TIMCAST DEBATE: JAY DYER VS TIM GORDON ON CATHOLICISM

So, uh, how long ago? Was this a couple of months? I can't remember. We were hanging out here.

At the old tim Cashiers right before the show, and I'd made a comment about fertility rates being low but among conservatives still around like one point eight, to which I think it was Phil Lebanti responded that Catholics have a higher than replacement rate fertility at like two point four,

And here we are.

Now do I have the uh, we don't have the oh I can pull well whatever, we don't have the people to do. But now we actually we're actually gonna have that debate because admittedly I am a lapsed ethleic. I was ten years old and my family left the church, so what do I know? So I brought in a handful of gentlemen to have this conversation and have this debate over the religion the denomination.

Sir, would you like to introduce yourself first?

Yeah, Jay Dyer, I host the Alex Jones Show, have done that for the last five years right for the Sam Hide Show doing comedy. I've debated all the top atheist Muslims that are out there and looking forward to.

This one right on.

I'm Aiden Mattis. I'm the host of the lore Lodge, The Weird Bible and History Unhinged on YouTube, and I have not debated all that many people, so this is going to be an interesting day for me.

I'm Timothy Gordon. I'm the representative of the superior religion here today. You know me from YouTube. Rules for Introgrades is the name of the show. I'm the author of five books and I'm excited to defend.

Your position that you meant totally literally today. Can we just end with that?

So well, I'll start with why it's not the superior legit. Who wants to go first?

I'll go first. So I used to be Catholic?

Where are you now?

Orthodox? Been Orthodox for the past eight years? Orthox Christians. So I think there's some key things that stand out as the reason why Catholicism is not superior. One would be the contradictions that I think have occurred in Catholic dogma, particularly after the first millennium. You have the notion that the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop is necessary for salvation from the time of Dictatus Pope in ten ninety all the way up to thirteen oh two when I'm

But is the implication then that the Orthodox Church is static, it doesn't change.

Yes, we would argue that the first thousand years of Christianity, as you look at it from the Council's perspective and the canon law and the church father's teachings, that the Orthodox Church is absolutely synonymous.

With that church.

So it's exactly the same as the first thousand years of Christianity Rome and the papacies. What has departed, particularly in the eleven, twelve thirteenth centuries.

What about you? You're what denomination are you?

So I have been a Methodist for many years. I have recently began inquiring into the Anglican Catholic Church, which is not the Anglican churches in the Church of England, nor is it the Episcopal Church and actually split off from that, and I want to say nineteen seventy eight with Episcopal Church's decision to begin ordaining women. So it is a conservative Anglican theology. And to be perfectly honest, I don't really disagree with much of what Jay just said.

I have a question, but I'm gonna wait until you can set your position on Catholicism.

Great Catholicism is the one true Church.

We make this claim based on many premises, but the first ones are this indefectibility.

The Church can never defect. It won't affect.

Our Lord promised that when the spirit of truth comes in scripture, he'll guide you into all truth. In John's Gospel, Gates of Hell won't prevail against the Church of Matthew's Gospel and Firs.

Timothy.

The Church of the Living God is the pillar and bulwark of truth. And therefore our Lord is a liar. If there is some change and you know, this is a little bit funny because what I'm going to be doing is talking about super specific church terms religion terms with Jay today, and then we'll be talking about more broad things, because really Protestantism isn't technically a religion, it's

I'll read you chapter in verse.

But so Orthodox, the Orthodox has a the you of the Pope, which is the church's view, the church's second millennium view of the pope, and the Orthodox defected on this. Now Protestants defected. They represent the soul of defectibility. Indefectibility means that nothing's going to change. Protestants are are religion that sprang forth from the earth like Athena from Zeus's head in the sixteenth century. It's it's proto Enlightenment, abstract

And tons upon tons upon tons.

Of first millennium Eastern thinkers from the Eastern lung of the Church associated with Orthodoxy, but also Catholic saints like you know, the Cappadocian Fathers, all the Gregory's say, Bowsel the Great. They acknowledge the unity, the visible sign of unity that is represented on earth by the Pope and the headship of the Pope. Just tons upon tons of these guys, and tons upon tons of the councils also

It was called by an emperor. Well, a lot of people don't know this.

We had a reunification of the Catholic in the Orthodox churches, and it was a legit unification. Thirty one out of thirty three bishops in whatever it was, fourteen thirty nine of the Orthodox came and voted for unification, including the patriarch of Constantinople, and then they went home and essentially they were strong armed into nullifying the unification.

So let's try and simplify as much as we can real quick to make this point. Like I do, I do have a question, but is the Orthodox argument is you want to stay true to the original view of scripture and what it dictates, and is the Catholic view that it can be updated and changed by the political structures of the religion.

Absolutely not, I would say, I would say you have that reverse the Orthodox always being centered in Constantinople, were close to the emperor. The first thing Constantine did you know after he legalized Christianity with the Edict of Milan, is he moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople. He named the city after himself, which is a badass move,

Millennial review of the pope was.

But Rittinger emits it's not so that he was a lefty.

Again, I'm not, you know, I don't follow any of the organized religions or anything like that. But real quick, I'm just the reason I asked the question is different popes have had different positions on cultural issues. I think you mentioned the death penalty just now, but there's also questions of gay marriage and abortions.

Gave the lessons that are allowed in the Francis's and cyclical, which was a change from the previous Congregation for the Doctor of the Faith, which is basically the successor to the Holy Office.

Yeah.

I mean, and I'm not trying to be rude to Tim, but Tim didn't actually mention or address any of the actual contradictions that I listed. He came up with a list of sort of I would say, equivocations on the way that different church fathers used the word head. Bazil in his letters, for example, talks about the Bishop of Antioch being the head of the whole body, the head of the world because in his region it was the chief see right, because he was dealing with the a

Like you know, can we have the death penalty?

And I think for Roman Catholic theology, the liturgy itself is more important. And the post Vatican two popes have all enforced the.

Dogma of the New Mass.

In fact, Francis said in I Think twenty seventeen, I have the reference if anyone wants to look and see. But he said that the reforms of Vatican two are dogmatic magisterial and irreformable. That means that you cannot reject any of the things of Vatican two that you don't like, even if you want to debate the status of them. So not only have the morals and the ideas changed and the dogma has changed, even the worship of God has undergone a substantial Protestant change.

There's no dogma that's changed, there's zero dogmas that What about what I'm sunk in the deposit of faith? Ununk wait unam sanctum doesn't represent a dogmatic view?

What does that mean?

So necessary for salvation?

And what Nsinger is not the deposit what it's.

The collections of Catholic dogma. So it does include what is the normative dogma? So how could you think is unam sanctum is the thirteen oh two decree of Boniface that to be saved, not only must you be in co union with the Roman Pope, you must also accept the Roman sees temporal supremacy, that he is queizots Hoterac,

Yeah.

Yeah, So what I would say to this is that the contradictions which in here in the heart of Orthodox Christianity tim are are are more are fundamental, and they're literally going to address what I call her Is that just too?

Yeah?

No, is this is really important because the so called tensions, contradictions, developments, and things like uh, two swords theory are not at the heart of what's considered doctrine. There's reformable doctrine and the irreformable doctrine.

And what i'm doctrine?

What about Because we're looking at people that are are Protestant we're talking to Orthodox. The most important thing for the listeners out there is if there's a head of the church, then if there's a meaningful head of the church, then Roman Catholicism is true. And this so we have to start at the beginning. Literally, it's not equivocation. This is as direct as we can be. If there's a head,

Three to four.

And if there's a pope that is a meaningful boss that is appealed to with a kind of appellate supreme jurisdiction, then Roman cathals is a mass to be true, because it's the only one of the three sects that represents this. So listen to what was said at Ephesus, signed onto by the Orthodox Holy and Blessed Peter the Prince and head of the Apostles, the column of Faith, the foundation

Clust or lots of person, not the nature's right.

Sorry, yeah, dividing his person, not the nature.

So Cyril of Alexandria writes, the pope writes the boss of the churches, or early early on, this is the exact view of the papacy that the Roman Catholic Church has. Now, it's a collegial first, but the Orthodox are going to hit you with this idea that the pope was merely the first among equals. This is one of those nonsense terms that would mean like a roundtable where he's not actually appealed to. He doesn't have a kind of appellate jurisdiction.

He also says, your holiness.

Who holds the place of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles has rightly judged this matter and condemned the stories. Now what Jay and the Orthodox have to say is that it's merely honorary position.

But he could fire people well like you would tell me.

I can I address that up.

I just want to I want to cut I mean, I think the term prince here is very important because prince. A prince is not an emperor. A prince is not a king. A prince is first citizen princeps That's what the word meant, princess prerogative. Prerogative goes with sure, but what what the orthoro appealing to his prerogative. What the Orthodox position is and what the Protestant position is historically is that the pope has primacy, he is first among equals.

Well, that that fault that runs vul of ephesis. I'll read you and I see it too, after Jay says.

So I'll answer his claim from emphesis, and that the idea of an appleate jurisdiction.

Everyone is well aware of this.

In fact, the Vatican itself has a great commentary on the meaning of this appellate structure in the recent document from Chi eighty, which is a Vaticant approved document on exactly what.

Was not authoritative, it's a proved document.

So this is what. This is what Rome nowadays says him. Doesn't like what Rome says nowadays, but this is what not dogmatic what It doesn't matter because this is what Rome says nowadays, not a Church document.

It's dogmatical, dogmatic.

Your quote mind isn't dogmatic either, So allow me to allow me to.

It is just real quick. This is one of the most esoteric debates.

Ever, it's going to be there are even Christians of each denomination been like, what are they talking about?

So what Rome nowadays says about this is that Sartica was received at the Council of Trello. The Canons of Sartica determined that a bishop who has been condemned can appeal to the Bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he likes it or deems it appropriate, can order a retrial. Notice it is not a unilateral statement, very contrary to exact to the reading that you gave of it. He can order a retrial to be conducted by the

Of course not that's eighties.

It doesn't matter because it's Rome's present statement on what your church's tradition is. These are so this is what happens. Pick and choose the documents that you don't like. So this is Rome so more then the Roman theologians. Now, because Rome actually says what I'm saying about apple jurisdiction, I understand a retrial. Can you name a single scholar that talks about this that doesn't have the giady of view?

Oh yeah, yeah, all of the scholars who aren't with community.

Yeah yeah, that is.

That is not one.

Let me name one.

Let me see, scholars aren't the mind of the church.

By the way, really, I'm talking about dogma. It hasn't changed.

