Pt 2: "My Arguments for Catholicism" Refuted: Plus Libertarian Fantasy Island & Infinite Universe Chats

A model Roman Catholic call right there. Why can't all the Roman Catholics be like that guy? That was cool? I'm determined to find this freaking Bitcoin Island video that I watched. I watched the whole video and now I can't find it. It's not even in my history. I didn't remove it from my history. In fact, I think I saved it because I thought this is kind of cool. Actually I might am I gonna moved to Bitcoin Island one day if.

Things get if they get really crazy, I'm gonna move to Bitcoin Island. Let me see. I'm still looking for it. Uh, watch later. I probably put it on their watch later. Let's see.

Now it was something like was it Nicaragua, Bitcoin, bitquain City, Nicaragua something. It wasn't El Salvador. I know all about Ol Salvadors. This just videos popped up though. It was crazy, So I bet this is it?

Here it is, I found it, Okay, pull it.

Up for you guys here.

Now.

This is to address the libertarian discussion earlier. So Business Insider, I guess did this profile on bit quain City in Honduras, not Nicaraga. Couldn't think of where it.

Was, so.

This is like some small community, uh, and they have like it's I think going for the libertarian idea of everything's voluntary.

We're gonna have like.

A private security force that's gonna maintain order you opt into it and all this stuff. And I mean a lot of it sounds pretty cool. The only thing is like it sounds like it also sounds kind of uh, not as libertarian as you think it is initially because it's almost.

Like a super corporate h O.

A type of setup where you gotta you gotta sign onto all this crap and like you're gonna you're basically governed by some kind of corporate board. And I'm like, is this I guess this? I mean, is this a libertarian I guess it is. It's like, well, you have to opt into it, but if you don't, so what happens if I don't? So if I don't opt into it, do I not get the security force coming to my house to protect?

I mean, I don't. I don't know how this is gonna work. But I mean, I guess is we're moving in the right direction. I guess.

Let's see what this says here about city life here in Bitcoin.

City, the normal public services you'd expect in a city aren't exactly there. For safety, the city relies on a security guard service.

So as just this one dude sitting here in the sitting in this wooden crate, Like, here's your security for us.

It's just this guy. I mean, maybe he's really good. I don't know. I'm just saying.

There's one private Montessorian elementary school that charges five hundred and fifty dollars a month for tuition. Around one hundred and twenty businesses had registered here as of January twenty twenty three.

In Andreas, it will take you somewhere around six months or more to get the proper licenses to operate your business, and here you can get your business to an operational stage and listen two weeks.

The new companies include a gene therapy startup, a dive shop, and a bitcoin education center run by Duzan Matuska, who moved from Slovakia. So here is where we pay.

So like, obviously this is not really operating yet, but maybe this is I don't know, maybe this is the way of the future.

I don't know.

So they have they have a legal system, but it's like judges through Skype.

It just sounds funny. I watched this so that this is fantasy island, but.

Like there's nobody there yet, so maybe maybe you want to be first a fantasy island, like Tattoo is not even there yet, so you could you could even beat Tattoo to fantasy perhaps if you got bitcoin.

Did you say bitcoin? I've been telling you. You didn't listen to me.

You thought crazy internet goofball didn't know what he's talking about, but I knew what I was talking about.

The most controversial part about the city state is the judicial system. Prospero has set up its own online court to settle disputes.

Many prosper.

So.

I guess the the wealth.

Tier is intended to keep bad actors out, but there's a lot of rich people that are bad actors.

So I don't know. I just don't know this.

I mean, there probably already is some Galt gulch somewhere. Maybe they're trying to make El Salvador into golf's culture.

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what the answer is.

But one thing there could happen is that if El Salvador or Bitcoin City or whatever, if these things are really actually successful and they work really well, which I think some of them probably will. They might be examples for other countries to say, hey, we want to do like that. Like they're actually building communities that actually work. They're not you know, socialist hell holes, democratic blue city nightmares.

It could be some kind of a it could be a cult. I don't know.

I mean, I would definitely want to like have spent time here, have like due diligence research before I moved into like some kind of cult community where I'm being my control.

But I don't, you know, like who knows? What's up?

Man?

I'm you Joe Jay.

Can you hear me, sir, man, I'm a huge fan. I have a couple of questions. It shouldn't take too long, Okay, all right? So my first question is if the Earth is old, is that disproved the Bible or no.

I just don't think you can prove that the Earth is old. So I don't see how you prove that without assuming things that wait, the data or the instruments already assuming the date right, like, for example, well, the red light couldn't come here unless there was a big bang. And it's like, well, but if God created the universe, then the red light was already here. It didn't have to come here from the big bang. So in other words, the argumentation assumes a big bang in the case of

Geology or whatever.

But you're attributing age to what you see what it had to take millions of years for that layer to form that, And then we see counter examples where there's a fossil or a tree that extends between these geological layers that are supposed to millions of years. So I just don't see how you prove the old age. Even carbon dating, well, even carbon dating does the exact same thing, where it oftentimes assumes that, well, we know that for this to decay at this rate, it takes billions of years.

All right, Okay, that makes sense.

Yeah, that's just my skeptic take on a lot of that stuff.

And again, I'm actually a skeptic on the things that most people are not skeptics on, and I'm actually an argument for certitude on the things that most people think aren't certain and don't know about. So, in other words, I flip it. The philosophical stuff I actually think is certain and theoyant stuff is actually not certain. And that's I think something that people oftentimes misunderstand about this stuff that I argue and where I'm coming from, Matt, what's up, yore?

Y'all?

Hey, Hey, just a quick question.

I had the unfortunate mispleasure of watching the Alex O'Connor and Cliff Connecting You or whatever his name is debate.

I've been hearing about this. I haven't watched it yet. Is this something I should watch?

Not unless you want to stick two pencils in your eyes?

Is it?

Ah?

This is horrible.

I mean I gave up evidentialist apologetics a long time ago, and I think I sort of was leaning towards presup. But then when I listened to your arguments on TAG and FDA, I couldn't really come up with anything to kind of refute it. But in saying that, one of the things I point to in this debate is the problem of suffering for animals, which I thought was just not really a good point anyway. But I wanted to ask if you have heard of well you probably have,

Lewis and also J. R.

Tolkien with his work on the Cymarillion, that kind of reasoning.

Maybe I'm not familiar with that specific thesis. Can you lay it out for me? What is this idea basically?

And I think it can tie in.

With logos and the LOGI was that the angels were created first and then when we read and it's almost kind of similar to gap theory where the angels have ready for all in Genesis one. So whoo, who you know, the chaotic mess and God is actually restoring the creation, and that because the angels have left their heavenly abode and the responsibilities that they were given, Creation has already fallen.

But you know, Adam is the first one.

And so we have suffering.

With you know, animal death or suffering simply because Creation has already suffered a fall through the angelic beings who were in charge of all of these different areas.

So the immediate problem I would see with this is the Orthodox view posits the timeless Aon, which is where the angels are. And so because the Aon is a timeless created eternity, the angels either continued in grace or fell in an instant, so it's timeless. So their immediate choice determined whether they were angels or demons, and so that caused a kind of fall, you could say, in

Okay, good, all right, thank you sir.

That's a great question, you'd say. Man, yeah, that's a great question. I've never had a I can't.

Remember the last time we had our like a deep angel type of question. But if you want a good passage on the Aon, if you get Vladimir Lawski's book Dogmatic Theology, there's a really good four page explanation of the Orthodox view of the timeless Aon and the reason that matters in theology.

John Deamascus mentions the a on two.

But the reason it matters in theology is that it actually distinguishes us from Platonism. Not not many people know this, but so for Platonism you have time and eternity, and really that's it. There's just those two, and eternity is really equated ultimately with the forms or the one, and there's no.

Kind of there's nothing in between.

But in Orthodox Christianity, there's not just God, the uncreated and man.

And then in the.

Temporal realm there's also the timeless created a which is where the angels are. So there's this other realm uh and hence the you know, God creates the worlds or the realms and so forth. So we in that in part when you read Maximis and other people who talk about it, it's it's another angle by which we are distinguished from the Platonic view. There is no created, timeless alon and Platinism pop by Daddy, what's up?

Hey?

I had a quick question on the view on the Orthodox Church on Eastern Catholics.

What's the view?

What do you mean?

Like what like do you guys see do you guys see it as heretical or that.

Since we communion with Rome?

Yeah, I mean, ultimately, unfortunately, even though you guys should a lot of our theology, we do not believe that entering into communion with Rome makes it still it's no longer Orthodox.

Yeah.

But also with the philioque if we change or they say they can use through the sun instead of from the sun.

That yeah, but that would just be to admit that way. But that would just be to admit that you're part of a church that has two creeds.

I mean, there's only one creed. There's not two creeds.

So even if there's a theological explanation for two different creeds, merely having two different creeds I think is a pretty good argument that that's not the true church.

The church has one creed, It's always had one creed. And beyond that, it's like Rome used to say that if.

You, you know, believe the theology of Palamas, you're excommunicated. Oh but now it's cool since John Paul the Second, you know, revered Palamas or whatever. And oh, by the way, Eastern Catholics, by the way, you can use the same festial manion, and you can you know, Revere Sergius or Ratinees and all these, you know, people that are supposed to be schismatics. I mean, I just read Kantate Domino, which says, if you die at a communion with Rome,

Also, do you know if like I'm like just studying into Eastern Catholics right now, but do you know if Eastern Catholics can say the philioquick Creed too, is it allowed or not?

I mean, I don't see why you couldn't, because technically you're supposed to accept everything that room teaches, all right, But Eastern Catholics are basically in a like double mind, double thing position because many of them say, well, we don't accept all this papal stuff, like the Malchi Catechism says we believe in seven ecumenical councils. There's no there's no Roman Catholic position that allows you to only believe

Also, can I get your thoughts on CCC two forty eight.

It talks about the Eastern tradition.

How the father is the first of origin, and the Western tradition expresses it like the father and the son has the.

Same consubstantial essence, like go. I'm not sure, but it's I have to look at it.

But so it's the catechism.

Well on catechism, I don't have it, I have the I have Denzing, or I don't have the current Catholic Catechism in front of me.

What is the.

Number forty eight?

The outset.

The Eastern tradition expresses the father's character as the first origin of the spirit by confessing the Spirit as he proceeds from the Father. It affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses the first constitential community between the Father and son by saying that those spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It says this legitimate and with good reason, for the

All right, thank you those basically it appreciate it.

Also, you might want to read from the Vatican the I think it's from the nineties. It's called the Vatican Clarification with philia O Clay, because even though it's a Vatican document, basically it just admits that these views are still intention over that very point, whether or not the hypesite property the father could be something shared by another person. So even the Vatican's minist minded documents admit these two

See de legas of pious. We just pulled this up the other day see de legas.

This actually a dreat us is in the Roman Catholic Church lay theologians, So this is actually above random internet goobers trying to judge the pope.

This is actually.

