HEATED DEBATE! “jesusandwhatnot” Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL

Summary

Podcast Summary: Jay'sAnalysis — "HEATED DEBATE! 'jesusandwhatnot' Vs Jay Dyer! His ‘Gotcha’ Fails LOL"

Host: Jay Dyer
Date: August 12, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Jay'sAnalysis featured a rowdy, unscripted call-in show with Jay Dyer, featuring live audience interaction, off-the-wall humor, and a focus on heated theological and apologetic debates. The primary "debate" is between Jay and an online figure (occasionally under a socketpuppet) sometimes identified as "jesusandwhatnot," alongside a parade of callers raising issues about Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Catholicism, apologetics, and online cult-like behavior within church debates. Jay’s cutting, sometimes caustic style—mixed with absurdist humor and serious theological polemics—pervades throughout, making this episode as polarizing as it is engaging.

Key themes:

• Orthodox and Roman Catholic approaches to divorce and remarriage
• Allegations of hypocrisy in Protestant and Catholic apologetic practices
• The problem of "Latinization" and online apologetics “cults”
• Debates about the Filioque and the epistemological basis of Thomism
• Internet drama involving debates, doxxing, and rival apologists
• The limitations and pitfalls of online apologetics and premature "public teachers"
• Critique of popular online Christian personalities

---

1. Main Caller Confrontations & Apologetics Debate

Debating Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Marriage Doctrine
Timestamps: 10:25 – 24:08

• Callers challenge Orthodox positions on divorce/remarriage, referencing Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions.
• Jay maintains that Orthodox canon law allows for economy in cases beyond mere sexual immorality, such as abuse or extreme circumstances.

  “We apply the principles of economy to all of these situations... We don’t have this legalistic reading of Jesus that the only means or the only grounds would be just literally some form of sexual immorality.” — Jay Dyer [20:00]

• Meanwhile, he calls annulments in Catholicism hypocritical ("everyone knows the joke is that annulment is just Catholic divorce") and sees Protestantism as equally compromised.
• The iconic "billions of Bibles sealed" meme is mercilessly mocked.

On the Instability of Online Converts & the 'Cult' of Apologists
Timestamps: 15:44 – 32:17

• Jay critiques “convert syndrome”—young men rapidly jumping from one tradition to another, making themselves online apologists without proper formation.

  "This is always... we, there's a wave every ten years. The first converts of 2016, 2017... they all claim to have had [episcopal approval], but you see the fruits of it... they're all a bunch of Latinizers. And what have we said all this time? Latinizing leads you to Roman Catholicism." — Jay Dyer [16:07]

• He accuses ex-Orthodox and current online Catholic/Protestant apologists of being motivated by unstable personal relationships rather than theology, riffing frequently (half-seriously, half-jokingly) on "butt buddies" and "furries" as memes for unhealthy online dynamics.
• Parallel stories are discussed: converts becoming “public teachers,” getting swayed by complex theological matters, then reversing course.

---

2. Online Apologetics Feuds and Critiques

The 'God Logic' Critiques
Timestamps: 33:37 – 45:25

• Jay rips into the YouTube apologist "God Logic" and his followers, accusing them of theological ignorance, ecumenism, and pushing converts into Messianic Judaism/Judaizing.
• Strong critique of the lack of doctrinal consistency among “churchless” apologists, especially those only interested in opposing Islam online.

  “You can't do this type of work without having a long-term pattern of doing the homework… You can't take the triad, the monarchical trinitarian view outside of essence energy, outside of no filioque, outside of the Christology we have... It doesn't make sense without the rest.” — Jay Dyer [40:08]

• Jay lists failings: not knowing the Nicene Creed, not understanding Judaizing heresy, and fostering “slop convert audiences."

Pattern Recognition: The Instability of Protest Converts and Online Heresies
Timestamps: 28:17 – 32:17

• Critiques of so-called “Latinizing,” where Orthodox converts bring in Protestant or Catholic dogmas such as Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) and Original Guilt, which Jay asserts are not Orthodox dogmas.
• Predictable path: converts who won’t conform to Orthodox norms either end up Catholic or Protestant, often citing “the Gospel” as justification.
• Online Discords and group chats are described as cauldrons of subversion.

---

3. High-Level Trinitarian Debate: Filioque & Paradigm Clash

Clash with “Base Catholic” over the Filioque
Timestamps: 96:44 – 117:00

• A lengthy (and often circular) exchange between Jay and a self-identified Thomist over the Filioque.
• Jay refuses to debate on the "quote mines" (i.e., simply exchanging authorities) or accept premises based on Thomistic/Aristotelian metaphysics.

  “Why am I supposed to accept the Thomistic metaphysical dogmas that you push? Why?” — Jay Dyer [104:03]

• The caller tries to advance a standard Thomas Aquinas distinction (principium quo/proximum) around the generation of the Son, but Jay redirects to a fundamental epistemological disagreement: he will not debate downstream issues until first principles (paradigm, epistemology) are agreed.
• Jay points out that “Thomism is an empirical theology…[but] the peripatetic axiom itself is not in sense data. So this is an arbitrary starting point and a self-evident, just-give-me-just-so kind of position.” [121:46]
• This culminates in mutual exasperation: neither party accommodates the other's basic starting points, exposing the endless impasse when paradigms are opposed.

---

4. Internet Drama, Doxxing and 'Cowardice'

Jay Responds to Refusal to Debate Certain Online Figures
Timestamps: 55:06 – 58:55

• Accused by some callers and chat participants of “being afraid” to debate certain Muslim or “cult” figures, Jay responds by citing his record of debates and dismisses the call-out culture as juvenile and dishonest.
• He describes cycles where a new “top Muslim apologist” is always presented as the "one true debate challenge."

  “You are afraid. You are afraid. You must debate the Hidden Imam. Or you are afraid. Where is the Hidden Imam? He is hidden out in the desert, and if I don't find him, I'm a wuss.” — Jay Dyer [75:13]

Laughing at the Absurdities of Online Apologetics
Timestamps: 121:00 – 124:16

• Jay and his friends riff on young apologists who fake credentials, endlessly quote Latin or Greek, or insist on paradigm-neutral readings of texts that (one’s paradigm determines the outcome).
• Jay’s approach: always force the debate to the “paradigm level” to avoid endless, unresolvable “quote wars”—a key methodological theme.

---

5. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Roman Catholic hypocrisy in annulment:
  "Everybody knows... that annulment is Catholic divorce." [24:08]

• On online instability:
  “There’s a wave every 10 years… they all claim to have had it, but you see the fruits of it. They’re all a bunch of Latinizers." [16:07]

• On the limits of apologetics:
  “No, there are no churchless apologists.” [40:08]

• On call-out/‘debate me, coward’ culture:
  “I’ve debated all your top dudes, bro. Why would I be scared of this? … After a decade of debating, you idiots.” [56:40]

• On always moving to the paradigm level:
  “If your paradigm has a foundation that's faulty, all I have to do is pull that out and the whole thing falls.” [124:16]

• On the futility of endless quote wars:
  “To continue to have that debate at throwing patristic quotes back and forth... is ignoring the actual point of contention, which is rival paradigms.” [124:16]

---

6. Audience Q&A and Additional Debates

Callers' Issues:

• Muslims ask about conflation of Salafism and broader Islam, leading to short interactions about Shia/Sunni distinction and Salafi pro-Israel alliances.
• Other callers dispute the wisdom of online apologetics by untrained, newly converted laymen.
• Off-topic: jokes on "Cholo Church," the state of AI songs, and various Internet personalities.

Listener Struggles:

• Several calls address the struggle with anger, family boundaries, and maintaining conviction in profoundly secular or degenerate environments. Jay counsels patience, boundaries, and understanding that real spiritual growth takes time.

---

7. Closing (Content Only)

• Jay briefly advertises upcoming debates—including a debate with "Junior" on The Redheaded Libertarian's show.
• Final jabs at debate challenges, plug for choq.com, and reminders to bring questions to upcoming shows.

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers caustic humor, blistering polemics, and high-level theological argument wrapped in the chaotic format of a modern online call-in show. Jay Dyer stays true to his "paradigm apologetics" approach, refusing to engage on terms he considers flawed, while exposing the instability and sometimes absurdity of online apologetics, convert-cults, and the theological meme-warfare of 2020s social media Christianity. Those unfamiliar with the personalities or the context will find it dense and occasionally impenetrable, but the episode is an excellent case study in both the strengths and pitfalls of modern internet apologetics.

---

Note on Structure

Timestamps refer to major topic changes or memorable moments.
All quotations are attributed with speaker and timestamp.
Non-content (ads, outros) omitted per instructions.

Transcript

[A]

With the American Express platinum card, you can access over $3,500 in annual value with benefits and eligible purchases across travel, entertainment and more. There's nothing like platinum. Learn [e-mail] Explore Platinum Enrollment Requirements monthly and other limits in terms app.

[B]

I got a feels that's a season I want to slide this out get over here now I got a hex stars now you gonna punch that bitch in the good right now biscuit over here on somebody heaven I not the plum. She got a deeper.

[A]

Sam

[B]

I got a feel that's a season I'm on a slab the out of shot get over here now I got a hex stars now oh you don't punch that in that girl right now get over here on now somebody heaven I knock the punch and the good bitch bitch punch trying to get

[A]

for the

[B]

she got a divot in her cruel tonight she got a deeper in her prime My ball. I'm about to be put in a

[A]

CR tonight she got a be put in a pr. Jamie, could you make me an espresso? Okay, we're going to open it up. Let's keep it on topic. One plus one plus one equal three icons are idolatry. Jj but Jay, can I talk? But it was an ex cathedral. If God is real, why does he allow evil? Why do you pray to dead people? Traditions of men. It's a no brainer. You're such a tyrannical reiner. Is this your first time on the interweb? Jaime, I need a ginger chew. Can't take it. These low tier slow boys. Is this your first time on the AOL shaven? I need a ginger chew. Was that an uncreated spoon fart? Unmute, dude. Stop repeating my name, dude. You goobers call in or I'll boot you. Where did we get the bible from? Have you read the canons of Francia? What are you catholic? Are you protestant? I'm not trying to be mean, but do you have an actual argument?

[B]

There is only one church.

[A]

You are in a cult. You're a goblin, a demon, a boomer. Quick question. Do we have any diddy back venerators in the chat? Is this your first time on the inner witch? I need a ginger chip. Did you ever have victory outreach experience when you were on the west coast?

[B]

What is that?

[A]

It's basically like cholo church.

[B]

Oh really? Hey dude, this is straight up, bro.

[A]

Cholo church.

[B]

Look, homie, you could go anywhere, bro. So cholo church. I'd be going here instead of freaking ruse monster.

[A]

Whatever, dude.

[B]

Cholo Church, dude, this church is about 50 times less gay than freaking Ruslan, bro. Cholo Church, dude. How come I didn't even know about freaking Cholo Church? Jeez, ap, dude, why? How come he ain't at Cholo Church, bro?

[A]

Cholo church.

[B]

He's over here trying to get inside of the freaking Ruslan's butt, buddy.

[A]

Church. Cholo church.

[B]

Do you need to go to Cholo Church, bro? Cholo church.

[A]

Come on, grab me little blonde haired, blue eyed white boy and put him on the white side of town, you know? And if that ain't good enough, I'm going to grab me a little ching chang, ping pong playing China boy and put him on the Asian side of town.

[B]

Whoa, dude.

[A]

Damn, bro.

[B]

They based as hell over at Cholo Church. They making freaking white dude jugs, making Chinese drugs, bro.

[A]

They don't even give a.

[B]

How do all the Cholo women, like, they were fat before everybody was fat, dude. It's like Cholo women were just always

[A]

like a circle, dude.

[B]

Like they was bored coming out like a circle, bro. Like they didn't even go through like a transformation where they were like hot when they were young or whatever. Like they was just straight a circle the whole time, bro. The spheres, bro. That's the orbs that Samson was talking about. And how could you refute me or whatever?

[A]

Cholo church. I need seven figures. I need seven figures. I need seven figures.

[B]

Y' all ready for this? It's almost that time. Last song. The engine is so. It's a very tone body.

[A]

He looks good. He looks good.

[B]

Mormons face life

[A]

Moment Space.

[B]

Magic Underwear fitting tight. Magic underwear is feeling right.

[A]

Space wise moment Space wise

[B]

moment Space. On the planet of naboo

[A]

magic. He looks good. He looks good. He looks good.

[B]

Space.

[A]

Oh, yeah. Space.

[B]

Y' all ready for this? The piano interlude signifies the end and the beginning of your destruction. We will go live in just one second with calls.

[A]

Let's create.

[B]

You gotta admit, I'm not a huge fan of the AI songs, but that one's kind of good. I have three permitted AI songs. That's it. We only allow the couple that support what we do over here. Steven Stefan. What's up? Stefan Harris. What's on your mind, son? I'm you, dude. Stephen on mute.

[A]

Dude.

[B]

Stephen on mute.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Yes. He figured it out. What's on your mind, dog?

[A]

With the American Express Platinum card, you can access over 3, 500 in annual value with benefits and eligible purchases across travel, entertainment and more. There's nothing like platinum. Learn more at americanexpress.com/explatin-platin enrollment requirements monthly and other limits in terms of play. Before 1970, you couldn't even join the church. Being divorced and remarried while your first spouse was still living. Before the 1970s, before the sexual revolution came in, this idea of joining the orthodox church where they, you know, the Russians can get divorced and remarried three times, and I know that goes back thousands of years. That is nonsense. It's right there in romans, chapter seven. If your husband's still alive and she gets remarried, she shall be called an adulteress. That is sealed. Billions of bibles sealed. Nobody can get around that.

[B]

Billions of bibles sealed.

[A]

It. It's in the Bible.

[B]

It's in there, but it was it in billions of. It was in. It was in billions of them. Was it in a billion bibles, baby?

[A]

Yeah. The sexual revolution changed the churches.

[B]

Changed them.

[A]

What? What? The wall street did Wall street. To pay corporate grants to the church denomination inside the sexual revolution. That doctrine is devastating. But it's.

[B]

Damn, son. It's over, dude. Orthodoxy's end. How did you calculate. How did you calculate the billions of bibles? How did you calculate it?

[A]

You know that a billion.

[B]

It was sealed in a billion bibles. Did you know that modern. Modern calculators after 1970 were the first calculators that could even calculate a billion? So that's not even true because you couldn't even calculate it. Exactly. Nothing to say about calculators.

[A]

Let's go over your doctrine, Jay.

[B]

Let's go over my doctor.

[A]

Yes, that's the issue.

[B]

Are you a Roman catholic?

[A]

No, no, no.

[B]

Wait a minute. I'm not a. Wait, so you're a protestant? You understand the entire protestant world believes in divorce, so how's that going to work out?

[A]

That's because of what was taught after the sexual revolution. Let's take the church of God in Christ as an example. In 1973, that's when the church of God in Christ.

