The the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the bah. All right, what's up? Everybody? Meltdown time? So people have said for last few weeks because they want to get attention, they want clicks and whatever. Oh, you want debate this guy, you want debate this guy.
So I've talked about having debates with this guy for months. He would only want he only wanted to debate the Philly Oakuay. I wasn't interested in that debate because he had already had that debate with UBI. We did a whole review of that debate with David Rhan and so I told him, I want to debate the thing that scholasticism rests on, which is the self evident maxims, the first principles of your system, and if that falls, scholasticism isn't
true. He will not debate that. I've asked him for at least a year now, maybe eight nine months to do it. He won't do it. So he does a stream talking about me or something. I don't know. I didn't watch the whole stream. Somebody sent it to him and said, hey, he's talking about you. Do you want to hop on? And I went over there and said, I'm ready. I'll come over here and debate you. So notice he won't come over to my end and debate. He won't debate me. I'll go to his home court and argue with
him because when he's making this new regurgitated argument for philly oquay. Which keep in mind, these are people who think that citing authorities counts as arguments right because they still exist in the Middle Ages. They think it's the year thirteen hundred, even though the Vatican doesn't care about Tomism anymore, even though their whole sect has moved past Tomism, literally doesn't care about it at all. These people believe and larp as if it's the year fourteen hundred and their heads.
They're living in a scriptorium online, and no one else in the rest of the Roman world in terms of power, authority, and status, cares about Tomism, So it only exists in the trid world. And why is the trid world melting down of late? Why are they having such issues well, it's not just because of the obvious absurdities that we point out with their saints, which they have to hold to Margaret Mary Alacoquay's miracles and visions,
because her sainctity so called, is actually part of the ordinary magistrum. And we can look at those documents that discuss that in a minute. But imagine saying that, well, I don't have to believe her visions. I just can accept that she's a saint. Well, if her visions aren't true, then she was a deluded woman. And according to Durami thirteen, Derami eighteen Galatians one, false prophecies and false visions make you a fraud, not a
saint. So it's totally inconsistent to think that, oh, I can just accept Margaret Mary Alacoquay as a saint, but not all the visions about sacred heart and that Jesus supposedly told her to carve his name into her chest and sign a blood packed with the flowing blood, and then afterwards she reopened the wounds to make it bleed more. This is the Roman Catholic idea of sanctity.
So there's something about the I mean, they are gluttons for punishment, and I guess that's why they like to continue to be punished in these discussions when they make really fundamental mistakes. And what he's done here is a word concept fallacy. So he thought that because there was discussion of relations in the Cappadoceans, which is very frequent in the Orthodox tradition, we know all about this, we talk about all the time. I've had doctor Bob Branson on
many, many times to discuss the Cappadocian triadology. That's what his dissertation is about. And I've read a significant portion of the Cappadocian Corpus that's in English, and their discussion is about relations of origin. Hypostatic properties are the foundation for the relations of origin. And as the famous Orthodoxy Elergi of Ladimirlowski said, a person is a subject, not a relation. So you can't identify
persons even by relations. The persons have relations, but they can't be identified primarily by a relation, because a relation is a predicate and a person or a hypostasis is a subject. So they certainly have relations, and they certainly have relations that are fundamental, such as the son is the son of the father, so praternity to filiation. Those are certainly relations, but the relation
is not the person. And that's why when Aquinas says persona at rolatio, the Orthodox tradition always took issue with that, because a relation, again is a predicate and not a subject. A subject is a person, the subject Bob, the subject Bill, the subject son of God. Those are divine subjects in the trinity. For us, a person is a subject or an agent, and a relation is something that a person, a subject or agent
has. But because of the tendency towards collapsing collapsing distinctions into the essence Intnism, Augustinianism and then Tomism has always had a struggle and a tendency to speculate and want to come up with ways to make these distinctions other than and outside of the relations of origin and hypostatic properties that the Cappadocians and their theology ends
up having dogmatized at the constantinople one. This is why the Cappadocians, for example, speak of the Father unanimously in the writings as the soul cause. The hyposide of property that picks them out is soul cause fount ark and ark, et cetera. Source, that's his hypothetic property. Basil famously says that the son is the son because he's the eternally generated son of the father. The spirit is the spirit because he's eternally spirated. And the famous quote from
Basil is that there is a difference between spiration and generation. We know what the difference is, we do not know. And that's pretty common. I mean, that's very well known. It's a very common. So when you get to stricter definitions or ideas of simplicity that we find in origin Plutonis and then in Augustine, and that definition is essentially repeated between those three people. And when simplicity is catched out mainly as not having distinctions, an absolute unity
without distinctions, you then have a challenge without presupposition. That's a metaphysical presupposition. And the rod of Galwitz's thesis and the Bradshaw book showed that that's not the approach that the Cavedocians did. And even the Kongar paper that we're talking about, which makes the point that there's a difference between relations of opposition and
relations of origin between august and the Cavedocians, admits this. So the funniest part I think of the whole thing was just simply that he thought that relations just always meant a relationship of opposition. When what happens in the course of Trinitarian theology is that the Augustinian definition of simplicity, which then led to other ideas like philly oaquey in on the Trinity, leads him to speculating about other
possible ways to distinguish the persons. So, for example, if we wanted to distinguish father son in his holy holy Spirit, but there is a philioque, Now there's a new relationship and a new property, you could say that father and son have that spirit lacks or if the father has a power, Augustine argued, then it seems to necessitate the son should also have that power
too, or else there would be a kind of subordination. But Augustine apparently missed the fact that, well, if the spirit lacks that power, then he's also subordinated. And that's the basis for namely, the power of causing a person. So it's to confuse the hypostatic properties with the essential properties or
attributes. The essential attributes are common to all three persons. That's why the Cappadocians say that anything you say about the Trinity, it's either a property or power positive property or power that one of them has unique to that one, or it's common to all three persons. That's a Cappadot rule or law. So, for example, causing a person can't be something that two persons have, because that would mean that it's an essential property. If two have it,
three must have it. If it's an essential property, then the Holy Spirit spir rates himself and nobody believes that except maybe idiot Roman Catholics. I don't know. But the whole point here is just simply that monarchical trinitarianism in the East and the Cappadoceans does not struggle with and have the same problems and
issues that later Latin theology has because of their assumptions about simplicity. Now, if the debate really progresses to where I would like it to debate to go, then what happens is that we realize that, well, we all know that the Plutonian definition of what simplicity is is true, do we? I mean? Rodshaw's whole book Ariosol East and West is premised on arguing that the
Capbudotionans don't go with a plutonium definition of simplicity. Their definition of simplicity starts with whether or not God is acted upon or whether he acts, And it's obvious why the Cappudotions wouldn't want to start with a radical essentialist identity thesis view of simplicity like we see it fourth Lattering Council with Lombard, because it's very difficult to have a triad when you start with an absolutely simple essence, it's
your starting point. Triad becomes something tertiary, something secondary, something that's like a diminished status. But regardless, all of this was none of this was really what this issue was about, because I left to comment saying that he misunderstood relations of opposition in Augustinian theology and why it was used and why it arose versus relations in the Cappadocians, which is primarily relations of origin opposition.
As Orthodox theologians have criticized this position in the past, notes relates to two things, to a diad, So if the trinity is really a triad, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to utilize the idea of opposition. And by opposition, I mean the metaphysical baggage that comes along with dialectical opposition. And that's precisely what you see in Augustine. And if you doubt me on this again, Congar wrote a whole essay just surveying the difference between the
Augustinian and Cappadocian approaches. It's not even really that controversial. But what's happened, and this is what always happens with the Tomas and with these guys, is that they utilize word concept fallacies where they see this word here, they see the word over here, they then assume that it's all talking about the same theological meaning. And they do that because of what they're epistemology. They
have an empiricist based epistemology. They believe in the peripatetic axiom that there's nothing in the intellect that is not first in the senses. And that's a quote from Aquinas and de ver Atat citing Aristotle. It's called the peripatetic axiom. But no Toomas, no scholastic will be able to give an account for their
starting points, for their self evident principles. And I can just bring up all day long the criterion problem, which they actually like to dismiss, even though I shared a paper from a famous Catholic cardinal who cited at the very top of the of the paper talking about how the criterion problem dominates philosophy. So they don't even care about what their own academic say. They just handwaig
whatever's a problem to them. And they again, they think they're living in the fourteen hundreds, so they don't have to answer or reply to any arguments post fourteen hundred. Why because a quitiness bro because being bro And we saw the other day the Thomas that was talking smack all day, he just didn't come. He said, I will come and debate you at ten o'clock your time or whatever. No show. Wagner's been saying, oh, you won't
debate me. He's scared. Dollar're scared. So I have to go to his stream to debate him because I'm scared when I've been asking him to come debate these topics endlessly. Now, why would I talk about epistemology? You just wanted to deflect. Oh, you just wanted to deflict. If we get to an issue where, for example, the Thomas says, well, we know that this is what simplicity means, because it has to mean this,
because that's what simplicity is. They have a metaphysical assumption. But if I have a different metaphysical assumption about simplicity and about energies and about God's unity, et cetera, et cetera, how do we resolve this question? Well, ultimately it's going to go back to something more fundamental, because they're putting the metaphysical cart before the epistemic course, which is what's our starting point for going about these issues. For me, in my position, it's divine revelation.