Literal like lay PhD people, and the whole it basically says that, yeah, that's cool that you're a lath theologian or whatever. But you have no authority in the church and it doesn't really matter. So there's many documents that basically point out that no Roman, no Rando guy gets to decide Francis is orthodoxy. Does this prove that they are Protestants in practice? Absolutely? And that is pretty much the thesis of this stream for the first hour, mean

Many more views.

One or two of them can, like I think, like my Pope when Francis said, all the religious lead to God. This one got four one thousand views, which for a twelve minute video on my channel is pretty good. The Dogmatic Contradiction video that's eighteen minutes got twenty four thousand. I do think that the long form stuff is actually hurting the potential viewership, just because so many people are much more likely to click my twelve minute video than the five hour videos.

But here's the thing.

Guys like I make a living doing this, and when I got demonetized, there was no incentive to make the short videos except to make them concise. So here's part of the solution. And I don't care if you guys monetize your clips channels. We've gotten now about probably four or five dudes out there that have been making clips channels using my stuff, and they monetize it. I mean, it's not going to be like a lot of money. But I don't care. If you guys do that and you can monetize it, go for it.

So and we've got obviously Kyle does it with the dire clips. I don't care if Kyl does that, he can do it. We got a new guy who's been doing it. He's doing really good clips. Where's going at? Where is that one? It's an Orthodox guy? Where's it at?

Anyway, it's on her somewhere. Maybe I passed the scroll past it. But we got orthodox dude. Another Orthodox dude that's doing them. Job was doing them for a while. Those were getting a lot of views. I guess he got tired of doing it. Anyway, long story short, I don't care if you guys clip and go for it because actually, you guys, remember.

The way that Tate blew.

Up back in twenty twenty was because of his stupid Hustlers university stuff. Was like telling all these dudes to clip his videos and you get like free access to hustlers or whatever his thing is. And this actually blew up his chance like his stuff, right, That's how he got so famous, was doing all this like online marketing through telling other people to promote the stuff and clip it be my guest, Dude, go for it, clip all of it, start a clip channel, monetize it.

I don't care, go for it.

I'm happy to see anybody clipping my stuff because you know what, I spend half of my day doing uploading and clipping, and I don't like doing it.

It's no fun.

It actually detracts from all the mental time and energy that I want to put into actually reading books and actually doing content.

But I have to spend half of my day.

Clipping and uploading crap, and honestly, I get sick of it. But if you want to make some side cash and monetize my stuff, I don't care.

Go for it.

Or coma.

Have any people who disagree, Hey man, thanks for taking my call a big fan.

We're talking earlier about the age.

Of the Earth, you know, hold Earth versus Young Earth, and it just.

Made me get to thinking, what about like the size of the cosmos and the size of the universe and the fact that we as a human species, as an orthodox believer right, as an orthodox Christian.

And following Father Star from Rose and demons and everything, how does that play into our belief of if the size of the universe is what scientists say they are say.

It is right.

Of course, you have to believe that in the first place, But if you humored death for a second, how would that have an effect if there were others out there? Would there be other humans that would have the same concept salvation?

Are you talking about, like this argument that the universe is so big that there's got to be alien life out there.

Yeah, that's just something I've been thinking about.

Yeah, I think that's stupid.

In fact, if you listened to a lot of my recent alien analysis podcasts, we've been addressing that argument. I think that's just a really I mean, it literally relies on the Big Bang, you know, infinite universe narrative that well, if the universe is infinite, then it stands to reason that there would be life evolving on other planets. I think it's old, just nonsense, and yeah, I would just say go listen to some of those pods. I just I don't think that the universe is infinite. In fact,

So what you start to notice is that.

They take divine attributes and no longer are those divine attributes transcendent, they're actually smushing them into the created realm. So now the universe becomes infinite in Bruno, and I'm not joking about it. Like this literally leads like a few generations later to some of the early multiverse proponents who.

Are getting it from the.

Weirdo Giordano Bruno, who was explicitly an esoteris by the way he influences Hegel. Let me show you what I'm talking about. I've got a couple books on this that are pretty cool, but but nobody cares about this. This is just like super nerd stuff.

Dude.

So this guy who's a complete weirdo, if you look him up, I'm looking for Stanford Encyclopedia philosophy, not this stuff.

Here we go.

So yeah, see you'll notice right away a lot of this is pretty esoteric stuff, right Like this is platonics, the universal soul, universal matter, universal intellect.

This is like Platonic stuff, the hidden God.

Hmmm.

Yeah, well this is like Crole not just Crowley is way late, but like Hegelian stuff. Who's that other medieval mystic who's has the same Eckhart meister Eckhart stuff, panpsychism.

Let's see Bruno mm hmm.

Verse Giordano Reno positive the universe was infinite and populated with many worlds. So here is yeah, here we go, universe infinite.

That's what I meant to go to the first time.

So notice that this is coming from like by the Copernicus was also a neoplatonic chrometic thinker too. If the heavens are infinite, then the outermost regions would revolve infinitely, and this would be an infinitely revolving cosmos like an onion. It said it was an infinite homogeneous expanse popular by an infinite number of solar systems. So now we're getting to infinite worlds from these guys, right. So notice multiverse was always from esoteric occultic people. I'm not saying it's

So let's get down to where Bruno says. But you'll notice that he is taking divine attributes and.

Just smushing them into the creative order. Bruno's explanation of how bodies you're composed has proved outright the dominant risk telling view that the universe was infinitely divisible. It also just proved atomism. The universe is infinite and comprised of an infinite number of finite, indivisible atoms. So it's just getting it's getting pretty wild. And then it goes into like just straight up like full on Plato stuff, universal sole sole, universal matter, universal intellect. And I think it

To my video. Otherwise you can do whatever. It's fine, all right.

So we went down the Jordano Bruno rabbit hole. Osmotic twenty five dollars. Why do Protestants pray the blood of Christ over you?

What does that mean? I think they just think that it's kind of like a like a supercharged prayer. If they do that right.

I mean, I guess because the Bible does mention in

Michale three dollars, Merry Christmas. I don't tune in much, but I appreciate what you do. Thank you.

Off topic, if you looked into this character, Ammon Hillman, his claims are disturbing. I mean, I just kind of think it's so sometimes people are really out there in their claims that it's almost not really worth addressing, you know, like Jesus. Other people say, oh Jesus is a vast Jewish conspiracy. Really, I mean, come on, oh Jesus was actually gay? I mean, is it really worth It's just kind of crazy? Jv Free five dollars?

Jay? Why? Jay?

Or Jay why? I don't know what you're whying? Vane five dollars Merry Christmas? What do I need to read? The refute universalism? Well, three ecumenical councils refute Originism in Toto, including his entire system. At the six Ecamenical Council, the Confession of Saint Sophronius is a four page full refutation of.

The entire system of origin.

Those combinations are repeated at the seven Ecumenical Council and in the Sonoticon. So those things reputed, but in a metaphysical theological sense. David Rhan's video is still a classic on this topic, which is pointing out that if you don't have the nature person distinction in anthropology, it also leads.

To the universalists conclusion.

So, for example, David Bentley Hart correctly understands that when Christ assumes universal human nature, he's going to universally restore and resurrect all human nature. He then concludes that that must mean that all human beings are saved. No, no, no, it means all human beings are saving this since their nature is restored. But how each individual hypostasis uses that

Here it is right here, short reputation of universal. There are many people, and he makes the point that you hear me making here.

So I'll link you that video right there. Who's debating in the chat?

Here?

Is there a Roman Catholic debating in the chat? You need to come on the stream dog where y'all hiding it?

Anyway, we got a lot of we got good ninth twenty three people. We've never had twenty three people requesting to debate. That's crazy. Where did all these people?

So?

I guess I need if I want to really want people coming into debate. I didn't do it at night let's get some of these people at the end. David A, what's up?

David? Ah, what's up? Young Newton?

Hey day?

What's up?

Hey?

Love it?

M Uh well, I gotta I got a couple.

Uh h, I want to thank the Maybe you know what.

About I can't hear? Can you speak like it's super muffled?

Can you can be better?

Now?

Not really? But what's the question?

Uh?

The question is that there are difference between.

Rogue and.

Yeah, So they're different jurisdictions. Ro corp is Russian Orthodoxy and Greek orthodox are Greek jurisdiction. So appreciate your question. Uh, Colin, what's up?

Man?

Looking for people who disagree to get it today. Guys mean Jeane, I'm mute. You are muted. Three dollars you're mute. Boomer, I'm mute, mean Jane, we can't hear you. I'm your mute. I'm muted, dude. One dollar. I'm mute, dude.

Yes, I did fall prey to my own critiques because the stupid little button that you have to hit to mute when I play a video, I have to mute me and it does not always register when you unmute it because there's so many programs running that it just doesn't register what's up.

Hey, Jay, I had a question about epistemology. I watched a couple of videos you made about it, and I think you were talking about like the parapateetic axiom and how like that is bad and like you can't like really know anything, and I was wondering how you like how the orthodox position gets around that.

Well, the parapateetic axiom is from Aristotle and it says that there's nothing in the intellect that's not first in the senses. So I believe that a lot of things must be in the senses before they're in the intellect. But the problem with the paradetic axiom is more fundamental than that. It's just that if you have that paradigm, or if you're going to be an empiricist, the parapatetic axiom itself is not in sense experience, and so it's

Comes from sense data? Because that's a universal claim which is not found in sense data. Does that make sense?

Yeah, you said that, I believe that you said, like, your knowledge is ultimately grounded in God, can you?

Well, yeah, but I also don't accept the belief that all knowledge, that everything that's in my mind was first in my senses. I don't believe that there's all kinds of things that are not in sense data that are that can be in the mind. Abstract concepts, love, numbers, universals. I mean, all of these things are not technically in sense data, meaning the meaning and a proposition that's not in sense data, that's not found in the physical God

Data, so how is he in my intellect?

Okay?

I like, I definitely, I'm just not understanding.

I will try to watch more of your videos and stuff.

Hold on, So what are you not understanding?

I don't understand how you.

Like get to knowing God exists without your using your sense data, Like, I know he doesn't first.

But that's not what I'm doing. So I'm not getting to God without sense data. It's rather that empiricist approaches don't work to prove the thing that they're trying to prove. So I'm happy with saying that everything in sense data.

Point to and testifies to God.

But that's not what the empiricist or a parapatetic axiom is trying to say. It's starting from a finite human perspective and then trying to say that anything that I know or that's in my mind has to first be in sense data.

And I'm saying we don't even have to go to.

Theology in God's existence to show that that's not true, because just the proposition itself is not in sense data. The parapatetic axiom itself is not in sense data, so it's self refuting as a starting point for epistemology. So Thomass thought that it was a good idea to use Aristotle as a starting point for religious epistemology, and I'm just pointing out why.

That doesn't work.

So if I'm an Orthodox person, I can use insights from Aristotle or from whoever.

I'm not going to.

Adopt an Aristotelian epistemology as the first starting point for my theology.

That's the stupid thing.

Okay, and I have one last question, sure, Like with your pismology, how do you know that what you're experiencing around you is real?

Like that the external world is actually real?

Well, I'm not an empiricist, so I don't begin my worldview or my belief system from my immediate sense data.

If I was an.