[B]

So this critique. So this critique. Who cares about the. Nobody cares about some random black denomination. So what? Who. So what does this have to do with all the products? Why are you interrupting me when I'm making a point?

[A]

Shut up.

[B]

I'm making a point. So this critique would apply to your own position, you goober. So all of protestantism is apostate too, right?

[A]

Most of it.

[B]

Okay, so you're the last true believer. Good job, dude. We will join Steven's sect. You made it. You are the true keeper of the true flame. These are the idiots that call in here. Tactical. What's up, tactical? What's up?

[A]

I'm curious if this guy's ever heard of Hebrews 13:18. The church has the authority to bind and lose.

[B]

He doesn't care sins. I wasn't gonna go anywhere.

[A]

Yeah, I have a petition for the Emperor Wigsantium.

[B]

What's up, dog? Important, yo.

[A]

So you once called me gay. Now listen, listen. And first I need clarification. Was it homo, romantically gay, or homoerotically gay?

[B]

Because, well, I didn't put the PP in the poo poo, so there was no touching, so it doesn't count. It's all good, okay?

[A]

I just need it to be known because there's so many people bullying me now. They're like the tactical Ortho. Bro. He's gay. Jay said it. The Emperor of Exantium. There's no recovering from that.

[B]

Well, the simple recovery is to stop being gay and become straight. And you can do that. You can do that by heading over to chalk.com. use the promo J60 to get 60 off all those great chalk masculinity projects products. See this? This goofy man got me all flustered. I can't even. I can't even think. He calculated billions of Bibles have sealed it.

[A]

Hey, O.J. do you know that before 1970, in the sexual revolution, there was no hats in the Orthodox church?

[B]

Correct.

[A]

Right there.

[B]

Right. And it was sealed. It was signed, sealed, delivered, I'm yours. What song is that sign? Sealed liver, I'm your coco. What's up, Coco Chanel? How you doing, girl? Coco Chanel, what's up?

[A]

Hey, how's it going, Jake? Hey. I was just. I don't understand. That furry dude that was apparently converting back to or to Catholicism after St. Timothy to Studite. I just. Or Theodore the Sudai. I just finished the on holy icons last week. I don't understand how you could read something like that and then be convinced to go back to the Catholic Church. I don't.

[B]

He didn't go back. He never was Catholic. So he was. A couple years ago he was Muslim, and then he became Orthodox, and then he became true Orthodox, and then he became Orthodox again, and then he became Roman Catholic within a span of like, two years. So this is. You guys are making the mistake of thinking that this has anything to do with theology. They're just butt buddies. I'm serious. Like, they're literally furry butt buddies. As another. They're just. I think they're just butt buddy grooming. That's all they're doing is hooking up. So there's nothing to do with theology. Leon, what's up, by the way? Again, we've said for many years that when you come into Orthodoxy, when you immediately start trying to be an apologist, as all these people are making the huge mistake, especially when you're really young and you don't know the theology haven't been formed yet. This. This is always we. There's a wave every. Every 10 years. Well, within 10 years, for example, I've seen three waves of this. So the first converts of 2016, 2017, there was a wave of converts. And then a handful of people think they're apologists, and then they're confronted with material and information arguments that they'd never heard. And so they get easily swayed. Oh, actually, I didn't know about these papal honorifics. And so I guess that proves Vatican one. They don't even know the. They don't even know the Roman Catholic positions. So they get swayed into these positions very easily because they're actually just unstable people. That's why you don't make a new convert immediately a teacher, as Paul says. But every one of these people deem themselves public apologists and teachers without any clear Episcopal approval. They all claim to have had it, but you see the fruits of it. They're all a bunch of Latinizers. And what have we said all this time? Latinizing leads you to Rom Catholicism. So go and have fun. Weed from chaff. Enjoy your butt, buddy.

[A]

Cult.

[B]

So that's exactly what we said. What happened? I've seen it since 2016. Back in 2016, it was Gideon Laser. Okay, 2018, it was Jonathan, the mod of politics and religion discourse. 20. 20, 19, 20, it was Lofton. Same thing. And now all of these people have become and are becoming irrelevant. So they're just moving into their own irrelevance. What's up, Leon? And spiritual delusion with Rome Catholicism. What's up, Leon?

[A]

Hey, what's going on? So I have a question. We're allowed to ask questions here. It's not just debating.

[B]

I don't care. Yeah, do whatever you want.

[A]

Awesome. Then I have a question. So I've been really, really interested in Orthodoxy. I'm, like, heavily, heavily converting. However, I. There were still some things I want to iron out. You know, things I want to still research. Sure. And one of them has to do with the divorce. A lot of times when I see videos online talking about orthodox viewpoints of divorce, they usually just talk about, well, you can get divorced. And, you know, they just say, yeah, you get three.

[B]

Well, we made A whole documentary on this. There's a whole documentary. It's such a stupid gotcha. This is like the last resort that they have. That's why we made an entire documentary over here at ubi, Petra's channel. Divorce and Remarriage in the Church Fathers. So you're going to find out that, by the way, the Roman Cali Church's position is absolutely hypocritical anyway because they'll grant annulments to anybody.

[A]

So, yeah, I'm not a very big fan of the annulments. I find them to be very. I find them to be very overly complicated and very illogical in many areas. My main specification regarding divorce, or at least the main, main question that I have is, and I know Catholics have their own thing with annulments on this, but when Jesus says that basically divorce is the sexual immorality is the only valid grounds for divorce. The way he says that when an orthodox gets divorced, is it acknowledged that they commit the grave sin? Unlike in Catholicism where there's like, well, no, actually, you see, it never really was valid to begin with. Is there an acknowledgment that. Let's just say it was for something else.

[B]

Orthodox canon law, we have a conom. So we apply the principles of economy to all of these situations. And that's why it's not just sexual immorality. For example, let's say a. A wife was married to a husband who repeatedly, you know, essayed the children. Well, I guess she has to remain married to him because if, you know, no, there's other grounds other than just immorality or sexual morality. What if he's consistently beating her? What if he's like, those are other potential grounds. And so we apply the principle of economia that if, you know, something like sexual immorality is a basis, then it's likely plausible that other things could be the basis as well. So we don't have this legalistic reading of Jesus that the only means or the only grounds would be just literally some form of sexual immorality. Because you can think of all kinds of other situations where, I mean, what if he's beating the children to the point of death? Is that not also a grounds? What if he's. I don't know. I mean, there's a lot of different heinous types of sins that you could come up with that would not be necessarily the fault of one party or the other party. You know, what if my wife becomes some sort of bizarre ritual, you know, like she becomes a Satanist Well, I guess I have to remain married to her even though she's a Satanist. No, there's all kinds of grounds for separation. And the reasoning of the Orthodox Church is it's worse off to expect the person to live in perfect chastity when they were cheated on or were left for no, for no reason at all. If they were blameless in the situation, it's worse off for them to fornicate, which is probably what's going to happen, than for them to at least find another partner. So the reasoning behind all this is very practical and it's, and it's all super hypocritical anyway, because the Roman Catholic Church is literally supporting that you can commune after Amor's Leticia. They're literally saying that you can commune divorced and remarried and, and other people. Now they'll even commune gay people. They don't give a. And they're now having the gay couples blessings, right? So not a marriage, but a sacramental, quasi sacramental blessing. So look at the hypocrisy of this group group, all of this moral high horse about, oh, you have divorce and remarriage and they're over here literally having divorce and remarry. People take communion now after Francis is a Moors Leticia encyclical and they're having skittles blessings and they commune. Open skittles people and open pro abortion politicians. So don't get on your high horse with us when you, what you do is 10 times worse. You Roman Catholics Cleave. What's up, man?

[A]

Yo.

[B]

Hey, what's on your mind?

[A]

Hey, man. Yeah, I wanted to pop up and just chime in on that. Man, the, the annulment situation is absolutely insane. I mean, you go and look at their canon law, they can get annulments for literally anything. Anything like Canon 1095 says, basically. Like if they were, if they were mistaken about their social status of the spouse, like they could be married for like 15 years, right? Oh, I thought, I thought this, I, this chick was more famous than she was. Well, I guess I was never married all those 15 years. And what happens to our kids?

[B]

Yeah, isn't that crazy illegitimate?

[A]

It's insane.

[B]

The other thing they can do too is they could always just say, oh, I didn't actually have the full use of my reasoning. So, you know, I was, you know, at the time of when I was proposed to and agreed, I was under the influence of, you know, ssris and so it doesn't count. I mean, there's all kinds of like, like, you Know, this is called kazu.

[A]

Right.

[B]

In Roman Catholic canon law, they've had this history and in their tradition, because of the legalism of all of these legal loopholes. But just like the Pharisees, they uphold the letter of the law, the legality of it, to try to have a moral one up and a trump one up and. And, you know, morally piety signal over everybody. But in reality, the. The situation on the ground is it's. Everybody knows. The entire world even makes the joke that that annulment is Catholic divorce.

[A]

Yeah, exactly. It's. It's complete hypocrisy for them to be trying to raise this kind of objection. But they do it all the time. They just don't understand. Well, hey, we actually acknowledge what's actually going on. We say, yeah, it's a sin. You know, we're gonna penance this. We're gonna do a penance for it. You know, you're gonna have to abstain from the Eucharist, but it's not the unforgivable sin. You know what I mean? They just. They try to present like it never happened in the Roman Catholic Church. Church. But I did want to chime in on that PSA and a Latinizer thing. Sure. This is something that we've been calling out for a little while now, even with Father Stephen DeYoung on the show and things like this. We saw this with Joshua Shuping. That was his big. That was his big.

[B]

Another one grievance. Right.

[A]

You know, he was saying, oh, you know, I'm gonna be this PSA champion, teach that the Orthodox Church actually teaches penal substitutionary atonement. But he went around to all the priests, all the bishops, they all told him, no, we don't do this. And when I was a Protestant, he came on my show and this was what he said in the interview with me. You know, he basically said, oh, this is the. This is one of the reasons I. I apostatize was because I wanted to push psa. The Orthodox Church doesn't teach it, which makes sense if you're going to go into the church and say, and like, let's like, imagine you're like a new catechumen or something. You're one of these Latinized dudes. And you're looking around, you're like, oh, my priest rejects the gospel. Oh, all these people around me, they, you know, they reject the gospel. I am the modern act Athanasius. It's just pre. Less dude.

[B]

It is. And it reminds me of, you know, the tendency that we've seen or that I've seen. Again, going back to, if you go back to 2016, 2017, we had all the exact same patterns with these people. The, the way that I know and can predict how these people are going to act is because interacting with them for a significant amount of time, two to three years, you begin to see the patterns that you notice with the people. 10 years ago. So 10 years ago, when Gideon Laser converted, he was, oh, super hardcore trad cat, or excuse me, super hard hardcore Orthodox. And then he comes across, because he didn't focus on getting the Orthodox for an email, he comes across all these papal quote minds without the proper context and then suddenly leaves because he decides, oh, I have to defend Charlemagne as a saint, I have to defend the filioque, all this kind of nonsense, which nobody actually called you to defend these things anyway. So I don't know why you felt like you had some duty to defend this stuff. But this is what happens when you immediately decide you're an apologist and you don't realize that a lot of these issues will get really complex. And when they get complex, you actually need time to read and to study it. But it's not just intellectual. It's also, you got to be formed. You have to be kind of in the pattern of how to live and think is Orthodox. And it takes a long time to get a lot of the Latin baggage out of your head. It took me 10 years to get a lot of that out of my head. So, you know, at that time we had Gideon Laser and, and Cleave is right when it comes to the people that there's a handful that will go to, to Protestantism. So when there was a guy along 10 years ago, his name is Andrew Hera, he still makes anti Orthodox videos. He used to interact with me back in the day before I became Orthodox. And he was, I think he became Orthodox or he went to the catechumen, I don't remember. But for him, what was it? Psa. He said, I'm going to make this fit into this scheme. And then when they realized that no bishops and priests who have any real authority, I mean, there might be some random priests here or there, but no clerics or authorities in the Orthodox Church will accept psa. They realize that and then they give up their quest to make the Orthodox Church a Latinizing institution and they end up going usually Roman Catholic, I think, because when they become Orthodox, they at least see enough of, you know, the church fathers are obviously not Protestant. So the tendency of those people who are hardcore Latinizing psa, Original sin, Original guilt proponents, they're very wedded to Augustine. The tendency is to go Roman Catholic, although every now and then you'll have a guy who becomes a Protestant. In the case of Andrew Hera, he went Anglican. And in the case of shooping, I don't know what shooping? What is shooping? Is he a.

[A]

He's a Lutheran now. He went Evangelical first and then became a Lutheran.

[B]

Oh, interesting. So, but the tendency is definitely Roman Catholic. And the other thing too, as I was mentioning, is it's. It's a lot of really young dudes too. Like, so the Jonathan guy who back in 2017, 18, I think he was, he might have even been a mod for a little while on our server, our Discord server. He went from something Protestant or something to Orthodox. And then six months later he went to Oriental Orthodox, and then six months later he went to Roman Catholic. Like, all within a span of like a year. Which is kind of crazy. And it's the same situation with Ananda, who unfortunately, I raised warning signs about Ananda 2, three years ago, because when he came into our Discord, he did the exact same pattern as all the other guys. Immediately debating with all of the mods who've been orthodox for many years, immediately debating with everybody, including me, about what the Essence center distinction is, how I'm wrong about this and that. Like, dude, you just, literally just got here. Like, I've been reading about this for like 15 years. Essence Energy stuff, right? Doing apologetics debate stuff for 20 years. Like, you're not in the position yet. And what happened with Ananda was there was this temptation to proclaim that he was a translator. I have the DMs where he says to me, oh, I'm actually translating for the Orthodox bishop here. There is no way in heck that the Orthodox bishop, wherever the heck he's at in England, was asking this goober, 20 year old or whatever he is, to translate texts for him. I'm like, what. What qualifications do you have? Do you have a degree in linguistics? No. And they were. Their translations were from AI. Okay, so this is lying. So basically he was lying, presenting himself as having this ecclesial authority to translate theological texts for his bishop. Total nonsense. Total bullcrap. So I knew right away there's something's up, but something's wrong with this dude to. Because he had just previously been a Shia Muslim for whatever, I don't know how long he was a Shia Muslim. And then he had the viral video at speaker's corner where he debated Sneako or whoever it was, and then he decides he's Orthodox. But the problem was all the red flags are there. It's the same red flags with Sig. Sig's exact same way. Sig is literally out here in recorded conversations comparing the relationship of Jesus, excuse me, Mary and Joseph to homoerotic relationships. And then there's nothing inherently wrong with homoerotic relationships as long as you don't touch butts. Etc, just total nonsense. So all of these people are 100 subversives. We said the entire time they're subversives. They have their Latinizer discords, which literally funnel people into psa, Protestant and Roman Catholic versions of psa, whether it's the Eric Ibarra's new. You can be Roman Catholic in psa. Like, there's a reason why it's all new converts and people that, as we warned, we told you guys that this would lead you to Rome and Protestantism. Lo and behold, here's Ananda converting now. I don't even think it's all the theology. I actually think these guys are literally just butt buddies. I mean, why are they all into furry if they weren't, like, just actually Skittles dudes? So that's really. I don't even think it's about theology. Do you want to say something, Cleave?

