Pt 1: "My Arguments for Catholicism" Refuted: Plus Libertarian Fantasy Island & Infinite Universe Chats

curve ball at your face. Now you don't know what to do. Now you're over there shaking, shaking in your crib, shaking in your adult diapers because you're a gamer, and you don't need to get up to go to the bathroom because you're gaming, pooping yourself like a Matt Delon monkey. Evolutionary being, achieving ascendency, achieving initiation into the mystery of the maya maya being the illusion, the illusion that you're

all encapsulated in the matrix. AKA. Today we're going to break the matrix by breaking your mind, by breaking your psyche, but breaking your soul, because we're going to open up to debate. There's nothing more contrary to the ethos of our era, of our society, of our times than this old, forgotten, dusty ass art of debate, which nobody believes is an art anymore. And that's why even though I debate all these people, nobody really cares that you would debate. The

debate is not seen as anything debates. What is that People think debate is arguing No, no, no, it's proving your case through abstract mental chess games. That's what I like to think of it as it's thought chess. I saw videos of people playing chess, and I thought, that's what debates are. Debates are mind chess, mind chess. Now we're pretty fair, I would say. Over here on my channel, we've been opening it up to debate for many years now, almost two three times every week, and it's a lot

of fun. Sometimes I get tired of it gets old because it's usually the same old stuff, you know. It's sort of like everybody's just rehashing crap that they just heard for the first time, and they don't even realize that what you just heard has already been addressed like five hundred times and you just didn't know. So but that's the nature of the game. That's where we're at this.

convinced him Catholicism. How there's all these killer arguments. We're gonna make this quick as this kind of our introduction. Of course, it's not restricted to Catholic stuff today. We're gonna be talking about any topics you want to bring to the table, Baby, you want to bring into the spotlight. And of course Apple update made my volume all.

two three years ago. He's still going strong. Look at the Look at the kind of garbage Bobby has on his channel. First of all, we've got this nonsense about sam Shamun is caught lying because Sam she Mun says Allah is Satan, but the word can also refer to God, as in God of the Bible, and Bobby thinks this is like a massive own. This has one hundred and sixty six thousand views. We come over here, what is Bobby uploading Islam and ayahuasca? You can't make this stuff up.

I mean, we are literally dealing with just armies of dummies that are everywhere. And I don't know what to do here because people are getting so dumb that, let's say, for the sake of argument, I refute fifty dummies in a five hour livestream. People are so dumb they can't even see and know the dummies got refuted. People are so dumb they can't recognize bad arguments, are people losing debates?

And also they don't even care. For example, many things have happened over the years that you would have thought would end a person's career, like you would think that Taylor Marshall is saying that Mary appeared to him in a vision and he saw giant breast milkers and that was some object less envisioned. No, no, no, His channel

grew tremendously. So it's almost like the dumber you are, the stupider your stuff is, the more hard headed you are, the more you're actually exposed and refuted, the better you are off. I mean, Hawk Tua is now she's probably gonna do better now that she had a giant rug poke coin. Everything is in working opposite in this we're in upside down world. We somehow went through the stranger things, but whole dimension to the other side, and everything isn't verse,

everything's reverse. So the stupider you are, the more ridiculous you are, the more you get refuted, the more people will listen to you. What And also, of course I suspect I can't prove it, but I think these kinds of things are given boosts, right, boosting the algo. So when he was a vegan pseudo Orthodox channel, he had like fifty thousand subscribers. And then when he started to tell you not believe in the Trinity anymore, I did not even know that Orthodox who he was the teaching

of the Trinity. So he's supposedly a cradle Orthodox and he didn't know that it taught the Trinity. Uh So then he realized if he grifts with a bunch of Islam videos, he would appeal to this rising, giant horde of idiots that believe Islam and believe the low tier stuff that they push. And you know, unfortunately it's not

much better for the Catholic side of things. I mean, I would say that the Catholic YouTubers are at least more intelligent on the average, But the quality of the argumentation, oh my gosh, like it's just so it's so low tire, and I'm just at an impasse. I don't know what to do. How do you combat super dumb arguments that convince hordes of people to believe dumb stuff? Like what's the solution here? I'm not sure how to People are saying, debate me. This is for you, dummy, this is why

you can hop on tonight. You're telling me to debate you. These streams are for you to come debate me right here, here's the link, call in right there. What's the solution? We have a really smart audience? Does a collective audience have a solution here? How do you combat millions of idiots?

I don't know, because you can't make them smart. And it's almost like it doesn't matter how many times you've been correct, how many times people have been demonstrated to be just complete bozos, complete goobers like that, it just marches on. So, like, what is the secret to helping many people understand? Is it simpler? Videos. Are we too cerebral? I know it's I understand prayer, So thank you all. You have very pious people. I'm speaking at the level

of compacting and packaging information. Is that what it is? Because I mean, is this guy winning over here with his numbers on his video because he did too many rosaries? Like is that what you're saying? Like he prayed a lot more than I'm joking, But more people have to speak up. Well, it's good that we're getting more clergy and priests doing this kind of stuff then used to you know, in twenty seventeen eighteen, there was hardly any and now we got a lot more clergy trying to

do this stuff, which is good. Hey, Jamie, could you make me an expresso? Thank you? Signs of the times could be somebody said, just talk from your toilet probably would get way more subscribers.

the mood. I just saw so much stupid stuff on Twitter today and then these these videos popping up in my feed and I'm like what. And there's a bunch more too. I noticed a bunch of other dumb videos popping up. It's just today we want to combat the idiocy, the idiocracy, combating idiocracy today. We already got five people in the queue here. Let's hear a couple arguments here from Scott's Stapp as to why he converted.

would be a circular argument. If he goes the route of saying that if you're a Protestant, you need the papacy to know the Bible But wait a minute, the papacy is proven. You're arguing here, and as many Roman Catholics city from the Bible, so that would actually be a circular self referencing argument.

council without any reference to an emperor. Roman Catholics do not count later in six forty nine as an ecumenical council, which they ought to do if the Roman Catholic principles

of Vatican One were the case. In the first thousand years, whereby the papacy determines the true and false councils, so already from the outset, Keith has no idea actually about the progress of the early Catholic Church into the later medieval East West split in ten fifty four between the Eastern Church, the Buzinessing Empire, the other the Four Patriarchs, and the Franco Latin Papal soon to be Church.