It's not the first principles of Aristotle. I'm not going to let aristotles philosophy dictate what things are possible metaphysically in the Bible. And this is precisely why they don't believe in the Theophanes. And I think it's going to be obvious that they then must depart from what is listed in scripture. And that's why I'm going to be from now, I'm just going to start going to all the texts about God's glory being present in time and space, because that's
all that's needed to refute these idiots. Now they're gonna say, but it's self evident that something that's absolutely simple can't have distinctions and blah, blah blah blah blah. Okay, but now you're denying the Trinity, dummy, Like, what are you talking about? So we're going to open it up. We have some of the fans from that sphere. I don't want to limit it to that though, So if we have people that want to come on
and discuss and defend other top topics, options are there as well. If you want to talk about Islam, Protestantism, Gnosticism, Unitarianism, we can go into all of those as well. As my microlow. That's weird. Oh I know why it's low. When you hop on stream Yard, it automatically, it automatically de boosts your microphone. So that's better. Yeah, thank you for that. So his stupid ass stream Yard or muted my microphone when I when I went on there. But let's give an example. So
here's a Roman Catholic website. Before we open it up to the Thomas here that want to talk this, here's a Catholic a website doing the very thing that we see these people trying to do. And perhaps he even utilized this website, who knows. But this website argues, for example, that the Philly OK Way is mentioned for example in Toledo, and so I think he's citing Denzinger here, whoever wrote this, and it's talking about how there's a
there's a relation. It's kind of mentioned in Toledo. You could say that there's a way they think to distinguish the persons via relations of opposition. And you can see that the fact that it's cited in Toledo, which is one of the first Philly oak Way supporting councils, you can see that the concern is obviously associated with the mine simplicity and defending philioque. But then this, even this Catholic guy notes that the Greek fathers understood that it accurately describing the
Trinity with the terms which have become common is difficult. Gregory the theologian says, for example, what is it to be preceding? You explain the in generacy of the Father, and then I will give you a biological account of the son's begetting and the Spirit's proceeding. Now understand this is making the point I made a few minutes ago that for the Cappadocians that there's a distinction between
generation and procession. We know and believe what that is. We do not know, and so this even this Catholic website is noting that, right, And then Gregory goes on to say, we don't know. We're not told the specific distinction of the nature of generation versus firation, but rather it is revealed to us that we know there is a son and that there is a holy Spirit. Now, notice this guy does the same thing that the Roman Catholics do. Here where this other guy? So this guy he left so
that we got a Toomas, I'm about to go to you. You've been saying you want a debate, and then he runs away. These are a bunch of women, like they're a bunch of effeminate, like just ridiculous people. That's why they all had to come on in the comments and say that I got cooked when he booted me from his stream. So we'll play his clip here in a second. But I notice here what the Catholics going to do the same move to try to find in the Eastern Fathers, this idea
of relations of opposition, which is not there. There's relations of origin, and we're going to see that. They also have this quote they're passing around y'all, thank you for coming back critical Tomas and we'll go to you. In a second, Regomnissa says, the person of the Father is begotten, and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Is Therefore, because the cause of the persons is one, we say that he is the one God and that he exists
an eternity with these others. So notice that that's relations of origin. You see that the persons of the Godhead do not differ in time or in space, or in occupation or in activity. They only differ between them in that the Father is a father and not son. The Son is son and not father. Holy Spirit is neither father nor son. So you can talk about
distinctions, you can talk about them having a differentiation of relation. But in this very comment, it is not relations of opposition the way that it's formulated in the Augustinian arguments for filioque in divine simplicity. For example, in the Kongar paper when he explains this difference, there was a specific Augustinian quote I wanted to read here. So by the way, this whole paper talks about what I'm talking about, which shows that it's not it's not even really a
controversial thing here. It does I think this is it? Augustine says, here it is in day trinitade. Augustin takes Biblical Texas his pointed departure to show that they disprove the Aryan position. He then goes on to consider the problem if an intellectually valid agreement between the unity and diversity is necessary. If there is that, if it's necessary, then at the same time sufficient to
distinguish between absolute and relative terms. The terms father's on the spirit distinguish the persons, and they are relative, and they are relative in that they affirm the person's by opposing one to the other. The problem is that it is true to say that there is a relationship and that they do oppose one to another, but relations of opposition is not a sufficient means to distinguish the persons
without relations of origin. That's the whole point. And Conggar goes on to make that point to say that the competition fathers, even though he thinks that they're intending to express the same thing, they don't really differ from one another. I think Augustine does differ obviously disagree with Cungar. But since Augustine does not express a consistent view of relations of origin to a sole cause, this
leads to difficulties in trying to explain. Well, then perhaps it's what differentiates son from spirit is that one is from one and the other is from two. But that's a new additional property or attribute, right that again subordinate spirit, because to be from one rather than to be from two isn't really a consistent It doesn't really tell us anything without all the other things. And also it violates the earlier competition principle that there's nothing there's no property or attribute that
two persons share that one lacks. So being from two is not some positive property. And by the way, it's it is a positive property because it's the father and the Son, according to Lines in Florence, together are a single principle of the power inspiration of the eternal existence of the Spirit. So the Father and the Son together, as the councils of Line in Florence say, form a single principle. So there's a singularity that's common to father and
son. That is the power that gives existence, eternal existence to the Holy Spirit. And it's something then that the Holy Spirit clearly does not have. And then he goes on to talk about the fact that part of the reason for this is that the Cappetitions begin with person in their triology, and the Thomas and the Augustinians begin their triology typically with essence. Yeah, exactly,
So what I said isn't really even that controversial. Now, I want to talk briefly about before we go to critical Thomas the last point here, and I'll play his clip later. But oh crap, let me do that. So their argument is that there's a quote from Basil, and the quote that they're passing around is kind of bizarre because it's not worded the way that the
text that it supposedly is coming from is worded. So let's look at this quote really quick, and you'll notice that it's just talking about hyposthetic properties. It is not saying that relations of opposition is the primary way to distinguish the person's. In fact, it doesn't even really say that at all. In the nature of distinguishing marks, that's for us, that's the hyposthetic properties, and that's what Basil's talking about here, to show otherness in the identity of
the sub substance. So he's he's saying that the hypostatic properties mark out what's distinct even though there's an identity of substance or essence in the trinity. As for the distinguishing marks themselves, that is, the hypestetic properties, they are often contradistinguished from one one from another such that they are separated to the point of being contraries. So they are contraries because they're of father versus son.
It's not dialectical opposition, and that's what is in the Augustinian and Tonistic position. How are they separated, Well, they're separated because of the hypostatic properties are markers. They certainly do not rupture the unity of the substance, as with winged and footed, and aquatic and terrestrial, and rational and animal, Since there is one substance that underlies them, these distinguishing marks do not make the substance foreign to itself. So, in other words, the essence that
the Sun has is not different than the essence that the Father has. Nor are they persuaded to join each other in a kind of rebellion. They implant the activity of the things that they identify as a kind of light in our soul and a guide to an unders standing attainable by our minds. But you know, Meius, having transferred the opposition of the distinguishing marks to the substance. So it's not relations of opposition in the Augustinian sense, it's distinguishing relations
via relations of origin. He just uses the word opposition and he uses the word contrary, so that's too contrast. He takes this from the starting point of umpiety, scarring us with sophisms as if we were children, the light should indeed be something other than the unbegotteness. So Unmius, as you guys know, was a radical area. And you know mes argue that the light that is the Sun is radically different than the light that is the Father.
So when the creed says God from God, light from light, Youunomius is rejecting that. But this is not the same thing as Conguard emits as relation of opposition as a means to distinguish the person's to help save the doctrine of the filioqui. So and note two that in that in that distinction, Basil made it clear that the distinguishing marks or opposition is not a dialectical metaphysical opposition.
It's a distinction of relations to the origin of the Father. If anyone wants to accept that which is true, namely that begotten and unbegotten, their distinctive features that enable identification and are observed in the substance, which is the Unomian position, which leads to the clear and unconfused. Note he's saying that if you if you don't make these distinctions, you'll be a Eunomian. This
leads to the clear, unconfused notion of the Father and the Son. Then you will escape the danger of impiety and preserve the logical coherence in his reasoning. The distinctive features, which are like characters and forms observed in the substance the differentiate. So he's talking about the what the hypostatic markers or properties are,
beginning with the person of the Father and not the essence. So you understand that from the outset, the ordo theology of the Latin Church is wrong because it tends, especially after our accidents in Middle Ages, to begin with the essence as the starting point. Then you have the difficulty in the challenge of distinguishing within the triad a reality of threeeness. But for the Cappadocians it
begins with the person of the Father. As the other article that we just read admitted right, the other Catholic Guy's article not Kungar, but the other one, noting that the Eastern fathers begin with the concept of the person of the Father. This is monarchical trinitarianism. There's one God because there's one Father. That's what the Creed says. I believe in one God, the Father. Paul says, we have one Lord and Father of our Jesus, of
Lord Jesus Christ. So for us, trinitarian theology begins with the person of the Father, and we do not know the divine essence, so it doesn't make sense to even start any theology with the divine essence at all. He says that these distinguishing characteristics, for example, pick out the person, and yet the sameness of the substance or nature is common to all three, whereas fatherhood and sonship are distinguishing marks. The combination of both that is common and
the unique we arrive at the comprehension of truth. So all he's saying is that distinguishing marks of paternity and sonship are relations. They're real relations. They're not fake or dislogical or conceptual. They're real relations. But remember, persona at relatio cannot be true. A relation is a predicate and not a subject, and the persons are the subjects, they're the agents. Consequently, if you hear unbegotten light, you think of the Father. When you hear begotten
light, you think of the sun. In so far as they are light from light, or light and light, there's no contrarity between them, whereas in so far as they forgot and begotten, one observes the opposition. So this is just to distinguish them one from another. But because being not the other is not a clear marker, right, because le let me give an example of this. Each of the persons is not the other two, right,
But that doesn't tell me anything. That's a true proposition. It is true to say that the Father is not the Son or the Spirit, but that doesn't work as an actual concrete thing to tell me anything, because all three of them equally share the proposition, not the other two. So even though it's true, it doesn't really work as any kind of indicator or marker.
And strictly speaking, dialectical opposition, which is what we're talking about and what's imported by the Augustinian position, only becomes necessary due to the radical, divine simplicity positions that they start with if you start your trinitary theology with the person of the Father, right, what does Palama say? God did not say I am it? In Exodus three in the in the Burning Bush, he said I am he, meaning that we begin with the personhood of the
Father, not the essence. So using the term like an even using the term opposition, does not equate to the dialectical idea of relations of opposition that comes about in later theology as congo or even admits h critical tomist. Yeah, go ahead, yeah, what's up? Man? I can't really hear anything. I can hear you. Huh, come out, come back in. I mean we can all hear you. M h autocratic Go ahead, man, I'm you Hey, j how are you tonight? What's up?
I just had some questions, like, of course I'm in the Orthodox Church, canonical Russian Orthodox Church currently in most of now actually, but I've been like looking at the Orthodox anymore and some people online, and I'd be curious to what you would say to the response to old calendars or like some people call themselves true Orthodox. Yeah, I mean that's a separate topic. We can deal with that. There's some essays that cover that topic. But that's
not the topic for today. But thank you for for that critical you want to try again. Thanks, there's some Manuka honey in that. Yeah, what's up? Can you hear me? Yeah? How you doing? I'm good? How are you? I'm good. I watched your debate with Christian Blagom, and I have a couple of questions. Sure, so you're talking about you were saying that if the persons are distinguished by the relations, it doesn't necessarily follow the like relatively like, relatively opposing each other? Is that
your position? Or so relative opposition is what's used by later Augustinian post Augustinian theological argumentation to deal with problems, for challenges to trinitarianism or to the filioquay. So it's not a thing that you find in the capp of Doceians. You find one reference to the word opposition, but that's not relations of opposition. Okay, So what do you think relative Okay? So I'm going to go what do you think relative oppositions are? And what do you think the
church brothers mean when they say positions? Since the properties, the formal properties, in their essence, don't import any relations, and they don't make room for any relative opposition, So what would you say, hold on, what do you mean? What doesn't make room for that? So for example, like God's divine wisdom and gods divine being, or God's divine wisdom and God's divine truth, things like formal properties like that, they don't import a real
relation between each other, the logical proprelations. So there's no like relative opposition there. But because the person's important, a relative opposition than the subsistent relations. But you don't hold that, we believe that the attributes or the energies actually are really distinct. So I don't have a problem. I don't have the inconsistent position of saying that the attributes are all synonymous with each other and
with the divine essence, but also the persons really are distinct. That's the term mystic position. Wait, you believe that the attributes to really so you believe that God's wisdom is not identified to goodness at all? Correct? Okay, So then how would you respond when someone tells you that you know, you believe in a composite being. Yeah, because I don't believe in a composite being any more than you do. Because you believe that the persons are
really not identical to each other. So you believe there's a real distinction between the father and the son. Makes sense, That does, because it's the very argument that's had for centuries about this issue. No, So composition comes from a dependency relation in the form of that the essential properties and something. So the reason why I'm a composite being is because I'm a black man. My skin color is dependent on my substance, which is me. Now,
there's nothing you're saying. You're not a composite you are You said you're not or are a composite being? No, I said I am a composite giving oa. I agree with that, right, So when it comes to god, we're not going to say obviously for the film, as I suppose, because I don't take this position, but that all the formal properties are only like a virgin these things. I'm sure you know this here, Yeah, of course, and we think that that. So then hold on, so
how does it need to moveism? Sorry, because it's not consistent to say that the attributes are all identical and identical to the essence, and that the persons are also strictly identical to the essence. But the persons are distinct amongst themselves. I mean, have you read any of the topics, any of the discussion of this topic. Right, I've read. I've read a couple of papers. I've read this sc with theologia, I've read Aquinas Suma.