[A]

Oh, no, dude. I was gonna. I was gonna agree with you after he was defending the. The Miko being a furry thing, that. That kind of sealed the deal on that for me.

[B]

And wasn't he a godfather to Mikko, supposedly?

[A]

I'm not. I'm not sure.

[B]

People were saying that he was going to be Miko's, quote, godfather when he converted, which is also very sus. But these are. Dude, this is so silly. Nobody should be listening to people who are 22, 16, 17 about any of this stuff.

[A]

Stuff. Well, the one thing that I wanted to say is you'll see how all these subversive types, they'll team up with the heterodox quite often.

[B]

Oh, they love teaming up with Roman Catholics. Their whole discord is literally. Oh, we just want to have a discord that's like everybody. Well, everybody who's pushing PSA and then pushing people out of the Orthodox Church. That's why these people are subversive. And you shouldn't listen to any of them.

[A]

Yep. And you got. You got God logic out here attacking the ortho bros. And then Sig's buddy. Buddy with him in this recent show on Sean Kelly.

[B]

Yeah. So they're they will team up with anybody, including other anti orthodox people, just to push their pet gay heresy. They're all just butt buddies, man. That's all it is. That's what I'm trying to tell you. You guys are thinking, that's all you spurgs are thinking this about theology. It's not accident. They're defending homoerotic relationships and furries. They're gay. That's literally what's going on. They're actual Skittles butt buddies. That's why they're doing all this. And they're subversive and they're, they're just garbage people and they lie anyway. Edgar, what's up? I mean, I've got Ananda lying. He literally lies in his text messages claiming to be a public, a bishop approved translator of theological texts. He doesn't have any degree in linguistics or he doesn't know languages. How are you going to be a translator? You don't know languages. They're just using AI and lying. What's up, man? Edgar, I'm you.

[A]

Hello?

[B]

Yeah, what's up up,

[A]

dude?

[B]

Can't even hear you, man. Noose Nexus. What's up? The whole idea that you should listen to 16 year old furries on the Internet for your theology. I mean, dude, that's, that's a you problem. That's not a we problem. Noose.

[A]

What's up, lj? Thanks for having me. I made a few clips of God logic speaking about him and of your stream. You did the other day. And everyone thinks that I'm you, which is pretty hilarious. And one guy said, oh, but just debate God logic then, because you're scared or something. So it's either you're scared or you just want to get clicks.

[B]

No, God logic has declined. He's declined three times to debate.

[A]

Oh well, there we go. And then I said like just funnily like, I would love to ask him why he sends Muslims to synagogues. And then God answered, what's wrong with that?

[B]

He said, yeah, that's. The people don't know anything of Christ. Yeah, these people don't know anything. When I said underneath my post as to what the real problem, I just did a post today listing the specific problems with God logic. And a lot of these goober evangelicals underneath it are like, what's wrong with circumcising people? I'm like, you don't know what the first heresy in the church was? Judaizing. You never heard of that? What? Like this is like, it feels like we're going back in Time to the Bryson Gray debate. Because after the Bryson Gray debate, there was these just hundreds and thousands of evangelicals literally repeating all the same stuff that I'm hearing the God Logic audience repeat. And by the way, notice this is the God Logic they whine about. You don't have the fruits of the spirit. You don't have the fruits of the spirit. Well, here's the God Logic audience. The God Logic audience is literally calling me dog today.

[A]

There.

[B]

There's the fruits of the spirit right there. They're calling me other words that I'm not going to repeat on. On X. I mean, on YouTube. But. So notice the fruits of the spirit doesn't apply when they want to attack us again. Yes, this is God Logic. I heard people in the comments because this is embarrassing. They're like, I don't actually believe that's God Logic.

[A]

It is.

[B]

It's his dad's church. Watch. This is 100. This is on one of God Logic's channels. It's on his other small channel where he also promotes his dad's fake bishop church. So what are you even talking about?

[A]

The same for the Lutheran. By the way, the debate that you just had.

[B]

Well, by the way, that debate shows you. That debate shows you where PSA takes you.

[A]

Yeah, exactly. But the worst part is that none of them actually, they're all asking why you're not debating that guy. And I'm like, did you watch the video? And none of them did. And they are just, you know, they're just commenting. That's all they're doing. They don't even want to listen to. Well, I don't.

[B]

And then the people.

[A]

Yeah, touching.

[B]

And the people underneath God Logic's post coming at me don't even know why judaizing is a heresy or why it's a problem. They literally defend circumcising people. I'm like, yeah, it's insane. Did you guys literally. Did you. Yeah. Thank you. Did you guys just, like, convert yesterday? I think so. I think a lot of these people are like, do you guys remember Back to the Christian Prince stuff? So remember when we had this fallout with Christian Prince over him saying, I don't care who Athanasius is. I don't even know what he taught. He doesn't even know Athanasius is. And you're a Christian apologist. And we just saw God Logic doesn't know what the Nicene Creed is. Now all of his followers underneath my post said, you don't have to know it to be saved. Nobody was saying that. If you want to be a public apologist and you don't know the basic Christian creed, that's insane. That's preposterous. That shows that you're not fit. You're not in a position to do this. You don't even have the requisite knowledge, much less the right church. So again, we'll rehearse the points where we said, now Ridvan had to throw in his two shekels because he's a total shill. Fake, phony. If you fight Islam, all the enemies of the west come to defend and distract. You talking about me because they work with Islam? Of course, yes. Anybody criticizing evangelical Zionism works with Islam. Even though I just debated two Muslims, I'm debating junior tonight. But none of that matters because you're aiding Islam. Now, what's the actual rabbinic Zionist teaching? Oh, the west is Edom and it must be destroyed. In fact, Bibi just said it again recently. He said, the west is Edom and we will not lose again like we did in 70 AD. Are you not aware of that, Ridvan, as you defend your idiotic Zionist state? But it's worse than that because it's not just political whatever, it's God Logic is promoting Messianic synagogues. And Cleveland wanted to ask you because I don't remember exactly how he worded it, but when somebody asked God Logic, who is the church, the new Israel, how did he phrase it? He had this weird reply. I forget how he phrased it.

[A]

He said. He said the church. The church is a church in Israel is Israel. That's what he said.

[B]

In other words, no, the church is not the New Israel. Even though Paul says in Galatians 6:16 that it is. And Jesus says in Matthew 21:43, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to the Gentiles. So in that way I can say, no, he's actually openly, consistently promoting Christian Zionism and Messianic synagogues. Because again, as we've shown and pointed out a thousand times, what good is it to send Muslims to a place where they teach Judaizing and teach people to get circumcised? And this, this is the sect where young Don got circumcised. He said it on a video on Derek Myth Vision's podcast. God Logic still promotes his fake bishop dad, who is a tbn, literal tbn, prosperity gift grift preacher who does deliverance Pentecostal, screaming and yapping and slapping and punching people stuff. God Logic claims he never pushes any specific church, but he actually pushes Messianic synagogues, which is a lie. You wouldn't push people to. You can't push people to those groups and then say well I don't push people to any specific group. I don't take any specific stance. Well if you say that I'm against all exclusivist claims, that's a specific stance. So in other words you are explicitly ecumenist. God logic as an apologist doesn't know the Nicene Creed as we saw in that recent clip when somebody asked him. He doesn't know why there's two creeds and he doesn't even know why it would matter or if the why the filioquo even matters. He only knows anti Islamianity. And by the way, you might say oh but he debated a Mormon. Yeah, but it was the same debate they would have with a Muslim just on is the Trinity, you know, three in one, is there a unity amongst the Godhead etc the deity of Christ. So it's still basically a variant of the Muslim debate. That doesn't mean he actually knows anything else about Christianity even if he debated basically just debates Unitarians or Mormons.

[A]

So

[B]

90 of the debates are just anti Islamianity. God logic took all that theology from Dr. Bo Branson, myself and Sam Shamoon and Fearless Truth Nick. So none of that is information that he garnered through his own studies. It's all just what he learned from other people. And according to Sam Shamoon, he reads a lot of Sam's articles and then just asks Sam for help out even still. So this is not, he's not doing his own homework, he's just relying on other people. And I'm trying to tell you that you can't do this type of work without having a very consistent, very long term pattern of doing the homework and doing the reading. There's no other way to actually know this material and defend the material. And you can't do it through memes and chat, GPT and this kind of YouTube videos. It's just not possible. So you can't take the triad, the monarchical trinitarian view outside of essence energy, outside of no filioque, outside of the crystal, the Christology that we have and outside of our Sacramentology. You can't take it outside of that. It doesn't make sense without the rest of the attendant dogmas that go with it. But that's exactly what God logic does. There are no churchless apologists and you cannot name a single churchless apologist who isn't a heretic in the first millennium of Christianity. And then the most dangerous and devastating of all these and they all kind of go together is the whole model is actually an online e grift based on just opposing Muslims and never calling out or opposing say Christian Zionism or Messianic Judaizing heresies or calling out the Talmud. Of course the Talmud itself is 10 times worse than what's in the Quran. Although the Quran is itself based on Talmudic legends. What's in the Talmud is of course 10 times worse than what's in the Quran itself. But they don't ever, ever, ever talk about the problem of Christian Zionism, the heresy of Christians because a large portion of that audience are just low iq, Boomer slob, Christian Zio Jellicles and people who just converted out of Islam who don't know anything exactly the same as the Christian Prince audience. So this is a repeat of the Christian Prince drama from four years ago or three years ago. And so thus to them there is no one true church because it would immediately damage the entire brand of the vast evangelical slop convert audience that they've made. So you see how they can't go in that direction. They have to say it has to be a humanist. They have to not affirm the four marks of the church, one, holy, Catholic and apostolic in the Nicene Creed and God Logic. Didn't even know what that was was when the guy asked him about the Nicene Creed. So that's the problem. And it doesn't matter to me how many evangelicals call me names. This is the same critique of all of these people in this group, whether it's David Wood or whether it's IP or whether it's phony baloney Ridvon and I still have the same critiques of Sam Shamin. So I'm not being unfair. I appreciate and, and have accepted Sam Shamoon's personal apologies about the personal issues. And Sam said, can you list for me the specific things that you want me to look at about Vatican 1 and the Roman Catholic position? So I'm going to send Sam Shimon a list and I'm going to operate in good faith that he genuinely is going to look at those, those, those recommended videos and books. And if, guess what, if God Logic or David Wood or ip, if any of those people, I don't trust Ridvan at all. But if any of these other people did the exact same thing, we could, we could move back to being on friendly terms if there's an openness to hear, hey, why do you think it's a problem that we're doing churchless apologetics. Hey, why do you think that it's a problem to push? I mean, to me, it's weird to even ask this question, but, you know, why do you think I'm wrong for pushing people to judaizing synagogues? Why do you think Christian Zionism is right? If they want to move back and go back to the friendly open dialogue portion of this, we can. But if they're going to continue to come out Orthodox and try to sway people to not become Orthodox, which is what began all this nonsense, it's the same stuff Ruslan did. Ruslan did the exact same thing and then try to snake. Be all snaky Weasley about it, like, oh, no, bro, that's not what I was doing. It ain't my fault. It's my people did it. Just not taking responsibility, then we can do that. But no, I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna let up or stop because it's this. I mean, it's principled for everybody. You understand? We have the exact same principal positions that have not changed basically in the last decade. The same problems and critiques that we have right here. It's going to be the same problems and critiques that we have of the Lutheran guys, right? In principle.

[A]

Right?

[B]

No, PSA can't be evangelical Orthodox doesn't exist. None of this. So people are mad because we're not doing the Trent Horn, Gavin Ortland move of being like, why don't we all just pretend that we're on the same page and be friends? Meanwhile, they're being snakes behind the scenes. That's what's so frustrating, is that you. You guys get the public appearance of this fake niceness.

[A]

This.

[B]

And in the background, all these people are snakes, dude. But guess what? You might not like me, but I'm the same behind the scenes as I am up front. You get the same dude, the same mean dude. It's not mean, though. To defend Orthodoxy and to prevent people from pushing stupid ass heresies to push people into messianic synagogues where they get circumcised is exactly what happened to. How can you guys not see this? How do you not have any discernment?

[A]

It.

[B]

This is why young Don ended up an atheist according to himself. God logic in these goobers sent him to this dumbass cholo rabbis church. Fake church where they preach literal judaizing, where Ruslan preaches. These are part of a evangelical pro zio network of grifters. 100%. Same with Ridvon. Oh, oh, Ridvon is open about it. What are you even talking about? They go and kiss the wall, you idiots. Sky Daddy, what's up? By the way? Where is God? If God Logic is principled, how come he's not calling out the evangelical Zio slop from David Wood or from, from ap? You understand we have a consistent principal position, even if you disagree with it. Well, where is, where is he calling that out? Sky Daddy on mute.

[A]

Hello.

[B]

Yo, what's up?

[A]

Hey. I watched that debate you did recently with the Lutheran on Modern Day Debate. I just wanted to note I. You did use the word butt buddy and I wanted to just call that out because I know that you don't have the fruits of the spirit because you said the word butt buddy.

[B]

Right, but, but so I'm, I'm curious, when, when God Logic's fan base calls me dog, is that the fruits of the spirit?

[A]

That's irrelevant. We're. Let's go back to the butt buddy thing.

[B]

You're joking though, right? You're not being serious?

[A]

No, I'm serious.

[B]

Okay. I thought so.

[A]

I just, I just wanted to add that.

[B]

That's my new face. It's a funny term from the 90s. I love bringing back 90s slang.

[A]

But it's funny because those guys, like can't take a joke. Like a, you know, kind of a man to man joke that.

[B]

No, none of them can. Nobody in the apology, nobody in the apologetic sphere for the last decade, except for Tim Gordon has been able to take a man to man type of joke book.

[A]

They have to be performative and be like, oh, look at this. No fruits of the spirit.

[B]

Look at his non Christian conduct. Now when I debated the Lutheran guy, you notice Mahler has five or six times called for the exterminating and killing of orthodox people. And then he has the gall to say that.

[A]

Big deal.

[B]

He has the gall to say that I don't have Christian conduct because I said butt buddy.

[A]

Yeah, you said the word butt buddy, so that's worse. I had some serious questions for later maybe, but they're, they're more like kind of theological stuff. But I'll step out of here for a minute. Sure.