Empiricist, I would end up in a David Humian's skeptical type of position, where I couldn't necessarily know with justificable with justified true belief certitude, that the external world exists, or that the past exists, or that objects of identity over time, all of those things would be very difficult or impossible for me to know or prove. But as Orthodox Christians, we are not empiricists as a school of thought,

Doubt the external world and I have good.

Warrant to believe that there is an external world based on God's promises to my providence, the metaphysical structure of the world, etcetera. All those things are the reasons I would believe in the external world. And precisely because I'm not a naive empiricist, would I be in some sort of skeptical trap.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that.

I think I understand more and I want to say thank you. I used to be a project for a long time, and your videos on like the transcendental argument in like other church history things made me like I'm converting right now.

I'm in the catechumen process.

That's great.

I would say if you're looking for a good readable book on just that topic specifically, not so much theology, but the WJ. Woodbook Epistemology Becoming Intellectually Virtuous. This book, it's a really really good book that's very readable and from a Christian perspective on epistemology.

So I would recommend checking out that book. Nikki, what's up man?

Hey Jay?

Can you hear me?

Yeah?

I kind of want to talk about philosophy, religion, science, constitutional republic. And then I thought I might hit on a few of the rejections as science that you've been going through, and.

Actually some of it.

If you would not reject science, it could actually further your cause. So I guess we could start there. I'll just go straight on to it on.

So, first of all, I don't, strictly speaking quote reject science. I made some posts and made some jokes about how I don't believe in science. That was a joke, But I do believe that the scientific method does enable human beings to hypothesize and master and learn the natural world, and that they can create refrigerators and computers.

Based on science.

I think science is properly speaking, things like engineering. But I don't believe that everything that quotes science in terms of some academic exercise at the top, people like at the Lancet or Harvard, that climate science and gender science, like all the things that are now called science, I'm generally skeptical of. So you need to be more precise and exactly what you think I'm rejecting.

Okay, so first of all, I agree with you.

I think there's a lot of Gaelian dialectics out there, and I think one of them is that religion is separate from science. I think if you operate with I think you can learn from the empiricists, the rationalist and the Enlightenment thinkers with the same presupposition that there is divine providence and a divine revelation.

So then you can use I don't disagree with any of that.

Yeah, then you can use those as secular tools that reveal what the creation is and how it's created, you know, et cetera.

Well, so when you say divine revelation, what are you referring to it? What does that mean?

Well, I mean, you know a lot of people point to things like sacred geometry, the Fibonacci sequence.

Are you a Mason? Are you a free Mason.

I've never been in a temple.

I've read a lot of manly Palmer Hall, I've read all kinds of stuff.

So what you're.

Giving is kind of like a Masonic perspective.

Right, it's influenced by that. Sure, Yeah, I'll confess to that.

Yeah.

So I don't deny that there's sacred geometry or any of that. But I mean I think that the problem I would have with that kind of take is like that ends up really just being deism and no.

Clear idea as to what the divine revelation is.

So, you know, if I read Morals and Dogma, you know, Albert Pike says, basically, all the religions are kind of generic revelation, and really they're teaching you the secret principles of geometry, and ultimately it's neoplatonism. And so basically it's not really any divine revelation.

It's just deism agnosticism.

And if we're at the point of like deism, that's a logical step before atheism. So why what do you even mean by divine revelation? There's no content to that.

Well, I have not read Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma, but I've read a lot of other texts, so I can't speak on that.

Well, Well, I mean I would imagine Maley Palmer.

I mean I've read some Maley Pee Hall, and I mean he, you know, in Secret Teaching, he basically says kind of the same type of stuff as Albert Pike.

So, I mean I read a lectures on Ancient Philosophy. I didn't read The Secret Teachings of All Ages. I read the companion book to it, Lectures on Ancient Philosophy.

Okay, anyway, whatever they think. The point is just that, like, what does it even mean to stay divine revelation?

Well, I guess what I'm referring to when I say that right now is I'm speaking of you know, when you talk about physics and geology and stuff. Let's go back to Gabriel's question for a second. Is the world old or new? It's like, why not both? And so what I mean by that is, you know, we as humans, we're operating with either a geocentric or a heliocentric worldview.

But who's to.

Say God is you know, we at least know there's a galaxy and a universe. And then who's to say that, you know, if there is a heaven, which you know, when they talk about a heaven, it's like, who's to say there's not a warden of this universe Jesus or you know, God or something that that decides whether or not you can go to heaven? And so what if heaven is the multiverse where you you understand the laws of natural law and you have to apply to principles

I don't know.

I don't really know.

What what.

I'm talking about is.

Like, all these different denominations of Christianity are very confusing to me on what their worldview of the afterlife is.

I don't even know what it is.

And most of them are just making stuff up.

And That's what I'm talking about, Okay, Like, look, I agree. In the multiverse, the Demiurge is Tattoo from Fantasy Island, and he determines whether or not you have informed consent to talk to your loved ones. Again, go watch Contact. When Jodie Foster goes.

Into the atheist alien space Heaven, she talks to her dad, but that was only with the informed consent of Tattoo from Fantasy Island.

He is the Demiurge, Alex, what's up? It's not the plane, the plane, it's the ship. The ship. It's the spaceship us this ship, this ship? What's up? Man?

Hey, Jake.

Uh So?

Through watching the stream.

Tonight, I I just have a quick question.

Sorry if this comes off a little silly, but I just genuinely want to know, what do you think the compatibility of being an orthodox Christian living in Bitcoin island.

How would that be feasible? Like, I don't think do you think they would include.

An Orthodox church on the Bitcoin island, Like, how would you go about doing Orthodox you know, faith, you know, how would you go about doing that.

On the Bitcoin I guess is gonna be a bitcoin state. I'm sure that there could be an Orthodox church and a like why would those things be incompatible?

Because the first thing when I think about bitcoin, just bitcoin things related and like bitcoin communities whatever, I don't think they're like Orthodox first, you know, I really don't think they would carry if there's an.

America is not Orthodox first?

Well no, no, no country except for maybe one or two at least on paper, is Orthodox first.

So so then do you don't you think there's like a path or there's like a there's gonna be a come a point where you're just gonna have to give up on the whole thing of living in a bitcoin civilization, right, Like, don't you think at some point it's going to become unfeasible?

You know, like this idea of well.

I don't know what I mean, the you know, we could all die tomorrow and there could be into the world tomorrow. So yeah, I don't know, but I mean, there might be another two thousand and five thousand.

Years left of the earth. So since we don't know, like, how is that just how is that a defeat for why a.

Libertarian fantasy island, bigcoin island wouldn't work. I mean, I mean, America hold on America is a worse scenario than say, Bitcoin island for hypothetical purposes. Here, America is far more anti Orthodoxy being first than Bitcoin island would be.

So I don't understand the argument.

No, it wasn't really an argument.

I was just wondering, you know, like how someone of orthodox or really any religion from any standpoint, honestly, like, how they could live in one of those communities, because I don't think any sort of bitcoin community would really even care about religion, honestly, I don't.

I think they would eventually become like.

Just come to the point where we don't even need religion, you know, we're just we're just a bitcoin community, and they might just become like some kind of weird bitcoin cult, you know what I mean.

Well, that could happen.

But again, if bitcoin becomes like let's say, for the sake of argument, it becomes like the future currency or world reserve currency or whatever. Like would that mean that that Orthodoxy goes away because there's a new currency, or or.

Would Orthodox he uh create their own bitcoin infused community. Do you think that could be something that could happen. Well, yeah, yeah, think bitcoin island is only for U or Orthodox.

Well actually on the libertarian ethos, yeah, that would be entirely They would have to argue that they would have to argue that Orthodox could set up their island of uh you know, Orthodox fantasy island that runs on bitcoin.

Sure, sorry, this is another silly thing to say too, but like do you think do you think Jesus would approve of Like, yes, I want I want my Orthodox community to you know, have bitcoin, Like I don't know, it sounds stupid, but like you's trying to say, like you think Jesus would be cool with like the whole bitcoin.

Structure and all that.

Well, given that it's the opposite of debt based slave money. Yes, in fact, it's better than gold. I mean the Bible says to use fair weights and measures, which means that you don't rip off with monetary transactions and proverbs. That's the entire purpose of big one.

All right, well, thank you very much, Sae, appreciate your time.

Yeah, I mean every not you, but every objection that people have turns ten times worse on Fiat currency. So I want to see if people really believe the stuff they're saying. Then I want to see you guys like totally not using fiat because it's like ten times worse with fiat. And by the way, if you read the scriptures, it does not ever say that money itself is evil. It doesn't say gold itself is evil. It says that unjust weights and measures, and you know, enslaving people with

Uh, pepe, what's up, hatty?

Hattie that was abrupt, So yeah, I get just sort of joined the conversation. So, uh, sticking on the theme of bitcoin, what if what if Trump all of a sudden decided to accept bitcoin or doge and we were able to circumvent the Fed because you've got to figure England wanted to force the US colonies to use the pound sterling an interest and we were like, I screw that, We're done here.

And then the FED does it.

Everyone's like, oh, yeah, that sounds good, So like it's it's kind of goofy. And then like on the actual theme of the thing, one thing I can never get an answer on is why do people believe the Old Testament just like by itself.

Well, well, to answer the first question, the question was if Trump is pro bitcoin and crypto, could its go around or subvert the Federal Reserve?

I mean, I think the Federal.

Reserve is kind of connected to the old legacy fiat system.

It's really the embodiment of that. I think that old system is eventually dying, so if the dollar is to survive, it's going to have to in some.

Way you marry bitcoin. However, they do this with strategic reserve or whatever.

They do.

I don't know. I think that's the only lifeline for the dollar. As for the Old Testament, I mean, one.

Reason that many people believe it is that it had so many prophecies of the time of Christ's birth that were accurate, as well as his life, ministry and what would happen afterwards.

Well yeah, but that's especially if you look at it through the lens of apologetics, and like that is like the most common thing.

I figure.

It's like, well, I like this one book, so by default I have to like this other book. But it's kind of strange, like the variations and how much people really believe it. So like I'll talk to a rabbi and he'll be like, yeah, you know, it's just important cultural stories. A lot of it is historical fiction, a lot of it's not to be taken literally. And then you got like the infallibilists and the literalists and they're like, no,

Well, I mean most most right, Well, and actually most Jews don't actually believe the Old Testament. They believe, if they're serious, they believe the Talmud, which takes precedence over the Old Testament. But I'm saying that in general, outside of Judaism, the reason people would believe that the Old Testament profits or profits is because of many precise predictions about Christ himself.

So not.

Like one or two things, but many, many, many, many many predictions. Daniel, what's up? Starting to get a headache? So I'm I mean, I'm gonna keep going because we've still got twenty one people requesting to debate. That's crazy, are you there?

Man?

What's up? Christian? Three dollars? Jay?

I was thinking about Protestants. My church is Wesley and I'm blown away by the spirit moving in my church.

I mean, that's kind of subjective. I don't know what you mean. Like, so like some bum comes in and decides he wants to enter AA.

Like is that?

I mean, I don't know what that means. I know many go too far, but I don't think all yeah, but I just I still don't think that what you're calling the.