I've read a couple of papers. You've read the Aquinas Suma. I'm saying, have you read on the debate between East and West on this topic? Now, have you read a bunch of of toll Oh? Yeah, typically the East, of my opinion, no disrespect. They typically just cry about things that are not relevant. Okay, Well, let's let's talk about do you think the Bible is relevant? I think the Bible is relevant. I think the Bibles against your position. But oh okay, well let's talk about
that. So in Levitica, do you think no, no, no, no, no, Let's go to that, because that's the key point. Do you think do you think that God's do you think God's glory is created? Go to glory? Depends on what you mean by glory and the way that glory is the same way that Jesus talks about sharing the Father's glory before
the foundation of the world. Right, So I would okay, so I would say that God's glory is his end, which is identical to himself, but in the way that he so it's his essence, right, because all the attributes are the divine essence. Right? I mean, what would you even define glory as? I mean, you don't think this is used in scripture. I would just say glory is just like a manifestation of God's being. Oh, exactly, and so God's being his his essence right? Right?
Okay, So did God's glory i ever appear in time and space? Right? So God can distribute his glory to creatures? At the second? Did God's glory itself ever appear in time and space? Right? So? I just said it depends on what you mean in the distribute God's the way it's described in Leviticus nine. Right. Can you relax? I did God's glory appear in time and space? Relax? I can think? I am,
I'm relaxed. I want the answer. Okay, so the station of his being can be moldly conferred to creatures, and the glory is not a creature. So you just made a stupid mistake. Hold on, so you worship creatures? Hold on, let me finish. You just said it. You just said, it's transferred to a creature. So I said, it can be communicated to creatures in a Sicknay, So the glory of God in Leviticus nine is a creature that they worship. Not true, That's not what
I said, because you did just say that. Agrees. Okay, you're smart. Here we go, here we go calling out my name. Let me speak, right, yeah, I'm calling out your name being respectful. You need to let me speak. Let's have a respect for this question. But you already contradicted yourself, contradict myself. Okay, sure, yeah, you just said that it can be. You said the glory is God's essence, and you're saying now it can be. It can be conveyed to a
creature. So the worship of a creature as God's essence and God's glory being identical with his existence. No, okay, so God existed prior to his existence. No, God always had a distinction between his essence and his energies. He always transmitted and communicated his glory amongst the persons from all eternity. And it's not his ence. His existence is not identified as as beak. He didn't exist. How did that happen? How did what happened? He's
always he's always shared that glory, as Jesus himself says. Okay, when you say he shared that, your presupposing the thing in question, his existence. Does Jesus say that in John Seventhohn was Jesus an eternal person? No? No, no, no, stop refer scripture? Ah, exactly right. Stop referring to scripture because your position actually is totally divorced from divine revelation. Did God's glory? Did God's glory appear in Leviticus nine? Okay,
stop referring to scripture? Notice how the Thomas operates. Everybody, the whole audience can see. Stop referring to scripture. You are stop referring to scriptures? Can you actually? Here we go? So now he has to go to personal attacks. I stick to the scriptures, he says. Stop referring to scriptures. Sounds like a flipping You sound like crimes he or bro. Just relax, so invit. Now let's go to Leviticus nine. Explain to me how how the God, the glory of God is worshiped than Olyticus?
If God existence, if his existence is not identified as as being, but he communicates something to his existence. How are you going to see, not to his existence, dummy to another person, not to his existence to another person. So you just just listen. The whole thing is assuming to me, your metaphysics is wrong. Your metaphysics is wrong. Why are we show over each other? Because all of your arguments are coming from your metaphysical assumptions,
and I'm saying that they're wrong. Okay, you speak over people when you know to have a good point. You don't have a good points because you're you're avoiding. You're avoiding the points, all right, So let me speak that talk about Leviticus nine. That's my argument. If you're confident, let me speak. Would you let me speak? If you're going to address Leviticus nine? Thank you? No? No, So you want a dress scripture? So once again the others he wanted to dress scripture Leviticus nine,
Or you're gone? Are you gonna? You're running away from something, you're deflecting from my argument. You're running from the Bible. You're running from divine revelations. I'm running. You're saying, don't quote scripture at me. Scriptures don't prove that God's existence is created. No, I don't believe that.
So now you're that's a strong man. You know, I'm not arguing God's existence is cort So something that is not God is uncreated entirely speaking, So something that's not it's called the glory of God that appeared that they all worshiped. Have you read leveticas? Do you know what? Okay, divine nature is uncreated and something that's not identified the divine natures uncreated. Right, that's called the essence energy stinction. Right, that's our position. I'm glad you
think it's funny. And that' why you don't want to go to scripture. So what happened in Leviticus nine? What's what's? What are they worshiping in Lemticus nine? You can't conceptually unless we're saying you can't go to these scriptures. Go, don't go to these scriptures. Bro, don't quote the Bible. Let me tell me what's happening in Leviticus nine? This guy, he mean no God, no answer. How does it crease your point? The glory of God is appearing in time and space. It's a common argument in
all Orthodox theology. So they're worshiping it. It's not a creature you can't worship creatures. It's a simple argument. So when go the people and he appeared to creatures to the defects he's made, yes or no? Did he? What can he appear to creatures through the effects that he is? Me it's not a created effect. It's called the glory of God. And you please answer this question. It is not a creator that you can't worship creatures. Can you worship creatures? All right? So here we go, So
all he does the same money, he won't answer the questions. Answer no, I'm answering your question by saying that the text refute you. The Glory of God appears in time and space and they worship it. And you're saying, but that that that I that is a qua? Is it a creature? Can you actually be serious to me? Is it a creature? No? I think you're I think I think it's funny or me? All right, just relax, I'm not I'm having fun I don't know anything. I
need to relax. Keep your composure all right, keep your composion all right. When good, when God chooses to communicate to himself in creature to creatures, can he do so through the effects that he's made just a simple question. He can, but this is clearly not a creative effect. It's called the glory of God. Have you ever had an argument with a Muslim on Ye? Right, so you can. But that's not what's happening in this
passage that has no relevancy of this pastor. Okay, okay, okay, Now tell me why in that passage you take it to be that God, that God's infinite essence. Where is one of his infinite essential attributes? And you want to say that because it's called the manifestation of his glory in time and space? Okay, the manifestation, Yeah, Christ, glory is not a creature. You can't worship creatures. Why do I have to take you
because you're not arguing against that. You're just restating a bunch of stuff about the passage. What's the argument against is you're saying it's not a creature. I believe that God's infinite attributes are really identical with essence. I know that we all know the Thomas possession in any way, all right, so in any way that the Bible refers to God communicating, So you're metaphysics is wrong because it goes against the scripture. That's why you don't want to go to
the Bible. That's what you said, don't put the Bible that scripture. It's one thing for it to go against scripture, and one thing for it to go against your meaning or your interpretation of scripture. Okay, well tell me how it is you can worship a creature. You sound Protestant. You need a right, So going to divine revelation is Protestant? Yes, exactly?
Did you realize? So you want to tell you what's really going on is that you're You're metaphysics is wrong because it's it's the wrong starting point.
Look, I'm trying to have a respectful conversation with you. You can keep saying that, but you're just deflecting because your argument is that I'm a Protestant now by going to the scriptures when the scriptures clearly say over you do not understand it's the same it's the same part problem in the incarnation about Okay, yeah, so I'm talking about something that's so you're acting like this is not an actual debate. You don't think this is an actual debate philosophically, are
you conceiving that you cannot defend the philosophically that you have to refer. So this is the point your my argument is that your philosophical position is wrong. How do you how do you deal with that? Phil your your philosophy is wrong? Is my argument? Can I can defend it because I have the right starting point, which is divine revelation? Yes, well that it just assumes that your philosophy is correct. Let's do that. You want let's go
to philosophy. You want to do that, Yes, let's go to philosophy. I'm saying, let's go to that. Can you do it? I'm saying, yes, let's go to that. All right, cool, Now, when you have meta physical attributes? Okay, how do you know this? How do you know that? Let's go, let's go to philosophy. How do you know that that's the case? You just to let's go to philosophy. I want to know how you know these propositions that you're saying are the case you just told me, I just told you. Unless you're reason
Oh well, that's my point. I think your position, if it was consistent, would lead to skepticism. Yeah, because because you put your metaphysical cart before your episomic course, you wanted to go to philosophy. So if you listen, if you don't shut up, I'm going to boot you. Just shut up, Just shut up. No, you're on my stream. You don't tell me what they No, you don't talk to me like that. You're on my stream. Have some respect, all right? I said,
I'm gonna boot you if you don't shut up. You're not. I'm not. I'm I'm I'm on my strength to me because you can't respond to my No, I want to go to philosophy. Do you hear me? Are you gonna kick me? Because of insecure? I want to go to philosophy? All right? So stick on the topic at hand, and the topic the topic is about your metaphysics. I don't believe your metaphysics. You explain to me how good is being? Why should I accept your idea of
being? In metaphysics? About God? I'm not saying, just explain it to me. I want to know. I have a different starting point for what's possible and what God can do. It's called divine revelation. You don't want to go there's final lests go to philosophy. So why should are you a self? Do you believe in self evident truths. No, do you believe in self evident truths? You said, you said God has being, but God's being I have a different paradigm for you. You said God has
being, but God's being is not his existence? Correct? For us, God's being is an energy. So I have a different position from you. So let's go to Let's go to philosophy. You have a different position. Explain the position. I'm not No, it's not I'm not here to explain the position to you. You came to debate, let's have a debate. You said you want to go to philosophy. Don't you want an explanation for the position? Yeah? The Vine revelation says that God's God's God can appear
in time and space. God can, So do you understand that you you destroy the incarnation with your stupid position. You need to extract, You need to you need to expassionate your positions that I can understand in order for me to know divine revelation is my starting point, and it tells me that God can appear in time and space. You're adding metaphysical like understandings to interpretation of description and you're not doing that. Tonism is a pre subposition metaphysics. Yeah,
we all do that. So what So you're just stating what everyone knows. So what? Okay, we have Christians that are genuinely trying to listen to our conversation. So can we still start the tone policing the ad Enough of your tone policing. It's not working for anybody, but you're but you're a small band of idiots. So do you want to talk about epistemology or not? Small? Bro? Please? Just do you want everybody saying that you're crash dude? The whole the whole chats laughing going to are you going
to explain how good with the old chats laughing? Everyone's laughing at you? No or not? Not? Bro, take a breath. You embarrass yourself by saying courting descriptures. Court descriptures up, let's go. You're just a fourty year old fat races. I look at that. I'm a fat racist. Look at the meltdown. The Thomas can't do anything, so I do a few jokes about his about his roster voice, and he calls me a fat racist. I'm not even fat. What are you talking about? Meltdown?