I mean, like the three dogmas I listened to, Dogma one is the contradiction those were in dogmas.

See it too, so was on the christ Book.

When I'm sicked, When I'm sicked them all the way up until syllabus of errors is necessary for salvation And it's not.

Dog But we're talking about the first seven councils. Let's get to you talking about that. I'm the reason I'm talking about it is because Jay, because well if the.

If the first seven councils didn't be with the current position of the church.

But see the trick is that. So what we have we have is quote my perio, you have thirty nine thousand sec. Nine thousands. Okay, no we are there are fourteen Auducephalus. There are fourteen Autocephalist churches. So the tensions resides in for for we're autphalus fourteen.

Do you know where it comes where?

But so autocephalus churches what relatively unified with themselves? He dates we have when you have a business back century, when you have one holy Roman Catholic Church, the fore marks of the church. This comes from nicea one. When you have one, there's of course, this is what they're playing on. It's a strong rhetorical position. Naturally, there's going to be lots of disparity within the religion, and so

It says this.

If you think that that I was quote mining Ephesus Jay, primatial authority everywhere on earth was given by the Redeemer of the world himself, Jesus to the blessed Apostle Peter, through the same Apostle the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church has held till now and will hold for all time primacy and sovereign authority.

So you have the lineage there.

It's for all time, it's primacy, it's sovereign authority. If there's a head of the Church that can fire other guys, then this is the kind of pope that the Roman Catholic Church describes as.

A huge objection to this. First of all, Pope Virgilius at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in the Acts of Constantinople two, the council decrees that he be excommunicated and removed from the Diptys Virgilius submitted to the council. Does that sound like a autocratic position or does it sound like the councils above the pope collegial?

No, it's not. No, the pope is collegial.

This is exactly what Vatican one says. Vatican one says that the pope has a collegial relationship to the rest.

Of the bishop, but does it say that he relies on the church to doing it?

Submitted to the pope, same as you know, i'mius.

The people ain't gonna fall this, but bill to the council, not the pope. Yeah, but Jillius was excommunicated by the council.

Right, According to Richard Price, the pope submitted to the council. You said, Yeah, that's what the post one view.

The pope submitting to the council not prove that the council has.

At all, No, no, no proofs that the pope bears a collegial relationship.

Listen, Vatican one says that the council is not above a pope. You know that, so of course it's not above a pope. And why is Vigilius submitting.

Because everyone else, Protestants and Orthodox misunderstand what the pope's primacy that seems quite convenient primacy exactly well it is, it's it's well, it's highly inconvenient to the Catholic argument that you misunderstand it. The pope's relationship to all of the all of the other churches is specifically this.

He is sorry to the bishops. Is this he's collegial.

He has this ex cathedral power to declare infallible truth when and only when he makes the claim, and most of the time the only two times we know that he's used the power in the last thousand years. Everyone misunderstands it. What he did first in eighteen fifty four and then in nineteen fifty is he pulled all the bishops of the world to make sure that this ex catho draw power which is not oracular. He's not divining out of his head magical truths that have never been

Thought also, how does make rich alone? Go back to scripture.

You see the distinction, though, tim So when the Pope says I'm going to say something the ex cathedra and everyone goes apious. This is not he's divining when he special the pope has a collegial relationship to the bishops.

I got their boss, I got community. Then he can't be he can't be fired if he's their boss. And that's exactly what happens with the vigilius.

It's more like the board of a company firing.

This one says that the pope is not superior to a council.

He doesn't submit to the council.

Okay, let me ask you said it, you said it, Okay, I got a question. I'm not a Catholic. I got no idea. What half the stuff you got your and all these Latin things and everything you said? The Pope can decree infallible truth?

Am I wrong?

Is that he say when he speaks from his special chair from pastor.

So if he's if he's in his is it actually a special chair?

Like? What is it? From the chair?

So from the chair he can declare something to be true, like if he said gary marriage is never a thing.

Is that an example of what he might say.

Yeah, he could also say the opposite. He would have to respect it, of course, right, And here's the proof.

He could say something ex cathedra has never been declared that wasn't held from all time, the beginning of the church, which is what happened.

I didn't really get it out.

When the pope has made ex cathedra claims, there are things that he pulled the bishops on first to prove that Vatican One was not a new lone ranger view of the pope.

He's not an autocrat.

It's just a quick way of safeguard or something that was always taught the bishops.

He did claim to be an autocrat. He fully claimed that.

Clarify my point. He is not deciding that he wants gay marriage when he says it. He is sitting in the chair and saying what the church believes, based on what the church believes.

That your point, well, the church doesn't have gay marriage, never has never en.

My point is if the pope went to a chair and said there is no gay marriage, it's not that he's deciding it. He's saying, this is what the Church has always held to be true.

Precisely, yeah, and that's what everyone misunderstands at Pastor attornis Vatican One the most important thing?

And so hold on, sorry, And then it would sound to me the issue of removing a pope would be if he was clearly stating things that were fallible untruths from the chair.

Well, the first question, yes, correct, is the notion of that authority, whether he actually possesses the Vatican One authority. That Tim is reading back into the many examples that contradict his reading. For example, Pope Vigilius is literally excomunicated and suspended at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. That's from Richard Price, the famous Catholic scholars translation of the Acts of the Council.

He did defect.

All he did was write one letter that contained heretical statements, and the Church at that council said he is a Heritic. He's defected, and then three subsequent councils after also reaffirmed that condemnation. So again, indefectibility.

The notion of.

Authority is all fluctuating and elastic, depending upon what Tim needs to be the case at the time. His only answer was a too quotua and he didn't address any of the things that.

I want to build on what he just said too, Because if if Enorious had declared monothelitism ex Cathedral to be the truth, what would you have to believe?

Well, the claim of the Church is that the church is indefectible. This is Christ's promise.

Roman Sea is ineffectible. Says the Roman sea is indefectible. Okay, the Roman Sea is indefectible. Insofar as this this requires interpretation. What if you get an honorious What if you get Yeah, if you get it's a system.

The theological opinion, whether we're going to Suarez or Bellaman or Francis Xavier, theological opinion can vary on this because what what happens?

Then? Obviously we know the church has to be one.

It's got to be whole holy, it's got to be Catholic, it's got to be Apostolic the Roman.

Church, why does it have to respect the pope? At least let me get an emerald prince.

I don't to talk to two two barking dogs, so let let me just let me get it out.

We have to make these things really clear.

First, Jodd Nelson's getting met uh more of a bobcat really uh And I see it too, primacial authority everywhere.

What what does this mean to you, Tim if you were to hear Constantinople three, Because if you're if your claim, if the claim is that I'm expanding upon the view, you know, the Catholic view of of what the Orthodox view of popes might have been in the first millennium. Then just explain what this language means, that that the Church has never aired from the path of apostolic tradition,

We've had two hundred thirty seven, not just you have to.

Differentiate between which you know one in this audience ten percent, between material and formal heretics, right, which is going to take another five minutes. I'm not going to get out what i want to say because I'm defending this position. Look at Constantinople four. You can't have material heretics, you can't have formal heretics. Constant Nople four. What does this mean to you? This is a the the eight hundred and seventy nine version. It was originally convened in eight

We have this council. If he don't disagree with you. You don't have bishops, Yes, we do. The guy in the room, we do have bishops. And they go all the way back to Aristobola. They're Britain.

What does this mean to you, Bishop? And as the authority of universal binding and loosing? They say, this is just a symbolic power. Jolli honorific. It's merely first emoment. Now now hold on, if you're appealed to.

I think that all twelve apostles have the power to forgive sin, of course, of course, but only one has what's called here at in this particular council the power of universal binding and loosing, which is why you would appeal to a pope to excommunicate the second in charge of the church. You have to get you have to tell me how.

And that's why a council can excommunicate the post, because the councils above communicate.

I just read the bishops are above the.

Pot The acts of the council say the Julius was excommunicated. Your translation of your people say he was.

I would like to hear from you, guys, what about the arguments you've made or believe makes your denomination superior in the true sense of the word superior. Are you saying that it's because you are right, you are correct, or is there something about your belief that inherently better serves the people and God.

The I mean, just to be very clear, the Anglican Catholic position, and by extension, the Methodist position, because Methodists are Anglicans, is that the Methodist Church, the Anglican Church, all of them. They're not the superior, one true church. They are a group of Christians in their genuine, best effort, attempting to follow Christ in the most proper way possible. Using the seven Ecumenical councils using the seven sacraments. We are Catholic up until the end of the eleventh century.

Eleventh century. A pope came in who was saying stuff that was like way wrong.

I would argue it started with Gregory the seventh, probably with the Dictatus pape and him coming out and because of a literal political situation, this was not a theological issue. If here's a political.

Question, you're an Anglican, then do you agree with the Anglican Catholic?

I don't agree with the branch.

Can you elaborate on the branch theory?

It's the typical Anglin idea that the Church is split amongst a bunch of different branches.

I think I think that would probably.

Do you think that any of the people who compose the documents and the canons at the seven Ecumenical councils believe that the Church was divided amongst a bunch of different sects?

I don't, well, I I mean orthodox.

Now, could you name anybody that believed that about the nature of the church.

I don't know that I would agree that it was necessarily divided into several sects. And I don't know that my church would agree with that either.

I think, don't you agree with the idea that Protestants are trying their best and whether they're Methodists or whether they're Anglican doesn't really matter.

No, I would say that there are Protestant sects that are is.

The church divided amongst those branches.

Today? Yes?

Okay, did anyone in those seven councils have that idea about the.

Nature of the church.

No, But I'll so don't think that your so, your.

Church is not in communion with those ideas.

My church is not in communicant with the Anglican communion. We're we're not Anglicans. We're Anglican Catholics.

We hold our asking you about the first thousand years of Christianity, yes.

We have, but you have a we are in agreement with all seven you're.

Not because you just you couldn't name anybody that had your ecclesiology of those.

I don't think we're having I don't think we're having converse.

Maybe you should get on this conversation and answer the question, because that's what we're doing here today.

The terminology you're using is confusing to me.

Is common no.

Ecclesiology that the people the first thousand years had, Did anyone of them have a branch theory?

Or that the church is divided amongst a bunch of groups.

Again, I don't think we're having the same conversation. I think we got off base at a certain point here.

Does your ecclesiology have any basis in the first thousand years?

Yes, we trace all of our ecclesiology back to the first thousand.

Name a church father or or a council that has your branch the review of the church.

I think branch theory is where we're having a disagreement here.

It's a classic Anglican term for the nature of the church. That's how they justified their reformation position. So tell me one church father or a council that has that position about the church is a very simple question, I I off the top.

