at once.
And all the argument that you're talking about from like Muslims and people like that, that's all based on dialectics. It's either or either he's present everywhere in an absolute way or he's present nowhere. And by the way, Muslims don't believe God is present in time space. Well, it's interesting because you'll hear I hear these arguments most commonly among social trinitaries that are evangelicals. They kind of make these same similar arguments, meaning you mean Muslims. Well, basically
this, this constitutes a change. It must constitute a change, because if if the sun goes from not incarnate to incarnate, that's a change. That's uh is now, Yeah, that's why the church father That's why I said substantial change. So it just depends on what you mean by change. Yeah, entering into an entering into a new mode of being is a kind of change. It is not a substantial change. And that's the terminology that many
of the church fathers use. Right, he underwent uh, he became man and yet underwent no change is the phraseology of Maximus, right, right, And what constitute a substance substantial change a change to the essence or substance of God. Substance is equivalent to essence. So if sorry, I'm just trying to think about, like the again, the analogy of putting on the analogy of putting on a coat. My human nature didn't change when I put on
a coat. I added a new nature. So some kind of change occurred, but it wasn't a substantial change, right, Okay, okay, yeah, as long as that's I see, Because maybe what's being targeted to is largely the absolutely divine simplicity. Maybe is that why this is? Well, it's part to deny that he could even be in time at all. Right, that would be part of the argument, you. I mean a lot of those those critiques rely on a reductionist view of God's properties or traits.
Then they'll they'll say that every property or trade is basically just God. But no, we don't believe that. I mean, we don't just believe in the essencenarious sinction. We also believe in a nature person distinction. Right, So would that be a personal change? Is that? Is that appropriate to say that the hypostatiss can change the divine hypati That is, they know they don't change. I am God, and I do not change. There's none like me. God himself says he does not go change. So what's changing
again? Do you understand things can change in different ways? Yeah, yeah, but I'm asking what is changing? Is my question? The mode of being? Okay, from not being incarnate to being incarnate. So who's what's going undergoing the change? The second person that God had is adopting human nature, taking on adding a new nature. Right, that doesn't change his essence.
I'm not saying essence. I'm saying person. Yeah, but when I know that, but so hold on, it's him becoming incarnate still doesn't change his personhood right in itself. Right, That's why we say that he underwent no change. He is a reference to person. Person equals he, Right, he underwent no change. When I put on a coat, do I no longer become Jay because I have a coat on? Does my nature or my person I'm not Jay anymore because I got a coat on? Yeah?
Yeah, okay, okay, I see, Like basically the bed substantial was referring to both the person and the substance. Basically, like that's it doesn't count as a like significant change. Well that would again, Yeah, I mean, it just depends on how you define significant. Because it is significant that he went from not being incarnate and from and what Philippians calls kenosis.
So he emptied himself in the sense of limiting and choosing not to exercise every possible power that he could, right, I mean, for example, when Jesus is going to one of the villages and he says that says that he could not heal them there because of their lack of faith, is that because he he didn't have omnipotence. No, it's because he willed to be in a state where he would make his miracles contingent in that case upon their faith.
Right, So he willed to limit himself. That's what Philippians is talking about in certain ways and in certain and then and in the exercising of certain powers. For example, could could Jesus have destroyed the world when he was walking around on on the planet if he wanted to? Sure? Okay, so he he chose not to. He willed to limit the power of conflagration at that time. Right. So that's what the meaning of the kenosis is,
and Philippians is that it's based on the essence center distinction. It's based on God not being absolutely, strictly speaking, pure actuality in his essence. So there is an essence center distinction which means that you can't collapse them in the pure actuality doctrine of Thomas Aquinas. Okay, I'll off that point for now. I'll look that's helpful, yes, sir, Yeah, great questions, great questions. Thank you. I'm sorry, I thought you were done.
I didn't mean to boot you. Feel free to come back into the quay if you want to. But really good questions, got too sub j can you hear me? Hello afternoon, So very very quick question. I've been lately in some low tier debates with some communists and people with materialist background, and I was trying to demonstrate to them that even communism has some metaphysical foundations. So what is the best way to show that secularism is not devoid
of metaphysics? But I don't want the long answer, just just you know, one, two or three points that I could make. I could start my argument with, like to show them that secularism, for example, is it has metaphysical foundations and maybe that we can view it even as religion. I show one great them uh one gate thing you did with Dion And yeah, here's two easy things. Right. So the first first thing you can point out is to ask them, you know, anytime that they state what
is the case. For example, a lot of a lot of atheists are as seeming, a lot of communists will say that they believe in either dialectical materialism or dialectical or historical materialism. Right, that's the two main metaphysical principles of communism. And if you ask them like, well, those are statements
about you know this is basically metaphysics borrowed from Hegel. Every communist believes in some Hegelian thing that they've adopted into, either historical materialism or dialectical materialism. That's the two metaphysical principles of all communists that exist that I know of,
And those are metaphysical positions. So you simply have to ask them, how do you know that all of reality is in historical uh flux working towards something or a dialectical flux working towards something dia matt or histemat because those are metaphysical
claims. And if they won't admit, like with that idiot Hawes, that those are metaphysical claims where they're making universal claims about what exists and what doesn't exist, then you're dealing with a stupid person and there's nothing, there's nothing you can do. And then the other thing I would say is another way to approach this debate is the critique that I did last night or whatever it
was two nights ago of the debate between Alex O'Connor and Ben Shapiro. Because every Communist who ends up saying that they believe in some form of dialectical materialism needs to. If they believe in free will, then they are already in the domain of metaphysics and they're gonna have to give an account of the will and its freedom. Those are metaphysical. That's the domain of metaphysics. And if they don't, if they want to admit that, then you're dealing with
stupid people that it's not worth wasting your time. But thank you. Yeah, you're dealing with dishonest Bill. So the Kaiser wants to come back. He's the guy I clicked earlier and we got the troll. But let's say maybe i'll click the right person on stop. Definitely in James in a majority position, there's a little lack always. How you doing, I'm doing good.
I was calling you and I had the conversation the other day about the PAPC changing doctrine, and I was arguing that they never changed their doctrine because it's always just been kissed the paper feet and what he said. I've been
thinking about that a lot lately, and I was about the certitude. And then when you put politics up as one as one of the possible talking points, it occurred to me that I was seeing himself like perhaps the only real sertitude is really offered is political certitude, in the sense of when you look at the liberation of Christian lance from Muslims obviously thought of an empire, the majority of those people, the majority of those nations doing that, were Catholications.
And it seems to me that there is some merit to that argument, but it still doesn't apply theologically at all, which should be the main domain of the papacy. But even when you see the papacy going around the world, go France, around the world, he mentioned religion early at all.
He just talked about politics all the time. So yeah, I mean this is this is an old critique that when the papacy took on this you know Dictatus Pope, Gregorian reform era, you know, Franco Papal and then Borgia Papal when they became a geopolitical world power, that this really enmessed them in putting politics first. And so this is why we get, you know, in the last century, so much CIA interaction with the papacy throughout the Cold
War. I mean John Paul was meeting with Kissinger, and you know Colby and excuse mean not Colby, the other one. I always get this, those two mixed up the other c the trad cat CIA had during Reagan era, right John Paul was meeting with these people all the time because it was essentially a geopolitical power, and religion and theology, I would argue, became
second way long ago. I think I'd agree with that. I think that's that was just something that came to my mind as a way to kind of explain because what do people always bring up is the earthly aspects of the religion. Oh, it's successful in this kindom appealing to the masses of people whatever they want to believe, doesn't matter when the theology is relevant. But I don't really think the papacy has ever done that or really focused on that aspect
of its religion. I mean, it's most of the main accomplishments. You find that the Papacy are almost all political. I guess the other thing I did, I'm just done. I agree it on that one. The other thing I was going to bring up is I've been kind of there's a big movement obviously now to almost like feel like recontextualized Protestantism. I think there's deeply conservative all it is. Hold on, Okay, I found it all right.
So, so, yeah, you were talking about the papacy being I'm just catching the chat up on. Basically, he was making the point that the papacy is kind of a committed geopolitical institution and that's led to a lot of corruption and basically the only accomplishments that they've ever had in the last a few centuries, over in the last thousand years has largely been a lot of
geopolitical accomplishments. Yes, that's true. And then you were saying, well, why are so many Protestants whose denominations are only five or ten years old they claim to having this quote traditional idea of morality, And I was saying, well, the Protestants are just ignorant for the most part, but there's also NGO and foundation and government influence in Protestant churches as well. And this is a lot bigger than people think. I think this is really and overlooked.
Thekraine, the Ukraine to Bakla has been a big window into how the deep state, how the State Department, how the CIA, how the Jesuits and all these entities are really instrumental in influencing what's happening in that sphere.