Movements of the Holy Spirit necessarily quote prove that the Methodists or the Church. I mean, I could be at AA and a dude come in and like, you know, he wants to quit drinking or whatever, and that's a good thing. But I wouldn't say that, oh cee AA is the true Church because look at look at the positive effect. It's just not enough to say what the true church is. Agent zero five dollars work as safe for a I watch a lot of boomers buy artificial

Did a speaking engagement was at a.

Secret it's called the Secret Space Program. Of course, I was just there to talk about movies. You can still watch that video on YouTube.

It's called.

It's like Esoteric Hollywood or something. It's like the first presentation that I'm doing with slides behind me from like twenty fourteen or fifteen, that's when I did.

It might be uploaded later. But he was a nice guy in person.

We didn't really spend much time talking, so I don't I never really heard his views.

I heard about half.

Of the interview that he did the other day with AJ, so I don't know enough about his positions.

But does he believe in aliens?

I'm not even sure what his views Jacob ten dollars. My family and I were received Orthodoxy after I grew at Roman Catholic I was then a set of a contest for a time at same situation here. Glad to hear that, Jacob, I can't thank you enough for your work.

Thank you so much.

Man.

Glad to hear that. I think you're gonna find it a much more.

Peaceful, freeing situation than the trad crazy, trad cat world. Now, everybody should keep in mind like the Orthodox world is not problem free.

There's a lot of.

Annoying people in the Orthodox world. You're gonna meet priests that will make you mad, You're gonna meet bishops that let you down. I mean that you're gonna have bad experiences in the Orthodox world too. So everybody should be aware that you're not escaping problems by becoming Orthodox. It's just different problems, right, So like the problems in the Roman Catholic world, this many many years removed from that, so I kind of don't even remember what that was

Whatever, but.

I would over I would say, overall though most of the experiences I've had, even though I've had several bad experiences, most of my experiences have been good, Like most of the Orthodox people that I've met spent time with. Everybody's great, it's just a minority of kind of vicious, malicious people.

User two O nine five dollars? Have you ever read Gogol? Especially as short stories?

Now?

Actually, I think my priest was telling me to read gogle so I need to get to that. What is your opinion of them? I don't know.

Weren't Dosciewski and flannering Ot Connor fans. I think I've heard that. I think Father Vladimir told me that I do need to read that doctor Chilling five dollars a homeboyd I'll.

Be triggered by Bobby's perspective. I'm not triggered.

It's just that, I mean, if you go back, like four years ago, Tristan was having Bobby on all the time and they were talking about Orthodox stuff, that was you know, Tristan was kind of new to look at an Orthodoxy, maybe even twenty nineteen eighteen somewhere in there, and then.

Bobby was like, Orthodox, so let's talk about Orthodoxy and diets. And then suddenly it's like I didn't even realize that they talked the triunity is pigan.

That's a bad Bobby. I can do a better Bobby if and Tristan does a really good Bobby. But I'm not triggered by him. I just think it's goofy. He's Bulgarian, vegan meat eater. He's now Muslim.

However, I cannot imagine a bigger grifter than Bobby. He will never do a debate, no, I know that, Like we we tried to get Bobby to not even do a debate, but to come have a discussion, and he wouldn't even do that, so of course he's not gonna do a debate.

Bobby C. Ten dollars, Good evening. I am blocked on X. Was it by accident? Did I do something? Would you consider unblocking me? I don't know.

I block a lot of people because basically, if I sense idiocy, it's a media block. So perhaps I made a mistake, perhaps you were an idiot, perhaps.

None of the above, and I accidentally hit a button or something.

I don't know who you are because when I type in Bobby C, I don't see anybody's profile that comes up Bobby C. So you got to tell me what your profile is to unblock you, because, to be honest with you, I have about probably three thousand people blocked, so and my life is pretty good when it comes a lot of Like I don't if somebody's really ridiculous unless they later come and apologize, Like I'm happy.

Just not interacting with a lot of idiots. Schooma bear ten dollars.

My friend wanted to ask what you thought about calling Jesus an avatar. I mean that's kind of like a typically a new age hinduist.

You know type of concept. It's not doesn't really make sense. And because it suggests that there are many avatars, right and no, we think Jesus has way truth in the life.

Tony teb ten dollars, blessings to the family, Thank you so much. Do you mean Charles Manson's family or mine?

Ultra three dollars. Hey, this is how I see you.

You're sending me YouTube video links that I can't see on stream labs. Mister goofy, have you watched Secret Level?

No, I don't know what that is.

Space Marines equals Bays demon slayers, Gay dire baysed demon slayer. Oh, it sounds like an extreme evangelical who is going.

To put me in my place? Why don't you call in Ultra.

I can't see what your YouTube videos are that you're posting and turner five dollars. When I try to follow the line of all who accredits theological schools in America, I come to ats. I can't find any real information on this or its affiliations. This seems strange to be such an opaque organization for holding so much power.

This is a good question.

In fact, somebody brought this up the other day, like because there was a discussion in one of my mod chats about like who who decides accreditation? And I mean, on one level, it makes sense that there would be some kind of accredited crediting thing, but on the other hand, like I've been in academia and grad school and all that, and I've been in.

Schools that were not accredited and accredited. So uh, accreditation usually.

Generally speaking, is just a tool of control because they decide that, oh, well, if you're going to be accredited, you're going to teach blah blah blah blah blah. And I feel sure nowadays that that's all a bunch of woke crt stuff. So I would imagine your ap absolutely on point here that whoever does this, and I've never actually looked into this, it is probably some shady United Nations rock filler globalist institution California prober one dollar. How

UH.

For example, even Protestant websites know that when you look up the word aon, it means simply a boundless time, aon in.

Greek timeless eternal essence. So for us, they're obviously there's not gods.

And in fact, in the Latin the word is avonm, which in the Greek is aon, and which I'm telling you in the theology is a timeless eternity.

So go look up what I'm telling you.

Go read the book vy Vladimir Lowski Dogmatic Theology and read the five pages on the timeless aon.

I'm not going to recommend that website. I've never heard anybody talk about this, by the way, until I read it in Losky.

It doesn't even look like you can really find even any Orthodox websites discussing it. Even in Plato, the word aon.

Is in.

Here's father John Whiteford talking about it, but he's talking about critiquingdavidanly Hard. I think, all right, well, this is about universalism, This isn't what i'm This will probably be a good refutation of universalism, this isn't exactly what I'm looking for.

I think the point is that.

Time suggests beginning an end, and since we're talking about something that is time less, it's not functioning in a beginning end sense. It's an ever existing present, but it's not eternal or it's not uncreated. So it's a time less created realm where the angels exist. And that's why when the trust's father's talk about the angels falling, it was outside of time and hence it was instantaneous. But this isn't really dealing with that. Alulah, five dollars add

So you can go watch that.

He will not debate people. But if you have rebuttals, what are they? Go watch our video together about We did two. We did one on my channel deconstructing Christianity and then one on his channel deconstructing Christianity.

I think we deal with.

McClellan in his video on his channel. Gabriel twenty five dollars. What happens to people who never hear of Jesus?

Do they go to Hell?

We don't make that judgment. We're not told the destiny of people. We're just told to tell people to come into the arc. It seems the moral to witness to them and give them a chance to reject it. If they would immediately go to heaven, well, we don't say they immediately go to heaven.

God doesn't tell us, and how he judges of people, we don't know. There's inklings of how he does that in Romans two in regard to natural law. But our job is to tell them to join the church. Well at annual five dollars I didn't even notice that this was a late stream. Thanks.

Yeah, it's like midnight here. Appreciate that Albanian do ninety eight two dollars.

Contaxation in society be viewed as a divine judgment and consequence because the sins of self interest and greed. From an Orthodox perspective, I think all things like that can be chastisements. Yeah, like any anything that comes our way, right, if a plague comes, right, that's a chastisement. And you know, in the.

Covenants to be relations in Deuteronomy and in the Covenant stipulations to the churches and Revelation two and three, the blessings and the cursings that come to chastisements, all of them are for are good.

So yeah, I would I would say so. In fact, I think there's a text in Ezekiel. Yeah, there's a text in Ezekiel.

That says that God gave them over to bad laws because they were disobedient. And I remember Scott Hahn back in the day when I was cat. I remember he was a big letdown to me because he actually took a like a modernist.

Documentary hypothesis view about that. I kid you not.

You could probably go look it up where he's trying to grapple with this text, but I wish I don't even think it's that weird of a text.

He's like, I could not extense of distract, And he's like, so I came to the conclusion that it's the Old Testament itself and its laws that God is here saying are bad laws.

What God gave bad laws, which are the Torah? That makes absolutely no sense.

What he's saying is that since you wouldn't obey my laws, I gave you up to bad human laws.

Not even to me.

It's not even a mysterious text. I don't know where or why Scott Hank came up with that.

Big way five dollars, Jay. I got to ask you, why do you do some of the debate streams. I hear a lot of Goober's showing up.

Does it get tiring? It does get tiring, and I enjoy it at the same time. So it's a love hate relationship with debating. It seems to help a lot of people. I get tons and tons of people saying they love this. I mean the debate streams.

If you guys watched my movie and book streams and they got thirty thousand views.

I would do that all the time, but ten thousand people watch those and thirty forty fifty thousand people watch these. So that's part of the reason why I do it, that nobody.

Watches the book streams and the movie streams.

I still do them because I enjoy them. But Bitcoin Island three dollars. I love these late night streams.

Keep it up.

Jay.

Hey, if you want to support my work and you do, happen to be a bitcoin tattoo Fantasy Island bro.

This is my wallet rye here. People always ask what's like QR code? That's to support me buy bitcoin? If you would like to get started with bitcoin, there is a link in my show description to swan Bitcoin. They're a purchasing bitcoin only company.

That's all it is.

You buy it and then you transfer it to your wallet. Very simple, very smooth process. Also, if you want to support my work and your own health in the sense of increasing toxic masculinity, then head on over to chalk dot com. They're the best and supplement take particularly male vitality. I recommend that chalk Stack right there. Use promo co j forty four life to get forty four percent off.

And if you don't want to recurrence the description, you can use the promo coach JAY four zero to get forty percent off chalk dot com mer curious one dollar. If I'm under a jurisdiction that promotes a humunism or some other scandal, is there precedent for how to combat heresy within a community or an Orthodox situation supposed to admit with docility as.

Our Roman Catholics.

I mean, really, it just depends on how far we're talking. I mean, are you talking about the bishop, are you talking about a priest who says something liberal? Or I mean, I guess ideally it probably would just be best to find a better jurisdiction if you can. But there's not an easy answer to these kinds of questions. We still got twenty people over here.

Let's find vesper. We got Eva Green over here? What's up? Vesper Lend? Hello?

Seconds, see if I can hear you?

Hello?

All right, it's working now, all right, So I disagree with the whole host of stuff you said, but let's go with universalism.

What's your issue with then?

Well, the New Testament pretty clearly doesn't teach universalism. The Church has condemned it at least three times and three ecumenical councils.

So that's enough for me.

Are you sure about that?