If you go the route of saying that, well, not everything that's dogma is in scripture, which we would believe, we would agree as Orthodox, but what that means is very ambiguous until you start to pin down what the romancalogy means on those topics, on those subjects with specificity. And these pap apologists never go into the actual documents of Vatican One or Vatican two. They only repeat pop

apologetics because that's all they know. And this poor guy, which I've been exactly in the same situation he's in. I was a Protestant who became Roman Catholic in two thousand and three from these kinds of pop papal arguments, and I was duped by fake papal quote minds. That

was one of the reasons I went into it. I thought a lot of those papal quote minds were legit, and later I found out they weren't, where they were out of context or They didn't tell the whole story, the whole picture, and they also didn't prove or demonstrate what Vatican one claims. Hence why rom Catholicism argues for doctrinal development, eventually.

that's not what that means. For example, when arguing for apostolic succession based on the Bible, I take people to Acts chapter one, where the apostles literally chose a successor to Judas is Scariot because Peter applies the scripture from Psalm one oh nine, let another his office take as the reason to elect Matthias to his office.

who experienced the effects of sin like everyone else. As Orthodox, we also agree that does not mean that Mary he became a sinner. She is a spotless virgin, but spotless virgin does not equate to immaculate conception, which would have exempted her from the effects of original sin, namely death. But even they celebrate her going to sleep her death, so she's not exempted from original sin, and the immaculate conception doctrine is also bound up with the Augustinian doctrine

of inherited guilt. That's the early origins of the idea. I'm not saying that Augustine taught necessarily immaculate conception.

way in having the guilt of Adam. If you read The City of God and other writings that we've covered extensively on my channel over the years, you'll notice that Augustine makes it very clear that he believes that all men were in Adam as in an archetype, and he calls them the mass down nod of the damned Mass. That's the basis for why he thought everyone was guilty for Adam's sin, even an infant, even a zygote. But

no other church fathers ever taught this. Were they all Pallagian? No, But they understood as Ezekiel says, you're not guilty for the sins of your father's until you commit an actual sin. The Roman Colloty Church eventually even qualified and rejected the notion of inherited guilt. Yet the argumentation that they use to prove immaculate conception, ironically still goes back to these confusions of inherited guilt and actual sin. You do not

have guilt until you sin. Actually, you're not sin actually until you are able to sin with will and reasoning. That does not mean that infants are quote guiltless, or that they don't have the effects of adam sin. They have the effects, but not the guilt. That's why so many church fathers. As you read, if you get really get into the church fathers, you'll notice that many of them quite often have no qualms about calling infants innocent children,

innocent babies, innocent infants. In fact, there's a feast the murder when the murder of the forty innocence. They're called the feasts of the murder of innocence? Why are they called the feast of innocence forty or whatever?

those interpretations accurate? So I want to ask this question differently because we must avoid using circular reasoning.

But how often do Roman Catholics ever quote or bring in two chapters later, where Jesus says the exact same thing to the other apostles, I mean to the entire college. He says, whatever you guys bind on earth, it'll be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth, it'll be loose in heaven. Again, I say to you, to the College of the Apostles. That's the audience here, not every evangelical praying in his basement. To you, College of Apostles.

When you guys agree, my father will agree. Where two or three of you are there, I am with you in your midst. Now this does not specify something that is unique to Peter. Two chapters later, the first statement is and Peter, I think, is given an award, a kind of a honor. And the Orthodox Church agrees that Peter got that honor. He's the mouthpiece the corythais of

the apostles. However, at the same time he says the same thing to the to the apostles later on, which is to bind into loose, which is the office of the keys is not restricted to Peter alone. It's said to be the entire college of the Apostles. And hence why the Orthodox Church has always said that it's a collegial synodal form of church government. Why would Jesus say that any of you, if you the two or three

of you agree, God will agree with you. Why would all of them have the ability to open and too loose? If it's something that is specific only to Peter, But when we have verses out of context, it can give the impression that it is, oh something that only Peter has. Likewise, when Jesus breathed on the apostles and says that you can forgive sins, does he say this only to Peter? Does he say does he breathe on Peter and then tell Peter to breathe on them? When the Holy Spirit

comes a Pentecost? Does it come on Peter and then Peter hand the Holy Spirit off to everyone else? At pentecost or does it come down in a elective, collegial way, in the same way as Jesus breathing on all of them? So where is there any of the Vatican one ideas? So notice that this happens, because this duped me when I was a young twenty one two three year old reading a lot of these verses, reading a lot of these apologetics. Where is the Vatican one claim in any

of this? And it's not there. Vatican one is very precise, very specific, that Peter is being given universal dominion over the entire Church in a unilateral way to do essentially whatever he feels is necessary to govern the Church. There is no collegial situation. It's an autocracy according to Vatican One, and Peter and his successors have that power, that authority for all time until the end of the world. And that it was always this way and it was always

this case in the church. That's the Vatican one dogma. But that is not anywhere in the New Testament, nor is it anywhere in the first eight hundred years of Christianity. You do have a first among equals place for the patriarch of the West of Rome, but none of that equates to Vatican One, and in fact, the Vatican nowadays has admitted most of these Orthodox criticisms, even to the extent of saying that the pope did not exercise universal

jurisdiction in the first thousand years. Rome has admitted this.

and how much is being read into these passages. Another point that's brought up in the Edward Denny Papalism book is that it's entirely possible to read Matthew sixteen as Peter, even though that's actually the minority interpretation of most of the Church fathers. The majority interpreted as the Faith or the Confession. There are about fifteen or sixteen I think, if I recall what Denny says church fathers that interpreted as Peter himself because of the naming and the new

naming being the Rock and so forth. But none of that necessarily translates into Peter being the super bishop above all the other bishops. In other words, when you have some church fathers who do think it's Peter, such as Saint Cyprian, Cyprian says every bishop is a Peter. So this is a promise not just to Peter as a civic singular bishop, but that every bishop has Peter functioning

in him in this way. So there's a lot of assumptions in this very low level pop apologetic that is not being dealt with or is not taken into account. It's precisely this kind of stuff that dupes two hundred and fifty thousand people.

Twitter space, they're hearing it. But basically what I've outlined is just simply that when of Santem makes it clear that you have to believe in the universal supremacy of the Roman Bishop in an earthly sense to be saved, and it makes us very clear within a few centuries after Dictatus Pape in ten ninety and so this is something that's no longer required, right, And I made a video on this. You can go watch the video I made the other day called this one dogma really refutes Catholicism.

So if I no longer have to believe in the temporal supremacy of the Roman Bishop to be saved, then clearly Roman Catholic dogma does change, and it does contradict. And this is a very explicit, obvious, easy contradiction. There are many more. For example, Cantate Domino says that you can't be a martyr outside of the Roman Communion. Well, the Roman Catholic Church today recognizes countless quote martyrs outside of Rome and other religions perhaps who knows. I mean

there's at least Anglican martyrers Coptic martyrs. I mean the Roman Catholic erst now accepts Orthodox Saints that used to be for centuries considered excommunicated heretics. So these are all just clear examples of one hundred percent dogmatic contradiction. And that's why so many a Roman Catholics. You noticed they do not deal with this argument. When I had an hour plus debate with that Crisp Plants guy, it took him an hour to even understand what the argument was.