So it's a historical Off the top of my head, I can't give you answer.

With Jay's asking him for people out there listening about a historical When when a Protestant claims that I'm with the Church. I was with the Church the same way that the Orthodox were until ten fifty four. Set aside who excommunicated whom for a second. They might agree in abstracted which is why I called it abstract enlightenment rationalism. They might agree in abstracted with what was going on,

Sense, it's got to be one holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

There's a problem for the one mark and the Catholic mark for Orthodox. But Orthodox are actually Christian in so far as they have the seven Sacraments and all of their bishops can be traced back to one of the apostles.

That's what he was asking about ecclesiology.

So when they say, all, I agree with this, but no, no Protestant has the seven sacraments or a bishop.

We have the seven sacraments, I have bishops.

I'm gonna I'm gonna get very reductive and simplify everything to a ridiculous degree and ask questions that maybe are ridiculously rudimentary for the Christian. Do you guys all like when it comes to like Mosaic law, laws of Leviticus, do you all follow those or are they considered archaic? How does the Old Testament play a role in how you live your lives.

And what rules you follow?

We have we're under the New Covenant. We yeah, So what does that mean?

I just don't know, like the New Testament, So the laws of Leviticus, don't know?

Yeah, the laws of Leviticus are specifically made for a very specific period in Jewish history, and there are that Jesus does not come to erase the law. He comes to fulfill the law. So his position in the hierarchy is not as somebody who washes things away, it's somebody who fulfills it. The law was basically a series of things that Jews had to do to stay in communion with God. Christ gives us a different set of rules.

So does that mean that when it comes to all of the old Testament's rules. Are there some that remain based on Jesus said outright, these are still to remain, and these are not to remain. How do you and this is not a question, how do you know which I don't imagine that Jesus addressed literally every single rule or law.

How do you know which ones to fobiably?

Well?

One way we disagree with him is to a degree, not totally, but I mean Orthodox and Catholics agree that there is an oral tradition that's passed on from the apostles. So you have with the written text of the New Testament, which the early Church didn't have a Bible, they had some documents, they had some letters, and they had tradition, and they had the church service, so everything was kind of done.

In a liturgical service way.

You would be getting catechized orally, and then eventually the Bible gets collected in later centuries to be the canon. But so basically, tradition and the Bible lets you know what things carry over and what don't. And that's one of the reasons why the councils have Church law. So church law kind of helps interpret that.

So I have a question. I'm prively pouncing this wrong. But how do you all view who to writes?

Is it the word Anabaptists?

Like, yeah, yeah, how do you how do y'all view them? Are they we.

Would say they're heterodox.

Yeah, they're outside of the.

I think you guys would all agree it's a documinish So this is going to be a kindergartener level. Uh, you know urban liberals argument for the Christians right now? Why I say this, but is it not one of the instructions of God to be fruitful and multiply?

Yes?

Sure, So we're having a conversation over what is the the superior denomination?

Watch look it up. I don't think Mormons count no offense to Mormons.

I think for the purpose of this debate, Mormons are a different area.

They're right, Mormons are nontrinitarian. They don't believe in the same God that we do.

Pentecostals have a two point one fertility rate and hooter Rightes have six to two seven fertility rate. After that, Conservative Protestants one point eight, Catholics one point nine, Orthodox one point nine. Jovah's witness slight less than two Protestants one point five to one point six. Liberal Protestants one point five and unaffiliated Christians one point three to one

I think traditional Catholics are having kids.

Uh, just a cursor research, it is around one point nine two. I thought it was a little higher than that.

There's not much of a difference between our three sects.

Y'all ain't having kids.

Well, if you go to multiply, what are you going with the Tridentine Latin mass It's a very different group.

And I'm going to ask Chchi and know it's going to be above the part I do. I do really quickly. While he's doing that, I want to come back because I will have an opportunity to sit down and think about the branch theory thing. Do you not have a Russian Orthodox, a Greek Orthodox An Orthodox Church in America?

Those are not branches.

It's not at all the same ecclesiology of Anglican branch theory.

That's all I would point out that branch theory is not dogmatic.

It's but I was just looking for whatever it was.

I know. But the Anglican position is that we were part of the one true, Holy Apostolic Catholic Church, and then you're not and then that church.

What's dogma in your church?

How do you determine it the same way that Catholics and Orthodox But we don't have we no longer have a pope, but we are.

Councils of bishops, So how do you determine them?

We have councils of bishops?

Okay, but what's a dogma?

Like?

Do you accept icons?

No? Well, yes, we were not iconoclasts.

Well, but is it a dogma or is it an opinion?

Because most of the same position as the Roman Catholic Church.

No, you don't because Orthodox and a Roman Catholics excommunicate people that don't believe in imagery, and most Protestants historically have allowed it to be something that's an opinion audio offer.

There is a lot of pious opinion.

So is it a dogma or not? That's the question.

I'm not sure exactly what icons. I don't believe that we excommunicate people for thinking that icons, so.

It's not a dogma, and thus many of the basics are not actually settled in.

It depends on the if we're in again, I'm not as well versed on the specifics of the councils, but if it's in this first seven councils, we're in the same We're of the same opinion.

But the problem with your ecclesiology is that when there are no leaders, right, I mean.

We have bishops, we have archbishops. I don't know why we keep coming to the.

Bishops that that can trace the lineage, yes, way back to one.

We can trace back to Augustin of Britain, and we can trace back to ball Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Our bishops traced back to the first century a d.

In Britain.

Okay that according to your if you have a totally no, no, it's not a broken lineage. The church remained in Britain even after the Saxons got.

They're identifying as an Anglican Catholic today, yes, or you're identifying as a Methodist.

I'm identifying as a Methodist who is inquiring into the Anglican Catholic Church getting later this year. I mean this is part of the pitch right now, we're having a historical discussion. I am a historian, but we're having a conversation about history right now. So your church recognizes the risk of ballast of Britain. Your church recognizes the risk time.

You're a historian, but you didn't know about branch theory, which is like the number one.

I'm not a religious historian. I'm a historian on medieval historian specifically. So when we're looking at this arista, Ballus is the earliest week can go back with the Anglican Catholic Church because of the union between the churches in Kent andology. No not, I I know that's that's fair.

It's just you're not You're not a faithful representatively both in your church is acknowledgeious?

We don't.

We don't acknowledge your ecclesiology. You understand that from the Orthodox perspective, it doesn't matter if you have a laying on of hands.

Is Augustine legitimate?

If you leave the faith of the church, none of that.

From the Orthodox perspective.

I can't leave the faith the church. That's our position.

I know your position.

I'm saying from our position, our ecclesiology doesn't recognize your ecclesiology, nor does his. They think that Anglican orders are invalid via the other thirteenth.

That's so, that's because that's what's convenient to their theology. It doesn't actually have any sort of I'm.

Saying that either of us recognizes your lineage, and I understand that you think that it's there, But that's why is there.

That's why it all the way back to only.

On the basis of your ecclesiology, and presupposing we haven't lineage.

We know we have an ordination that goes on.

The basis of your ecclesiology.

You understand people out there and need to understand that there there There is such a thing as Apostolic sacramental Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church has wrote on this in two thousand and four and in the nineties as well. We acknowledge that you can call the Orthodox Church's churches with a capital. See, they have bishops, they go back to apostles, they have seven sacraments represented acknowledged by the Church.

They're valid sacraments.

You wouldn't belicit for a Catholic to receive there or vice versa. But there is a shared ecclesiology. What people don't understand and need to about Protestantism. Anglican Catholics are slightly different. They're an exception to the rule. But of all the sects of Protestantism, they don't share any ecclesiology with us. So they'll say, oh, this is a dogma. What's a dogma? This isn't something that traces back to

So we have to just say this.

It's not to be exclusive, but Protestantism is a lay bastardization of the religion. You guys believe in a Trinitarian you have a Trinitarian baptism, baptism in the name of the Father Son, Holy Spirit. So so it is technically Christian. But except beyond that and baptism even in Roman Catholicism can be done by a layman, which is what makes it valid. But other than that, Protestantism is an abstract idea. I like the idea, I like this book that the Roman.

So it's you think we're talking about Protestantism that is a big tense.

You're part of that that domain.

Yes, but the Anglican Protestantism is very different from the Lutheran Protestism, which is very different from the reform projects.

Was my original point, right, there's not actually any clear unity there. It's all over the place.

No Protestant is going to tell you that there is Protestant unity.

Thank you.

They're going to tell you protism. No, no, it doesn't.

Council and I see you guys must be one holy Catholic and apostology that does those four marks has a very specific.

Doesn't mean that we have to be in communion with one another.

Obviously, it means you have to have those marks.

We have bishops, we have the sacraments, we have the history.

It's bishop td takes a bishop. He claims to be one.

I don't know who TD Jakes is.

Woman the black.

He's the black modalist preacher who says he's Bishop td Jakes.

The bishop doesn't sound like he is.

Okay, but you're a bishop.

Your church has My church has bishops because they can trace their ordination back to August.

The seventh time the question has been asked and he's answered the exact same thing.

Because he's but he's not understanding that you're not.

Going to get you.

Guys aren't asking a question that makes sense. Why why do you have ordinations? Because we do?

Okay, Okay.

So I think there's an interesting view between the three of you and what a superior denomination would be. And it's largely about what you think to be true to the religion as opposed to what the religion does and what it's its adherents do.

I I And that's fine.

I'm not saying I don't want to diminish that, because obviously that's extremely important to know that, to know the truth and and and you know the history of things. But from my perspective, I take a look at the adherence to the really and what they're doing and whether they can actually follow what they're being told to do,

The problem is Gandhi. Gandhi said the same thing. He said, if I ever met a perfect Christian, I would go be You don't. There's some validity to the proposition by a lord and that you judge a tree by.

I got my point is this? So I looked up the fastest growing denominations. The Independent Network of Charismatic Christianity is the largest growth, apparently, followed by Pentecostal churches. Good God, Pentecostals have like between three to five percent growth.

You understand the inverse proportionalism at work there though. It's that they're small, so they can grow really really fat. If the town's got one hundred people and it gets two new people, it just increased its population by two percent. Catholic also Pentecostals. It's terrifying.

Also the the way the debate is framed, which is not bad, but superior begs the question of like what standard, Like what do you what's the metric for judging?

What makes it suppear?

I would argue the superior, like, the superior religion is the one that brings the most people to salvation.

Yeah, well, but maybe what's maybe truth is first and foremost I think for most of us or all of us here. Yeah, that because we assume that the true religion will bear the fruits that go along with what's true first and foremost. So just having numbers isn't necessarily an indicator of the true religion, because you can have a lot of people who convert to a false religion or who think that they're converting and it's really just

So to be fair, I want to make sure of the numbers, right.

