Pt 2 DEBATECON 8 REACTION! Wilson / Dinesh, Dyer vs Jake, Rachel/NotsoErudite, IP, Godlogic, 1 Vs 5!

Summary

---

Jay'sAnalysis – Pt 2 DEBATECON 8 REACTION!

Host: Jay Dyer
Episode Date: August 4, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode features Jay Dyer and guests offering an in-depth, at times comedic, recap and analysis of key moments and drama from DebateCon 8. With characteristic sharpness and irreverence, Jay dissects major debates, criticizes opposing arguments (especially from figures like "Not So Erudite" and certain Catholic apologists), and exposes what he sees as broader deficiencies in modern apologetics—Protestant, Catholic, and Muslim alike. The tone blends rigorous critique with playful mockery and roast-style commentary, giving listeners both education and entertainment.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. DebateCon 8 Recap and Drama

[00:30–08:24]

• DebateCon Circuit Update: Jay and Brian discuss the ongoing debate con circuit, teasing future confrontations with high-profile names (David Wood, Dinesh D'Souza) and providing “behind-the-scenes” insights, such as negotiation drama and personality quirks.
• On "NotSoErudite" & Destiny Crowd: Detailed roast of "NotSoErudite" (referred to with numerous insults), accusing her of being unprepared, reliant on ChatGPT, and unable to answer basic philosophy questions. Jay highlights his “revenge” at the recent debate by re-asking an old stumper: "Can you name one work by Aristotle and one by Hegel?". She fumbles the answer by citing “Five Dialogues” as Aristotle (which is by Plato).

  "She literally relies on ChatGPT." (Jay, 05:05) "Aristotle would be the five dialogues." (Erudite, 08:53, 09:55—misattribution)

---

2. The "Pop Quiz" – Philosophy Credentials Put to the Test

[06:30–10:20]

• The Quiz: Jay describes how "NotSoErudite" had challenged Rachel with "academic pop quizzes" and so he returned the favor. Her incorrect answer becomes a running joke and meme fodder.
• Audience Response and Online Fallout: Jay jokes about “Destiny bots” inundating his comment sections after previous debates and how these viral moments have racked up nearly a million views across social platforms.

---

3. Critique of Online Apologetics & the State of Debate

[27:49–41:17]

• Apologetics Landscape: Jay sees most online anti-Islam polemicists as having shallow understanding and being "one trick ponies," especially those outside the Orthodox tradition. He jabs GodLogic, Dinesh D’Souza, and others for lacking ecclesiastical grounding.

  "You can't take all of the orthodox positions like monarchical trinitarianism out of the Orthodox Church and send people to Messianic synagogues..." (Jay, 32:50)

• The 'Churchless' Apologist Problem: Jay insists apologetics without ecclesiastical grounding is anachronistic and historically invalid, challenging others to cite any “churchless apologist” from the first millennium—"There’s not one."

---

4. Cholo Cheater, MetaGlasses, and Debate Ethics

[42:47–59:07]

• MetaGlasses Cheating Scandal: Jay details a dramatic confrontation with a Catholic apologist (“Cholo Cheater”) who wore MetaGlasses during a “1 vs. 5” debate, supposedly violating debate rules by enabling outside help or AI look-up. Jay argues these glasses could facilitate real-time cheating (text messages, AI prompts), makes observations on suspicious behavior, and likens it to bringing a live ChatGPT to a debate.

  “Just bringing the meta glasses to the debate with the potentiality of cheating already shows that you're disqualified." (Jay, 49:36) "You can't look me in the eye." (Jay describing Cholo's avoidance, 56:57)

• Roasting and Comedy: Jay mocks the excuse-making and cultural posturing that followed, riffing on “victim” culture and double standards regarding cheating and debate conduct, using humor and frequent impressions.

---

5. Feminism, Patriarchy, and Definitions – Jay vs. Erudite

[63:36–74:25]

• Relitigating the Erudite Debate: Jay revisits his debate with Erudite, focusing on definitions of feminism and patriarchy, charging her with shifting definitions, equivocation, and using presentist fallacies. Much of the back-and-forth is included for comic effect, highlighting what Jay sees as her consistent inability to cite a single "feminist" Christian society or coherent definition for the term in historical context.

  "But your definition is so elastic and broad that it could be anything..." (Jay, 67:52) "They cannot [coexist]." (Jay on patriarchy & feminism, 71:40)

  • Quote:
    "Being feminine is not the same thing as the movement of feminism." (Jay, 71:45)
  • Quote:
    "You misunderstand what you wrote down. No, that's even dumber..." (Jay, 72:48)
• Debate Fatigue: Jay jokes about the sheer length ("seven more hours") and absurdity of his encounters with Erudite, sarcastically polling listeners for his worst debate opponent.

---

6. Reviewing Muslim Apologetics: Jay vs. Naim and Jake

[75:00–114:02+]

• Opening Statement Dissection: Jay walks through opponent Naim's opening statement (which asserts the Quran’s textual unity, stability, and superiority over the Bible), identifying common fallacies like non sequiturs, arguments from incredulity, and misunderstandings about authorship and textual transmission.

  "He argues that because there's many books that there therefore must be different doctrines... it's just a non sequitur." (Jay, 82:23)

• Islamic Epistemology Challenged:
  Jay critiques the "Uthmanic assumption" (i.e., why accept Uthman’s recension of the Quran as singularly authoritative), arguing that the principle used to discredit the Bible would undermine the Quran equally, particularly if one accepts possible textual corruption.

  "If the prior revelations of Allah could be corrupted, why can't the Quran be corrupted now?" (Jay, 111:53)

• Protestantism as Strawman:
  Jay points out many arguments made by his Muslim opponents actually target a Protestant view Jay himself does not hold, repeatedly highlighting, "Thank you for arguing against Protestantism, but that's not my position."
• The “Islamic Dilemma”:
  The recurring problem that the Quran both affirms earlier Christian and Jewish revelations and claims they were corrupted—a stance Jay insists is historically unsustainable and logically self-defeating.

---

7. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• [08:53 | Erudite]: "Aristotle would be the five dialogues."
  (Jay: "That's Plato. She triples down even in the clip.")
• [05:05 | Jay]: "She literally relies on ChatGPT."
• [10:17 | Jay]: "Now listen. She says, 'No, it's not.' That's Plato."
• [32:50 | Jay]: "You can't take all of the orthodox positions like monarchical trinitarianism out of the Orthodox Church and send people to Messianic synagogues."
• [49:36 | Jay]: "Just bringing the meta glasses to the debate with the potentiality of cheating already shows that you're disqualified."
• [67:52 | Jay]: "But your definition is so elastic and broad that it could be anything. Except for what my position is. No, I don't."
• [71:45 | Jay]: "Being feminine is not the same thing as the movement of feminism."
• [72:48 | Jay]: "You misunderstand what you wrote down. No, that's even dumber."
• [82:23 | Jay]: "He argues that because there's many books that there therefore must be different doctrines... it's just a non sequitur."
• [111:53 | Jay]: "If the prior revelations of Allah could be corrupted, why can't the Quran be corrupted now?"

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• 00:30–08:24: DebateCon circuit drama, previewing upcoming debates
• 05:05–10:20: Jay’s “pop quiz” to Erudite; meme-worthy moments
• 27:49–41:17: Riff on GodLogic, critique of anti-Islam apologetics, what proper apologetics must entail
• 42:47–59:07: Breakdown of Cholo Cheater & MetaGlasses cheating drama; debate ethics
• 63:36–74:25: Relitigating the “feminism vs. patriarchy” debate with Erudite
• 80:09–114:02+: Jay’s review and deconstruction of Naim’s opening, critiques of Islamic apologetics strategy

---

Final Thoughts

Jay Dyer’s analysis is unmistakably combative, densely referential, and highly irreverent, mixing philosophical rigor with relentless roasting. This episode is invaluable for listeners invested in the apologetics debate world, as it reveals the rhetorical and logical moves made by various parties, the inside baseball of the debate circuit, and the pitfalls of both Protestant and Muslim polemics against Orthodox Christianity. The humorous, roast-laden tone adds levity as the arguments get technical, with Jay’s mischievous energy holding the narrative together.

---

Transcript

[Erudite]

Sleep Number's new collections are designed to adapt to the changing nature of your life and your sleep needs. Whether it's the personalized comfort of the new Comfort Mode mattress, the targeted pressure relief of the Comfort Next mattress, or the climate collection that actively cools or warms to help you fall asleep and stay asleep.

[Jay Dyer]

And now get early access to our biggest sale of the year. Save 25% on the new Comfort Next

[Brian]

Luxe for a limited time only at a Sleep number store or sleepnumber.com

[Erudite]

where that's really.

[Jay Dyer]

I to be honest, I think it's lacking in. If you're correct, if you're correct about the correct view of how Christianity sees church and state, then you should be doing a lot more lectures on this because it seems that most Americans and

[Brian]

by the way, this whole year is actually full of discussions and topics that will be related to Symphonia and church and State. If you guys are interested, I will be speaking at the Ludwell Conference here in Kentucky, and my talk will actually be about Christian, the Christian State, church and state. So there's the link for that. If you want to get tickets, I don't know if they're sold out or still available. September 12 and falls of rough. Of course, we have like tons of debates coming up. As you know, we will be debating at the next debate con your boy David Woodstein here. And I'm going to do the entire debate in a KGB outfit. Literally. I'm gonna order one as well. The outfit might be a little bit more challenging, but I'm at least gonna get a KGB colonel hat with, like, the, you know, Soviet stuff on it. I think that'll be a lot, a lot more entertaining. And, and I can just play into the nonsense of David Wood, that everybody over here works for Putin. Of course, David Wood just learned about Orthodoxy not that long ago. He just learned about icons. And so I'm excited to see how he's going to do just learning about icons. Not that long ago, as an apologist of 20 years, he doesn't know if he believes sola scriptura or any of the solas or any of the Protestant basics. So he has no idea what his own positions are, but he spent a lot of time just basically repeating Sam Shamoon's Islamic arguments. So that's going to be fun. That's DebateCon 9 in Orlando. It's going to be fun. I'll probably have another, a couple debates at debatecon9. I don't know what those are going to be. And Dinesh finally Agreed to debate me. So I realized that if you want to get Dinesh's attention, you got to put a dollar sign, you got to put some money up. So I kept wondering why Dinesh wouldn't agree. And I was like, oh, I haven't mentioned like paycheck. So here, Dinesh has agreed. Yes, I'm up for this. You notice when I put the debate paid offer here. So Dinesh says he will debate and we think this might likely be debate con 11 next year. So that'll be fun. Of course, I believe from my analysis, Dinesh got demolished in the debate with Andrew at a bake on eight. And we had some highlights with the lunatic. Not so erudite. She came back for more. She has some drive that, that makes her want to be a glutton for punishment. So she came back to get demolished again by Rachel. And then of course, I couldn't resist. I knew. I knew. And by the way, this is great because across all the different clips, this is, this is getting up there close to a million views on my question to her across Instagram and YouTube and TikTok and X. It's been uploaded almost a million views across all these platforms. I couldn't resist in the question segment asking her basically the same question I asked her one year ago. And if you don't recall, after our debate, by the way, there's two debates people don't know. We had our first debate with me and her, and then the next day there's a seven hour debate with her with me, I think me and Jim Bob, okay? So I spent like 10, 11 hours debating this lunatic and it was just nightmare, okay? And she did so bad that she got Destiny to send all of their Destiny bots all over any. All of my videos for like two weeks. And all the comments were just, how'd you like getting owned by Erdog? You got destroyed by Erdo. So just, just hundreds and hundreds of Destiny bots. Okay? So I'm like, all right, we'll see about that. We'll see about that. And lo and behold, I got my revenge. How did I get my revenge? I knew. I knew. I called the bluff. I knew that one year later, she would still not be able to answer the exact same question I asked her to show that she is pseudo dite. She's a suede. She doesn't know anything about philosophy. She literally relies on chat GPT. There's another reason why you can't. Why can't you bring a chat GPT to the debate. When we were at Whatever. To do our debate a year ago, she wanted to bring her laptop on the table and Brian said, it's gonna be in the way of the camera. You can't put your laptop up there. She started freaking out. That's why she was shaking, because she didn't have her lifetime chat GPT. I'm being serious. And I think everybody knows that the erudite Destiny crowd literally just relies on chat, GBT and AI. They just repeat the scripts, duh. And when Destiny was interviewed by, was it Maton or was it Adam Freeland or somebody? I forget who. He's like, I don't know. I don't read books. I don't read any books. Yeah, of course not. They're suits. They don't. They don't read. And I knew that Erudite, who supposedly is a philosophy major, doesn't she. She claims she's got some philosophy undergrad degree. She couldn't name one work by a famous philosopher. That's impossible for any actual philosophy student. So maybe she just slept her way through undergrad.

[Guest Speaker]

I don't know.