Religiously for the behests of Uncle Sam and the Anglo American establishment. So in the same way, I think that if you go back to like ten fifteen years ago, remember the emergent Church movement was I went, this is several years ago, but I remember reading about, well, who's behind this, like who decided? Who decided that there's just suddenly this emergent church in the present world, out of nowhere, And that was all dreamt up and created
by think tanks and social engineering groups. So you bet the what should we call it, sort of like a it's not even a shadow government because they're not hidden. It's in the public, right, go ahead. Absolutely, They're not even in that. They're pretty blatant with their manipulations openly at this point. I mean, the Ukrainian government is throwing Orthodox priests into gulags and God doing God knows what to them right openly and being and being praised by
Protestants and Catholics and also in some Orthodox people as well. It's rather insane. Sure, yeah, I mean, hasn't the state always wanted to control the church? Absolutely? I mean this is literally the whole history of the iconic asm controversy is the state trying to control the church. All right, let's see who's the next playoff? What's up? Playoff? Jamie Russell, Christian Middle Earth. Either you come to the VC and stop spamming the chat,
or you're gonna be booted. So you're not the first person in the history of the world to deal with this metaphysical problem has been dealt with for too thousand years in the history of the church. So either come on and chat or just leave playoff. What's up dude? Hey man, can you hear me? Okay, yes, sir? Best thing? Can you hear me? Yes? Oh, okay, good deal. Man. Hey,
I just wanted to hop on here. I've been following you for probably a better part of a year now, love all your commentary and all that stuff. And so anyway, I'm a recent Catholic convert myself. I was a Protestant for twenty eight years, you know, one of those I guess non denominational types, and love hearing you talk about you know, just religion from
many different aspects. But I was curious to get some commentary from you on where you think the source of misrepresentation of the Catholic Church comes from, and just so I'm clear, I'm not coming from an angle that the Catholic Church is this two thousand year old perfect being that is now ever, had you know any mistakes or anything like that, fully aware, there's some things that
go on that are not great, as in a lot of places. But to me, there seems to be a deep seated misrepresentation that even kids from a very early age are being taught things that are just plain not true about the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Church. And so we'd love to get your thoughts on that well. I mean, I guess it's a combination of different things, so it wouldn't be like one simple answer as to why. I mean, does the mainstream media or the education system sometimes lie about
the Roman Catholic Church. Sure, but that doesn't mean that that vindicates the Roman Catholic Church because it's opposed by the mainstream media, right, I mean, for example, mainstream media of mainstream education, they oppose a lot of fundamentalist Protestant church churches and sex. Does that make the Protestant churches in Sex true because the lefties and people like that oppose them. No, it has nothing to do with whether it's true or false. Right, So you can't
take things that are indicators, in other words, the truth. You could say the true faith will be persecuted, but the fact that there's persecution going on doesn't mean that necessarily have the true faith. That's just one of the things that will happen in the true faith. It doesn't automatically become an indicator
of the true faith because there's every group's persecuted somewhere. Right. Doesn't the Chinese government persecute certain dissidents or does that make the dissident group true because the Chinese government persecutes or whatnot. That's a fallacy, right, So I think that that does occur, like where you have people in the mainstream media that they don't know anything about theology, or in mainstream academia or whatever. They
don't really care about the theology. They just see the Roman Catholic Church as this institution that symbolizes or represents the Bible and Christianity and all of it's supposed to you know, colonizing or whatever. Their nonsense is based on it. So that's part of it. But also a part of it is that that maybe they legitimately are right that the Roman Catholic Church and the institution of the papacy became a giant organized crime structure that fosters and funds all kinds of nonsense,
and that their criticisms are correct. I mean, people are freaking out about Francis. It's like all the stuff has already been in the papacy for a long time. So what are you talking about. Francis just making stuff more public. Yeah, I'd have to agree on the Francis criticism. I don't think he's brought anything new to the table that if you followed any of the other popes and what they kind of preached, you know, is materially different. I think where I was going with it, though, is more
so on the belief systems versus you know, Catholics and Protestants. It seems like that there's just like almost a boot camp out there that's anti Catholic and we're going to teach you things that are just you know, not true about the church to almost get you in our church. And my experience in Catholicism has been and again this is just my experience. We don't really care about what you're doing at your church. Here's what we do, here's why we
think it's correct. You know, we're not here to really we'll talk and we'll have discussion, but we're not here to disprove what you're doing or tear you down or anything like that. And that was a really positive aspect that kind of drew me in. All right, well man, that might have just been your local experience of Catholicism. So, I mean, Roman Catholicism is what you want to make it, and it's all over the place. I mean Roman Catholicism at the time of urban The second was we need to
call a military crusade to fight Islam. Roman Catholicism, according to Benedict and Francis, is that you can go pray in the mosques with the Muslims towards Mecca. So you tell me which of those is the real Roman Catholicism. Yeah. I don't know enough about the history to comment one way or another. I think it's uh, you know, history has a has a tendency of changing people's minds. And then to your the first part of your comment
just there. You know, from what I do know, I think there was some Christian persecution by you know, Islamic people back then, and maybe that's why there was some no, I agree. I agree with that, but that that's not the point. The point is not can you give a justification for the Crusades. The point is that the papacy now goes in and prays towards Mecca in Moss with other Muslims, right because Christians are still being persecuted today. And you know, no, no, no, do you
not know that. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but you understand that that's a fundamental rejection of the Christian faith that Christians are No. Come on, man, I'm I'm trying really hard not to get mad to pray in a moss towards Mecca. Okay, I see what you're saying. Gotcha, Okay, gotcha. I was jumping ahead a few steps. Yeah, I would agree with your statement. Okay, and that works. How
How does that make sense? I don't think it does. Well. That might be a source of why people are mad at the Roman Catholic Church legitimately. So maybe it's not all one side of the Oh, it's all the libtards or lying and they're creating Protestant groups to boot camps to come after Catholics. Maybe the Roman Catholic Church is doing things that legitimize a lot of the criticism, and that doesn't make the Protestant goobers correct. Yeah, I don't
think it vindicates one side or the other. So I mean, look, it can't be true in nineteen twenty eight that it's a postasy to pray in other groups meetings, right, and then now it's the work of the Holy Spirit. Hello, sorry about that, I got a call. Look, how can it be true in nineteen twenty eight that it's apostasy to pray with other faiths and other religions together in a liturgical setting, and by the nineteen sixties and up until now it's now the work of the Holy Spirit to do
the very thing that was apostle. How can that be true? It's a fair criticism, not a criticism. It's a contradiction. The only I guess parallel I could draw to it. Again, this is me only being Catholic for about a year now. Is you know before Vatican two there were no masses conducted in anything but Latin, And you know that's a fundamental part of
the faith that changed. And so I'm not saying that that means, oh, everything can change and everything is subject to change, but that's the only frame of reference I would have on the first of all, the language that the liturgy is celebrated in is not a fundamental of the faith that's unchanging. Well, unless you wanted to argue that Pious the Fifth at the time of Trent argued that you could never change the Latin Mass. But I mean,
from an Orthodox perspective, it's always supposed to be in the vernacular. I mean, but the point is that the Roman Catholic Church is unchanging in faith and morals, and praying together with others and apostle heretics heretical groups is a moral failure that puts you outside of the Roman Callolic Church and your canon law. That's an action of apostasy that removes you from the body of the Church. So it's not just saying that any kind of change. We're talking about
changes in morals. For example, the death penalty was always seen as a part of natural justice in the traditional Roman Catholic moral theology, and Francis says, we don't do it anymore. It's changed. So we're not just talking about any kinds of changes at all. Everybody will admit there are some kinds of changes. We're talking about fundamental moral natural law changes and changes that now were apot Something can't be apostasy from the faith in nineteen twenty eight and be
morally good. Now, how could apostasy flip to be good? Right? Yep, I'm definitely going to dig into that more. Yeah, read more Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius the eleventh from nineteen twenty eight. So I'm not trying to be mean. Just when you make these points. If I feel like somebody is going off into some other thing and ignoring what is the point, got to call them back to it. And that's just always how we are not being mean to you. Man, I'm meeting my cough drops.
You gotta when you go down to the bottom of the Q, the Q, the quay, whatever, and you got the people with no with no profile picture, that's like usually the most crazy uh trollers. So Coco Ben looks like he's got no profile. Pick weird names. I feel like I got a troll. We need a little troll to break the to break the spell here what I say? What did I say? I can go?
Am? I not good at spot in the trolls. He's on here playing his trying to learn he's trying to trying to learn black Saba the riffs, right, The dude wouldn't be so funny if like I got it in the stream, Like what if I was practicing base or like what if I was practicing like my blackstop of the risks? We got him do anytime it's the name at the very bottom with no profile, picture and just a bunch of gibberish. It's going to be a troll called it. Look, we got
another one too. Let's save this a troll leth what's up, jay? I'm not a troll. I know I don't have a profile. Pick what's up now? Yeah, So I left Islam pretty recently. I'm going through catechism in the Orthodox Church. I just had a like a simple question. I'ven't gotten the answers about it. Okay, So about like self defense in times of war? What is the Orthodox Churches standing on, Like if you
were to go serve in the army to defending country. Yeah, the traditional stance is outlined in the recent Russian Church statement on the Relationships of Church and State and social teaching. And you absolutely have a right and a duty to defend your homeland. And it's a virtuous action of love to do so, and that would include defending your family and anybody else who says otherwise is lying
or they are subverters. Okay, yeah, no, and that makes sense because you know, personally so like my mom is a Protestant Christian, but she interprets where Jesus says those who fight by the sword shall die by the sword. I'm probably butchering that, but yeah, that's talking about people who want to live a criminal lifestyle. I'm talking about people like you know,
mobsters who want to commit themselves to living a gang lifestyle. And the point is that live by the sword, die by the sword, all right. It's not talking about whether it's always wrong to be a soldier. In fact, this debate came up at the time of Nicea because there were errant Christians in the first three centuries who were trying to tell people that you couldn't be saved if you've been in a military or if you were in the Roman military.
And the Council of Nicee you said in the Canons, there's nothing inherently wrong with being in the military if you're a soldier, and so there's nothing inherently wrong with any of that, and it's Marcianism and people misunderstanding and not putting what Jesus is saying into context with everything else he says, because in another verse he tells him to go grab a sword, sell your quotes him, buy a sword. So and I was confused about that too, and
I was like, that doesn't make any sense. That was to fulfill the prophecy. Okay, yeah, because you know, people like to just I don't know, from the outside, it looks like Christianity is like a pacifistic religion. This is how I personally I used to interpret it. Yeah, And it's a legitimate criticism because in the last two three centuries, you know,
Protestism is this degenerating, devolving thing that does turn into pacifism. And it's a legitimate criticism because as we were arguing earlier with the Marcianite guy or the guy attempt to mark, like Marcianism is the same pacifist emasculating tendency, right, And so I don't know where people just assume that that's what Christianity
is all about. Not knowing history, not knowing the Old Testament, and if you look at the history of the Church, there have been countless warrior saints, countless kings who were saints who went to battle, countless there were entire brigades of soldiers in the Businessing Empire named after different saints. And so people are just lying because a lot of people want to turn the Church into a tool for ngeo and geopolitical powers. And that's why people like out of
Fordom and all the Liby idiots they push pacifism and skittles. It all goes together because they want to change Christianity, want to change the Church into what they want it to be as a tool of the state department, as a tool. And it's not an accident that Francis did the exact same thing to say that death penalty is no longer viable. Well, it's contrary to the Gospel. Again, Roman Catholics, clear as they change. It's not lying
when you said there's no changes. Francis says that that's always against the gospel. Yeah, go ahead, Yeah, yeah, that's fascinating man. Uh.