I just I just looked up Catholic to make the point about inverse three point nine million people in twenty twenty three became Catholic, whereas Pentecosta was fifty nine fifty six thousand. So yeah, it's correct, And I'll look up the other sex as well, because likely the same thing for for Orthodox they're much larger, so the percentage wise is going to be smaller. But I guess my ultimate concern is the initial point of the question of superior religion is I think, as you put, who brings people

Then they're not going anywhere.

But there's also the fact that, I mean, largely among all of your sex people are not having kids at all, or I should say they're having kids, but they're having not enough, so you can keep converting, but eventually there's no people.

I mean, where where does this ultimately go?

Fair metric in some political sense, but it's also soteriologically who goes to heaven or not. It's a bit of a crass metric. We don't we should be having lots of kids. And obviously Roman Catholicism is marked as the only solidified version of Christianity on earth that stayed against contraception after the Anglican l Ambeth Conferences of nineteen ten, nineteen twenty, nineteen thirty, where all the other sects of

This isn't quite true.

If you go to a Tredentian Latin Mass, you're going to see big, big, big families.

But which Day pointed out, But I do.

Think that everyone should, each of the three of us here should have a segment to state.

But you know, some sort of answer to.

The posit if that's cool, Like, what what's your case for why you are the best version of Christianity, best major side.

I don't hold a position that we are. We just hold a position that you're not. That's incredibly weak and weak.

We have a lot of Mennonites around here and the Rock. They're awesome.

They have animals, They sell food. It's always like real food, no chemicals, no garbage. They got big families and these I looked it up that the main the moderate Mennonite state. There's a shop not too far away twenty minutes we used to go to all the time. They got ice cream and cheeses and it's all this really great stuff.

I love it. That seems pretty cool, you know, so if I was trying to figure.

Out which one.

Yeah, well my point is largely.

Like looking at the world today and the state of things, they make a pretty good argument. You know, don't eat garbage, be with your family, honor like they tend to honor their families, their communities, their parents, They go to church. They maintain this. They have lots lots of kids. Yeah, I know they're small, it's only a few million.

Well, can I address that, because there's two points. It actually addressed the point I was trying to make to you earlier. So, like, if you go back to the early Church, there was a group called the Arians, and the Arians believed that Jesus was a creature. But the Arans were also very into morality and pushing morals, so they were at least outwardly speaking moral kind of like Jose this as you could say. But Arians had apostolic succession, but they lost the church and the faith even though

To be fair, though, I would argue that in those time periods, people were more likely to live in practice and worship as the Hutter rights.

Do you know the church which is liturgical worship that you see with icons and incense is literally out of the Old Testament worship with that you mentioned earlier, like the levitical laws. The church adopted all of those, many of those ceremonial things like having the you know, the priests decked out the way he is with having an altar. Nope, like typically speaking, Baptists don't believe in an altar for the purpose of the Eucharistic offering, right, so Baptists believe

Everything he just described as what early Church Catholics did applies to Okay, it doesn't. I don't think he knows what Anglican Catholicism is.

You didn't know the basics of Anglican ecclesiology.

I'm not aware of a non dogmatic a.

Very well known thing. You're not.

It's your common doctrine of ecclesiology.

You didn't know it. You're not gonna lecture me on Anglican.

Also, don't. We also don't hold to the thirty nine articles as dogmatic.

Because there's not dogma.

As we showed a minute ago, the marks of the marks of natural religion qua religion are are really important here and they do set off a kind of rift where the Protestants are alone.

They're they're a voice crying in the wilderness, and we have to acknowledge them. That's what I tried to acknowledge at the very beginning, the basic marks of religion. Even the Pagan Greeks had some of these. You would say Buddhism doesn't, Protestantism doesn't, but even some of the Polytheists religions do. They have things like smells and bells. Having an altar is something from even pagan Greek religion. But but for for incremental Jews. The Jews, Jews had them right.

Sacramentals sacrifice, blood, blood sacrifice, which really from Judaism to Christianity became sacrament precepts, the you know, daily things you have to do. What are the five precepts of Catholicism, assasserdotal order.

Or ritual or what we call what we call liturgy.

These are things that are lacking in Protestantism. I'm not saying this to be rude or exclusive, but when you're dealing with what I actually say makes the Roman Catholic faith the superior form of Christianity is at the first ecumenical council ever, which was Nicia, where we defined the most important stuff about the Trinity. There were four marks of the Church laid out that Christ promised us the Church would never defect. It would be this way until the end of time. It would be one. So there

Once again, we acknowledge and hold the First seven Councils, but you don't.

As I showed from the Seventh Documenical Council, you fundamentally reject the thing that that council was about.

You said, it's audiopera.

They say you're excommunicated if you don't accept images, So you don't accept the seventh.

In theory and name.

What are you?

That was what you said.

If I said that we if we.

Have dogma, you don't know that these terms, I.

Said, okay, No, if I said that we don't agree with the Seventh Council, then I misspoke because.

Of no, you said that.

I asked you if it was dogma meaning you're excommunicated if you don't believe in images, and you said no, we don't believe that, then you don't believe this the council because it does that.

It's a simple point.

Because we don't excommunicate people for not as you don't have ecclesiologyesiology. But listen, I was gonna bring I want to bring in another.

We got another denomination.

Who's got some words for you, Warpeg with a super test saying Baptists don't pray to middlemen and call them saints, and we don't pay for our salvation by giving Rome our coin. Long live American Independent Baptists.

What say, y'all, that's got to be a joke, Rock, Yeah, that's so.

In First Timothy, for Paul says to Timothy, be good, Timothy, because you will save those around you. Okay, does that mean that Paul thinks Timothy is the Savior. No, Timothy is participating in by cooperating with God, helping and being a conduit of grace to those around him in the same way Mary and other Saints are not God. They're conduits that pray for us and help us, exactly the way Paul's talking to Timothy.

If you've ever asked your your buddy to pray for you, I'm going through something that's that's the Saints thing is absolutely retarded. Uh when when Protestants spurg out about this, it's it's literally asking the saints in heaven to pray for us.

They're they're closer to God.

It's the church triumphant rather than the people that if I ask you to pray for.

Me, you're still a church militant. It's it's a closer prayer to get I'm just still confused on why icons are any show.

Okay, but I don't want to because let let's just let's just we have icons, have icons.

We have icons. If a church did not, If a church you're missing the icons, you not be recognized as a church.

We we've, we've we I don't want to go in circles on that over and over and over again with everyone saying the same thing.

So I have a question. I got a question. Do each of you think you will meet each other in heaven or no? Yes?

My church does.

Well. I guess it's true if you think that, right, If it's more liberal, does that I get true?

It's not liberal. We are.

It's a liberal position.

It's not liberal liberal and a different saying you're a trinitarian, you're a trinitarian.

I'm a truticized sacraments audio.

My apostolic succession goes back just as far as yours and yours.

All you've done is a start your position.

So question just haven't rejected, You haven't actually rejected.

I'm gonna.

I've already showed you twice.

We go, we gotta. I'm kidding, don't actually you you have You have said, you have said that.

You even't understand the arguments I'm making.

TikTok.

Your argument seems to be and you restate the argument. Your argument seems to be that if somebody doesn't have icons in their house.

Yeah, okay, no I didn't. That is so dumb.

That is you're not iconically.

Do you think these two gentlemen will meet you in heaven.

We don't make personal judgments on people's destinies. All we know is that we believe that the Orthodox Church is the arc. It is the mystical body of Christ, and so it's our duty to tell people to join it. We can't say what God will judge at the end of time and at the grade, So let's.

Put it this way.

Outside of them individually, you think it is, it is less likely that people who don't follow your religion will will find their way less likely.

And then and then how do you guys view it?

Catholics highly similar, almost identical view. We do believe you have to be in communion with Rome, but there are exceptions like baptism by desire.

Does everyone agree that the Holy Land belongs to Rome?

Rome depends on how you define Rome.

I think parts of the Holy Land along to Orthodox Orthodox ord Our Church is the third largest landowner in Israel, so technic Jerusalem patriarch, it would probably be the best claim.

In fact, I was half kidding. It was a joke from Seamus when over the Israel Palestine debate.

Ye belongs to Christians.

I mean there was at one time in the Middle Ages it was a Byzantine it was it was part of the Business Empire, so it was at one point a Christian colony, so to speak.

Yeah, this is there's a chat here. I'm gonna read that's that's I guess somewhat insulting to me.

This h Bros Says this was always the problem with Tim hosting the debate. You know what's going to turn into something something he brings up with no epistemic foundation. Uh my view, it's kind of like, yeah, probably because I don't follow any of these religions or or I do believe in God. I guess theist is probably the best word, not deist.

But if.

If I can't be convinced, if you can't convince, you know, if you find somebody you're like, yeah, they believe in God, it's like, okay, here's why we're correct. If it's esoteric and hard to understand and you can't easily explain why your religion is correct to someone like me, and how do you convert people?

But a Muslim that's a Muslim market. Muslims will say our religion is true because it's simpler. But then when you get into the religion, you realize, oh, actually there's a million hadiths that you got to learn, and it's really complex.

I'm not I'm saying, how do you convince someone who doesn't know about the ecumenical councils and all of that stuff. So I hear I hear a lot of very esoteric terms that I'm like, unam sanctum.

I don't know what that is.

But Jays, I'm not trying to be evangelical right now, Jay is not. None of us really are trying to be evangelical, because when you bring everyone into a room, the Catholic and the Orthodox are going to be debating

Saying I think it's probably like eighty five percent Christian of different denominations that watch.

Okay, yeah, well fair enough.

But then you havestually you have to ask which which version of Christianity? To the eighty five percent that are already convinced correctly that Christianity is true, you have to say, which of the competing sex Orthodoxy is. We would say a much much, much much closer have the foremarks of the church and and can trace there the practice of the religion today all the way back to our Lord handing the keys to Blessed Peter. That's that's what we would say, if we're kind of putting it in broad

See with with recently with the new pope.

He's from Chicago and a lot of Chicago jokes. But there was another cardinal who had made comments about supporting the LGBTQ community.

I forgot.

He was the guy from the Philippines, and there was big concern over his views on overtly political cultural political issues. And to me, I look at that, I'm like, how how could there be truth in an ever evolving political climate that tries to adhere to politics.

Well, that's the biggest problem with Catholic Church historically is it's very intertwined with politics, always has been.