That you should check? Look, Oh I'm fat and good one. Yeah, did the fourth graders give you that your position by reason? Yes or no? Uh? And that's why it goes to a pistemology, goofus, That's why it goes to epistemology. The dude literally can't pronounce his words, and he says stop starting still storing a coup A couple knocks me words. But you still read and your frought weird. I bet you have. It is embarrassing for you. Ah, there we go. That's what I
reject. That's the essence of the point. That's what I've been trying to get you debate the whole time. It is that's what I'm arguing. That's the essence of my argument. Yeah, I reject that position because it's not true. You understand it's it's a contradiction. You see, it's a contradiction. Let's have that debate. Hold on, let me speak. You said that never makes sense? Thomiss, He calls it Thomists. Oh my gosh, what's you have a perfect accent? You are your mind? Your mind?
You got the pigeon? Do you got the pigeon? Braw child? Because you want yeah, you get what you deserve. You won't deal with the topic. Look at profile pictures. This is what he goes to? Your mind? Oh your mind? What your what? They got down down to pigeon? You speak the pug and you want to have the debate now that you melt it down, you fat bro. You know there's over here crying. It's Jerry Curls dripping because he's crying. Do you want to talk
Let's talk about why? Let's talk about a pistemology. Ready you ready to talk about a pistemology? Are you ready to talk about a pistemology? You're the one that called me fat. I just made fun of your voice. Do you want to talk about a pistemology? Bro? Grow up? Do you so you don't want to talk about a pistemology? Question? How is that is? No? You already brought up metaphysics and epistemology. Let's talk about that. We already so you're not going to do it. So you're
not going to go Let's move on to the question you want it? He won't do it? Deal with the actual argument. Do we have any actual Roman Catholics? Here we go? You fat bruel, you fat, fat racist. That's all that they have to go through. Yeah, really fat, super fat? You have fat? Risk is brawan go their breath alivee Eric, I'm mute, Eric, you're here? You want to the debate? I'm mute. Yes, yes, hello, Hello, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't know this you. Yeah, let's go. So,
So I don't understand. I mean, I mean, how how how do you do you have an argument? Come on? Yeah? Oh yeah, yeah, our lord's word to see what does that mean? What does that mean? That's your argument? So we're here talking for an hour about tomism and divine energies and the competitions and you don't want to argue Matthew sixteen, Yeah, because it comes down to that. But I don't come down to that. That's the lord to your arguments. Bro. Yeah, you
can make fun of of of How did you did? You barely get on? Bro? What's up? Fool? I think you got your top button a little too tight. Bro, there's not enough going through your brain. Brothers barely getting there? Oh my god, here we go. Why do they have to repeat It's like they have to repeat my name. I don't get it. Do you want to have a discussion or not? You want to? Okay? So you wanted tobate Matthew sixteen? What happens? You want to be that? What are you? What are you Hispanic? Or
I can't tell? Is that what it is? Are you Muslim? Okay? So you wanted to make Matthews and you hear me, Hey, bro, you gotta put some more, put some more salts inside. Hello, h try to come out, come back out and come back in. Where are the Roman Catholics at stopped quoting these scripts? I mean, mind, by the way, please only quote them ifty in the pigeon. Stop quoting the scripts. I've been what's up? What's up? All right? So
what we're speaking about? Because I just joined recently? So what you want a debate about? Considering Thomism Thomas? Well, I mean today's whole topic was about anything relating to like cappit Osians and trendy to your essen center distinction. But we can talk about the uh do you worship creatures? I do not worship creatures? Okay? And do you mean like as and I worshiped the like natural world? No? No? No? Like? Uh no? Like For example, if God's glory appears in time and space and the
Israelites worship that and call it God. How is that possible on a Thomas position. I'm not at Thomas myself, but from what I think Thomas believe in, I think that would consider that he controls the entire universe, he reigns over the entire universe, and that his presence affects the natural world. Okay, So what does Levitic's nine mean when it says that the glory of God appeared in time and space, the divine energy and the divine fire appeared
in the Israelites worship and call him God Hello? Could you repe that? My min Aaron lifted up his hands towards the people and blessed him. And he came down from the sin offering and the burnt off bringing the peace offering. Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle and came and blessed the people. Then the glory of God appeared to all the people, and fire came out from before him. When all the people saw it, they shouted and fell
on their faces. How is the glory of God, which is not created, appearing in time and space to all of Israel and being worshiped when you don't worship creatures. So the glory of God appearing like that is considered a creature. No, how could it be. You just said you don't believe in worshiping creatures and God's glories, not creating that is not a creature at though. Exactly, So it's not God's essence, right, No, it is not. Okay, So what is it? All? Right? T
Y? You got me there? I actually don't know exactly. That's why there's an essence iner distinction exactly. Eric, gonna try again. I'm mute. Were cooking DC tall mess far breakfiles. We're cooking and stripping the tormos down for de break fire. You are fight by the way, Eric, I'm mute. Man, we eating torm ass fall breakfast, said dare I, Like yeah, God, y'all remember back in the day, we used to have congo quinas that would call in and he whispered out like that.
I wonder if that was congo quinas, remember him? Eric, what's up? You're here? I'm mute, h what's some more saults inside of the morn bro? It ain't working? Eric meant they broed. It needs at least like three or four course more more assaults inside of the motem and then maybe the word bro Eric, bro what's up? I mean, there's little Torreso. What's up? Eric? What's up? Man? It's like Thomas are, like, don't they They act like they're women's saints that scream and
cry and cut themselves, like freaking Margaret Mary alec Coque. There's like five or six trads defending that as like that's really based in trying to imagine defending self harm and self mutilation as based in trad. This is idiotic. These people are I think these people are, Like I'm starting more and more to think that these are mentally unstable people and that you just can't interact with these people because they won't do anything related to the actual topic. They'll deflect into
a million different things and then play victim and whine and cry. Go ahead, hey, Jay, So I was just gonna ask, like lists the Wagner thing, and we interacted a little bit on Twitter, and I think
you answer my question. But what I see the relations of all positions being is like the dietic thing that you're objecting to is just when you're talking about two persons, and I don't necessarily see an issue with that unless you're reducing it strictly to it being a diet, which isn't that kind of your objection that you're seeing it's a diet. Well, relations of opposition would go along
with in the in the Augustinian sense, goes along with dialectics. And so if you begin your Trinitarian theology with the essence, as Augustine tends to do. No, I'm not saying he never mentions the role of the Father as the cause. He does talk about that in the Trinity, but the locus of the focus is on the divine essence, and he starts with a Plutonian definition of what simplicity is. That then causes these challenges and these odd approaches
to trying to make distinctions within that absolutely simple essence. And one of those would be to say that and he does a lot of these different speculations, and on the Trinity, one of them is he says we could maybe distinguish him by saying that one is not the other two. Father's not the son, not the spirit. Spirit is not the Father, not the son.
Right. But the problem with that is that that's it doesn't tell us anything because all three of them share this kind of vague property of being not the other two. So it doesn't do anything to tell us who the persons are. The roots problem of this whole thing is when a Quinas says persona at rolatio person is relation. So the Roman Catholics, because of their advince simplicity position, literally think that the persons are the relations. But a relation is
a predicate, not a subject. Remember subject predicate, right, So a relation is something that a subject has. For example, I am the son of my father, Right, that's a relation that I possess. So I possess a lot of relations, but none of those relations are who I am. They're what I have there, their attributes or their predicates. Jay is five a bunch of these attributes, So it will never really so it doesn't actually tell us between the persons though, like the father, because I see
I hear a lot of the same kind of language being used. So do you reject that identifying the father as the father in relation to the son like that. No, it's true, it's it's true. It's just that it's just that the relation is not reducible to the person. The father is the father and his hypostatic park marker or property is to be the cause. So you can't say like it is equal to the relation. And that's kind of
that's the objection. And there again remember remember Aquinas's famous quote is persona at rolatio person is relation. And if you read Losky, he has a whole critique of this. He says, it makes absolutely no sense to call a person a relation, because a person is a subject a relation as a predicate. You have a real force of this argument here. I think you've like, it makes so much sense. It's just too bad that it can't get
to this point. I don't they're not interested in they don't care. They just want to score points and find a gotcha and so okay, okay, yeah. And then lastly, so like this is my last question, but when you talk about God, can you just refer to the nature generally as God? And I know bo Brandson's doctor bou Brandston talks about God being the father. But I think even I don't want to say no, there's nothing wrong. There's not. I mean doctor Branson himself talks in many places and
we've talked about it as well. The word God is not a like it picks out different things. Yeah, God can pick out the divine nature, can pick out the divine persons and pick out the divine energy, and it can pick out human and angel messengers. Okay, so sure, yeah, I mean God has the nature and when we worship, when we worship God, listen, when we worship God, we worship the whole God. So yes, But the difference is that we don't start with God as essence because
God is not revealed as essence. He's revealed as I am, He the person of the Father. That's where we start our theology. But then if I was seeing this worshiping God the Father, then I would when we say we worship God, I would think it's incorrect to say we worship the nature because that seems to be well, I don't know, maybe I have to think more about that, but yeah, we worship the nature because it exists in the mode of the person that has the nature. So oh, only
in that sense, Okay, gotcha, gotcha? Okay, ship appreciate it. Sure, yeah, great question. Remember too, the relation in the Kappadocians is relation of origin, and even if you talk about contrarities like Basil did, it's still not arguing the Augustinian position of relations of opposition within an
absolutely simple essence. And the congar article makes this point. Even though congar thinks that Augustin and the Cappadocians are basically saying the same thing, which I don't agree with, he at least admits in the article that there's differences of approaches to the Trinity, and that's not even that controversial what we're talking about. I mean, the Vatican clarification on the Philly Oquay, not that long ago in the nineties or whatever, admits this point too. It admits that
there's still tension between the Augustinian and the Cappadocian approaches to the Triad. They're different. One of those difference differences relates to the fact that the Cappadocians are very clearly monarchical and they stress that and they stress that the Father is the sole cause. That's why Wagner spends so much time trying to prove that there's another cause in the Triad. And that's why we had that whole talk with
doctor Branson on this, because he wrote his dissertation on this topic. That's why. So for those who want to go deeper into the specifics of the camp of doc issue, which is what this goes back to, it goes back to it's right here. On distress discord is muda. I appreciate that. On demn stress discord is modda. Mm hmmm, dude, you're taking the agnostic calls. Uh primarily was talking about tumism. So does not really anything about agnosis as a mirror. Do you want to do it now or
you want to call into another time? I mean, is it quick or is it a question? Or what are you wanting to do? Yeah, it's about pre sup Basically, do you have any presuppositions you cut out? What? Oh? Sorry? Do you have any pre sup presuppositions that don't have justifications? Well, I think everybody's worldview bottoms out at some point where there's no justifications. That's why I believe in paradigm level of circularity. So you do have some level of circularity at the base layer of your life.