And it's good to know. I mean, when I first started coming into Orthodoxy learning about the church, because personally, when I used to go back and forth with my mom, I thought I don't know if I'll ever become like a Protestant, like you know, they stand in church and you know, it's it's kind of like a concert and then the preacher kind of gives like a you know, like a I don't know, it's just nothing
felt religious or traditional. So but yeah, that means, yeah, it's a it's a it's a it's a feel good self help lecture is basically what Yeah, yeah, well, I'm glad to hear that you left Islam, and that's good to hear. Praise go glad you're an Orthodox church. Yeah, you just have to watch out because uh, you know, there are unfortunately, you know, sections of the Orthodox world that are liberal too, and they're going to try to tell you that. I mean, I've heard
all kinds of stories. I've myself seen people tell me in the Orthodox churches at times the old good is different good. I was told that in two thousand and seven is part of the reason I didn't become Orthodox. So it's so fundamentally stupid, and that they're telling me that Marcianism is the true Orthodox
position. I'm like, dude, I've read against heresies. I read it back in the two thousands I know there's a giant section refuting Marcianism and you guys Orthodox people, oh we fall we love her and I so we were as you don't love her, an as you're a liar. You're contradicting a giant section of the book which says Marcian is a heretic. Meanwhile, you're telling me there's a Old Testament God's a different God, Josh, Hey, Jay, I was just wondering on your website, your Orthodoxy study, but
isn't connected for a hyperleink. I was wondering if you could fix it or suggest one. Yeah, are you talking about in the book section or on the main page. He's not on the main page anymore. It's on your book section. It should go to Amazon. Does it not go to Amazon because that was the only place you could get it? No, I it just says the link's broken. Okay, well I'll try to fix that.
Anything else? Uh? Yeah, I was wondering if you have a thing for a book of Enoch What do you mean a thing like I have a love? Like? Am I secretly attracted to it to have a thing for it? No? Like like just something to like learn more about it, like a suggestion. I haven't gone into depth on it. I mean, Jamie did a podcast on it, but they were just kind of looking at the contents of it. But I mean, I did a podcast years ago
about Nephelim and all that. So, but I don't really have I don't really have any anything specific to the Book of Ennich though, good question there. Maybe I should do it. I should do a thing on the Book of Ennic eventually. Hey, Jamie, could you made me one more coffee?
Thank you? Shout out to everybody on Papal Christmas Eve. By the way, I've just been joking controlling all these the spurgs in my chat are are trying to correct every little thing like this is this is this technically is blah blah blah blah, and I'm like, I'm just joking, man, It's just jokes, okay. And yes, I know that there are Orthodox churches on the Western calendar. Yeah, it's a joke. Man. We got a lot of people in line. But that's like I got a lot
of coffe drops. So let's see Austin. Now, I gotta pick a name that sounds like they're ready to talk smack beyond polarity. Then that's that sounds like I do. That's ready to set you straight on philosophy. Yes, sir, all right, thanks for the opportunity to chat about this stuff, because it's very interesting. I like to do a lot of research and think about it. Things like this, Yeah, bout Marcian. It's funny to consider whether or not, you know, God is consistent through the Old
in the New Testament. It's a it's an interesting question, and you know, I would like to I like to remember that the part where you know, Jesus is talking to a bunch of people and then there's these kids that come and he looks at the kids and they're like, no, get away, and the kid goes, you're you're ugly, and then he like summons these bears and the bears slaughter the children, talking about that's not Jesus, that's I'm gonna Liijah. Right. Oh yeah, that's right, that's right.
That would be silly if if Jesus, instead of saying let the children come, had him slaughtered. Oh oh, he put a trap on me, right, because he think have you looked at any of the extra Jesus of that passage. I've I've looked at a lot of the scriptures, and but I I just want to talk to you without going through you know, theological lingo, just like rational and reals and like how do you you're Orthodox? Kind of Okay? Who for you has authority on truth? Like where
do you get your truth from? Ultimately it would be divine revelation, So that would be the totality of the depositive faith committed to scriptures and to the tradition of the church. Okay, but you're you're making a lot of critiques about the church, right, about the Roman Catholic Church, about the Orthodox Church. So sure, but how does that that that doesn't negate the position. Well, I'm just trying to understand how you come to your conclusions.
Like, if I am going to be alive with truth, should I just like follow everything that you believe. No, you follow whether the arguments are solid or not. Right, So you're confusing me with the arguments. So no, it's not about following me. It's who has the better argument. Okay, So that's it's more about like us and our logic and reason rather than the scriptures and the tradition. Well, I don't believe that the logic
and reasoning is out of accord with scriptures. I think that the scriptures are I think divine revelation is itself the basis and the grounding for how we can have logic and reasoning at all. Okay, but you you also were critiking people that take the Bible as like the foundation is it? Do you believe that it's No, I was critiking people that believe the Bible alone is a foundation. That's the Protestant you Okay, I got you. So it's the
tradition, so they get both. How many popes like, where did it go off the rails in your opinion? Well, I mean the Orthodox Church dates the schism to in fifty four officially, but the Roman Catholic Church dogmatically teaches error at the counts of Lions in twelve seventy four. Okay, So in that case, I mean back back then, before that that riff. Do you think that everything that the church was doing was good and that we
should go back to that? Well, you say everything that the church was doing because the church is a lot of people, So everybody in the church is I mean, people individually make mistakes, but we don't I'm not talking about individually. I mean just like the church you said everything and everybody. So well, let me just let me tell you what I mean. I mean the church, what they espouse, the higher the head of the church. But the doctrine was, well, we're not pope, so we don't
have a head of the church. I'm not asking, I'm not saying you're the head of the church. I'm just saying, no, we don't believe that there's heads of the church. There's not a we're not papists. So you're saying what the head of the church does is bad and there is no head of the church. Okay, what's the difference in the rift? What is the main rift about the role of the pope and the doctrine of the
philioque? Okay, so what went wrong? In your opinion? The papacy became lustful for worldly power, and over many centuries conceded more and more to grasping at worldly power, and by eventually, say eleven twelfth century, the Gregorian reforms, they pretty much proclaimed themselves to be god emperors. If you look at something like Dictatus pape in twelve seventy four. So that's I think
the root of it is pride and grasping for geopolitical power. Fair enough, And you mentioned earlier capital punishment, and if I recall correctly, the church was burning a lot of people. Do you think that was a good thing? Yeah, So you're talking about the Spanish Inquisition, which burned a couple thousand people in the Midy in the late Middle Ages in the West, because that didn't happen in the Orthodize Church. Okay, So before ten hundred they
didn't burn anybody in the stake No, okay? Interesting, And so your authority comes from different? Where does your authority come from? So you've asked me about my position? What's your position? Yeah, it's it's evolved over time, basically. I The first thing that kind of like woke me up spiritually, I would say, was jesus teachings right the gospels m hmm. And one of the things that repeated throughout, you know, is the love
of the truth. And that always resonated with me. So what about when Jesus identifies what about when Jesus identifies himself as the one who's the God of the Old Testament? How does that fit with how does that fit with your argument earlier about elishaw, which you mixed up with Jesus. Well, tell me where he says that in which gospel and which So you're spiritually awakened by the teachings of Christ, but you're not aware of any places in the gospels
where he identifies himself as the God of the oldest. I want to hear your argument. I'm familiar. I just don't know, like where you stand believe? Okay, John five through nine he identifies himself as the God at Mount sign I talking to Moses, and as the God of Abraham who ate with him. Okay, So well, I don't take every scripture and every word is in errant, right, So it's ad hoc. It's the places
that you don't like you throw out that's called ad hoc. Right. Well, I mean, yeah, yeah, that's right, it's ad hoc. Right. So I like that you admit you're at hoc. No, I cher everybody cheering pats your cherry pick? How did I? I don't. I don't think everybody I don't. But you're just asserting that what's your proof that everyone cherry picks? Where did I cherry pick? If you're going to give a sermon, you're going to choose scriptures. That's not the same thing
as cherry picking. Do you know what you're talking about, what you're going to talk about and which that's not the same thing as cherry picking. Inconsistently to ad hoc create a position, Those are two different things. Look again, I'm telling you my position. My loyalty is to the truth. Okay, what is the truth? And as you said, it's ad hoc picking the scriptures you like and don't like. That's not truth. It's outside of you and me and our thoughts. Okay, what is it? God?
It is God? Your truth is God? Okay? How do you know that it's God and not your delusion? That's a great question. Is something that we're all aspiring towards and we're working on. Okay, So how do we how do we judge between so between my position and your position? How do we judge between what's true and what's false? Which gospels were written? I don't think you have any idea at all what you're talking about at all, Like literally no idea what you're talking about? Which gospel was written?
Last? What scholars are you relying on for the dating? Okay, you don't know. It's John and I know what scholars? I don't know how you know that you're saying that, how do you know that? I know what scholarship says about the datings of the gospels, right, I know that they think John is the last right, So do you think it is or not? I don't even think it's relevant to this question, because that has nothing to do with whether you know it's true or false and how you know
which things to choose. That's the question I'm asking an epistemic question. Yeah, and I'm trying to elaborate on why. Okay, but you're relying on things that don't answer that. You're saying, well, the dating of the Gospel? What does the dating of it have to do with how you know which parts are true and false? What's the epistemic principle? Here's the logic on it, right, let me elaborate. You have four Gospels written at
different times most credible scholars. I asked you an epistemic question. No, you're not. I don't think you even understand what that is. You're just telling me questions that don't answer the You're answering with things that don't answer the epistemic question. You don't know what I'm answering. It's not an answer, because I can already tell where you're going. You're talking about most scholars. That's when you cite most scholars as your next sentence, who's begging the qu
you understand what begging? The question is? How do you know you've chosen the right scholars? Yeah? How do you know? That's a two quoque way. I'm asking you the questions I already answered, So fallacy, fallacy? Can you stop with the fallacies? I what is the episody? I know? And I'm asking a specific question about epistemic principle as to how you know what you're choosing? What is that? And you said the scholars that are reliable begs, that's not an epistemic question. So I can just you
understand. I can just say the scholars that I like? Does it? Would you accept that? Hey? Logic and reason? That's what you do too? You think you think I just sit here and say logic and reason. So the response is just to say logic and reason. Wait, that's what you said, Oh my gosh, are you serious? What can we help you in some way? Like? Is there a facility nearby that we could help you to? Do you even understand the questions what do you know
what an epistemic question is? What is that? What is the principle of believing what is true? Well, it's right. The principle as to how we would know western and false correct correct? Being very competitive, it's called a debate stream. What is the what is the first word in the sind? Well, I'm not upset. I'm not upset. I just put it. I don't put up with stupid answers. Yeah, because you tried to trap me with your first question about Elisha, Right, you think it's funny.