[Brian]

Maybe she just was on pills, the whole. I don't know why she couldn't name, but I mean, maybe she did undergrad philosophy and just didn't ever pay attention and didn't do any of the readings, but somehow still got a degree. I don't know. Who knows if that's even true? You can't believe all these people are liars, so you have no idea what's true. But I don't think she knows anything about philosophy. And I am able to determine pretty easily, pretty quickly if a person does or does not know anything about philosophy. So they sent their stupid bots at me for weeks, flooding all of my posts. Anything I put up, it was all Destiny bots forever. So I'm like, all right, we'll see about that. So one year later in the Q A, this. This worked out so perfectly, by the way. I almost didn't make it up there. I was like, the last. Almost the last question. So I was about to get cut off. I said, no, let me have one question. You asked Rachel about Hypatia. So being an educated philosophy way, the reason I did this was that throughout her debate with Rachel, she kept pulling that stupid trick where she just would name random and be like, do you even know who Hypatia is? Do you even know about, you know, this or that rant? She was just random philosophical or academic speak. And she would just ask Rachel, do you even know what that is? Can you tell me who Hypatia is. Nothing to do with the actual debate about feminism. Hypatia, the Neoplatonist woman. Like, what does that have to do with the feminism day? It's just insane. And so I'm like, all right, well, let's do a little bit of quiz. Let's do a little bit of pop quiz. You want to do that? So that's why I did this. You asked Rachel about Hypatia. So being an educated philosophy person, could you name one work by Aristotle and one by Hegel?

[Jay Dyer]

Sure.

[Erudite]

I don't know what works by Hegel, by the way, if I'd have so.

[Brian]

But you also don't know any works by Plato or Aristotle, because this is the same question that we had a year ago.

[Erudite]

No, that's what she was saying. I would have answered. I couldn't understand her because she just talks, like, with the dry Adderall mouth, and I couldn't. You're like, slowing down with your age. It's a little hard to keep up. No, I'm just one from Aristotle who's not on speed. Aristotle would be the five dialogues.

[Brian]

That's Plato. She says, no, it's not. I mean, this woman is something else, man. Now, granted, technically, Plato didn't write the five dialogues, but any modern philosophy course that uses commonly printed texts, you'll notice that it's usually printed as the five dialogues. Right? So I know that she probably had this. This work because this is what's very common. This is what we use at my college. Right. And it's the five dialogues as Plato. Okay. And she still triples down that it's Aristotle, even in the clip. Listen to her at the end. She says, no, it's not. Listen again. You asked Rachel about Hypatia, so being an educated philosophy person, could you name one work by Aristotle and one by Hegel?

[Jay Dyer]

Sure.

[Erudite]

I don't know what works by Hagel, by the way. If I'd have known that's what she was saying, I would have answered. I couldn't understand her because she just talks, like, with a dry, ad. Aderal mouth, and I couldn't. You're like, slowing down with your age. It's a little hard to keep up. No, I'm just one from Aristotle who's not on speed. Aristotle would be the five dialogues.

[Brian]

You hear that? Now listen. She says, no, it's not. That's play.

[Sponsor/Ad Voice]

D'oh.

[Brian]

Yes, it is. And I mean, that audience is so mind bombed and insane. They don't. They'll. They'll never. They don't even care. They don't even care if it's. If it's Plato. This I thought was kind of funny too. Just a little brief interlude aside. So Ben Shapiro, now that he's not propped up or whatever, if the. This whole like I'm getting equal to and in some cases more views on my stuff than Ben Shapiro. So in reality, Ben Shapiro is like sunk down to what we get, bro on YouTube. Isn't that crazy? Imagine having what does he have, like 5, 6, 7 million followers? And then you're actually getting the views that I get. Which makes me think, does he really have that many followers? Is that actually propped up? And now we all know that he was initially propped up via a bunch of, you know, the money, the. The billionaires behind Daily Wire. Right? But now you can actually see it in live time with the viewage, which is essentially around. Around what I get. By the way, if you want to get estroge Hollywood 3, if you enjoyed my interviews, my talks, my Tucker stuff, then be sure and head on over to Jay's analysis in the shop. The link is in the show description of today's live stream. You can click on over there and get signed copies. You don't have to request signed copies because every copy from my website, the whole reason you would get it from me and not from Jeff Bezos is because they're signed. So a lot of people ask, can it be signed? Will you sign it? That's the whole point of getting it from me. And that's why it supports the authors. It's a little bit more. Yes, but it covers the shipping and you get a signed copy. You don't get a signed copy from Joffrey. Joffrey Bazas. And I will also sign the Aristotle Plato 5 dialogues. My favorite book is Aristotle Plato 5 dialogue. What is your favorite book? Aristotle Plato 5 dialogue. That's like. That's the title of a book. Aristotle Plato 5 dialogue. Isn't that what she said the first time? Some kind of nonsense? The first time. For those that are interested in the Florida Keys event Nov. 1, that you probably saw me do the interview with John here's father, here's his brother. You can get tickets. They. This is a. A. How would I describe this event? This is more of like a re. A vacation, summertime resort type of event. So it is not cheap. So there's only, I think 40 seats. Pageau will be there. I don't think Pajo is speaking. I'm supposed to speak at this and then I forget the other guy. Let's see what this guy's name is. Guest speaker is me. You've probably heard of the beloved Jamie Dyer and Paul Kings North. So I'm not familiar with him, but he will be there as will be Jonathan Pajo. Just chilling. And you can get the tickets to the Islamorada. No, we're not becoming Muslims. That's the name of one of the keys, down to the 40 keys. You can get tickets for that right there. It's La Mirada is a one of the keys in the Florida Keys. So this is probably, I don't know, an hour from Miami. If you drive down from Miami, then you drive over onto the Keys. This is like the second or third key. I've been there one time. But we will be there and we will be doing a Tomada. The. The the the. Or that we doing a Supra, the Georgia and the Supra festival that you probably heard us talk about. And you can get tickets to that there. If you don't know, you can learn. In the interview. And by the way, this interview I think is really good precisely because I think it ended up being one of the best, most concise, one hour critiques of classical liberalism and the enlightenment. So basically this whole conversation, I didn't really know where we were going to go. But the whole conversation ends up being John here is asking me what is the problem with classical liberalism and enlightenment. So I laid out my case. I think actually pretty, pretty well. I don't care how the dumb play like you are not pronouncing it correct. I'm just. I was about to say Islam Arada. So I'll pronounce the way I want to. Unless I want to make fun of you for mispronouncing. There is the John here's discussion. It's in the chat. I think it came out really good. If you want a concise one hour critique of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, there it is.

[Erudite]

Okay,

[Brian]

Now I want to remind you guys that we do still have the show sponsor, our beloved sponsor, Chalk.com. and let me see, where's my chalk at? At? Is it gone? I might have moved it. Let's see. Can you guys still hear me?

[Sponsor/Ad Voice]

Yeah.

[Brian]

Hello, Hello, Hello, Hello. Test, test. Okay, I am gonna go tt to the little girls room, but I will be right back. I've been sitting here gulping coffee. We got more debates to get through. We're gonna get through some of erudite versus Rachel, Dinesh versus Andrew. I want to look at a little bit of God logic and Jake. Did he debate Jake? I think he did. But until I return, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just gonna go tt and then we gotta. We gotta do some super chats. So don't go anywhere. I'll be right back.

[Sponsor/Ad Voice]

I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these Zoomer gym bros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences. There's a new certified Sigma Male pre workout powder for Sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively gamble or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of Chad Mode colored with organic blue spirulina extract, organic lemon, cherry and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract which will get your mind going and pump you up to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients. The first clean preference pre workout of its kind. Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty fake sucralose? Each dose of Chad Mode contains the kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire your boss and dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will make you more dominant in your daily life, so proceed with caution. It's as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our fine powder into water or juice, providing you with a delicious energizing beverage. Featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor, Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave. Don't miss out. Secure your supply of Chad Mode on TikTok Shop with a limited time massive discount. Elevate your workouts and supercharge your days. Chad Mode not for your average gym bro Zoomer who consumes synthetic blue dyes on the daily buy on the TikTok Shop now with a massive discount provided by TikTok for a very limited time. Buy now while this is still available or go to chalk.com and use code in caption. Chat Mode has been flying off the shelves because it's the first of its kind certified for Alpha males of only. Do not buy if you are a beta we will refund your money. I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these Zoomer gym bros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences. There's a new certified Sigma Male Pre workout powder for Sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively gamble or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of Chad Mode colored with organic blue spirulina extract, organic lemon, cherry and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract which will get your mind going and pump you up to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients. The first clean pre workout of its kind.

[Jay Dyer]

Kind.

[Sponsor/Ad Voice]

Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty fake sucralose? Each dose of Chad Mode contains the kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire your boss and dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will make you more dominant in your daily life, so proceed with caution. It's as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our fine powder into water or juice, providing you with a delicious energizing beverage. Featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor, Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave. Don't miss out. Secure your supply of chad mode on TikTok shop with a limited time massive discount. Elevate your workouts and supercharge your days. Chad Mode not for your average gym bro Zoomer who consumes synthetic blue dyes on the daily buy on the TikTok shop now with a massive discount provided by TikTok for a very limited time Buy now while this is still available or go to choc.com and use code in caption chat Mode has been Flying off the shelves because it's the first of its kind certified for alpha males only. Do not buy if you are a Beta, we will refund your money. I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these Zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dyes and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences. There's a new certified Sigma Male Pro pre workout powder for Sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively gamble or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of Chad Mode colored with organic blue spirulina extract, organic lemon, cherry and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine.

[Guest Speaker]

I want to show off something that we're all proud of. I got a browser here. This is Jay Dyers much vaunted, much sought after Philosophy 101. Now he just got this page up. We are just testing it out. You guys are some of the first people in the world to see it. I want to say for my part it's not Philosophy 101. I think this is a mistitling. I really think of it as like philosophy unleashed because a Philosophy 101 course, they give you kind of some useless information that you can't make sense of. Jay actually lays out over 12 weeks, dozens and dozens of hours put into just the presentation of this, let alone the hundreds and thousands of hours of research that it takes to have a coherent evolution and history of the the origins of philosophy, the uses of philosophy, the different ways to look at it over time and how that has been brought about to what we have today, which is almost an absence of philosophy on the objective logic and reason side and an overabundance of woke philosophy that is irrational is made up day by day as people are like I think we should bring racism back and then here's a justification and then it gets wokified and spread out and then all of a sudden you have a bunch of communist socialist ideas where you become the property in you need to be able to stand your own ground. It helps to have a foundation in philosophy because it's a method to find truth. When you get down to it. Philosophy is there because you love truth enough to go and learn how to find it, because it's valuable. So if you're interested in things like that, there is the landing page. We'll link it up in the notes. It is a longer one, so we'll get a shorter URL for this. I'm sure Jay has a link on his page. I just wanted to show it off. Now you know it exists, you can go look for it and see why this is not your father's philosophy. Right? So well done. I'm proud of everyone who helped to produce and edit the course. And of course, Jay did a flawless job in presenting the course over those 12 weeks. And he's a juggernaut. He's another guy, just like John Bush, in action all the time doing something productive, like very little wasted time in his week. Those 168 hours of being harnessed. Very well. I want to show off something that we're all proud of. I got a browser here. This is Jay Dyer's much vaunted, much sought after Philosophy 101. Now he just got this page up. We are just testing it out. You guys are some of the first people in the world to see it. I want to say, for my part, it's not philosophy 101. I think this is a miss mistitling. I really think is as like philosophy unleashed because a philosophy one on one course, they give you kind of some useless information that you can't make sense of. Jay actually lays out over 12 weeks, dozens and dozens of hours put into just the presentation of this, let alone the hundreds and thousands of hours of research that it takes to have a coherent evolution and history of the origins of philosophy, the uses of philosophy, the different ways to look at it over time, and how that has been brought about to what we have today, which is almost an absence of philosophy on the objective logic and reason side, and an overabundance of woke philosophy that is irrational as up day by day as people are like, I think we should bring racism back. And then here's a justification. And then it gets wokified and spread out. And then all of a sudden you have a bunch of communist socialist ideas where you become the property in action. You need to be able to stand your own ground. It helps to have a foundation in philosophy because it's a method to find truth. When you get down to it. Philosophy is there because you love truth enough to go and learn how to find it, because it's valuable. So if you're interested in things like that, there is the landing page. We'll link it up in the notes. It is a longer one, so we'll get a shorter URL for this. I'm sure Jay has a link on his page. I just wanted to show it off. Now you know it exists. You can go look for it and see why this is not your father's philosophy. Right. So well done. I'm proud of everyone who helped to produce and edit the course. And of course, Jay did a flawless job in presenting the course over those 12 weeks. And. And he's a juggernaut. He's another guy, just like John Bush, in action all the time, doing something productive, like very little wasted time in his week. Those 168 hours of being harnessed. Very well. I want to show off something that we're all proud of. I got a browser here. This is Jay Dyers, much vaunted, much sought after Philosophy 101. Now he just got this page up. We, we are just testing it out. You guys are some of the first people in the world to see it. I want to say, for my part, it's not philosophy 101. I think this is a mis. Mistitling. I really think of it as like philosophy unleashed because a Philosophy 101 course, they give you kind of some useless information that you can't make sense of. Jay actually lays out over 12 weeks, dozens and dozens of hours put into just the presentation of this, let alone the hundreds and thousands of hours of research that it takes to have a coherent evolution and history of the origins of philosophy, the uses of philosophy.