[B]

Yeah. Well, come back up if you want to. Or does anybody disagree, raise your hand if you're in the chat and I'll bring you up. First of all, we got a lot of people in the chat. We got almost 20 people who disagrees and I'll bring you up. My argument today is that we're all in a cult. And unfortunately it turns out Sneako and God Logic are actually in the same cult.

[A]

What?

[B]

How is that possible? Are you just being mean? How is that possible? Because Evangelical Zio Slop is the same cult as Islam because they're both essentially a Talmudic based religion. That's exactly what I was saying a minute ago. Who's up? Raise your hand. Andy, what's up? He disagrees. I don't know when the 1 versus 5 is going up. It should be coming up pretty soon. Pro. I would say probably this week. They just told me like two weeks and that was a week and a half ago. So, Andy, I'm.

[A]

You.

[B]

Y' all don't know how to work this. This is Neo tone. What's up? You have to have your mic permissions on if you want to talk.

[A]

Can I speak?

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Nice. AJ so I'm a Muslim Shiite. My question is, why do you conflict whole Islam with Salafism? Why? What? Why do you conflate Islam with Salafism?

[B]

I don't do that. I know you're a Neoplatonist. I've debated and argued with. With Khalil and Donnie plenty of times.

[A]

But. But we all know Salafism is the. Is. Is the same as Evangelical Zionist. Look at all of these. Well known.

[B]

Yeah, I know they have. They basically are pro Israel. Sure, what about it?

[A]

Yeah, exactly. So, so what's your take on. On the sectarianism between the Muslim. When the. When the Salafis attack. Sneo. For having a conversation about like, like, like uniting the uma. Sorry, who am I?

[B]

M. I. I don't really. To me, it doesn't really matter. Other.

[A]

It's.

[B]

It'd be like when a Roman Catholic has a conversation trying to unite Orthodox and Protestants. I don't. I don't really care what about it.

[A]

Okay. No, I was. I wanted to know if you have been studying like Wahabism and I'm familiar.

[B]

Yes. I mean, I'm not an expert. Expert in Islam, but I'm very familiar with the difference between Shia and the Sunni. And I'm very different. I'm very familiar with the ways in which, you know, Wahhabism and Salafi, you know, they want to go back to what they think is the first generation of the early righteous. I've read Ibn Tamiya. I read like hundreds of pages of IMA before I did my first debate with Jake, the Muslim metaphysician. So. Yes, and I have had many conversations with Dr. Khalil on Donnie, who's probably your biggest apologist. So we were going to do a Debate and the debate was going to be Islamic dilemma. And then Dr. Khalil debated SAM Shamoon on Islamic Dilemma and he got demolished. So there was no point in having the same debate all over again. Box man, what's up? But thank you for your call. Box man, what's up?

[A]

Hey, I wanted to ask a question about the tiny hats. I didn't know if it was allowed today or.

[B]

I mean I'm on YouTube, so it depends on what the question is.

[A]

So I couldn't find your video, but I remember reading one where you were talking about how the Templars like being monks and also warriors. It was like not allowed.

[B]

Yeah, there's. So the cannons of Chalcedon, the canons of Calcedon forbid clerics from having civil posts. It's an excommunicatable offense. And the Gregorian reforms in the 11th century, this is a new papal revolution.

[A]

Okay, my next question was on the allegation of them worshiping Baffame. What's your opinion? Do you think it's like ein. So for Adam Cadmon or.

[B]

Well, I don't know because I don't have any opinion really because the Vatican in I want to say the 2000s, early 2010s issued an official apology to the Templars saying that they thought that that was, was made up and exaggerated. But I have the Council of Vienne and I have the Roman Catholic, you know, ecumenical council's documents and within the minutes and sessions of the councils, they, they do affirm that the Templars were worshiping, you know, the devil or a cat's head or some nonsense. I don't know what it was. But so basically that would mean, I guess that Roman Catholics are admitting that their ecumenical councils got these things wrong.

[A]

That's weird. So the other thing, the last thing is what exactly do you believe that the wedge that the little hats used into the west to sort of create a Judaizing or, or how exactly did they manage to get capitalism to somehow infiltrate Roman Catholics? And I'm not talking about like the, the like 1850s type of Rothschild stuff. I'm talking about.

[B]

No, you have to read. There's a whole book on this, Michael Hoffman's book. Occult Renaissance Church of Rome is the origin of this. And it actually comes from Roy Clin and a bunch of these so called Christian kabbalists. So it's actually the papacy and the Renaissance is behind all that. And that's written by a Papist, so you can go read Occult Renaissance Church of Rome by Hoffman. It's literally just about that who's next? Who disagrees? Go ahead. Line. Raise your hand. Appreciate that. Good questions, by the way. Good questions in the chat. You raise your hand, I'll bring you up first if you disagree. Who disagrees? There's 20 people in line, literally. Who disagrees? Give me an emoji, dog. Emojis who disagree.

[A]

Peace.

[B]

Step into the water. Wait out a little bit deeper. Jv. What's up? I'm gonna turn into a Baptist deacon if you don't hurry up and come up to the front. What up, dog?

[A]

Yo, can you hear me?

[B]

Yes, sir.

[A]

All right.

[B]

Why you run away from or. I've explained it about 20 times.

[A]

Yeah, you say he docks it. What's he proving? That

[B]

the posted DMS where he said he was doxing people.

[A]

Okay. Do you know when that post would happen the first time?

[B]

I don't care whether he was doxed himself or whether he's doxing another Muslim. Doesn't matter to me if he's doxing people. I don't give a.

[A]

That's so you don't know. You don't know the contest. He's saying. Like, you just. You just.

[B]

If he's doxing people, I don't. I don't care.

[A]

He got dogs. This is before.

[B]

Even so, I don't care. I don't care. If he's going to dox other people, then he's going to dox Christians, and then that makes me believe. Then that makes me. Then that makes me. Then that makes me believe Jesus and whatnot. That he was involved in that.

[A]

Yeah, that. That's. That's not even. That's not what he's talking about.

[B]

He's in all those same circles, so why would I not think he's not involved in it?

[A]

Jesus on whatnot was not docs while I was talking.

[B]

No, I'm saying he's in those same circles. So it's a circle of people that dox people. So what are you talking about?

[A]

Even if you don't want to talk to, he's going to show up in a sneako debate. So whether you like it or not, he's gonna show up.

[B]

Okay, if I've debated. Have I debated all of your top dudes, bro?

[A]

It doesn't matter. What are you talking about?

[B]

What do you mean? Why would I be scared of this? Why would I be scared of him if I debated all your top dudes?

[A]

What topic are you talking about? I don't know.

[B]

Yeah, so you don't know anything. Exactly. You don't know who I have and having debate because you're an idiot.

[A]

It.

[B]

Who's next? Who disagrees? You go that line, raise your hand. I've been here debating all the top Muslims for eight, ten years. Almost. Almost a decade. Okay, I'm just going to start saying basically a decade. Okay. And you can easily go ex access all of these debates on YouTube. I literally just debated two Muslims at debatecon. Jake is your smartest debater as far as I can tell. So what are you talking about? I'm afraid to debate after a decade of debating, you idiots. This is. And this is all they have by the way, is you afraid. You're afraid. You are run. They did the exact same thing when I did my first Muslim debate. You know what these guys do when you debate their. Their big guy 10 years ago? They say, oh, you debated Shabir Ali, but you didn't debate the real guy and you're scared of him. Okay, who's that? Azra Rashid. Okay, so then I debate Azra Rashid. Oh, you're. Yeah, you. You debated him.

[A]

Him.

[B]

But you didn't debate the real Muslim apologist because you're scared of him. Okay, who's that? Daniel Hokikachu. Okay, so now debate Daniel. Oh yeah, but you did. But you didn't really debate the real Muslim apologist because you're afraid. Okay, who's that? Jake, the Muslim metaphysician. The new hottest guy on the scene. Okay, so then I debate Jake. Oh, but you didn't debate the real Muslim because you're afraid of Muslim lantern. So I go on Sneako's channel to debate Muslim lantern and it goes bad for him. Oh, but you didn't debate the real most. See, you see this process, this, They've been doing this for a decade. It's the same I've heard a million times over. It's so stupid too. By the way, the Aussie. What's up? The same reason I'm not going to interact with that dude is the same reason I'm not going to interact with Corey Mer or Owen Benjamin. Like I don't. I'm not bound to interact with a bunch of weirdo psycho cult fed people people. Why would I? It's very easy to schedule a debate with me. I've done hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of debates in the last 25 or 6 years. What's up man? I'm mute. So you dumbass Muslim countries, you don't even have Internet. You hardly. The dial up at your countries doesn't even work. Macy, what's up?

[A]

That

[B]

on mute? You Are afraid. You are afraid. You are afraid. You are afraid, sir. You're a coward. You're a coward.

[A]

It's an honor.

[B]

What's up?

[A]

Hey, I. I actually started listening to you a year ago, and it. It just shifted my vision in Orthodoxy. Actually, I'm not American. Okay. But I have a question about the. The. This topic about Nico.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

I have other questions, but.

[B]

Okay, get the point.

[A]

I got.

[B]

I want to get to other calls.

[A]

Go ahead.

[B]

What's. What's the question?

[A]

All right, Right. It's ego and God logic. Worship a generic God, you think?

[B]

I don't think technically God logic, because he has. He. He has the proposition that he's worshiping the monarchical, trinitarian God that we have. So I wouldn't say that they technically worship the same God, but I think that they're a part, because God logic is still not orthodox. He's still outside the church, and so he's not properly worshiping. He has the right proposition about God, but he doesn't have the right worship of God. And that's why this is very different. This is the same problem that we had, which I think highlights your question when we were debating the Roman Catholics a year ago when they had their meltdown over whether Christians, Muslims, and Jews all worship the same, quote, God because it's, quote, monotheism. This highlights the problem, which is that worship is not acceptance of mental propositions. Okay? Worship is not just affirming propositions. Worship is a specific liturgical action that. That is culminating in and consummated in the Eucharist, the Divine Liturgy. So that's why it makes absolutely no sense to say, oh, we're all worshiping the same God. Okay, well, what is worship? Oh, it's just mental notional acceptance of, quote, there is one God. That's not what worship is. But people are sort of playing word games and assuming that worship is just accepting some list of propositions which is very, very Talmudic, very Protestant, and very Muslim. Lucy, what's up? Now, let's look at the history of debates here. So we've got 1, 2, 3, 4. When you go to my page, the first four debates that you see, except for the atheist debate, are Muslim debates going back seven, eight years.

[A]

Okay?

[B]

Because the Shabir Ali is right here. I did another one before that, too, by the way. I did Paul Williams before that, and I did not. What's that guy's name? Nazam Gafur before that. So there's actually going back to the poll, I think the Paul Williams debate is technically the first Muslim debate. Let's see. And of course he's terrible. What? By the way, he was the first time in a debate where somebody just shut down like the Lutheran guy did. But instead of just freezing for 30, 40 seconds, he went to take a. What did he call it? A comfort break. He took a comfort break. And this was almost eight years ago. Be structured is. Okay, so the first Muslim debate was a 8ish years ago right here. See the exact date? May 5th. So. So a little over seven years. So we're almost eight years. Almost eight years. And Paul Williams had to take a comfort break. So I've been here debating the Muslims for forever. And these people who. That guy, he just admitted. I don't know who you are. I don't know anything about you. Oh, okay, so you don't know that I've been here for seven, eight years debating Muslims. Exactly. Exactly as we said. What's up, Lucy?

[A]

A.J. what's your take on the Odyssey?

[B]

I haven't had time to see it. I'm. I'm. I don't know. I'm participating in the boycott of it though. Let's see. Jay. Dire, Muslim lantern. So remember, we already had this whole scenario with Sneako, right? We had the same scenario with Sneo. And by the way, I've never even seen Libyano. I've never seen orthodox Muslim even debate. So I don't. I have no reason to know if he's good or bad, but I assume they're all bad because I've never heard a good Muslim apologist. Except Jake's about the only one that's any good left. So you'll notice. And by the way, I pretty sure on grumble, they took this down because I was looking the other day because it was a huge grumble debate, me versus Sneako and muzzle lantern. And I couldn't find it. So I don't know if I just didn't search it right or what, but it didn't look like it was there. Let's see if we can take a look here. So you can see, here's me versus Hikiku. It's on here one, one of the. I debated him twice or maybe three times. Two or three times, I don't remember. But I'm not seeing my debate with Muslim lantern. And you know why? Because when they did a poll, even with their giant Muslim audience, it was 60 to 70% in my favor. So let's try Jay Dyer, Sneako. So these phony baloney actually took this debate down because you can't find it or at least I couldn't find it

[A]

it

[B]

so where is it at? Why would you take it down? But thankfully, and this is why I I would only do it if they would let me dual stream still exists over here on my outlets and my clips channels. So you can watch it here. You can watch it on my channel. This did not go well for them

[A]

be subject to the bishop it so

[B]

and now let's flash back to then guess what the Muslims were saying at that time. You are scared of Muslim lantern. Muslim lantern is the great champion. He will decimate you. He is the.

[A]

The heart.

[B]

He has the heart of a lion. He is the lion of Islam. He will decimate. He will destroy. And this went terrible for him. So I've already been through this play. This doesn't work with me like you. You guys already do. You do this every year where there's the new guy who's like the great Muslim that will beat everybody and then he's just as bad as the other ones. Howling what's up? Howling by the way, this shows how stupid God Logic's audience is. Because I've been debating Muslims for years before God Logic was even on the Internet that. What are you talking about? Howling what's up?

[A]

Yo, Jay, thanks for picking up my call. I just had a question for you. It's a little bit of a derailment of the topic, but I'm an inquirer and I found you through Sam Hyde just looking at the credits and I've just been having some trouble rectifying some of the, well, I guess piety in orthodoxy. And I don't know, you're gonna probably

[B]

find a more coherent way rectifying it with. What do you mean? Like, what's the problem?

[A]

Well, I guess it's just more of a conflict in that there's, I mean, you know, it was the joke about the fruits of the spirit earlier and you know, it's like that is actually a legit thing in my head. I'm not talking to you about you necessarily at all. I just mean in general where I come from. And it's like I'm going into this space now with all of this serious, like, I guess you could say like pretty pent up aggression towards things. And I'm like, well, how am I supposed to let all of this just go to be, you know, an orthodox Christian.

[B]

What, what are you letting go though? What do you mean? Against. Against who or against what?

[A]

Hatred, like hatred towards people. Who.

[B]

Who and what would it be? Specific. What are you talking about?

[A]

Oh, man, I don't want to get you tos, you know, but, you know, I'm trying to figure out a tactful way to put that. But I guess it's degeneracy. That's a good way to put it.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Yeah. And, you know, there's just so many issues, there's so many problems. And to just say, all right, with humility, I'm just gonna hand that over to God. It doesn't make that problem go away in my head. And this, like, I mean, it's anger, it's serious anger.