My personally, my opinion is that the Catholic Church is trying to maintain as large a base as possible, and so you end up with people like Francis and I forgot the name of this guy, this Filipino guy who said something like all these gay websites, I mean literally gay websites, not insulting them, we're.

Pregnant vat.

Oh no, there's like pink News.

I think it was in like LGBT Nation or whatever. We're saying like, this is the good guy, he should be the pope because he was saying things like it's time to recognize gay marriage or whatever, or like things like that, going beyond what Francis had said with blessings.

The Vaticanistas all said that this is what between him and the Cardinal of Bologna and some of the other far left cardinals that were considered papabularly popable at the last conclave last month. This is specifically why they weren't selected, even though they're considered most to pabaly, because we tried this with Francis, and it's true. It's I would never deny as probably one of one of France's is the

Since a little bit. It's like we're a Vatican too.

And what they're actually finding now and the boomers and the dinosaurs in the cardinal it are finding to their chagrin, is that they're they're really mad about it. France has hated it. He said, these people have psychological problems. They like to go to the Latin mass, they like to go back to the mass of the ages too.

That's this is what I see in the trends as well, that we're finding that gen Z, younger gen Z, not older gen Z, are finding faith in Jesus Christ.

That that's that That polling was not a nomination all.

It was just they were saying it the men are leaning more conservative, and then, uh, you know, I suppose it's a it's a it's a factor, and that Catholicism is so big and when the pope, you know, when the pope passed away and they were choosing the new pope, it's the biggest story in the world, so I can understand it. It just feels like they're lying to people to try and build up membership numbers.

That's what it feels like.

When to get into the lies of the Roman Catholic Church, this is not this is not some time that his church told the world that Constantine gave them the entire Western Empire.

To be clarify, I'm not saying this of Catholics.

I'm saying that that the current leadership seemed to be their political strategy of we need more converts, so let's say what we have to say.

Again, and my church is doing the opposite thing. We separated from the larger church because we felt that they were doing that.

Again, separating makes you not a part of that thing.

Sure was.

So the the point that I raised earlier about the papers.

Let's let's move on, Papa, we didn't separate.

We believe they left us.

And we believe they left us.

That's why I did an internal critique WHI you don't understand, But no.

You didn't make your was veiled in esotery. We don't say communicate, I.

Guess language the basically make your point on.

So the the issue with when I'm sonctum all the way up to the Syllabus of Errors in the eighteen hundreds, where you had to believe in the temporal power and supremacy the Roman bishop to be saved. It was mandated all that time for those centuries to be necessary to be saved, which the Vatican no longer believes for salvafic purposes. They might theoretically still believe it, who knows, but I think Vatican too contradicts that with the de Christianizing principles.

At an intense level.

And that's not all totally the fault of Rome or just power seeking. You had the collapse of the Roman Empire, which led to the vacuum that allowed.

The papacy to step in.

But by the time that we get to Dictatus Pope, just a couple of things that we have in this document. The pope alone can use the imperial signa insignia. All princes in the world must kiss the Pope's feet. This is the only name in the world. He alone may depose all emperors. He alone may confirm all bishops. The Roman Sea has never aired and will never air unto the end of time. The Roman Church is founded by God alone. The Roman Church alone can call itself universal.

What explained Vatican two.

So this is the council in the nineteen sixties that was called by John the twenty third, originally to update to make the Roman See and the Roman Church more amenable to the world. Ajornamento was his terminology, to open the doors and let the world into the Church.

You would you agree with that assessmentor no?

No, So Vatican two was I mean, it's true that it was all. It's true that it was called by John the twenty third. But what happened at the end of Vatican One in the eighteen seventies is the frank Opression War interrupted it. Vatican one is famous. If we look at both of the last two councils of the Roman Catholic Church, Vatican one of two, they're both vastly misunderstood. The reason Vatican one is vastly misunderstood is because the

Of it was like a meeting.

Was all of these ecumenical count council, which means that it was a full council of the Church called dinamper not in amor no, no, it was.

The first seven were called by emperors, some more were called by Emper's Council of Florence. Was but an ecumenical just means that Ecumenical Council just.

Means that it's all the world, all the bishops of the world.

Vatican one concludes, suddenly getting just to what the power of the pope is, which made it gave it a lopsided look our ecclesiology. Afterwards, Vatican Two needed to be held to get to what the power of the bishops were once we started getting more liberal popes like John the twenty third and Paul the sixth, who are the two popes alive during Vatican Two in the nineteen sixties,

He was not. He and Ronner together changed the agenda from finishing what Vatican one was supposed to do lay out the power of the bishops, to what he called a jornamento updating the Church doing doing essentially liberal things. Now, the documents themselves are are not are not bad. The documents themselves are insinuitive. Yeah, I read some of the documentary. Yeah, once I get done.

Yeah, the documents themselves are insinuitive of a more liberal position, and they were intentionally written in such a way that they would be that they could be weaponized.

Later.

Lots of the Council fathers that were Rhnoites admitted this, things like, you know, what's our relationship to be with the Muslims? Jay Jay made reference to this earlier, what's our relationship to be with the Hindus?

And it sounded more liberal.

Really, what they were doing was quoting things from Pope Pious the tenth, a very based older pope. They're quoting even from medieval popes who acknowledged things like, technically speaking, the Muslims are monotheists. Technically they're one of the Western religions. Technically they they worship the one True God, but they worship the one True God in the false way.

Trads, you know, rad Trad's orthodox.

Everyone gets worked up about this, but it turns out that this is a very very old medieval term that the Church has.

The same for Hinduism, because the Vatican too says the same as they they believe. They believe not about Hindus, Hindus, not moss Hindus.

Okay, read what it says about Hinduss.

In Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery and explore and express it.

How do you explore the true mystery of God?

You can explore what you're looking for, explore Christianity.

It's absolutely don't explore.

Christianity and Hinduism.

They seek release from the trials of present life through ascetic practices and meditation and recourse to God in confidence.

I agree, all that's bad, but you miss so it's bad my uncle Remus. Wait wait, my uncle Remus believes dogs like your uncle can fly.

No, this is your dogmatic statements that are supposed to provide clarity. Right, they need to be interpreted by you because are ambiguous.

No, No, are they clear or ambiguous? Perfectly clear? They're Hindu?

Will you just said it was bad? It was bad? Wait? Was it clear or bad?

You finished?

Jail?

I'll go after you're done.

They have recourse to God.

God will do the same thing. So just again that we have said of colection irrelevant. What that's a direct object, that's a genetic facis object genetic fallacy to say that because it is you just said, I don't know, so appealed authority, appealed authority and genetic fallacy. Other fallacy. They believe you're King of fallacy record say they believe you're lying? You added that explode? Where does it say they do that?

Read?

It says that they seek release, and they have recourse to God in confidence and the seek they have recourse, No, and have recourse. They seek and have recourse?

Okay?

And what he say and recourse and recourse?

What does that mean?

Recourse they have? They seek in.

They cantafidence and love in God. I'll speak once he's done. So what in the Amatican two documents.

That I was very hones By the way, it's a genetic fallacy.

Can I see the book?

Yeah?

Yeah, read the sentence here, let me read it again for you. In the relations is going to keep it.

In the religion of Hinduism, people explore the divine mystery, explore thank you.

I just said that.

It doesn't mean they found to repeat each word after I say each.

What have you said? Ascertained? If they said ascertained, we'd have a hard time.

So he doesn't want me to read the whole quote because he knows the the difference.

In Hindu God, it is very real.

They have recourse to God in confidence and love.

They start the sentence over, they seek Jay thinks that the sentence said that the Hindu's ascertained, heaven ascertained.

It says that through exploring it. But you said it was a bad statement earlier.

No, no, no, I said, no, no, it's not that's from read the document. I'm saying that it's very easy to misinterpret if I say, mine, my dear old uncle remus.

Why why do we need you to interpret the document? You're saying, why do we need you to interpret the doctas you to interpret the doc the logic professor keeps making fallacies.

Let me read what I thought.

Why do you need to interpret them?

Let me read it.

There's a paragraph before that one I want to read. I want to I just want to read the full paragraph. Or actually this is part of the full paragraph. It says, throughout history to the present day, there is found among different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life. At times, there is present even a recognition of a supreme being, or still more of a father. This awareness and recognition results in a way of life

Thus, in Hinduism, people.

Explore the divine mystery and express it both in the limitless riches of myth and the accurately defined insights of philosophy. They seek release from the trials of the present life by ascetical practices, profound meditation, and recourse to God in confidence and love. Buddhism, in its various forms, testing costs to God to the essential inadequacy of this changing world.

Yeah, this is our perfect liberation in hindu and.

Real quick, I do want to read this little bit. I didn't want to read the one paragphy. There's a little bit more that I think is interesting.

You already said it's bad.

It goes on.

Again another fallacy at hominem fallacies.

It actually says here we have im mute, but immediately.

Follow because he's calling out, I'm calling out the logic professor.

I just want to point out that by and okay, sorry, sorry, but immediately following this parer, what says the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and wholly.

In these religions.

It is a high regard for the manner of life and conduct conduct, the precepts and doctrines, which, although differing in many ways from its own teaching, nevertheless often reflect array of that truth which enlightens all men and women. Yet it proclaims it is in duty bound to proclaim without fail Christ, who is the way the truth in life in Him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself. People find the fullness of their religious life.

Thank you.

That shows contradiction. No, that doesn't help you.

I actually agree with with the Catholic view.

It's basically saying the way I interpret that, it's saying Hindus and Buddhists are looking through a keyhole and seeing these fragments that they're not quite understanding properly and if they were to adhere to Jesus Christ and find the way.

The problem, the even liberals at the Council, problem is that only written by John fourteen, Jesus says that He's the only way right, the truth in the life. But I understand that the problem is that you cannot. It says in the religions of Hinduism and Buddhism, men find love in God and they find they seek lo the know it says they find it. They believe they fine phrase says seek it. Then it says they find it.

Just like I said.

Read it again, just like it says Muslims adore the one God. Well, well, Muslims are different because the religion, No, they're not.

Do they believe religion? You believe?

Do they believe in one God or multiple? They believe in monos the Bible teach. Does the Bible teach the Trinity or Monotheism the Trinity? But so the Muslims don't believe in the God of the Bible.

You know that?

Do you know what the sense reference dichotomy?

That?

Okay, I have a question.

So if you understand what sense referenced dichotomy, okay, we can be referring to the thing.

Does Jesus describe it as yellow?

And we're still reserting to say that the Pharisees misunderstanding this reference.

Does Jesus think that the Pharisees accurately worship the Father?