[Brian]

All right, welcome back. What's up, player? What's up, player? What's up, players? As we continue, we will next look at. Let's see if there's any. Is there any clips of God logic? And I think also I should mention Shamoon due to his recent comments. Did he debate. I think he did debate Jake. Right, let's see if there's any clips. These are not recent. Let's see this week. Are there not clips of it yet? I don't know. Well, I hope everybody, by the way, is beginning to see the problems of online anti Islamianity because it's really just a one trick pony, limited hangout grift because you've noticed none of these people can tell you anything beyond Islam. Wrong. Right. And then you got God logic using our monarch, monarchical trinitarianism, which makes no sense without the rest of the doctrines. It's not a standalone doctrine. Okay, that's the drama. But this. Okay, this isn't. Did they debate? I don't even know. I was asleep, dude. I don't know. I was like. I was sleeping in, bro. Did. Did they even debate? Can y' all help me out? Did God Logic debate Jake at mdd? Let's see. Maybe I got it wrong and they didn't debate.

[Guest Speaker]

I don't.

[Brian]

All right, let's just talk about some of the drama then, because I don't know. I can't find a clip. Where is that clip that I had of them? Yeah, here we go. What happened was. I think it was about six months ago, seven months ago, I started telling God Logic, look, you don't need me. And he's got the text messages, by the way. So God Logic, I give you permission. Post our text messages. See, I'm saying post them.

[Guest Speaker]

Do it.

[Brian]

I give you permission to see if I'm lying. I said, look, dude, you don't need me. You don't need David Wood. David Wood is using you because you're the hottest ticket right now. And I don't want you to be seen with me, and I don't want you to be seen with David, by the way, Again, this is. It's not going to pan out long term. This is not going to work. So I'm not saying this. Oh, you just jealous of God Logic. I really don't even care about the debate sphere. I like doing debates. I'll do it. Debates are not the main thing that I'm even interested in. To me, they're a side thing to do that's fun. They're not my main interests. I have many other interests. In fact, I find the geopolitical stuff more interesting than debates. But I will do debates because I think it is necessary, it is useful. It is helpful to the church to refute these errors, to refute these crazy views. But no, I'm not. I don't care about being the YouTube apologetics guy. I really don't. It's not my main interest. I will do it, though. And the entire time that we've called out people. Here's what's fascinating. Now people are admitting, even Shamoon, as he recently did, is admitting that we were correct about these people because we weren't calling them out out of jealousy. Anytime you call somebody out, you're just jealous. You're too jealous. What if I'm actually principled and I have a consistent reason and basis for why I would make a critique? And you'll notice all of our positions and critiques, they don't Change. They're the same type of critique and principle. So whether it's IP or whether it's God, logic is nothing personal initially. It's just simply a question of. That's great that you're refuting Islam, but you can't take all of the orthodox positions like monarchical trinitarianism out of the Orthodox Church and send people to Messianic synagogues or synagogues where people get snip snipped, get circumcised, as happened with Young Dawn. You guys remember we saw Ruslan laughed about this, right? He apostatized this. And Ruslan tries to spin it like, well, he apostatized because of Orthodoxy and he laughed about it. I didn't. I wouldn't think. I wouldn't think apostasy is funny. But I guess Ruslan does, because, hey, it's about them seven figures, dog. It's about him. Seven figures. So you can't preach Christianity and preach any old Christianity. There is no such thing as any old. Give me that old time religion that. Any old time religion. It's good enough for me and grandpappy. You also have to have a church. There is no gospel without the church. Paul says the church is the pillar ground of truth. The Church is not a generic unknown entity. It's a historic entity. It existed for the first thousand years. Churchless apologetics never existed in the first thousand years. That's why I've challenged these people for the last year, or, excuse me, six months to name a single churchless apologist in the first millennium. There's not one. Because all the statements of the Church in the first thousand years are, you must be a member of the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Even the nice Consol creed, the second Council's Creed, states that you have to be a member of the one Holy Catholic Apostolic to be called a Christian. Any other groups, they're not even Christian. They're heterodox. They're something else. So for God, logic or these people to have a large audience isn't really the main problem. It's nothing to do with why I would critique them, because I'd have the same critique for a person with a small audience. Remember they said. Remember what's his name? Ruslan said, Jay Dyer. J. Dar Only debates big channels to get attention, really. I debated the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist guy, small channel. I debated the Agnostic Jack Sazer, Tiny channel. I debated Captain Crack Rock, Smaller small channel. On and on. On. I'm about to debate a Lutheran, dude. Tiny channel, right? We gotta. We'll Get a Lutheran debate next week. So I debate all the time. By the way, out of all of these people, I'm the only one that open call streams are available at all times. We do open call streams at all times, meaning that anyone can pop on and debate that isn't an absolute lunatic. So how would I only be interested in debating people bigger than me now? Guess what? I am interested in debating people bigger than me.

[Guest Speaker]

Duh.

[Brian]

Just like when Ruslan tried to call out Nick Fuentes or Candace to debate. Of course I want to debate bigger name people because that's how I'm gonna grow my channel, dummy. But I don't only debate big name people. So that's all bull crap. And again, this alone ought to end the whole career of the anti Islamianity people. Or at least get them to be more specific about, well, what is the church? What are you sending people to? Are you telling them to go from the moss to the Messianic synagogue where they're going to get circumcised?

[Jay Dyer]

That's what.

[Brian]

That's crazy. That means you're pushing judaizing and that is the church's first heresy. So God logic, unfortunately is pushing and indirectly promoting, and sometimes in some cases directly promoting, the very first heresy condemned the church judaizing by sending people to those ridiculous Messianic synagogues that are open judaizing cults. And how many of these people have we been right about? It doesn't matter how many times I tell you guys stuff, I end up constantly being correct. All of these people that we've been interacting with for almost a decade in some cases, right, the bear cult. A bunch of loons. Blasphemous, God hating, anti trinitarian loons. I told Sam Shamoon that he was going to have problems with William Albrecht. That dude is a snake. Lo and behold, William Albrecht's a snake. I was right. Nobody likes William Albrecht anymore. I told him that Lofton was a snake and he's going to undermine they all. Nobody likes Lofton anymore. So over and over and over and over and over I've been correct. I told. How is this my. What in anything that I said is. I went to go get a snack dog. I'm over here eating. What are you talking about? I went to go get food so that I could. I can't do a live stream for freaking hours on end without some. Some snacky wackies. By the way, isn't it funny that the bear cult, when I acted, they clip it like I wasn't acting like they think that's how I actually act. Like if I tell the story of irritable bowel syndrome and I'm laughing about it, it's not a point of, like, getting me. That doesn't make it. They don't understand how jokes work. Right. Like, if you're using the thing that I told as a story and I'm saying that it's. And then you're like, he's retarded. Yeah, that was the point of the joke, dummy. Dude, you don't understand how jokes work. But I think with that crew, that's all they get.

[Guest Speaker]

Peace.

[Brian]

Okay. It's crazy, right? You just repeat that for 10 years and that's. That's bear comedy right there. Penis back on guys. Crazy, right? Well, I might have. You had a penis? It was a button. It also would come a lot. That's comedy for these weirdos. Anyway, how many times we had to be correct about these people, right? Yo, shout out to OP I got the IBS with a OPP for the ccp. I'm on TMZ with my tmj. Yeah, that's my impression of bear comedy. Penis Viking. Gay is crazy, right? Duh, duh, it's crazy. What if you had like a penis, but it's also like a butt at the same time and you could just like, come out a bunch of gay guys of penis and Viacom. Penis gay. It's crazy. That's high tier comedy right there. Well, there's a guy named Penis queer. What do you expect with that crowd? Anyway, so y' all know who I'm making fun of, but so Shamoon has now admitted, and I appreciate it, that all these people that we said were Spurgatron, lunatic weirdo creeps, whether it's Letty, Leather Daddy, or Loft Dog, they've all shown their colors, dude. They're all unprincipled. They all will stab anybody else in the back. So I very much appreciate Sam Shamoon offering a personal apology for the specific topics and problems. And I also apologize to Sam for, you know, jokes that went over the line or whatever. So on a personal level, all of that is in the past. It is forgotten now. That doesn't mean that we have the same theological positions. My positions will always, Lord willing, hopefully remain the same. And if I critique somebody, it's on principle. It's the same critique of IP that I have a God logic or anybody else. Good. I'm glad that you're critiquing Islam, but you also got to have more than just that.

[Guest Speaker]

Okay?

[Brian]

Did we ever land on the shamoon? I had a. A fun time watching the stream. I thought that Sam's jokes about the orbs were cracking me up. So when we could get to the point where we all laugh at each other, that's actually pretty funny. That's why Tim Gordon and I continue to get along. We, we actually riff on each other, we bust on each other, we make fun of each other, and we still get along. We're still good friends. We've had a good time busting each other's chops, taking a piss out of each other. Hey, T, the piss out of him. That's what dudes do, okay? You can't be a thin skinned, whiny weirdo. However, there are lines, okay? People's family, people's. You know, you start mocking the icons, but doing demonic stuff, putting poop on icons, that's over the line. I'm not even, I'm out. Not even going to talk to you or any of the call or any of them. You'll know. We will never talk. Also, Cholo Cheater went over the line, okay? Again, if he'd walked it back, if he had, you know, actually apologized and he wasn't apologizing for the, for the real issues. He was apologizing. He. He says he was going to apologize for going after me personally. When you see the actual one versus five debate, when it goes up, you'll understand the whole thing. It all makes sense. By the way, his arguments are terrible. This guy is an idiot. He literally argues that at the time of Caladon, invisible church wasn't true. But now post Vatican 2, Invisible Church is true. I'm not kidding. That's actually what the Cholo Cheater argues. So I'm glad.

[Guest Speaker]

I want to see.

[Brian]

I'm glad all you Roman Catholics are going to hinge your arguments and your hinge it on that guy because he's going to embarrass you. And Cholo Cheater and I are going to. He's agreed to a debate on Vatican II contradicting. And the funny part is he just asked what are the documents in Vatican 2 that even talk about church and state. He doesn't even know, okay? This is not going to go well for him, but he's already agreed to the debate, so good job, dude. Cholo Cheater keeps coming back. He doesn't realize, like, you're not going to win this, bro. You're not going to cheat and use your meta glasses. You're not going to come after me personally, as he did in the debate, it's going to be really obvious. And again, remember, we agreed people don't understand the 1 versus 5 wasn't agreed upon. No holds barred, bloodsport style. Go at it. Anything is on the table. I told all of them because there was seven people there. There was like five people and two backups. I told all of them, I'm gonna roast you guys too. So expect that. If this gets heat, if it gets heated, I'm gonna bust on you. I'm a riff on you. I'll make mama jokes. Nobody had a problem with that. Okay, we all agreed. Oh, but then when it actually is on camera, oh, suddenly they're all victims and. Oh, yeah, you're. You'll see. You'll see what I mean. By the way, I need to start like getting some kind of, you know, busting on your mama. NDA Non, non disclosure agreement at the beginning, right? Because all these people are. Say, I'm a victim.

[Erudite]

He's.

[Brian]

He's mean. I'm a. No, you agreed at the beginning. Everybody agreed. I told him I was going to bust on him. And by the way, the first dude, he quit, okay? So the first dude, he got up there and he was like this. And I was like, I'm gonna bust on you, dude. His name was Jay. I called him faking Jay. He was shaking and he goes, I can't do it. And he ran away. So that's why they had two backup people there, because they just counted on people basically just quitting. And so Cholo Cheater only came up twice, right? Let's go ahead and talk about Cholo Cheetah real quick. Cuz all of this is a bunch of drama for you. When you actually watch his arguments, you're going to be laughing, okay? Because it's. Remember, it's two, it's, it's ten minute segments. So what you saw was just like two minute clip of what he put up. So this is after all of that, after an hour and a half of segments. I don't remember how many there were. Me going back and forth with goobers for 10. Each one of them is for 10 minutes. So this is a jubilee style situation. But the twist here is people are in your face, like sitting facing each other, like knees touching almost. I'm like, I want, I want some out. I want some Fauci level social distancing. And I didn't get it. That's a joke. And the idea is there's a topic about, in this case, Orthodox church in the first five centuries or whatever. And you, you go for 10 minutes each, and then the. The next person runs up to the seat, right? Hot seat. So Cholo Cheater came in and he was like. When we were doing the explanation of the. Of the show at the beginning, he's like, oh, hey, dude, I got my meta glasses or whatever, dude. Is everybody cool with that? Because, like, I'm just gonna record. That's it, bro. I'm just gonna record, dude. And I'm like, how do we know you're just gonna record? We just take your word for it.

[Jay Dyer]

What?

[Brian]

So first of all, I was like, this is. But I'm like, in my head, I'm like, okay, I'm gonna let him bring his metaglass to the thing. Asked Rachel.

[Sponsor/Ad Voice]

No problem.

[Brian]

I'm gonna let him bring in the metaglasses because I'm gonna call it out in the hot seat. I was like, that's going to be, you know, fun, entertaining reality tv, right? And. And yes, he did ask if he could use the meta glasses. And James was like, yeah, but. And I think there was like, the expectation. I don't even know exactly what James said to him, but the expectation was, you can't put up the. The one on five before it goes up on mdd, right? So he. This dude already violated it by putting up the one on fives just because he's trying to clip farm. So I'm like, okay, you want to clip for me? How about I clip form you? Right? So after all of the debacle, I confronted him about using the meta glasses. Now, first of all, yes, you can look things up via metaglasses. Look up anything about them. Okay? Can you look up things on metaglasses? Yes. Meta glasses can look things up by meta AI, right? You can do visual lookup. You can do heads up display, voice activated. There's a lot of different means and methods of lookup. Okay? Now, in this debate, you see this picture of the guy right here on the right, where he's looking at a screen right here? Did you see that image?