[B]

Well, I mean, that's part of what we're all, we all deal with. So maybe, you know, you're. Look, every human being has certain vices that they struggle with, right? So maybe, you know, anger is one of the vices that you're gonna have to struggle with.

[A]

Right?

[B]

So. But I mean, as you get older too, it's also a time thing. I don't know how old you are. You sound like a young guy. I mean, as you get older though, you're gonna be able to handle a lot of that better because you're gonna realize, like, I'm limited in what I can change and what I can handle. So there's not really any point in sort of letting rage get the best of me because, you know, as time passes, you're gonna have a cooler head.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

I mean, if you're talking about like political, you know, type stuff, like.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, navigating this current climate with an orthodox mindset, there is a little bit of a, you know, it's a double edged sword because it's. You have to swallow so much pride and especially talking to people about things and not casting judgment on them. That's, I guess, where I'm coming from.

[B]

Well, okay, let's be clear here. So that depends on what that means. Because, like, you know, to say that we live in a disgusting, degenerate society and there's a bunch of disgusting out here running, that's not judging people. Like, that's. Jesus says not to make. Make unfair judgments that are hypocritical. But he also says in John 7 that you must judge with righteous judgment. So there's a balance here between this fake evangelical attitude of like, you should never judge anyone. Well, when you're an evangelical criticizing me and saying that you're actually making a judgment call on me, so it's literally impossible to not make judgment calls.

[A]

So this is, it's an innate thing because I was raised evangelically okay.

[B]

That's what it is.

[A]

Programming.

[B]

I mean, me too, dude. I mean, I was. Was too. I get it. Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. I haven't been in the church in a long time, and this is. This is something where it's, you know, it's painfully obvious that this is the path that I need to go down, but there is that. You know, there is that battle inside of. I mean, I. I still get in arguments with people, and I lash out at them because they just. They're so. And they're so. Yeah.

[B]

Just remember, you're dealing with children. Basically, everybody that you're dealing with is a bunch of children.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And it doesn't matter if they're boomers or if they're 20. They're all children. So. Yeah, just think about. I'm actually dealing with people who haven't matured in their, like, stages of development, so. But I know it's.

[A]

Wash my hands of them.

[B]

It really depends. Like, I. I would say if you're dealing with people that you feel like. Have no brother.

[A]

Huh? Gay brother, foreign. It's tough, man.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, family members are probably the toughest, But I would say. I would say there are lines in the sand. I can't tell you the specifics of when you need to draw a line in the sand, but I didn't go to his wedding.

[A]

You know, my family thinks I'm hateful for that.

[B]

Well, I mean, was it a gay wedding?

[A]

Yeah, man.

[B]

No, no, you're doing the right thing. Don't worry about it. Yeah, no, you're good. You did the right thing. Yeah, man. No, that's. You did the right thing, and I appreciate your call. But. But no, there's definitely, you know, what was Obama's red line or whatever, this red line? Okay. My wife, Michael, she's. She's a beautiful man. Okay, but that's a red line. That's a red line right there. So people in the chat are like, that's. That's rich coming from you. Dire.

[A]

That's rich.

[B]

So, again, it's the right thing at the right time. So when you're dealing with, like, lunatics, people like that on the Internet. No, there's nothing wrong with being sassy back. I got that sassy back. I'm bringing sassy back. I just heard a Justin Timberlake song this morning, and that's a fellow Memphis, Tennessee boy. Y' all know Timberlake is from Tennessee, right?

[A]

Right.

[B]

And I realized Timberlake. His beatboxing interludes suck, dude. They're so annoying. And I'm Not a huge Timberlake. I like one Justin Timberlake song ever. And then I'm like, half of the songs that come on the radio, he starts beatboxing. I'm like, he sucks, dude. He's not even a good wigger B boxer. I got. I got better wigger B box skills than him, even though he's also from Tennessee like me. But we all know who the authentic Tennessee wigger is. It ain't Justin Timberland. Is your boy right here? Anyways, I'm bringing Sassy back. I'm bringing Sassy back. It's like that other caller said, okay, guys know that. Guys riff each other. Guys diss each other. Guys do mama jokes. This is what guys do, okay? Tristan and I, we have a great relationship, right? Tristan's a funny, funny dude.

[A]

Dude.

[B]

He's a smart dude. We've always busted on each other, and it's funny. Same with his sister, Chase Haggard. Same situation. We bust on each other. It's funny. We have a great time. I spent, like, four days hanging out with Chase. We had a great time. And listen, Chase is the one situation where I would say it's okay to go to a gay wedding now, you know, you don't always have to do it. Sometimes, you know, sometimes you got to do it. But I went to Chase's gay wedding, so sometimes you do it. Sometimes. So, look, I see. I'm doing jokes right here.

[A]

Here.

[B]

Now, why are Tim Gordon and I still friends? Oh, because Tim Gordon can take getting busted on, and we make jokes. See, but the rest of these people are so soft. I'm talking about the evangelical and apologist sphere. They can't even take a joke.

[A]

Dude.

[B]

What's up, Tristana?

[A]

Oh, you already answered the question. Because I was. Yeah, I didn't go to his gay wedding. And. But again, you said it's a personal thing, like you didn't draw the line there. I drew the line.

[B]

So, okay, so. So Tristan drew the line at Chase Lisa's gay wedding. But I, you know, I. I made a judgment call.

[A]

It's economy, and I don't judge you for that.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

I know that it makes. I know that makes me morally superior to you, but I'm not gonna judge you for being an inferior person. I know that you are inferior. Okay? I don't have to make it. I don't judge you for being that. For being that way, for being worse than me at everything.

[B]

This is the great thing about the orthodox world, is that we can just literally affirm what we actually ontologically Are. And me being morally ontologically inferior to Tristan as a being is something that we can accept. But a lot of churches.

[A]

Yeah. And that doesn't mean that you're worth less before God. It's just everyone else. You're worth less.

[B]

Exactly. Exactly. You see the. Do you guys see the nuance here? You see the nuance? And the other religions can't admit this. Hey, Jamie. Jamie, could you make me say what?

[A]

Order me an espresso as well.

[B]

Espresso. Okay. That's the black terminology. That's the. That's the black espresso. This espresso is dedicated to God logic. What's up, Igor? You are afraid to debate Muslim. Okay, yeah. Ten year, eight years of debating Muslims. You are afraid to debate Muslim. You must debate the Hidden Imam. Or you are afraid. Where is the Hidden Imam? He is hidden. You must find him or you are afraid he's hidden out in the desert, The Hidden Imam. And if I don't find him, I'm a. I'm a wuss. Igor. I'm you. Igor. I already met a song about you, dude. Quasimodo, Dirt. What's up, Quasimodo? I don't need a ginger too. I put a little honey in the coffee today because I. I thought. I thought a little bit of a sugar in the coffee would make me a little calmer. But you heard that first guy, he said there's a. Billions of bibles that have sealed the errors of orthodoxy. So Dirt. I'm mute. He couldn't even tell me what calculator he used to calculate the billions. Did you know he even got a calculator? He didn't got a calculator, by the way. He tried to argue that it was, you know, from the 70s on. And I'm like, they did? You know, calculators in the 70s couldn't calculate into the billions, you dummy. He didn't even know that.

[A]

Did you. You see, there was some kind of Van Life type influencer that died. Everybody was saying, hey, Jay, people were saying there's some sort of a conspiracy. And they're like, oh, this guy was about to release all this knowledge and stuff. So I went over and I looked at his. His page and he. He was buying. He was buying Bibles.

[B]

Oh, no, I did see that guy. I watched some of his videos and I've seen him in my feed before. He's a. He's a total. He's a total lunatic.

[A]

You could say, see that? But all these. You have. So, I mean, I'm seeing like normal Accounts that are like, oh, they must have took this guy out. And you go and look at it, and he's buying, like, he's like, look, I got this Bible. It's the Freemason Bible. He's like, look what it say.

[B]

Yeah. So basically, he's. He's buying Bibles from the 1800s, and the Bibles have the older Palestine map. And he thinks that because the map in the Bible before, you know, 1917 and before 1948, because it says Palestine, but he thought.

[A]

He's like, look at these hidden books. Bell the dragon.

[B]

Yeah, exactly.

[A]

Right?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

What's up, J?

[B]

Yeah. What's up, man? What's on your mind?

[A]

You remember me?

[B]

No.

[A]

That leaves plan.

[B]

No, sorry.

[A]

You really don't.

[B]

Two days ago, I. I know that you're a very important person and I should remember you because you probably. I'm sure you refuted me, and I'm just conveniently.

[A]

Dude, dude, I'm in support of you, man.

[B]

I don't. Remind me what you're talking about.

[A]

I don't know, leaving the. I have people.

[B]

Oh, okay. Go ahead. Yeah, my bad.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

I thought you were a hater. And I was like, I don't. Because that's. They always say, like that. Like, you know, you remember.

[A]

You remember me? Like, the way it came off, it's

[B]

like, oh, no, here we go.

[A]

I love this guy, bro. I'm your worst nightmare. J.

[B]

You conveniently don't remember me. Yeah, go ahead.

[A]

What are. So. As you know, or I don't know if you remember, but two years ago, I came to you asking for help on how to fight the IFbad. I've got a couple things written down. Is there anything else you could help me with? Also, can we start calling Captain Tazariac Captain Ball Sacriac.

[B]

Well, I kind of like Captain Crack Rock because it just hit me, you know, improv style, in the middle of the debate. But you can call him whatever you want. I will not oppose you.

[A]

You.

[B]

If you call him that.

[A]

All righty. But can you say it one time?

[B]

What did you say? Captain Ball. Sack.

[A]

Captain Ball. Sack. React.

[B]

Paul's sack.

[A]

React.

[B]

I like just Captain Ball. Sec. How's that?

[A]

All right. Yep. That's fine.

[B]

So you wanted. Yeah. So basically, what are some resources for refuting ifb? Well, first thing I would say is it would be good to get an idea of, like, the history of the canon of scripture, so. So if you want to go a little bit deeper than, like, videos, I think I would say get FF Bruce's book the Canon of Scripture because he's an evangelical conservative scholar and the book is really good for tracing the history of the formation of the canon. And you'll notice that because the IFB cult literally believes, like the Muslims, that the King James Bible is an eternal book. So just like the Muslims have the eternal Quran doctrine, the Sunnis, these people also have an eternal KJV in heaven. Right. So it would be very enlightening to understand the history of the formation of the biblical canon. And you get a good version of that, not from an Orthodox or a Catholic scholar, but from an evangelical scholar in F.F. bruce's book. So that'd be a great one. Also, learning the basics of church history is going to be very useful. So I would say get Yaroslav Pelikan's History of the Christian Tradition, volume one and two. That's going to cover the first thousand years. You don't really have to get volume three. You can if you want, it's about the reformation. But volumes one and two cover the first 600 years and then volume two covers Byzantium in the east. So those two books would be a great start. I also picked up a book that I had many years ago and gave away. Pelikon has a book whose Bible, which tradition. That would be a shorter, quicker version of what's in the FF Bruce book. The FF Bruce book is actually better because it's written as an evangelical kind of describing, you know, the history of the biblical canon, whereas Pelikan's book is more so a history of textual traditions, but still very relevant to this tradition. The reason I'm saying all that is if the KJV is not an eternal uncreated book book and there's an actual history to the formation of the canon, then the entire IFB cult falls apart. That's why that's really crucial. So I would just pick one issue like that and then you can sort of undo the entire world view from that angle. Junior, what's up? Remind you guys too. I got a couple new choice items and this will be relevant for the Trent Horn debates. I'm really looking forward to these Trent Horn debates. That's going to be interesting. Now the David Wood debate. I mean, look, David Wood just learned about icons literally like a month ago. So I don't think David Wood's going to do very well in these debates. But I forgot that there is a Roman Catholic dogmatic manual very similar to Denzinger. It's the nooner and depew version of Catholic Christian dogma. So the relevant. The reason this book is a little better than denzing or just for overall Roman Catholics is because the nooner and depew version of Christian dogma has post Vatican 2 teachings in it as well, you see. So if you get Denzinger, you'll notice Denzinger stops at Pius xii. That's why tricads love it. But the nooner and depew version, which is basically a different type of denzinger, it actually has all of the papal stuff up to, I think, John Paul ii, because I think this was. Yeah, this came out in 2001. So this is a very relevant, useful text if you can find it. Again, the. The. These niche Roman Catholic arguments, it really depends on which group you're talking to. Like if you're talking to a trad cat, they're not going to accept this book. If you're talking to a, you know, Vatican ii, Novus Ordo Roman Cal, that like Trent, like, this would be very useful.

[A]

Useful.

[B]

Right. So it really depends on the audience as to which text you're going to use. But back when I was a trad cat, I had this text because I used it to show how you have to affirm a lot of these John Paul II teachings. Right. In other words, why would they be including all of the John Paul II normative teaching if you didn't. If you could reject John Paul ii? You see what I'm saying? So it's useful to show, like, oh, I'm gonna be a papal minimalist. No, you can't. Why is there a gigantic Christian dogma book that includes all of John Paul II's normative teaching? Not just. I mean, it's got like all kinds of stuff about Muslims and Christians and Jews worshiping the same God, all kinds of ecumenism. It's a very useful text and so I'm glad to have picked it up. When we were at the bookstore in Dallas, I also picked up a really good Norman Geisler. And I'm not a huge fan of Norman Geisler, but kind of like William Lane Craig, every now and then these. These Protestants can actually put out a decent book. I think Norman Geyser is a terrible. Like his ev. He's an evidentialist, so his apologetics is very weak. But this book is pretty good. I'm a good ways into it now. It's called Answering Islam by Norman Geisler. So he's got defective theology, but he's got a pretty good grasp of Islam. And if you do want a good critique of Islam, Just like William Lane. Craig has a decent book here and there. His book on creation, X Nilo is really good. But of course, I'm not going to recommend anything else from either Geisler or William and Craig. What's up, Junior? John, you want to unmute?

[A]

Hey, remember me?

[B]

Yes, sir. What's up, man?

[A]

I've been talking for 15 minutes, but you purposely had me on mute. I was, but I did a whole argument against Tristan.

[B]

That's because we're scared of you. And we knew that you were going to refute us, and so in terror, we muted you secretly.

[A]

No, I. I'm not going to go through the whole thing over again.

[B]

Did you actually say a bunch of stuff?

[A]

What's that?

[B]

Did you actually say a bunch of stuff?

[A]

No. No, I didn't.

[B]

Oh, okay. Go ahead. Did you have some on your mind? Are you there? You're cutting out. Can you hear me? Can you all hear me? Hello? Hello?

[A]

It's cutting out. I'm gonna call back.

[B]

Okay, that's fine. Yeah. All right, who disagrees?

[A]

You.

