0:01

Since J&K Security Solutions opened in 1987,

0:04

our attention to detail and customer service have

0:06

been our strongest assets. I'm

0:08

President Jeffrey Beckman. We'll always do our best

0:11

to find the most efficient and cost-effective solution

0:13

to every job we tackle. Whether

0:15

it's security for your home or business, installing

0:17

video surveillance, or being able to control your

0:19

garage doors from your phone, we

0:22

can help you feel empowered with simple and

0:24

user-friendly technology. Let's work together

0:26

to secure your home or business. jksecurity.com

0:31

For nearly four decades, JK Security

0:33

Solutions has provided protection for homes and

0:35

businesses. I know firsthand. I'm

0:37

Jeff Beckman, and with my wife Kim, we

0:39

started JK Security Solutions. Our

0:42

attention to detail, service after the sale, and

0:44

product knowledge are the foundation of our success.

0:46

JK Security has routinely been

0:48

recognized as the best of Madison for

0:50

security companies. We expect that trend to

0:52

continue as the next generation our son,

0:54

Jeffrey, takes over as president. Let us

0:56

protect what is valuable to you. jksecurity.com

1:01

The name of the man to

1:03

that god, and they say that god

1:06

came in the version of

1:08

a man and spoke to people. Can

1:11

you elaborate on that? Is that true? Do

1:14

you believe that some humans have

1:17

seen god? Well,

1:19

I mean, we don't think that every

1:22

sort of evangelical or person who claims to,

1:24

quote, see god in a dream necessarily

1:26

has. There's a lot of people who are deluded.

1:29

But we would say that in what we

1:31

call divine revelation, that even

1:33

throughout the revelation to Moses and

1:36

the prophets, in

1:38

the Torah and in the

1:40

prophets, there's multiple cases, many,

1:43

many cases where God

1:45

the Father is not revealed, but he

1:47

does have a manifestation, a face, a

1:50

glory that appears, one like the Son

1:52

of Man, the angel of the Lord.

1:54

And we think that's Jesus. That's the

1:56

logos. So God's son is

1:58

his face, is his form. is his

2:01

glory, is his messenger, is his

2:03

angel, and he does appear. So we would

2:05

say both are true. No one sees the

2:07

Father at any time as Jesus says to

2:09

the Pharisees in John, but

2:11

at the same time Moses went up on

2:14

the mountain and saw the face of God.

2:16

The face of God is the person of

2:18

Christ. So in that sense we think that

2:20

it's true and also not true. Okay

2:25

I understand. Okay that makes

2:27

sense. So essentially Jesus

2:30

is not just, or I

2:33

would say Jesus is not a persona or

2:35

a personality or just a human.

2:37

It's more so the embodiment

2:39

of us being created

2:41

in God's image. No we think he's

2:44

the eternal Son of God. So God

2:46

the Father from all eternity has

2:48

a divine Son and that

2:51

divine Son is the one who stepped

2:53

into time and space to take on

2:55

human nature to save us from

2:57

death and destruction. And so the death, burial,

3:00

and resurrection of Christ destroys the power of

3:02

death and human nature to in

3:04

the end of time resurrect us in

3:07

his image. So Christ is the perfect

3:09

image of the Father and he restores

3:11

what Adam lost in the garden in

3:13

the fall. So he's the new Adam,

3:15

the new man so to

3:17

speak, and we are conformed to

3:19

that by being joined to him in the

3:22

church. Okay

3:24

I actually agree with you as a Muslim because

3:26

I believe that Jesus Christ is gonna return and

3:29

be the embodiment of what a man is supposed

3:31

to be. Right but you don't believe

3:33

in the Son of God. So that's the difference. So

3:35

here's the thing right in

3:37

Arabic the Son of God

3:39

can translate to different things. So I

3:42

may agree with you. Well I don't know. I mean it's

3:44

not, you guys don't believe in the Trinity. For

3:47

example if you're saying like it's a

3:49

literal physical thing like I would disagree

3:51

because I would say a father

3:53

has to carry his son in his

3:56

balls as semen first and then give

3:59

birth to him. by having a sexual intercourse

4:01

with a woman. You got to hold

4:03

on so it's backwards. Jesus wasn't born

4:05

that way, right? So when

4:08

you say son of God, okay, I get

4:10

it. Yeah, that's easily a title you can

4:12

give him because he was born without a

4:14

father, the miracle. So I think if you

4:16

use the title son of God to glorify

4:18

the miracle of him being born without a

4:20

father and God is his father, then

4:23

surely God the father is everyone's father, right?

4:26

Well, that's not but that's not what we

4:28

mean, right? So we believe in the Trinity,

4:30

right? The from all eternity God the father

4:32

has eternally generated his son and

4:35

that that communion is had in the person of

4:37

the Holy Spirit. So from all eternity father, son,

4:39

and Holy Spirit are the one true God. That's

4:42

not what Muslims believe. Muslims reject

4:44

the Trinity. So that's the difference

4:46

there. Right. So we believe in

4:48

like the Abrahamic principle of monotheism.

4:51

But you don't, but you don't though. No,

4:55

no, here's the thing. Monotheism is

4:57

a simple concept. No, it's not worship one

4:59

diet. No, it's not one. Right?

5:02

No, it's not. That's not. That's

5:04

not what monotheism is. Explain it

5:06

to me. Right. So in the

5:08

revelation to Abraham, all three

5:10

persons of the triad manifest.

5:13

So Abraham worships the Trinity,

5:15

not a generic Unitarian God.

5:19

What does that mean? It means

5:21

that that like, if you

5:24

read ironically, I mean, let's

5:26

say, let's say we go to like Genesis 12, 15, 17, 22. In

5:28

every one of those cases where Abraham

5:30

has an interaction

5:38

with God, we see

5:40

not just a belief in a

5:44

Unitarian deity, but we see a

5:46

manifestation or an appearance of God.

5:48

It says in every one of those chapters that

5:51

God appeared to Abraham. That

5:54

appearance is the face of God is

5:56

the person of the logos is Christ.

5:58

That's why Jesus fulfills the promises

6:00

of the covenant to Abraham. So

6:05

in other words, if you go and read those

6:07

chapters, you'll notice that it's not what the Islamic

6:09

account of Abraham is, but rather it says that

6:11

the Logos of the Lord came to Abraham

6:15

and said, I will make you exceedingly great.

6:18

The voice of the Lord came to him. The voice

6:20

there is the Logos, the Word of God. So

6:23

the Word of God, the face of God,

6:25

the Son of God came to Abraham. Abraham

6:28

has a meal with this angel,

6:30

this messenger, this son, this Lord.

6:32

That's Jesus. That's not

6:35

Gabriel, because that Lord, that angel

6:37

is worshipped. So this

6:39

is the real Trinitarian God revealed to

6:42

Abraham. And every time you bring this up

6:44

with a Muslim, they suddenly say, oh, all those

6:46

texts are corrupted. That's all corrupt.

6:48

But the Quran doesn't actually say that

6:50

the texts are corrupted. That's a later

6:52

Muslim argument. The Quran says to check

6:54

the revelation of the Quran against the

6:56

prior revelation. Right. Okay,

7:00

so I have two things to say.

7:02

The first thing is Islam

7:05

comes on a basic, simple basis. Okay,

7:07

it comes on the basis of here's

7:10

a holy book from God. Yeah, but that's

7:12

not actually true. Come on. I

7:14

mean, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm just explaining.

7:16

Hold on, but that's not true. I mean, I've debated

7:18

every, I've debated all the top Muslims. It's not true.

7:20

It's not true. No, that's your belief. So

7:23

give me one. Hold on. So do

7:25

you believe? Hold on. Hold

7:27

on. Have you read Ibn Tamia? One

7:29

second, brother. Have you read Ibn Tamia? We'll

7:32

get to that. No, but what you said is not true.

7:34

What you said is not true. I

7:37

promise you, I will get to any

7:39

question. You know that there are multiple

7:41

schools that debate what the unity

7:43

of Allah is. So it is not true that

7:46

there's a simple monotheism. It's not true. I have

7:48

two things to say about what you said. Okay.

7:51

First one, Islam comes

7:53

upon a simple basis of here's

7:56

a book that is holy and

7:58

complete everything that

8:00

comes before it is

8:02

now considered poetic literature that's not true

8:05

that's not what the Quran says that's

8:07

not true let me tell you

8:09

that's not true the Quran doesn't say that why

8:12

because the only revelation that has been

8:15

preserved in the original language spoken by

8:17

the Prophet is the

8:19

Quran but what you just said

8:21

is not even true the Quran says to

8:23

check the revelation of the Quran against prior

8:25

revelation so that's the same thing on what

8:27

I'm saying directly what I'm saying directly is

8:29

the Prophet that revealed the holy book

8:31

each holy book we consider

8:34

Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him the praised

8:36

one means Muhammad the praised one that's what

8:38

his name means okay because three billion people

8:40

today praise him they don't worship him they

8:42

praise him we should be praising Jesus not

8:44

worshiping I know that I'm broad we've already

8:46

had debates with all the top Muslims I

8:48

know I know but this is the point

8:50

that I'm making is that Islam came on

8:53

the basis that this is a holy book

8:56

and we believe that it's

8:58

the only complete truth because okay but

9:00

that's your belief that's your belief but

9:02

that's not addressing any of the points on a

9:05

simple basis of what Islam comes

9:07

upon that's your claim these are

9:09

claims these

9:15

are claims are you gonna address this isn't addressing any of

9:17

the arguments

9:22

the Quran doesn't come and say ignore all

9:24

the other books and only read the Quran

9:26

it says the Quran came here to confirm

9:29

what is before correct that's what I just

9:31

said what does that mean that means that

9:33

when you cross reference the Quran with

9:35

all these books you're gonna find certain

9:37

pieces of information that are confirmed and

9:41

in literal proof in the text match

9:43

up so versus but you understand that

9:46

there's giant portions that don't match up

9:48

criss-cross right but all right so you're

9:50

not gonna listen to what I show

9:53

up What

10:00

are these unique verses in the Quran? Those

10:02

are the verses that the kings and the

10:04

people before us took out of the Bible and

10:06

the Torah to make it fit in the Bible.

10:09

This is your assertion. You have no basis for

10:11

this because you understand we can... You're

10:13

not listening to me. It's

10:15

not just a simple... Alright, this is all fallacies.

10:17

This is getting ridiculous. So again,

10:19

we've addressed this a million times. He's not even

10:21

listening to what we're saying. John Q.

10:24

taxpayer. It's

10:28

like a script. It's like when you debate

10:31

with a Jehovah's Witness, they read a script. And

10:33

they don't reply to anything that you're saying.

10:36

They just charge forward with the script. Not

10:39

addressing the fact that you've already addressed this

10:41

point. Yeah, you claim that

10:43

it's a simple book and it's

10:45

consistent with what came before. And by the way,

10:47

he contradicted himself because he said that everything that

10:49

came before was poetic. And then he says, but

10:52

you can check it from what came before. That's

10:55

a contradiction. What's up, John Q. Hey

10:57

there, how's it going? Yes, sir. I

11:01

just had a quick question. Regarding

11:04

using penal language to describe

11:06

the Atonement, now I know

11:08

to some extent, like

11:11

for somewhat like mercy, Sproul, I

11:14

think they would go as far as saying

11:16

that the Trinity was like... Hey,

11:19

Jamie. ...divided in some sense. I'm

11:21

just wondering... Yeah, it's completely stupid.

11:24

I'm wondering, like saying like in a

11:26

basic sense of like what if we

11:29

were just to say Christ was punished

11:31

for us bearing God's wrath and we

11:33

were only to say that. Could

11:36

that be something that like you

11:38

could be orthodox and you could

11:40

just hold to something like that?

11:43

I mean, if the punishment that you believe is damnation,

11:45

then no, it doesn't make any sense. Because

11:48

we're already told explicitly that the

11:50

death or the quote punishment

11:52

is the severing of his human soul from

11:54

his human body. Christ

11:57

is a divine person, okay? never

12:00

turns his wrath to the Son because that

12:02

would imply that the divine person of the

12:04

Son doesn't have the same will and nature

12:06

as the Father. That would divide the Trinity.

12:08

So the death, if you

12:10

read John Damascus, book three, and you

12:12

go down to the very bottom of that whole

12:15

chapter, he explains perfectly what the Orthodox position on

12:17

the death of Christ is, and it's the severing

12:19

of his human soul from his human body so

12:22

that the divine person of the Son could descend

12:24

into Hades and preach the Gospel there. Okay,

12:27

yeah, I know I was just wondering

12:29

because... Hey Jeremy! Go

12:31

ahead. Oh okay, I was

12:33

wondering what you thought about because I

12:35

just kind of looked at it as

12:37

like penal language from St. John Chrysostom.

12:40

Yeah, the problem isn't using penal language,

12:42

it's what does it mean, and most

12:44

of the time Protestants think, well, the

12:46

punishment is damnation, you see, so that's

12:48

what leads them to that conclusion. Gotcha,

12:51

gotcha. I

12:53

was wondering, just another question, if Muslims

12:57

and Jehovah's Witnesses like to use John

12:59

17.3, I'm wondering like

13:02

how, what would be kind of like the

13:05

best way to respond to someone

13:07

to bring up John 17.3, saying

13:10

that the Father is the only true God?

13:12

I was thinking mentioning like... It's called monarchical

13:14

Trinitarianism. We've been addressing it for, I'm not

13:16

being rude to you, I'm just saying we've

13:18

addressed it for about seven or eight years.