[Jay Dyer]

I have just been hands on with Meta's new 79.

[Brian]

So in I can see in the one on one, he's looking up here at the corner of his glasses.

[Guest Speaker]

Okay?

[Brian]

Now if he's just recording, why is he looking up here reading the corner of the glasses? Because I watched him the whole time and I'm like, are you a spurg or are you reading something? Right, so let's see if this guy shows anything. Look at that right there. You can see right there. See that, that's exactly where that dude was looking up to the right in the glasses. Now here's the other thing. He doesn't have to only be potentially using the voice activated response, which he technically could have done between his hot seats. Right? Coming up. So in other words, he could be in the hot seat, he could get my arguments. Then when he leaves the hot seat, he could go, oh, I gotta go to the bathroom, you know, whatever we did take a bathroom break. Or he could sit over there and get his friends to reply in the texts. And we know he's was working with that gay talon dude. Openly gay, by the way, saying he would date. He claiming he would debate date dudes. So you can have your friend sending you the answers.

[Jay Dyer]

Duh.

[Brian]

People are acting like there's, there's only one way to cheat, which is to voice activate it. No, it's not, dummy. You can see the text messages right there coming in on the meta glasses. Look right there. Here's what this dude sees as he's looking at the room. You can look at your buddy sending you answers. So him and his. I guarantee, I bet you money him and his butt buddy were sending answers. He was sending them answers. He wouldn't do that. He promised he wouldn't. I don't trust that cholo. And by the way, he later said I was going to apologize. Well, why would you be apologizing if you didn't do anything wrong? Well, he didn't say he would do something wrong with glasses. He was going to apologize for going after you personally. Oh, so he's unprincipled. So, so if he's unprincipled and he's going to come after me personally, then why would he not use the meta glasses on print if he's on principle, dummy. So you see, and this is exactly where the dude is looking. Glanceable right there. In the debate, the dude is a liar. Now in the debate, he gets caught lying, right? Because I said, wait a minute, you're talking about an invisible church. He literally starts arguing that in the visible church doctrine is true. Post Vatican 2. I'm like, your church doesn't believe in invisible church. Yeah, yes it does, dude. Yes it does, dude. And I'm like, well, do you think it was true back then? And Calcedon, it wasn't true then. Oh, but it's true now. So your dogma changes. Oh, why you trying to avoid it, J? You trying to avoid. You trying to avoid. These dudes are absolutely scumbag liars. So the dude lied multiple Times over and went after me personally, as you will see in the one on five. So why would I believe this dude? I promised. I promise I wasn't cheating. I don't give a what you promise, by the way. This should be a disqualifier. Anyway. Just bringing the meta glasses to the debate with the potentiality of cheating already shows that you're not. You're disqualified. This alone, it's no different than. Imagine if I was in the debate. I was like, can we pause the debate? Because I got to look up something on chat gbt. Dude, the whole Internet would call me out as a fraud. Oh, but this is a poor cholo, man. And he only has a few hundred subscribers, so how dare you be mean to him. I don't give a how many subscribers he's got. If he's being a piece of. Who cares? That doesn't matter. It's still wrong. And this shows, like, you guys have a ridiculous double ethic. A double standard ethic. And this is why you don't get anywhere. This is why you don't succeed. You don't get anywhere being lying and deceiving and cheating. And yes, you're a cholo cheater. And it's going to be even worse for you now that you've agreed to a public debate, you idiot. I will just keep baiting you and walking you into new traps. So let's hear this. Where did it go? I thought I had it pulled up. Maybe I didn't have it pulled up. Let's see. Hey, dude, by the way, people couldn't even tell that that was me asking him the questions. Of course it's me. You can't recognize my. I guess that means I'm good because nobody could tell that. They thought it was a real cholo. They were confused. You asked. Obviously, I was meeting. No problem. Hey, dude, why was you using your meta glasses throughout the debate, bro? All right, Jay, I was meaning to,

[Guest Speaker]

like, apologize to you, but.

[Brian]

So he was going to apologize for coming at me personally when I called him a liar because he got caught lying and trying to cover it up in the debate. And by the way, to be dishonest in a debate is a form of lying. So when you get caught and you say one thing and then you say another thing and you get caught, that means you're. You're busted, dude. And then you're like, nah, dude, I never lied or not. I didn't get nothing wrong, dude. Yeah, you did.

[Erudite]

Oh, really?

[Guest Speaker]

Yeah.

[Brian]

Oh, how come, bro? I feel like it was a little Too much. And by the way, why does he have cocaine fingernails? This dude has gay fingernails extended out about three fourths of an inch over his finger. What? What the hell is that for? Cutting the bricks in the coca, dude. Is that what you guys are up to, Bro, I feel like when you call me a liar as a little

[Guest Speaker]

purse, I took it two persons.

[Brian]

Yeah, but if you lie, then that would make you a liar, right? So he took it to Pert. Now, he was going to apologize for coming at me personally. So notice he admits that he did come at me personally. Right? She was using her glasses through the whole thing. Yeah, I mean, I don't mind you. Yeah, I was using my glasses, so notice he didn't deny it. Yeah, I was using my amount of glasses through the whole thing. Yeah, so what? Oh, so he did use them all throughout the whole thing. You weren't cheating or whatever, bro? No, I was recording my guy. Oh, I was recording my guy. You could be recording and also getting information. So this is probably a lie by omission or deflecting, right? And again, he could record my section. And then in the. When he's not in the hot seat, he could show that or somebody else could see that, right? His butt buddy talent or whatever. Or during the bathroom break, he could go to the bathroom and get answers from his butt buddies. Like, all of these things are possibilities. They're just acting like, oh, no, dude, Jay is so mean. And then people act like, oh, well, if Jay's mean, then that means you can cheat. You could do anything against this dude. Dude, he's so mean. Like, if you just do anything, bro, go for it, dude. But you was cheating too, right? How was I cheating? Oh, you were on your glasses, bro. Why is he giggling and looking away, this dude? Guilty af, bro. Giggling and looking away. I saw his eye looking up here at the chat, and you just saw the metag glasses have the chat right here in the corner. See that right there? Look, that texting him right there. And he had his butt buddy texting him. I'll bet you $100 million. And we're all just supposed. Oh, we're just supposed to take his word for it. Now imagine if I did this. Imagine if I go into a debate and the Muslims see me using my metaglasses. I'm looking at chat up here in the corner, and the whole Internet calls me out as a fraud. Nah, dude, I was just recording, bro. I promise. I promise, dude. Just trust me, though. Trust me, bro. Trust me, bro. Now, do the Roman Catholics in Terms of online apologetics, do they have a good history of being honest about these types of things? No, they don't. No, they don't. I don't believe one word or anything they say. And you're just supposed to assume that. Well, but he promised. He promised he wouldn't do it, so therefore he didn't cheat. And he wouldn't. He would never use. How dare you. He would never use his meta glasses for. And by the way, why is he snickering looking away? He can't look me in the eyes because he knows it's true. Look.

[Erudite]

What?

[Brian]

He can't look me in the eye. Look at that. I called him out because I saw his eyes in the debate reading up here at the glasses, and now he can't look me in the eye. Look, he can't even look. So notice he's looking me in the eye here when I call him out for cheating. Nah, fool, I can't even look you in the eye, bro. It's like the eyes of truth or whatever. Whatever, bro. I was recording my guy. Oh, but you was cheating too, right? How was I cheating? Oh, you were on your glasses, bro. Totally, totally. He can't even look at me in the eye. He has to look away. Nah, dude. I promise, bro. Little dude, look, dude, I got my fingers crossed, bro. I got my freaking cocaine toenail finger crossed, bro. Look, dude, I just be snow. Look, I gotta break the cocaine with my toenails. I had my toenails pasted onto my fingernails, bro. Why do you have girls fingernails, dude? And get the heck out of my chat trash. Get out of here. I was just recording, bro. So this is the state of Roman Catholic apologetics right there. I don't think we have much to worry about. Nah, dude, I would never. Look, man, I might have been getting some messages or whatever, but that was just from my baby mama, bro. I promise. And I wasn't even reading them, bro. I was just looking up in the corner because I got a little bit of autism and I stare at the sky or whatever. I promise I was not even looking at the text that came in, dude. A fool. I was barely even cheating, bro. Hey, fool. I was barely cheating, bro. Why you want to accuse me? I'm a victim now. You're so mean, dude. I'm a victim, bro. Hey, dude, I'm a victim. Give me money to my GoFundMe, bro. Help me get some nail clippers because I got basically toenails for fingernails, bro. How dare you make fun of my mom and my lowrider bro, this. So the debate got so bad I just started singing. Low low. Oh you racist, bro. Why you ra.

[Jay Dyer]

They did that.

[Brian]

They did that. So I started busting on them. Oh, you look at racist. I'm a victim.

[Jay Dyer]

Victor.

[Brian]

Racism. I'm a victim. I'm a holy brown person and I'm a victim. Look at this racist girl. Yeah, you agreed at the beginning I would roast you. I'm a victim. I'm a victim, bro. I'm a victim. Let me ask Mark Zuckerberg what the answers are. Look, so two phonies. We got cholo cheater and we got Chad gbt. Peace be upon him. This is where we're at in the world of debate. Bunch of damn phonies. Dude, I'm a victim, bro. I'm a victim. Why you want to hurt me like that? Why you want to treat me so bad, bro? Low r. More like low more roles. Exactly. Low more roles. Oh dude, I'm a victim. You hurt me. I'm going to come out to your family now. Cuz you're so evil and mean. By the way, I'm cheating. I think everybody notices too, the hypocrisy of this because even Shimon, for example, was not aware of my comment about the brown cult. Okay, so this is still going around and these dishonest Coptic garbage people still share the outof context comment of me saying brown cult. As if I just randomly came and said the Coptics are brown cult. Like for no re just randomly said it. Why did I actually say it? If you recall, the Coptics and company were angry over the many debate confrontation and and online back and forths. And they were saying that they resent the white racism of orthodox, supposedly. Right? Then they said that it was perfectly permissible to meme Craig Trulia mocking his appearance and his Asian wife into horrendous horrible memes. All of the Coptics thought this was super funny, sharing it. They made other white memes mocking the white people. And I said, do you understand your hypocrisy? You are a brown cult doing the very thing that you are supposedly calling out in your victim fake victim status. Then they clipped my brown cult and said, oh, he's racist. As they're making fun of white people. And Craig Trulia and his Asian wife. This is what I'm saying about these people. These people come from a society and a culture where it's no big deal if you're a total hypocrite, because there's a dual ethic. An in group out group Ethic. They don't give a about being consistent with all people. They don't believe that that's not their ethic. So they're liars when they act. Like out of nowhere, I just look at J. Dar. He just comes in for no reason with the racism. And by the way, we're such victims. We are victims. We're victims.

[Sponsor/Ad Voice]

By the way.

[Brian]

Look at you stupid white people, dude. White people, bro. So anyway, it's just constant. Victim, liar, just disgusting people. They just act like pieces of. And they think it's funny too. Like, you saw the cholo cheater. He just. He still thinks it's funny because they think that it's all just about getting attention, right? But it's not going to go well for him now that he's agreed to a public debate. So we'll see about all that. And he. He actually thinks, like, it's not. And maybe to a degree for the Gen Z, Gen Alpha, he's right. Like, they don't give a. About any of it other than attention. So maybe he's actually right about that. How could I be racist if I'm bipoc. Hello. Now let's play a little bit more of this loon so that you can remember what we went through with her. Philosophy person. Could you name one work by Aristotle and one by Hegel?

[Erudite]

Sure. I don't know what works by Hegel, by the way. If I'd have known that's what she was saying, I would have answered. I couldn't understand her because she just talks like, with a dry Adderall mouth. And I couldn't understand. You're like, slowing down with your age. It's a little hard to keep up.

[Brian]

No, I'm just so one from Aristotle

[Erudite]

who's not on speed. Aristotle would be the five dialogues.

[Brian]

That's Plato. Hello?

[Erudite]

Hey, J. Hey, Jay. Are you gonna unblock me yet or you're just gonna keep running for me forever? And I thought you quit.

[Brian]

Yeah, why would I be running from a person who's a complete idiot? Like, what is she even talking about? And no, I will never unblock you.

[Guest Speaker]

You're.

[Brian]

You're gross debating.

[Erudite]

Or did you not? I just also want to be clear. I'm not an expert.

[Sponsor/Ad Voice]

All right, all right.

[Erudite]

James, I'm so sorry.

[Brian]

No, it's not that you're not an expert. It's that you don't know anything. Like, nobody said or thought that you were an expert the other. It was a suede game of making people think that you knew something at all. And that's exactly not the case.