So here you're giggling. You can't answer a basic question. You're over here giggling. Now you're trying to act like you're all primed questions. You didn't answer anything. You just stated that we rely on certain scholars. That's begging the question. Saying certain scholars is not an epistemic principle. It's connected with using logic and reason. How do you know you're using the right logic
and reasoning. I'll answer if finish, you just keep staying go, okay, so there are I mean, yeah, so you exactly that's very childishaw you Yeah, because I don't put up with your arrogant condescending gnostic bull crap. Dude, I'm asking you a question. The gospels all written. My question was, what's your epistemic principle? Has not been answered? You're asking me a question. Okay, so yeah, you're not a very good debater. I'm not a good debater, right so, you who has never debated
anybody. I've debated the top people in the world. I'm not a good debater. You don't even know what you're debating. You're lost, you're flustered. I'm trying to help you out, but you think I'm just being mean. You're so arrogant that you can't understand. What's that root here? What's that question? Do you understand that? Do you see that? What's your epistemic principle? What's your epistemic principle? Don't interrupt me and I'll tell you
what's your epistemic principles. If you don't answer, I'm gonna boot you because I'm asking you this about twenty times. What's the epistemic principle? What's the epistemic principle? If you keep bitching, I'm gonna boot you all. This is a time waste, this is filibustering. What's the epistemic principle? What is it? It's like you said, logic and reason Just saying logic and reasoning is not a justification exactly. This is what you get with the idiocy.
This is what gnosticism gives you, idiocy. Next up and merely this sounds like a treasure. Hi. Hello there, Yeah, oh my goodness. Happy Christmas to everyone. Although this is a partisan festivity that I'm not agree with, but anyway, it's just for say hello to everyone. I want to take a point, which is I think the most important. Look, it's very simple. Is there golden rule that Jesus Christ show us with
his actions? By the fruit you will know them. Jesus Christ was there all around telling the truth, going in and out of prison because he was a leader of anarchists that will not believe in any power. You are totally off, no idea what you're talking about. You're completely listen to me. Listen to me. Wait, wait a meaning, No, I'm not going to listen to you. What are you talking about? Jesus is an anarchist? What are you talking about? Jesus Christ? You've never read the gospels?
What are you talking He's not an anarchist. I read everything, You've read everything. Yes, I was kidnapped and I was raped with nine years old, and I sought for God with nine years old. I know what trauma is moving on. It's almost like that's why I've agreed to just accept the mental illness of all of this, because we know we're not going to get an actual debate, so we might as well just have the mentally ill
people just saying just gibberish. The gnostics just flustering and giggling and yelling. Let's see. And I'm trying to choose the craziest looking It's working so far, Like I'm trying to choose, like looking at the profile, like, all right, that's going to be a Gnostic goober. Let's see, Let's pick another. What's the most goofy looking something? Over here? Here's another pictureless profile. These are always the best, can you hear me? Yes,
sir, Hello Jay, I'm a really big fan of you. I just, first of all, excuse me if I sound a little bit off, but I'm a little bit tipsy because I just got back from a family m like dinner because it's Christmas Eve even all, so I just want to well, First of all, I just want to say that I'm a Roman Catholic, and I just want to tell you that I agree with a lot of what you say when it comes to Roman Catholicism. I feel like when it comes to our faith in particular, I think I think Vatican too.
It's my whole thing with Vatican two is that I think it was just a complete another like it wasn't even part of the church. Like I think it was just a experiment done by elites. It's not even it's not a part of the church, even though it was confirmed by the Pope for the entire church with full Apisolic authority on faith and morals. Sure, but it's not part of the church. Yeah, exactly, Sure, good job. That's why tradcats have to drink to cope. So moving on, I want to
remind you guys that we have a mini sponsor here. Why is this not working? You got me to I'm sassy today. I'm sorry, I'm sassy. I don't know what you want from me. I said I was gonna be humble Protestant pastor, telling you everything you wanted to hear. But I've turned into a mean man again. I tried within how long have we been going? Within one hour, I got mean, within one hour of gnostic nonsense, gibbering, flustered incoherence, and then we had a drunk foreign whatever
she was woman yelling at me that Jesus is an anarchist. I'm immediately a mean man. So I guess it's just time to give up the Year of Love twenty twenty four. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. I'm gonna keep striving guys to listen. People who are always fussing about what I do, like they don't know what it's like to have an actual debate. And the reason that people think I'm interrupting people, they think that I'm being mean, or that I just don't want to answer their questions, or I'm scared
to let them have a chance to answer. And it's none of that at all. It's because when I ask a person a question in an exchange. Now you notice in that exchange, I let him ask me about five questions about my views, right, and I answered all of his views or all of his questions. Then I asked him like one or two questions right, And when he started to answer, he was immediately going to an assertion a
claim that doesn't answer and avoids the question I'm asking. So, if I'm asking for an epistemic principle and he says, based on the scholars that are reliable that I know that's not an epistemic principle, or if he thinks it is, it's very easy to refute. Do you understand? And I when I ask him, what do you think an episomic principle is? And he says, well, it's like logic and reason. Like you say, yeah, but now you're gonna have to give an account for logic and reasoning.
It doesn't You can't just say, oh, I appeal to logic and reason, like there's some dudes over there that helped me out. Like I'm in the middle of the debate and I'm over here, like, hey, hey, logic, come over here, dude, bring your friend reason. Tell me what the answer is. Oh, my appeal is to my buddy's logic and reason. The rap duo logic good reason. Right. You can't just say logic, how's to give? You have to give an account good grief.
By the way, there's actually a really good Extrajesus of the Bearer's passage in James Jordan's book where he covers the fact that the word that's used there is not infants, right, It's like it's like forty infants. We're just rolling around the streets of Jerusalem, and Elijah was over there like just calling out bears to mall infants. The word is like young youth, gang like teens, troubled, evil teens. And to mock a person who's a known
representative and voice of God is to mock God himself. So we're basically we're talking about the sharks and the jets here dissing God prophet, and the bear comes out and destroys the evil teens, not a bunch of babies goo goo ga gay crawling through the streets of Jerusalem. And then the prophet is out of nowhere. Bear get them. That's so stupid. There are a bunch of young punks, dude. But he that wasn't even gonna go. Yeah, it wasn't even go. And I go there. I mean that was
like we are speaking different languages. I think, like because when we when I talk about what it like when we ask people for a justification for their beliefs, for their principles, like they have they still have no idea what we're talking about. By the way, if you want to support us, we have a new mini sponsor here with Lower Coffee. This is an organic coffee company and you can purchase Lore right there. Go check out their stuff,
use the promo code. Actually, I think you just use that affiliate link right there, and you support also FDA as well if you would like to get some coffee. Good grief. So again, people don't People don't even know what debate is. They have no idea how it works, how it functions, and they literally think when I'm calling people back from trying to use red herrings, that it's all just tricks and tactics and I'm being mean,
man, it's just super stupid, like you really. So let's say that we're playing chess, and let's say that you guys are watching me play chess with somebody online. It's a live stream of a chess match, and I'm over here doing chess things, and then the other person comes and says, oh, here's my checker piece, and I'm going to knock over your king with my checker piece. I win. What would you all think about that? You would think it's ridiculous it's an invalid move. Checker pieces don't
work in this game. That's a violation of the rules of this game. Likewise, debate functions on rules. You don't just make them up. They're not arbitrary. You can't pick and choose. Well, we all pick and choose. I mean, like he's confused. Picking and choosing is not the same thing as picking verses to talk about. I mean, it was just like unbelievable. But yeah, so again, why why you not debate people who literally have absolutely no knowledge. It's like you have no knowledge of what
you're talking about people in the chat. It was ridiculous. I mean, you don't know what you don't know. That's what I'm trying to convey to you. And you just want to sit there and giggle like you think, like you think you're winning or getting something over on me or something. It's it's not harming me, dude, it's harming you. I want you guys to call in that are fussing in the chat. Just call in. It's an open forum. It's his golden opportunities here. Let's see Jean Sant JJ
page. Uh. Oh, anybody that's got an old eighteen hundreds looking dude in their profile. We know that's going to be trouble. You gotta I'm mute, man, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. What did you say? I'm mute. What's what's on your mind? Interesting? So, Jay, I'm not really familiar with you. I'm I just kind of stumbled upon this space. I was interested. What is your what is your view on God or what is your religion? So to speak? Orthodox Christian?