No, of course not.

Then then that undoes your argument, un does your Muslim lane Because you said you understand the sense reference dichotomy. Explain how by sense ans risk affirmative and by reference it would be a negative answer. We can be referring to the same thing. If you think Cleveland doesn't and I think.

They disprove your sense reference argument, and we're not that you want to just prove your sense the question, I can disprove it by Muslims sense reference. Do Mormons believe in Jesus? No, but Mormons don't believe. Do they use the term Jesus?

No, yes, they're not use the terms absolutely, Mormons use the term Wait, wait, wait, norm.

Mormons believe Jesus is I'm the one guy that hasn't been interrupting. So Mormons believes that there is a historical Jesus. He believes that he that that Mormons Jesus is not the son of gods.

I know what they believe religion.

So just like Muslims, if they say I believe in the One God, it's the quantifier shift fallacy.

No, that's just the quantity that's true. But that's what the document is. The quantifier shift fallacy. Then that undoes what what does that mean?

What does that mean?

So it's like if I say I have one mother, you have one mother. We all have one mother, therefore we come from the same mother. It's a quantifying shift fallacy. So one God, what we all believe in, one God, Therefore it's the same God. Vatican two is using the quantifier shift fallacy.

Read the line.

Read the line that you think is false definitively, because there are no definitive statements you've read that are false.

Notice that seeking, searching, exploring need. It was just retarded.

Just retard.

The quarts shift fallacy is retarded, I think.

Okay, guys, guys, no claim that there's something false you just read. It is retarded.

Okay, let me, let me.

Let's written by liberals. I gave you that it's written by liberals. But it's supposed to clarify. So the paper does the job of clarifying. But it's written by liberals, and we need him to interpret it for you don't need me to interpret anything. I'm defending against an attack that you're making. That's that's common miscar.

One true God, living and subsisting in himself.

Yeah, yea fallas with two bargaining dogs.

Every time Muslims claimed how about this, Muslims claim to believe in one.

It doesn't say it says they adore. It doesn't say they claim.

Muslims the words now they adore the sense reference dichotomy.

Right, okay, wait, wait, wait, hold on, I want to read this.

This is important.

It's as the Church also has a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one living and I'm not I said, I'm not done, the creator of having an earth, who was also spoken to humanity. They endeavor to submit themselves without reserve, to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God's plans and whose faith Muslims eagerly linked to their own, although not acknowledging him as God. They venerate Jesus, a prophet,

Alms, deeds, and fasting. It.

It does seem like they're saying, as far as I can tell, Muslims are worshiping the same God.

Yes, well, yes, this is This is a community college primer on intro to religions and.

How you couldn't get quantified ship.

It's in your Islam is literally one of the three monotheisms in Western religion.

Is it trying? No, It's not the God of the Bible.

According to you, I said, the Bible God is the Trinity. No, yes, you did. Well, of course you don't think. I think the Bible God is the Trinity.

Then the Muslims don't worship the same God because of the quantifier shift fallacy.

The Muslims don't worship the same God. Doesn't say the same God as US books says.

They do, thank you, thank you.

They don't worship the same.

God, Muslim, Are you serious?

What's going on? Heresion?

They worship God who is living and subsisting in the same marciful Almighty Creator.

No, you said the same God as USU US. It doesn't say us.

Also, it doesn't say us. Are you serious, dude?

Muslims worship how many? How many gods do Muslims worship? Say jay dire? How many gods do Muslims worship?

Worship?

How many do they worship?

By the way, one or two or three? I don't believe in generic monotheism. That's a that's a word that.

It's the distinction.

I also don't agree.

I believe it's the quantifiership fallacy.

One thing you tell me you don't believe that they believe they worship one.

God doesn't matter because the statement is that you said you understood the sense right the god worship. They do worship one true God, tim But what you're equippling over failing is whether or not you're melting the verb and the direct object there are in agreement. You don't need a grammar lesson literally, you do need a grammar less logic professor.

You couldn't do the quantifiership fellaws.

This guy doesn't know that Islam claims to worship one. It doesn't say they just claim it. It says they do it. Says they worship God, not they the Church, the Roman Catholic Church, which has always acknowledged this is the Romance, but since the tenth since two different medieval popes that Muslims want to worship some in some sense the same God, different reference. Grammatically, grammatically, this is very straightforward. They worship God, not a God. They worship God and even the One

I'm not.

Orthodox. I'm just saying what the Church is always taught. That is the That is them saying, couldn't worship our God?

Have you address the argument? Then argument would.

Said on Islam, Tim you would be right to God arguments.

What I can read you from the personal piet Advice the Ten Catechism that he says the One True God.

Doesn't represent okay, guys, guys.

And it doesn't represent okay. Where it doesn't represent.

Okay, guys, guys. The conversation is not advancing, and one questions years it's I think it's actually been pretty pretty pretty good.

Actually, what what I interpret from that is that they were trying to say there is one true God, and even in that regard, they're saying other religions are seeing it improperly and doing it wrong, like looking like the argument is you look through a key hole.

I think that's what it's saying.

It's saying that Muslims are looking through a hole and they're seeing something tiny and they're not doing it right.

Hindus are looking through a different hole.

So I I think the argument of the of the of Vetiicanto is there is only one true God.

Everyone else is looking at it wrong.

Written by Jesuits liberal, So now their church created the Jesuits bad again, that was on that So from the orthodox person, yes, the Jesuits are from the flesh. From the complained about them and said they're too liberal. Yes, that's that's a well known Catholic. Catholics can Catholics can be too liberal and it's prodience Episcopal the Yeah, they have an ecclesiology. Stay we also have.

I got a question.

Trendsliberal. It doesn't mean that they're Protestants. Well, you also expelled them because they were liberals.

It's the one thing that an agree on is that the Episcopal Church is the inferior church.

The Episcopal Church sucks.

Do you all agree?

Yeah? Yeah, for sure.

Sure, so I want to I want to highlight too that I think Tim will have to admit this that post Vatican Two, we can see the actions of the Papa, see how they interpret this document, because they in many cases literally will go pray in mosque towards Mecca. The sixteenth did it. Also, John Paul the second did it. Uh, excuse me? A saint and Francis both did this where they went to the moss. They reverently prayed towards Mecca.

The way that they're not dogmatic.

That's Vatican is not dogmatic.

No, No, Vatican two is dogmatic. The Pope's going in and praise stupid expresses. It expresses their faith.

That's of Constantinople.

I think I think he's heretic. I don't have a problem saying his heretic. Okay, but you can't say that. You can't say the pope's a heretic.

Uh, Francis Francis was a material heretic. We don't know yet if he's a formal.

No one judges the first sea, do you.

No one has judged the first Sea. Yet who cares you're judging it now?

Cardinals in seven fifty says that lady does not have the right to judge the bishops and the sea.

Not judging him.

That means you just said.

A material heretics a formal judging.

I know what it means.

Of course you don't have authority, but it also means that you don't have It says that you have to submit with docility to the to the rulings of the ordinary teaching.

Of course that's not it.

You don't get to action, then you don't get in conformity with the liberal view, with the liberal misinterpretation.

You can't just talk over it.

Did the council judgement the intentional liberal misinterpretation of those passages you read which I'm interpret Wait wait, tim interpreted correctly so he can by popes and and I'll admiss.

I'll just say this, Uh, that which I read is more convincing to me.

Of the Catholics.

Well, I would agree, if not for the fact that it says Muslims worship the same God. It doesn't say same God. Yes, the word saying literally the one God. It does rammatically making up who's the creator?

To wait, who's the creator?

Does it say same? The creator says they worship God. People out there this passage is the creator.

The microphone if no one else, if people keep talking, Uh, I think it's correct.

Okay, but I think I think Muslims do worship God.

They don't.

They don't, but our God.

So he already admitted and so that says capital G God. That's why this is convincing to me. And you guys aren't being convincing.

Again God, if it said a God, I agree with you, but it's because I I think believe there's a God besides God.

I think there is.

That's the sense reference dichotomy right there. So you believe there's another god besides God. So the popes pray in You just said you believe they worship You're what I said God?

I said. If if it said they worship a god, as is important, they believe they're worshiping a God who is similar.

No, no, no, not, they believe they really do. Remember that's them. Wait wait, wait is an argument?

Now?

Your text?

It's your text?

Yeah?

You literally, I know it's I know it's my text. You literally what would make all the difference is if they said that the Muslims worship a God rather than a God. You're making reference to the sense reference ecotomy by saying a no.

That's why you can answer.

You're not understanding what I said, or you're not understanding I'm not deliberately misrepresenting anything I'm saying, and you don't understand what I said.

This sense reference dichotomy literally covers whether God or.

Sense referenced dichotomy. This is grammar.

Do you know what it is? Yes?

Okay, guys, this is grammar. It's a grammatical tandation. Tim understands it's the same God.

He okay, he is not not say it does worship God appital g God.

I'm going to quote my friend Jay Dyer who says that this passage says same God, not one God.

Who's the creator?

Tim, same God would be Tim, who's the creator.

The same God would be inxical.

So why are you being dishonesed? You're being dishonest?

Tim, literally, come on, man, come the thea he can't answer, I understand, understand the philosophy and.

Melting down and coping because he can't answer create at all.

You made heretic twenty minutes ago, and I agree with Muslims.

Worship the same God as us would be buying. Indexical means that it says if he used the word same.

It would you want the attributes.

It would be heresy.

And that's why I said it wasn't natural theology. But it says that they worship one God, then it would be correct. It says they do worship one God.

They worship God who is one, living and subsisting in himself, merciful, arm Almarighty and the Creator.

Sure I'm breaking the Muslim view. I don't know. Again, you know what if he said just a God, they'd beading the Muslim viea.

But they say lumin Gentium sixteen says they adore the one God. That's a term of worship, the one God. They adore the one God, and said this in his personal catechism.

And too medieval.

You could take issue with the Roman Catholic position. As an Orthodox, that's what you should do, but you can't say Church has change them. The document that's contradicting is the argument.

We don't care about.

The document doesn't contradict Catholicism. It might contradict Jay Dyer or no the.

Document itself contradicts what you said earlier.

Does Catholicism hold that Islam is the same as Christianity? Do you know what a precept is? What a logical axiom is.

Logical axioms are pre scriptural, so literally the sense referenced dichotomy or the concept of proportional cause.

These are things which are which.

Pre so sophiety to explain something you don't understand. No, you didn't know that. You didn't understand this. Five fallacies in a row. You said the same. That would be they text, because that's what the argument of the text is. They adore the one God in Lumit genty of sixteen.