[Erudite]

We're just gonna turn this into like we do. You're so desperate. You're like, God, how do I get this win? I asked for you. Which is why for societies to compete at a global geopolitical level, you have to keep up with technology. The reality is that, by the way,

[Brian]

in the other debate, guess what? My gdp, that's it. Like, she just repeats the same year after year, and she just spits it out as if that's like high intel, high iq. And it's. No, it just means you talk fast. That's literally all.

[Erudite]

I mean, wants to win over America, which means they're going to allow women into the workforce. They're going to give them. They're going to give them. You have to.

[Brian]

None of that proves that it's necessary. Inevitable.

[Erudite]

Proves that it's unnecessary and inevitable because the technology changes at a global level. You have to allow.

[Brian]

So she just.

[Sponsor/Ad Voice]

Yes.

[Brian]

This is like her whole things to just. Yeah. If it's didn't happen. That's it. In Rome, then it wasn't necessary and inevitable. And that proves my point.

[Erudite]

Do we live in Rome anymore?

[Brian]

Oh, my gosh. Are you serious? You're that stupid?

[Erudite]

Do we live in Rome anymore? Or the technology.

[Brian]

You said necessary and inevitable.

[Erudite]

Yeah.

[Brian]

Yeah. All I have to give is one example to show it's not necessary. Inevitable. This is a stupid person. Was it necessary inevitable in Rome again, the techno.

[Erudite]

Or do we live in Rome? Do we live in Rome? Are the technology.

[Brian]

Can you follow an argument that isn't just happening and asserting your position?

[Erudite]

Jay, can you.

[Jay Dyer]

It's an argument.

[Brian]

What's the argument?

[Erudite]

It was not necessary. Normal. Because they didn't have.

[Brian]

And it wasn't necessarily inevitable.

[Jay Dyer]

Thank you.

[Erudite]

It is inevitable because we now.

[Brian]

It's not necessary. You just said it's not necessary.

[Erudite]

Tampons exist.

[Brian]

That refutes your position.

[Erudite]

Tampons exist.

[Brian]

No.

[Erudite]

Did they exist? No.

[Brian]

They don't exist.

[Erudite]

Did they exist in Rome?

[Brian]

There are no tampons.

[Erudite]

There's no such thing as no. Okay, great. If the tampons are saying, did they exist in Rome? No. So tampons are not real.

[Brian]

Correct.

[Erudite]

Okay, well, if we're doing this type of debate. I guess that's true. And the sky's purple and I'm a 12.

[Brian]

What?

[Erudite]

Hippopotamus.

[Brian]

We have a lot of historical Christian societies.

[Erudite]

Sure.

[Brian]

Were any of them feminist?

[Erudite]

No, but I don't think in general that God advocates really strongly for a political system.

[Brian]

Really?

[Erudite]

No.

[Brian]

What about when Israel Was organized.

[Erudite]

Was that a political system like in 1948?

[Brian]

No, in the Old Testament.

[Erudite]

In the Old Testament. Was it? Yeah, it was.

[Brian]

Obviously. I'm not talking about 1948. You know what I'm talking about, dummy.

[Erudite]

Political society.

[Brian]

How was it organized?

[Erudite]

I'm not a Jew.

[Brian]

What does it have to do with whether it was organized in a certain way? I overlooked this compilation, okay? This is a new compilation of, like, greatest hits from her. This is crazy.

[Erudite]

It has nothing to do with my claim.

[Brian]

What does the Old Testament say about how God organized that society?

[Erudite]

He gave them prescriptions about how to run their life from Moses.

[Brian]

How was that society organized?

[Erudite]

It was organized, I believe, in a patriarchal society with matrilineal heritage.

[Brian]

And it was a monarchy.

[Erudite]

Yes.

[Brian]

A male monarchy.

[Erudite]

Yep.

[Brian]

Okay, so in that regard, God was not feminist, right?

[Erudite]

I've never said that God was feminist.

[Brian]

Well, I'm asking if there's a history example of where God organized the feminist society.

[Erudite]

I mean, it's interesting because when you look at, like, ancient Judeo history, if you're not being presentist, it was like,

[Brian]

insanely, Are you being presentist? I'd be like, yeah, I'm Santa Claus. I'm always presenting. I'm giving presents out left and right, dog.

[Erudite]

Progressive compared to, like, the pagans around them, like the Assyrians and Babylonians.

[Brian]

That's not what I'm asking.

[Erudite]

Well, it is what you're asking.

[Brian]

You're calling it progressive, and I would just say it's healthy.

[Erudite]

So the fact that God seemed to advocate to some degree for a better treatment of women than any other society.

[Brian]

But that's not feminism.

[Erudite]

To some degree. You could argue that it is if you agree with my definition, which is, like, the impact.

[Brian]

But your definition is so elastic and broad that it could be anything. Except for what my position is. No, I don't. Because I'm not agreeing that Old Testament patriarchal society is feminist. You just admit it. It's not.

[Erudite]

If you're not agreeing, why did we even define the words at the beginning?

[Brian]

Can you name a feminist society God advocated?

[Erudite]

I'm not interested to.

[Brian]

You appealed to God?

[Erudite]

Yeah, I think it's. It's a good thing to treat women well.

[Brian]

Did God ever. That's not feminism. Now you're quivicating.

[Erudite]

I'm not equivocating.

[Brian]

Yes, you are.

[Erudite]

How am I equivocating?

[Brian]

Changing the moving the goalpost is what? Feminism is completely different.

[Erudite]

God has equivocating or am I moving the goalpost now? It's both.

[Brian]

It's Both equivocating on the word and moving the. Yeah, this dummy thinks that she can't do two fallacies within like a minute. She could do many. So I don't know why she thinks that. No, like you can't. You can't actually logically do more than one fallacy within a few sentences. I think she could do the most. I think she's really talented at fallacies. Actually help us to make your position work. So if there's no feminist, there's no feminist. Equivocating on the word.

[Erudite]

That's not what equivocating.

[Brian]

Yes, it is equivocating on the word. So that feminism is anything that a society does that supposedly is helpful to women or minorities or whatever. That's now feminism. And I began this debate with her by saying feminism is a historical movement located in certain feminist figures. And then she expands it to be anything that helps women. So that is equivocating to make the word. Basically any piece of evidence can fit under that umbrella to then prove feminism. It's so stupid. Means. Yes, it does. It means that two different understandings of a word. You're equivocating on the word. Okay, feminism. And you're defining to say that if God in the Old Testament gives women rights, that's feminism. That's not what feminism is. Feminism is a modern movement, post revolutionary.

[Erudite]

Why did you agree to my definition of feminism?

[Brian]

Because it's so broad that that's fine if you want to defend that against patriarchy, but I'm arguing patriarchy against feminism. And what you appeal to to is

[Erudite]

moving the goal by the originally agreeing to a definition of feminism. And now you're saying that can't work anymore because it's defeating my argument.

[Brian]

The Old Testament God and the New Testament God are the same God and they never institute a feminist society. And women's rights are being made in the image of God that women are protected now in that status. What do you mean is not feminism?

[Erudite]

What do you mean by a feminist

[Brian]

society, a matriarchal society or a non patriarchal society?

[Erudite]

I've never advocated for either of these things.

[Brian]

Okay, but feminism has never been a societal goal in the Old Testament or the New Testament or the history of any Christian society.

[Erudite]

Again.

[Brian]

So you have no examples of this.

[Erudite]

I haven't advocated for any of these things. I don't.

[Brian]

You appealed to God. See is the biggest suede on the Internet and it's all sophistry. So I haven't looked at this in like a year. So going back and listening to this now, like a year later, it's literally just sophistry, the whole thing. God as your standard of the ought and the right. The moral right.

[Erudite]

Yeah, it's a moral thing to treat.

[Brian]

And then I said, give me the examples of where that God ever institute anything like what you're talking about in terms of feminism. And there's nothing.

[Erudite]

Not. There's not. There is, according to the definition you agreed to.

[Brian]

No, there's not.

[Erudite]

Yeah. The empowerment, promotion of femininity.

[Brian]

That is not what is happening in

[Erudite]

the Old Testament Judaism. That is not the most progressive approach to femininity of all of the modern.

[Brian]

She thinks that rabbinic Judaism is the same thing as the Old Testament religion. It's not. Judaism is not the same thing as what's in.

[Erudite]

You asked for Old Testament examples, I just gave you one.

[Brian]

That's not rabbinic Judaism. You admitted that it's a. That's a patriarchal society.

[Erudite]

What do you mean it's not. You don't think Old Testament Judeo is like.

[Brian]

No, it's not.

[Erudite]

It's not rabbinic. What are you talking about?

[Brian]

It's not the same thing as.

[Erudite]

You don't think that the 1200 BC society that was erected by King David wasn't. Wasn't a rabbinic society?

[Brian]

Rabbinic Judaism comes out of the 4th and 5th century when the Babylonian Talmud is collected and collated.

[Erudite]

So you don't think the Old Testament is not rabbinic?

[Brian]

No.

[Erudite]

Okay.

[Brian]

And it's. She doesn't even know, like, basic circle. So even if it was rabbinic, it wouldn't refine it. Then there's no examples of what you're talking about.

[Erudite]

Well, the issue for me is that what you're. What you're doing is you're creating a false dichotomy.

[Brian]

You're pretending like, so she can' single example of what she's talking about, and so she's. She's being presentist.

[Erudite]

Patriarchy and feminism can't coexist. Correct.

[Brian]

They cannot.

[Erudite]

Of course they can. We live in one.

[Brian]

Being feminine is not the same thing as the movement of feminism.

[Erudite]

I didn't say that it is. I said that.

[Brian]

Yeah, you said that femininity is promoted in the Old Testament, and you use that as a way to prove your position.

[Erudite]

I said it empowered women and it promoted femininity. It empowered women by creating matrilineal lines of inheritance, and it promoted femininity by making a whole bunch of female figures be viewed as these, like, incredible characters to, like, look up to. Like Ruth And Deborah and stuff like that.

[Brian]

Yeah, well, there's a point definition you

[Erudite]

agreed to on feminism would be feminism.

[Brian]

Then it wasn't, quote, progressive according to your view, because other societies worship the goddess and that would be more progressive than what you said.

[Erudite]

If you want, we can go back an hour and we can redo chatter and you can make a new definition for feminism that you like more so that you can apply it more narrowly if you'd like.

[Brian]

You have moved the goalpost.

[Erudite]

I have not.

[Brian]

I wrote down what feminism is.

[Erudite]

I wrote it down.

[Brian]

Anything that. So is the goddess feminism?

[Erudite]

I don't know what that is.

[Brian]

Goddess worship in the ancient pagan world. Is that feminism?

[Erudite]

It might be. Okay. I'm not sure. I don't know any.

[Brian]

So your position is so elastic that it could encompass any.

[Erudite]

Why did you agree to it?

[Brian]

It's unfault. Because the way you framed it was anti patriarchy and I'm fighting.

[Erudite]

I didn't frame it that way.

[Brian]

Yes, you did.

[Erudite]

I did not frame it.

[Brian]

That the terms of this debate. Feminism good or is patriarchy?

[Erudite]

I wrote it down.

[Brian]

Do you want to go back down? So she's denying the terms of the debate is patriarchy versus feminism. Now she's saying I never disagree with patriarchy. Yeah, you did. That's the premise of the debate, you idiot. Means that you wrote. You misunderstand what you wrote down. No, that's even dumber.

[Erudite]

The issue. The issue. Rather than you just being bad faith for no reason.

[Brian]

You don't know what. You don't know what internal critique is. So I'm not being bad taste. I've been debating for 25 years.

[Erudite]

It's completely fine to not know what terms are. Right?

[Guest Speaker]

Sure.

[Brian]

But in terms of debate, that's like 101. Knowing what an internal critique is.

[Erudite]

I understand what, like, consistency checks are. I just didn't use the language. Internal critique. Right. So if we want to go back an hour, you agree to this idea of chatter. Right. How we want.

[Brian]

Oh, it's bright as hell in that room.

[Erudite]

Define concepts, agree to them so that

[Brian]

we can talk about chatter. I'm just kidding.

[Jay Dyer]

Go ahead.

[Erudite]

So if you agree to that.

[Brian]

What did I say? Or chatter.

[Erudite]

Yeah, of chatter. Right. How we want to define concepts, agree to them so that we can talk

[Brian]

about prattle or chatter. Prattle or chatter. Because all she did was prattle the whole time. I'm just kidding.

[Jay Dyer]

Go ahead.

[Erudite]

So if you agree to that and then you agree to the terms, you can change them later. I'm just going to be good Faith, you can change them later if you want to. Let's just go back to the terms again and narrow it down to what we can agree to of what feminism and patriarchy means, because now all you're doing.

[Brian]

I gave a very precise definition for patriarchy, right?

[Erudite]

Sure I did.

[Brian]

And you gave a very loose definition as to what you think feminism is, which could encompass, as conceivably, anything that helps women. And that's an ambiguity fallacy.

[Erudite]

Then provide a different definition. Don't agree to it.