I believe God is a trinity and I affirm the traditional Orthodox Catholic view. What about you? I am inquiring into Catholicism right now. I'm not Catholic, but I tend Mass regularly. What what would make you choose Roman Catholicism. Well, I'm just kind of inquiry into it right now. I do believe that the pope and the structure of the church is like descendant from the
early Church fathers. What would what would you say in response to someone who believes that, like, why would someone choose Eastern Orthodoxy or Orthodoxy rather than I would say that the post second millennium papal superstructure that we see in documents like Dictatus Pope in ten seventy four or absolutely nothing like the way the church functioned in the first thousand years, and so it is categorically false that the
papacy exemplifies the Christianity the first thousand years. I would say that there are numerous contradictions and change and dogma that also proved the papacy to be a fallacious, ridiculous position. And second lastly, the last several years of Francis has only borne this out one thousand fold. Interesting, thank you for that. I'm not really a theologian. I don't have anything to argue for, so you can send me back down to listeners. But Merry Christmas, you two,
and I'm not trying to be mean to you. Have you heard of Dick Tatus Pape as an example, No, I have not, so just real quick and I've got it pulled up on the screen. Here. This is the Pope Gregory the seventh. He's the famous pope the time of the Gregorian Reforms, and he listed out these what he called the dictates that were entered into his register in ten seventy five, and it continued to be there
for many decades later. And actually the pope after Gregory, I forget which one he was, but it's in the Mayandorf book that I've been talking about in great detail. There's a whole there's a whole chapter in this book on how even Gregory the seventh didn't actually accomplish a lot of these dictates being accepted. It was his successor that did. But regardless, the dictates are things
like the Roman Church was founded by God alone. Well, you can go reader in as where he talks about the Roman Church being the church of Peter and Paul. The Roman Church alone is universal. Well, ever since the Econmenical Councils, the patriarch of Constantinople was also called universal. The pope alone
chooses the bishops in the world. Well, that's not how the pope operated in the first thousand years, because any metropolitan or three bishops could choose to ordana bishop, so the pope didn't decide all the bishops in the world. The pope alone can use the imperial insignia. You think in the first thousand years of the church, the pope alone could use the imperial insignia, right,
Well, I mean that right. Well, I'm not trying to be mean to you, but I would take a look at the dictatus pope because it's a great example of what you're signing on to. And although the papacy, uh you know, post Vatican two or whatever, has definitely shied away from a lot of these outlandish quiza tadarak god Emperor, claims, it's still there. I mean, it's still something that they mandated. In fact, they said, if you don't accept the temporal supremacy of the pope all lot
when I'm sunkedum, you are damned. And now you don't even have to believe that. So this is a religion where the innovation stemmed from the papacy itself. Austin, Austin, Kay, I'm mute. Are you there? Moving on, Brandon, let's go Brandon. Thank you guys for those super chats, much appreciated. We will get to the super gester in a second. Brandon, I'm mute, Yes, sir, did I hear my name? Yep? I was over here practicing on this broken guitar. That's all
you do? Good? What's up? Uh? Yeah? Uh so I was just wondering, do you do you have like a a special Christmas dinner? You guys make over there? Yes, we make long duck dong. Let's see. Moving on, modern Native what's up, dude? You gotta I mute. When are you going to debate the Jews? Uh? I've had one Jewish guy offered a debate in four years and he want to debate freemasonry. So brand no, not Brandon, dude, I gotta. I'm
mute, man, guys, mute, it's up. Hey h. So you were talking earlier about epistemological principle, like, how do we even have a meaningful conversation? I think that's key, right, Like, if we're
going to have a conversation, you have to create to terms. Sure, if you want to talk about formal argument, I think a good place to start off with is scratching off the list of things that are not true and then narrowing it down to things that are specifically, using the law of non contradiction and modus tolance, I think you can kind of tear apart most of postmodern thinking and throat to the wayside before you can have a more objectivist approach.
Specifically, you know, the whole idea that everything's a construct except for apparently the construct. That everything's a construct, that's obviously a truth claim in self negating, right, It's a basic pre sup critique right, or everything's a matter of perspective, except for the perspective that everything is a matter of
perspective. It's absolutely true. There are no absolutes. We know that you can't know anything like all these things muggle in truth claims while pretending not to, or maybe the most morally bankrupt grupped of all of them, that there are no greater metinariors or truth claims. There's only power, which is a low key admission of moral bankruptcy, because if you believe the only thing that is true is power, you're gonna lie, steal, and cheat to get
what you want in the name of the quote unquote greater good. So that's obviously you know, someone like that can't be trusted and shouldn't be debated. So I think just by narrowing it down to that, I think there is actually a logical principle for talking about an objectivist position. Yeah, that's the direction I was going in if we had continued in a rational discourse. Yeah, I'm curious what you think about this specific argument. You know, in
all of language, a lot of terms are subjective. To be fair to the postmodernists, to play the devil's advocate, but they're not all completely subjective, Like the word absolute is pretty binary. You know, something can't be sort of absolute or kind of absolutely either is or it isn't. So the degree of the claim to stay within the claim itself, which is, you know, absolute. So we know that it violates the law of non contradiction
to say that it's absolutely true. They are not such things absolute. So therefore there's only one, by a virtue of modus Tolan's one argument that remains, which is absolutely true. But a lot of people push on back, push back on this and say, like, well, who cares, because in order to say what the absolute truth is, you'd have to be standing from an absolute dvantage point on knowledge and right. So you know, I'm not trying to be rude, but this is the pre subsitional transit argmentation,
internal critigue that we do all the time. Sure, So my question is if you have to be standing from an absolute vantage point to say what the truth is? And since no mere mortal has the luxury of saying that what it is, because no one has absolute knowledge or data except for maybe God. Yeah, God God serves that function. God serves that function in the world view. Sorry, God, serves that function in the worldview and in
the argument. Sure, but arguing it from like a position of non faith to someone who is you're debating, isn't the point to win over the debater? Not necessarily to win the argument now the point is Sorry, Well, I mean, I've been debating for twenty years, and in my experience, the point of debates is for the audience. It's not too rarely will you
convince the opponent? M Well, how about this? If you can say that absolute truth exists, but it's forever beyond our reach because no one has the absolute vantage point, well, that would be antext then infer that, like there must truth that is transcendental, that is outside of our vantage point, outside of our perception, and independent of our perception and even existence.
Well, I mean, I just think the statement itself would be meaningless and unjustified because how are you you can't how are you gonna claim that there's truth that's outside of our you know, reach? Just phrase itself doesn't make any sense. You don't then you cannetologically ontologically, just like you can't prove beauty or human rights or anything. I think I think you can prove those things. So what do you mean, how would you prove them through the transcend
no argument? What do you mean? Yeah, so I guess you mean other than other than an appeal to like some sort of absolute vantage point akaa God. Then you have to narrow it down to like, you know, I don't need to narrow it down because the argument is the trans and argument for God's existence, so it includes those things you're you're talking of out specifically
a religious vantage point are you talking about revelational theism? Is the argument I would make, correct, Okay, if you start off with, like, if you do a lot of public debates, I can see why you would not be interested in winning over the debater. And to be fair, a lot of times people come in deeply digged into their positions, so I get you know why that would not be primarily your goal. But I used to be an anti theist, an atheist, and I was won over by a
Christian minister. Yeah, sometimes that can happen, you know. Yeah, And there are those of us out there, so I think, you know, it's it's worth trying to make the effort, even if it seems silly. Because I used to be one of the most opposed people you could possibly meet, you know, but I, over the course of seven years, changed my mind. So yeah, I think your right to say too there that it's not Typically it's not one debate that's going to change people's minds.
Usually it's a series of events over a span of time, Like you said, many years. I mean, it's not going to be one thing. But if you're hopping into the middle of this, if you're not familiar with what we do, I mean, we've been doing this for years. We've opened it up. I mean, we what I usually do, and I've said this for many years on here is that when people come on, they're
going to it's kind of like debate school here. They're going to be held to certain standards and the purpose here, and we're going to have fun along the way and joke around. But the purpose here is to call people back to invalid moves. Right, So when people think I'm interrupting and being mean,
I'm calling them back to an invalid move. Just like if we were playing chess and somebody took the queen and or the pawn and moved it all the way over there to take down my king out of nowhere at the first move that wouldn't worry to be invalid move I said, no, no, go back, start over. So that's what this is. This is like debate school in a way. So yeah, so, and it's it's informal. This is not a formal debate, but a lot of people are always
asking me. They're like, help me to debate better, help me to I want to learn to do better in rhetoric and in this kind of stuff. So that's partly what we're doing here as well. It's kind of helping people understand and hear bad argumentation and hear it called out. So there's a
lot of different purposes as to what we're doing here today. And it's not primarily to necessarily convince the immediate opponent, because I get a lot of trolls, and there's a lot of bad faith people that hop on here and they're not interested in being convinced or learning the truth. They just want to be silly and they will get silliness back. So again, it just depends on
the context of who hops on here, gotcha. I do think that one thing that's like sorely missing is this whole idea of quantity and quality of evidence generally speaking, in our public discourse, Like if there's a lot of quality evidence, probably true. Not a lot of quality evidence evidence probably not true. And if it's a mixed bag of like mixed quality or mixed quantity,
you know you have to parse it out. But it seems like there's a lot of stuff that just gets thrown out there and there's very little evidence for it whatsoever, and it just goes by. I'm completely unquestioned that. I mean, if you're talking about general discourse in modern society, yeah, most
people are not able to operate in a coherent logical discourse way. But I don't know what you're talking about throwing out stuff without significant I don't are you talking about the context of religion, what are you talking about just in the context of really anything, Like if you go to court, you know you can have some solid evidence, but if there's just a little bit of it, it's only going to have so much sway. I guess it depends on
the evidence. But if you have a lot of evidence and it's solid, you know you've got a strong case. And I just sometimes I hear people say just throw out meager evidence, and it's really incoherent and discombobulated I'm just like, why would you think that would fly? You know, like, yeah, you know, like, I don't understand why we sort of discount one for the other. It seems like both quality and quantity should always be considered in conjunction, but that doesn't seem to be the case a lot of
times. Right. Well, I'm not an evidentialist, so I don't think that evidences ultimately do the work that most evidentialists think that they can do. But we do have to use evidences for sure. But I agree with your overall points. Yeah, because it was the fine tuning argument that really caught my eye back when I was an atheist and also trying to come up with like a logical, a sort of a secular a universal setler secular ethic.