[B]

Go ahead. The line. We're looking for disagreers today. Disagreers. Now, remember, guys, tonight I will be debating Junior, another one of the popular Dawa apologist. Now, again, I'm terrified to debate all the Muslims. I'm just super. Even though I do constant Muslim debates, I'm terrified of them. And on Josie, the redhead Libertarians channel, I'm sure you're familiar, this is the replacement debate because I didn't end up debating lunatic Owen Benjamin. So because Owen Benjamin is a psycho blasphemer, I decided there was no point in just doing a debate where he literally is just going to blaspheme for. For an hour and a half. So we have decided to do a backup debate. This was Josie's idea to debate Junior. I'm sure everybody's seen Junior on X. This is going to be super low tier. We all know Junior's a goober, but it will be fun. That will be tonight on Josie's ex and her grumble, I think. So nobody tricked me. What are you talking about? Oh, and Benjamin tricked you? No, I would. I would have had it. I would have had a debate or a roast session with him. But then he said, I'm not gonna actually argue. He said, I'm just gonna be, you know, ridiculous. He said then to tweet. So I'm like, okay, so you don't want to have a debate? Do you want to have a roast? And I was like, let's do a roast. And Then he's like, now Jay Dyer doesn't want to debate. He's scared. Well, you said you didn't want to debate the topic, so what do you mean? How would I run from him when I literally said I want to do a debate? Then he says he doesn't want to debate the topic. He just wants to be silly. And I'm like, if you want to be silly, let's do, let's do a roast. And then he's like, now you're running from the debate. I'm like, okay, well then we'll do a debate. He's like, yeah, but I'm not actually going to debate. I'm going to just like be ridiculous and retarded. Then let's do a roast. No. So I also don't understand why people don't get that there's. Everybody has red lines, right? The same reason I'm not going to debate psycho Corey Mahler is the same reason I'm not going to debate Orthodox Muslim or base Catholic. I'll bring up just a second. Is that, what's your profile on X? Is it Bayes Catholic? It's the same reason I'm not going to debate Corey Mahler or Orthodox Muslim or Owen Benjamin. Like, if people want to have debates, it's very easy. And by the way, I'm the, I'm one of the most like easy to debate people. Like, it's very easy to set up a debate with me. But because these like psychos somehow get a following, I don't understand how these, how Corey Mahler even has a following. It's some sort of like to me like a race based fed cult is what. That's my, the sense I get. I can't prove that, but that's the vibes I get. My vibes are oftentimes right. We said the same thing about Ananda, right? I said ananda, bad news, red flags. He's probably gonna go to Rome. What do you know? Today he announces he's become Roman Catholic. So. So I get the same weird vibes. And I've done this for long enough that I trust my gut. My guts usually write about this stuff. So. Who's next? Where's the Roman Kelly dude at? What's your name? Based Catholic. Where you at? I don't see you on here, dude. You said you want me to bring you up, but I don't see anybody called Bay Catholic.

[A]

Like,

[B]

Are you chat. Okay, we'll see if that's you. Are you Bay Catholic? What's up?

[A]

Hey, I'm not the Roman Catholic.

[B]

Okay, what's up?

[A]

No disagreement, so I don't want to take up too much your time. Just two quick questions for you. A catechumen in the Orthodox Church. What is the orthodox stance on limited atonement?

[B]

You can't believe in limited atonement, so just go, bro, I'm not trying to be rude, but we're not doing really doing catechumen questions right now. Go look up, though. I have multiple critiques of reformed theology. So you could look up the one I did with Kotel or the one I did with Sam Shamoon. And then we get into why you can't believe in limited atonement because of recapitulation. Christ assumed universal human nature, so that's why you can't do that. But where's the base Catholic? I thought he was, like, like, super eager to come up. And then there's nobody in the chat called Bas Catholic. How am I supposed to know who you are? Dude, I'm looking for a profile that might be a Catholic, and I don't see who that would be. Does anybody disagree? You go to the head of line. People that disagree go to the head of line. Arrow. He wants to come up and say something. He's usually got the. The recon on the goobers. What's up? Yes, sir. What's up?

[A]

Hey. Hey. What's up? What's up? What's up? Hey. So quick, quick thing. So I kind of want you to debate more. Okay? So is this one Muslim? You probably know him. His name is Muslim Cowboy. He had this stupid post.

[B]

Yeah, I. I offered to debate him, like, twice. I reached out.

[A]

Oh, so you already know who he is? Okay, good. And I take it he denied it.

[B]

Tom, if I recall, he said he was not interested in a debate at this time.

[A]

Time.

[B]

I'm pretty sure that's what he said.

[A]

That's not true. He has, like, three debates where he's 5v1 in against God logic. That guy.

[B]

Okay, no, that's not true. Yeah, he said something like. I mean, I don't remember exactly how he worded it because this was like, a month ago, but no, I've. I've tweeted out that profile multiple times. By the way, Shimoun said you should debate this girl because I don't know what's going on, but have you noticed they're pushing these girl Muslim apologists, which is bizarre to me because they're all

[A]

coming from one person. They're coming from a guy named Malik, and they're, like, under Him. And so now they're getting popular.

[B]

Yeah, but why girls is bizarre.

[A]

Because they're trying to, like, outreach to the men. Because, you know, it's a coat. So it's like. It's a muta coat. So it's basically like, hey, if you become Muslim, these are the basements.

[B]

Oh, okay. So you can have a hooded. A hooded ninja that you never see if she's pretty or not.

[A]

So you can get you a free ninja.

[B]

You get a free ninja. Because I never see if she looks good or not. So I might get bait and switch. Like, you know, what was it? Is it Rebecca and Leah? One of them's ugly. So. So you get the Laban treatment, where you're going to get the ugly daughter. But. So this woman is Itachi Dawa Dialogues. And she said she would debate me on Sneako's channel.

[A]

So did you see Sam 1v5 her and some other guy. His name is.

[B]

No, Matthew. I didn't.

[A]

It was like they had a debate, like, a couple years ago. He won V5 her and, like, four other Muslims on it and, like, killed all of them at the same time.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

So she's like, he's probably going to be another junior. It's just slop. It's incest.

[B]

The same. Yeah, exactly. And the Muslims are all talking smack. It was funny because all these Muslims act like. Like, I haven't debated Muslims before. They're all like. They're like, new to this content. And it's like, I've been here doing this for a while, man. I'm not new to the Muslim sphere. What are you talking about? I don't. Like, we really. We literally had probably. I'm not bragging, but because it was because of Fresh and Fit, we probably had the biggest Christian Muslim debate of the last 10 years with me and Sam Shamoon versus Ejaz and Pikachu. So that had at least 5 million views. So I don't know what these people are talking about.

[A]

Like.

[B]

Like, I don't. Like, I haven't been here debating the Muslims. Like, what are you talking about?

[A]

Yeah, you've been destroying them. But I think now it's getting to the point because you keep destroying them, they're just gonna, oh, well, you didn't debate this guy.

[B]

But that's what they did. That's what they've always done. They always say, oh, you didn't debate the real one. Okay, who's the real one? Oh, it's this guy. And then you debate that guy and they go, yeah, but you didn't invade the real one.

[A]

And it's like, you had. What would you have under your belt? You had a prominent Muslim under your belt. You had Shabir Ali. That's like, you can't. Well, now they don't like him. They say he's a heret take now, but back then.

[B]

Back then. So back then, he was the main. The main one. Okay, and then. And then they said you didn't debate the real one. And I was like, who's that? Oh, it says Rasheed. He's a shake. So I debated Azara Rashid. Oh, that's not good enough. You didn't obey the real one. Okay, who's that? That's Daniel. Daniel's the top one. Okay, so then I debate Daniel. They're like, oh, yeah, but you didn't debate the real one. Who's that? No, that's Jake now. So it just. It just shifts to the. To the next guy that they want to promote now they want to push libiano. And I'm like, dude, I've played this game before. Like, I've seen this game for eight years. This is what you do. And next. Next it's gonna. There'll be a dude after when Libby. When Libiano crashes out, after he doesn't do any good, then there'll be a new guy. Oh, you haven't debated the real. Who's that? The hidden Imam. The one that's hidden out there in the. The, you know, Shia deserts of Iran. That's the real one. No. Then you got to be Muhammad.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

If you don't debate Muhammad from behind, from the dead, then you are not. You're scared. You're not debating the real Muslims.

[A]

Yeah. So that's all I want to ask about. So Muslim cowboy, he's lying. He has, like, three debates with him. Teaming up.

[B]

Yeah, he said. Yeah, I'm pretty sure, because it was. I mean, it was a random tweet maybe a month ago, So I don't remember exactly how he worded it, but he did. He did not want the debate. In fact, I can check my DMs to see what exactly I said to him. But I appreciate that. All right, we're gonna have to hurry up through these calls because I'm gonna have to go. We got some. We're doing another recording with the Russian pageau tomorrow, so I have to go to Nashville to prepare for that. We're. We're on the sixth episode of our podcast series. It's a full production series in Nashville, filming in Nashville about Orthodoxy America, Russia and civilization. So we've, we've gotten five episodes in. We did a whole episode on Freemasonry. We did a whole episode on the Enlightenment. Classical liberalism. We did. We're going to do an episode on British Empire and Zionism. We're going to do an episode on just basically politics is faking gay. So last call for today. Who disagrees? You go ahead line. If you're a Muslim, you disagree. Them have to read all these super chats. We got a bunch of. Last call goes to a person who disagrees, raise your hand, you go ahead of line, who disagrees? I know out of 17 people, somebody disagrees. Who disagrees. Give me an emoji if you disagree. You go with headline. He's all, here's Bayes Catholic. Here he is. Base Cali. What's up? Bay Catholic. You want to unmute? You've been waiting this whole time.

[A]

Dude.

[B]

Yeah, what's up?

[A]

Can you hear me?

[B]

Yeah, what's up?

[A]

Yeah, sorry, I was, I was hoping to maybe have a conversation about, about the Filio Quay with you if you're interested. Okay. Yeah, so. So obviously I'm a, I'm a Thomist because, you know, the whole Catholic thing. Yeah. And I, I take the stance of Gary Goulagrange. Obviously I believe you can't distinguish the persons without the filioque, sun and spirit. But I wanted to take a slightly different approach.

[B]

Well, did, did the Cappadocian. Can you tell me how the Cappadocians distinguish the persons?

[A]

Yeah, well, we have some that talk about relative opposition. We can get into this. No, that's not my main argument.

[B]

That's. That's not what I argued. Relations of opposition is not relative opposition. They're two different things.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. And again, we can get into that maybe later if you want, but right now I just wanted to run an argument by you.

[B]

Well, can I ask you, before you run your argument, do you agree with Aquinas and Sumachondragentes that he seems to speak as if the essence also generates inspirates?

[A]

Yeah, no, I agree that the essence is the principle by which I would say it's the principium quo remotum. But I wouldn't say that the essence is the principium quote, as in, as in the. The Father and the son.

[B]

Okay, how about. Let's just talk about the theophanies because that's more relevant. Do you think that theophanies are creatures? Well, I would just.

[A]

I just want to run my argument by it real quick.

[B]

Are the theophany's creatures, though, because this is the kill shot for Thomism.

[A]

Yeah, well, I mean, I'm not too well versed in that. I just wanted to run and run an argument. It's similar. It's. It's a pretty basic Thomas argument. It's not really like. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on it, really. I don't. We don't need to like, go back and forth.

[B]

Oh, so you don't want to talk about the actual kill shot for Tomism? Because I don't. I think it's a disservice to. I think it's a disservice to give the impression that you guys actually have this like, high tiered way to account for this and that when your whole position falls apart if you don't believe that God can be in space and time.

[A]

Yeah, and again, like that. We could totally debate theophanies. I could come on a different live. But I just had a specific argument I was hoping to ask you about. Like, and if you, if you want to say, hey, that's a stupid argument, that's totally cool. I just kind of wanted to hear your thoughts on it.

[B]

I'll tell you what. I'll answer your question. I will answer your question that you run when you answer. If you answer some of mine as well.

[A]

Yeah, okay.

[B]

Sure, go ahead.

[A]

We can totally do that.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

So are the theophany's creatures.

[B]

Is this the Ophioque argument it?

[A]

Or you. You want me to run my buy?

[B]

Yeah, you can go ahead first. You can go ahead first.

[A]

Yeah. Okay, so we, we would say that the Father, obviously being the. The monarch of the Trinity, he is the first person. And then there's the Son, who is the second person.

[B]

The Spirit is.

[A]

Is the third person. This is obviously, as we, we both agree, according to order of nature, not some weird temporal Aryan crap. But then we would say that the Principium in which the. The Son is begotten would be the divine essence itself. And we know that because what is being communicated.

[B]

Do you actually know Latin? Do you actually know Latin?

[A]

I wouldn't say.

[B]

Are you fluent in Latin? Okay, so why are you trying to quote a bunch of Latin as if you know Latin? It just comes off as pretentious and fake.

[A]

Yeah, I'm trying to be pretentious. I. I was just. That's just the typical terms that are used. I can say in English.

[B]

No, it's the typical terms that are used for people that know Latin.

[A]

Latin.

[B]

And you don't know Latin So you're doing it to give the impression that you're a scholar. Do you have a language degree?

[A]

No, I wasn't going to be a scholar. That's just how I've heard it referenced. The people I've talked to, they reference it that way. I can speak all in English if you would like.

[B]

Go ahead and make your argument.

[A]

Yeah. Do you want me to do.

[B]

Just make the argument anymore?

[A]

Okay. Yeah. So the Principium, which would be the divine essence, is. We know that it's the divine essence because that's what's being communicated to the Son. The Father is not communicating paternity, but rather he's communicating divinity to the sun.

[B]

And he's also generating. He's also generating the hypostasis of the sun too.

[A]

Right? Sure. But when he begets the sun, what is being communicated is the divine essence. And at this time, obviously using temporal language to describe the Trinity, because that's the best way to do it. The Spirit is not being spirated yet according to the order of nature. And so that would mean that in the divine essence, in the divine nature, the principium quo remotum, we still have spiration. And so if we're to say that the sun does not receive spiration when the divine essence is communicated to him, he's not receiving the fullness of what is in the divine nature. And so that would mean that he is in some.

[B]

Okay, so does the Holy. So then does the Holy Spirit receive spiration as well? Because he has a fullness of divine nature here?

[A]

Yeah. So that's where the distinction between Principium core remotum and principium co proximum, or

[B]

for people who don't speak, where is that? Where is that? Is that is. Okay, who made this distinction before? Thomas Aquinas or the Latin Church? Where is that in the Cappadocians? Well, again, does it exist? Does it exist? Okay. No, it's. It's a distinction. No, it's a distinction invented to protect and defend your model. So I'm asking if it's existed prior to the Middle Ages.

[A]

Yeah, I don't think I could give you a specific.

[B]

So. So you don't know?

[A]

Well, well, yeah, I would say, sure. I don't know. I'm willing to admit that. But you have to let me at least explain the distinction first before I just say, hey, you know, we can't.