Yeah?

Because doesn't the Eastern Orthodoxy believe in this sort of purgatory No, with like the aerial toll houses, Well.

That's not purgatory. Purgatory has created fire, that God has no creative fire.

Okay, But you believe in like a purification of the souls, But.

That's not purgatory because purgatory is bound up with the Roman Catholic doctrine of temporald that's for sins and created fire from God.

Okay. And what happens to the souls in hell at the end at the end times.

They are joined back to their body and they are experiencing the wrath of God and not the love of God.

They experience unity with God.

Right, No, the wrath of God, because God's love to them is wrath, the.

Full presence of God. You take that to mean something nefarious.

Well, the lake of fire for us as Orthodox is the same thing as the river of life. What distinguishes these two experiences is are you laughing?

Let's see, do you see the experience eternal torment?

All right?

So the Orthodox view is that the river of life is the lake of fire. But your recapitulation of the virtues or lack thereof, is what determines your individual experience of the escaton.

So there's no reconciliation for people.

Not if they, to the end of their life persist in what Jesus calls the unforgivable sin.

Correct, But they could theoretically be saved from hell in this life, I mean, after being sent to hell.

No, there's no precedence for that. There's no reason to believe that. What's the basis to believe that?

I don't know. It just it seems weird that their souls are eternally tortured.

I said, they're joined to their body and resurrected and they experience what they chose, So they're not eternally tormented.

As if God is.

Okay, Okay, so they're basically reincarnated.

No, the resurrection is not is not reincarnation. No, it's not. We're gonna move on, Jake, what's up? What's up? Jake? And I'm mute, Jake, unmute, unmute, dude.

All right, Oh sorry, Hey, I have a couple of questions about the GEOC speaking of kind of schismatics. What you know, the genuine Orthodox Church quote unquote okay, so is anything of them worth debating or using their content?

So I'm just asked.

Because some of their stuff might be confusing some of the new converts or people who are just kind of inquires, you know. Some of the things they say is kind of like it seems pretty kind of like donatists.

Yeah, I don't know if you're kind of.

Tracking any of the stuff that they that they talk about, this.

Is like five people, ten people, It's like nothing like it's like it's smaller than set of a countism So no, people.

Should just not waste their time with any of that. And every schismatic group will, you know, have some legitimate gripe, but that doesn't justify the actions or the reactions of those groups.

Kevin, what's up? Man?

Looking for people who disagree. So if you're Orthodox and you're asking me catechumen questions, I'm not doing that tonight. So please if you disagree with me, if you want to argue Catholicism, Atheism, protestantsm Calvinism, Islam, libertarianism, Gnocissism.

It's not Orthodox ataq and I what's up? Kevin on you? Kevin on? Mute? Ken is Kevin from the office. What's up? Kevin on you?

Hey?

Jay?

Sorry about that's up?

Uh.

Yeah, So I'm a pretty new listener. I've been watching recently all of your debates and all that. So I'm wondering if you wanted to talk a little bit about Jeovah's witnesses.

Okay, so really really quick summary. Uh.

I was raised in the Jehovah's witness household, and uh for in my late teens, I became an anti uh anti theist, like an.

Atheist anti seis kind of thing.

I'm recently confining my way back to spirituality overall, and I'm starting to lean forward Orthodogray.

But my question to you is, and hopefully you.

Can help me out here, is my family is super intrussed in this belief to this date, So I'm wondering, what maybe if you have some arguments to help maybe take himself out of that.

Yeah, I would say a couple places to start. One would be right here. This video is Jesus God is God at Trinity. This is a video I made almost six years ago. It'said about fifty thousand views on it. I would start with that video because I go through many, many, many Old Testament passages that prove that Christ is the second person of the Godhead, and he's called yeahweh, He's called God, not just in the New Testament, but all

In the right direction. Bro, Jeff, what's up man?

Hello? Hey, Hey, what's up man?

So I am a new listener recently, you know, pretty much accepted Jesus into my heart and this has really helped. But I just wanted to kind of debate with you about the way maybe I've thought about things in the past, and you know, just to kind of see, like, wheread go from it, even though I'm already kind of, you know, on your side on it.

Does that make sense on what topic? Well?

So just kind of the concept of.

Good and evil.

You know, I didn't really consider the fact that there was a good or evil. It just kind of was you know, I didn't believe that I even had free will. I'm just a robot of meat, you know, going through, going through life and survival is the mechanism in which I do everything, you know, run away from pain and run towards pleasure.

That makes sense.

In the sense, but I'm not, you know, like a hetonistic person like I. At the same time, I see, you know, doing things like drinking, as dipping into a river that the more I dip my foot in, the more it submerges me and takes me down. It's past and then I'm unable to get out of that river. So that's the way I would consider doing things that I didn't think.

It was bad.

It's not like that river is an evil river. It's just that river is drinking porn, you know, doing crazy shit. And sometimes I, you know, get in a river, probably more than I should, but I never got lost in that.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, you say, basically you're saying, like vices didn't run your life exactly.

So I try to do try to do positive things, and you know, for the most part, I was pretty happy doing that. So I kind of was like, you know, and I grew up evangelical type of Christian uh, And I just didn't really see a reason to to go to God. You know, I'm not a depressed guy, didn't fear death.

Uh.

And even coming back to Christianity, it wasn't the the hell heart that kept me, you know, kept me from coming in.

It's not like I was like, oh shit, hell.

It was just like a logical conclusion.

It was very like, you know what, I'm picking the side. I'm picking this side. How do you talk to somebody like me about Christianity? Because I feel like even bringing it up back to my friends, like dude, Jeff gone crazy, you.

Know what I mean?

Yes?

So what so?

What is the question?

So it's just like, how how do I explain good and evil?

You know?

How do you even like.

Because like in my sense that there is no good in evil in my older sense, you know, how would you say that there is a good and there isn't an evil?

I guess how do you pro I mean, I would say those are kind of like good as a you know, kind of a train incidental. It's like a necessary category that like has there has to be some good or else you couldn't make value judgments. You couldn't say that this thing is not good or this is better or worse.

So there's got to be some account of the good rather than just saying there is the good. And I think if you start to, you know, ask kind of basic philosophical questions, Okay, well, what does it mean to say something is good?

What is the good? How do I know the good? Where is the good?

Right?

Those kinds of questions lead you into the domain of well, then what isn't good?

Is there evil?

And that leads to the questions like, well, is there an ultimate good, the highest good God? And then is there things that are against God? Angels, demons, et cetera. So if you're asking for the kinds of questions that I would ask to people who don't believe, those are the sort of philosophical questions I would ask that lead to theology. So a lot of philosophical questions we don't think of them as the logical, but they actually kind of end up in the domain of theology, uh.

Daniel. So I would start with those kinds of questions. Maybe, yeah, I.

Don't claim it's a mystery and then claim the universalism is false because there's aspects that I claim are mysterious and others.

That are not.

So it's just like.

Not even basics. Uh, Daniel can't connect Nathan, So we're looking for people who disagree.

Tonight, i'man.

I was just wondering.

So I have a friend at work that he is into the faith healing and it's based in gnoscissism, and I was wondering what the best argument against that is.

I mean, you know, it's hard to argue with people like that because most of the time they're really based on emotion, So they're really only going to believe or accept on the basis of the emotional highs and lows that they get.

So I don't even know.

You might not even be able to have like an argued type of position with that kind of person. It might be better to just like invite him to an Orthodox church or something like that rather than trying to debate with him.

If I was going to debate with somebody like that.

I would just try to get him to start questioning whether he's really seeing miracles, whether he's really seeing prophecies, and all kinds of whatever he believes is going on at his Pentecostal group.

Emmanuel Herrera really for people who disagree.

Hey, hello something Okay, So I just kind of wanted to talk about like the LPT kind of.

So basically the argument that was good to me was if the Father didn't quote the essence.

Yeah, we've covered this many times, we did the whole talks on it.

No, but like particularly for the essence at like particular and universals like not just like the standard LPT argument.

So basically, how would the logical problem of trinity relate to universals? I don't understand.

It isn't more of the LPT, more just a God being three like the Trinity being three gods.

Well, strictly speaking, it's not three gods.

I mean it's one God, the Father, and then the Son and the Spirit participate in his divine essence. So I mean, are you just like, what's the problem, Like, Well, I've covered the LPT explicitly extensively multiple times.

Yeah, and I've watched I'll watch your videos on it.

Okay, this is like a distinct argument because it was like, if I believe the fathers identical to the Essence, but then I believe the divine essence is a universal does I mean the Father's universal.

Most of the church fathers don't believe the divine Essence is a universal. Some do, some don't, so that might be a problematic terminological use. I would inquate the divine essence with a universal. It's like a universal in the way that something can be one and many, just like particular as the universals can be both, and so in the trinity it can be both in But I don't know that the Divine Essence is a universal per se.

So then so then if I say that it's three particulars, he said, well, then that means if you count God by particulars, there's a sense some which you have three gods.

Yeah, but it's just a different use of the word God than what's being picked out by the essence. So I mean nice, and Creed says, you know, God from God, light from light. So there, the word God is just picking out hypostasis.

Okay, okay, so yeah, answer my question.

Thank you.

I haven't merry Christmas you.

Too, man, I'm just starting to get a little tired of I'm not frustrated with you it's just my mind is kind of turning to most of a certain point.

Lewis V. What's up women going for? I'm your due one dollar? How do you claim to be a Christian when you've never had visions of huge breasticles in gorge with milk? Well, how do you know? I haven't had that dream? I just haven't told you guys about it. Anonymous three dollars. I love your work. What do you think is the best?

Who?

Wait, what you think is the best better quality? And what should you focus on? I think the best thing you can.

Do in debate is to.

Try to be defeated and being serious. What yes, I'm being one er percent serious. Why would you try to be defeated? Because what I want to do in a debate is know everything about the other position as good as or better than they do, And I want the truth so bad that I actually want.

Them to show me if I'm wrong. I think that's the key.

But I think most people probably think that I go into a debate or I go about this kind of stuff just to show off or just to always cop a win. Actually know the way that I think I got to be good at what I do in this domain is through always wanting to be corrected if I was wrong, and I've been wrong about many things.

In fact, I was thinking the other day about making.

A YouTube video about all the places I was wrong, because YouTube now like all these the videos that are popular, the ones that pop up are like these kinds of like personal. You know, I was wrong about everything, So I was thinking about making some kind of video like that. So I think people mistakenly think the debate is a thing where you're just going in to demonstrate how right

Maybe they're not, but maybe they are. So this process of always and not every human being is going to be successful in this.

Sometimes you're gonna fail at it because you're human, you're limited, you're weak, you don't have not all the time in the world. But if you're at least trying to understand the other position. You're gonna be much better off than if you're not and you're just playing games and you're whatever. And some of you might think that, oh, he's ignored my argument. It's because I can already since within about twenty thirty seconds, that you don't have a good argument. Sorry,

Whatever. It's fine. I'm not.