I tried to undertake that, and I very quickly realized how impossible that was, because you can't be divorced from your time in place, your socioeconomic sass, your parents, your DNA, the schools you went up to, the language, and then even the choices you make are made through a sort of a cultural grid, which is a set of incentives and punishments, and people always tend to gravitate towards the incentives and shy away from the punishments. And
so we're really just sort of a snapshot of our time and place. And you know, how could you how could you privilege your Western individualism over someone's Eastern collectivism? I read exactly. There has to be like an absolute vantage point to like Martin Luther King Junior said in Letters from Birmingham Prison or the Nuremberg Trials or William Uberforest. You know, there has to be God's law to call out man's law when man's law becomes unjust. So and I was
like, well, it's just it's impossible, or it's nihilism. I mean, it's either God or it's nihilism, because everything else is just sort of imperialistic ethnocentrism. Mhm. So yeah, well I agree with those points, Wentz. Thanks man, Modern Native got some good philosophical insights there. Let's see who's next, Jose or no way, let's I'm trying to I'm trying
to see who from their profile. Viedu looks meaner. Tyler looks pretty mean, looks like he's ready to beat some butts, better whip some butts. What's up, Tyler? I'm here, Jay. I I found out about you to you know, Alex Jones, and I I became a Christian, uh about three years ago. I was technically non believer. My the mother of my children, she ended up getting into getting into witchcraft and uh prostitution ring, like a freemason prostitution ring, and I was came face to face
with with real evil. And from that day forward, I've realized that if there's evil, it's that I know that God's reel. But that's a little bit of my background. But I just asked some questions for you. I ended up getting baptized in a Seventh day Adventist church and I have a very open mind. I don't you know. I'm open to any and that's why I wanted to talk to you. So just a few questions for you. This is all what i've uh you know, determined in my in my thinking,
in my opinion. But would you say, is is Satan bringing about a self fulfilling prophecy through revelation? Because it seems like for everything they'd be going down that exact way that God he was going to do that no matter what God had written in the Bible. Is that correct? I think you know Paul says that the mysteries of the Church and the Incarnation were hidden from
the powers and principalities of this world. So I think that that we don't exactly know what Satan can and can't understand, or how deep he understands or sees things. I think that regardless when he made his choice in the Aon at the beginning, when the angels fell, he confirmed himself in this perpetual movement towards evil. So what exact degree of knowledge he has of the overall plan of God? Scripture seems to speak as if there's things hidden from him.
He's not omniscient, So I don't know if I would say he's intentionally fulfilling a self fulfilling prophecy or he's just sort of like a madman berserker guy hell bent on, you know, just destruction and chaos, because that's what he chose to do, right, And that's kind of what I thought initially, But the more I think about it, it's Is it possible that he's
trying to call God's bluff in some way like Jesus's bluff. I guess you'd say that he's going to convince the people that there will not be a second coming, and he's going to bring about all the pups. He's a revelation and when they when they they come about, and and Jesus doesn't appear, then they would make everyone, you know, a non believer, even though he would know that, you know, eventually something's going to happen, but our judgment would come down. But you know, he's trying to you know,
get as maybe hell as he can. So that's just something I thought i'd Chad. I'm not sure, I mean, as to what degree like his plans are to try to trick people about the incarnation, I don't know. I mean, it's it's hard to say exactly what I mean. We have basic ideas in the Orthodox Church about the things that are going to happen as we move towards the end, whenever that is. But I don't know
if we know exactly all the details of the Satanic plan. We do know things like there will be a great apostasy of the church, there will be, you know, an attempt to rebuild Solomon's Temple, an attempt to have a one world religion, all this kind of stuff, one world government,
the worship of a single political leader, as God anti Christ. I mean, we know those kinds of things are coming, but as to the specifics of like it'll be Ai and Satan will has this plan to like make everybody believe that it's the second Coming. I mean maybe I just don't know, so it's it's very speculative. Father Deacon, are you there? Did you want to chime in at all? Do you have a couple of things to say or do you want me to do you want to just keep going?
No, I'm just hearing. I enjoyed that last tentleman with the epistemological questions, and you know, I'm throwing out for people to give me their best objections attag. Yeah so, Father Deacon, if you go over to his Twitter page, is asking for people who have serious objections to the transcendental argument. I think he's wanting to kind of collect those and then respond to them
and something he's doing. Yeah so, I mean, I don't mind arguing here, but the thing on my Twitter acts, I'm not challenging people. I've just I really just want to know what people think and how they've kind of experienced tags hang ups. Some of the best objections and you don't even
have to agree with the objection. It's just objections that you think, Hey, I think this is worthy of responding to because I'm collecting that and writing a paper, So any feedback that anybody has isle and even on here too, I'd love just to hear what people think. Thank you for that. I am going to briefly do this while I go to the little girl's room. Chad Mode is your ultimate natural pre workout designed to take your performance to
this level. Chad Mode is for natty beast alphas only. Whether you're hitting the gym, invading a favella, conquering a small village, gambling, burning the midnight oil, mogging on your coworkers, or getting banned from Facebook, chad Mode gives you the competitive edge you need. 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.
Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors ensuring a clean and effective formula. Only soy boys and Beta's guzzle blue dye and sucralose further tanking they're already low
testosterone levels. Chad Mode is made in America. Unlike your common TikTok peasants prework out powder, it does not contain Chinese lab made caffeine and artificial sweeteners that soyboys so often crave. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode with Blue Magic registered trademark organic blue spirillina extract, organic lemon cherry and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract.
Each dose of chad Mode mirrors the caffeine kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy. Alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire your boss and mog on anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will give you a dominant and aggressive edge, like a lion hunting a gazelle, where the gazelle is a TikTok Jim zoomer macro guzzling sucralose on the daily, edging to
TNF videos. Whether you're seeking a high potency, junk free pre workout or a better way to kickstart your day, Chad Mode has you covered. It's not just for men. Dad Mode is a solution for anyone ready to conquer their fitness and life goals, dominate their coworkers, and aggressively show off something that we're all proud of. I've got a browser here. This is Jay Dyers, much vaunted, much sought after philosophy one oh one. Now he
just got this page up. We are just testing you give him the first people know. I want to say, for my part, it's not philosophy want oh one. I think this is a mis mistitling. I really think is as like philosophy unleashed, because a philosophy want on one course, they
give you kind of some useless information that you can't make sense of. Jay actually lays out over twelve weeks, dozens and dozens of hours put into just the presentation of this, let alone the hundreds and thousands of hours of research that it takes to have a coherent evolution and history of the origins of philosophy, the uses of philosophy, the different ways to look at it over time, and how that has been brought about to what we have today, which
is almost an absence of philosophy on the objective, logic and reason side in an overabundance of woke philosophy that is irrational is made up day by day as people are like, I think we should bring racism back, and then here's a justification, and then it gets wokeified and spread out, and then all of a sudden you have a bunch of communist socialist ideas where you become the property in action. You need to be able to stand on your own ground.
It helps to have a foundation in philosophy because it's a method define truth when you get down to it. Philosophy is there because you, and it is as far as the notes and the type of coffee, it's a balance is sweet. So that means you don't have to put your industrial waste cream or your satanic sugar in it to enjoy. So if you're on a keto carnivores, hey, great, get it. Consider supporting patriistic faith and Jay Dyer work coffee by purchasing that. And also I want to remind you guys,
too. Thank you for other Deacon, I've got the link. As I said to the lower coffee there, that's his affiliate. You can also support me via heading over to talk dot com. You just saw the ad. Use the promo co Ja fifty. You get fifty percent off not just the chad Mode pre workout, but all the excellent products over there, including the Talk Eataly, including the Action two point zero, including the Daily All of those are excellent products over at Chalk to enhance your performance at the gym
and any other masculine activity. That's also for the ladies. It's not just for duds. So heading over to talk dot com, remember you can also, as you've seen in the background here get this book right here. I got multiple stacks of copies of meta narratives in. You can get those over at the website. In the shop you can also get the Red Book, Essays on the Alga in Philosophy, as well as all the other old classic books Esoty Collie one on two in the shop at Jason Alys's Choices. For
five dollars, can you make a video tour of the library. We already did that, donut this five dollars do it? Ji impression where he says, imagine that the computer simulates your brand being are aped by a monkey, and then there you go, mind hacked since ten dollars, says Merry Christmas, Thank you mind hack much appreciated. Haven't seen you around in the super chat domain for a while. Glad to see you back ten dollars, ten cents, eleven dollars. What if alien Yoda was twerking Ooh, I don't
know. Would that be would that make you a perv? I mean? Or would it be cute? You tell me? Colloquolav bang five dollars. Did the herrowing of Hades happen outside of time? I don't think we know the way that the spiritual realm, or the realm of the dead, and the no edic realm, the way it seems to interact with time but not be bound by time. So in some way things happen instantaneously, or the correlation between the movements are different between time of space, so we don't know.
But it seems to have happened in some way relating to time, because it happened between the time of Christ dying, descending, and resurrecting, So in some way there was a temporal connection there. Can you point me to fathers on the subject. Hilari and Alfaev has a whole book on the heroing of Hades, so that would probably be the most expansive book on the subject. Ganner sixteen, five dollars and two cents, Jay Mary Christmas, two
questions. Do a review of Altered Carbon? Maybe I just haven't really committed to a lot of these more recent kind of seems like everything post twenty sixteen and sci fi is just all woke, and so it's just unwatchable. Do our analysis because it's a super revealing dystopia. Unblocked me on Twitter? I don't know. I usually find that the people that I've blocked were blocked for good reason, no idea why I blocked you. If you unblock me,
I will finally take care of the way that you cough. So does that mean you have the antidote to the T virus that you gave me? Alexander Soldier needs in ten dollars, I want to say thank you, thank you, Alexander. James Feji for three dollars, can you elaborate what arianism is? Arianism is the doctrine that Christ is the first that Jesus, the son of God, is the first thing that the Father created before the foundation of
the world, and then he moved on to create everything else. So Jesus becomes a kind of demi God, and then Jesus and then salvation consists in a kind of a moral realignment where you become like Jesus in the sense of being more and more of a moral person. So then explain to me why penal substitution and toonement is Rian because the idea that the sun is damned in our place would require either a Nestorian Jesus or an ary in Jesus, because
you can't damn the second person of the Trinity. He's God from all eternity. You can't split the Trinity. So very simple, that's the simple presentation, Mary, Christmas, Mery Christmas to you, glitchy three dollars. Some people think that you owe them time because you do this show. Thank you for your work. By the way, have you heard the uri vestment ofv clip Just kidding exactly, glitchy five dollars. In other words, entitle people
think that you owe them because you're doing this. Merry Christmas, Mary Krimbas to you and your Queen. Shout out to Tim and Eric krimbas there. Thank you, Eric arenas twenty five dollars, Thank you so much. Arena. Well we did, we did get a white mom yelling at us tonight, didn't we? That was a sweet surprise. That was a sweet wine. So sweet cherry wine, sweet red right like Steve Rules, says sweet
Cherry Writt. She sat us straight, yalled at us, told us that Jesus was an anarchist and her justification was because she had been through trauma. Well, I'm sorry for your trauma, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether your views are correct or not. So got a few more minutes. I'll try to make this last bit quicker, mister Victor. One of one, I can't doctor one of one or something. Gotta one Mary. Christmas and happy New Year. So merry Christmas, do you. I'm more
excited for the New Year part. But you know, there's a lot of money going in and out right now, going in and out of what are you talking about? The Well, Christmas, you know, is like the last Q four holiday that you know a lot of people are spending money. Okay, did you have anything related to the topic or what's up? The topic is we're moving on Crusader. Hey you got you got Crusader in your name and you got an Orthodox cross. How does that work? Ye?