[B]

No, you're. But you're coming up with a distinction to where it gives the impression that for the Son to have full divinity requires that he has the ability to spirate. And now when I say, okay, well, then, does the Holy Spirit also generate inspirate?

[A]

Right.

[B]

Your answer is, oh, well, you see, there's this distinction.

[A]

Well, no, it's. It's the same reason that the sun doesn't beget another Son. That's the only distinction that I was going to make is because the Principium for proximum terminates within the person of the Sun.

[B]

Okay, so too, where does this. Where does that come from?

[A]

What do you mean, where does it come from?

[B]

You just asserted that.

[A]

Where.

[B]

Where do you get that from?

[A]

Because the sun doesn't beget more sons. You would agree with that.

[B]

Why not? You're just asserting the position. I'm saying, why couldn't he. Why what? Why am I supposed to assume that dogmatic assertion is true? This is what, Thomas, do you guys just assert. Why are you laughing?

[A]

You would agree.

[B]

Yeah, because it doesn't matter whether I agree. It doesn't matter. I'm asking your position.

[A]

This is how. How we logically conclude.

[B]

Why should I accept that that's the logical conclusion without you just asserting it?

[A]

Because we're both trinitarian.

[B]

It doesn't matter what my position is. That's a fallacy. My position has nothing to. It's. It's irrelevant to what you're arguing. Why are you talking about my position when you're arguing your Thomas position? So what? So what if my position agrees or disagrees? It's irrelevant to the argument you're making.

[A]

So you Let me just clarify. You want me to.

[B]

How does it terminate? And why. Why am I supposed to accept that assertion? That's what I'm saying. You, Thomas.

[A]

Because. Because it's the object of the divine action that's being completed.

[B]

Okay, so more Thomism. Some more Tomism. Why am I supposed to accept the Toma. Why am I supposed to accept it? Why am I. You're not giving me the reason why. You're asserting the position again. Why am I supposed to accept that this Thomas model is the right model for answering this question?

[A]

Yes, I was. I was about to explain that, and then. Would you. Would you let me just finish the. The point.

[B]

You have to answer the question and not give me the assertion again. No, you. You're not. Again, you guys don't understand epistemology. You think that just asserting positions is giving me the reason why I ought to accept the Thomas dogma. Why?

[A]

Well, no, obviously we have the same epistemology. So We.

[B]

No, we don't. What are you talking about? We do absolutely do not.

[A]

We have. We have the Fathers in the Church.

[B]

We can people. I do not. I. I've spent 10 years arguing against your epistemology. We do not have the same epistemology. You have a, a classical foundationalist model of epistemology. I do not. That's why I debated Trent Horn against natural theology. I reject your whole system and paradigm.

[A]

Okay, how about, how about you just. You let me say the point that I'm trying to make and then you can tell me afterwards.

[B]

No, because you can keep yapping and filibustering and not answering the question. I'm asking you an epistemic question. Why should I accept the Thomistic account of that question when I don't accept Thomas? And you said, well, you have the same type of position, the same epistemology. No, I don't. So those are not acceptable answers. Can you answer the question why I ought to accept the Thomistic metaphysical dogmas that you push? Why?

[A]

If you want. I'm just trying to.

[B]

Why? No, you're not. You are not. No. You were answering my objection by just stating the Thomas position. So now it shifts into an epistemic question of why ought I accept the Thomas position and model.

[A]

Okay, we.

[B]

Let's do that. Let's do that because that's where it goes.

[A]

Let me extend all. We can use just Capadian Fathers. Okay. Or we can.

[B]

I don't think you have the right interpretation of the Capadians. Let's go to the. So the debate has shifted to the. To the Capadian of. So I don't believe you interpret them correctly. I believe in paradigms you don't understand. You didn't give any interpretation of the Cappadocians. What are you talking about?

[A]

Yeah. So then why are you saying I don't interpret them correctly if I haven't given you an interpretation?

[B]

Because you're an evidentialist and I'm not going to give you evidential lines of argumentation when I'm asking you a paradigm level question.

[A]

So I. Wait, let me, let me just clarify. I'm not allowed to use natural logic and I'm not allowed.

[B]

I don't accept those positions. Why would you. I'm not a natural theology proponent or a classical foundationalist, but I'm not allowed

[A]

to talk about Fathers either. Because you don't accept.

[B]

You can. You don't understand the allowance. I don't care what you can. You can, you can refer to all the things you want to. I'm just going to keep calling it out as to why it's a non sequitur and I don't accept that as an argument.

[A]

So you don't accept the, the early Church Fathers that we both.

[B]

I don't accept your interpretation. I don't believe that they're theory neutral.

[A]

I haven't given you an interpretation yet. How do you know you disagree with it?

[B]

I, I don't accept the Thomist reading of the Cappadocians because I've dealt with it before.

[A]

Before.

[B]

So the question then goes to a. So the question moves to a paradigm level question of epistemology and models. So why am I supposed to accept your model of theory neutral epistemology, classical foundationalism?

[A]

Okay, Jay, pretend I never told you I'm a Thomas. Let's just.

[B]

No, I debate paradigms. Do you not understand this? And no you don't because you're at Thomas. Do you understand you can't and don't debate paradigms.

[A]

Yeah, Jay, I'm not.

[B]

Stop saying my name. I am moving the debate to that because it gets to that. Because I don't accept your interpretation of the Cappadocians.

[A]

So you couldn't refute my points. Now you're just. You literally said you moved.

[B]

Do you understand when it. When it comes to a question about. This is the exact same debate I had with Arrow four years ago. Or not Arrow, whatever the Thomas guy's name. It's the exact same debate where you want me to accept a bunch of metaphysical givens and assertions in the Thomistic scheme, and I don't because I have a different paradigm. So the question moves, the debate moves to the epistemic level.

[A]

Well, okay, I agree that if you want to move it to the epistemic level, that's something.

[B]

No, the debate moves there. It's not me wanting to. Because I'm telling you I have totally different paradigm for how I read the Cappadocians and I don't accept. Accept your self evident Thomistic Aristotelian metaphysics. And you can't. You can't prove those things.

[A]

Jay, let me ask you.

[B]

Why do you keep repeating my name?

[A]

I didn't. I just asked you.

[B]

No, you keep repeating my name. Jj,

[A]

I apologize. I apologize, sir. Dyer, do you accept the. The Fathers that we both venerate?

[B]

Are you this stupid? Really? Are you serious? Are you guys. It's like a cult. It's like talking to people in a cult. The question isn't, do we have the same church fathers? The Question is we read them from different paradigms. Do you think that they're self evident truths, self evident, self interpreting texts?

[A]

No, not always. I think that there are some that are, that are obviously very clear, but I'm just asking.

[B]

Okay, this is a question though.

[A]

Epistemic absurdity.

[B]

It's not epistemic absurdity. It's down to episode. Okay, so if it's epistemic absurdity, you should be able to easily refute my challenges.

[A]

No, because everyone can be broken down to epistemic absurdity. That's this, the sofistry that you're trying to impose.

[B]

It's not sophistry. No, simple, no. We don't agree on the fathers. That's what I'm telling you. We do not agree on the fathers. We agree on who they are, not how to read them.

[A]

Okay, you can tell me that I'm reading them wrong, but you have to let me read you a quote first.

[B]

It doesn't matter because I don't accept your reading of them. It literally doesn't matter. I'm not a Thomist and I'm not going to read the Tom. I'm not going to read the Cappadocians in a Thomas lens like you guys do.

[A]

So you're not going to give me an interpretation or you're just going to say.

[B]

I'm going to say. I'm going to say very simply that you believe that there's nothing in the intellect that's not first in the census, because that's the peripatetic axiom. And I'm going to just ask you to explain to me why I'm supposed to accept that, that when the periphotic axiom itself is not in the sense data, because that's the beginning point of your whole system.

[A]

Didn't mean to say your name. Didn't mean to say. You can run back to, you know, saying, oh, I just don't accept your epistemology, therefore your points.

[B]

No, you don't understand paradigms. I've spent 20 years now, I know how debate works. You don't know how debate works.

[A]

Congratulations. I mean, that's awesome that you spent 20 years doing this, but I want you to actually address any of the points that I'm bringing forth.

[B]

My challenges to you are at a paradigm level. So you're operating just like an atheist who wants to debate things that are not at the paradigm level. So you can keep yapping about how you read the Capadians. Why is that funny?

[A]

Because, Jay, you haven't answered Any of my points. You. You interrupt.

[B]

Because my challenge is not at the level that you're arguing. It's at a presuppositional level.

[A]

Jay, when I came up here, you agreed to have a conversation about the

[B]

Filio question and then it turned into a paradigm level whole interpretive debate.

[A]

It didn't turn into that.

[B]

It did because that's the questions. That's the questions I'm asking you. So you can either address those or just ignore them.

[A]

Okay, so j. I agree. I did it again.

[B]

No, you're actually just doing it because you think it's funny. It's not bothering me. It just makes you look like you're silly. Like just saying my name. It's weird. It's like. It's like neuro linguistic programming or whatever.

[A]

Maybe I'm just a little nervous. I don't know, man.

[B]

Oh, sure, I'll bet you are. So again, you understand that my approach is paradigm apologetics. That's my whole thing. That's what I do. Now you can address that type of stuff or not. I don't care what you do because I left your system a long time ago because it's gay. So you can either address my line of argumentation or you can just keep yapping at something that's irrelevant to what? Saying I'm arguing.

[A]

Okay, how about you tell me your paradigm and I will argue from that.

[B]

Yeah, so I don't accept the parapetic axiom. Okay, so that's Tomism101. Now tell me why I'm supposed to accept it.

[A]

Well, I don't have to prove.

[B]

Do you know what the. Do you know what the paretic. Do you know what it is

[A]

basically like? Nothing in the intellect is. Is not first in the senses.

[B]

Yeah. So that's the beginning point of your whole system in terms of epistemology, in terms of how you know things, how you reason about the world. So tell me. Make sense of that. If the parapetic axiom itself is not insensit, then it's self refuting.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, okay, sure it's self refuting. Thomism is wrong. But can we talk about the filial equation?

[B]

No, because that's your paradigm from which you read the Capadocians, you goober. So you admit your par. So you just admitted that you're. So you admit your paradigm is wrong?

[A]

Yeah, sure, toss it out.

[B]

Okay, well then. Then, Thomas False. Then why would I argue with somebody who. You just admitted your paradigm's wrong. Why would I argue with you if your paradigm.

[A]

I've Adopted. I've adopted the J. Dyer paradigm. I'll argue from whatever standpoint you want. From whatever paradigm you want. I just want to have a conversation about the field paradigm.

[B]

I don't accept arguments about. It's. Let's say, if I was debating. Let me explain why I don't do this. The reason I don't do this is because if I'm debating an atheist and they throw a bunch of quote facts at me and a bunch of quote data at me and their interpretation of this or that fact, it's an unfruitful debate and exercise because the real point of contention is not the interpretation of this or that text or this or that data. Just like it's not a question of interpreting this or that church father. It does. It really is irrelevant if we have completely different paradigms from the starting point. And the fact that we have common church fathers has not nothing to do with whether we have the same paradigms.

[A]

Right?

[B]

Because I read them from a totally different vantage point than a Thomist lens. Just like Dionysius orthodox read Dionysius from a very different lens than the Thomistic lens of reading Dionysius. So why am I gonna. You can't solve this debate by just citing Dionysius. When I debated Erica Barra, I made the same point. We have two totally different paradigms. And Eric says, why don't you just let me stack up all the parents papal quotes because I have a paradigm level argument and if I have one contradiction that negates all of your papal quote minds, they're all canceled out. That's the strength of a kill shot paradigm level argument. That's what I do. So you can either address that or we can just keep talking past each other.

[A]

So. So Jay, just to clarify, I can't quote the Fathers on the Filio quay

[B]

because good God, have you ever heard me debate. You're literally arguing the way an atheist does. So you won't listen to the science facts, you won't listen to the science facts. You don't believe the science. It's the same argument.

[A]

Well, I understand that you, you want to take this down to the paradigm level.

[B]

I understand because in the discussion it already got to that. That's what I'm saying.

[A]

But I'm already saying for the sake of this conversation, I am granting your exact worldview. Whatever you want it to be, I will grant that. Obviously I still hold.

[B]

If you grant my worldview, then why would I accept the debate with a worldview that you admit doesn't work? Again, is Your worldview built on foundations. I mean, does it have the foundation of being built on the peripatetic axiom? If. If you can't give me. If you can't justify your granting.

[A]

I already told you, for the sake

[B]

of the conversation, if you can't grant first. Well, so you. You can't defend your first principles. Again, I already said, can you. Well, so why would you grant that? Why would you grant that if you're. Dude, are you stupid? Why would you grant that if your argument is built on that?

[A]

I never said it was built on that. Of.

[B]

All of your system is built on your first principles.

[A]

I literally told you I was willing to argue from the Fathers alone, not using any Thomistic idea.

[B]

There's no such. That doesn't exist, you idiot. That doesn't exist. Do you have a paradigm like I have a paradigm doesn't exist? There is no arguing as if the Church Fathers are theory neutral. I'm arguing their theory laden.

[A]

Okay? And obviously I can take.

[B]

Do you understand what that means?

[A]

Internal.

[B]

Do you. I'm not making an internal critique.

[A]

Agree with you.

[B]

Do you think that saying I am.

[A]

I'm saying that I am, Jay, that I'm willing to take on your worldview to show you through internal critique, that the Fathers that you think affirm your theology actually dispute, disagree with you?

[B]

No, they don't. Well, then you. Well then why aren't you debating Dr. Bo Branson, who has an entire dissertation on this. Why don't you go debate him?

[A]

Because he doesn't have an open debate call.

[B]

Sure he does. He's debated. He's debated right now. Well, not right now, no, but he's debated multiple people.

[A]

So your. Your answer is just go debate someone else. Because I don't want to talk about the Fathers.

[B]

No, you don't want to address the fundamental conflict between our system and Thomism. And I just. You just admitted that you don't have to justify your first principles. Why should I accept your Thomist interpretation if you can't address your first principles?

[A]

Jay, you keep on bringing up Tomism. I'm telling you that.

[B]

You said you're a Thomas, you idiot.

[A]

This debate. Yeah, I brought it up. I already told you multiple times. For the sake of this debate, we can throw Thomism out the window. I just want to talk. I want to talk about.

[B]

No, we can't.

[A]

We can't talk about the Fathers. We.

[B]

If it's a paradigm level debate, you can't just go to the Church Fathers. That's my point. You have the wrong Paradigm and the wrong starting point.

[A]

Okay, tell me the starting point. We'll go from there.

[B]

This is how I want you to tell me why I'm supposed to accept your first principle, which is the peripatetic axiom. Prove that to me.

[A]

I already told you. For the sake.