13:20

Go watch all the talks with Dr. Beau

13:22

Branson. It's called monarchical Trinitarianism, so everybody should

13:24

be familiar with that, should go through his

13:26

lectures and his talks. Hey

13:28

Jeremy! She

13:31

must be outside. Adrian...

13:34

no way, that wonky, that

13:37

wonky. Don't

13:42

talk to White Knight for my wife, because

13:44

I'm trying to yell to her to get a copy.

13:46

I'm not yelling to be mean, dummy. I'm

13:50

yelling because she's in the other room and she

13:52

can't hear me or she's outside, so these people

13:54

try to... Look he's yelling at his wife. Let's

13:56

get him, we got him, he's an abuser. So

14:00

you're getting banned just for that nonsense. Go

14:03

ahead man. Looks

14:11

like he's having a hard time connecting. Adrian

14:21

Hackman. Yes,

14:33

I have a question. I'm

14:40

sorry. Go ahead. Okay,

14:43

good. Yes,

14:49

when I studied advertising I got in contact

14:51

with a group called Martinism. Martinism?

14:55

I don't know if you're

14:57

familiar with it. Yes. They

15:00

have a Gnostic-like belief that the

15:02

human soul had become trapped in

15:05

material bodies at the fall and

15:07

that Jesus, the Great Repairer, had to

15:09

come to return you, but it was

15:12

originally a fit. Okay.

15:17

So what's your question? Well,

15:21

he mentioned, I'm trying to sort of

15:23

understand what he meant when he said,

15:25

he took a quote from John, that

15:29

light shines in the darkness and the darkness

15:31

has not overcome it. And he said to

15:33

me that darkness is dependent upon

15:36

the light. It's a very sort of dual

15:38

kind of way of looking at. Yeah,

15:41

I mean, darkness is not a thing. It's just

15:43

expressing the contrast between good and evil. So

15:46

it's saying that the contrast between physical

15:48

light and darkness in

15:50

the created order in Genesis 1

15:52

is contrasted with uncreated light

15:55

and spiritual darkness in the sense of

15:57

evil. So it's not talking about metaphysical.

16:00

that evil has a metaphysical existence. Alright,

16:05

okay. Because the

16:07

group is based on theosophical

16:09

Kabbalah. Sure, of

16:11

course. And

16:15

it's based on the Zohar.

16:18

And I don't know, how

16:20

would you try to metaphysically debunk

16:22

this kind of gnostic,

16:26

Kabbalistic way of looking at the Bible? I

16:30

was just listening to some

16:32

weird Gnostic guys lecture a

16:35

minute ago. And

16:40

typically what you have with these kind of groups, like let

16:42

me show you the lecture I was listening to as an

16:44

example of what you're talking about. So

16:47

this lecture right here is an example of

16:50

kind of what you're talking about. I

16:52

mean, I don't think this guy's a Martinist. He's just

16:55

some kind of random boomer Gnostic who came up with

16:57

his own position. And

16:59

the documentary is called Cosmic

17:01

Conspiracy, Gnostic Cosmology, the Buddha-Mussiah.

17:04

And he doesn't

17:07

argue why the position is true.

17:09

He just asserts the position of we

17:12

know that there's all these archons and

17:14

we know that there's this dualism

17:18

that's the physical worlds of prison. So

17:20

I would start by asking, how do you know that this is actually the case?

17:23

Like you've got this big story about the cosmos.

17:25

But how do we know that that story is

17:27

true? And most of the time these people can't

17:29

tell you why it is. And

17:32

then secondly, I would say if you listen

17:34

to their storytelling, as I listen to this

17:36

guy's story, he

17:38

says that, you know, he starts

17:40

by saying that, well, the

17:43

church and the Jesus position that everybody

17:45

thinks is the church, they think there's

17:47

one true position. And no, that's a

17:49

deception. That's a dogmatic position. And then

17:51

he goes on to say, the

17:54

one true mystic position is

17:56

my Gnostic system. And

17:58

what you find out is that, is that true? actually a zillion

18:00

different Gnostic systems and they all contradict

18:02

one another and within about 20 minutes

18:04

these people will typically contradict themselves as

18:06

to what they said about 10 minutes

18:08

earlier. So listen for the

18:11

guy's story and the contradictions and you'll

18:13

begin to notice, well hey wait a minute,

18:15

it's like if true reality is in this

18:17

etheric realm and we're trapped in a

18:19

prison realm, how do you know

18:21

the truth in the prison realm? That's going to

18:23

be a contradiction. Okay, so it's kind

18:26

of like a schizo way of looking at it.

18:28

It's what? It's

18:31

a schizo-phrenic way. Oh yeah, yeah,

18:33

they'll constantly contradict. Like if

18:36

this reality is a lie, right,

18:39

as this guy said in this

18:41

video, then my coming to know

18:43

this reality is a lie is still part of this

18:45

reality and it would be part of the lie. That's

18:47

a contradiction. Okay. I'm serious. I

18:50

mean most of the time Gnostics are not very sophisticated so

18:52

if you just listen to them. Since

18:55

J&K Security Solutions opened in 1987,

18:57

our attention to detail and customer

18:59

service have been our strongest assets.

19:02

I'm President Jeffrey Beckman. We'll always do our

19:04

best to find the most efficient and cost-effective

19:06

solution to every job we tackle. Whether

19:09

it's security for your home or business,

19:11

installing video surveillance or being able to control

19:13

your garage doors from your phone, we

19:15

can help you feel empowered with simple

19:17

and user-friendly technology. Let's work

19:20

together to secure your home or

19:22

business. jksecurity.com and

19:55

let them talk for about five minutes. They'll

19:57

immediately contradict themselves. uh,

20:01

leonid, what's up dude? you

20:12

gotta unmute, man leonid,

20:19

you gotta unmute mr.pink

20:35

got some reservoir dolls yo

20:39

hello? yeah yeah,

20:42

hello? yes hello?

20:49

you kidding me? corn

20:52

boy got

21:01

that corn boy with them

21:03

corn rolls what's up corn boy? hey,

21:06

how's it going? can you hear me? yes sir uh,

21:10

i didn't know, i wanted to see if you thought there was any truth

21:13

to the idea that protestantism might have been uh,

21:16

not created but

21:19

allowed to exist by the catholic

21:21

church to create a false binary

21:24

to create a weaker enemy than the orthodox

21:26

church no,

21:29

i don't think there's any reason to think that

21:34

right on thank you uh,

21:36

let's see, progs progs

21:48

progs so,

21:56

you can try to come out and come back in, it won't connect

22:07

Varela, what's up? I think you wanted to speak

22:10

in the Super Chat. Varela. Hello

22:14

again. Yeah. Hello

22:17

again. Yeah. All

22:20

right. Something else regarding

22:23

the Roman Catholic Church. So there

22:27

was a recent discussion between Tucker

22:29

Carlson and Pastor Doug Wilson of

22:32

the CRAC. And

22:34

that discussion was going great until he

22:36

did the typical thing a participant will do,

22:39

is speaking against the

22:42

Spanish Inquisition. And I

22:45

don't think most people, participants, or

22:47

not seem to know anything more

22:49

about the Inquisition than Monty Python's

22:52

little skits about it. Right. Yeah,

22:54

I agree. Yeah. So the

22:58

point of it, and Joseph de

23:00

Maestre wrote very well on this,

23:02

although the fact about it was

23:05

not funded by the church. Of

23:08

course, for most of those, it was backed by

23:10

the Crown. I know. Yeah, I'm

23:12

talking about it. Yeah. So yeah, sorry.

23:14

I'd be interested to see those talks.

23:17

Because, okay, so we

23:20

know therefore this is a matter

23:22

of national unity and security. So

23:24

the same thing of what GK

23:27

Chesterton, he wrote, is- Wait.

23:29

What's the matter of national unity and security?

23:33

Things like the Inquisition. So like

23:35

GK Chesterton, he wrote in what

23:38

I saw in America, his experience going

23:40

through the

23:42

border patrol. And they ask him if

23:44

he's an anarchist. So it's like we

23:47

know there is other inquisitions, not just

23:49

the Spanish Inquisition. Right. I did

23:51

a whole talk. It's called Medieval Heresy. It's Malcolm Lambert's book.

23:53

I did a whole lecture on it. Okay.

23:57

So what's your question? All

23:59

right. Orthodoxy would

24:01

have no problem

24:04

with something like this. They've

24:07

seen something

24:09

like an institution like the

24:11

Inquisition, because I've seen

24:14

some American Orthodox writers speak against

24:16

it also, like Protestants saying,

24:19

you know, Orthodoxy does not have

24:21

things like this, but this

24:23

does not seem to make sense. Yeah,

24:26

there's no hard and fast answer to this, because typically in

24:29

the history of the church, when you

24:31

would have dangerous

24:33

heresies that threatened to

24:35

upend the social order, then

24:38

the Orthodox ruler would step in

24:40

to do certain actions

24:42

like banish the people

24:45

or make them leave or, you

24:47

know, something like that, or pass

24:49

a law to dissuade them from

24:51

proselytizing. And so that's

24:53

happened many times. I mean,

24:55

many of the Orthodox emperors passed laws against

24:58

the heretics in the

25:00

Ecumenical Councils, the 6th and 7th, they typically

25:02

tried to get the emperor on

25:04

their side, because that would ensure that the

25:06

heretics couldn't further

25:08

their agenda. I mean, St. Gregory Palamas,

25:10

you see this in the Palamite Synod,

25:13

they appealed to the emperor

25:15

to stop the Barlamites from pushing

25:17

Barlamism. So this is well

25:19

known. I don't think it

25:21

means we have to necessarily... Basically,

25:23

it's two different domains. So the

25:25

church says these people are

25:28

outside the church, and then the state,

25:30

because it rules in its sphere, makes a decision

25:32

about how to handle that

25:35

in the civil sphere. So I

25:37

don't know why you keep coming back to debate if you're not

25:39

going to listen to the discussion, and if

25:43

you're just going to machine gun past, then there's

25:45

no point in having a discussion. So I asked

25:47

you multiple questions about Islam, and

25:49

you just kept talking past. So I don't know why you

25:51

want to come back in. Hammer down, what's

25:53

up? hammer

26:00

down rabbit ears yeah

26:03

I had a question about the Scopio Bible if

26:06

you explain the who what when where why and

26:08

then I have another I just did a whole

26:10

talk on that on

26:12

my Twitter on the fourth

26:14

hour of Lord Voldemort okay

26:16

if I may ask another question that doesn't have

26:18

anything to do with religion necessarily but has philosophy

26:22

that's not a word historicity urban

26:26

meat hi

26:55

there I wanted

26:57

to ask a theological question

27:01

is Esther and Mordecai a

27:03

type of Christ and Mary

27:13

I don't know I haven't thought about that maybe

27:15

I'd have to go back and read us I mean probably

27:18

there's parallels with the church maybe

27:22

I don't know I thought about it I

27:27

also have one more question what

27:31

this is a really complicated question

27:33

so I am a Serbian

27:36

Catholic human and I

27:38

was wondering how to avoid temptations

27:41

of Catholics

27:45

I mean go and watch and look at all

27:47

the scandals of Pope Francis and why would you

27:50

want to be at Roman Catholic I'll

27:52

the great what's up elf I've

28:05

got to unmute. Sorry,

28:08

Jay. I

28:11

was wondering about

28:13

predestination in the Orthodox Church. So

28:16

that sort of pertains to,

28:18

like, divine providence and, like,

28:20

how much God's involved with

28:23

predestination. Yeah,

28:26

so I've addressed that multiple times

28:28

in the talks that you can look at

28:30

on the clips channel right here with

28:33

part one and part two. If you can see that on the

28:36

screen, there's the Calvinism

28:38

part one and Calvinism part two. So

28:40

I'm not trying to be rude. It's

28:42

just every time we do

28:44

the open forums. So, again, I

28:46

don't know why this dude. I don't know why. Why are

28:48

you trying to come on here and debate, man? It's enough

28:50

of this nonsense. Nejad.

29:13

I'm talking about the same Muslim God that keeps trying to

29:15

come back in here. He won't listen to the... He won't

29:17

have an exchange. He just wants to spam

29:20

his position. That's not an argument. Elia,

29:24

what's up? Unmute. What's

29:26

going on, Mr. Jay Dyer? Yeah.

29:32

I'm an inquiring Roman

29:34

Catholic slash Orthodox.

29:36

I've been listening to some of your stuff on

29:39

YouTube. I was actually

29:41

supposed to be baptized today, Roman Catholic,

29:43

but I kind of got cold

29:45

feet, decided to look at the issue again. So,

29:50

yeah, I was just curious

29:52

what you thought about the

29:54

Eucharistic miracles. I tried

29:57

looking up something

29:59

that you would... would have talked about

30:01

regarding them. I couldn't really

30:03

find anything. Yeah, I mean, we don't, I mean, Orthodox

30:06

Church doesn't have the same position as the

30:08

Roman Catholics on this. And I mean,

30:11

if you're trying to make the decision based

30:13

on supposed miracle claims, I think this is

30:16

a really kind of weak position to

30:20

choose your religions on, because every religion is gonna

30:22

have all these different miracle claims. So,

30:24

I mean, you gotta ultimately make the decision

30:26

on the basis of which position has a

30:28

coherent worldview. I

30:31

just don't understand why people make this decision

30:33

like because of all these supposed miracle claims.