I'm saying everybody does, okay, because the only other option is some form of foundationalism or self evidence, and I don't see how you can be consistent with that. So is it a little bit of special pleading that you prefer yours over someone else's due to the circularity happening? Now? It's not special pleading if my argument is that everybody has circularity, right, but you prefer yours over someone else's. It's not a personal preference, it's a it's demonstratable
via the inconsistencies by the reduction reductio in the other positions. But is it part of your reductio, the fact that the other worldviews have circularity? No, it's that they contradict. Every other position contradicts itself. Yeah, at a fundamental level when we flesh out what their argument is. That's why it's a comparison of worldviews. Transcend augmentation is a comparison of rival world views.
So the fact that I say that everybody at root relies on some paradigm level circularity, that's not the problem, because I said everybody has that problem that position. So how would we argue if that's the case. The only way to do it is to argue whether the positions as a whole are coherent, whether they have grounding, or whether they contradict on a fundamental level. Well, have you heard every worldview possible or have you heard every worldview that is
held on earth? No, it's not necessary because every worldview of necessity has a few basic starting points that they have to begin with, and those starting points then determine the rest of the system. Okay, so like a materialist
or an empiricist, what is the contradiction. Well, they're not able to give an account for the argumentation that they use as rank materialists, so they have to utilize things that are impossible on a materialist perspective, such as laws of logic, universals, mathematical entities meaning concept So at some point don't you reach a point where you cannot give an accountability or a justification. Yes, Hence why I said all worldviews at a paradigm level are circular. Right,
But you just stated that empiricist materialists have this contradiction. But then you just admitted that you have your own. Yeah, paradigm level circularity is not the same thing as a contradiction, two different things. So then what's this what's the paradigm level contradictions for empiricists, Well, empiricism can't justify empiricism's presupposition that
all knowledge comes through sense data. You can't find incense data the truth or the proposition that all knowledge comes their sensitive So that's just saying that they have a presupposition. No, it's a contradiction. The difference. It is a contradiction. All knowledge comes Listen, all knowledge comes through sense data. That's a proposition, that's the starting point for all empiricism. That proposition is not found in sense data. That's a contradiction. That's not circularity. Let me
get Let me give you an example of circularity. Right, Like I can't use work, I can't define words without using words. So in linguistic philosophy, that's kind of an obvious circularity. But we wouldn't say we wouldn't say that that's a contradiction, whereas the empiricist argument is a contradiction. And explain one more time, Sorry, Why is that a contradiction that our information and data comes from our experience? No, the claim all knowledge comes through sense
data itself is not found in sense data. That's the contradiction. If it's human knowledge, it won't matter. So listen the proposition. The truth of the proposition itself is not found in sense data. So I could say all humans are mammals and I don't need to study every human being to understand that. Yeah, but that's an analytic truth. That's an analytic truth, So that doesn't This is the analytics synthetic to say that doesn't tell you anything.
That's why it's not relevant. And by the way, analytic truths are not empirical truths. I still don't understand why human knowledge cannot be gained through empiricism. You're not justified in making the claim on empirical grounds. The point, on a ground level, you're not justified for your beliefs. Again, you're confusing circularity with a contradiction. That's two different things. You're you were confusing
and actually because you're saying my circularity is empiricism. But then when I point out that at some point you have that problem, so you think circularity and contradictions are the same thing. It's okay, good job, I'm saying you are because you're saying empiricism ultimate. First, before we proceed the argument, Okay, I think what you said was that empiricism. Well, first of all, you got it wrong that you said all knowledge. I think empiricism
would be human knowledge. So hold on, is there other knowledge than human? Hold on and your is there other knowledge? The human knowledge? There's only human knowledge right now. There is knowledge from like other animals and stuff like that, but knowledge from other animals how do you know that as an empiricist? Oh well, as an all right, this is you don't even get as dude, We're done. I'm looking for the people who want to
discuss Tomism, Roman, Catholicism, Papacy, Islam, Protestantism. It's not it's always it's not TAG Day, but whatever. Actually they're all related. So maybe it should be tag day because as we tried to do with congo Quinas there, we couldn't get him to go into epistemology. What's up you hear me? Yeah, okay, so I do have a Catholic question. So I think it was yesterday whenever your last dream was you mentioned Stigmata and
I was looking. I was looking. I was doing a little bit, a little bit of internet research, and I found this guy before Francis of ASSISI named as Bert, who apparently died in six ninety five. Have you heard of him? No? I found it was like a Western right thing. Apparently calls him a saint. But I don't care what Western right people say. They're they're usually wrong. So well, it is before the schism.
So I was just wondering if you knew that. Well, I mean again, I don't I don't have the Roman Catholic position that I have to accept all the stories about you know this or that legend of this or that ambiguous saint or whatever. Oh okay, well, I just wanted to bring that up, that there was an account of him. Is after he died, they found stigmata on his Well, how do we know that that's the same thing as the living stigmata? Yeah? And that's the other thing is
that it's not clear what it meant. Maybe maybe grave robbers came and desiccated his body or something, and who knows what that means. But again, I mean, there's just it's just not it's it's foreign to the orthodox ethos that there's these you know, sort of tortuous self harm approaches. I've not heard this. I've never heard of it. So maybe somebody has some.
And I don't think fasting in this kind of stuff is not the same thing as the idea of carving Jesus name into my body and then using the blood to sign a blood packed and then reopening the wounds, which she did. By the way, did you want to say something for other dig No, it's came in case a topic came up to Camment up. Yeah, please do, uh, please do if you can. So, so let's go back to this because people are saying you wouldn't debate the p Thomas, That's
why you had to run to Morgaret Muriel Cookeway. So you need to understand that this is not optional for you as a Roman Catholic, not because Roman Catholicism dogmatizes everything in a in a so called saint's life, but rather this is fundamental to the Sacred Heart devotion. So if you let's follow the logic of this. So let's say I'm a Roman Catholic and I choose to not believe the divine revelations so called the private revelations to Margaret Mary Ella Cocuay.
Well, according to Deuteronomy thirteen Deuteronomy eighteen, the book of Jared Amaya in Galatians, won people who are false in their visions and in their predictions and in their messages. If those visions are false, then their false prophets. If Margaret, if I reject her visions, that means she's logically a false prophet. If she's a false prophet, then the entire Sacred Heart devotion with which she's intimately bound up goes away. No Roman Catholic can consistently coherently toss
out sacred heart stuff because it's bound up with her. So all of this stuff hangs and falls together, but they want to pretend that it doesn't hang your fault together, and again they pick and choose. Now does it really make sense to see if I can find that other guy's comment, because there's a guy who had a really great comment. Not I mean, this was another follow up comment, It's not the one I'm looking for. But notice that Margaret was upset by the fact that the wounds that she cut into her
breast were beginning to fail. She then attempted to reopen the original wounds on more than one occasion using a knife. So this is self harm, which is wrong, it's demonic. But since she failed to do this, she then burned herself. I mean, who can't see that this is It's not holiness, it's mental problems and spiritual problems. I'm trying to find this other guy's comment because somebody had a really great comment about whether or not you could
sort of dismiss these things. I don't accept these things. And he found a couple. Uh it cyclical references. Now, this is the famous ecstasy of Terresa, and everybody should know it's supposed to be spiritual rg asm. That's what this means because and all that romancathers saying, well, there's a comparison between married people and the Church in Christ. Yeah, not a sexual
attraction for God. What's the analogy is the union? The union of a married man and woman is analogous to the union of the Church in Christ. Doesn't mean that we have sexual desires for God, you idiots. I'm trying to find that one. Guys, I know where it is. Let me find this comment. This is really good. Now, that's not it. Somebody found the freaking the people in cyclicals that like establish all of this stuff from her, And I can't find that guy's comment because no, I haven't.
I don't care about this is not something I ever cared about. It's a Roman Catholic to go and read the encyclicals on Mary Ala Coquay or whatever. I don't care about that. But I can't find that guy's comment. So, but it was really good because basically it shows that like, it's not a thing you get the you don't get the right to like, Oh I don't. I don't accept that. That one I tossed out. I had another couple of Roman Catholics were saying, oh, you don't have to
accept the saints. Yeah, you do. It's part of the magisterium. It's ordinary. I just hear him. Anyway. I can't find that guy's comment, but you get the point. Like, the point is simply that the Papa seed did a whole thing on this and said, yes, this is the ghostbusters in room. Rome have approved Margaret Mary Alacoque. So imagine saying that, well, I'm a Roman Catholic, but I just doubt like the most popular devotion next to Fatima of the last you know, several hundred
years. I mean, come on, who would take that seriously? But then again, I guess in Roman Catholicism it's you make it into whatever you want it to be. So if you wanted to be praying in mosques or like Mother Teresa went and prayed in the Buddhist temples, which she did, you can make it either one of those. Make it whatever you want. You want to be a charismatic brother. The Roman Church, the papacy has
accepted charismaticism. I mean that, what does that tell you while it makes the point that we've been making that these insane historyonic women were the charismatics of four hundred years ago. So it makes perfect sense that Rome would accept and approve of this ridiculous movement of pentecostalism and charismaticism from the papacy down by the
way. All right, let's see he's next. If that guy's listening, or if you're in here, the guy who put up the encyclicals related to Sacred Heart, or if you guys in the chat find it, feel free to link that and I'll pull it up. Let's see, Sapphire got an mute? Hey, j Yeah, this is a I have one question on topic of the Tonism debate you just had. What could you I just think it'd be helpful if you were to like cite all the all the book listed
or made reference to for future reference. I don't know if that's like a huge ask, but no, in relation to what energies or what what do you mean? Yeah, like the relation of opposition or like where Augustus mentioned it because he tried to do this gotcha at the end where he was like where did it? Gusta site us? Well? And I was actually correct because later on it's book five where he starts to talk about this, and I said, it's around the beginning of the second half where he starts to
go into the trendy turning speculation. So he booted me right then, So I know it's kind of but that is correct. H con Guar talks about that. It's like book five and afterwards where a Gustine goes into these things. So keep in mind, like I haven't read Date Trinitate, like I read it like fifteen years ago, so I'm quit caring about all this stuff a long time ago. So but I mean, I think it's pretty good to remember, like off the top of my head, it's the second half
of the of the treatise. But but yeah, you could so I would say you could read the con Guar essay where he he just laying out that it's not really that controversial, that there's two different approaches between East and West on the Trinity, and that the Augustinian Latin approach eventually tomistic approach originally eventually goes into a different direction in the Middle Ages, when it's you know, heavily tonistic and focused on all of the nuances of scholasticism, and the East
didn't have that, which is why it was pretty funny when I said you think that, I asked Wagners, you think the that there's scolat that the Cappadocians are scholastics. He said, yeah, they cite Aristotle. Okay, So apparently the only thing that's required to be a scholastic is to cite Aristotle in his mind, so basically everyone is a scholastic. So this is what Roman Catholics do, where they'll just like bait and switch and like switch out
the meanings of the words. And so if you agree to something, they'll say, ah, yes, well that word means this, So you agree with my position, you're reputed. It's they love to play these words concept of games. That's why his whole position was based on the assumption that relations is identical to relations of opposition, and so it's a word concept fallacy.