[Brian]

In my. Why is she asking me to give a definition for her? This is so stupid. Like, this is, like, the dumbest debate almost of all time, right? And I don't know which is my worst debate. Is it Misfit Patriot Erudite? I think most people think that those are the top two worst opponents ever. I want you guys in the chat. Tell me what you think. Do you think that my worst debate opponent was Misfit Patriot Erudite? Or is there another one that we're forgetting? Is it the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist guy? That guy was pretty bad, By the way. I. I am as pretty as. I'm way prettier than this. What y' all talking about? Y' all think T Jump? I don't even know if T Jump was the worst. I mean, I kind of feel like Misfit Patriots worse than T Jump, if you think about it. I mean, Misfit Patriot didn't even get off the ground. Like, that plane. That plane crashed before it even got off the Runway, dude. I mean, at least T Dump, he stuck it out the whole time. Kurgan was pretty bad. But y' all really think T Dump was worse than Misfit Patriot? I actually, I. I first thought it would be T Dunk, but then when I reflected, the more I think about it, I think it has to be Misfit Patriots the worst. I. I think Misfit Patriots worse than Captain Crack Rock. I mean, that was the worst of all. That is a edit. I think Misfit Patriot is worse than Bryson Gay. I. I think they're worse than Mark. Mark Brahman at least had a kind of wild kind of argument at. At least it was a creative argument about, you know, Genesis. But I think Erudite and Misfit are the worst. No, it's not. JF Trent Doherty might be one of. He's up there in the. Trent's in the top five. Yeah, I'm using my little. My little. My little Flamenco. That's gonna be my rap name. Lil Flamingo. Little Flamenco. Vegan gains and ask yourself, I mean, they're up there. They're probably the top five too. I think misfit gets number one, erudite number two. Maybe Pastor P number three. No Bryson Gay in the. I don't know. You're. You're right. Bryce Bryson was pretty bad. So. But anyway, opening statement. I said that I believe feminism is a revolutionary philosophy that destroys society. It was. By the way, this is interesting not hearing this debate after a year. I haven't really thought about this debate, but people forget this was not the. The all there was. Also, I would say, by the way, it turns out they just made this live. So the full Naim debate is up. So let's take a look. You guys already know about the erudite nonsense, so you can go watch that. It's all the same. Just yapping, she says all the time. I do want you to hear some of Naim's opening statement. Because it was so bad. It's so bad. Just. No, it's basically just non sequiturs. Naim's whole thing is a bunch of things that are assertions that don't logically lead to the Quran is therefore true. So it's a great exercise in probably the most common fallacy, even maybe more common than. More common than ad hominem is probably non sequitur. So let's look at Naim's opening statement. Let me speed it up a bit. We don't want to go to sleep. Although he might put your ass to sleep. Because the full debate, by the way, is now up. If you guys want to watch it, they just posted this and I'm sure the full J. Jake debate will be up in the next few days as well. So let's watch the opening statement from Naim and you'll see what I'm saying.

[Jay Dyer]

Special thanks to our sponsor, Maine First Project. Fighting to put Mainers first. Check out MaineFirstProject.org in the right corner. Our next speaker is an author and cultural commentator known for his extraordinary intellectual range, sharp wit and formidable debating style. He's also appeared on prominent platforms including Tucker Carlson and Tim Cast irl. Please join me in welcoming Jay Dyer.

[Brian]

Yeah, y' all forgot Lord Voldemort and Piers Morgan.

[Jay Dyer]

With that, we are indeed jumping right into it. I have the timer set for you for your opening statement of 20 minutes. Will lead the floor is all yours.

[Brian]

By the way, this will be good exercise too, because you guys will see. We're going to walk through and see all the non sequiturs and things that are just fallacious here.

[Jay Dyer]

Testing, one, two. Testing. All right, perfect. So you let me know when the time has started and I'm good to go right now. Just reminder to keep that mic pointed at you at all times.

[Erudite]

Yep.

[Brian]

Ready on your first word.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay. In the name of God, by the

[Brian]

way, if I recall. It's actually. There's a. There's a part towards the end where I think he starts reading off his phone. And from where I'm sitting, I can see the script on the phone. And that's why I made the Chat GPT joke is because what it looks like I'm seeing from my seat is Chat GPT. So, but let's see, because I think it's towards the end where he starts reading something off of his phone.

[Jay Dyer]

The entirely merciful and the especially merciful. The Quran or the Bible. Which one is God's revelation for all mankind? All praise to God, the Lord of the worlds. I'm just going to let you know that I will speak a little bit fast and also I'm not going to fully quote my verses. I'll leave the references on the screen for the audience to see and they'll have to do their own homework because I don't have time to read through all of it. And also quickly, I just want to say salaam to mama, to my dear wife, to my child, and to all my beloved friends who are watching this at home. So the first thing I want to dive into is the weaknesses of the biblical text. Compared to the Quran, the Bible is not just one book. It is a compendium of different authors, different authors with different narratives, different emphasis and even different doctrines. The Bible itself is an open concept. Different sects keep and omit certain books. The Bible itself does not define what the Bible is. So when Christians say the Bible teaches X, Y or Z, they are assuming a concept which does not exist. That is the concept that there is indeed a set number of books that is the Bible and isn't the Bible. They are really referring to a disputable open concept library.

[Brian]

You'll notice, by the way, that any of these things that he's listed, there's nothing about those things themselves that are necessarily a problem. Because he's just assuming the sort of Protestant KJV or Quran view of what needs to be the case for it to be authoritative. So all of these things that he's listed which he thinks are problems aren't really problems unless Islam itself is the case. And that's the thing in Question. So let's see, I actually have some of my notes here for this guy because I didn't, as is always the case in debates, you don't actually get to all of the responses. So let me see if I can find some of these and we'll do more of the responses that we never got to.

[Jay Dyer]

Very compiled, recompiled and redacted over history by many men who never knew or even anticipated each other and tried to treat that all as one thing. The Quran does not suffer the same fate. It has a remarkable textual integrity, save for a few variations in pronunciation. The same skeletal root text exists across all sects. And it's interesting because the Quran also promises that God would be its protector. We read in chapter 15, verse 9 on the screen, indeed it is we who sent down the Quran and indeed we will be its God.

[Brian]

Yeah, so the first thing I noted in my notes, and by the way, again, a lot of these, and this is, this is for every debate, when people are doing their opening statements or whatever and you're writing down their argumentation, you're never going to get to all of the points. So you have to think quick and you have to pick out the strongest things that you want to rebut, but you never actually get to all of them. So the first thing in my notes that I had for his opening statement was that he argues that because there's many books that there therefore must be different doctrines. Well, why, I mean, there's different suras. Would we conclude that because it's the same book, there couldn't be different doctrines in different surros? I mean, again, it's sort of begging the question that because there's different books compiled in the Bible that therefore we don't know or that there are therefore contradictions. Well that's again, it's just a non sequitur.

[Jay Dyer]

Every other religious tradition has disputed texts. The Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist sutras.

[Brian]

Every religion has disputed texts. So this is dishonest because he's giving the impression that no one disputes the Quran. No, the same higher critics that you're relying on 100 dispute the Quran.

[Jay Dyer]

Naturally this is the case because different sects want to promote their own theologies and start writing things with their own hands, claiming inspiration. The Quran is the only massively transmitted worldwide scripture that has a multitude of sects that claim to believe it and has been completely untampered with by all those varying sects. The fact that the Quran is a uniquely stable amongst the world texts and the Course of history has shown.

[Brian]

Now this is the thing that's in question, right? So notice he's not actually shown this to be the case. He's just asserted the position or what the position is. And I would say next to non sequiturs, this is probably the number one fallacy up there with ad hominems that people make is they mistake asserting a position versus giving an argument for the position. Okay, so we know that you think this about the Quran, you know, Muslims think this about the Quran, but that you think that is really irrelevant to what the argument is for this being the case. So let's pay attention, let's see if he actually begins to make arguments.

[Jay Dyer]

The promise in Chapter 15 of Preservation to be true shows strong indication that it is indeed unique amongst all the scriptures and very.

[Brian]

So the fact that within the book there's a claim of it being true is absolutely irrelevant to whether it is true. Every false religion or false teacher, false sect claims that their religion or their teaching or their writings are true. So again, another non sequitur.

[Jay Dyer]

What could be the word of God? So my question for my opponent is this. If God were to leave behind a revelation for all mankind to follow, don't you think you would leave behind a preserved, stable, closed system text that is not open to dispute? The next point that deserves discussion is the complete contradictions throughout the Bible.

[Brian]

Well, but every text could be potentially open to dispute. And what would that have to do with whether it's true or not? I mean, people could dispute whether two plus two is four. So I mean, it's just a weird line of argumentation that God would leave us a book that isn't open to dispute if he's God. I'm like, but people dispute everything. So what do you mean going on

[Jay Dyer]

with my first point? Naturally this heavily disputed work in progress known as the Bible has many contradictions. And I'm not even going to get into minor contradictions like the exact, yeah,

[Brian]

the Bible's not a work in progress. I don't know where he gets this line of argumentation. Totally not. I don't think there's any, any group except for higher critics or some weird cult that thinks that the Bible is open and a work in progress. I've never even heard this. Unless you're a Mormon or a Muslim. Then you think that the later revelation completes it or abrogates it or whatever.

[Jay Dyer]

Tales of Jesus crucifixion, how chronicles contradict certain facts in the Pentateuch when it's re quoting them. That would be Too easy. The Old Testament. These are foundational level theological contradictions. The Old Testament, when you read it, it largely deals with this ethnic God who demands exclusive worship by his ethnic people, Israel.

[Brian]

Now you notice he's already shot himself in the foot because his Quran religion claims that it's the same God of the Torah and the angel. So it's the same God of the Old Testament religion even in his Quranic view. Which is why I highlighted, highlighted even in the first 10 suras, there's countless, many, many, many biblical stories that are repeated as if they're true and as if Allah is the same God. So even in his own tradition he's now using argumentation that undercuts his own tradition, relying on fraudulent Old Testament scriptures. So is all of the God of the Old Testament they claim he is, but now he just said the God of the Old Testament is a false tribal religion and God, so he's his own God's a false God according to him. And by the way, this whole line of argumentation is all Marcion arguments here.

[Jay Dyer]

The primary focus is a real estate contract for the land of Palestine and there is no concept of a faith alone.

[Brian]

This is not true. So this is an assumption based on evangelical, dispensational or even Judaic lines of argumentation that the the focus quote unquote of the Old Testament is a land contract promised to Abraham. Well if you're a Jew or a Zionist, maybe that's what you think. But that's the thing in question. Whether or not the Christian interpretation of the book or these other groups interpretation actually makes sense. So again, this is not telling me which model of interpretation is correct.

[Jay Dyer]

Patient. Then we get into the New Testament and suddenly we have the Son of God figure who carries a comparison.

[Brian]

This is basically like when people say, and this is why Muslims do this a lot. We've seen this many, many times. They'll say, well the Jews don't believe your New Testament, so therefore you are out of accord with the Old Testament. I'm like, that's begging the question. Non sequitur. Of course the Jews, we believe the Jews rejected Christ, so of course they're not going to accept the New Testament. That doesn't prove that it's a different religion. That just simply proves that the Jews don't believe the New Testament. That's all it proves.

[Jay Dyer]

Divinity to Yahweh, who we must pray and baptize in the name of. The primary focus now is not a real estate contract for the land of Palestine, but rather the Kingdom of heaven, which is open to all men. The Old Testament God is tribal and largely concerned with the life of this world. So the promise is basically so long as so.

[Brian]

And again, you understand these are kill shots for Islam because Islam claims continuity with Allah of the, of the God of the Old Testament.

[Jay Dyer]

My people obey me, I will give them earthly sons, I will give them dominance. This is the overarching theme then, the New Testament God is largely concerned with the life to come, which is never explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament, certainly not emphasized like it is in the New Testament, which would have been a very important thing to mention. If I'm storing up deeds in the Hebrew thereafter and I'm going to see it on the other side, that would have been a very important thing to mention for thousands of years of prophecy.

[Brian]

Yeah, so he's just arguing from a shift of emphasis. As I cover in the debate, I point out that, well, the fact that the Old Testament is a type fulfillment relationship to the New Testament, it doesn't prove that it's a different religion. It just depends on the paradigm that you're coming from. So the fact that you're coming from a Judaic paradigm has nothing to do with actually demonstrating whether or not there is or isn't continuity. You're just simply saying, well, maybe the Jews are right and Christianity is false, so therefore the Jews are the authority on the Old Testament. Why? What if the Jews are the authority until they relinquish that authority by rejecting the one who gave the Torah, namely Jesus?

[Jay Dyer]

And it's about selling your goods and chasing the kingdom of heaven. And that this promise is open to all men. One is an exclusive God that demands exclusive worship of his name by his people in law keeping. The other is a God who has another name to be worshiped over alongside his who loved all.

[Brian]

Yeah, this is so stupid. As you've seen and as you know, we argued the Trinity from the Old Testament and this is very crucial to refuting Jews and Muslims and the Vatican 2 religion. That's why we consistently point out the Old Testament teaches the Trinity and we've done many, many, many, many, many videos on that. We've argued this pretty much every Muslim debate that we've had. That was a significant Muslim debate. You can go watch the Daniel Hikachu debate. And that's the line of argumentation and that disproves this line of argument.

[Jay Dyer]

All nations so much that he gave his Son as a free gift of salvation for all nations who put their faith in Him. No works required for salvation These are,

[Brian]

yeah, that's the Protestant position. So thank you for also arguing against the Protestant view, which is not what we represent.