30:36

I mean, like

30:39

every pagan religion claims to have miraculous

30:41

events. Are you gonna choose the pagan

30:43

religions because of miracle claims? I just,

30:45

I don't understand people thinking this. Grim,

30:47

what's up Grim? Hey Jamie, could

30:50

you make me a double shot? The

30:56

audience says I'm abusing you because I yelled. What's

30:59

up? What's on your mouth? All

31:03

right, so, so

31:06

for the tag argument, the

31:10

negative side of that argument, I

31:12

have no problem understanding that, but the

31:15

positive side getting the energy and

31:17

the diction out there and trying

31:19

to prove wrong, for

31:22

example, the Islamic God, without

31:24

having to go into each individual

31:27

religion or my opponent's religion to

31:29

refute that. Yeah, because the,

31:31

I mean, if God is a pure

31:33

unity, you could look at the problem

31:35

of how to have multiplicity. If

31:39

God is, I don't know,

31:41

like abstract and unknowable,

31:43

then he's irrelevant and not related

31:45

to the created order. So basically,

31:48

you either have a universe

31:50

that has intentionality and telos

31:52

or it's just teleological. So

31:54

basically, some of the basic

31:56

metaphysical principles kind of automatically cancel out a

31:58

lot of the work. religions but

32:00

if it's you know Islam or

32:03

Judaism versus Christianity then it gets

32:05

into the specifics of like the

32:07

triad and the metaphysics that the

32:10

Trinity gives you versus the metaphysics of the

32:13

other positions. Yeah so

32:15

in I know in Islam I

32:17

probably have to go into some

32:19

specifics because I know that the

32:21

hypostatic you know properties of each

32:23

person of the Trinity they reveal

32:25

that through the energies or the

32:27

operations which you know in Islam

32:29

they only have God

32:31

as a being they don't have

32:33

him as specific. Well also there's

32:35

the problem of knowing Allah because

32:37

they have a natural theology empiricist

32:39

principle that you're only ever

32:42

experiencing these creative effects you're never actually

32:44

interacting with or knowing Allah. Allah is

32:46

not in the created order at all.

32:49

Right so that's ultimately

32:52

like the same critique that Palamas

32:54

makes of Thomas Aquinas's

32:56

theism. Yeah

32:58

so in our worldview you

33:01

know so we don't

33:03

rely on empiricism right we

33:05

rely on so if

33:07

we're relying on knowing God then how do

33:10

we come to know God in our worldview

33:13

if not empiricism. Empiricism

33:16

is a school of philosophy or

33:18

a basic presupposition about how we

33:20

attain knowledge that's not the same

33:22

thing as having empirical

33:24

knowledge or obtaining knowledge from

33:26

empirical sense data they're

33:28

two different things. So

33:31

empiricism is just the idea that

33:33

the way we get actual knowledge

33:35

that justification is our senses. Empiricism

33:37

says that the only source of

33:39

knowledge is sense data and

33:42

Islamic philosophy and thought typically

33:44

says that as well. Right

33:48

and so what's the difference between that

33:51

and us? I mean in

33:53

the Jake debate he says nominalism

33:56

so we're not nominalists and

33:58

we're not subject to all the problems of nominalism. Did

34:01

you see the Jake debate? Yeah,

34:03

so basically so basically

34:07

he just keeps repeating nominalism and says

34:09

like that's obviously what's true and doesn't

34:11

even appear to be aware of the

34:13

problems in nominalism. So that

34:15

would be pretty devastating to having any

34:17

kind of coherent epistemology if you're a

34:19

strict nominalist. Oh yeah

34:22

and also you know you said that logic

34:24

is based in our minds and

34:26

all that. Would

34:28

that be part of nominalism as well? Well

34:33

nominalism is just a position that there's

34:35

no universals or essences they're

34:37

just sort of terms that we get. Okay

34:39

then yeah so yeah it would ultimately kind

34:41

of relate to that but thank you for

34:43

that question we're gonna move on. Alf

34:47

apologetics then you already come on here I can't remember

34:49

or did it not work I think you couldn't connect.

34:57

Yo. Hi Jay. I had

34:59

a question about the Church of England and of

35:01

our Protestant churches and

35:04

how we could sort of reclaim them

35:07

like I'm talking about conservative position how

35:09

we should reclaim these churches how we

35:11

could. Yeah I don't think we

35:13

can do that I think we just got to convert them to Orthodoxy.

35:16

Because yeah my question is

35:18

only based on this is because

35:21

like there's loads of people that

35:23

wouldn't have this question there's sort

35:25

of just a 10 church like

35:28

sort of not knowing any theology

35:30

not knowing why it's important and

35:32

sort of blindly following a lot

35:34

of the leaders like Justin Welby

35:37

all these other people that you don't know what

35:40

the importance of it is and so like is there

35:42

any way to do this? Like

35:45

regime zoom has got some movement

35:47

like the reconquees stuff. Yeah.

35:51

I feel like because of the

35:53

fact that even in America one

35:56

Episcopalian church booted

35:58

off a priest right because of some. liberal

36:00

complaint. I feel like it's impossible to

36:02

get people in the church to even

36:05

turn it around. Yeah, exactly.

36:07

But these masses, can we get these masses

36:09

to come to Orthodoxy even if they don't,

36:11

if they're just old people, right? They don't

36:13

know what they're, do you know what I mean?

36:15

They're just sitting in the church. Yeah,

36:17

I just don't think at an institutional level

36:19

you're going to do this because a lot

36:21

of these institutions are captured. So,

36:24

Redeem Zumer is young, he's naive,

36:26

he doesn't understand institutional capture. So,

36:28

no, you're not going to at

36:30

an institutional level capture these

36:33

captured bases. All your

36:35

bases belong to us. So,

36:37

all we got to do is just convert

36:39

the people on an individual level and that's

36:41

what's working right now that's happening. And so,

36:43

we just need to continue doing that. Buddy

36:45

love, that's what I'm talking about. Buddy love,

36:47

what's up man? Buddy

36:57

love, baby don't hurt me.

37:00

No more. What

37:02

is love? Baby

37:04

don't hurt me. No more.

37:09

All right, Buddy love can't connect. He's

37:11

got dial up after the

37:13

love shack. Daniel

37:17

Fahimi. You

37:30

got to unmute, man. You

37:37

got to unmute. Hi there.

37:40

You heard me. Uh-huh. I

37:44

just had a question to ask about

37:47

the... Since J&K

37:49

Security Solutions opened in 1987, our

37:52

attention to detail and customer service have been

37:54

our strongest assets. I'm President Jeffrey

37:56

Beckman. We'll always do our best to find

37:58

the most efficient and cost- effective solution to

38:01

every job we tackle. Whether it's

38:03

security for your home or business, installing video

38:05

surveillance, or being able to control your garage

38:07

doors from your phone, we can

38:09

help you feel empowered with simple and

38:11

user-friendly technology. Let's work together

38:14

to secure your home or business.

38:16

jksecurity.com. For

38:18

nearly four decades, JMK Security Solutions has

38:21

provided protection for homes and businesses. I

38:23

know firsthand. I'm Jeff Beckman, and with

38:25

my wife, Kim, we started JMK Security

38:27

Solutions. Our attention to detail, service after

38:30

the sale, and product knowledge are the

38:32

foundation of our success. JKsecurity

38:34

has routinely been recognized as the best

38:36

of Madison for security companies. We expect

38:38

that trend to continue as the next

38:41

generation. Our son, Jeffrey, takes over as

38:43

president. Let us protect what is valuable

38:45

to you. jksecurity.com. Transcendental argument, right? So why

38:47

is like a... Why is a mind with the only condition in

38:49

which you can ground

38:51

transcendental categories? Well,

38:56

because of intentionality and

39:00

because those categories stand or fall

39:02

together, they're not

39:07

discreet. They're kind of hanging and

39:09

fall together. I

39:15

still don't understand, but... Don't

39:20

understand what? It's

39:22

just like... I'm not used to thinking in

39:25

this abstract way. I

39:29

don't understand. Well, I mean, think

39:31

about your mind, right? I mean, your mind houses a

39:33

bunch of things, right? Yeah. Right.

39:37

So your mind is a single thing that houses a

39:39

bunch of things. So in a sense, it kind of...

39:42

In a limited temporal sense, quote, grounds them

39:44

or gives them some linking

39:48

substrate. So those

39:50

things that we're talking about aren't just

39:54

our minds. They exist and they

39:56

structure the entire world. So

39:58

where are they and how are they? we

40:00

need a divine mind. And so the divine

40:02

mind isn't just an abstract thing, it's

40:04

a personal intentional thing, meaning that it gives

40:06

purpose or telos to all of reality. Yeah,

40:12

thank you. Also another question. Sure. How

40:15

would you like refute the terminus and kind

40:17

of like prove that

40:19

free will has to exist? Well,

40:22

because if you deny free will, it's impossible

40:24

to have knowledge at all, in the sense

40:26

of having justified knowledge. So if you go

40:29

back and watch my debate with JF,

40:32

that ends up being the purpose of that whole debate.

40:35

The JF debate, by the way, is, it's

40:38

on here somewhere. If

40:42

you go to my clips channel, all the way

40:44

to the bottom, right

40:49

here where the Cheshire cat is, it

40:54

says best of JDR debates. That's

40:57

the debate where we debate determinism.

41:02

Wesley Venable, what's up, dude? What's

41:14

up? Hello, can you hear

41:16

me? Yes, sir. I

41:18

had a couple of questions about free stop and

41:21

transcendental arguments. Okay.

41:23

So I've got a friend at my parish,

41:26

I'm Orthodox, and he was

41:28

pretty into the truth of that free stop argument, but

41:30

lately he just decided he doesn't like anything that's dumb.

41:32

And one of the critiques is that if

41:35

we can't do natural theology because

41:37

it's a fallen world and we'll come to

41:40

false conclusions, why would that not apply to

41:42

the transcendental categories themselves? Why wouldn't

41:44

those also be in some kind of fallen world? Yeah,

41:46

I mean, that sounds like a misunderstanding of why we

41:48

quote, don't do, it has nothing to do with, because

41:50

the world is fallen. That sounds like what, that

41:53

sounds like what Bonson or Vantilles or somebody

41:56

would say. So it's not that we can't

41:58

do natural theology because we're fallen. It's that

42:00

natural theology is a

42:02

misplaced understanding of how

42:06

we derive meaning and ground or

42:09

understanding of the world. And that

42:12

ultimately we're still assuming God and

42:14

the Christian God when we try to even

42:16

do natural theology. So natural theology, if you

42:18

read the Garibee paper, is

42:21

also based on several fallacies, typically,

42:23

like the quantifier shift fallacy. So

42:25

it sounds like your friend is

42:27

probably misunderstanding what

42:30

we're saying as if it means that there's

42:32

no theology of nature. I mean, if you

42:34

read Stein Eloy, he says on page one

42:36

of Orthodox Dogmatics that we

42:38

do natural revelation, not Thomistic natural

42:40

theology. Yeah,

42:43

that all makes sense. I was trying to figure out

42:45

and just try to wrap my brain around his criticism

42:47

because it seems like some kind of category error to

42:49

me. Yeah, I think he's responding to the way Bonsen

42:51

or Van Tillis Calvinist would say that we don't do

42:54

natural theology. Yeah, because he's starting

42:56

to go and he said like the phenomenological argument is

42:58

what convinced, like the fact that we're here and we

43:00

exist is enough for him. I'm like, well, if I

43:02

mean, you're in the church, then it would be a

43:04

fine argument. I don't know what that, I mean, again,

43:07

I think that sounds like a lot of fallacies, like

43:09

the fact that I exist, like how would that prove

43:11

Orthodox Christianity? Right, I mean, that's

43:13

not going to work talking to people. And

43:15

then I was trying to think about like

43:17

trying to straw man or steel man the

43:19

trans-natal argument. I don't hear a lot of

43:21

very good criticisms about it. So I was

43:23

trying to think of some. The only one I've really heard is,

43:25

why is God the necessary precondition for

43:27

X when you've laid out formulaically like

43:29

that? Well,

43:32

God's the necessary precondition because it's not

43:34

just like the abstract idea

43:36

of God, it's God and the entire Christian

43:38

worldview. And the entire Christian

43:41

worldview is what gives a

43:43

grounding and a basis for the trans-natal

43:45

categories, which make knowledge possible. Yeah,

43:48

I would agree. My friend also says

43:50

like he would maybe be okay with

43:52

the trans-natal argument if we systematically disproved

43:55

every single worldview. Yeah, again, we've already

43:57

addressed every one of these objections has

43:59

been addressed. probably 500 times in the

44:01

last seven years. So you don't have to

44:04

address every single worldview because there's

44:06

only a limited number of basic

44:08

starting point positions for any possible

44:10

worldview. For example, a

44:13

disc teleological universe versus a

44:16

teleological universe. There's

44:18

only that like there's and you maybe you could

44:20

argue that there's some mix. Okay well that's just

44:22

three possible positions that will immediately determine and

44:25

sort of cross off a whole

44:27

bunch of worldviews. Yeah

44:30

I agree with all that. I just wanted to

44:32

hear your thoughts on it. And then one last

44:34

thing. Also Father Deacon and Aias' recent paper addresses

44:36

that objection. Okay I haven't read it yet

44:38

I will. One other thing I just

44:40

want to hear what your thoughts on this. If there's

44:42

no such thing as brute fact is that itself a

44:44

brute fact? No

44:47

because it's saying that

44:49

every fact is embedded and it would include

44:52

it would include that fact as well. So

44:54

for somebody trying to flip that

44:56

on us like that's a gotcha. It's only a

44:58

gotcha if I was like if

45:00

I believed in classical foundationalism. If

45:03

I believe that all beliefs

45:05

are theory-laden then the belief that all

45:07

beliefs are theory-laden is also theory-laden. Damn

45:10

dude he's bringing the damn farm

45:13

out to debate. Oh I just

45:15

got roasted by Rooster

45:17

Boy. Thank you so much. Appreciate those

45:19

questions. Daniel what's up? That's

45:23

a wolf rooster right

45:25

there. That was nice. That

45:29

was the sign of you that it's

45:31

taught for you to get off. The rooster is like

45:33

get off of that phone. Get

45:36

over here and get the eggs out

45:38

of these dang chicks. Daniel

45:41

what's up? Hey

45:44

Jay I was just calling I was wondering a

45:47

lot of the times Arians will bring up Proverbs 8

45:49

22 to justify that Christ

45:51

is a created being. How would

45:53

you defend the position that he's

45:55

not? We just read in the so

45:58

in this I think it's the Septuagint translational We read

46:00

that in the liturgy the other night. Or

46:04

was it the during the it was

46:06

just read in a liturgy recently and The

46:09

way ours reads it. It's like I was he

46:11

was with him in the beginning It's not created

46:13

me in the beginning or established. It's established me

46:15

in the beginning No,

46:18

ours has created me in the beginning. So there's when when

46:20

there's terminology that's

46:22

used that's analogies

46:25

for God like a

46:29

like there's a phrase where in Isaiah it

46:31

says something like I Will

46:34

be to Israel like a mother right? Does

46:36

that mean God is our mother and you actually

46:38

have like heretical sex who will take that

46:41

analogy and say oh we'll see God

46:43

is also a woman because God's like a

46:45

mother to Israel or something like that And

46:47

it's it's just an

46:49

analogy where elements of the

46:52

thing match up and elements don't so anytime.