He thought I was saying that the pope doesn't have authority over the body. I'm like, no, no, no, it's authority in a sense of like temporal power, like a king. Now, does anyone believe that Jesus was handing to Peter a giant, global, worldly empire with standing armies and a bank utilizing usury, utilizing the raw childs who have been the classic people bankers since the seventeen hundreds? Does anyone believe that's what g This had in mind? But you understand that if

you become Roman Catholic, this is what you're adopting. And it's very similar to this this pattern that you're that I'm pointing out here, this is very similar to what happens when Muslims or people who are interested in Islam think that it's about this simple thing and they don't realize you go, you gotta believe all these Hadiaths too, Bro, you got to believe the fart had deaths. You gotta believe the Semen had deaths. You gotta believe all these

crazy hadeaths. And you don't get to say, oh, I don't believe any I just believe the Koran because it's a simple message. That's all bologney. But a lot of these religions world religions, particularly Roman Catholicism as well, do the exact same thing, where there's this claim of simplicity and it's very clear and it's just this these basics and oh, you only have to believe the extra Cathedra statements.

None of that's true. And that's why when the honeymoon wears off and you realize what the rest of Roman Catholicism teaches and all the stuff that you have to exc that's when you start to notice this vast matricey of history of all of these contradictions and problems.

and their history. Some of these writings are found in what became the New Testament, which was added to the Hebrew scriptures the Old Testament.

Right the people didn't accept Victor's outlandish, extensive excommunication. But beyond that, it doesn't even matter that one bishop says someone else far away is excommunicated, because later on many patriarchs and bishops do this very thing. It's very common later on, And this came up in the ubi Ebara debate that just because somebody says we reject heretic from five hundred miles away, it doesn't follow from that that, oh,

therefore you have petrine, you know, super universal jurisdiction. That's another leap that doesn't follow. So what often is the case is that you get these out of context things like Peter has spoken through Leo, Rome has spoken cases closed, and in those instances when you go actually read the context, they don't back up the Vatican One idea at all.

In fact, in the context, Peter is speaking through Cyril, which is why he's speaking through Leo, because Cyril's tome is judged against Leo at Calcedon, but Romancaloq pop apologists always flip it, twist it and make it the other way around. Everyone just saw Leo's tome and they all just submitted when Leo wrote the letter, Well, then why do they judge it and spend days investigating to see

if it was consistent with Cyril? You don't judge the first see if the Roman Catholic position is true, you accept it. That's what Batican one says, you accept with docility. So again, over and over and over. It's always out of context proof texting without the broader sense and ethos of what's going on. Wait a minute, isn't that what Protestants do? Wow?

it mean some super papal thing. Yet they turn around and tell every Protestant that it's ridiculous and wrong for them to do this with the scriptures, but Roman Catholics are Protestants when it comes to the Church fathers and with the papal teaching. And what I mean by that, Well, when Francis says that all paths lead to God, as he said a few months ago, every Roman Catholic says, I don't have to accept it. I don't have to

accept it. So there's this total picking and choosing of what documents they accept as faithful from the pope himself. When the Pope is supposed to be the epistemic principle to give us the certitude and the knowledge of which one's true, which faith is true, which interpretation's true?

ethos and world for many, many years. And I mean I found some tradcats who believed in the older documents like Lamentabili and you know Pachindia Pius the tenth, which condemn modernism in the scripture studies, textual departments. But that's all been discarded. Rome doesn't care about that, and Rome does not uphold those teachings at all.

the Catholic Church the fullness of Christianity? The answer is much bigger than yes, because it says so, Catholicism is an unbroken line of succession that traces back to Jesus and the Apostles, and if you look at the earliest writings of the Christians, you will find the beginnings of the Catholic Church.

those groups possess. So so just Apostolic succession by his own testament, by his own line of argument, isn't really good enough to prove anything about Rome being the true Church.

liturgical expression and worship in the Roman See. We have not seen that in any Orthodox church or any Orthodox bishopric, except that I'm aware of. There may be one outlier, But that's different than comparing it to what the Roman See itself pushes and presents. Why do I say that, Because this is way beyond this guy's level of grasping this stuff. There's a famous document you can look up in a Roman Catholic dogmatic history is called actorum fide,

and it's a dogmatic condemnation of the Jansenists. And one of the propositions that's condemned is that the Jansonists were arguing that Rome could promulgate defective rights, liturgies and sacraments. This is one reason why, for example, the later Reformers utilize these same types of arguments which were already condemned

in the Jansenists condemnation. But the pro the response to the Vatican in doctorum fide is that given the Keroism of Peter, to the Roman See, it would be completely destructive and impossible to the entirety of papal supremacy and authority for Rome to promulgate defective rights and sacraments. And so that's a Protestant position that is condemned. And I say that because that means you have to accept the Novasorto. Because Rome has promulgated and pushed and accepted the Novasorto

mass since Vatican two. Well, what does that mean? That means there is a drastic change in the style an expression of worship such that it constitutes a revolution in worship akin to the Protestant revolution in worship. And that's why Vatican two was an absolutely one percent protestantizing of the Roman Catholic Church from the top down, not in a few liberal bishoprics from the Roman seat dogmatically for

the last seventy plus years. So it is not the case that the Romancality Church has not fundamentally changed in fundamental expressions of the faith, one of which the most important, which perhaps is the worship of God.

the world powers. With their vanity and their glory. He said, you are subject to one another through humility. And yet what is the papas the historically what is when I'm sanctum infinitely light year? Is the opposite of that seeking to be explicitly a geopolitical world power?

not what I'm talking about in terms of growth. So he's training on ambiguity with growth. And this is precisely what they do with development of doctrine, because development of doctrine then becomes a catch all for the papacy tacking on new things. So when I talk about these medieval things with unam sanctam and temporol supremacy. Oh well, you see, that's the natural, organic growth and development that we're talking about.

So now growth becomes a cover for dogmatic contradiction and change. No, no having standing armies, which the Canons of Chalcedon say, no cleric can be a part of civil service is a contradiction. And there's nothing in the Canons of Chalcaton to say except for the Bishop of Rome, he can, of course be a world emperor. When Chalcidon wrote it's canons, they didn't make any exceptions for any cleric, much less

the Bishop of Rome. So if a few centuries later the Bishop of Rome says, oh, by the way, I'm also a world emperor. And if you don't accept that, you're not saved. That is absolutely a contradiction. And yes, it's dogmatic.

in the Church Fathers this is mentioned many times. For example, Ieron Aa says Rome is special because it's doubly Apostolic. He explicitly says Peter and Paul in every Orthodox icon, you'll notice that of the church, you see Peter and Paul holding the church, so they're equal. So it makes sense why Rome would be called special in that sense,

being doubly Apostolic. Hence, Paul writes the famous Letter to the Roman Church to the Romans, but Paul warns the Romans in chapter eleven that if they are haughty and arrogant, they can be grafted out of the Covenant. Now, why would Paul write that to a church that could never fail and could never be grafted out of the Covenant. Ironically, providentially, prophetically, Paul actually predicts the downfall of the Roman Church, because he warns that church, you guys could fall into pride

and arrogance and fall from that pride. Do not be haughty, because if God grafted out Jews, he can graft out the Roman Church. And he did. And that's the key point here. This is why the Roman Church manifests all the blasphemies and the ridiculousness that they've manifested for so many decades. And Roman Catholics and Tradcats are liars when they lie to themselves that that's not true. And I don't have to accept it, and it's not the case.