I can tell right away. And that's because I've been doing this since I was eighteen or nineteen. So some people have been playing guitar since they were teenagers. I've been doing this, and that's why I do have a reputation of not losing debates, because I go into debates wanting to lose debates, meaning that I want to know the actual position and arguments of the opponent. And I can only think of a couple times in public debates

Of the table that you've never heard.

They might in their opening statement throughout something that you don't know about. And I can think of a couple times in public debates where people through curve balls or through stuff at me.

That I wasn't really familiar with.

But even that doesn't necessarily mean you lose the whole debate, because debates cover a lot. They can cover, you know, a lot of broad topics, a lot of information, a lot of disputed points. So I think winning and losing debates ultimately ends up being about who has overall the best argument. Unfortunately, a lot of debates nowadays ends up coming down to thirty second clips, which is really lame.

There's not really any way to stop that, but.

People have such shot attention spans and everybody's so lazy that I guess that's kind of unavoidable.

But I don't know.

I just spent like twenty minutes replying to a question about debate. So I think if you wanted to be a good debater. What I would focus on.

I always tell people go listen to the Monson Steining debate about five or ten times, take notes on it. Learn the way that Bonson.

Debates, because he was probably one of the best debaters at least the last century. He's just a master at It doesn't mean I agree with all his positions, but he was a really good debater.

I wish. Actually, the sad part is that I wish Monson had done more debates.

I've had a lot of really fascinating, great debates to study if he had done more.

Of course, Bonson died.

Somewhat young, but I would say study Greg Bonson's Gornstein debate and his other debates, because even the Tabash debate there's stuff.

To study there as well. I've done reviews of all those debates on my channel if you go into the archives. But yeah, it's not for everybody. It's not a.

It's not a talent or a thing that many people respect. I guess the Internet makes it somewhat respectable, but.

I don't know.

People just think that.

You're a jerk and that you're just trying to be mean, or that you just want to show out and that's not really what it is. I mean, it really is about pursuit of truth.

Anyway. So you say, what should I focus on?

Well, if I was just starting out, I would say, again, watch the Boston Stein debate and learn the basic fallacies.

That's like step one.

And obviously, you know, if you watch a lot of debates, you're gonna notice how how it goes, the.

Flow, how people operate. And I would just start taking philosophy classes. I mean, you really can't. You can't be an effective debater if you haven't had some basic philosophy classes.

You need a logic class, you need a pistemology class, you probably need metaphysics class, ethics class.

I mean, it just depends on how far you want to go. Same with like people say this about music, I want to learn the guitar, Well are you sure? I mean, you're gonna have to do some work.

You're not gonna be able to like listen to the bonds and signed debate and then suddenly you're a debater. It just doesn't work like anything like this. Just like playing guitar classical, like you have to put a lot of time in so but that's the start, David, A one dollar take is so much?

Clip and trim one dollar? You should? Should we open up a clip and trim him?

On Bitcoin Island, you can try because it's going to be libertarian fantasy island.

And I mean it's that means it's a free market, bro.

So you know, if you want to be over there cutting tattoos hair, maybe, but also if tattoo is our private security contractor enforcer, if you cut his hair wrong, you might wake.

Up missing a finger or two. So that's your Jess McCall.

Trevor, it's a very nineties preppy dude named Trevor.

Hello, can you hear me?

Huh?

How's it going?

Chair good? I mean, I'm a little tired of my mind as motion, but what's up?

Yeah, I've been on here. I get why you didn't pick me for the last few times i've been on here. I'm a pretty like ain't on account, but I have a few questions about tag if you'll answer them, Okay, Yeah, they're the generic questions us from the outset. I just get the impression that it's begging the question, and uh, I do have a problem with the premise, the impossibility of the contrary.

So, so if I say X is a necessary condition of why why therefore X? Do you think that's not a valid form?

Yeah?

I think I think the form is correct. I just proving proving the premise.

The impossibility of the contrary is just something I have a I'm just curious about.

Well, I mean, that's not the only way that you can state the argument. You can state the argument that only the Christian paradigm gives an account for ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. I could phrase it like that, so I don't have to use I don't use you have to use the phraseology of by the impossibility of the contrary?

Okay, how do you how do you prove the well?

Because any other paradigm is not going to be able to give an account for knowledge ethicsstem, I mean metaphysics, mm hmm.

How do you How do you prove that?

Though?

Because there's a limited number of starting points for any possible position in ethics, epistemology, in metaphysics, it's not an infinite variety.

Sure, I get that, but how do you demonstrate that the other world views can't account for that?

Because the other worldviews have to choose some binary in either in either those three disciplines. So for example, either knowledge is objective or it's subjective. Okay, there's not an infinite there's not an infinite series of options that you could choose to give an account for that binary.

Yeah, and either one you either route you choose is.

Going to determine a bunch of other things in the system or in the worldview. So likewise, with metaphysics, like either the universe you know, is eternal or it has a beginning.

Yeah, there's not an infinet variation in there.

Yeah.

How do you also handle the begging the question part? Because for me on the outset, it just seems like it's.

Begging the question. How would you handle that type.

Of Well, why is it begging the question? I mean, if you admitted that the form is valid, why would it be begging the question? That would that would call it a question the form?

Yeah, well, isn't God accounting for the transcendentals and stuff?

In the premise, The argument is that there is knowledge. Knowledge is only possible if there are transcendental categories. Transcendental categories are only grounded or made sense if it can only be made sense of if God exists.

Okay, so you're saying it's just am I mistaking the conclusion for a premise here?

Is that what I think?

So?

Like, well, I mean if I lay it out that way, you can tell me what the problem is, so the argument and maybe you just disagree with the argument, then I need to know why if knowledge exists, knowledge is predicated on the preconditions of knowledge, which are the transital categories. Transnal categories are not like self evident or in a vacuum like they also have to be grounded in something. God does the grounding work for those.

Okay, yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah, that's my version of how I present tag.

I mean other people, there's a lot of goofballs and goobers like Matt Slick and people that I.

Think are idiots that try to do it but they're not very good at it. Right.

Yeah.

I'll read.

Father Deacon in and Issa's paper as well, because I just wanted to ask you a few of these because I know these are popular objections.

And I welcome those.

And he actually I think his latest paper addresses the last objection that you had. If you haven't read that one, Okay, I'll check that out, thank you.

Yeah, good questions were likely BO disagree.

Ed.

D Hey, hey, how you doing.

What's up man?

Good to talk to you again.

Thanks for staying up with a sonatam A bit of a night.

Oul, so appreciate that longevity of the stream.

I was listening in on some of the libertarian Fantasy Island stuff earlier, and uh, pretty funny stuff, but I.

Kind of liked that idea. I actually kind of want to go to libertarian fantasy Island, be honest.

With you, Yeah, I'm wondering if a guy that talks about setting up a barbershop needs to ask for consent every time he sniffs the scissors. Yes, actually, yeah, I just wanted to pick your brain on the idea of what what do you think is the ideal form of government? Obviously nothing is perfect and yep.

But.

I a libertarian monarchy, that's what I think.

See, I was phrasing it to a friend of mine as a constitutional monarchy. Would that be, I mean, in line with what you're saying or think.

Yeah, it's just that, like the historical versions of constitutional monarchies are kind of gay. So as long as we can, as long as we could divorce it from like the constitutional monarchy that like.

There's a lock.

I think somebody one of the Enlightenment guys was like, we've got to move away from dynastic hereditary monarchy. I don't know about that one. That That's what I've never been able to figure out whether I think that because there's a lot of positives to a dynasty, but there's also setbacks drawbacks, So.

I don't know. I really don't know right.

Now.

I know the reference is a bit cringe and overweight, but the I don't know. If you're into the Game of Thrones, that all right?

George R.

Martin being a kind of a strange I watched the show, but I've never never read the book.

There's there's kind of a line in the show talks about the crown in the faith or the twin pillars of the world, and I thought, you know that that kind of.

Stuck with me, like, yeah, expresses that expressview right.

Thinking thinking about that, I mean that's more ideal, right, we talk about like I guess, grievances with the papacy and deposing emperors and stuff of that nature, but I mean wanting something that's more cohesive, right, Like.

Am I am I wrong?

In saying like the.

Bishops sat next to the Byzantine emperor like a two thrones suation.

Well, that's the whole purpose of the double headed eagle.

So yeah, right, uh.

I mean, and it gets into I guess a dodgy territory. And I've had quite a few arguments with these guys, but I mean, I'm leaning into the idea of at that point Christian nationalism.

And you say that and people get afraid of that one.

It doesn't bother me or I'm not afraid of it.

It's just that a lot of the discourse right now about Christian nationalism, people think that that's a thing that we're going to enact right now.

I don't know how. I just don't think that's very feasible.

I think the reason is that, you like, we've already been turned into this pagan culture, so I think we would have to re christianize the culture, which will take which will take a long time.

Sure, So I think there's there's models in where, you know, like I had actually mentioned this too, Owen Schreyer talked about discrepancies and payout an x or something like that, and how in a way it promotes pornography and that being kind of one of the avenues of rotting the culture. Yeah, like it monetizes beginning things that were pornographic in nature. In my opinion, I'm not saying you can't post it, post.

What you want and gorge milkers.

Yeah, leaking overies, leaking memories and.

Yeah, so spiritual though, right it's uh.

Okay, So what so you're saying, uh, there's a ethical you know, issue with monetizing that.

And so what was the argument?

Well, I was making the point to him, it's it's what's being monetized pornography kind of rotting the culture, Like you said, you know, walk the culture back before something like Christian nationalism could take place in the Chinese. You know, for all their flaws, they are pretty on the ball when it comes to culture war right there. Their social media is promote uh, academia like the like they know.

What damages and doesn't damage populations.

Yeah, yeah, exactly, And that's something that I think that you know, I mean, people are very black and white.

If he are whatever on Elon Musk.

It don't matter if you're black, girl, white, that's gonna.

Be one of his responsibilities, I would think, or anyone who owns and manages Western social media. If we want to go that way is don't promote the pornography, don't.

Promote they're saying, yeah, eventually, Yeah, So if we're going to have like Christian ethic and nationalism on a social scale, there would need to be you know, enactments against a lot of this online generousy Yeah.

I think so. I think we're a good ways away from that.

Though, And I'm not trying to be like, there is something to this point that Alex talks about that a lot of the legislation I'm suspicious is not ultimately about saving kids. I think that I'm concerned that some of the legislation that they claim is about prawn might actually be about.

Shutting down dissident political speech. So because a lot of times they'll.

Couch it in this all we care about the they don't care about kids, that nobody believes they care about kids. And I think the UK was the most recent version of this where they were like, oh, we're going to set up like age restrictions on the Internet, which makes sense theoretically, but I don't think that's really what they want. I think ultimately it's about probably eventually trying to have some kind of Internet ID type of thing. So I don't know what this is all like super complex stuff.

I don't know what the answer is.

Read what we need Libertarian fantasy island, I don't know, and like everyone like what if everybody has their own.

Island or something? This is so crazy, I don't know. It's like orson Scott.

Carr's Mormon, like his universe where there's like a Mormon planet and a Catholic planet, like like maybe.

We get out, Like I don't really believe in all the space stuff, but could we.