46:54

There's an analogy we

46:56

can't take the things that don't make

46:58

sense to match up right so if there's

47:02

Dozens and dozens of other passages that talk

47:04

about the Son of God being the

47:06

eternal Son of God Then clearly

47:08

the passes that talks about The

47:11

personification of wisdom at the beginning of creation We're

47:15

not going to apply the created categories to the Son of

47:17

God Okay next

47:20

kind of branching question off of that would be

47:25

in what sense is Christ analogous

47:27

to being created? Well

47:30

the created order is analogous to him

47:32

as the Being

47:35

through whom creation occurs right so

47:37

for example It's

47:40

referring to the beginning of the works. It

47:42

doesn't mean that the Son himself is a

47:44

creation or work because it says also that

47:48

Huh? Yeah

47:53

Yeah, so when John and if you read John

47:55

1 when John and plays on this passage

47:58

right John 1's exegesis and

48:01

I wrote an essay on this some years back, it's in

48:03

the Red Book, so a lot

48:05

of people think that John 1 is pulling from Greek

48:07

philosophy. Actually John 1's

48:09

pulling from the Hebrew wisdom

48:12

tradition and the wisdom text

48:14

that personify wisdom. It

48:16

also personifies wisdom as a woman,

48:19

so like would we conclude that Jesus

48:21

is a woman because wisdom is personified

48:23

in Proverbs as a woman? No. So

48:25

there's elements that match up to

48:28

what it's referring to and elements that

48:30

don't. Just like God is

48:32

a mother to Israel but God's not a mother,

48:34

right? So if he's like a mother to Israel

48:37

and so the

48:39

beginning of the created order finds its

48:41

origin in the person of Christ, the

48:44

logos, and that's the way John exegetes

48:46

this passage in John 1. So John

48:48

1 is really the way to

48:51

interpret Proverbs 8, that's what I'm saying, and that's

48:53

why he says, in the beginning was the Word,

48:56

the Word was with God, the Word was God,

48:58

he was in the beginning with God, all things

49:01

were made through him, and nothing that came to

49:03

be came to be without

49:05

being made through him. So that

49:07

means that he's not a creature. And

49:12

the word there is the

49:14

wisdom logos of Proverbs. So

49:18

but that's a great question. Let's

49:20

see. Timothy, what's up Timothy?

49:30

By the way, if you want to support via Bitcoin,

49:32

this is my wallet QR code. The wallet

49:35

address is also in the show description. What's up Timothy?

49:40

Christ of wisdom. My question is

49:42

with regards to the idea

49:46

that when Christ became man, when

49:48

Christ became man, the

49:52

person of Christ went

49:54

from, this is gonna sound

49:56

a bit strange, went from simple to complex.

50:01

I understand that in... Yeah, I think that terminology

50:04

is used by St. Maximus, yeah. And

50:07

maybe John Damascus, too. Yeah,

50:09

and in regard to... I

50:11

sort of work with the mission group. So

50:14

translating this to our language is a

50:16

bit difficult for me, especially because I

50:18

myself don't understand this concept in

50:20

its depth. So it's not impossible for me to explain it to

50:22

you. Well, it just makes it complex in the

50:25

sense that now he's composite or compounded of human

50:28

nature and divinity. Because of the human nature,

50:30

correct. Are there

50:32

any books that I could read

50:34

to expand more of this knowledge than you

50:36

would recommend? Well,

50:39

yeah, I mean, any of the Orthodox Church

50:41

Fathers that treat of

50:43

the incarnation extensively, like

50:46

St. Maximus, you know,

50:48

the Cosmic Mystery of Christ book from

50:50

St. Vladimir's, you could read John Damascus's

50:52

Only Orthodox Faith, Book 3 is all

50:55

about Christology. But

50:57

if you want more of an academic scholastic

50:59

treatment, Rise

51:01

of Christian Theology and the End of Ancient

51:04

Metaphysics by Zach Huber is all about the

51:06

metaphysics of the incarnation. So that would be

51:08

this book right here. Let

51:11

me open the stream, sorry. Oh,

51:17

yes. And

51:19

also, if I can ask one more

51:21

question. In regards to the Old Testament,

51:25

the various Theophanes, and for example, like

51:27

the more you read the Psalms and

51:29

the more you read the entirety of

51:33

the Old Testament from Orthodox Phonema, it

51:35

would be more and more compelling, more

51:38

and more blatant that literally everything

51:40

is about Christ. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah,

51:44

he says that at the end of Luke, Luke 24,

51:47

he says that he opened their eyes to understand everything

51:49

in the Scriptures about him. Right.

51:51

How would you, because I believe that

51:54

the apostolic age never truly died. I

51:56

think that we, as Orthodox Christians, we

51:58

are out to... following

52:00

the footsteps, the

52:03

same way that St. Paul, for example,

52:05

wrote for the Hebrews in

52:07

his letters, he

52:10

used language that they would understand. What

52:12

sort of language do you think that

52:14

would be useful to explain to Muslims

52:16

that these things are indeed the kingdom

52:18

of Christ and it's not just some God

52:20

which can't know or have any analogy of

52:22

what it is in fact? I don't know.

52:24

I mean I don't know if there is

52:27

any language secret to explaining stuff

52:29

to Muslims. I don't know. I

52:33

see. Thank you very much, Jason. Yeah, I

52:35

mean I think it's just a... just

52:39

sort of a really

52:42

hard-headed, arbitrary...

52:46

I mean when you talk to the Muslims most of the

52:48

time, like the guy that was in there earlier, he wasn't

52:50

interested in having a back-and-forth, he just wanted to do his

52:52

spiel. And if

52:54

you try to have that back-and-forth,

52:57

he just blew past every question and just

52:59

wanted to keep repeating his position and do

53:01

a sales pitch and it's like... Then

53:06

he said to them, these are the words which I spoke to you

53:08

when I was with you that all things might be written that were

53:11

fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses and the

53:13

prophets and the Psalms about me and he opened their understanding

53:15

that they might comprehend the Scriptures. So

53:17

until the Messiah opens your mind

53:19

to comprehend the Scriptures being about

53:21

him, you won't understand. You won't see

53:23

any of this. Is

53:25

God able to do anything? Eric,

53:28

$3. So I addressed this

53:30

earlier. No, what

53:32

omnipotence means is anything that's

53:35

possible within what's determined

53:37

by his nature. So

53:39

it doesn't mean literally anything

53:41

possible. That's importing an external

53:43

definition of omnipotence

53:45

to our system. So it doesn't mean that. Where

53:52

do humans and demons get evil from if

53:54

not from God? So evil is

53:56

a move of the will away from the good.

53:58

It's not a thing. being doesn't

54:00

have substance God doesn't make evil

54:02

cataclysm zena north is xenomorph and

54:04

I'm a manboob is this

54:07

a joke Chris $1 what's the best

54:09

argument against the Protestant candidate of Scripture again

54:13

I've done multiple talks and lectures on this

54:15

so you can go watch the

54:17

lectures that we did over here on my clips channel

54:22

go watch the video the Protestant candidate

54:24

of Scripture on Sam Shimon channel with

54:27

me so jaydyer Sam Shimon

54:29

Protestant can of Scripture address that

54:31

in great detail John

54:34

five dollars I'm an ex-joves witness that

54:36

there's Joe's witnesses in Greece Russia Ukraine

54:39

thanks their evangelization efforts yeah I

54:41

know they're also used by the

54:43

CA with the eo I find

54:45

myself dealing

54:50

with unresponsive priests and ethnic

54:52

churches and

54:54

then I finally found a good one after many months yeah

54:56

I think that's the thing is that you

54:58

know Orthodox Church is not some in

55:00

general when you try to find one you're not gonna

55:02

find like some utopia you know

55:05

it took me a long time to find a good

55:07

church too so you do have to at times work

55:09

for a long time to find a good one whale

55:11

box ten dollars I would

55:13

like to support Orthodox monks do you know

55:15

a reputable website to buy

55:18

products like Jordanville

55:22

who holy

55:25

cross slop ten dollars do

55:28

you agree with Andrew Wilson stance on

55:30

rights I mean we had

55:32

to talk about this it just depends on what you mean about rights

55:34

I mean do you mean a moral

55:37

like defense grounded

55:39

in divine law

55:43

or do you mean like the enlightenment idea

55:45

of like some inherent right I mean if

55:47

you're an enlightenment goober which is most of

55:49

people that or or atheist or whatever which is

55:51

a lot of the people he's debating the

55:53

feminists like they

55:55

have no basis for rights and there doesn't make

55:57

any sense I

56:03

had this argument with my brother and he

56:05

was insisting that the position was anti-christian. It

56:08

just depends on what you mean by the words. One

56:10

two three four juice box ten dollars. Why

56:14

do we not have multiple wives in

56:16

Christianity? Because Jesus when he came, because

56:18

he's the one that gives the law, he

56:21

decides when to apply, when to relax the

56:23

laws, decided that he wanted

56:25

to move us in the direction

56:27

of what was appropriate

56:29

and intended in Genesis, whereas

56:33

polygamy was a condescension to

56:35

man's weakness and so

56:37

he made that decision for our goodness.

56:39

Anonymous five dollars are products. Since

56:42

J&K security solutions opened in 1987, our attention

56:46

to detail and customer service have been our

56:48

strongest assets. I'm President Jeffrey

56:50

Beckman. We'll always do our best to

56:52

find the most efficient and cost-effective solution

56:54

to every job we tackle. Whether

56:56

it's security for your home or business, installing

56:58

video surveillance or being able to control your

57:00

garage doors from your phone, we

57:03

can help you feel empowered with simple

57:05

and user-friendly technology. Let's work

57:07

together to secure your home or

57:09

business. jksecurity.com. Some

57:12

people just know the best rate for you is a

57:14

rate based on you with also not

57:17

one based on the driver who treats the highway

57:19

like a racetrack and the shoulder like

57:21

a passing lane. Why pay

57:23

a rate based on anyone else? Get one based on

57:25

you with DriveWise from our home. Not available in Alaska

57:28

or California, subject to terms and conditions, rates are determined

57:30

by several factors which vary by state. Incent states, participation

57:32

in DriveWise allows all states to use your driving data

57:34

for purposes of rating, while in some states your rate

57:37

could increase with high-risk driving, generally safer drivers will save

57:39

with DriveWise. All state-bearing casualty insurance coming in to fill

57:41

these doors in Illinois. Are since better

57:43

at preaching an evangelism, no, because

57:46

preaching an evangelism isn't done correctly

57:49

unless it's done at correct

57:52

faith. Pantheon, $5. J, question,

57:54

is Christ the Logos and

57:56

Word of God? Is

57:59

that the voice? heard in the sky. Well

58:01

Christ is a divine person who's being

58:03

baptized. The voice is the

58:05

energetic manifestation proper to the hypostasis of

58:07

the Father. So it's the Father

58:10

saying this is my beloved Son. And

58:14

if you read, it's the same principle with

58:17

the tongues of fire. It's

58:19

not the person of the Holy Spirit,

58:21

it's the energetic manifestation of the Spirit

58:23

that is appearing as a dove or as tongues of

58:25

fire. But the Holy Spirit is not a dove and

58:28

He's not a tongue of fire. GeetzavanPigSti$7.

58:33

J question, how do souls come into existence

58:35

after Adam and Eve? St. Maximus says very

58:37

clearly that they're created instantaneously

58:39

at the point of conception. Is

58:43

there a continuation of God's breath into Adam

58:45

and Eve? I think God creates a new

58:47

soul. Is it

58:49

a self-sustaining chain reaction? No. L2A$5.