And I don't have to accept Benedict praying towards Mecca, and I don't have to accept John Pall the Second praying in the synagogues, even though that's condemned in the ancient canons. No, you do have to condemn those things. You do have to accept those things if you're a Catholic. And this is what creates the double mind and the insanity and the craziness in the way that they act.

Church clarifies its beliefs and settles disputes. That's what we see in history and this is important as we look at Catholicism today.

rom Kellock Gooma doesn't change. Well, it developed. Oh okay, so what does that mean. Well, so whatever the pope says today, that's the true thing you said, that's that's actually how it operates. So if the pope today says there was never a time when we condemned the Muslims, then then it's like quantum papacy. It was never true. Literally retroactive retro causation. You thought that the or urban the second called crusades against Islam. No, no, no, you see

that never happened. Retroactive causation. The pope has now preyed in the Moss towards Mecca with the Muslims, so there was there were no crusades that didn't happen, So just papal gas lighting and quantum papacy rewriting history.

Frankish power. Isn't it interesting that that's exactly when there's no longer infant communion in the West, another liturgical revolution which is not mentioned or not dealt with, or just swept under the rug. And when you bring this up to Roman Catholics, they either deny it, they don't care, or they act like It's just not the case. No, Rome never commune infants. Yes they did, Western Latin church fathers talk about infant communion. Oh well, the pote made

a change because it was necessary. Why how is there this unilateral change in liturgical practice when the purpose is supposed to be preservation of the tradition and the practices. There were Latin priests that were married. Did you know that? Did you know that Initially Rome didn't have a problem with Trollo and then later they did. Why is that? I thought it was maintaining the traditions and preserving the truth for all time.

And then they came out with another document in twenty twenty three called the Alexandria Document. And what's it on sinnodality and what councils are they having in Rome right now? I don't know if it's still ongoing or if it's ended. But Tim Gordon has been yelling about it for the last year the synods on sinidality. So if this is the case, why having to make all these concessions in their own synods to sinidality issue.

says kings and emperors, Well, it's develops, you see. So there's a lot of ambiguity and elastic terminology such as develops and the church grows. Well, at first, it sounded like you were talking about grows in terms of numbers,

which everybody agrees with. But then that somehow flipped over into bait and switch to be grows in terms of doctrinal understanding to where no, there wasn't in Jesus's mind necessarily at the time of the founding of the Church, a Vatican bank and an imperial insignia that you had to believe in to be saved by the Pope whatever, none of the no, that grew and developed. But again, which one is it? Was it always the case or

did it have a seed form that developed? I hammer this home all the time for the last several years, because they do the exact same double standard. The Romancolic pop apologies will in one voice sit there and tell you that it was always the case from the earliest days, and then contradict himself with a mutually exclusive claim that no, it wasn't really clear. It was a seed form and it had to grow. It can't be both, And Vatican won inside these communitims said that it was not a

seed form that grew. That's Cardinal Newman's theory to explain the problems. Cardinal Newman's theory does not line up with what Vatican won inside East Communum actually claim, but Ron mccallack. Apologies with a double standard movable goalpost constantly utilize both principles in their apologetic and nobody calls them out or points this out. When it's a mutually exclusive claim, it

literally cannot be both. Imagine if I said the Orthodox Church was not clear in the first few centuries, but it was always the Orthodox Church that was clearly there. The Orthodox Church was a seed that grew to what it is, but it was also clearly universally there from the very beginning, at all times, in all places, recognized by everyone. That makes no sense. But everybody just believes these dumb pop arguments and just lets these people just

say all this stuff. Nobody ever calls them out on it. Nobody confronts the paup apologist with this crap, and none of the paup apologists will ever debate me because I don't let this nonsense lie. I called him out immediately on it, and then they bitch and wine moan for seven years. Now, me give me a break, us.

shouldn't develop, you believe the doctrine develops. Again, notice all this ambiguity, What exactly do you mean by doctrinal development? Do you mean that the doctrines change? Or do you mean that we have a greater understanding of the doctrines

as an order the docts person. I could agree to that, But saying that I have a greater understanding of the theological doctrines and pronunciations by the sixth or seventh century does not equate to a totally new idea that Peter is also a world emperor, which is nowhere in the first seven centuries of Christianity. In fact, it's famously based on a forgery, the Donation of Constantine, which the Vatican evinces a forgery. So no, there is no equating better

understanding with doctrinal development. When he's using doctrinal development to explain new dogmas that evolved that contradict previous ideas.

You see, he's expressing the Vatican two attitude that you can reject multiple ecumenical councils and still remain a quote true Catholic or Christian. Was that the teaching of Vatican one only what a century plus ago? Well, Vatican one attaches excommunication to anyone who rejects Vatican One. So if you were consistent, Orthodox who are explicit about the rejection of Vatican One are not Christian. They are excommunicated heretics

and schismatics. But he's expressing the lovey dove Vatican two Acumenius attitude that oh, well, we're all Christians, bro or at least here it seems to be Apostolic Christians, which whatever that is, I don't know what that that's supposed to be. Oh, anybody who's quote apposolic succession, Well, who decides who has episodes excession? Oh Rome does. Oh so if Rome accepts the Coptics and the Orthodox and whoever

Assyrians may be, so suddenly they're now Christians. That's not the reasoning or the or the mindset of the ideology of ecclesiology from Cantate Domino to Vatican One. That's the idea post Vatican One up into Vatican two and Ecumenism, when the Roman Catholic Church no longer rejects interfaith gatherings. As late as nineteen twenty eight, interfaith gatherings were explicitly called apostasy and heresy and surrendering of the faith. Just

look up Mortalium Anamos a Pious the eleventh. But he's already contradicted by now expressing a Vatican two specific Roman Catholicism, which literally says schismatics and people who reject a thousand years of the papacy are still somehow Catholic Christians in good standing. That makes no sense oracle fact.

the Church fathers. You will see Catholic beliefs on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the real presence of Jesus and the Eucharist, the Mass as a sacrifice to God, the baptism of infants and baptismal regeneration, the authority of the Catholic Church, the Canon of Scripture as the Catholic Church has it today, the veneration of icons, and prayer to the saints, and even the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

They don't know what's in contate Domino, which is the pronunciation of the Council of Florence. So it's a dogmatic statement from the Council Florence. You can look it up, Contate Domino, not the liturgical music that pops up, but the actual pronunciation of Pute Eugene fourth from the Council Florence. This is the bull that he wrote. And I want you to tell me if you think this famous Papa Bull at all reads like Vatican two and what this

guy says. The Roman Church firmly believes and professes that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock, the paper flock.