Think about what they do with logos, right logoss The logoss right Emj's logoss is the same as every other philosopher that uses the word logos, even though no, I mean John One. Logos comes from the Book of Proverbs, the Hebrew wisdom tradition. It's the second person, that godhead. It's not the same thing as the logos of Marcus Aurelius and anyway the Stoics, So I mean Plato uses logos, Does he mean Jesus? Of course not so
obviously they're not identical. But they play these bait and switch word games and
word concept fallacy. So that's why he had to boot me, because he sensed that the he that I might have been right about him confusing relations with this Augustinian notion of relations of opposition, which again is part of like the absolute divine simplicity Philly oak Way to be dispute, and it's just simply not used as the focus of even if they use the word contrarities or something like that, like the focus of the Cavin Docians is hyposthetic properties and relations of
origin. And like a lot of these people would do well if they wanted to really interact with a position to read some of the books that deal with the critiques. For example, I would say you need to read Mystical Theology the Eastern Church by Loski, I mean every Roman Catholic should at least read that to have a basic idea of what our critiques are. Because Loski studied under Jillson, right, the famous Thomas, so he knows and understands Thumism
very well when he writes his critiques of Tomism. And most of the arguments that you hear me repeating and putting out there, almost all of them are in Lawsky, I mean, and Lasky is not the only person to do it. But you know, there are also arguments that you find in you know, Steinyloy. But really the arguments go back to the cap Pi, Dooceans, Maximus, and the Palamite disputes and synods. So I would say, read the Triads by Saint Gregor Palamus, Read a Debate with a barley
Might by Palomas. The uh Palomite synods have all been translated now it's in a book now by Norman Russell. I would say, read those. You'll see that all the arguments that are made because, by the way, all of most of I should say, many of Palamas's letters are also translated in that book. So it's also going to be a key to let me just get the books. Yeah, oh, thanks, man, I appreciate that
is your graduato stream. Oh no way, okay, now I'm I'm not at my other house, so I don't have all my other all my other books, so I don't have any lost Key books here, and I don't have any church Fathers here. But so's there's really there's several really good books on this, and I would say start with Losky is kind of an introduction. I would read Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. I would read Vision of God by Lasky is really good. Dogmatic Theology by Losky also good.
But to get specifically into the energy's debate debate with the Barlamite, which you can get I think for still like twenty bucks at s n u Y Press. The Triads is a really good book by Palamas. That's a more fleshed out, longer argument on this topic than the book that I'm talking about. That's a translation of of Palamas's letters and all the Palomite Synods. Is Norman Russell's book Gregory Palomas has the cast controversy in the debate with islam Documents relating
to Gregory palam Us, it's this orange book right here. It's really good if you really want to get really technical. It's not an easy read, but it is very relevant and proves that Palamas, tadd the essence inter distinction, and then it's say real essence interdistinction, and that's teekon Pino's dissertation.
Essence and Energies Being and Naming God in Palamas is a good book. I would read doctor Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West, which is also very technical, but it will get into disputing Eastern and Western views of the Trinity and the energies. Doctor Bradshaw's book that's a bunch of his other essays that's collected together called Divine Energies and Divine Action is Necessary. It's a really good book. And in the Church Fathers, I would say you should start with something like
Basil on the Holy Spirit and Basil against Unomius. Both of those make arguments on the basis of the energies Basil Letter two thirty four. And one of the key things that's overlooked with the dispute between East and West is Maximus's book two hundred chapters. And the reason I always recommend they never read this, They never look at this. But the reason I recommend the tuner chapters is that the first five pages is Maximus saying that there's two senses in which we
can call God pure act. There's one sense that's valid and another sense that's not valid. Roman Catholics do not make this distinction. So when they call God pure act, they mean it in a reductionist sense that God is identical to his essence as you heard congo quitas and here's chirpin or earlier. That doesn't make sense, right and right. So he says that we cannot call God pure act in his essence. Literally, the first five pages of the
two inter chapters makes this anti Tomistic argument. He says we can call God first act or pure actuality in contrast to creation. And he says that you have to have this do sense of naming if we're going to use terms like first actuality or pure act because if you reduce God's the persons or God's essence to pure act Maximus says, you'll end up in the heresy of Aristotle.
You would be it. You would believe in an internal dual principle of an eternal actualizer actualizing something other than himself, which is why it's often again pertinent to bring out the eternal creation challenge, the modal collapse challenge to the people who argue this I sad. Yeah, Train more often relies on that sort of thing too. Yeah. Yeah, pretty much all their arguments are are this way. I have two more questions. You should go pretty quick.
But I would say also, another really essential thing to read, which none of them have actually read, because they would they would know if they had read this, is if you read on the Orthodox Faith by John Damascus, particularly book three, So you have to make it all the way to book three, which I don't think they do. They just quote. Mind they'll
actually read these texts. But if you read book three and when he gets to section fifteen is where he takes all the essence energy distinction arguments and applies them to Christology. But now of these people know anything about Christology, so they wouldn't even understand why it's way more there's way more clarity about the energies
in Christology. And if you understand the essence energy distinction is the very thing that Maximus argues in his disputation with Pearis, Right, that's you could get that book Disputation with Pearis by Saint Maximus. I recommend that the whole book is arguing the distinction between essence and energy, both in God and in Man.
And that's why there's two wills and two energies in Christ. So it's the very way he refutes Pearis. So, yes, it has to be a real, real there have to be really different, and that's why John Vascus says they're really different. And then they want to haggle over the terms. What was it mean to be really different? Are you saying it's parts? No, it's not parts, No more than the Trinity is parts.
So let's look at fifteen and you'll notice right here at book three, section fifteen, what does John Damascus start this whole passage with concerning the energies and our Lord Jesus Christ. If he equates and reduces the energies to the essence, all of these arguments fall apart and none of them make any sense.
It's as stupid the Roman Catholics. Then they think you're stupid. They want you to rely on their quote minds and all this crap out of context, as if you won't go and actually read John Damascus saying right here, observe that energy capacity for energy or power potentia, the product of the energy that's the effect, and the agent the person are all different. Here's John Damascus, saying to you that the father's action, or excuse me, the God's
action to create is distinct from the divine persons. The effect of that creation the world is distinct from the person acting creating. And clearly there's a difference between these actions. Because did God rest on the seven day from creating or not? Yes? He did. And this is an argument Palamus uses against the barl Mites. He says, did God restaurant or is he still creating? If he rested from creating, then not all actions are identical? Is
that something? But why will why won't they accept that? Because if they accept that, the whole tomistic system tumbles like a house of cards. That it is and that's why what that's why did you hear the discussion earlier with congo Quinas and Leviticus nine? Was that a guy in the space because I helped on like ago? Yeah, so he said, don't go to de
bai stock quote literally, stop vote philosophy. Why would I? Why would I go to philosophy when literally you believe divine revelation tells us that God's glory appeared in time and space in Leviticus nine to all of Israel? What is that. Yeah, doctor downs that created effis. Oh, so you can worship creatures the creator to fix is not a creature? Ond. Yeah, that's crazy. Now this is this is how crazy they are. They are in a cult that believes a system. And if you go to the challenging
the assumptions of the system, that's why they melt down. I say, do they believe in potential at all? Or not in God? I see, Okay, that's a big problem. If they admitted any of that in God, then they would say that that in their mind, that metaphysically necessitates that God has composed, God is changeable, God is passable, God has parts. I see. I have one more question about two more, but
I think it'll be pretty quick. And but that, by the way, is why I keep asking them if they will discuss epistemology, because they will say that that all of that's not possible, and then I'm going to say, well, how do you know what isn't isn't possible? Well, because we know because of being in metaphysics. The the black guy that was on here even said metaphysics is prior to apistemology. Oh okay, and I wanted to ask him and talk to him, how do you know that, because
that's an assertion, that's that's where your your system starts with. I was gonna ask, do you do foll follow up debates at all? Or what do you mean like with uh, that Wagner guy, I think that was his name, He won't debate. I've already I've been asking him for months to debate dang, yeah, or like I know, it's kind he only wants to have a formal debate on Philly okuay because that's the one thing that he studied. Uh, and that's he already debated UBI on that. So
I'm like, well, tumism isn't built on Philly okuay. Tmism is built on the idea that metaphysics is prior to epistemology. I don't believe that. I want to challenge that, and they won't debate that. Yeah, yeah, to me, that sounds crazy. I think epistemology would come before metaphysics. But well, even if you thought that it did or didn't, like, there still needs to be some addressing of the argument that it doesn't. Yeah, that's just a it's just an assumption question first principles. M HM.
I would ask do you do Follo up debates with like, I know it's kind of out there, but like Tea Jump or malpass Or, I would not have another debate with t Dump. I don't think there's any point. Yeah, and my last question is, I've seen you talk about black hebrews Raelites for a while. Have you ever read into Rostafarianism And if so, do you think that's like on the same tier of like bananas or just craziness. It's very similar. In fact, I think Hebrew roots and black
Heber Israelite will have some ideological lineage from Rastafarian tendencies. I can believe that because it's not es centralized religion is the weird thing about Rosty stuff, right, And they don't really have dogmas. It's it's not really a dog a position with like feel like you're not going to find the Rastafarian systematic theology like that doesn't think there's no Russifar and heresies or Rustafarian metaphysic. It's just kind
of like a vague abstraction. Yeah, but I do think that some of the ideas of like you know, we're the true Zion and all that, I think that did influence I've just seen people arguing this in some articles I've read, but I don't know that much about either Rastafarianism or any of these movements other than the one livestream. I did kind of reading some articles about it. I'd recommend you read into it because it's like they believe that like
Gone incarnated as the Emperor of Ethiopia. I'm aware of that, that Haley Haley Selassie is the Holy Spirit. I'mware of that. You all right, thank you, thank you for letting me on at a good time. Yeah, some people say that that's not actually true. I don't know whether it is or isn't. Are got on mute? Are you there? He's that hard time connecting father deacon? Are either Yeah. I was gonna say.
After I graduated high school, I was in UH. I took some classes a quick community college before I went to Thomas Quinn's College, and a friend of mine gave me a book on roster Fororianism, and I was already in the apologetics by then, and it was the dumbest thing I've ever like. Yeah, it's really low here differend wi fi real quick over here on on the live stream, so it'll come right back don't worry. It's not it's not going anywhere. It just takes it a second to hop over to the
other. Uh. And usually if I go to this other this other band, it doesn't have as many problems. So try that here, wa go ahead? Hello, uh huh, what's up? Ari? What's up? Hello? Yeah, what's up? Man? I can hear you. I know it's sometimes it just doesn't work. Drew, Oh, hey, yeah, Jay, what's up? Man? Hey? Uh yeah, I was just curious. Can you can you explain exactly how Roman Catholics understand original sceny?