58:57

Could you steel man created grace

58:59

saving you? No,

59:01

because it's a completely rejected position all

59:03

the time, all the four of the

59:05

polemite synods which are translated in this

59:08

new book, fairly new book,

59:12

in all four then they reject the possibility

59:14

of how grace itself could be created without

59:16

ending up in some kind of Arian position.

59:18

I mean Arianism is false because it says

59:21

that our Savior is a creature and

59:23

it's just an Arian news to say that the grace

59:25

that saves us is also a creature. It's just silly.

59:28

And they'll always try to deflect into saying

59:30

that, well sacraments have a created element to

59:32

it so it's a created grace. It's not

59:34

what we're talking about. We're talking about the

59:36

energies themselves that we participate in. Are

59:39

they themselves created? And the answer universally in

59:41

the Eastern Church and amongst the Eastern Fathers

59:43

and Councils is absolutely not. Gmall10

59:45

dollars. I love you. Well

59:47

no homo bro but I love you too.

59:50

Sean5 dollars. Malpass granted that

59:52

God might be the way to account for

59:54

logic but does it says

59:57

it doesn't rule out logic being grounded

59:59

in something incomprehensible. Well, if it's incomprehensible, then I

1:00:01

don't know how it would do the grounding work. I'm

1:00:05

sympathetic to having a respect

1:00:07

for uncertainty, but

1:00:09

it makes it impossible to argue, correct? Yeah,

1:00:12

it seems like it would go in that direction. Roll of stakes, $10.

1:00:17

What is your favorite argument against Protestants

1:00:19

to take issue with venerating Mary and

1:00:21

giving her titles such as Queen of

1:00:24

Heaven? Well,

1:00:26

I don't know why we wouldn't venerate the Queen. I

1:00:28

mean, isn't that the point of terms and showing

1:00:31

respect? So you believe she's a queen,

1:00:33

but you're not going to venerate her? It just doesn't make any

1:00:35

sense. What

1:00:39

do you say to their arguments when they try to equate

1:00:41

her to a pagan goddess? Well,

1:00:44

again, I mean, it depends on what

1:00:46

the referent is, right? I mean, Pachamama is

1:00:48

not Mary. And for

1:00:50

Roman Catholics to try to say, well, it's kind of

1:00:52

like Mary. I mean, that's an idiotic move. So if

1:00:55

we were like Lofton or a Roman Catholic

1:00:57

making a Pachamama argument, then maybe they would

1:00:59

have a point. But I

1:01:01

mean, would you say that an

1:01:04

archangel is a... I mean, surely if you're a Protestant

1:01:06

who believes the Bible, you think that there

1:01:09

are archangels that are high in

1:01:11

rank. Does that make them

1:01:13

gods? I mean, and by the way,

1:01:15

the problem also might be linguistic

1:01:18

because Jesus said, I have said, ye are gods.

1:01:22

So he made Moses like a god

1:01:24

to Pharaoh. So the

1:01:27

problem isn't the terms or the words. The

1:01:30

problem is, are you giving improper

1:01:32

reverence to a creature that's due

1:01:34

only to God? That's

1:01:37

what idolatry is. Mr. Pink, $19.95. Can

1:01:42

I speak? I have the

1:01:44

highest IQ question. All

1:01:46

right, let's see. Well,

1:01:50

you dropped off. So if you're still in the

1:01:52

chat, pop back on, Mr. Pink. I apologize. I

1:01:54

just now got to your question

1:01:57

here. We couldn't get

1:01:59

you... You couldn't... hear me when you popped on.

1:02:01

DC would work in $3. Thank you so much. Appreciate that.

1:02:04

That wonky boy, $3. I

1:02:07

couldn't ask on the X. I'm going to ask you here, how

1:02:11

does the Orthodox Church know dogma? I'm not trying

1:02:13

to be rude, but like maybe we've answered this

1:02:15

question literally every time we do a live stream

1:02:17

so you can just go watch some of the

1:02:19

other live streams. I'm sorry. I'm just like, I

1:02:21

can't answer that. One thing that I really just

1:02:23

don't like about doing

1:02:26

the live streams is answering the same

1:02:28

question like 50 times and

1:02:30

I'm not trying to knock you guys. I appreciate the $3, but

1:02:34

like literally you could just go probably listen, just

1:02:37

pick any of the previous open Q and A

1:02:39

debates and that that question is

1:02:41

going to come up or just

1:02:43

go watch Ubi's video on how we know

1:02:45

what Orthodox dogma is. So,

1:02:48

and by the way, the Roman Catholic

1:02:50

Church saying that we

1:02:52

have the papacy, it actually doesn't give you what the

1:02:54

dogmas are either. So it doesn't even do that work.

1:02:57

Dom El Cardio, $10. What

1:03:01

is the argument against Krishna and

1:03:04

others before Jesus going

1:03:07

through crucifixion born of a virgin and so

1:03:09

on and so on? Well,

1:03:12

again, it's another type of word

1:03:14

concept fallacy and it's also a

1:03:16

genetic fallacy. The fact that

1:03:18

there's similarities in the religions doesn't have

1:03:20

anything to do or doesn't prove that

1:03:22

it comes from the other. It's

1:03:25

a non-secretary genetic fallacy. It's also

1:03:27

a historical fallacy just because something

1:03:30

comes beforehand doesn't necessarily mean that

1:03:32

the religion has its origin from

1:03:35

there. So there might be

1:03:37

some religious claim to a virgin birth,

1:03:39

but that doesn't mean that Christianity therefore

1:03:41

derived its doctrine of the virgin birth

1:03:43

from that pagan religion. It's

1:03:46

just and that's all the way, like all

1:03:48

of the zeitgeist level arguments are based on

1:03:50

these fallacies. And

1:03:57

I've never heard of Krishna being crucified.

1:04:01

Is that a thing? Maybe it is. I don't know.

1:04:04

But, I mean, the argumentation of crucifixion

1:04:06

and whatnot in this Biblical revelation has

1:04:08

nothing to do with Krishna. Abiyana,

1:04:14

I can't even pronounce whatever. I'm

1:04:16

guessing this is some Hebrew root

1:04:18

stuff. Go ahead. Tell

1:04:24

me about Krishna and Yeshua. Yeshua

1:04:26

said, all who came before me are liars

1:04:28

and thieves. And so that explains everybody who

1:04:30

came before Him. Well,

1:04:34

not everybody, like, I mean, not Moses,

1:04:36

right? I

1:04:38

was talking about the negative entities. We

1:04:40

need to call Him Christ for don't

1:04:42

know. Yeah, I would agree

1:04:44

with that. So what's your position? What are you arguing?

1:04:49

Oh, no, I was just popping in because

1:04:51

somebody's talking about Krishna, right? So if you

1:04:53

want to talk about Krishna, right? That's Shiva.

1:04:56

So all Krishna is is

1:04:59

another representation of Shiva. And

1:05:02

so Shiva's

1:05:04

represented, they worship

1:05:06

Him with lingams, with an

1:05:08

eight-sided figure, like an idol,

1:05:10

right? And

1:05:14

then so if you look at the temple mount, right,

1:05:16

and you'll see on top of there is

1:05:18

just a lingam. It has eight sides with

1:05:20

the thing in the middle. It's just not extended

1:05:22

up very high because of the dome, right? But

1:05:25

it is a lingam. They worship Shiva

1:05:27

because Shiva, Lucifer, and everybody else who

1:05:29

is in Yeshua, right? They're all

1:05:31

on the same team. Well,

1:05:34

I agree with that principle, but I don't think that sounds

1:05:37

like if you're using the terminology Yeshua, that

1:05:39

you're into some Hebrew roots thing, which is

1:05:41

silly. So

1:05:44

you're saying that Hebrew did not come before English? Well,

1:05:47

again, that would be the historicist fallacy. It doesn't

1:05:49

really matter what came first in this regard because

1:05:51

the word... How it does, because English came from

1:05:53

Hebrew. It

1:05:55

wouldn't matter because the referent is what matters.

1:05:57

So this is a word. It's a super

1:05:59

stick. to think that somehow like saying

1:06:01

the word Yeshua makes you like better

1:06:04

or more holy or something. So you

1:06:06

and you think Jesus doesn't mean the same thing. Well,

1:06:20

Jesus is a transliteration, right?

1:06:23

But if we go back to... So are you

1:06:25

a Hebrew? Are you Hebrew? Well,

1:06:29

I guess I'm Jewish if you consider

1:06:31

a Jewish being born again. Are

1:06:34

you a Hebrew in terms of your ethnicity?

1:06:36

No, I'm not a Hebrew. Right, so why

1:06:38

are you trying to act like you're Hebrew?

1:06:42

Oh, no, it's because my Messiah was. Yeah,

1:06:46

but the Messiah intended...if you read Isaiah

1:06:48

like say 49, 50, 51, the

1:06:52

Messiah intended that message to go out

1:06:54

to the Gentiles and intended

1:06:57

that message to be translated into all of

1:06:59

their languages. First

1:07:01

to the Jews, then to the Gentiles as the

1:07:03

actual verse. Which

1:07:05

verse? I'm talking about Isaiah. I'm

1:07:08

talking about New Testament? I mean... No, Isaiah is not

1:07:10

in the New Testament. I'm talking about the book of

1:07:12

Isaiah. I know Isaiah is not in New Testament. I

1:07:14

know, I know. Isaiah 11, 2, right? And then Isaiah

1:07:16

12, 2? Yahya. No,

1:07:19

I said Isaiah 48, 49,

1:07:21

50, which talks about the Gentile nations coming into

1:07:24

the covenant. That happened in the first, second, third,

1:07:26

fourth, fifth, sixth century. You know that, right? Still

1:07:29

today. Okay, but what was the

1:07:32

church doing in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth

1:07:34

century? You do realize that. What

1:07:36

was the church doing...are you not going to answer the

1:07:38

question? What was the church doing in the first, second,

1:07:40

third, fourth, fifth, sixth century? Probably

1:07:44

trying to get the lead. Alright.

1:07:47

You're an idiot. This

1:07:55

is what you get with Hebrew roots,

1:07:57

goobers. I was hoping they would call in. We've

1:07:59

only got one. one of them finally after like an hour.

1:08:04

Ky Shark, what's up Ky Shark?

1:08:28

What's that? Oh,

1:08:30

hi, I'm a big fan.

1:08:32

Thank you for um, I'm sorry, man. I can't hear you.

1:08:35

I can't I appreciate that I can't but I just can't hear you. Judah

1:08:45

Hicks, we got another Hebrew roots man Judah. Hey

1:09:01

brother, how you doing? What's

1:09:03

up? Hey, I

1:09:05

just had a few questions on

1:09:09

some transcendental argumentation I wanted to hear your

1:09:11

thoughts on. What's

1:09:14

up? So,

1:09:17

I know you probably addressed this point before,

1:09:20

but when we talk about transcendental categories

1:09:22

and how they relate to knowledge, I

1:09:25

mean we use this to create a

1:09:27

critique like an atheistic perspective. The

1:09:29

question would be is why can these transcendental

1:09:32

categories not just exist in a

1:09:35

presupposed form and compared to

1:09:37

being grounded in the same way that

1:09:39

Deos would presuppose go? Well,

1:09:41

I mean it because it doesn't do the work of

1:09:43

grounding to just say they are it's arbitrary. Well, they

1:09:45

just are just are what? Just

1:09:48

are where? It doesn't it

1:09:50

doesn't do any work. Okay,

1:09:53

I mean that's what that's what Matt Dillahunty says when the

1:09:55

Matt Dillahunty debate he says well they just are just

1:09:58

are what and by the way Matt didn't you say not to believe

1:10:00

that? anything that you don't have physical evidence for. Yeah

1:10:03

and so your response would

1:10:05

just be in what form

1:10:07

do they exist? Well to

1:10:09

say they just are does

1:10:11

and says nothing. Just are

1:10:14

what? Just are where? Just

1:10:17

are applicable to reality and actualized.

1:10:20

That's begging the question.

1:10:22

We're asking their status,

1:10:24

their existence, their justification.

1:10:26

That doesn't

1:10:28

say that doesn't tell us anything. Pre-supposed

1:10:36

to be where? Pre-supposed to be

1:10:38

what? So

1:10:42

that's just saying that we when

1:10:45

we make claims

1:10:48

we assume they are but

1:10:50

we're not asking do you do that

1:10:52

we're asking what they are. It's a

1:10:54

different question. So

1:10:57

the question is more similar to what

1:11:00

are the transcendental categories? Yeah what's their ontological

1:11:02

status, where are they and how are they?

1:11:06

By how are they do you mean are they actualized?

1:11:08

I mean their mode, their mode of existence. So

1:11:16

what do you mean their mode exactly? Of course their

1:11:18

abstract. Mode is a philosophical term for the way a

1:11:21

thing exists. How it

1:11:23

exists. Okay so where

1:11:25

are these categories? How do

1:11:28

they exist? Well

1:11:33

but I'm saying that's what we're asking when

1:11:35

we ask for that type of justification. That's

1:11:37

why we go to things

1:11:40

like Christian metaphysics. So that's

1:11:42

how we get to grounding them and

1:11:46

whatnot. Surge. What's up

1:11:48

surge? Y'all

1:11:59

having fun today? We

1:12:01

had about 1200 at one point, so

1:12:04

that's a good day. I'm

1:12:06

mute, man. Hello?

1:12:09

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Hey,

1:12:12

thanks. Yeah, AJ. I

1:12:14

have a question about communion in both kinds.