And the said unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only those remaining in it, that to those remaining and are the sacraments of benefit to salvation and do fasting, alms giving, an other functions of piety and exercise of the Christian service to produce the eternal reward. And that no one who whatever almsgiving he's practiced even if he shed blood for the name of Christ, even if he's a martyr, a Christian martyr outside of Rome is not saved unless he remains in the bosom and

unity of the Roman Catholic Church. So notice contat Domino does not accept martyrs and saints outside of communion with the Bishop of Rome. And this is not some obscure document. This is one of the most famous documents in the history of the Catholic Church. Pope Eugene the fourt's Cantate Domino.

by word of mouth or by letter. And also in one Timothy three fifteen, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave.

nos Ratt says the exact same thing. And the reason I like to bring both of these quotes up is because they will engage in deflection and dissimulation. If you mention the fact that the Muslims over here in nostra Atate say that they have the faith of Abraham, they'll say, oh, but doesn't actually say that says they believe they have it. No, Actually, when you compare both documents, it explicitly says they actually do have it. So notice the they'll say it's weaponized ambiguity.

Well wait a minute. Notice the new guy, our new guy here, who doesn't really know this stuff and is new to all this. He thinks.

two thousand and two. It's exactly where I was twenty two years ago. And then you're gonna have to start digging into these documents. You're gonna realize, Hey, wait a minute, how do we call crusades against people that we now say can be saved because they have the faith of Abraham. Hello, you don't have the faith of Abraham if you don't believe in Christ, and if you don't believe in the Trinity,

And how are people not recognizing this? In Trent Horn, the last surviving sole apologist star of the Roman system, who literally thinks that the word triad is an Aryan term, I mean, the very term used in Greek Catholic churches for the Trinity. This goober still thinks he doubled down,

still thinks is an anti Trinitarian term. The one who says that, yeah, Francis does appear to contradict when he says that the death pimple is against the Gospel, but come up with about five different ways to make sense of it. He says, so these people are sophists. They use sophistry but how is Muslims have the faith of Abraham and love and worship God like we do. How is that at all.

against Hello, it's in your face. And a lot of times Rome Kelly.

percent absolutely serves the globalist agenda. Remember the globalist agenda that Trent says doesn't exist. There is no such thing as that. Here's your genius Roman Catholic apologist who's so normy turbo noormy that he doesn't even know what the nWo is. He doesn't even know what Davos is, doesn't know what Klaus talks about. He says that my positions

are the equivalent to chick tracks. You are listening to a normy on your religious soul decision who doesn't know that there's Davos in a World Economic Forum and all that stuff. Why would you listen to somebody so naive and silly about how the world works, but you think he knows where to go spiritually in terms of your destiny. You're foolish, you're ignorant, You're being used. And I don't think that he's malicious. I think that he just doesn't know.

In fact, in the debate that I had with Trent, there were like five philosophy basics that he had no idea what they meant, he didn't even know what I was talking about. So no, I don't think Trent is malicious. I just think he has no idea. And that's why I've asked three times over the years for him to debate me on the geopolitical entanglements of the papacy, and he declines every time. And They've suggested multiple other professors

that I've reached out to who also decline. Why will none of them debate me on the geopolitical history of the papacy? Why do none of them talk about Gladiol? Why why do none of them take on the unam sanctum quisa's Hoderock argument? If this is also clear and so true, all you gotta do is de book my arguments prove it right. Why don't they ignore it? Because they can't deal with it because they don't know and they don't have answers. How can you guys not see this?

Why are you all still following these people? Taylor Marshall has over a million subscribers. He says Mary came to him and he saw her boobs. Are you insane? What is wrong with you people? Why would you fall for that? You don't have any discernment to recognize delusion. Mary did not come to Taylor Marshall. I might as well call Taylor Swift Taylor Marshall Swift. That wasn't Mary talking about milkers. That was Taylor Marshall milking you idiots who follow him.

Why do you think Taylor Marshall won't debate me. I've asked him for over ten years to do a debate and he just blocks me and ignores me. Why because it's a grift, dummies? Why do you Roman Celics have to be so stupid? Why do you have to fall for the grift.

this beautiful woman. She had blonde hair, she was perfect, no wrinkles, no spots, and I immediately discerned that this was Holy Mother of the Church.

the church. I mean, you can't make this up. And ra mccalics love that. They eat this stuff up, dude, especially this Mariyan mystical nonsense. They eat it up, dude. In fact, they actually follow that more than anything else in fact. And so and ultimately what happens is when Roman Catholics are presented with a lot of the theological dogmatic problems, what do they end up resorting to? They end up resorting to just marrying stuff. Well, Mary appeared,

and you know, I don't care. I don't care about the theology because Fatima Rosary that's all. That's it, That's what I got, and that's their kind of fallback. But eventually they realized this and this is most people who you know, have the Rmancaloic phase and then come out of it. I never really, I guess I did kind of retreat into the Maryan stuff maybe at one point when I was really struggling with a lot of these

theological issues. But eventually you just kind of realized, like, well, just praying the Rosary over and over and over is not actually solving my intellectual problems because I'm noticing big, huge contradictions and just suppressing it and acting like it's not there doesn't make it go away. Keeps popping up. He keeps popping up like Taylor Marshall's Privy member when he's having his dirty dreams. Right, So keep in mind, I didn't make this up. It's a classic here it is.

Be sure and following me right there, and we'll open it up in a second. We're almost done with this guy's video, just a few more minutes. It was pretty bad. It's about what I expected, just super low tier stuff. He kind of surprised me for I thought he was gonna get kind of kind of deep. When he starts talking about circular argument, it's like, Wow, maybe this is gonna have some some meat and bones to it. No, it was as barren as his Novusorto backdrop that he had.

Looks his backdrop looks like every novusort of church behind their Masonic altar.

two main narratives that explain its nature and origin. Jesus came to the world, lived and died, rose again, ascended into heaven, and promised to return. Both narratives agree on this, but the question is how his mission and message were meant to be spread worldwide. One narrative says that God's word in the Bible is the only infallible source of authentic Christianity, and that the way we discover the faith

is by reading and understanding the Bible. There can be other sources of information, but the Bible alone gives us what we need to know about Christianity and how to live it. This is the narrative in which I was raised. I know this narrative well. The problem with this narrative is that it doesn't answer some fundamental questions. By what authority do we know that the Bible is God's word, and even what it is, how do we account for the fast difference?

theology or whatever. We're all individually going to have to rely on in some way our own reasoning and reading of those documents that is not bypassed by positing the pope. All that does is move that problem, the individual epistemic certitude problem, back a step, because now an individual Catholic has to sift through all the papal documents and all the councils and the encyclicals and on on and the Bible to interpret them properly. So you haven't solved the

epistemic dilemma. You've moved the problem back a step and said that the papacy solves it. But it begs the question, Well, that assumes I'm interpreting the papal claim statements and documents and dogmas correctly. So you don't solve an epistemic problem with interpreting the texts by adding another external textual thing, a bunch of papal documents. You see, it just adds to the problem. What he's talking about is what we

call normative authority. That is, there some group within history that has the authority to bind people's consciences to an interpretation. But that's a different category. Normative authority. That's an ethical thing. I mean, it relates to epistemology, but it's an ethical domain versus the individual certitude about this or that passages interpretation.