Have, like instead of nation states, what if we could just divide up the Earth to have like you go have your degenerate society over here. And if all the purple haired freaks want to go live in a crazy cult, go do it.

Go here, go over here, you know what I mean? That would the ideal, But of course that's never gonna happen.

But orthodox bitcoin island over here to go test that out, you know, Roman Catholic trad world.

Go over there, go do your thing over there? Could we do that?

I don't know.

I mean, that's totally idealistic, it's not realistic, but it sounds fun. What's up Rachel. Hello, Hey, Hey, I only wanted to say one thing, which is that I already I can already tell you.

That libertarian Fantasy Island is just gonna end up being busted uff.

That is a danger.

It does seem like, Yeah, I mean the TV show I remember watching it as a kid. Wasn't it like where they create your fantasy or something.

I don't know.

I never watched.

No, I should have, I'm an eighties kid, but I just never watched it.

An.

I just know from debating libertarians for.

Years now, it just ends up being Look, look, I want to put something in my buck, so bring me alone.

Right, Yeah, basically, basically.

That's all I have.

Uh, fair enough, great point. That's why we need like orthodox bitcoin Fantasy Island.

So let's see. They made they remade this five years ago. Did I see this? I can't remember if I watched this. They made a TV show, Fantasy Island. Oh, I did see this. I did see Fantasy Island. It was mid.

In the TV show. It was not what you expect you think it's going to be, like I mean, in the movie the remake, it just didn't make sense. It wasn't very good. It's funny too, because he's like, have these path of people don't even know what I'm talking about. They've never heard of Fantish. But when you're a kid. When I was a kid, I never liked this show. I just remember it coming on, right, and you've got Ricardo Montalban, who's like the host of this island.

I don't even know what his pet midget dude is even, Like, what's the point of this dude?

I just he just comes out and screams the plane. If you're a kid in the eighties, everybody you you'll never forget this because there's this plane bringing the new I don't know what they are test.

Subjects to mk ultra Fantasy Island. I'll show you, guys, Fantasy Island. Okay, what is this?

You got?

Retard O Montalban. That's one of my favorite jokes of all time. So here comes the plane that's bringing the new couple. It's arriving at Fantasy Island, and then the little midget dude is going to scream Boss Boss the plane to plane.

Delan Slain.

There you go, they playing they plan.

I think he does it again too, when uh Ricardo Ritardo Montalban picks him up. So you got like little like Hawaiian chicks running around. I think this is supposed to be some kind of hint hint situation.

Look, how do you like my new can oh Handsome the True very handsome.

It's my new hobby.

By the way, did you know Ricardo montalban I think he's a tradcat.

I remember when I was Roman Catholic watching a Rosary document and it had Ricardo Montabon in it.

Anyway, so people.

Land and then I guess the island makes your fantasy come true, but they can't show like whatever degenerate fantasies everybody has in an eighty show. So I'm trying to remember what the premise of the show is. Let's find out, and I'm about done for So what is the premise? A luxury, luxurious, remote island resort. The enigmatic mister Rourke makes the secret dreams of well healed guests come true, although twist of fate turn those dreams sometimes into the nightmares.

Okay, well that doesn't really tell me exactly what I don't know him. It's weird stuff.

It's probably some kind of mk ultra island or something. Okay, I don't know what you're thumbing down. What are you thumbing down? You're go ahead, man, what's up? I'm emissary.

Yeah, I'm just curious.

As to why you would open a room about debate and then you never speak anything about the topic of what the room is about.

I mean, we've been speaking about that for four and a half hours. What are you talking about?

Okay, I've only been here for close to one hour, but nothing's been said at all about what it is that you believe. I've looked at your profile, I've looked at your website. I've looked at a number of things that you've posted. The last thirty posts you've made on your profile. I have nothing to do with any type of scripture. So, and one of the posts that you had made, I think it's the twenty ninth post on

So what are youthodox?

Very clear, it doesn't seem very clear at all Orthodox?

Orthodox?

Orthodox?

What Christian?

Okay?

You do realize that Christianity came from Judaism, right?

Yes?

Okay?

Do you realize that Passover was not in a tournament offering?

Okay? It's a meal? Sure?

Okay?

So when should Jesus have died?

If, if, if at all, y'all had accepted sacrifice, when should he have died if he was going to be an acceptable offering, if y'all even accepted human offerings, which he doesn't, can you tell me when he should have died?

So?

What?

What is your group? You're what kind of a weird Messianic cult?

What are you in?

No, I'm saying if you read the first.

I want to know your position. You asked me my position? I said it? So what group are you from?

What group are you from?

The First Commandment?

What group are you from?

I'm not a part of a.

Group, but you're not a part of any group.

What what?

You have a bunch of hebrew Ish on your profile?

Like that?

Like that makes you better? So you're some sort of weird Messianic cult.

I think anything that you would like to know from scripture based upon Hebrew or the Old Testament?

I will definitely delineate it for you.

So you're in a cult. Do you believe that you're an MS area of the Most High or whatever? So you're you're a judaizing heretics. So you don't you're not in the church. You don't believe in Christianity.

Right? Is Jesus divine?

Absolutely not?

Yeah, so you're a heretic exactly.

So you're thinking that that y'all impregnated someone someone.

Who you can't even talk, You can't even get your words out. So do you accept the Bible or not?

I accept what y'all had given to his people originally?

You accept the New Testament? No, So are you a Messianic or not?

I'm trying to teach you the First Commandment?

Right, So you're not going to answer. You're absolutely you're a lunatic, So you're not going to answer my questions. Moving on, Halo, what's up man?

He? He?

This?

He?

I think this is a person in total delusion and who doesn't even believe anything. He's like his own made up things. I don't even think he's a rabbinical Jew.

He's just like some kind of made up he.

I mean, they won't say he won't say what his position is. So hello, i'm you look where people would disagree. Please state your arguments. Don't dissimulate and not tell me your position.

What's up?

No?

Much?

So you guys, I'll see you in here having the illusion the conversation.

I'll like to pay party. Okay, sure, what's what's your position? I'm Orthodox Christian.

I'm also Christian born again Christian?

Orthodox? Was the difference more like Roman.

Type Christian or what?

No, we're not papists. We don't believe in the papacy, but we do believe in real sacraments. We do believe in the historic you know, church based on appslock succession. We believe in tradition seven, eight, nine, ecumenical councils, et cetera, et cetera.

How do you get to become an Orthodox Christian?

I guess well, I mean to become that is like a process called becoming a catechumen So you go to an Orthodox church, you attend it for one to three years and then learn the faith and then decide.

If you want to become Orthodox.

So is this more of a a when you mentioned tradition, so is this more of a religious type of thing? Not more spiritual base, but more like by deeds, practices, things you have to do to.

Sounds more like Catholic.

Right, probably to an evangelical. Yes, you would think that we are quote Catholic, but we are not Roman Catholic. But yes, we do believe in the necessity of good works, so it's open look for people who disagree.

What's up, James? Thank you for those questions.

That's me who asked to debate one dollar. Thank you, appreciate you, Thank you. What's up, James, I'm you.

I just wanted to ask what your opinion of David Bentley hart is theology.

And works is.

I think his first work is usually accepted as a pretty good book, but he's pretty much become a perennialist and so we don't really accept him anymore.

Interesting, Thank you.

I mean, how many of his works have you read?

I read some of the first book, and then I stopped reading him when he joined the Democratic Socialist of America Party. By the way, we discussed him earlier tonight. If you want to look at the critiques of.

Universalism, Lord Mullin, well he's not just universalists.

He actually has said on his blog that he's pretty much a perennialist. So it's even worse. Go ahead, what's up, man, you have a disagreement?

Uh yeah, I have a question. So do you know of the Roman Catholic guye Duong? He's like a a YouTuber.

I know of him. I don't know him.

Okay, he did a video.

I'm just like curious of relations of opposition, and he brought a quote of Saint Basil saying that this is part of the quote within the identity of substance, the properties are distinguished from one another by opposing themselves.

That's not what is the tonistic relations of opposition doctrine that has formulated. Admittedly, according to Kongar and Loski later on the Middle Ages, it's not the same thing. Besils not saying that the persons are distinguished by a relation of opposition. He's saying that there are relations, but and that you could say that the father is in a sense of posed, but that is not a relative opposition by which you try to distinguish a triad, because.

It's a that would be only applied to a diad. Does that make sense? I mean, I've actually addressed this like ten times. I don't know why it keeps coming up.

Okay, I didn't hear you address it?

Is there?

Like, is there a video I can go and look to get a full Ye?

Well what would that be?

I'm pulling it up. So have you read the entire.

The article that I've referenced multiple times on this from not Loski and Congar.

No, I've never heard this.

I've never even seen this quote or heard this argument from Efflis.

So what they're doing is they're looking for terminology that basil uses that they think is the medieval relations of opposition doctrine. The only reason that relations of opposition comes up as something that they want to try to use is because of distinguishing in a absolutely simple essence. So it's literally against the very premise of the Kappadocian triadological formulation, which is based on the fathers the sole cause. So when you don't have hyposthetic properties, then you need other

And they said, yeah, I we'll read that. They never read it, which to.

Me says that they're not actually interested in seeing what the issues really are. What they wanted was quote mine to make it look like Basil teaches the medieval Tomus doctrine of relations of opposition, which is dumb. Literally, Congar will tell you the capit oceans don't have the Augustinian idea.

Of transparent theology, and that's why Constantinople one is not Augustinian transarent theology. It accepts Cappadocian model stuff.

So read these two articles because they will make clear what I'm what I was arguing from the get go, especially the Lasky paper where in the first four pages he critiques the notion of relations of opposition.

Okay, I'll uh, I'll.

Read those through.

I have one last question, what do you What did you make of Father Josida Trenham going on a voice of reason in that whole discussion.

So I was curious to know if, uh, perhaps the guy I don't remember his name, but he may have presented himself as an Orthodox person or a cateculum or an.

Inquirer reason huh voice of reason?

No, No, the other guy, I I don't know that guy's name, the roots of Orthodoxy.

Yeah, yeah, like he might have said to Father Trunbacher whatever his name is, and Father Josiah, hey, I'm Orthodoxy inquirer.

Will you come to an interview. Now.

I don't know how he presented himself to them, but I will think I will say that it's odd that, you know, I think Father Josiah had said some years back that in the case of I think he meant me, and he don't know if he named me, but he said, you probably shouldn't be making content.

If you're a new convert.

You know.

This is something he said around the time of my coming into Orthodoxy twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen. A lot of people thought he was talking about Maybe maybe he wasn't.

I don't know.

But my point is that it is interesting that in my case he would say you're held to this high standard, but he didn't seem.

To care to check. In the case of Roots of Orthodoxy, was the reason was.

That interview like set up by Roots?

I've heard.

I don't know this is the case, but I've heard that the Roots of Orthodoxy guy is the content person that runs Voice of Reason stuff.

Oh, I mean maybe that's not true.

I don't know.

Okay, well that was all.

Thanks, but be sure and uh, please do read the the Kungar paper. It's not that long, and then read and.