Okay? Well, I I would say that the more modern you get, the more the Roman Catholic position just strictly on original sin moved closer to
the Orthodox position. So if you read like the Vatican Clarification on Limbo, it discusses this in the first I don't know half of the of the essay that the period from Augustine to Pope San Gregory the Great, that period was really the dominance of the strict Augustinian view that all men are in Adam as in an archetype, and so in that way all men share not just in
the effects of Adam Sin, but also in his guilt. I did a whole podcast, a three hour podcast on Augustine and the City of God where he discusses this topic and he makes it very clear he makes this Neil Platinum type of argument that we're all in Adam as in an archetype, and that's why we share that guilt. And that's because he had a misreading of Romans five idea that all men sin because all men were in Adam and therefore all
sin. It's rather the Greek is different Meandorf has a good response to this, where he points out that the effects of Adam sin come upon all men because all men eventually sin, not that all men actually literally sin in Adam. So after Augustine, the Roman Catholic Church, by the early Middle Ages itself begins to soften this position, and they bring in the notion that no infants are not automatically damned, like Augustine said, and Augustine clearly taught that
it's called the mass damnata. Everyone in Adam is a damned mass mass damnata, a big ball of damnation. When they soften this with infant limbo, they say infants are not guilty of any actual sin. The only thing that they have is the deprivation of what Ramakatas call original grace. I think, as Orthodox we could agree that all men have the effects of adam sin, and one of those effects is the deprivation of grace or the life of the
Holy Spirit. So we agree there. But over time the Romancallity Church then eventually even says and confirms that, well, there's infant limbo. And I think around that medieval period too, when they talk about infant limbo is when they also say it's because they're not guilty of actual sin. That's a specific rejection of the Augustinian position, because Augustine believed that infants were damned if they weren't baptized, and that's why the limbo doctrine is a softening of that.
Anyway, the Orthodox position does not argue that there's any taint. It's really the only meaning of taint is of original sin, is that there's a deprivation of grace. But we don't and never said that infants were damned or anything like that. And also, the Augustinian notion of original sin is intimately tied up with the Augustinian view of anthropology. So Augustine, because he collapses nature in person the Trinity. He also collapses nature in person in human anthropology,
so all men are just manifestations of the nature of Adam. He doesn't have a consistent distinction between nature and person and humans, and so he doesn't understand, for example, recapitulation, that all of our nature is recapitulated in Christ and that's why all men are resurrected, for example, instead of God. He struggles with why the reprobate would even be resurrected at all. They have
no connection to Christ, which shows us that he doesn't teach recapitulation. So the Orthodox view is pretty much all the fathers in the East teach recapitulation. Since Aeronaeus that Christ recapitulates our whole nature. That means that what determines our experience of the escaton as to either ill will or ever well being or ever ill being is based on our personal mode of willing. So even though our nature is restored, each individual person, each individual hypostasis, will determine their
experience of the escaton based on how they willed in this life. So even though nature is restored, guilt is hypostatic or personal guilt is not attributed to nature. So Roman Catholics still tend towards thinking that our nature is guilty, even though they're not Calvinists and they're not even Augustinian, there's this holdover of this idea. And that's precisely why they would even think that Mary would have to be immaculately conceived for Christ to be born with the holy humanity that he
has. I was just about to ask a question about that exact thing, actually, because like, like, because you brought up how Christ came and he recapitulated our nature for it. So, but it would sound like from a Roman at least from a Roman Catholic view that with Mary being born well conceived with it like, you know, because it's essentially that she's you know, not born with the stain of original sin, right, correct, So by default, if Christ came to recapitulate, you know, our nature,
what exactly would that imply for the nature of uh, you know, the theotokos first, So I guess I'm trying to understand their part as well, at least from well again, So the key, the key element here is that you know, we think she did die, she did if she experienced the same effects of original sin as everyone else, which is which is to undergo death. So right, So even though she was graced in terms of the presence of the Holy Spirit from from out throughout her whole life, it
doesn't mean that she had to be preserved from death. And that's why they will even though they have in the in the Uniate churches the feast of dormision like dormsician means she she went to sleep, means she died. If you
die, that means you're a son or daughter of Adam. So wouldn't that so if she was already born without that particular stain from their perspective, then wouldn't that essentially like what wouldn't that in blood that she's not like she's not necessarily of a human nature in the same is that we are, but rather like some kind of like a I don't know whether to say, like a
divine or quasi divine nature. I guess you could say maybe. I don't think they intended to mean that, but I do think that the reason that you get these very odd, uh modern pushes within the Roman Catholic sphere for Mary to be co redemptrics to be given these higher and higher and higher titles ultimately goes back to these issues. Mm hmm, So like that would they all? Do they also believe that like she was not because she didn't have
that staying that she's also not capable of sending either. I don't know what I would say about the possibility or that if there's if there was any real potentiality, but I just think they would say that there was consistent operative grace or or whatever or sanctifying grace in Mary that she would not sin. I don't know, okay, okay, because I've heard like mixed responses to that
from various people. I heard some say that like Mary, you know, it was effectively incapable of being able to sin in herself because of like her being born without that particular stain in their understanding of such at least. And I guess they kind of had me questioning the notion because it seems like I guess you could say, in at least by that very belief of the immaculate
conception for itself. I think even though I think that when people try to say like old calfulars worship Mary, etc. I think they might I think what they're at least trying to say when they say it towards Roman Catholics. Would you say that maybe have more to do with the particular dogmuth the immaculate conception, rather than its just purely being based upon like you know, the veneration of the Blessed Mother. Yeah, I think it's more so those things.
And again I think ultimately the Maculate conception stuff is all about up with the traces and the remnants of the Augustinian tendency towards that view of original sin. Oh yeah, guys, good thanks man appreciation. Yeah, great question, and I did do There is a fuller, longer treatment of this discussion. Now Here is the famous Irena As quote about recapitulation, which again you will not find this. I mean, it would be an interesting experiment to
see if there's any Latin fathers after Augustine that do believe in recapitulation. I'm not aware of any. It could exist. There might be something that we're just because there a lot of stuff still hasn't been translated, so maybe there is something out there. But what you see that's very common in the East.
We find it in Cyril of Alexandria, we find it in John Damascus, we find it everywhere in Saint Maximus, this idea that Christ recapitulates all of human nature and that the redemption of Christ is cosmic and scope because of
Romans eight. This is a really strong argument against Roman Catholicism because even though it might technically sort of be there, how would something that's so fundamental to Christology and the Seven Councils be forgotten and lost in the West Because this is related to the Heroine of Hades too, right, which Roman Catholics maybe they technically confess it, but it doesn't really have any relevance to their theology beyond
just some sort of abstract speculation in some manual somewhere. Quite Yeah, I was going to add concerning the imact conceptionally and Mary's free will from the Roman Catholic position, they're probably influenced by Augustine. Yeah, and he's kind of definition of free will that you find nature and grace, which is totally foreign to Orthodoxy in terms of how we define will and choice and things like that.
So yeah, Augustin that I cover that in that in the three hour august and Original Sin taught because Augustine's view of willing is very similar to Libido Dominondi. So he thinks that fallen man is sort of even though he's not he's not a Lutheran or a Calvinist. He thinks that the will of man is directed invariably in two directions. It's either directed towards creatures and therefore sin, or it's directed towards God. So there's this dialectical that's the only options
in Augustine. This is why, for example, he thinks that the marital bed and marital unions have to contain some venial sin, because there's no way that you could be enraptured with God if you're enraptured with your wife, who's a creature. So he himself says that he struggles with understanding how marital relations can be sacramental, and he says there has to in marriage be some benal sin and sexuality. Well, how can you have a necessary sin in terms
of a sacrament. It doesn't make any sense. But it's all misunderstood because Augustine has a dialectical view of willing. So he thinks that you will either for God or for creatures, and that's the only only options. And so it's a dialectical willing that's either for virtue and grace in God or sin. That's it. So he doesn't have a conception of free will defined as the
ability to will multiple goods. So the rest of the Church, when they talk about what it means to have free will, it means to have a choice amongst options. So, for example, in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve they had free will, there was no fall. So how can we define free will as dialectical willing in terms of good or evil? It's not so that Augustine and I imagine the Roman Catholics would fall on this. She would never just like in the Escaton the Saints wouldn't choose yes bad.
Because Augustine defines a free will is a perfected will that only chooses the good, which is God. Well that and he also thinks that you wouldn't even want to will anything else because in the Beativic vision, your intellect would be satiated, because he does teach basically Beativic vision. So for those that are interested, here is the the talk that we did a couple of years ago on Augustine and original sin. So we're looking for Rum Catholics principally today.
I mean, I will entertain or take Islamic arguments Protestants if they want to chime in, but primarily we're trying to focus on tonistic Roman Catholic argumentation. If we have any Catholics, Dion, Hey care, Yeah, there we go. Okay. So I've been studying different arguments against Taoheed, and I've heard you give a few arguments, and I've heard I've been studying a
few different articles too. So I was talking with a Muslim about does the law possess eternally different type of like interpersonal attributes and qualities, And he was saying yes, but he was appealing to like Cambridge Cambridge properties and things like that. So I'm just curious, like, how would you argue against the Muslim making those type of appeals? Would you even do that? Well,
I mean, you can appeal to modern philosophical argumentations. I guess I don't have a problem necessarily doing that, But how does that appeal like really solve, for example, the issues of the relationship of Allah to his attributes? Right? So, if, for example, if you watch the the Bo Branson Jake debate, have you seen that one a lot a bit ago? I probably have to watch it again though, Yeah, I mean, the debate then centers on if you say that Allah really is distinct from his attributes.
Then the question that arises is, Okay, are the attributes do they possess a sayeity? Because Jake's argument was that you as a trinityranary consistent because divinity equals a sayety. The father has a sayity, but the son lacks a saety. Therefore the son is not fully divine. But doctor Branson shows that not even you believe on your position and that divinity equals to siety because the same argument applied to the attributes is refuted when Jake says that the attributes
do not possess the saiety. Right, and then so it really depends on the Muslim that we're talking about, so right, and then Jake even seems to try to bring up like an essence energy distinction argument for Tealheed. And that's what like the Muslim I was talking do he seemed to do. He was trying to say that a lot of attributes are extrinsic. Yeah, that most of the as I understand, unless you're doctor Khalil and you're a Neil
Playton as Shiah. Pretty much the Muslims believe in a real distinction between all in his essence, I mean between all and his attributes. Okay, so what I guess what would be your your you know, what's going to be your first argument against tao heed Hm. It's going to depend again on which
type of Muslim is arguing. But I mean, the first thing I would just simply say is why should I believe that your position is in any better position when your main argument is something that you yourself have to deal with and have a double standard for. But I might, but again depends on which Muslim it is, because you know, if they it depends on like, do they believe in divine eminence or not? If they don't believe in it, then I might go in the direction of arguing like, well, then
how do you know a lot at all if there's no eminence? Because it begs the question to say it, because you know, the chron says, got all, it's not like anything in the created order. So I'm gonna wait and see how they if they believe in analogy or not. If they do believe in analogy, then I want to understand how Jake went hardcore for anthropomorphism, right, because he thinks that Allah has an uncreated foot and an uncreated shin. But what does that mean? Well, you, he says,
you look at the context. Okay, Well you can say, look at the context. What does it mean to say Allah as an uncreated foot in the context? And he says, or an uncreated hand? Or what? Oh, it's all a grasping What does that tell me? All a grasps things. I mean, this is why Sam Chumun, for example, always brings up with those types. Wait a minute. It says Allah descends to you know, of he moves from the throne and descends to the heavens
or whatever in the hadiths? What does that mean? And Jake will say it means what it says, okay. But to move and to descend means that there's spatial, temporal, spatial relations and perhaps temporality. So space is something other than Allah. Right, So if Allah has eternally descended from his throne, then there's spatial relations which are also eternal. So now you have Allah and space, So you have two principles that are eternal exactly. Yeah,
that's a good art. So it's more of an epistemological army man, and I think that's right. Would you would you ever make any type of arguments that the only possible god that can exist is a you know, triune god, a god that is not only one person. Yeah, we argue that all the time. Okay, do you have any videos on that I can go back and because I watch all your lives? Oh yeah, I mean I just put up one not too long ago. Why the trinity is
necessary? Okay, that's on dire eclips. And then you could watch the critique that we did of Ed Faser. It's called like universals something critiquing Ed Phaser. That video argues that I'll check it out. Thanks you great questions fortnite. All his foot is orbiting in space. Well, remember, for even Tom and Jake's tradition, the argument hinges on perfections, and clearly it's
more perfect for all uh to laugh than to not laugh. But I made the point of saying, well, isn't it more to eternally laugh and to laugh? Once on that line and forget it. And by the way, if having a foot is more perfect than not having a foot, then isn't having more toes on the foot more perfect than having less toes? You see how silly this is? Literally this is the silliness of how they argue. And do you notice the what's the commonality between say a Tomas in a Muslim
in Allah's perfections the metaphysical assumptions. The assumption is, well, we all know what perfection is, and perfection has to mean that having six toes is better than five toes. We all know that Allah laughing is more perfect than not laughing. So there's this silly metaphysical assumption about perfections. By the way, Thomas do the same thing. They have these metaphysical positions that they think are self evident and first and primary, which is why they're all melting down
every time we ask them. Why are we supposed to think that that's the case. You believe that your system is built on that. But what if I don't accept the first principles of your system, Well, just grant me my first piss. Basically, they're doing the same thing every other system does of system building, which is, grant me my assumptions and let me convince you of my position. That's what they do, Father Deacon, or either let me tell you a really cool fictional story that I made up. I
don't question that fictional story because it'll lose the argument. Well, let me play the Let me play the devil's advocate, Tomas, Why on earth would you think that being and the good in metaphysics is a fictional story. You're just being a coping ortho bro by daring to think that my philosophy of being is a fictional story. You have to start with metaphysics. Okay, why,
Yeah, that's missing the point, right, They just assert? But look, hey, in a position based on on papal authority worship, why wouldn't we expect them to just assert authoritative, dogmatic positions that they don't think have to be justified or given any coherence. And it's so strange that people can't even grasp what we're asking for justification that that's and what do they do?