[B]

So you can't. So you can't prove. Are you admitting you can't prove your first principles? I don't want you to do it. For the sake of argument. Are you just admitting that you can't prove your first principles for the.

[A]

Yeah, for the sake of this. No, I. I'm an idiot. I don't understand the person.

[B]

All right, this is a waste of time. So he's not going to do it. So he noticed. He won't admit that there isn't an argument for first principles. Because I'm not going to concede that the Church Fathers are theory neutral. To go down that line of argumentation would assume that.

[A]

That.

[B]

Well, you just read the Church Father. It's just like a Protestant. You just read the clear text of scripture. You just read the clear writings of the Church Fathers. That's why he's now having to discard his Thomistic position, because they can't justify their first principles. And their first principles are what the rest of the Thomistic system hangs on. It's literally called foundationalism because it's stacked up. If I pull out the foundation, all the rest of this stuff falls apart. And I told him a million times, I don't believe. And I don't accept your Thomistic reading of the cappadocians, nor does Dr. Branson. That's what his thesis is partly about. So you're saying that was Jesus and whatnot? Are you guys joking or being serious?

[A]

Just for the record, you guys all see how mean Jay Dyer is? Again, this is a great example of his meanness. Just want to say that.

[B]

Yeah, so I don't know why he had to. Why did he come under a hidden sock account when we were. We were talking in DMS about having a conversation? So.

[A]

So again, they're like, oh, yeah, I believe every. Everything you believe. Just grant everything. Just let me do this one thing. Just come on. Let me do it.

[B]

Yeah, and you notice this is a common thing that young guys do where they pretend that they have these linguistic skills. Exact same thing that Ananda did, Right? Oh, I'm a linguistic translator. Oh, really?

[A]

What.

[B]

What languages do you have degrees in? Oh, I don't have a degree in anything. Oh, how are you a linguistic trans. A.

[A]

So

[B]

you'll notice, by the way, I also asked Pine Suck to debate and he turned down too. He says, I can't debate epistemology. I can't find someone else. So. And I've been asking Pine Suck to do that debate for 10 years because when he called in, we had the exact same exchange. So me and Pine SAP had the exact same exchange as that guy. So good. I'm glad he got his. His little clip because he doesn't understand how to debate. Right. Ananda just apostatized. What are you talking about? What's wrong with the Nanda? I've got to read these super chats really quick because I have to go. I got stuff to do today. Thank you for your lectures and live streams. Marvin says thank you. Iron giant says for $10. Have you heard of electronic music maker Mort Garson? No. He pioneered stuff in the 70s. He also got into esoteric occult stuff. Now I'm not familiar with him. John, did you want to say something while I read the soup chats? Old fox, $5. My wife says she needs time and space. Is she calculating velocity? Yes, she is. She's going to crash into you. She's calculating the velocity to crash into you. Greeny says for $30. I've been telling my uncle, he's been a Labor Party voter his whole life about the Miller Fabian information. He hears what I say, but he won't accept it. Well, that's the thing. People are locked into their paradigms. And that's why you have to argue for Thomism, Catholicism, or what Atheism. You have to argue at the paradigm level. This is what I do. This is what we've been arguing for decades.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So go ahead, Go ahead.

[A]

That's. That's an interesting thing, because the Labor Party itself is the Fabian Socialist Party.

[B]

Exactly. It just renamed him. Exactly. So basically he's saying, grant me my position or I'll grant you position. And now just go back to reading the Church Fathers as if you didn't make your argument at a parad about paradigms.

[A]

So

[B]

if I don't.

[A]

Let's not play make believe right now, okay? Let's pretend that I believe everything you believe. And let me just do this one little argument. Let me see what happens. Come on.

[B]

So Thomism is. Yeah. Thomism is an empirical theology, meaning that it's based on sense data, including reasoning about God always comes from sense data. There's also reason about God that's from logic and reasoning. But you begin with your sense data. Hence the peripatetic axiom that Aquinas supports explicitly many times over is there's nothing in the intellect that is not first in sense data. There's a problem with this empiricist type of approach. I'm not saying that he is a human empiricist. I'm saying it's an empirical approach like later empiricists. The problem is that the peripathetic axiom itself is not in sense data. So this is an arbitrary starting point and a self evident just give me just so type of position. Now in all of modern philosophy, after from, you know, Descartes and Hume and Kant onwards, the shift happens to where people call this into, into question. People just don't accept the metaphysical given position anymore. Unless you're a classical foundationalist.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So I'm gonna always have the same approach. Not because I don't want to debate the filioque or I don't want to talk about the Cappadocians. It's because I'm not going to be interpreting them from the same way that you interpret, you believe in, in theory neutral evidences, theory neutral, quote, brute facts. I don't believe there are any theory neutral brute facts. So I'm not going to grant you that. You can just go and read the Cappadocians and that's how we solve it. Just like I'm not going to grant to Eric Ibarra, oh, I just read the papal quotes and the church father quotes and that proves papism. It doesn't work like that. I have a different paradigm and if your paradigm has a foundation that's faulty, all I have to do is pull that out and the whole thing falls. And so he admits I, I don't know, I can't really defend that. So let's just say I can't defend it. Okay, good, then there's nothing else to debate. And Thomas and Falls, he doesn't even realize because he's a young guy, he's like 20. He doesn't know that there's a giant vast academic scholarly history debating how to read Dionysius or the Cappadocians. Do you read the. Or even Maximus? Do you read them from the orthodox paradigm or do you read them from a Thomistic lens? For example, Hans Urs von Balthazar, he reads Maximus the Confessor through atomistic lens to try to make it mesh with Thomism. Just like Eastern Catholics, they will try to mash Thomas Aquinas and Gregory Palomas at times.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Some of the more ecumenist minded ones. Other ones admit you can't do it. Even Christian Coppice, their top uni scholar theologian, admits you can't mesh these two. There's no way to mash essence energy between Palomas and Aquinas. But what I'm saying is that you can't just go to the Cappadocians on this question when I immediately start asking him, notice the Thomas all to do the same thing. It's the same with Tim Gordon. They'll just start asserting all of these metaphysical givens. Well, clearly in the Trinity, the metaphysics of the termination of the blah, blah, blah. And it's like, why am I supposed to accept that model and that line of reasoning as a necessary implication? How do we know that that's the case? Because remember, this is actually based on divine revelation, right? Trinitarian theology has an element of reasoning, but it's not ultimately a rational position. In Thomism, it's actually based on divine revelation, which is, that's grace building on nature. Reasoning is nature. Future grace builds on that. And in their scheme it's totally different. As a paradigm, we don't. I don't think that. I don't, as Stylo says in, in chapter one, I don't believe that there is natural theology, there's natural revelation, but we don't grant the Thomistic scheme. So he's just going to keep reading the church fathers and the the just like an atheist is going to read the evidence and the data from his atheist paradigm. This is why, for example, you can't argue the, the apostles were very bold after the Resurrection. So therefore Christianity is true, right? Every atheist is going to say you're interpreting their boldness from your assumptions that that somehow proves the Resurrection. It's a non sequitur. You see what I'm saying? Like the interpretation of the evidence is conditioned by the paradigm time. So to continue to have that debate at throwing patristic quotes back and forth or papal quotes back and forth is ignoring the actual point of contention, which is rival paradigms. That's why I always bring it back to that, because it's a fruitless, futile debate. It's just going to be throwing quotes back and forth. But he doesn't get that because he's adopted Thomism and He's only like 20. He doesn't. He's just citing Latin like he knows Latin Latin to sound smart. Which is all fraudulent because he admitted at least he was honest, right? He could have been. He could have like, yes, I've studied Latin and speak it fluently. Like, so I know he was tempted to say that, but at least he was honest that he didn't know. It was like, well, then why are you trying to talk in Latin like you're trying to sound smart? Like, imagine me just. Just citing Greek terms all day, like, oh, you know, this is the dickel sune. This is not the theological logical. Right now you can say those terms. I'm not saying you can't say that. But to come in here with this scholastic gibberish to try to sound smart, it just doesn't. It's. It's. To me, it sounds pretentious, especially if you don't define the terms. If you just try to machine gun it out. And if this is not true, if the parapathetic axiom is not true, then Thomism isn't true. True. And if Thomas isn't true, why am I going to accept a Thomist paradigm reading of the Capadians or the Bible? Does that not. Does that not logically follow? Like, why would I accept the paradigm which informs how you read these texts if you can't explain to me why I accept the paradigm? So him conceding the paradigm is it. Well, then the Thomistic paradigm is false. If you're conceding that. This is so silly like that. That's the actual sophistry here.

[A]

What? I got a question, Jay. You said you're debating some Muslim leader. Where's. Where is that again?

[B]

So Josie, the redhead libertarian, she's the Tim cast redhead girl. She has, I think, a million subscribers on X. So I will be debating June Junior on her space slash her Grumble channel.

[A]

Are they gonna take like, other questions and stuff or just be you and Junior and her.

[B]

I don't know how she'll do it. I think she. Last time when we had evangelical Zionist calling in, I think she took questions.

[A]

Oh, cool. Cool. What. What time is that at

[B]

9 Central. Yes, that will be fun. Of course, Junior is no good. He's low tier.

[A]

So wait, am I gonna have to choose between listening to that and Tristan's live stream? I had to change it for Sunday. It. Actually, I. I blackmailed Jay into joining me on Sunday. I. Yeah, never mind. I won't. Never mind. I'm not gonna listen now. That'll be Sunday.

[B]

So this is. This is Josie's channel here. The redhead libertarian. I'm sure her grumble is something similar to that, if you want to watch it there. And I'll give you guys the link here. So she will be moderating me. And she usually does it for an hour. Hour and a half I think last time we had some people calling in. So I don't know if she'll have Collins or not. But this is actually the backup bear tard debate since that one didn't happen. So there's that. But the other thing about the Filio Oakway is that like when you give Thomism, it's just like when you're debating Muslims about metaphysics, this is giving it way too much. Like it's all a bunch of confusing like, like 99 of the audience doesn't even know what you're talking about when you start throwing around these stupid Latin terms. So there's really no point just like with Muslims and engaging in these like metaphysics high tier stuff because 99 of Muslims 99.9 can't do metaphysics. They have no idea what you're talking about. It's much more effective to just talk about, well dude, married a nine year old that converts way more people people than all this high.

[A]

Just for the sake of the audience, I just want to say that Tristan and myself, all we do all day is harass Jay and make fun of him and he never gets mad, so he definitely has a high tolerance for. For ribbing.

[B]

Well, you guys are my friends, so I don't like. But, but I get, you know, I gotta call names every day.

[A]

We've had bought armies. Attack him. We've doxed him and his family.

[B]

All right, hey guys,

[A]

I got, I

[B]

gotta hurry because I gotta go, I've gotta, I've gotta go meet Pavel the, the Russian Pajo. So I got, I can't. I'd love to say in chat, thank you guys so much. We'll have another call in very soon but I got to get through these and I gotta leave so. Mohawk says I'm a Jewish comfort to Christianity. Awesome. Matt Della Monkey, $20. Jay, what do you think about IP versus Captain Crack Rock? I have not seen that debate. I mean I feel like probably IP would win that. I mean Captain Crack Rock is very low tier. There's more and more red pill Judaizers that are thriving on Solar Scriptura. JMAL15 what do you think of TPOSA Protestant Past Pastor quote minds about Christian orthodoxy? I don't know what that is. I mean obviously I don't agree with any Protestant TP USA pastor or any Protestant pastor period. So I'm sure I disagree, but I don't know what that is. Pondering metaphysics. $7. People who use a divorce argument don't understand binding and loosing. Yeah, it's about. And they have a. They read the service for a second marriage because it's obvious that it's not considered ideal. Yeah, it's. And they don't. They're not honest about the Roman Catholic flexibility themselves. They have on $5. It cannot be enforced by catechesis. But it should be enforced amongst laymen. Is inherently cringe to be a online debater. Catechumen. Right away. Yeah, we need to. There needs to be policies on that. For sure. Stephen. $5. The new show the shards has a satanic SRA killer in LA. That sounds interesting. There's a cult called the Riders of Afterlife. Okay. A new show called shards mate. $5. Jam Academy in England. I've been received to the Greek church. I'll be baptized. I'm worried about the ep. Should I move? I mean, you know, move if you detect humanism in your church. Christo. $50. I'm in Brazil. There's our Neo Pentecostal drug cartels. They wear Israeli patches. They're expelled from Roman Catholics communities. Wait, they're expelling Roman Catholics? They are dangerous radical evangelicals. Yeah, exactly. We need to ask Tristan about that cave and roost. $5. The Ortho Bros pray to pray. The Acathist St. George. We should own that and stress that worship is also intercession. Yeah, worship is eucharistic liturgy. Intercession. The saints. Hold up, mister. Have you seen the Nick Matau debate? I'm not. He destroyed Sneo, Kora and Muslim. Orthodox Muslim Nick Matau. I'll have to look him up. Is that Fearless Nick? I don't know who Nick matau is. Brett, $10. Give me this. Give me that. Trial by fire. Trial by file fantasy. $20. Debate quandas. She ain't not gonna debate me, dude. She's gonna gonna debate when there's hundreds of thousands of dollars or I don't even think she'll ever debate. Andrew chat naked. $10. Jay converted me to Cobra Church. If you have 130 to spare, watch the trailer for the game War Fantasy. Welcome to the new members Iron Giant. $10. Did you ever hear of electronic music? No. We did that. Green from Oz. No, we did that. Jay, come to St. Michael's in Louisville.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Nicholas, $50. Do you think something like Philly Okway leads to separation from God?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

If you're knowingly affirming heterodox anti trinitarian positions, then yeah. I mean the. The Thomistic model is like collapses nature into person. That's heresy 101. According to St. John Damascus Matt Dillon monkey $20 what do you think about IP? No, we did that. Matt Dillon monkey $5 Danny McBride makes fun of evangelicals, right? Gemstone he's totally doing that for is. Oh yeah. So if Danny McBride makes fun of evangelicalism, then he's a Muslim.

[A]

Them. Exactly.

[B]

Matt Dylan Monkey $5 Andre Attunes Metal video mocking demonic prosperity Past pastors Paula White is from Islam. Yeah, exactly. If you make fun of evangelicals, you're working with Islam. Pros and Muslims are the same. Notre Emperor Fallacy Exactly. Fundamental Jiu Jitsu Fellows, why do women seem to be standoffish towards orthodox? Could be because it's fundamentally patriarchal. I don't know. Know most of my husband's friends are interested, but their wives shut it down. I mean, women don't make typically the same decisions about churches. And all this for the same reasons that men do. Men approach the question typically logically, historically, objectively, first. And women usually make these decisions based on how they feel. Remember, head on over to chalk.comchoq.com Best limitation on the Internet, everybody. Have a good night. I will see you soon. Soon. And use promo code [e-mail] choq.com the link is in the show description. You can also.