[Jay Dyer]

Completely different religious systems, Christians try to reconcile them, but you can't. You are going to have to choose to favor one or the other. The Quran again does not suffer the same fate again because it has single authorship. It has the exact same message all throughout, which is worship one.

[Brian]

Now you see why in my opening statement I brought the Uthmanic assumption, right? How do we know the Uthmanic assumption is correct? Because Uthman is not a prophet. And how do we know that his choice of Zaire's version of the Quran is correct? We don't, it's just assumed. And I keep asking him this and he never understands. He just keeps saying, well the Quran is true because there's unanimity amongst the suras that exists. I'm like, that's assuming that Uthman was correct. How do we know what's the epistemic principle to know Uthman is correct? And it's, he has no answer for

[Jay Dyer]

that God do righteous deeds and inherit paradise. Or if you reject God, you get cast into hellfire for all eternity. And the references are on the screen for you if you wish to look into that. You may not like the Quran, you may not agree with it, but you cannot deny its completely consistent message all the way through. Certainly more so than the Bible.

[Brian]

I do deny that. So completely deny that in fact it's totally consist inconsistent with its own claims about the religion that came before. Hence Islamic dilemma.

[Jay Dyer]

So my question for my opponent is today, if God did leave a revelation for all mankind behind, don't you think it would have emphasized the same doctrines and taught and emphasized it all throughout the same exact belief system? The next thing we have to get into is anonymous.

[Brian]

Well, I mean that's just an assumption and that's assuming that there's not continuity between the Old and New Testament which a majority of the New Testament is actually devoted to demonstrating continuity. Hence these Marcionite lines of argumentation fall apart. And Marcionism was the second great heresy, second or third great heresy that the church opposed. Right? So you had very early on Paul of Samosata, you have, well you had the Judaizers and then you have the Gnostics and Paul Samosata and his version of anti denying the deed of Christ and you have Marcionites. So these are some of the earliest first heresies. And just to simply repeat these is just a sign I think of ignorance because it would have done a lot. He would have done a lot better if he had actually just interacted with our position. But he was lazy and I'm pretty sure he just relied on probably chat

[Jay Dyer]

GBT responses Authorship in the Bible we are told.

[Brian]

I mean, you can see his slides are all made basically from AI pictures

[Jay Dyer]

too, that Moses authored the first five books with inspiration from God, but that it was Moses who penned them down and that eyewitnesses authored the Gospels. And this is just not true. We can prove this in. Again, the references are on the screen. You can look into this yourself. Genesis 12:6 implies the author lived in a time the Canaanites were not in the land, but the Canaanites were not cleared out till Joshua came along. Genesis 36 implies the author lived during a time Israel had kings. Deuteronomy 34. It records a Moses death in the past tense. There's so many repeat narratives throughout the Old Testament, like the story of, let's see, right here of Jacob's name.

[Brian]

Yeah, this is all based on assumptions too, like as if there's not a theological significance between two versions of something. Right. So in other words, you can have a creation account that stresses God's relationship to the world, to the universe, and you can have a restatement of that creation account, which is God's relationship to man as the steward of creation. And so hierarchical presuppositions are that if there's differing foci in a. An account or two different accounts, then it must therefore be a contradiction. Well, why can't. If you assume inspiration, which is our presupposition, obviously, then the explanation would be, well, God intended to have different theological vantage points in these different accounts. So in other words, just. Just assuming that because there's different accounts that it's false is again begging the question. Well, how do we know that God didn't want two different vantage points, theologically speaking? One of them is God's relation to nature. One of them is covenantal with man in Genesis, for example. Right. And the other account is. No, there had to be different authors JEPD documentary hypothesis. Well, but. But there's nothing about those texts that necessarily self evidently tell me whether it's a harmonizing interpretation that's correct or whether it's the JEPD documentary hypothesis that's correct. So in other words, none of these things, you're just repeating things that don't actually resolve the issue being changed to Israel.

[Jay Dyer]

It's told twice with different narratives. The story of Abraham's Abraham at the time, his wife being married by the King is told three times in three different ways. Three times in three different ways means three different authors. And then, you know, skipping down we get to the anonymous gospels.

[Brian]

It is, yeah. It doesn't mean that. That's, that's the assumption. How do you know that? Because there's different tellings, there's different authors. I mean maybe, maybe there is. But how do you know that? Because there's different accounts necessarily, there's different authors or even if there's different authors that it's necessarily in contradiction.

[Jay Dyer]

Church tradition to say that they are authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but nothing in them suggests that. So an example of this how these are not eyewitnesses of Jesus. We have Matthew 4.

[Brian]

Yeah. By the way, this is the argument we make and one of the arguments that we make against the Protestants. So tradition is what tells you that Matthew wrote Matthew. So thank you for arguing against the Protestant position.

[Jay Dyer]

1 through 13, the famous story of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness. Jesus did not have disciples at that time. He was alone in the wilderness or when heaven opened up and it said, this is my son in whom I'm well pleased.

[Brian]

Why would Jesus have to have disciples at that time to be able to tell a past event like this is so stupid. I mean Jesus didn't have disciples when he was in his mother's womb. So like, so. Oh, I guess all of that's discounted because there weren't disciples at that time. This is so silly. Like Muhammad wasn't present at the creation. So I guess Muhammad couldn't tell us about Genesis. It's so dumb.

[Jay Dyer]

Again, Jesus did not have disciples at that time. He was a child. This is a biography of Jesus, but this is not an eyewitness account. It doesn't even pretend to be. Yeah, Matthew could not have seen heaven open up on Jesus when he was a child. Nor could he have seen the conversation Jesus had with the devil in the wilderness. The Quran again does not suffer this.

[Brian]

Did Muhammad see Adam having the angels prostrate before him? Did Muhammad see Allah creating the worlds? I mean this is so dumb.

[Jay Dyer]

Same fate, it is the same author all the way through. It is the perspective of God speaking to the believers and sometimes to the Prophet Muhammad.

[Brian]

Now he's just again he's asserting this like first of all, none of the things that he claimed are necessarily problems. Right. He didn't explain why you have to conclude from his questions about authorship or multiple accounts, why that necessarily leads to contradictions. He just assumed, well, it has to be contradictions.

[Guest Speaker]

Why?

[Jay Dyer]

Why?

[Brian]

I Mean, show me that that's a necessary conclusion. It's a non sequitur. And then he says, well, because the Quran presents itself as having a single vantage point, author, there therefore must be true. Well, Lord of the Rings has a single vantage point, author J.R.R. tolkien. Does that mean it's true? This is so stupid.

[Jay Dyer]

If we are talking about a book from God, which is the debate of today or tonight, it in fact is the only book that speaks in that way. God talking to mankind directly.

[Brian]

Not again, the fact that it speaks that way doesn't prove that it is the case. This is so.

[Jay Dyer]

This is so low tier, recounting a past event of a group of people and the dealings with their ethnic God, but rather God speaking directly to you in the evocative and to the prophet he has inspired. So my question is, if we don't

[Brian]

know so he actually argues that because there is this like authoritative way of speaking the Quran, it's true. I mean, who would act like this is such a low tier argument?

[Sponsor/Ad Voice]

I.

[Brian]

It's baffling to me that anyone with an IQ above 90 would actually find that convincing. I mean, every con man, that's why they're called confidence men. A con man is a confidence man because he speaks to you confidently, with confidence.

[Jay Dyer]

Who wrote the Pentateuch, which is the foundations of the Old Testament and we don't know who wrote the Gospels, the foundation of the Jesus movement in the New Testament. Then why should I hang my coat on anything in your Bible at all? The next thing that deserves to mention is the problems with Tall. In line with the fact that the Bible is so contradictory, we get to Paul, its most difficult contributor. Paul taught ideas completely at odds with both the Old Testament and even what Jesus says in the dubious Gospels we have today. Again, I don't have time for all the passages, but you can read them. Matthew 5. Jesus clearly taught that you need to work to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Not this faith alone. Salvation. Absolutely not.

[Brian]

This is why I say like, yeah, thanks for coming and refuting Protestant positions, dude, but like, you're not. You're arguing against a straw man. I'm not a Protestant. So you just basically wasted your, your opening statement arguing against a position that I don't have.

[Jay Dyer]

Go through Matthew 5. But whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven. But he that doeth the Will of my Father. Therefore, whoever heareth these sayings of mine and do with them, and so on and so forth, so on and so forth, then we're going to get down to this. So in Jesus in the Old Testament, there is no mention of this doctrine of total depravity, which is what Paul taught, or the hopelessness of trying to work for your salvation. 0 mention of this Pauline distinction of having faith without works of the law, which is foundational to Paul's.

[Brian]

So he thinks Paul taught Calvinism, which is not the case, by the way. He never demonstrates these things, he just asserts it.

[Jay Dyer]

And Paul says in Galatians 2, 16, knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith of Jesus that we might be.

[Brian]

By the way, I know he's citing verses, but I'm saying that he's not demonstrating that Paul teaches total depravity. Right. That's a Protestant Calvinist position. And the fact that he's citing Romans 3 does not prove that Paul taught

[Jay Dyer]

total depravity by the faith of Christ and not by works of the law. For the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. This is over and over the quintessential feature of Paul's message. The faith alone. Salvation Gospel is in direct contradiction with Jesus and the Gospels. Moreover, Paul's teaching of total depravity contradicts everything else we have read in the Bible. The Bible clearly acknowledges that righteous men have existed.

[Brian]

By the way, there wasn't a lot of time to go to. I think I did get Galatians 5. Or is this 6? It's Galatians 6. Got 6 in there? No, it is Galatians 5, Galatians 5, 6, where Paul says the only faith that counts is faith working by love. That is the same thing James is saying, you goobers. There is Galatians 5, 6. Paul's saying that the only faith that counts is the working faith. Exactly what James says. So out of here with this low tier slop argumentation.

[Jay Dyer]

So Paul teaches there's not in Romans 3 there is none righteous. No, not one. There's none that understand. There's none that seeketh after God. They're all gone out of their way. They are all together.

[Brian]

Yeah, that's not the Calvinist doctrine. Told a private goober.

[Jay Dyer]

Come unprofitable. There is none that do it good. No, not one. Therefore by de the law shall no flesh be justified. Then we go into Genesis 4, 7, interestingly, conspicuously enough, it says, if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Isaiah 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, the unrighteous man his thoughts and let him return unto the lord, and he will have mercy upon him and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Ezekiel 33:10 16 I'm going to skip down but it says but that the wicked turn from his way and live Turn ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die, O house of Israel? There is no total depravity here. And then of course the famous Passages in Ezekiel 18:10 18:20 My mistake, sorry. The soul that sinneth it shall die. The Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father, neither shall the Father bear the iniquity of the Son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wickedness that shall be upon him. Listen, there is no denying it. This faith alone not justified by the law. No righteous man has ever existed.

[Brian]

No faith is a work. Paul says faith working by love is the only faith that counts. You just don't know how to interpret Paul. Jesus says this is the work of God that you believe on him whom he has sent. Faith is a work you Protestant goobers.

[Jay Dyer]

We all inherit original guilt and sin from Adam. This whole system is completely foreign to the rest of the Bible, including even the Gospels in the condition they are in today.

[Brian]

Yeah, again we don't teach original guilt. So again, I don't know where he got the idea that we're Protestants, but I think I even said at one point hey thanks for repeating Protestantism them good job. When the Protestant shows up, let me know.

[Jay Dyer]

You can only start with Paul and try to force read it into the Old Testament. Start with your conclusions and work backwards. You will never find the Pauline system native or indigenous to the Old Testament of the Gospels. Therefore, the question I pose is if Paul contradicts so much of the Old Testament and even the words of Jesus in the Gospel, and he is by far the most prolific author of the whole New Testament, more than all the other authors combined are certainly comparable. Why should I trust anything in the New Testament at all if its most prominent author is teaching a completely different religion system that was never heard of for thousands of years? And lastly, I want to get into this so Christians, they treat the Bible as if it is a revelation for all mankind, but it doesn't even treat itself like that. Specifically the Old Testament, the Old Testament is the vast majority of your Bible. It takes up the bulk. And let's be real, whatever people wrote that Old Testament never had you or me in mind. 21st century non Israelite people. There's so much, and I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but I have to be honest. There's so much clutter and baggage that clearly meant a lot to some people back in that geography and time, but mean nothing now. We.

[Brian]

So this is an argument from incredulity, right? Which is a fallacy. I don't understand a lot of this Old Testament stuff. So it's, it's false. I mean, it's just so funny. People don't know fallacies, basic fallacies. And you don't even have to know them all. You just have to have a basic idea. And the reason that fallacy of incredulity is a fallacy is like, it's just a fallacy of irrelevance. The fact that you don't find it convincing or you're not personally existentially moved to believe it, or you don't understand it has nothing to do with whether it's true or false. I don't understand the, you know, high tech inner workings of this little magic black cube that I have. That's an iPhone. I don't conclude that the iPhone doesn't work or the math is faulty because I don't understand it. It's, that's stupid. It's has nothing to do with whether it works or it's true or etc. Just because you don't get it or. This is a classic Matt Dill honey thing.