They just restate their story And I mean either it's low IQ or like we have talked to, certain paradigms can be like operating systems that don't even allow you to yes, to recognize what's being asked, so they can't process, they can't hear the question that's being asked. Well, it wasn't that
the same thing, even tho it was a different topic. When we were asking the Muslims, can you restate the hypothetical about the Qur'an's relation to prior revelation And it's like their defense mechanisms wouldn't even let them reset the hypothetical.
Yep. And we've seen this happen before in what was it? First of all, I noticed reading it in Eric Voglan where he's talking about uh tiny mustache Man's Germany Stones Russia, like different kind of neo gnostic kind of systems that were built in which remember it says that during the trials they said, well, we couldn't disobey orders like that. Yeah, we weren't capable. And I always interpreted that that they were unwilling, And Foglan says, you
know, they built into the system that that wasn't even a question. You couldn't process that. And you even see this with like trying to translate words after the fall of communism and stuff like that, that they had translators had a really difficult time translating words that had anything to do with the individual because there was such kind of a hive mind that they didn't have an operating system that they can understand that. And a lot of this kind of goes into
the philosophy language that Quin was talking about with indeterminacy of translation. That doesn't
mean that, you know, there isn't some sort of overlap. And I think what he was saying is that and kind of a coherence holistic sense in terms of semantics, is that there's no what was Quin's position, he was going against an arguing against the classical few of corresponds that words have kind of a one to one they derive their meaning through one to one correspondence with the property entity which they're referring to. And he goes through his whole kind of
critique of that and basically shows that no, there's there's a sort of indeterminacy unless you're immersed within the paradigm. And he uses the Gavia guy right like it's a rabbit running and that the point is there is no one to one correspondence. It could you know, it's all kind of interconnected within the paradigm. That could be ancestor it could be food, it could be all these
different things. And so it makes sense that if your paradigm has constructed such that it has no concept to process some sort of reality or understand it, it has no meaning. They can't a person can't understand it can't even understand what's being said. Yes, suh, are you there fortnite? Do you want to talk? Oh? Yeah, yeah it So I got a question relating on your position on the essence and energy distinction. Right, so you
firm right, it's a real distinction between the essence and the energies. Well, real distinction is a later term, that's a late scholastic post even Aquinas term. So depending upon what you mean by that. If you think that real means composition, partition or division, no, But if you if we mean a real ontological distinction, yes, and so the orthodox response is that the same level of distinction between the persons is the same type of distinction between
essence and energy. Are you there? Yeah? My bad, I'm back. Okay, do you have like a like said definition you can give out? I mean, the cap of Docians did all this without scholastic distinctions. So what do you mean? The definition is that just as the father is distinct from the son, so also the essence is distinc from the energy. Right, But this this varies across interpretations. Right, if your Scotist you would say that's simply a formal distinction. Which is widely different from a real
distinction, right, and so the way to different interpretations off that. So how would you understand the real disis? Right? So that's why if you fall, if you follow the debate when it gets to the point of Palamos, the way that it would easily also just cancel out all the Scotist arguments. The argument isn't ultimately about distinguishing the attributes amongst themselves, but rather what do we participate in? So the Scotist could never answer what precisely we're participating
in. And that's why, quite literally, the debate with a barley of mind just shifts right into what it is we participate in. So even if you wanted to say these distinctions are quote formal, that doesn't do any good to talk about what we participate in. So do we participate in a formal
conceptual distinction? Formal or conceptual? Formal? Formalities? The wall Scotas will simply tell you formalities are not purely mental conceptions, right, I meant to You're correct, I meant to say formal or conceptual, Like, it won't matter how you catch that out, because the debate ends up being do we
participate in God's glory or not. Right, but I'm still okay, So I guess you now, okay, So what would you say if I simply say that it can saptual distinction is a distinction with a basis in the thing itself or a basis in reality. Right, Why do I need to draw a big onto logical division so to speak, between the essence? So just you just you, just you just are you just said the very thing I reject. So distinction does not entail composition or division. That's fundamental to art
theology. So the fact that I say that there is a difference between us and and an energy does not until division. So you just imported the Roman Catholic type of or the thing is though I'm asking you because you need to divide the essence and the energies for you participate in my aspect. I know, we don't have to know. That doesn't entail division. Distinction does not inteil composition division, just like right, No, that's but that's just that's
okay. The just listen, how you participate in one aspect of a different ontological being. It's not a different it's not a different ontological being because the being of God let me, let me explain between the same being in the same way that there's a discision between the father and the son. That's ontological, right, But we wouldn't say that's an ontological distinction. Well, there are not three beings, right. Ontology is not only related to the word
being. So again you're you're assuming your metaphors. Well, again, the being of God is an energy for us, it's not his essence. So you think being is simply the energy, right, You don't think you can predicate that energy. You can't predicate anything of the divine essence. You can't predicate the essence exists. The existence of God is also an energy. That's
the cappation argument is wrong when he said that that the glorious right. He says that the energies in the essence of God are united in one existence. Would you say he was wrong, Well, the way that they're united is in the mode of the persons that have the essence and that the energy. And by the way, if you recapass his essay, he shows that Scolarios rejects the the tomistic view of saying that the distinction is conceptual. He says
it's a real distinction. Sure, I never said Sclorus was a thumbis thum. My point is that the essence of what Scolarius rejects an Aquinas is what we what I reject that there's no real essence in ury distinction. Right, So have you risk would you understand him to affirm a real distinction between the essence and the energies? No, I understand that for him, formal distinction
is his own category. Understand that, right, So if we take his category, you know he's an actual saint, right, and we understand I don't acception. No, I don't accept that he is. He's not a saint. So you wouldn't accept laws is a saying, right? No, no, no, no, I thought you said, excuse me, I thought you said I thought you said Scots chill out. I thought you said Scotus my bit. Yeah, scalauris my bit. There are very similar names. I understand. Yeah, now we understand he is, Yes, he's
a saint. Yeah, yeah, okay. So would you say Scalaorius would affirm a real distinction between the essence and the energies. He affirms the palamite position, right, But you would not would you say that's a real distinction between the essence and the energies. Yeah, because that's the whole purpose of the whole teakon Po thesis. Well, yeah, so did you did you read the t on p thesis? Yeah? I've read his being a naming, Essence and Energy of God and then his second later work what are Divine
Energies? Right? Which is which must small a dissertation because I want to talk about those two things there. So first of all, well, I have a question for you though, right, Can I ask you a question? Sure? Yeah. By the way, so if you've read that much, then you've probably read the Capus essay right on essence energy, in the in the in the Theology of Saying Gnatus Glorious. I've read the half half
the introduction, like the historical aspect. Yes, I haven't read his Well, this is just a paper theesis, right, because I don't see the relevance in his thesis. Well, this is just a paper from a Uni eight arguing that huh. I know, yeah, capsure is a union. I am more of that. No, but I'm saying that this is just a paper where he makes the point that all those Scolarius likes a lot of what's an aquinas The chief thing that he disagrees with is Thomas's position on equating
attributes with essence. Yeah, I'm aware. The thing is, I'm not positing Thomas Aguainance's position though, Okay, so if I'm if we're going to argue the Scotti's position, then it's going to turn because even Bradshaw says, yeah, I'm not even positing the disposition. I'm positive in Scalorus's position, but Scolaris's position is I would argue the Palomite position, right, and then we go back to it's a real distinction, and then I'm simply asking,
and then we go back to the same topic of discussion. I don't really see the relevance and talking about Schloris was on the Thomas. I don't understand why you're trying to argue the Scolarian position. Then what's the point? Because my right, if you read if we understand Schalorous right in his third tome, in the sixth Tone, right, his commentaries on the Condoyos the barlum quinas, Yeah, I can dinos. I pronounced things wrong, my bad,
but yeah, so we would understand. He specifically writes that a real distinction between essence and energies between creatures is because of their deficiency, and that does not apply to God. Right. And if we read later on in this third tone, page two hudred and twenty six, he said that a foam of distinct neither makes a division of reality or a composition. But it's yeah, and that's everything I've been saying the whole time. That this distinction
does not intel composition division. That's what I've been saying, right, But that would not apply for what's understood to be a real distinction. That's why I said at the beginning that using the terminology real distinction is really confusing because that's a later scholastic definition, that's post aquinas. So I said at the very beginning that the level of the distinction is the same for the energies as it is between the persons. Yeah, but that differs among positions, like
I've said. Okay, so let's make it really clear. Then, in Leviticus nine, we have the manifestation of the glory of God in time and space, and the Israelites bow down and worship it. What is that? Sure? We say that's the energy. Okay, so it's not the essence, right, Sure, But with your decent on A thirteen fifty one has to be contemplated with it. What has to be contemplated with it? The essence always has to be contemplated with with I didn't. I didn't say that
it's not contemplated with it. But you're not participating in it. Yeah, sure, I'm simply saying that you need to clarify you're not but not participating in the identity. Yes, it's not right. So you're participating in the energy, and that's why the fourth of the Palomite Synods condemns the tomistic position of Precoreos Prokeros. Right, but you wouldn't say that Barlum himself was a Thomas. No. I think he was a Greek monk or monastic, or I forget exactly what is. He might have been an aut