Barely perfect. I just wanted to lead off and today Mary Christmas, I started watching your channel for months ago. Orthodoxy, I'm an inquire right now. That is want today. I appreciate it, and I called politics one of the topics. Yeah, it also relates to Orthodoxy. But where do you think the churches fit into the street or like, what's the dynamic there? Uh? Is there like an ideal maybe state that you have in history or contemporary history? Yeah, I mean we addressed that many times in live
streams, probably ten different livestreams five or six years ago. So I mean monarchy is the ideal political system that's nowhere near anywhere on the table of what we can really expect. So that really only makes sense when the majority of the people in the society have the right Orthodox faith. Otherwise it's really it doesn't it doesn't even matter. But I do have many old streams on what the best form of governance is emu uriarte. This sounds wild debate of emu
Hello, yes, sir, I'm sorry, can you hear me? Well? I can, Okay, thank you very much. I just want to say I'm a big fan of you, J Dre and I actually, I actually did want to focus on that thing you just got done saying the monarchy versus lack democracy and those types of world systems. I guess I can see how the monarchy system would function like better in a way when you have like
a complete, like a faithful society. But do you think that leads to like the actual better flourishment of the people that participate within it, or do you think that's just more sort of a like it's a setup to maintain the moral framework of the society rather than the actual like prosperity of it. Maybe
I'm not saying that right. I mean it sounds like a utilitarian argument, like, well, we're going to choose the system based on what gives us the best, what monetary or social gains, Like I mean, we should just have theoin bitcoin society because that's going to give us the most gains. So what I don't understand your question, like you're saying, is monarchy true because is it the best? Because it is not. It's not the best because it's not going to give us the most gains. Is that what you're
saying? Well, I mean I would think it would be ideal, but I just don't think it. I think historically monarchist societies have like naturally kind of eroded to more of like a parliamentarian's, especially in the West. Where Why do you think that erosion happened? Though? I mean, that's not the that's not the most societies in history haven't been parliamentarian or republics or democracies.
They have been monarchies. I mean, I understand that, but you don't think the most like powerful and effect I get, yeah, powerful and effective doesn't necessarily equate to good, but you know what's helpful. That just caught me off guard. I don't know why I even mentioned that was about the reason even join I'm sorry Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Pause one second, Let father did I was gonna say the Hans from a hop Uh so I was. Can you not hear him? No? I can? Okay, can
you pause this one second? He's talking the Hans from a hop article from Aristocracy the monarchy is really good and it shows the change in the corruption that led to kind of parliamentarism that you mentioned. But one thing that's really important
you have to understand it. It's a fundamental because, like Jay said, because of fundamental ideological and philosophical changes that occurred, specifically in modernity, the way that man related and thought about the state, change the state, and antiquity was there too the laws not to prevent them and give them these kind of libertarian rights and prevent them from killing each other, but to actually encourage and establish a framework in which the citizen could acquire virtue. So, as
Jay said, there isn't this kind of notion of like monetary success. The most important thing in the mind of the an ancient was acquiring virtue and becoming a better person. And so you'll see even in that article, the Hongs from hop thinks, even though he's in you know, an anarchom an anarchist, he thinks the most natural form of government is a monarchy. But these ideologies came in and corrupted that and changed it into kind of parliamentary monarchy,
and then democracy in it further kind of devolves. So I just point you there as a helpful article. All right, let's check out. Thank you for that. Let's check out Zed Wagner. I'm trying to hurry through a lot of these together. There's like twenty people in it, Zed Wagner, what's up? Zed? Hello? Sure? Can you hear me? Hey? Thank you for doing what you do. Jay. You let me the Orthodoxy I have a question. I'm not here to debate. I'm totally on
you know, the orthodox position and the tag position. But I was a question about specifically Catholicism and the Jesuit society. Has it always been corrupt or was there a time in which it was trying to hold true to what it thought the Catholic teaching and doctrines were as as flawed as they are, or has it always been like this, uh, free Masonic organization LARPing as a
Christian organization. That's a good question that would probably require somebody who is more of a specialist in his history of the Jesuits to really give you a solid answer on that, because as time progresses, as we get up into the twentieth century, with more and more books being written about the Jesuits, you get a lot more lore, a lot of gibberish, a lot of conspiracy nonsense that sort of becomes an accretion on the story and the history of the
Jesuits. So we all know that Ignacious Loyola was a part of some kind of sort of esoteric group before he became a Jesuit. It is possible that when he was amongst this iluminous type of group, he maintained some of those ideas as he went into forming the spiritual exercises and whatnot. And there is
an overlap of certain groups and people. I mean, even the writers quickly talks about in the Anglo American establishment that the Royal Society elite, the Cliveden set and others utilized the spiritual exercises as a manual for how they would kind of run things in a cell structure for their their power block. But that
doesn't mean that they were doing it because they believe Jesuit philosophy. They just thought that the tactics and the techniques of having a confessor and the way that the confessor might potentially manipulate you through the Jesuit practices allah Ignacious Spiritual Exercises could be a technique that they could use. And I think a lot of the low IQ conspiracy crowd thinks that that means that the New World Orders run by
Jesuits. No, No, they took the Jesuit spiritual practices that handlers use or the spiritual confessors use, and that that gets transferred over into like the intelligence world of like a handler and then his operative right. So so that's part of it. But is it possible that the there is actually secretly and esoteric thing that the Jesuits are into. That's definitely possible. But I don't know enough about like the whole the actual history of the Jesuits to say for
sure. But I think it's very obvious now that they're completely co opted their their corporate logo the Black Sun, you know. Uh, I've seen some writings where that ties back to the Cobpa Stone and those kinds of things. Once again, thank you, and you can go on to the next color. Yeah, thank you. Good questions. Yeah, I think it would really take somebody who probably goes deep into the actual history of you know, the founding of it and what Ignacious is really into. And I just don't
have the knowledge of that to say for sure. David Reid, So, David Reid, Hey, what's up, Jay, Thanks for letting me back on. Hey, So, another question I had was there was a point in the discussion with the team Zoomer where he kind of pressed the idea that if somebody has the potential to shin or not sin, that would entail the fact that they could have stained from sin indefinitely. Yeah, but he we
didn't. I didn't want to go into the Mary talk because it's a whole other issue to talk about the sinlessness and the ever virginity of Mary with a Calvinist. Even though John Calvin believed in the ever virginity of Mary. The point was that Mary is different because Mary was at every point in her life given grace and aided so that she wouldn't sin. And I just didn't even
feel like going down that route. So that's because we believe that people can have the effects of the sin and still not be guilty for the sin, and the Calvinist doesn't believe that, right. So Mary is somebody who, for us, she felt all the effects of adam sin and yet herself still did not sin, and so she's a proof against inherited guilt. So that's the strong point of Mary. But Mary is not identical to us because we uh for the most part right do not concede to grace. So what he's
ignoring. He's thinking of in a Pelagian way, like Mary was sinless, like Pelagias thought about it. Mary was sinless because of grace, right, And so it was a tremendous amount of grace that helped and kept Mary from being a sinner in terms of actual sin. But the rest of us are not going to be free from actual sin, right, Okay, So there was a provision given for Mary in those situations where she might have sinned as
in that grace. I think we could say that, Okay, okay, interesting, and so I mean she's the most grace, She's the most grace of all women in all creatures, right right. And for the record, coming into the church, I've had a Pallagian background, and so that's why that was still something I was kind of thinking about, you know, trying to work through. Well, remember that we're conceiving of grace. We're conceiving of grace as different things between us and a Calvinist. So a Calvinist conceive
of grace as God's dispositional attitude towards you changing. So you're in grace when God's no longer mad at you and hating you, right right, that's after regeneration. So, but we don't think of grace as merely this dispositional stance. Grace is an actual living power within you, that is an uncreated energy. So Mary always had that uncreated energy and power within her at work, and she was supremely graced above all of the other human beings. So and
so the Calvinist is missing the synergenzing as well. There, yes, and they because they conceive of it entirely different. Okay, all right, yeah, that makes that makes sense because it's a simple act of God's will correct to change his disposition towards you. Okay, all right, right right, okay, that's very helpful. And then just one more question if I may sure, Okay, sorry, I'm trying to put this. So in the p s A model, the penis substitution aerotiement, they say, I've heard
William Lane Craig's articulation that they don't that. Basically, he says that the Christ felt the separation of God. Yeah, well again that's anti trinitarian, right, Jesus is a divine person. A divine person cannot be separated from God or from the Father. And he said, in an economic sense, you particularly use that. It doesn't matter whether he qualifies it. It doesn't It doesn't matter whether he qualifies it as that or not, because that he
but he refers to the divine person of this. There's no human person Jesus Nazareth. That's the Aryan or the Nestorian view, who is separated from God. He equals second person of the Godhead. So the second person of Godhead can't be separated from the Trinity. Right to be separated from God means that the Holy Spirit no longer dwells you. It would mean that the Father's will is set against you. So that would mean that the Trinity is now no
longer the case. Because Jesus doesn't share the same will as the Father, the Holy Spirit no longer resides within him. There's no by the way, there's also by the way, it would also undo paraquis the dwelling. The Father would no longer dwell the son. What I believe. I believe he denies para Creesius. He doesn't believe in operations or anything like that. Yeah, but he's also an apollinarian, So I mean, I don't know why anybody listens to William Lane Craig anyway. But right, okay, yeah,
yeah, that's fair, that's fair. So okay, good questions, APPI it. I think this would be the last one I'm gonna have to head out. So I'm trying to final Let's see who looks like they're ready to set me straight? Who looks nasty and mean? Let's try flame, Flame, Flame looks like he's gonna set us straight? Hello, yes, sir? Is the scream ending soon? Or how much time do we have? Well, it depends on what you want to talk about. What what do
you want to get into? Okay, So I want to talk about biblical morality specifically, So before I start, I just want to talk about intuitive I just want to talk about where I based my root it because that's the question usually that you don't So it's one on intuitive morality. So I think people are born with an intuitive morality and then its changed or repressed through cultural and propaganda and stuff. Okay, what what is like? Is what's the
just a biological drive? What is the intuitive morality? Well? I think it's God given specifically, what God? What God? Whoa I'm not well, I'm not exactly sure. But what I do want to say, Well, how do you know it's God given if you don't know what God it is? Well, because I think you can get people from all sorts of cultures, so you can get people from every culture and they would know that murder, lying, is stealing is wrong. They may have different ideas what
it means. But well, but what if my God that's intuitively giving me my morals is the devil and I think that those things are not wrong. Well, I think you would know, But I just want to get to my main argument first. So, because my argument is a critique. So you say that you based your morality on on God in the Bible, but you said you buy your morality on God too, but then you couldn't tell me what God it was, So I'm not sure you're going to have a
good basis for a critique. Yeah. Well, because I mean it is mainly my own. I mean, it might not be a good argument for me because it is a subjective. Okay, there we go. So yeah, so it's objective, Nice, go ahead, But my main argument is a critic of a critic of biblical morality. So my I would go, Sorry, I don't usually do talk, so I'm a bit rvous. I just want to, okay. So with biblical morality, when we go back this, it just seems it seems like kind of okay, it seems very
arbitrary to me. So for example, when when it says that the son won't pay for the sins of the father, but then for example in the Bible, God kills all the first month sons of Egypt, or when he kills David's son for for a sin that David did, or when he tells Abraham to sacrifice his son even though he stops him, I still see it as like the act itself is basically still done in that way. So from the way I see it, the way I see it is that how can
I how can I really worship someone like that? When it's just it seems like the morality changes us to depending on what God says. So murder is wrong until it isn't. And like, no, murder is always wrong. Murder is different from killing, So those are two different things. So murder is always wrong, killing is not. So when God orders the Israelites to murder like the children of this or that tribe, isn't that technically a sin?