Please do read the loss Key paper because I think you'll see that you'll see what I'm saying, and that the stuff that they're saying is really kind of ridiculous. It would be things would go a lot better if they would just look at this stuff.

What's up? You keep thumbing down?

Man?

What's your problem? Go ahead? What's up?

Hello?

Yeah, yeah, I'm from I'm from Nigeria. I came across your contents recently, like two two weeks ago. It was through Andrew Wilson. Actually I watched one of his debates shout out Rachel as well, I can see her hair. So he was talking about how you're apparently good debate for theological arguments and stuff. But I have a couple of atheist friends, kind of atheists, kind of adious friends, and you talked about how the transgender argument is one

To come to a debate and to say that they just are doesn't do anything, and you can't do that in the bay. But that's just as certain.

But I get that, I get that, I get that, but I'm saying that so if they can do that, I can be an induction to see. Yeah, But the thing is, it can be a justification for because I'm using logic to justify the existence of logic, because induction is a form of logic. I don't know if that's falicious, because that's just what It's not a justification.

Okay, So the fact that you're using logic to talk about can you can you mute the background stuff like I'm echoing, yeah, sure.

That's that's going.

Yes, true.

I can't just use logic to just by the existence of logic then, right.

But it's unavoidable. So the fact that if you talk about, how do we know that logic is logical? Right?

We have to utilize logic to talk about logic, but that doesn't justify logic. So it's a higher order question. So you're raising the bar and you're saying, Okay, what's the meta grounding that makes logic possible? So the fact that you're using logic it's a category error, that doesn't mean it's justifying its use. That's just unavoidable. So you need something beyond its use to justify it in an epistemic sense.

How do we know that loge it works?

The only way to do that is to appeal to something that's bigger, larger, you're more universal. That grounds that, hen Scott.

But the thing is.

Apists could just see what if I just go one step for the tracks to find something that's transcendent though too good?

If that makes sense.

Well by definition that that would be impossible. By definition, God is the thing of which there's nothing greater, So you can't find another transcend altar ground God.

But themselves could just tell me that logic would be the I guess you would see first or the for like the justification for all that exists. They wouldn't have to know the existence of good because.

No, but it doesn't work to do that, Like you can't just say it just is like just as what like, that's not given an account for it.

But he could also see that how do I knew that good justice is because I would be picking, because I'll be using good by the ext.

That we're not arguing God just is. So again it's echoing. Man, hold on, I can't deal with the echo.

So the transital argument is not saying that all arguments a circular so therefore God just is. What we're saying is that everybody is at a certain point unavoidable in their argumentation, and when you get to that paradigm level, you're forced to do some kind of self recursive referencing. So the question isn't who can be circular who can't? The question is how do you avoid a contradiction within

That's not the same thing as saying God just is. I'm looking for people who disagree. So you guys are raising your hand, please raise your hand.

If you disagree. And I'm not trying to be rude to that guy. If he can fix the echo in the background noise, he can come back.

It's just I can't hear every time I talk, I hear myself that going, hey can you hear me?

Huh hey.

So I'm pretty new to your channel. I've I've been on a journey out of Protestantism, and I don't I don't like listening to a whole lot of people, like I've already had to deal with a lot of confusion. But I've spent I've probably spent like the past ten sixteen hours on Sam's channel, and I was listening to the responses of the Oriental Orthodox to emphasis and Calcedone, and I haven't I haven't found like a good source

I mean, we're currently going through an entire, multiple part lecture series on my channel.

Okay, is it what's it called?

Refuting each Oriental Orthodoxy. We've done two parts in about six hours of talk and it's going to be about twenty hours, so go watch the first two and be on the lookout for that. Nikki D what's up.

Man, I guess smile on huh okay, cool.

Yeah, I think we might be a little more productive if we focus on civics and political science and maybe culture if need be. I'd like to advocate for our constitutional republic at the Constitution of the United States of America.

Okay, I mean that's not really in the topics of debate, so.

Wow, libertarian is So I figured its civics and political science around the table, and I've heard you advocate for a theocratic monarchy, So I don't know if you're really in favor of that.

Or if ultimately I don't think we're going to actually see that, but I think it's the better form of government.

Well, I think we just need to restore integrity of public servants. I mean, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission haven't been doing their job for at least decades, and the Federal Reserve Bank hijacked our nation in nineteen thirteen.

Yeah, I agree with that, but how does that tell you what integrity is?

Well, integrity is when I'm referring to the public servants right now. They're a bunch of insider trading, regulatory captured, black mail, extored it and bribed, compromise, financial conflicts of interest, in foreign influence.

Yeah. I agree with all that, well aware, but that's not really the topics of debate today. But thank you man.

So the topics are listed as Catholicism, atheism, Muslims, libertarianism in terms of the philosophy, and protestansm So, if you disagree, raise your hand. So we're taking people who disagree.

I don't we Are we done?

Are we down to the no more disagrees? Thaie soccer ed Flores twenty bucks. Thank you so much, Ed, appreciate that. Welcome Jesse, he can't connect. Jordan's right, Hello.

Hello, what's up? All right?

Yah yah, mister Jay, thank god. I've been on a stay for a lot for a little minute, but thank you Christ Okay, So we talked a little bit last week, I think on your stream, Thank you very much. And so Mike so I'm still the Protestant, but we talked. And I also I watched your video on John six and the the flash like a two hour video on the Eucharist, and because I just wanted to understand, and then I read John six for myself and I just wasn't I just I wasn't getting like I wasn't convinced.

And then you but you kept talking about serial the thorough guy.

I don't know if it was of Jerusalem Alexandria, so I just assumed it was of Alexandria. I listened to his commentary on John six and I was like, Okay, now I'm convinced of the Eucharist, but this is that. Now I'm convinced of it, but the issues that I have is and like this is the basically is the.

Issue that I have, so.

That I can relate a lot more to Catholicism because like they will define things right, but when like I look at the Lucim position on the Eucharist and the Orthodox position, the only difference from what I'm looking searching is that they just used like orthodox will state is versus the loosener state under and so I'm confused. I'm like, well, I don't think I know is that.

Like now we believe in a real priestly based transformation into body, blood, soul, and uncreated energy or divinity.

That's not the Lutheran position.

Okay, so my question is, in what would you still is the all top position? Then it's still bread because it past like bed. It looks like bed.

I'm like it, or and and then and whin I mean, we don't typically have the Roman, Catholic, Tomistic medieval idea that you know, it has the essence.

Of God or whatever, but it's or ascuse me that it's the.

Body of blood of Christ, but it's the accidents of bread and wine, like I mean, we don't really go into that because we do affirm it to be a mystery.

But I don't I'm not aware of like whether.

The church fathers explicitly state to what degree there's still bread or not, because most of the time they just state that it's changed into body, blood, soul, and divinity. The divinity there is the uncreated energy. So you have to understand that the only way to have this consistent position of it really being the deified flesh is to have the energy's doctrine, and only the Orthodox Church has.

And Jordan be sure to come back next time. I apologize. I'll try to go to you quicker, go ahead, man, last chance.

I'm you Hey, can you hear me?

Yep?

Yeah.

So I have one question maybe to have you read the book Did Jesus Pray for Those Living in the World? No, So basically it's a book about Orthodox spirituality by Elder from Spiritual Spiritual Child, I guess.

And one thing I don't understand is that he talks about.

Ignoring, you know, visions during prayer, even.

The most Selvafic.

That's one thing he says specifically, but also the angle of Orthodox spirituality is actually like having a vision of the uncreated light, so you're kind of doing both at the same time, ignoring visions but expecting a vision I don't understand.

Well, the vision of the uncreated light is only going to happen at a most likely a very advanced stage of a person's spiritual life. And that also comes with

So there are real.

Spiritual experiences, but because humans are so susceptible to delusion or pre last, it's always under the guide of a more advanced type of person.

Goh, sure, all right, that's it.

Thank you, Yeah, thank you. I thought you disagreed. Dude, you were raising your hand like you disagree. Does anyone else disagree? The last chance you got to disagree? Though, if you don't disagree, and you're just asking me catechuymic questions, which I'm not mad at you. I'm just I'm gonna I'm gonna pass out, hippo. Are you disagreeing?

Mhm, Hello, hey, HODI.

So this is more of a question.

I guess disagree.

I mean, I'm LDS.

So let's start there.

My question is, and I've tried to have other people.

Explain it to me, but I just felt they weren't like in a position to be like a teacher of this subject. Okay, I'm very sympathetic to a lot of what the Orthodox Church uh said and what's in their doctrine, Like they believe in theosis similarly to the LDS Church.

I wouldn't say that it's similar, but okay, go ahead.

But the ones thing that has always got me and why I have not been able to bring myself to go to an other sect of Christianity is that I cannot wrap my head around the trinity or why Jesus Christ would speak in the New Testament to his father specifically, if he is both a father and the son simultaneously.

Well, he's not the Father. That's the whole point of the trinity. Trinity is three really distinct and different hypostases. So who believes that he is the Father? That's that's modalism, That's not the Trinity.

I guess from what I've understood of how the Trinity has been explained to me is that they are.

Three separate entities.

But one God.

No, the three persons are not separate, in fact, that dwell one another perfectly in a perfect unity. So I would say the first thing to watch is the video that we recommended earlier tonight.

That I did. It's called is Jesus God and is God a Trinity?

And I did this video about six years ago. It's right here that will walk through about three hours of passages.

In the Old Testament.

And then I did a more specific focused video called the Trinity in the Old Testament. And so I think when you start to see this throughout the Old Testament, you'll notice very clearly that, Okay, this is definitely the teaching of the Old Testament.

And then I did an.

Entire lecture through all of the Gospel of John, which you can also find on my channel. And what we noticed in the Gospel John lectures was that every chapter of the Gospel of John literally has a reference to the deed of Christ and or the Trinity. So the entire Gospel of John also harmonizes perfectly with all of

I don't have any more energy. I'm starting to slur my words. I'm super tired. Made by Jim Bob with a big fat super Chat fifty bucks. Wow, thank you so much, Jimbob.

Guys, be sure if you're not subscribed. Jimbob is over there, really powering through debating the atheists.

He's like, just you thought I had fortitude over here with this No.

No.

Eight, Jimbob is like got five times of fortitude. I do to deal with the atheists for four to five four three hours time, So be sure and check out Jimbob. Do you disagree, Alex, I'll go to you if you disagree, but please no FAQ questions. Only people that disagree. We've had a lot of fun tonight. We're going to Libertarian Fantasy Island. We're gonna put things in our butt. As Rachel said, literally, I'm joking. You have to disagree, dude, or else I'm just leaving.

Yo.

I disagree, and it's I'm rate to in the way you say, espresso.

I knew it was gonna be a fake disagree or I knew it. I knew it.

I'm going immediately to Libertarian Island, and I'm not passing go. I'm not stopping to collect two hundred dollars. Oh no, I am passing go Right, nobody disagrees.

I'm done. I don't have no more energy. But hey, be sure and follow Jim Bob.

He's throwing out fat money super chats, he's throwing out that getty Green, he's throwing out that chetta.

Head on over there to Jim Bob channel and be sure and follow and support our buddy Jim