1:12:19

I think the Roman Catholics

1:12:21

say that it's permissible

1:12:24

to give only the host, and

1:12:28

to say that it's not would

1:12:30

be a metaphysical issue because then

1:12:35

you would divide up Christ and separate his

1:12:37

body with his blood. Is

1:12:40

that something you've

1:12:42

heard against, I guess, communion

1:12:44

in both kinds? I mean, it's just

1:12:46

the Orthodox Church does the traditional ancient

1:12:49

practice, and that's why we give it

1:12:51

to babies. And so the Roman Catholic

1:12:53

Church departed from all this under

1:12:55

the Carolinian era. So, I mean,

1:12:58

we're not sitting here trying to figure

1:13:00

out the scientific elements of what you're

1:13:03

partaking of when you have. We

1:13:05

just do it the way the church has always done it. So,

1:13:08

I mean, it's a silly

1:13:10

Roman Catholic argument that they have. I'm not sure I'm going to

1:13:12

be rude to you, but it really just

1:13:14

misses the whole point. It's open

1:13:16

for me. You guys want to come on and ask

1:13:18

your questions, make your arguments. That means

1:13:21

you make an actual argument. That

1:13:23

means you give a supporting positions,

1:13:25

you have a logical account

1:13:27

of why you believe this or that thing.

1:13:29

If you've already been on here and asked

1:13:31

multiple questions, then please, we're

1:13:33

looking for other people who disagree. So,

1:13:36

we've had multiple people on today who have asked

1:13:38

questions, which is fine. I don't

1:13:40

mind answering everybody's questions, but really

1:13:42

looking for people who have specific

1:13:44

disagreements, who want to

1:13:46

argue their position versus our position.

1:13:49

You're welcome to hop on and do that. Just

1:13:52

make arguments telling

1:13:54

me that the church fathers are just looking for

1:13:56

something to eat. It's just dumb, wasting Everybody's time.

1:14:00

Two organizations for the position. We want to

1:14:02

know why this is the case. Remember one

1:14:04

of the com and not mistakes to seems

1:14:06

to be made all the time is that

1:14:08

people don't know what it means to give

1:14:10

an account for the position. That.

1:14:13

Means to tell me why I should

1:14:15

believe your position. That doesn't mean you

1:14:17

tell me a big story. Telling.

1:14:20

Me: the story doesn't tell me why your

1:14:22

positions correct. Lady.

1:14:25

Di. Di. Lady.

1:14:28

Lady. Di. Eighty.

1:14:32

The Lady. Di.

1:14:37

Just. Now it's up. Our.

1:14:47

Leaps. Catholic.

1:14:56

Church. Just.

1:15:06

Stuck in different areas or

1:15:09

is over the years. You

1:15:11

know, Whatever infiltrated in this

1:15:13

and that just. As

1:15:16

I was. Honest

1:15:19

to. God

1:15:25

that is. All

1:15:27

of you know I know there's. Something

1:15:35

which is now the best. Me thinking is a

1:15:37

me based on look for without. One

1:15:40

month on the diversity a highly like

1:15:42

a race time and sounded like a

1:15:44

passing lane. My theory

1:15:46

based on anyone else didn't want them

1:15:48

to move with to Atlanta. For more

1:15:50

not less, her Californians have to to terms and conditions.

1:15:52

Mates are determined by several factors which vary by state

1:15:54

in some states participation drop by some other cities or

1:15:57

died and for purposes of eating well in some sense

1:15:59

of a pudding. That I was driving generally sacred I

1:16:01

bristle say but i was also don't as the interns coming

1:16:03

in philly sorts but Illinois. Something

1:16:06

we just know it's easy to get all

1:16:08

say the best price on line. They

1:16:11

also nobody here has offices

1:16:13

on Mondays. courtside seats as

1:16:15

know the prices. And

1:16:18

they are. You can easily the also. Lowers

1:16:20

says on auto insurance at all Say

1:16:23

that com. Prices

1:16:27

vary including basins a by subject to

1:16:29

terms, conditions and availability of different as

1:16:32

the insurance company and affiliates not like

1:16:34

Illinois stories. To the other topics that

1:16:36

suit or not or be rude but

1:16:38

today's topic is debating the topics. Which

1:16:42

has nothing to do with. Remember

1:16:46

Jesus body because it's

1:16:48

good. To

1:16:53

clinical. Director or

1:16:55

jesus said it's are super taken of his

1:16:57

flesh and blood so much as much or.

1:17:02

Okay, but they're trying to associate with

1:17:04

something else that was far nefarious. You

1:17:06

know? I don't want him to go there

1:17:08

at all. right?

1:17:14

Can you are well preserved that we're going to

1:17:16

move onto the next? Question Re on. Re.

1:17:19

On silk or maybe even denim. It

1:17:21

really doesn't matter as long as you're

1:17:23

in. Oh, you could break clause some

1:17:25

manipulate months. Later.

1:17:31

Re. On. Area is yes sir.

1:17:35

I want one courses so. I.

1:17:38

Know that they're related as it

1:17:40

is for a variety of the

1:17:42

after the got. For. What?

1:17:49

I. Mean out know.

1:17:51

Your. Cotton out can start over. Again

1:17:55

area going. just

1:17:58

so very

1:18:00

often we

1:18:03

can hear you man you're cut now and

1:18:13

all that cut out there and sorry all that cut

1:18:15

out we hear any of it uh...

1:18:19

elicia elicia super

1:18:23

chat says thank

1:18:25

you for helping me i'm struggling

1:18:28

with monasticism well

1:18:31

just uh... decide that with your

1:18:33

spiritual father roman twelve two protestant

1:18:35

say man-made tradition roman

1:18:38

twelve two says do not be conform to

1:18:40

this world uh...

1:18:43

be transformed by the renewing of your mind or what

1:18:45

is our set was that the deal with uh... man-made

1:18:49

traditions i don't get it uh... that wonky

1:18:51

boy three dollars thank you so much for

1:18:53

that appreciate it uh... how can

1:18:55

i respond to the romek out there uh...

1:18:59

that i shouldn't convert because before

1:19:02

fathers were fine uh...

1:19:04

i mean i don't understand this argument is all the

1:19:06

time so i what is

1:19:08

your forefathers have to do with whether that's

1:19:10

the true religion i mean should a buddhist

1:19:12

while my granddad was a buddhist uh... or

1:19:14

a satanist my granddad was a famous satanist

1:19:16

that's the religion of my family i was

1:19:19

just mindless argument i don't

1:19:21

get it uh... so if

1:19:23

your family members are interested in questioning

1:19:26

the the heritage

1:19:30

argument which is the fallacy

1:19:32

like just ask them say well

1:19:35

should uh... buddhist remain

1:19:37

a buddhist because his granddad was a

1:19:39

buddhist doesn't make any sense elijah

1:19:42

what's up i'm

1:19:47

you man i

1:19:51

have a couple questions about tag personal

1:19:56

so like i don't know if you saw father

1:19:58

deacon like debated the

1:20:01

two, like most friends or

1:20:03

most respectful atheists, I think that's what

1:20:05

the title was. They

1:20:07

brought like, one of them was Ambeer and he brought

1:20:09

up a point at the end, he was saying that

1:20:12

like. Yeah, did you, so we've already

1:20:14

addressed it in the paper. He wrote a paper addressing

1:20:16

this, we did it, we just did a podcast on

1:20:18

his paper. Okay,

1:20:20

sorry. I didn't see

1:20:22

like, I was like, I

1:20:25

still have the question after reading the paper

1:20:27

and watching the podcast. Yeah. I

1:20:32

don't know if I can, I don't know if I can

1:20:34

answer every question of his paper, but I'll answer the best

1:20:36

of mine, I'll let you go ahead. The

1:20:41

second one is, well, how

1:20:43

does tag-approved retinolatory use

1:20:46

them and not just

1:20:48

like intentional? Like, or how do we know? Because

1:20:51

all of the other elements are

1:20:53

assumed in the position of Christian

1:20:55

metaphysics and the Christian worldview. So

1:20:57

in other words, it's a package deal, an

1:21:00

argument for an entire paradigm. So it's not

1:21:02

an argument for one idea

1:21:04

about God being intentional, it's

1:21:06

the entire Christian paradigm that's assumed in the

1:21:08

argument. Okay,

1:21:13

so how is

1:21:15

the entire paradigm, like

1:21:18

how is that being proved by tag and not just?

1:21:22

The argument is for the paradigm, it's

1:21:24

for the Trinity and

1:21:26

the entire Christian revelation, it's an entire

1:21:28

argument, holistic.

1:21:32

Okay, I

1:21:34

think that's what you mean. It's not saying

1:21:36

that it's true because it's in the argument,

1:21:38

it's saying that the argument is for this

1:21:40

entire paradigm. Okay,

1:21:43

okay, I'm trying to do it for you. Oh, it

1:21:45

actually makes more sense, thank you so much. Yeah, you

1:21:47

can look at one

1:21:50

way to see this, which illustrates

1:21:52

the arguments in regard

1:21:54

to meta logic and

1:21:57

how that works is

1:21:59

the... the argument

1:22:01

that tab between the tortoise and Achilles are

1:22:03

you familiar with this okay

1:22:08

so this is a famous problem that Lewis

1:22:10

Carroll raised in his

1:22:12

it's sort of attached to through the

1:22:14

looking glass he was a mathematician and

1:22:19

he wrote this little essay

1:22:21

and it's about this

1:22:24

fictional dialogue between it's

1:22:27

called a paradox it's

1:22:29

a fictional dialogue between Achilles and a tortoise

1:22:32

and here's a video right here that

1:22:35

explains it from a philosophical

1:22:37

website what the tortoise said to Achilles

1:22:39

explained it's a five-minute video I

1:22:41

think that makes it really clear I just went

1:22:43

into this in a lot of detail with my

1:22:45

part two for analyzing

1:22:48

through the looking glass because in through

1:22:51

the looking glass there's a lot of areas

1:22:53

where Lewis Carroll does not just word play

1:22:55

but also number games

1:22:57

number play and number theory

1:23:00

and it starts to edge over into

1:23:02

the stuff that's

1:23:04

discussed by Douglas Hofstadter in girdel Escher

1:23:06

Bach and so it gets into the

1:23:08

strange loop stuff where he talks

1:23:10

about how the mathematical principles of the limitations

1:23:12

of set theory in girdel's

1:23:15

incompleteness theorems this

1:23:18

relates to the problem of the tortoise's argument

1:23:20

that you can actually show

1:23:23

that in affirming one statement

1:23:26

in terms of logic you're actually also

1:23:28

necessarily affirming an infinite set of statements

1:23:31

and so it ends up being an infinite loop

1:23:33

and it's a kind of paradox that's not

1:23:37

really solvable unless we admit that

1:23:39

there's limitations to first-order logic that's

1:23:41

the point that's the point of

1:23:43

why we were saying that the

1:23:45

sets eventually appeal out of themselves outside

1:23:47

themselves and when I brought up this

1:23:49

to one of those guys I forget which one he

1:23:52

said you can't bring in girdel's

1:23:54

incompleteness terms because that's different it's illustrating the

1:23:57

point that I'm making I'm not saying that

1:23:59

in is a transcendental

1:24:01

argument. I'm saying that it illustrates how

1:24:04

there's a limitation to first-order logic

1:24:06

when you ask metallurgical questions. This

1:24:09

also illustrates that. And you can go watch

1:24:11

this video as to see how that is

1:24:13

the case. It's called The Tortoise,

1:24:17

what the tortoise said to Achilles. Rock

1:24:22

Barcelos I'm

1:24:30

from Brazil, so sorry if

1:24:32

I have any difficulty communicating.

1:24:36

I'm a former atheist, and

1:24:43

I'm a non- I

1:24:52

got a list about

1:24:54

the arguments for God. But

1:25:00

I'm currently struggling

1:25:02

about evolution. And

1:25:04

to me, it's important to me

1:25:08

that I'm not a Christian, I'm

1:25:12

a Christian, and I'm a Christian.

1:25:14

And to

1:25:16

me- Well,

1:25:21

I don't really have much to say about that today.

1:25:23

It's not really evolution, but

1:25:28

I critique evolution from a philosophical perspective,

1:25:30

but I'm not trained in biology. Right,

1:25:33

right. So can

1:25:36

I ask something about

1:25:38

philosophical? Okay. Would

1:25:40

you say that the role of

1:25:43

evolution, the

1:25:52

belief in evolution in society today

1:25:56

is Somewhat-

1:26:00

The religious or heads or

1:26:02

the it please have a

1:26:04

function right? To.

1:26:08

Put she managed to down some

1:26:10

some out. The announcing that

1:26:12

I think that our basic level many

1:26:15

worth a lot Saints in the last

1:26:17

hundred years and one hundred and fifty

1:26:19

years have made this very point that

1:26:21

it degrades. Man turns him into an

1:26:23

animal, removes his dignity that was part

1:26:26

of the a demonic a purpose of

1:26:28

it. It has it's origins. Not enough

1:26:30

Huxley th Huxley, but rather in ancient

1:26:32

Hindu thought. So it's an ancient Hindu

1:26:35

mystical pagan religious concept In terms of

1:26:37

it's origins. right?

1:26:39

right? right?

1:26:42

So. As.

1:26:47

Books that you can. Yeah, so

1:26:49

the best I would be a

1:26:51

could just as creation early man

1:26:54

by our. Father. Surfing Rose

1:26:56

which is kind of the classic girth orthodox

1:26:58

pretty guys. Oh, and remind you that we

1:27:00

have. A. Show sponsor and

1:27:03

that is of course. The.