That's an epistemic issue. So every Roman Calariy pop apologist is only hurting their own case ultimately, even though they don't see it right away by making this conflation between a category error two different categories. Does that make sense?

which is the papacy to know the faith epistemically? I can easily refute this and show this to be a really stupid, low tier argument by pointing out that how did a Christian in the year three hundred know what the faith was who didn't have access to Rome and there's no ecumenical council yet there's not been a magisterial pronouncement. So did all the Christians in the first, second, and third century who didn't have access to Rome and had not been in an ecumenical council, yet they didn't know

the faith? By this dumb argument, that's what he would have to say, because you can't know without the magisterium. Yet, if I'm a Christian in the year three hundred in Corinth I have no access to Rome, I don't know what they're up to. There's not been an ecumenical council yet, and I see as a few years away.

who can bind consciences. That's the Orthodox position. But remember he started this section of his video by saying that the only way to have certainty about theological doctrines was with the magisterium. Well, then, how did a Christian in the first, second, and third century, admittedly without any magisterium or knowledge of what Rome was up to in the ancient world, there's no Council of Nicea. Yet, how did they know the doctrines? How did they know the truth?

Did they all just make a hodge pilgrimage to Rome? Was Rome the mecca that they all we have? We're going to allosk the pope with the faith?

an ecumenical council. Yet this guy is not at the point yet where he's going to learn that Constantinople one was called without Rome was still an ecumenical council accepted as such, and retroact accepted by Rome a few centuries later, which disproves the whole Romancolic position and proves that they didn't think that they needed Rome to know the dogmas.

and interpreted. Through his church, the world is evangelized. Through his church, the fullness of truth is revealed. Even though its members are sinners. Jesus works in and through them to accomplish his mission. This is the way things worked when Jesus was on earth, and that was the way things were right at the beginning after he left, and this is how right.

twenty four. Uh No, anybody who has a level two inductory induction to church history knows that by the Middle Ages, when we've got Quisat's hotarock emperor Pope, that is not at all in continuity with the papacy in the time of you know, the persecutions of Diocletian or whatever, night and day. And he already admitted this, because he admitted that, Oh yeah, by the Middle Ages, it's like a vastly

different structure. But that's just doctoral development, dude. But now it's not doctoral development, he said, it's all basically the same. So all a bunch of assertions, propaganda moving the goalpost, elasticity, ambiguity, very little argumentation, maybe only a couple arguments here or there throughout this video, with a couple of proof texts, and yeah, just just super low tier assertions. That's that's

about what I expected. But this is the stuff that captures you know, a quarter million people, right, So this is not that old of a video already been seen by a quarter million people. And this is why, this is why there's so much just repeating of bad arguments all the time. And the whole the second half of his video was that freaking stupid argument about the papac He's going to give you certitude, which is a basic epistemic mistake. How is it going to give you certitude

when it's more documents to come through? Think about it. This is the Protestant Magisterium, so you only have to comb through what, however many pages? This is two thousand pages. So I got to come through two thousand pages of this to make sense of the faith if I'm a Protestant. But if I'm a Roman Catholic, you see, oh, the papacy solves these things. Oh so now I got to read, however, many thousands of pages of papal documents to know the faith.

So it just taxed on more papers to read. How does that put me in a better episemic position to know the faith? Because he literally said to have certitude, you go to the pope and the magistian which has a giant, massive doctrines and documents and it is not true. Right, this is the parallel to Islam. Right when you get into Islam, all the idiots on the internet falling for Islam.

only have to believe the exca theater statements. That is just not even close to anything true in any Catholic theology. Like even the Catholic Catechism is proposed as a totality catechism for you to believe that you're supposed to believe in with docility in Catholic moral theology. It's just a total myth, akin to the myth of the idiot new converts to Islam who think I only have to believe a few things. Now totally not true. All right, we're

gonna open it up. We've seen enough of Catholic Scott Stap over here with his achy breaky heart video argument don't tell my hort my achy breaking prost and hort a news don't thank you don By the way, he literally looks like he looks like a cross between Billy Ray and Scott Stap We're gonna open it up. I want to hear your best arguments. It is not restricted to Catholicism.

dirty baby with debate. Not what you pers are thinking. We're gonna open it up open for him. I apologize for subjecting you to that nonsense from Taylor Marshall, but we always have to revisit this because, I mean, a million people plus follow this goofball and he's literally like a four foot goofball. I'm just kind of amazed, like people can't. These people don't have discernment, Vain, what's up?

It's not restricted to Catholson. By the way, if you want to come with your atheist arguments, you want to come with your Protestant, Calvinist, Muslim, Hebrew Roots, Judaism, whatever else, Mormons, Black, Heeber, Israelites. It's all on the table. Bring it, bring it, come, smash me, refute me. I'm so eager, I'm so ready to be defeated. Please put me in my place, Vain, I'm you.

are subjected to modal collapse, which makes God unknowable. So right there, there's no God that you could know in that system if you're consistent with their version of absolute divine simplicity, which they do hold. Calvin is very explicit about that. It's identical to Augustine's view that would undo the possibility of knowledge. All right, thanks, and was it?

because they're not theists. There's no transcendent realm, et cetera. So they're restricted to their own individual sense data experience, right, and that immediately boxes them into a lot of problems for explaining anything at all in terms of knowledge claims, metaphysics, external world identity, over time, et cetera, et cetera. So that's what he means is that we're in a privileged position because our position is not grounded or starting with

individual sense data. The position comes from divine revelation, so we have a God's eye perspective. And if you want the specifics, that would mean that orthodox metaphysics, for example, would not be subjected to the bootstrapping problem, but pretty much every atheist would have to have some kind of way to try to tackle the bootstrapping dilemma.

I mean, the Gospel of Matthew, like the other Gospels, is part of a long historical textual tradition that had to be analyzed from all the different bishoprics that had Gospels of Matthew to compare them and to see, okay, there is unanimity. There is a lot of commonality. It's usually like ninety five to ninety eight percent commonality amongst various textual traditions. They're very minor differences that relate to translations of like grammatical errors or number mistakes here and there.