In order argument to be cool, they have to not be a proper Now.

We're gonna have to We're gonna have to want everybody know they don't.

I believe that is a is a PI that testing it is he muting everybody. I don't, okay, I don't know what y'all are arguing at this point.

I just I just hear noise is here yelling.

Well the moment, the moment anyone talks someone else, everyone else's talking. And then when I was asking a question, you guys started having a different debate at the same that's fair.

That's a fair point. Can I say what I perceive the argument to me is somebody who's kind of outside of it.

Let's just let them let him say it.

And then what I'm hearing from Jay is that that passage reads that Muslims, by what the passage says, not literally, Muslims worship the same God that we do. Because it says they worship God capital G proper noun. And then that is followed up with a description of the Christian God. You are saying that this is correct because they do believe they worship the same God as us. Therefore it's not incorrect. I would argue if it said they worship

There's another quote that answer, So yeah, read that next quote.

Please don't interrupt, Luminingentians. I have a thought on this.

So there's another statement beyond Nosratate three, which is lumin Gentium sixteen. It says the plan of salvation includes those that acknowledge the Creator. First among whom are the Muslims. They profess the faith of Abraham, and together with us Catholics they adore.

The One True God that refute.

You anyway.

With us topics, together with us for future entire argument, the last twenty Together with US Catholics.

Okay, afterwards, Okay, together with us who are they referring.

To muslim and Catholics? Okays and Christians Catholics.

So the Catholic with us, this is this together with.

US Catholics. What are you talking about?

Okay, So I'm I'm gonna tell you.

I'm gonna say this right now, guys, to Orthodox and Anglican Catholic. Everything you're saying is convincing me more and more of the Catholic argument because the position that this is taking. Imagine it like this. There's a rock concert an arena, stadium, and Catholics are all let's let's just say, from from the from the argument fromend of this book. Catholics are all looking directly at the stage, and Muslims are in the back behind it, hearing a different, basic,

When I hear that is.

What it's saying is that they're that all of these different religions are looking at they're doing things the wrong way towards the right God, and it's and it's because there is only one God.

This is precisely the Catholic interpretation since Vatican Two. Now, I admit, but very outset that it's written by liberals, so it squints towards more conciliation, which is bad. But we have to say that lumin gensium. Yeah, but after I'm done lumine gensium and the other two sacred constitutions as Vatican too.

Okay, you're using.

I'd be all four.

I'd be all four by the way, muting while other guys are talking, because that that's a really effective way of It's.

Still just yelling, though, you know what I mean.

But yeah, but I could sit here and be quiet. I'm just saying it is the Catholic.

You know, Trump shouldn't have been muted either.

Yeah, agreed, No, as the as the Catholic that there has to be a distinction between monotheism and polytheism on the basis of natural religion. Everyone knows everyone out there who's listening to this knows, okay, there're three Abrahamic religions, which was posited by Lumingensium.

There's Judaism, Islam, Christianity.

That this is you know, community college intro to religions one oh one. There are polytheisms. There are only three monotheisms in the history of the world. Now there's only one correct monotheism, which is posits a triune God. They say that they get this wrong. This is repeated throughout the Sacred Constitutions of Vatican Two that Jews and Muslims, even though they're monotheists, they get it wrong. They don't worship a triun God. This has said countless times in

Well, but he's branding enough.

I'm trying to help you brand. But with regard this is the last name.

Look.

With regard to the polytheists, that's why they always say they falsely claim that they falsely believe, that they falsely search for they seek for.

Okay, So the distinction is monotheist.

This is correct. And everything Tim said there we would agree with, except that from the Orthox perspective we reject the whole idea that there are Abrahamic monotheistic faiths. So even though Muslims might see themselves as that, when we look at the Old Testament revelation, we believe that it is the Trinity explicitly revealing itself in the Old Testament. They don't know the name per se of the word Trinity, but it's Yahweh, his angel, messenger and his Spirit are revealed.

I guess that's the art. That's fair.

That's fair.

Grot real quick, just as just my response is kind of like, let's say we discover like we can make intercontinental ballistic missiles and very powerful ICBMs. The modern American ICBM is one two hundred and fifty times stronger than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima, Nagasaki. It is also possible that there is also true that Indian Pakistan have nuclear weapons that are substantially weaker because they have not yet discovered the means and the capability by which to build a powerful bomb.

So I think it.

Could be said that you may have discovered hidden truths and the true path towards God and religion, and Muslims are effectively using a one killtun bomb when you got a megadun bomb.

That's why I think the argument would be that Muslims are openly rejecting.

So the point is that, like, there are fundamentals that are absolutely essential to have access to God or to Christianity. So to deny, for example, the trendy or the incarnation puts us one outside of the bounds of Christianity at all.

But I agree that, like, look at it this way.

There's a bouncer at a club and he says, if you follow the rules, you can.

Come into the club.

And half the people follow the rules and get let in. The other half says that guy's telling us to go bash the windows out, and they get thrown out. They thought that's what the guy wanted. It's the same guy, but they're doing it wrong.

Well, getting we throw we do throw people out right.

My point is when when Vatican two says they worship God, it's like the bouncer.

Being like, yo, I never told those people to throw bricks at the building. What are they doing?

Well?

The problem is not just worship, but Vatican two uses the term of adoration, which in Klac theology is more specific than just a generic idea of natural theology. Adoration is something that's a specific term for like adoring the Eucharist in Calaic theology. And I would also point out that when my opening statement I mentioned the fact that the Council of v n which is a medieval romancalact theology, which was involved in the crusades.

That attitude today.

That you see here is completely different than the attitude then in the Middle Ages, where it was the abominable sect of Muhammet. In the council they call crusades against the Muslims to protect the Holy Land.

Sure attitudes change, dogma, no, no, how can.

You be the abominable sect of Muhammad?

But now, but now together with us, they adore the once through God.

That's the contradiction to.

M They could be the abominable sect of Muhammad and still worship point.

Oh, they don't even though my references with us Tim.

Jake, can I are these both these are both dogmatic councils from Vatican two. Okay, then dogma contradicts.

Okay, what's the argument.

Dog Okay, guys, guys, guys, that's I got simply and straightforward.

Least. It was also untrue when you said we don't have ordination, but that apparently doesn't matter today.

Well, well, let's aboridation.

Let's go there, let's go there.

It goes back to august How many how many?

How many? How many years was the how many years was the g Hud?

Augustin's goes back to Peter?

Is that? How that?

So the gihot goes from a No, we're we're having a separate debate again. Oh, because I asked a question about how many years was the gi Hud?

You mean from the rise of Islam the literal.

Like Gi had conquests across North Africa, the Middle.

East, I argue, I mean moving westward, it was from it was basically one hundred years, six thirty two to seven thirty two. On the eastern side, it's not quite as linear because there's the immediate Arab move into the north, and then the Turks convert and they come back down south.

Six seven fifty and eighteen years was when.

Battle of tour Is seven thirty two. That's kind of the reversal.

And then there were additional Jihads the eleventh and thirteenth century, two hundred years and so I'm looking at the birth rate for Muslims, which is three point one, as well as the hundreds of years of militaristic conquest under the banner of Islam, And like, how many battles of the Crusades were there? There were a lot, like nowhere near as many as the Islamic she Hod.

I don't think that's true. I think there were a lot more battle It really depends on Howmad fought in seventy eight battles seventy eight alone, there weren't that many in the Crusades as compared to the full total of Islamic she had. There were not as many battles during the Crusades.

Let's see nine battles in the Crusades over two hundred years.

I would argue against that. Maybe nine major battles. Yeah, and how really defining battles, I don't know.

There were eighty to one hundred military expeditions in the first Islam a jihad. Yeah, so in terms of birth rate and expansion, I mean Islam's doing way better.

I'm not saying I'm the missage Spirit.

So I will say Islam. The ability of Islam to move after seven thirty two was largely due to the Turks coming in at a time that could not have been less ideal for Christians. These two were well, thankfully, we were the same at the sign were in conflict. There was a schism that had happened about twenty years earlier.

There was an argument a few years ago, maybe like seven years ago, where a lot of people, including myself, made the argument that the US would become a Muslim nation. No, because Muslims have a substantially higher fertility rate than basically every other group, including Christians, and that combined with mass migration,

In fact, one of the global elite books that I lectured through was Jacques at the Leed's book Brievious Read the Future in two thousand and six. He warned that for the technocratic elite, one of the things they had to be concerned with was the possibility of a rising traditional Christian ethos in the West and in the US.

Think they were really pushing for that.

But Islam has been has had a rough go on the internet, especially the last couple of years. They're losing bad and then a lot of younger people are turning towards Christianity.

So I have a question for you guys, just for all Christians I believe, is it Is it one of the core tenants to go and spread the religion.

Do you guys view yourselves as as doing that?

I would say yes in this current present moment right now, I think in just general.

I think, yeah, I'll talk about that general on large platforms to large groups of people.

Yeah, certainly.

And evangelization sounds different than the in turn of scene squabbling between ethics in Orthodox certainly.

Yeah, I think.

I think, I'm sure all of us try to do that in a different form for in platforms.

I certainly do.

Also, Yeah, I mean, like I said, like Islam is having a hard time because they had a really strong push in the twenty tens online and a lot of people are getting into into Islam. But now a lot of Christians are doing pretty intense hardcore apologetics. Like we had that debate with Daniel Kikachu and e Jaws together at Me and Sam Chamoun on Fresh and Fit. I got millions of views and it was like ninety percent just dominated.

I mean Russell Brand. Yeah, you know, so I in the skateboard.

Community, it's degenerate garbage. Mostly these pro skateboarders have always been scuzzy, drug abusing, Now that there's a bunch of them that are getting baptized. Yeah, I'm not going to single any anybody out, but I was surprised.

To find didn't skating get like the corporations try to take it over, like make it woke, and then people are reacting to that now.

Well, so with skateboarding, what happened was the industry completely collapsed because there's no young people anymore, and the stewards of the industry failed to cultivate a new generation of skateboarders. So what happens then is, as of today, more than half of all professional like all all skateboards active skateboarder, I don't say professional, are over thirty. What happens when the water goes down, it exposes the scum in the reef.

Rage bait.

And so what happens is these companies try to figure out how to sell to whoever they can, and you end up with advertisements or there may be an inverse correlation here that when the company started promoting you know, like men penny be women doing weird fetish poses, and they are it's not a joke. Young guys say, I don't have anything to do with this because scooting doesn't do that. Scooting doesn't and that's growing massively in popularity.

Like I I don't want to have anything to do with that.

I think now we're seeing a lot of young men shift towards Christianity.