1:27:05

One the only talk.com and if you

1:27:07

had an Alberta sought.com right now that's

1:27:10

ch oh cute dot com. You can

1:27:12

use Robo J Sifted get fifty percent

1:27:14

off those amazing products. I will be

1:27:16

right back in a moment. I do

1:27:18

have some more energy left to continue

1:27:21

this Hoping we get some odd disagree

1:27:23

years. some ah some Hebrew roots, some

1:27:25

some opposition who would like to come

1:27:27

on and defend their position or some

1:27:29

areas ends are somehow if if you

1:27:32

gotta have a position that you disagree

1:27:34

if you're a Muslim. Easier if you're

1:27:36

whatever. Ah, really would prefer that

1:27:38

topic today. I'm kind of in the mood

1:27:40

for that. Com. And

1:27:43

of a for you to that though, it's you

1:27:45

to listen to this. I don't have you be

1:27:47

able to hear this if you're on the twitter

1:27:50

space. but I gotta go to the little ladies

1:27:52

room. I gotta go T T So righteous, hold

1:27:54

your horses. I'll be right back. I'm gonna

1:27:56

put you on something. Crazy real quick. Most

1:27:58

of these zoom. The ambrose are

1:28:01

consuming macro guzzling, synthetic dies and

1:28:03

synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They

1:28:05

don't even know it. Goofy. Ah

1:28:07

yes, there's nothing great about that.

1:28:09

Do not listen any further Unless

1:28:11

you are an Alpha or Sigma

1:28:13

Mail. This is important and there

1:28:15

could be consequences. There's a new

1:28:17

certified Sigma Mail Pre Workout Powder

1:28:19

Four Sigma Only. It is

1:28:21

guaranteed to empower you to

1:28:23

dominate your coworkers, fire your

1:28:25

boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade

1:28:27

a small village. Chad Mode

1:28:29

stands out from the crowd

1:28:31

by excluding artificial flavors preservative

1:28:33

sweeteners, and we've even avoided

1:28:35

so called natural flavors which

1:28:37

are actually not natural at

1:28:39

all, ensuring a clean and

1:28:41

effective formula. experienced. A pure

1:28:43

goodness of Chad Mode colored

1:28:46

with organic blues by Rule

1:28:48

Lena extract, organic lemon, sherry,

1:28:50

and organic. Maple crystals forget synthetic

1:28:52

caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese

1:28:54

lab. Embrace the natural power of

1:28:56

organic green coffee bean extract which

1:28:58

will get your mind going and

1:29:00

pump you up to the max.

1:29:03

Chad. Mode is made in America

1:29:05

with all cleaning gradients. The first

1:29:07

clean pre workout of it's why

1:29:09

are these people adding synthetic sweeteners

1:29:11

to every single pre workout when

1:29:13

there are many study downside to

1:29:15

consuming nasty fake sucralose, each dose

1:29:17

of sad Mode moving in the

1:29:20

good of a cop and a

1:29:22

home a time mobile. So during

1:29:24

a surge on Monday night, essential

1:29:26

header over to talk.com Just from

1:29:28

objective to get fifty percent of

1:29:30

those gray products if you have

1:29:32

up on arguments. Make.

1:29:35

Your are now and hear your arguments. Whatever.

1:29:38

Your position is that's related to

1:29:40

the topic today. Ah again moment

1:29:42

we will seem to know what

1:29:44

an argument x is. Re

1:29:47

en un try again. Rails

1:29:50

silk or maybe even dinner. I'm over

1:29:52

her singers, some Ll Cool J analysts

1:29:54

who knows what to talk about. Merrily.

1:30:00

speak up. So

1:30:02

first this time. All right. Can you hear me

1:30:04

better? Yeah. Okay. I had

1:30:06

a question. So you'd often see

1:30:09

religious people. We

1:30:16

also have that starting point where we

1:30:18

say that God is good. Bro, you

1:30:20

keep cutting down there. Start over. Okay.

1:30:24

Okay. Did you hear the whole

1:30:26

thing at least? No. No,

1:30:28

none of it. Start over. Okay. Okay.

1:30:32

Let me start over. Okay. So

1:30:34

religious people often criticize atheists when it

1:30:36

comes to accounting for morality in

1:30:39

the office of God, right? Yeah. Got

1:30:42

it. Okay. When

1:30:44

they say that murder is objectively wrong, we don't

1:30:46

let them have that stance because if

1:30:48

God doesn't exist in morality, he has to be relative. But

1:30:51

I had the question that we also do make

1:30:54

a starting point, which is that God

1:30:56

is good and Satan is

1:30:58

bad. How do we make that judgment? We

1:31:02

also are making an axiomatic

1:31:04

presupposition when it comes to

1:31:06

believing that God is ultimately the good one. How

1:31:08

do we make that? Yeah.

1:31:10

We, we have, that's the point of the

1:31:12

transcendental argument of pre-subsial pre-subsitional argumentation is that

1:31:14

everybody has fundamental starting point axioms, but the

1:31:17

question is how do we give a holistic

1:31:19

account for those axioms? And the point is

1:31:21

that the atheist doesn't have an ability to

1:31:23

give an account for that in a justification

1:31:26

and our position does. So

1:31:28

we're not saying that we don't have presuppositions and

1:31:30

you do. We're saying we all

1:31:32

have presuppositions who can give an account for those

1:31:35

presuppositions. That's the tag argument. Right.

1:31:38

But why do we not let them have that stance

1:31:40

where murder is objectively wrong? Why do we not let

1:31:42

them have that? Because they

1:31:44

can't give an account for it. They

1:31:46

can't give a justification, but do you know what that means? I

1:31:50

understand. They cannot justify their argument.

1:31:52

Yeah. Yeah. So that's,

1:31:54

that's why. Yeah, man. Thank you

1:31:56

for now. Yeah. Yeah, man.

1:31:58

Thank you. So.

1:32:07

We. Still gotta room for. Ah,

1:32:11

I'm willing to reveal the haven't

1:32:14

called and yeah, if you have

1:32:16

a disagreement, if you have a

1:32:18

position on not Islam, dem position

1:32:21

on Heber Roots Black Heber, Israelites,

1:32:23

Anti Tryna trainers and Mormonism Jobs

1:32:25

Witnesses, Protestants, Evangelicals, Catholics, The

1:32:28

ever an argument the like to present

1:32:30

Islam, the Koran, It's.

1:32:34

An open for right now for you.

1:32:38

Looks like everybody's filter dominoes. anybody else

1:32:40

come in on acceptable that of our

1:32:42

to ask questions so not really. look

1:32:44

that is a Q and A again

1:32:46

guys. We've already done a lot a

1:32:48

Q and A tonight so we're giving

1:32:50

a position to the people that are

1:32:53

disagree. Next up is it's like Mick

1:32:55

Wilson would submit. Mit

1:32:59

wilson to like a Beach Boys.

1:33:08

Don't sound like much for

1:33:10

much. Just jumped on the

1:33:12

page. But. I'm. Like

1:33:15

a like to start a discussion i

1:33:17

just want to sign the lease was

1:33:19

the dumbest thing that's ever been installed

1:33:21

on name's. Sarah

1:33:23

down. For one hundred

1:33:25

percent. On so as to say

1:33:27

so and have know that include all beliefs

1:33:29

like believes in the Regularity of Nature laws

1:33:32

of logic to meme. All. Beliefs.

1:33:36

Pretty much yet. Completely

1:33:38

unnecessary. So I said. I believe in the

1:33:40

laws of logic. Or

1:33:45

a way to believe in him. And

1:33:47

when he said well you said all

1:33:49

beliefs so I exist. They

1:33:51

ceased rights said that if you

1:33:54

were down as. Well.

1:33:57

i don't have to believe in a flower I

1:34:00

can see it and prove it to myself. I don't have

1:34:02

to believe in the sun. I can

1:34:04

feel its effect. Well, hold

1:34:06

on a minute though. Maybe that's all

1:34:08

an illusion. How do you know it's

1:34:10

an external world? Because

1:34:14

I'm not an idiot. Well, I

1:34:16

mean, there's plenty of intelligent philosophers who don't

1:34:18

believe in an external world. So

1:34:24

let's just get back to, hang on. So let's

1:34:26

just get back to religion. Somebody

1:34:28

would just know the best rate for you is

1:34:30

a rate based on you with all-state. Not

1:34:32

one based on the driver who treats the highway like

1:34:34

a racetrack and the shoulder like

1:34:36

a passing lane. Why

1:34:38

pay a rate based on anyone else? Get

1:34:41

one based on you, this drive-wise from all-state.

1:34:44

Not available in Alaska or California, subject to terms and conditions,

1:34:46

rates are determined by several factors, which vary by state. In

1:34:48

some states, participation in drive-wise allows all states to use their

1:34:50

driving data for purposes of rating. While in some states, your

1:34:52

rate could increase with high-risk driving generally, safer drivers will save

1:34:54

with drive-wise. All-state, barren, casually, and turns coming into failure to

1:34:56

run speculonoi. Right.

1:34:59

Well, but I mean, you said all beliefs, so.

1:35:03

Sounds to me like you, my point is

1:35:05

that you have a religion too, it's just not

1:35:07

my religion. Well,

1:35:09

ask me if I know or I do not know.

1:35:13

What? So I

1:35:15

don't like the word belief. Do you

1:35:17

believe in foster's beer? So

1:35:21

if you, or let's just, all right, let's

1:35:23

just stick to religion, that's what you're talking

1:35:25

about. Well, my argument is that you have

1:35:27

a religion too, so. What's

1:35:30

my religion? Well, you believe in all these principles

1:35:32

that you can't justify, like that there's an external

1:35:34

world or that there's laws of logic. Laws

1:35:39

of logic, how

1:35:41

could, so what's

1:35:43

the law of logic I can't prove? The

1:35:46

law of identity. I

1:35:50

can't prove, you think I'm not,

1:35:53

so who's talking to you? Well,

1:35:55

I mean, where in the external world is the quote,

1:35:58

law of identity? Is

1:36:00

it physical? External

1:36:03

world? What do you mean by that?

1:36:08

Yeah, I give up. You win. Uh,

1:36:10

let's move on. Next up is... Pablo.

1:36:14

What's up, Pablo? Pablo

1:36:19

Escobar. What's up, man? You

1:36:21

get some of them kilos we sent? I

1:36:24

was... I was poking

1:36:26

that coca with my pointy

1:36:28

finger. Rubbing it on

1:36:31

my gums. What's up, Pablo? Yeah,

1:36:33

you keep shovelling it up your hooter,

1:36:35

my friend. Keep shovelling the white up

1:36:37

your hooter. And you'll sleep

1:36:40

like a baby. That

1:36:42

said, if you don't sleep, you can always get

1:36:44

into... If

1:36:46

you're stimulated enough, you can always get into...

1:36:49

Islam. You can go and study Islam. And...

1:36:54

I did tell me that it's a good thing for the world.

1:36:58

I don't see anything good coming out of that

1:37:00

theology. Yeah, there are many

1:37:02

things that dislike about... Christians.

1:37:08

The Christian religions, you

1:37:10

know, like Catholicism. And

1:37:13

all that. There are many things that despise

1:37:15

about that. But... When

1:37:19

I weigh all up... They

1:37:21

are... It's a much, much... More

1:37:25

positive thing for the world than Islam.

1:37:27

I don't see any positives

1:37:29

coming out of Islam. What do you see? No,

1:37:32

I've debated all the top Muslims. Except for

1:37:34

Mohammed Hijab. He's the only one we haven't

1:37:36

debated yet. And I would agree with that.

1:37:44

Is that all you had on your mind today? So,

1:37:47

you're not willing to have an argument and play

1:37:49

devil's advocate then? Well,

1:37:52

I'll play... I mean, I have a position

1:37:55

I'll defend. I don't know why would I play

1:37:57

devil's advocate for Islam. Well,

1:38:02

some people have. I mean, what's your position?

1:38:04

Yeah, but where are they now? Let's bring

1:38:06

them forth. I

1:38:09

mean, you're on here. What's your position? Well,

1:38:12

my position is, I've already stated my position.

1:38:15

I don't see... Okay, you don't like Islam,

1:38:17

but what's your position? Anything

1:38:19

positive that Islam is bringing to the... Okay,

1:38:21

well, that's not your own position. All right,

1:38:23

that is my position. But however, for the

1:38:27

sake of argument, I will play

1:38:29

devil's advocate and say the

1:38:31

best things as well. Okay, yeah, right. Well, we're

1:38:33

not looking for fake arguments. We're looking for people

1:38:35

who have actual positions that they want to defend.

1:38:38

So if you want

1:38:40

to come on and if you disagree with my

1:38:42

positions, if you're a Protestant, you're

1:38:44

a Catholic, you're a Muslim, you're an

1:38:47

atheist, you're a Joe's Witness, you're a

1:38:49

Mormon, you are

1:38:51

some other position, then request to speak. I'll

1:38:53

give you the mic. You can come on

1:38:55

and ask your question. We're looking for people

1:38:57

who disagree, who want to have a coherent,

1:39:02

reasoned debate in

1:39:04

exchange. And that

1:39:07

does not mean just telling me a

1:39:09

story. Okay, that's not why

1:39:11

your position is the case. If you have

1:39:13

a position in an argument, you're welcome to

1:39:15

bring it to the table. But

1:39:18

we're looking for people who disagree, not

1:39:20

for people who just want to tell me your opinions,

1:39:23

not interested in that. I'm interested in the

1:39:25

argument for your position. Why is your position

1:39:27

the case? Okay, maybe it is the case.