They're called scribal errors. But I'm not aware of any like reputable historical textual scholar who thinks that there was some conspiracy to insert, you know, the gates of Hell won't prevail. I think that one way to see that, if you wanted like an easy disprover of that, or way to disc prove that, would be to look up all the patriistic citations of Matthew sixteen eighteen across like

various traditions or various centuries. So for example, if you have you'urinas citing it early, if you've got Cyprian citing it early. If you've got Jerome Tratullian, if you've got origin all of whom I assume, cite Matthew sixteen eighteen. And if you get the Denny book, he'll he'll list a bunch of these. You'll notice that there's commonality in other cities across the Empire, which suggests that there was not some late conspiracy to add the text. Does that

make sense, yep, it does. Thanks also the decision about canonicity for even things like Matthew and all that. I mean, it's pretty I would say by the fourth and fifth century there's not a whole letter dispute that I'm aware of about the Gospels themselves. The Gospel of John actually was somewhat doubted and disputed beyond the synoptics. And but I don't think by like the time of Athenacious or after Athenacious, like there's not a whole lot of debate

on the Gospels. It's more so the dispute is the Catholic epistles, and you know, due to canonical texts. So most of the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh century debates and questions about canonicity are like the Catholic Epistles and the Book of Revelation, perhaps even though Athenasio is pretty much convinced Rome to include it. Heath, what's up, Heath, Bar, what's up? I'm you dude, Hey, Jay, Hey, going, what's up?

get it? But not Alexander Antioch, It's like, well, he died there, Okay, Well why does him dying there contribute this vast you know, power and authority that we don't really see elucidated until very late.

for that to develop. It's an evolution and it doesn't start with Peter or Victor or Damasis. You know. It's like it's a thing that builds on a legitimate tradition that becomes insane. Lo fi, what's up?

maybe there are some cases. I don't watch a whole lot of their content because you got to understand that like today's Roman Catholic online paup apologists, they're really not any different than the paup apologists from twenty years ago that I was first introduced to Rome through. So like the Peter Kreeft and the Scott Hawns and the Stephen

Ray and the Jerry Mattoitics Jimmy Aiken. I'm trying to think of all the apologists of twenty years ago that everybody knew in two thousand and three four, like that whole class of guys, like they were saying the exact same stuff that today's pap apologists say. I mean, the Roman sphere of apologetics doesn't get any more sophisticated than

all the same stuff you hear them saying today. And I mean, Ibarra might be a quote mind collector beyond what the previous guys have done, because I guess his book is like eight hundred pages of quote minds, and you know, eight hundred pages of quote minds? How good did that? How did he fare when UBI just asked him, well, what about Virgilius?

the in the public sphere with duping people. But like inside, in the inner conscience and in their inner heart their news, they know they're not being honest with themselves. They know that they're coming up with stuff to might to make it work. I mean, just think of when Trent said, Think of when Trent admitted that it does look like France is saying that the death penalty is against the gospel. Is a change in Caltholic morals and theology? Yeah, because it is? And what did he say to answer it?

But there's about three or four different ways that you could come up with to explain it. Come up with so are we just system building and it's a big unfalsifiable thing. So yeah, I mean, I'm gonna say that I know that Lofton operates in a dishonest, snaky way. I've never seen be openly dishonest. Although I mean to double down on the fact that Triad is not a

the triad, it's a term that means anti trinitarianism. I mean, it's just false and it really shows that Trend has no idea what the Eastern tradition is on the Trinity, not interested in any of that. I mean to go, why be involved in any of that when you can do a pop Roman Catholic video that gets two hundred and fifty thousand views. So why deal with the actual

challenges from somebody like myself or UBI? When like there's a giant market you can become a tailor Marshall and get a million followers and talk about your you know, your wet dreams or somehow special revelations from Mary. I mean there's a million idiots that are ready to fall for that. Do those million idiots want to talk about the Alexander document? No, So maybe you're right, maybe it actually has a lot of dishonesty. That's what's up? You're there? What's something?

degree of specificity to understand exactly what they mean. But if they mean dogmatically, then yeah, that would undermine the promise that the church could not fail.

the dogma. It doesn't have to because in Roman Callic theology, the pope cannot teach error. So if this is a Vatican approved document, this is a Vatican okay position, you see, this is a Vatican synom this is a Vatican commission. So no point is that it doesn't matter about whether it's dogmatic or not. That's a deflection from the issue of defectibility and indefectibility, because if this document is an error, then why does the pope have on his website massive theological error.

monothelitism was enough to get him ex communicating, condemned. Ibarra admits that they're top guy now on the pope. What does that demonstrate? It demonstrates the point of making right now that the status of the document has nothing to do with whether it's heretical or not. So it doesn't matter, because this means that the the Vatican is promoting theological error on a mass scale to the entire Orthodox world

and to the rest of the world. That you can believe and accept these theological principles now, and they're no different really than what stuff was already in Benedict's books. So if they're going to say, oh, it's not it's not really, it doesn't matter. Even if it's heresy doesn't count.

I mean, that's all the same types of stuff in this So they love to deflect into a topic that has nothing to do with whether the document is heretical or not, because again, if it's heretical, the pope's dogmatic pronouncement of the document has nothing to do with whether it's heretical or not. You can be a heretic without making it mandatory. Martin Luther had no dogmatic authority behind his documents when the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated him as

a heretic. But Romancalthers are so stupid and so goofy when they try to make the system work that they will actually end up literally saying that no, it has to be dogmatically pronounced for it to be heretical and rejected. What I'm not joking like, they'll actually say that you only like, it only counts if the pope binds you, and then it would be something that we'd have to worry with. But I'm not bound by this document. Well that's not even true. This is another tried myth that

you only have to believe what's ex cathedral. That's not true. It's just a total myth that they make up. I don't even know where they get it. It's like maybe some pop apologists says this and they just repeat it like a bunch of you know, twitter yapping birds or something like. But that's not to mina birds. That's not true, like it's been that's actually been condemned four times by the Vatican. That you only have to believe the ex cathedra.

That's just stupid. It's not true. Noah, sincere hypocrypt five dollars. One of the copes that I see from Roman Catholics is that we've had many bad popes. Have nothing to do with whether or not popes are teaching heresy and error,

so they're always deflecting into morally bad popes. That has nothing to do with whether popes are teaching theological error, so they're again throwing up confusion and smoke and mirrors because the question is not whether there are bad popes or does a morally bad pope invalidate the Roman Catholic system. It's about theological error, which would mean that the Roman see t taches error and thus contradicts Vatican one's claims. So no, it's not about popes having you know, prostitutes.

We all know that, we know Alexander the six had a tunnel to the hoe house next door. Nobody's arguing that a bad pope is what invalidates the system, because there's countless, i'm sure, evil Orthodox bishops in the history of the church. So what that's not the argument, it's another deflection. The point is that in the Roman Catholic system you cannot have popes theologically teaching error on faith and morals. That's the point, because that invalidates the system.