That's in the polls.

That may be a good explanation as to why skateboarding is struggling to market itself to your generation, because all the big magazines are basically being like, you know, here's a trends in the queer stuff.

And it's not internal to one culture or another subculture. This is what's at large in the general popular culture is a great reawakening essentially secular humanism.

I'm not the first one to say it.

It's reasonably obvious of ten years into it. Secularly humanism has consumed itself and people are looking for what's perennial and what's true. And it turns out that a lot of young kids are are finding Jesus based and so when they're returning to Christianity, they're looking for what they take to be a based version of it, which is why they're leaving Protestantism in droves and going to.

Greater struct Sure, more and more structure is all I'm saying.

So they're going to Orthodox or twenty twenty four was Roman Catholicism's I think greatest year of re embrace of the church? Pod how many people leave in the Catholicism for every person who joins it, You tell me, I believe it's something I'm not going to tell you.

There's something like six to eight. Yeah, Well, one.

Last year was the best year in the New evangelization, which is what what Jumpaul the second set out to do using media using the self Malaysia.

Well, I googled it and it I'm sorry, I checked GPT did it and it says that Protestants are converting to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

We are.

It should be clear that you dispute a lot. So I did not dispute that. I think you did.

I did not see one hundred and fifty five per parish in from twenty two to twenty three, I said, leaving, that's that's not a good metric.

There's no real good metric.

They say seventy eight percent surge and Orthodox conversions, but again we don't know how the actual hard numbers. Orthodoxy is seeing one hundred and fifty five converts converts per church, of which sixty five are from Protestant backgrounds.

Yeah, I think Protestantism has a major issue right now with first of all, with how divided we are. I don't think that's a good thing. I think that the Episcopal Church, many of the Presbyterian churches have totally lost their way. Oh yeah, and that I mean, that's why Thenking Catholic Church exists. I think Protestants need to really look in the mirror and ask ourselves what the hell we're doing.

Let me let me say this.

When I, when I was looking up different denominations, chet Gptier volunteered unto.

Me that the Episcopal Church was was shrinking.

It's bad.

Like when I when I said, like, list lists of the churches by a fertility rate, it was like, you know, as a possable is shrinking.

All the wolde churches are basically adopting sterility, so they sterilize themselves with their policies, and then they don't have future generations and they die out.

Yeah, the conservative the Conservative Protestant churches aren't as good at marketing. We are not nearly as good at telling people we exist. The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox churches are both very visible. I think that's why you see so many Protestants converting right now. I think if more Protestants were aware of churches like the Anglican Catholics, there would be higher numbers of people converting to the Conservative Protestant churches as well. But we suffer from that problem

Are a lot of churches that fly the Pride flags, even Catholic churches.

Yeah, they're popping up. They tend to be in liberal areas.

And I view that largely as the church is looking at the political views of the community around them, and they're probably saying to themselves, in one year, this church will be a coffee shop unless we get more parishioners.

What do we have to do? Market whatever they want to get?

Woe churches die, It doesn't work.

Yeah, it doesn't. But you know I'll say this too.

He die and the faith dies with them.

And many people have.

Said get what, go broke, But I do believe while that's largely true, there's an inverse of go broke, get woke, in that a lot of companies try to adopt. They try to adopt wokeness is a marketing tactic to try and get but they don't Understan hippies don't have money.

Now it's well, it's a boomer marketing appeal that that was really I'll speak to the Catholic position. It was really popular during an a round Vatican two, and they thought that kids wanted the monkeys music and and long hair and masks and tambourines and.

Ship and they simply didn't.

What they wanted was what's perennial and true and that that's that's really what's Let.

Me let me say this. There's this uh oft quoted study.

You have to look it up where they they told people, come in, it's a it's a study. You're gonna you're gonna ask answer some questions, and then afterwards you get a free T shirt. People came in the first group answer the questions and as they were leaving they were given a free T shirt. They were then on the way out asked how do they feel about their experience. The next group came in answer the questions, were then given a choice between one of three T shirts blue, green, or red.

They then made a choice. They were then on the way out asked how they felt.

The people who were given the choice felt worse soft, They felt regret they picked the wrong color. The people who aren't given a choice went wow, free T shirt, but when they had to choose between the colors, it actually made them feel worse. And this is often cited as a in many insins not all choice actually stresses people out and makes them feel anxiety.

They don't like it.

And so a lot of people, not everybody, but a lot of people really just want to be told what to do. And I've said this before, because there's this mentality United States that being a follower is a bad thing. You want to be a leader, and I reject that. There's a requirement before both leaders and followers. And they try to insult you in modern media if you are just a follower of someone, because you have to be

Not to not to do that. Absolutely be rogue.

No, it's perfectly fine. If you want to say, listen, I spend my days taking care of my family. You take care of the politics I believe in. You do the right thing. Don't screw me over. There's nothing wrong with it.

Modernity is enlightenment, right, a Enlightenment effect. So the Enlightenment was all about individual atimistic liberties which premised were premised on the idea that there's no authority, there's no hierarchy. Hence why they were opposed to church and state monarchy. Monarchy in church yea.

And I will say this too.

One of the debates we have to have in the political arena around religion is that there's this romanticized, fake liberal view that the Founding Fathers believed in this hyperliberal society where anyone could say whatever they wanted.

They had blasphemy laws back then. Even when the Founding father says the right to speech shall not be infringed.

Of course, no one in this room thinks you can go out there and say, you know, and take the Lord's name in.

That would be a crime.

They meant you could go and have political conversations in a pub.

And so when you look at.

The context around the Constitution seventeen eighty nine and all that, they weren't literally saying anyone can march the street to the tombs of thousands of people in block roads. They were saying, if you have a meeting in your city peacefully to have conversations. The government can't shut you down because the crown wanted to shut them down. But these people think the Founding Fathers were a bunch of like liberal atheis no.

Blaspheming.

Eight of the.

Thirteen states had establishments of Christian religions, and the First Amendment to the US Constitution was written assuming that all thirteen would. And what the establishment clause means literally was that Congress and Congress alone shall not make a law respecting a disestablishment of religion. Congress wasn't allowed to.

Disestablish the state legislature established sex of Christianity. That's literally what it means ins And it was a Masonic US Supreme Court in nineteen forty seven in the case called Everson versus Board of Bed that literally reversed the meaning and incorporated the First Amendment.

Today you know of which like Enlightenment, free Masonic values. How do you reconcile Freemasonry with Christianity?

What about freemasonry is in conflict with Christianity?

How about Albert Pike's teachings?

Albert Pike is not recognized as influential by most Masons. His teachings are non essential Freemason.

Yeah, worls and dogmas.

I'll admit I've had my questions because I have run into things.

Dogmas not used in the Scottish right.

No, it is used in the southern jurisdiction of the Scottish Right in the Southern.

So so he has a giant statue in DC, but he's not influential.

He was influential for a number of other reasons. Secularly, what about Mamneroal He was a accomplished ethnographer.

Okay, what about Manley P. Hall? It's he also doesn't count.

Manley P. Hall admitted that he wrote everything that you have a problem with before he became a freemason.

What masons do count?

Well, it depends a lot of talking about with freemasonry. I mean the philo free masonry is the first three degrees, that's it, or.

The philosophy what is not true? There's there's thirty, second, thirty third degree.

There are in the Scottish Right, which is a pellet to freemasonry. It's like getting in there at badge.

Yeah, but I don't care about what your terms are for these different sexs when these aren't they have a naturalistic bent and ethos.

For example, Pike says.

That Pike is irrelevant to me.

He's not.

He's do you have but not to the history freemaks. No, Pike is irrelevant to everything outside of Freemason. Is irrelevant to the history of Freemasonry, general Freemason. Here, who's the one who knows what he's talking about?

It's not an appeal to authority.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is, I'm trying to You're not yourself. Albert Pike is a source. Add No, Albert Pike is a source for the Southern the Southern jurisdiction.

You're telling me that. How about your Themazini? Does he is?

He p two?

No, he's in the Grand Orient Lodge.

Grand Orient, not regular.

So what counts?

Uh? The three degrees of the Craft lodges mainly split between England and the United States. So the York right is that what the York Right, like the Scottish right, is a pellet and is not held in union with all free Masonic ideals.

So and the British Empire did what What was the function of Freemason in the British Empire?

In your view, it was a social club?

Is it a sorry, a speculative Mason?

All Masons are speculative Masons.

No, they're not.

The original Masons were they were, They were stone workers, They weren't speculative free Mason.

And yes, it did originate from operative Masons in the late thirteen hundreds as a Catholic organization which very explicitly held that you must love the Church with God and the Church without.

You're not speculative freemasonry.

All right, it was. It was the origin of speculative free poem, Catholicist poem.

Catholic churches condemned you for centuries.

Seven times, seven different times.

Why why tell me why I know? Why do you do you know? Why?

You know?

Because you know why the pope inside eight? Shut up, I've read the paper. You've been interrupting me while asking because your answers are stupid, Okay.

Not stupid. You don't know what you're talking about this song? And no, do you know why secret?

Because you're acting as.

A seventeen thirty eight inhumanium in humanim mo janus. Yeah, in that one, what was the reason he gets?

Sure to watch Tim kastier Raltz and I at eight pm. Guys were over time, okay, and if we have more time I'd say, let's let's get into Macon.

I'm happy to come back and do masonry.

Let's do another one on the freemake.

Even just from the historical perspective, I think I think he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Well, okay, I think, but you're lying because Albert Pike is very influential.

Albert Pike is not influential outside of the Southern jurisdiction at the Scottish Masonry All right, do you do you want to shout anything up before we go.

Yes.

You can find me at my website Jason Alsos dot com. You can find me on YouTube. You can find me usually the fourth Hower of Alex Jones every Friday.

Uh.

You can find me writing Sam Hid Show, and find me on Twitter.

Yeah.

Uh, my name is Aden Mattis. I'm the host of the lore Lodge History Unhinged and the Weird Bible podcast. I do want to quickly say that the Anglican Church does not necessarily agree with me about freemasonry before I get in trouble for that.

Uh.

But yeah, that's that's where I'm leaving this. You can find me here on YouTube.

Timothy Gordon on Twitter. I'm at timothee Ology t I M O T H E E O L O G Y, and I'm on YouTube as well, Timothy Gordon doing a show called Rules for Introgrades.

Thanks for having us on. This was fun at each other.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the most heated debate we've had.

Who thought We're gonna be back tonight at eight pm for timcast I r L. Don't miss it, Bring your friend friends, tell your grandma. Thanks franking out. We'll see all then