1:39:29

Maybe you've got the goods. Maybe

1:39:32

you can put me in my place. Well,

1:39:34

here is the chance you can have the

1:39:36

mic for as long as you'd like, within

1:39:40

reason, if you make an

1:39:42

argument. Making an argument is not

1:39:44

the same thing as arguing. An

1:39:47

argument means that you give a position with

1:39:49

supporting evidences or supporting

1:39:51

logical premise,

1:39:54

conclusion, etc. that

1:39:57

shows that your position is true. Why

1:40:00

do we need to believe your position? We

1:40:03

know you think your position is true. We don't

1:40:05

need you telling us that you think your position

1:40:07

is true. Obviously You're

1:40:10

here representing your position So

1:40:13

again, I know guys we got multiple

1:40:15

people who've already talked and

1:40:18

asked questions But they

1:40:20

didn't disagree and they don't have

1:40:22

a position to present so again

1:40:24

guys if you disagree, please

1:40:27

request to speak all these people requesting to speak

1:40:29

or people who agree or Just

1:40:31

want to tell me their opinions. Also, if

1:40:33

we're not interested in your opinions, it's not

1:40:35

that's not an argument and By

1:40:38

the way, there's a bunch of people in here Nobody

1:40:43

wants to come but there's no Muslims who can

1:40:45

present the argument People

1:40:49

in the chat so I'm scared I'm scared

1:40:54

Maybe we'll go ahead and I mean if nobody's gonna come home,

1:40:56

maybe we'll just call it a night I don't know. I

1:40:59

don't know. What do you guys think? Here comes somebody Horatio.

1:41:01

Oh here they come Let's

1:41:04

see emergent Emergence

1:41:08

system with an emergent system

1:41:16

Hey, how you doing? What's up man? So

1:41:19

I don't have an argument but this is a better

1:41:22

argument About

1:41:25

I think it's generally useless to argue

1:41:27

about religion Because

1:41:32

it doesn't change the

1:41:34

reality Your

1:41:42

then you already make this point a few minutes ago Somebody

1:41:47

make the same point. Yeah, okay

1:41:52

And so I mean, what

1:41:55

does it mean? What do you mean destroying the planet? What are you talking

1:41:57

about? you're

1:42:01

arguing about religion while

1:42:03

petroleum deposits are running out. Okay

1:42:07

and you believe in the peak oil scam?

1:42:11

It's really a scam,

1:42:13

it's a finite resource. Well

1:42:15

you think that but I mean I can point

1:42:17

you to the people who dreamt up the scam

1:42:19

talking about how they would dream it up. So

1:42:24

you believe it's a renewable resource? It would

1:42:26

seem to be, I can't prove that but

1:42:28

it seems to be that. But

1:42:30

you believe that? Correct. It's infinite for

1:42:32

you. A lot of it's infinite

1:42:34

but it seems to be renewable yes. Well let's

1:42:36

think about this. Let's logically. No let's think about

1:42:39

the origins of the peak oil. No let's think

1:42:41

it now let's think about the origins

1:42:43

of peak oil do you know where it comes from?

1:42:47

You're not going to talk about I'm

1:42:49

discussing peak oil where does it come from? Yeah

1:42:52

I'm making a point about how you

1:42:54

don't know where peak oil comes from.

1:42:56

That's sophistry asking you a question to

1:42:58

know where this idea

1:43:02

comes from is sophistry. No I want to talk about peak oil.

1:43:04

You brought it up. You

1:43:11

brought it up. You said

1:43:13

petroleum deposits are going, all

1:43:15

right you're just as ridiculous.

1:43:18

Some of them are. You're

1:43:22

not gonna answer the question then we're gonna move

1:43:24

on. Let's see Horatio what's up? And

1:43:28

that was that exact same dude that was on

1:43:30

before was his nonsense. He

1:43:35

said the exact same thing as the other guy trying to pretend like

1:43:37

he wasn't the same dude. I'm

1:43:40

on mute.

1:43:45

Hello. What's up? Hello

1:43:48

Mr. Dyer. Yeah I'm a fan

1:43:50

of yours. I love your content.

1:43:53

I have

1:43:57

something to say. Regarding

1:44:00

all the religions in

1:44:02

the world, how quickly

1:44:06

can we logically

1:44:08

deduce that Christianity

1:44:16

is correct? What's

1:44:18

your account of logic? Well,

1:44:23

I would say that logic

1:44:26

is...I had grown logic in

1:44:29

the Christian God. I

1:44:32

would say logic is immaterial. It's not

1:44:34

something that's changeable that we can actually experience

1:44:39

in physical sense, but

1:44:41

we know there... Okay.

1:44:44

Well, I mean, that's my move, so where

1:44:46

are we disagreeing? So that's the same argument

1:44:48

I would make. Well,

1:44:51

I would say, I mean, because I know

1:44:53

that Islam makes a similar

1:44:56

type of argument to say that they

1:44:58

ground truth and Allah, but... Well,

1:45:02

I mean, but they're also empiricists, so how's

1:45:04

that going to work? I mean, unless they're

1:45:06

like Shia Islam, I mean, the

1:45:08

rest of them are empiricists.

1:45:11

So how are you going to ground it in a thing that you never

1:45:13

experienced? Well,

1:45:16

I understand what you're saying, and that is a good

1:45:18

point. But that's...I

1:45:21

don't really disagree with you in any

1:45:23

thing. Okay. Well,

1:45:26

appreciate that. I'm going to...you're cutting out a

1:45:28

little bit, so we're going to go

1:45:30

over here to Zionist something. Go

1:45:40

ahead. Make

1:45:43

sure it's on topic. We're not talking about geopolitics today.

1:45:48

Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. I

1:45:51

started listening, you guys. I'm just getting a

1:45:54

feel for it. I've never seen you

1:45:56

before. But

1:45:58

somebody mentioned religion. and what

1:46:01

I heard

1:46:04

his question was how do we know Christian

1:46:08

was the correct religion that what he

1:46:11

asked well he started with that but

1:46:13

then he was basically saying I agree with all your

1:46:15

positions so we I was

1:46:17

moving on because I was looking for people who disagreed

1:46:21

okay I

1:46:26

feel I can't defend Judaism without

1:46:29

destroying somebody else's faith in their

1:46:31

religion but my

1:46:33

question would be to rhetorical question

1:46:35

no need to answer it but

1:46:39

every person needs to think about it

1:46:43

Judaism was founded upon

1:46:45

a shim

1:46:47

coming to the

1:46:50

people as a

1:46:52

nation as a whole and

1:46:55

given them a choice

1:46:58

to follow him and then well then

1:47:00

it began with like

1:47:03

a family and then a tribe yes

1:47:06

but out my mouth he

1:47:09

gave the 10 command I'm aware but I'm

1:47:11

saying that he appeared to Abraham which is

1:47:14

before my mother yes

1:47:16

but my point is

1:47:18

you know it led up to that

1:47:21

but at Mount Sinai I shouldn't

1:47:25

reveal himself to a whole nation at

1:47:27

once one

1:47:29

other religion can say that thank

1:47:32

you yeah

1:47:35

I mean I think as a Christian we would

1:47:37

agree with that but what

1:47:41

are you a evangelical are

1:47:43

you a Hebrew roots messianic

1:47:46

believer or something no

1:47:50

I'm I'm

1:47:53

Jewish I converted from Southern

1:47:56

Baptist US and

1:47:59

my point is, you

1:48:03

know, Judaism was

1:48:05

first. God

1:48:08

does not change. He says

1:48:10

he is never changing. So

1:48:13

if he came to the Jewish people,

1:48:16

why would he change more

1:48:20

than your testament? Well, I mean, does

1:48:23

God appear in the Old Testament as

1:48:25

a Unitarian deity or as more

1:48:27

than one? It

1:48:32

plainly states he

1:48:34

is singular in his entity. He

1:48:37

has multiple aspects just

1:48:39

like you have an angry side to

1:48:41

you, you have a joyous So

1:48:45

who appeared to Abraham? As

1:48:49

him. So God

1:48:53

has a form? He

1:48:57

can be in multiple spots at once.

1:49:01

So when the Psalms in Psalm

1:49:03

110, who's talking to who in

1:49:06

that Messianic Psalm? I'm

1:49:10

not familiar with that. So you

1:49:12

converted out of the religion when you appear

1:49:14

to not be familiar with the

1:49:16

fact that even in the Old Testament

1:49:18

there's multiplicity to Yahweh? I

1:49:21

don't have anything memorized. That's what I'm saying. Well,

1:49:23

you don't feel like you don't know anything about

1:49:25

it. So

1:49:28

you can quote the Bible, any verse,

1:49:30

any chapter, and tell exactly what it's

1:49:32

talking about? Is

1:49:34

that an argument? I mean, I mean,

1:49:36

I'm basically pointing out that in many places we

1:49:38

have an angel of the Lord who's called Yahweh.

1:49:40

Who's the angel of the Lord that

1:49:44

appears? I just

1:49:46

gave an opinion and

1:49:48

like I said, I cannot. There's been

1:49:51

Judaism but no word is down. Okay.

1:49:54

Moving on. Luke,

1:49:58

what's up? Yes, sir. Hey,

1:50:08

I was

1:50:11

just going to ask if you had

1:50:13

any good book recommendations for like Trinitarian

1:50:16

theology, just to get like a good

1:50:18

Orthodox understanding. I

1:50:21

mean, yeah, you

1:50:24

could read On the Orthodox Faith by

1:50:26

John Damascus. You could read anything

1:50:32

by like St. Maximus. You

1:50:34

could read anything by St.

1:50:38

Gregory Palamas' Triads. I

1:50:41

got the Cosmic Mystery one, so I'm going

1:50:43

to read the Triads. All right. Thank

1:50:46

you, sir. Yeah. House

1:50:48

of something, house of

1:50:51

blim something. Hello,

1:50:59

Mr. Dyer. Yeah. I was wondering

1:51:01

about, I heard in another

1:51:09

argument before, I was

1:51:12

wondering, I was wondering

1:51:16

about the miracles, Eucharistic miracles, and you, how

1:51:18

do I say it? Yeah,

1:51:37

so the Orthodox Church doesn't have the same

1:51:40

view of Eucharistic miracles. The

1:51:42

Orthodox Church stops the service if something

1:51:44

like this happens, because we don't want

1:51:46

to fall into pre-list. But

1:51:49

miracles don't prove or disprove the position anyway.

1:51:53

But Jesus proved

1:51:56

his godness by

1:51:59

adding. By showing the

1:52:01

miracles by eating the miracles attest to

1:52:03

the position they don't prove it they're

1:52:05

they're like attestations But they obviously themselves

1:52:07

they can't prove it and Jesus himself

1:52:09

says that you seek for a sign

1:52:11

and then we'll be given To you

1:52:13

a wicked generation seeks signs But

1:52:17

by do those miracles happens do you

1:52:20

recognize No,

1:52:25

we do we don't have any we don't make

1:52:28

any statement on that because that how

1:52:30

would a mirror how would a How would

1:52:32

a miracle claim prove a position if

1:52:35

every religious view claims miracles?

1:52:37

It's just not obvious that that would be a fallacy.

1:52:40

You don't see why that wouldn't work There's

1:52:45

something different because the really does

1:52:48

happen Some

1:52:50

people just know the best way for you is a

1:52:52

rate based on you with all stuff Not

1:52:55

one based on the driver who treats the highway

1:52:57

like a racetrack and the shoulder like a

1:52:59

passing lane While pay

1:53:01

a rate based on anyone else get one

1:53:03

based on you this driveway Not

1:53:06

available in Alaska, California subject to terms and conditions rates

1:53:09

are determined by several factors Which vary by state and some

1:53:11

states participation in drive-wise allows all state to use your driving

1:53:13

data for purposes of rating while in some states Your rate

1:53:15

could increase with high-risk driving generally safer drivers will save the

1:53:17

drive-wise all state-bearing casualty insurance company in Philly, North Park, Illinois

1:53:22

It's not a difference not different The

1:53:24

point is that they don't prove the

1:53:26

position miracles will accompany the correct faith

1:53:29

and position But miracle

1:53:32

claims are everywhere so

1:53:34

they can't prove the position Thomas I

1:53:50

Know what's up, man? I Was

1:53:54

just gonna ask about your opinion on the

1:53:56

Antiochian Church, basically pretty

1:53:59

general question Well, I mean, I'm not

1:54:01

trying to be rude, but like today is debate topic

1:54:03

of the topics listed. What about it?

1:54:09

Just whether they're going to appreciate your part of the

1:54:11

Russian Orthodox Church. I

1:54:14

suppose because the Metropolitan

1:54:16

of the UK, Siloam,

1:54:19

he recently excommunicated someone because

1:54:21

they rebaptized someone from

1:54:23

another, you know, what they consider a

1:54:25

heretic. When he said that cosmation is

1:54:28

the only necessary thing for someone provided they've been

1:54:30

baptized in the name of the Trinity. I'm

1:54:33

just curious about your position on that because

1:54:35

I'm thinking, I think I

1:54:38

might be wrong with this before the piece is here,

1:54:40

so it's about how there should be rebaptized basically. And,

1:54:43

you know, if someone like Siloam would suggest that that's kind of a

1:54:45

schismatic way of looking at it, but... Yeah,

1:54:48

I mean, the the the ROCOR

1:54:50

position is that the local bishop

1:54:53

determines that and we do not

1:54:55

de facto accept everybody's

1:54:58

sacraments just because they were performed in a certain

1:55:00