That's why we're pointing out that the status of this document has nothing to do with whether the document is teaching error and approved by Rome, because it is in the Roman system. Warren, what's up, warreng g I'm mute, I'm mute.

that's true. Well, what do you mean because if a baby is born on an island where all the libertarians consented to a private security firm being the government being the enforcers on libertarian an island, fantasy island, deplain deplay, right, we're gonna have Tattoo designated as the judge, dread jury and executioner of the island. And if a baby's born, uh oh, has he consented to Tattoo being the governor

of his island? No? Uh oh? Violation of the nap Now that sounds silly, but actually it's not silly because the premise behind libertarianism is typically that it has to be voluntary, has to be you have to respect the non aggression principle. So I guess we have to let babies born on the island govern themselves in little baby cribs until they get old enough to voluntarily contract to have tattoo on fantasy Island be able to kill them. Tell me that one the good analogy. I'm actually cracking

up thinking about this, like Libertarian fantasy Island. But I mean that seems to follow right, Like and by the way, what if I visit libertarian fantasy Island and I don't consent to you know, what was that tattoos private security firm governing me? Like what do I do now? So? Like, am I restricted to some corner of the island that's like totally savage with no laws. Like the real libertarian

section of Libertarian Island. Fantasy Island is that where I go until I voluntarily signed the papers that tattoo can rule me. I mean, it just gets absurd. But the reason it gets absurd is like you're actually following through with the logic of the libertarian position that no one should be governed without their consent. Well, guess what, You're born into a family and your father governs you without consent, dummy, And then literally you'll get these like Milton Friedman libertarian

types who are like, no, actually you don't babies. Babies are their own individuals, and like, you know, or babies are parasites on the mother, and the mother can brought a braation the baby because babies are I mean, this is how stupid the libertarian shit gets. Because libertarians don't live in reality. They live in a fantasy world, just like the communists do. That's why none of these costco liberal idiots will actually debate me. By the way, mark, what's up? The QR code is for bitcoin. I am

a huge bitcoin supporter. I believe in bitcoin, but I don't believe in bitcoin because libertarians and Austrian economists invented it. I can disagree with the philosophy even though I think bitcoin is the monetary answering solution. That doesn't mean that every aspect of a libertarian classical liberal worldview is true. What's up? Man? He dropped off, so I guess he said he didn't want any of this. What's up?

of authority. But I'm just saying that libertarian has been so fraught with fallacious assumptions and metaphysics that they can't justify that these are basic examples that really disprove the fact that you can't make governance literally hinging on consent.

But I think I think I lean more towards I think it.

people there ten. I don't know what it is, but so somebody's trying to create something like this with a community that's libertarian run that is totally on the basis of bitcoin, and you have to basically voluntarily assent to everything. Let me find that video. It's an interesting idea. But the thing is is like, already they are very selective about who comes, so it's not I mean, obviously like to go there, you gotta have a lot of money.

So it's and I'm not even saying that that's necessarily wrong. I don't think there's anything wrong with being wealthy or moving to an island or anything like that. But it's like, so libertarian and free and all this kind of stuff is in reality restricted to like bitcoin zillionaires and people that pass this private company's background check or whatever they do. Let me find it so I know, l Salvador. You know, you could say it's not Bitcoin City. It might be

this one. I'm not talking about El Salvador. I understand there's potentiality for all of this. I do think there's a lot of potential for places to become healthy, functioning societies. They will have some elements of libertarian principles. I do agree with that. Where is this thing? I just watched this the other day.

Maybe it's I don't know, it was just some weird video of like, but the point was just that it's going to be very selective, I guess initially, And I'm not even I don't even have a problem with that, Like I don't think there's anything wrong with elitism per se. But like he's saying that if this was really going to spill out into like the rest of the world, yeah, we're talking like centuries centuries for this to affect like

all societies. I do think in the near future, the like the next say, fifty years, as even Jacques Attealie admits in his book The Cities That Adopt the in the areas that adopt the forward thinking technologies are the ones that become the megacity economic centers of the future. So the places right now where you have massive bitcoin mining and acceptance places, maybe in Texas, I'll Salvador Bitcoin City Island. Whatever I'm looking for, Like these things I

think will probably end up being mega centers in the future. Anyway, what's up, Alex? But I mean for now, it's like Golf's gulch, like whatever I was looking at. If I can find that, oh I know how to find it, I know where it is. What's up? Man? Got un mute? Dude, Yo?

know their heart, owner their situation. And now God can do a miracle. Do you do a miracle anywhere anyway wants? But that's the thing about like the miracle stuff is signs and wonders don't prove necessarily which one is the true or the false faith. Because Johnnys and John Brace, if you read you, they mimic the first two miracles of Moses. So does that prove Egyptian theology? No, The Coptics points out that Mary supposedly appeared in z I

Tune Egypt two thousands of Coptics. Does that prove Coptic Christianity. No, So you can't base the faith on the signs of wonders even though the true faith has signs of wonders. Does that make sense?

refutes Rome. It's right here. It's called Roman Catholic Historyonic women's saints refute papalism because if you read that. If you watch this video, you'll see that, like, you can't question her sanctity in her claims because she's said to be a saint. So if she's not a saint, then her like first of all, that would deny ordinary magistar, because you're denying who the Pope says and confirms as

a saint. Secondly, she's like cutting Jesus's name into her chest, I mean like self harm, like literally like what the prophets of a bail are doing that Elijah's like rebuking, So how is this like saintly when she's doing it and she says, oh, well, but Jesus says that, you know,

he's my boyfriend, just like Felsina Kowalska does. So I actually think these are some of the strongest overlooked arguments against Rome because clearly this woman is disturbed and she has problems, and it's there's at least two papal encyclicals that confirm her saint hoods, so you can't reject it.

dependent on numbers. So say Maximus, for example, when he was going through his travails with the Monothelites and the mone Energists, he at one point said, as if the true number of Catholics was reduced to a small band, I would be amongst them, right, So that shows us that whatever century, especially in centuries of a lot of persecution or heresy, that that creeps in and destroys the church in areas can't destroy the whole church, but it

can destroy nations. You know, Jesus says to the Seven Churches, entire churches can have their lampstand ripped away. So you can have entire nations even that lose the faith. Apostolizing the fact I was just reading about. I didn't know this.

There were Byzantine cathedrals in Jordan, well what's now called Jordan, that the Hashami king had demolished, and this actually pissed off some of the British imperial spies, who you know, were not they weren't Orthodox, but they weren't they weren't anti Christian at least, so they actually got mad when the king of Jordan demolished some of the business cathedrals.

So there was there was like Orthodox cathedrals and business to cathedrals even in Jordan in places like you know, like close to Saudi areas, that Christianity had gotten that far. But there's no Christians in those regions now. So you can have entire countries, nations, regions lose the faith, and that's why again I would say, you know, Paul warns the church at Rome that they can they can be grafted out.