I mean, I know there's a sense of a collective morality, So if a group does something, they are punished as a group, even there's members of that group that didn't do anything wrong. So like the infants and the children, and then there's like was it the Book of Samuel, I mean, when God was differentiating between the children and the infants, start are still suckling, and he said kill them both, and he said kill all the animals. And then he punished Samuel. He punished was Saul, King
Saul. Yeah, he punished King Saul because he didn't kill a cow, but he wanted to sacrifice it later. But then he punished him anyway, and I think that was the reason why he replaced him with David. Correct. And then I mean, and then there's other questionable things that God did, like for example, with Job, Like in the Old Testament, you're constantly promised that if you never a righteous life, God will reward you and
stuff. But then Joe was specifically punished because he lived the righteous life, because he was it was this idea that he was being tested by God. So I mean, it just seems that whatever you do, you just end up losing enough. And with God, it just seems that he's constantly like he says murder is wrong, but then he commits murder on inn Like when I say murder, I mean killing of innocence, right, But I know
there's a difference between killing and murder. Well, but the difference is that, right, But the difference is that God has the right to decide when life and death can be ended or when it can be postponed. Right. So in other words, every system will have to have some ultimate sort of lynch pin or some ultimate authority by which you say that it's wrong or right.
Right. So if God decides that in those cases it is right to do that, in our view, it's not out of a chord with the rest of God's morals and his ethics, because God knows infinitely more than we know. And so like in the book of Job that you mentioned, the thing that the decision at the end is that, well, God says to Job, how are you going to judge when I make these judgment calls? If you can't even figure out the cred order, how much more would you
be able to figure out and understand the uncreated order. So the point is that every system will have to have some point at which you can't appeal any further right. And so that's where it becomes right or wrong is not in some arbitrary, abstract standard of invariant and personal laws, but in an actual personal being who can make the decisions as to win that is correct and when that is not correct. In other words, God would, for example,
know all future contingencies. So had this people group been allowed to live, they might have exterminated the seed of the Messiah. Right, we don't know, right, all of the different contingencies that could have occurred, had all of the what we could say are tainted or infected people that lived at that
time, that had engaged in extremely brutal and wicked practices. So if when you read Leviticus, the reason the Promised Land is cleansed is because the people had become extremely degenerate, and so in God's wisdom, there was a need to get rid of all of that people group for the purpose of the furtherance of the Messianic line that lineage. Right, So it was ultimately it wasn't
just because God wanted to just worship the Dna of Jews. It was because they were to present and produce the Messiah that would be the one that would save the world. So to say then that, well, but God is wrong for making decisions as to win its right for him or for me, Because if you look at when this discussion comes up in Is, it's Hannah's prayer. She says, he's the one that rises up and makes others low. He has the right to light, to life and death right, so
he has the power to kill and to heal. Right. So, in other words, if we're going to say that it's wrong for God to do that in these cases, we need a basis, a moral position from which to say that it's wrong. And I don't think that it's a contradiction to say that in some case, like for example, Exodus says you can engage in self defense, right, so in those cases self defense isn't murder,
Okay. So I mean my basis is like intuitive morality. I believe everybody is born with that, like for example, like you say, but you already said that's subjective and you don't know where it comes from. So how is that that's not going to work as a as an argument against a Yeah, I said that before, but honestly, I believe that we will have the same morality. I don't think it's subjective. Well, you know what, but even okay, hold on, but even if that were true,
that doesn't tell us whether it's right or not. Okay, So, for for example, I can give a very a specific one where we can't like so for example, when it comes to rape, like do you need God to tell you that rape is wrong? Or don't you just into it? It doesn't that's not it. But that's missing the objection. So the objection is not, like I said to James Sexton, could I, as a secular person decide to choose the morals of the Ten Commandments without God? Yeah?
But that's not that's that's avoiding the objection that what's the justification for choosing that? Why would we Why do we think that that's true? And if you just say well, because it works, that's arbitrary. So that's not a good reason to say, well, I can have the morals without without the deity. I mean, I know, I think our intuitive morals comes from God. Now, but you couldn't tell me who that God is or why that's the case. And you can't. Just saying that there's intuitive morals
doesn't tell me what those morals are or whether that's even right. What if my moral what if my intuitive morals are wrong? M Yeah, I mean people could be born with different kinds of intuition, but I still think that's slightly better than I mean, for example, with biblical Marati, like when Moses says that you have to kill what was it? Was it the Medianites?
I think I'm not sure which tribe it was. I think it was Medianites when they says like you have to kill all the people and boys and whatever, but you can keep the little girls alive and you can like have your way with them, Like if this was like a corrupt people and a corrupt blood. In this instance, God didn't say you could have your way with the women of the He said that when you conquered the tribe, there were laws of marriage. He didn't say you just have your way with them.
Well, it was the virgin little girls of the median Kites, I think. I think, yeah, they they became what they had their hair shorn and they become brides. Right, you can't just have your way with them, Okay, yeah, yeah, I've worked out before. I mean, yeah, things like that. And I mean with this idea that God just knows everything, So in this idea can, So whatever God does, it's always correct in that sense. Yeah, but I mean that's not it's
not inconsistent because that's who is the ultimate standard in our worldview. Right. But like, if he is the ultimate standard, he could pretty much break all his rules and still say this and then tell people no, that's all that's a Calvinist view, that's theological voluntarism. So no, he can't just do anything and break all his rules, right, So for example, God cannot lie, Paul says, can God? Can God like manipulate or force
people to do things that he wants? No, he doesn't force people to do things, but he does, like for example, with the Pharaoh and ex of this, he hardened his heart. Yeah, and if you read the other verse, it says how he hardened Pharaoh's heart by letting Pharaoh choose giving giving Pharaoh up to his own desires is what it says. So you're just you're missing the other passage which explains how that occurs. Are you a
Muslim? You sound like you've got like an Islamic sort of Calvinist argumentation going on here. I mean those I mean, I've I've studied a lot of religions. I mean, I've been raised in a I've been raised in a Christian family. But I mean the closest thing I'll call myself right now would be okay, now, I actually do't want to talk about it. But why would you not want to say? I mean, if your position, if your position is right, why don't you don't you want us to believe
it? Well, because I think people have different ideas of what it is and what I have an idea of what it is. Okay, well, what's your idea of what it is? What is it? And what's your idea of it? Well, my idea of it is mainly well, some
people consider it satanic. I don't think it is like hermeticism, Like I think that we are meant to transform ourselves into like good people in that sense, because this idea of turning lead to gold means like from what I've read about it is you turn good, not good like you this idea that it is through alchemy, personal alchemy, so it's basically changing personality, you become good over time. Like I'm still a lame and I should read more about
it, and what is the good? Well, the good in that sense, I think it could relate a lot to the Golden Rule. Why is the Golden rule? The good sounds arbitrary? Hold on, so why isn't it lex talionis eye for an eye? Why is it the Golden Rule? Well, I mean, is there something that is there, like a good action that you would do that you would want done to yourself? Asking me a question, and I'm saying, this is your view, So you tell me why the good is the Golden rule and not lex teleianness? Well,
the goods mm hm, well hm hmm. Well you know what. How about this? You think on it and then come back to the next stream and then I'll let you back on. I've got to go to a Christmas Eve Western papal dinner tonight, so but thank you for coming on. I appreciate it, not trying to be rude. I do have to leave, and I want to remind you guys to head on over at chalk dot Comu's prom COJ fifty to give fifty percent off. Timple hat Girl says for five
dollars, I have a question. I'm sorry I didn't see this until just now. You can go ask father Anonius on Twitter, what is the relationship that we have to kids after we die and go into the Escaton. I've not had a good answer this question. Well, I mean, what do you like, we're all you can ask him this, but I mean,
we all have the same bodies in the resurrection. I don't think the resurrection is going to be People think that, like I'm not saying you say this, but people think Heaven is like we're all these sort of balls of ghost dust floating around and staring at ideas in Heaven or now it's a bodily resurrection. It's like Jesus came out of their tomb with a body, same body that he had before. So we'll have a new heavens and a new Earth
with bodies and we'll move around and do stuff. Heaven isn't Heaven is the Escaton. New Heaven's new Earth. It's not like it's like Eden was supposed to be, and it's the whole