[Jay Dyer]

I'll just skip over that when we're reading. We are debating tonight what book is God's revelation to all mankind. Christians treat the Bible as if it is a revelation for all mankind. But does it even present itself in that way?

[Brian]

I said this later on, I said, I want to thank both of my Muslim opponents for refuting Protestantism. Like, but when are you guys going to address with my argument, the Old

[Jay Dyer]

Testament does not represent itself as God's revelation to mankind, I. E. God speaking to humanity. It is simply history.

[Brian]

I mean, the Old Testament does represent God speaking to humanity. So I don't know, I don't know what he's talking about.

[Jay Dyer]

Trees and narratives of an ethnic God chiding his ethnic people and promising them the land.

[Brian]

No, the irony is that most of his critiques actually apply to the Quran. The Quran is even in the Quran itself. Allah's revelation to The Arab peoples. There's one point early on, right, where Allah says, well, Jews have their Torah, Christians have their Injeel, my Arabs need their revelation. The very things he's arguing are ironically the very problems with the Quran itself. Textual problems, historical problems, continuity problems, Arab tribal slave, God problems. Like this is actually his position.

[Jay Dyer]

Palestine, that kind of narrative doesn't even consider the rest of mankind. Endless people's names, place names, peoples that are never developed on places that do not exist anymore and nobody really knows anything about it's.

[Brian]

Does he not know about all the ridiculous, inexplicable elements of the Quran? If you guys remember, when we debated Daniel, we highlighted Gabriel Said Reynolds's list of jumbled up laughable nonsense in the Quran that they misunderstood from the Old Testament and the, and the ngo, the, the Gospels. So his argument is actually look, there's all this weird names and genealogies and jumbled up. I don't know what that means. So the Old Testament's false? No, that's just a fallacy of incredulity. The fact that you don't know about it or the fact that you don't understand it just shows that you are ignorant.

[Jay Dyer]

Kind of like if any of you have any familiarity with the Hindu religions. The Mahabharata. The Mahabharata is known as the great legendary epic of India. And reading it is like getting your head dunked into ancient India. It wasn't written for us, it was written for, for a different people at a different time in a different culture.

[Brian]

And oh, so but God's revelation in Arabic is for all people everywhere. I mean, you understand the Quran has to be right in Arabic. Right to be, but so what? Allah is expecting everyone in the world to understand Arab. This is so dumb.

[Jay Dyer]

The Old Testament reads in the exact same way as the Mahabharata, except the Middle Eastern version. Endless. Yeah.

[Brian]

Then Allah is false because Allah says it many time, many times in the Quran to go look to the Torah.

[Jay Dyer]

This is false.

[Brian]

So dumb.

[Jay Dyer]

I was saying it is genuinely inaccessible. Then we get into the New Testament. The Gospels also do not present themselves as a revelation to all mankind. They are.

[Brian]

Yeah, I say multiple times in the rebuttal, Jesus says, preach the gospel to all nations. What are you talking about?

[Jay Dyer]

Coupled together, stories of this incredible man named Jesus and some of the things he said and taught. Again, not a revelation of God for mankind, but stories and legends of this particular man. Then we get into Paul. Did he present his works as God's revelation to all mankind? No way. His work is simple.

[Brian]

Well, he does. I mean, you could disagree, but Paul many times over says I have my authority from Christ. So this is also false. Even if you disagree with the New Testament, you still have to admit that Paul is claiming and presenting it as if it's revelation and authority.

[Jay Dyer]

Him writing letters of encouragement, faith and instruction to the various churches around him. Christians, again, they treat the Bible as if it is like a text message from God to all mankind. They'll tell you, read your Bible, read your Bible. But the Bible itself doesn't even present itself in that way. All we have is an ethnic geographical epic.

[Brian]

Again, this is a Protestant light of argumentation that the Christian just needs to read his Bible. Just read your Bible and you'll get it. No, that's more of a Protestant soul scriptura mindset. So good job again, refuting a strong

[Jay Dyer]

man, stories of an incredible man, and letters being sent to churches. None of the writers in the Bible had me in mind. Again, the Quran is very different.

[Brian]

Well, I mean, many times over, the New Testament speaks of the universality of a message. In Colossians 1, Paul talks about preaching the Gospel to the known universe. Jesus says in the Great Commission, go into all nations. The whole book of Acts is about the missionary journeys of the Apostles and particularly Paul to spread the Gospel throughout the entire known Roman Empire world. So what are you talking about?

[Jay Dyer]

Reads like God directly speaking to you. Directly speaking to me. Say this.

[Brian]

Oh, so because the Quran reads as if Allah is speaking directly, it's there. Fortress is so dumb.

[Jay Dyer]

It isn't cluttered with all this meaning.

[Brian]

So again, if it claims it, it's true. It's not cluttered. What are you talking about? It's not cluttered. There's all kinds of nonsense and bizarre things in the Quran that make absolutely no sense.

[Jay Dyer]

Historical baggage or cultural motifs. It doesn't read like getting your head dunked in the ancient Middle East.

[Brian]

It reads like an Arab slave warlord religion from the seventh century. Because that's what it is.

[Jay Dyer]

It is accessible, readable, and it transcends all cultures.

[Brian]

I am the Arab slave.

[Jay Dyer]

Lord speaks directly to mankind in the evocative style. Exactly what we would expect if God did truly reveal.

[Brian]

So he's actually arguing that because of the literary style, it must be true. I mean, this is so subjective too, right? It's like, well, but what if I prefer, you know, you know, I really prefer the style of the way My Little Pony presents its, you know, cartoon prose. And so therefore, clearly My Little Pony is true. We must all become bronies, because I really enjoy the aesthetics of My Little Pony pros.

[Jay Dyer]

All mankind to read and cherish forever. If it is going to be for all human history, then it must transcend and go beyond any specific time period in its message and style.

[Brian]

Okay, how does Allah's Arab warlord religion only in Arabic speak to everybody at all times? This is so silly.

[Jay Dyer]

Let me make it clear. My argument is not. The Bible is racist, therefore it's bad. No, my argument is the Bible isn't even written for me.

[Brian]

So let's look at each of these. The Quran is accessible. How, if it's only in Arabic, authentically, that's not accessible. Obviously. Duh. The Quran is genuinely written to me. That's totally subjective. The fact that you feel like it's written to you has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's true or false. Every cult leader, every cult member, every religion on the face of the earth believes that their religion is accessible, that it is genuinely written to them. It speaks to them. The cult leader presents the doctrine or the beliefs with a voice of authority. So all of this has absolutely nothing to do with proving that it's true. These are such bad arguments. It is the only book which presents itself as God's. I think it says self, self disclosure, self revelation. I can't see the rest of it because his, his image is over the text. But that's not even true. The fact that it's, it's not the only book that presents itself as. I mean the Urantia book presents itself as like God speaking to the world. I mean, it's just silly.

[Jay Dyer]

Why would I accept it as the message that God requires me to follow? Wouldn't it be more natural to incline towards the world scripture that is actually addressing me? So my question is this. If the Bible is truly the word of God meant for me to follow today, why do none of its many authors address me at all? Would God want me to follow a message that isn't even directed to me?

[Brian]

Yeah, it is though. Like what are you talking about? There's many examples of the universality the most.

[Jay Dyer]

All of these problems naturally lead into the Quranic mission. That is why God revealed this final revelation. To clear up the errors, lies and confusions that men have put in.

[Brian]

How do we know? By the way, I was thinking about this. How do we actually know that it's the final revelation? Because if you think about it, if the prior revelations of Allah could be corrupted, why can't the Quran be corrupted now? They're going to say, well it specifically says it's the Final revelation. Yeah, but if the previous ones were the final revelation, like the gospels for example, and the New Testament epistles and you know, if the Christian revelation from its perspective was the final revelation and it could be corrupted, why could not the next final revelation to Muhammad be corrupted? You see, you've already introduced this principle, the possibility of corruption, which Jake admitted when he's debating ip. Okay, so then why do I have to assume that Muhammad's revelation is the final one? Why can't it also be Joseph Smith death? Yeah, but the same thing was believed and said about the previous revelation. And you notice this is a key difference because Christianity does not say that the Old Testament was corrupted. We don't say that. So once Islam presents this stupid line of argumentation, and by the way, the early generation of the first generation of Muslims understood this. They understood that if you introduce the possibility of the prior revelation being corrupted, there's no reason to believe that the new revelation couldn't be corrupted. Duh. That's actually in the whole line of our. I didn't get into this in the debate, but the first second generation, the early generation Muslims argued that you can't say that the prior texts are corrupted. That's why they never use this argument that the previous texts are. This is a recent Muslim line of argumentation. Why? Again, because if the prior revelation could be corrupted, it opens the possibility for the new Muhammad revelation being corrupted and they're going to say no, but it says it's final. Yeah, but I could simply say that that claim that it's final is a corruption. Duh. Don't you see how this, this is so silly?

[Jay Dyer]

And we read in chapter 5, verse 48, God says that we are revealed to you the book in truth, confirming what that which is before it of the scripture and as a guardian over it. So judge between them by what God is revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from the truth. And then chapter 16, verse 6, it reads again that we have not revealed to you the book except for you to make clear to them that wherein they differed more verses from the Quran. Chapter 27, verse 76.

[Brian]

Yeah, anyway, so I bring all this up and I bring up the Islamic dilemma in my opening statement. I think you guys saw all of that. So the full debate is up. I think you guys saw about half of it. Let's see, is there a little bit more to the Jake debate here? Let's see, there's a little bit more to this one. This one is not fully up yet. I'll give you Guys, a link right here. We got a lot of super chats, so let's go through some of these. And if you want to support the stream, you guys can do so by super chatting through streamlabs, or you could do it natively through YouTube. But here is the link to streamlabs pinned and we got a lot of these. So let's get through some of these right now. Here is the super chat link right there. All right, let's see. Nicholas. No, sorry. Tan 24. What do you think is the best description of God's relationship to time? Read the Dr. David Bradshaw paper on time as a procession, as a divine procession. Also the first several chapter, or, excuse me, the middle chapters of Father the St. Staniloy's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1. There's about a 60 page discussion of God in time. Sin City 55, 20. Thank you so much. Thomas of Utah. What's up? Thank you guys for the $2. So you got to read. You got to do a five or above super chat for me to read it. Sweet Princess Peaches.

[Guest Speaker]

Thank you.

[Brian]

She says for $5. LL Cool J in the house. Yeah, exactly. And I was waiting for somebody to make that joke. BMAN 2020. $10. Thank you for spreading orthodoxy. You helped me in my journey. Absolutely, man. Many years, Brian. Thank you for that gainer. Zola, $5. You gotta wash them dirty ass socks, bro. How you get them ashy socks? Yes, I did have the same pair of socks on for a couple days. So I was, I was a little, a little dusty in this trip. This was hot ass 103 degree Texas. So it was a challenge. Lost $5. It was an honor to meet you. Oh, this. Shout out to Alvis. Shout out to. This is Avis. Lost to Avis. What's up, man? Shout out to Iris. Cool, cool dude got to chill with him for multiple days and nights. Enjoy chatting with him. He got a crazy story. American Nacho, $5. Hey, it was great to meet you. Shout out to Nacho. Thanks for coming out. You represented Wiganthium. Wigantha represent us.

[Jay Dyer]

Got my.

[Brian]

Got my kang going on right now. Dovski, what's up? Dimas, Fluxor, Jay. I can't believe I saw you say bingo to the Muhammadan tweet and you kick the hornet's nest. You got a unique style. They can't handle the drip. I forgot to get back to Shamoon over here where he's going to talk about that. So we'll listen to a little bit of that in a second. Lockstep. $5 mic drop. Exactly. That's play doh noose. $10. Jay, I didn't mean to disrespect you. Sorry if I came across that way. I'm not mad about it. I would just not promote those dudes, that's all. Mad ortho, five bucks. Small token appreciation wigs. Antium Imperial Kango bucket hat. Represent. Exactly. Y' all feeling the drip. Faith can move mountains.

[Guest Speaker]

$10.

[Brian]

Congratulations on these debate wins. The only thing that I can critique is that you should have attacked Jake more. Well, if Jake's gonna do an interview, I might as well just answer his interview questions. Tactical Ortho, bro, I'm straight up telling you you should get everybody to dress like Soviet officers during your debate. That would be funny. Although I don't think that people do that, so. But I will. I'm gonna. I'm gonna show up, straight up KGB Colonel dog. I'm gonna be a straight up, you know, freaking. And Yuri Andropov represent. Strafe. Five bucks. At one point he said, bless Jesus. If he's Muslim and they think that way, why not be Christian?

[Guest Speaker]

I don't.

[Brian]

Did he say that? I don't know what he meant if he said that. I don't know what that. But I mean, doesn't Allah at one point, like, pray to Muhammad or like he reverences Muhammad, like he. Or what's the. I forget that. Funny, I think it's one of the hadiths, right? Something like that. Gibble, man, $10. Hey, Jamie. Damn, it's hot as hell in here. To get some air blowing. Jamie's gonna be one of. One of those big Egyptian fans over here. Just fan of me. J. Sweating. Maybe it's this hot ass kangal hat sweating in here. Hey, babe, could you turn the air down? It's really hot in here. Could you turn down a little bit? Gibble says for 10 bucks. Jay, I've been inquiring for a few months. I want to ask if you have resources on introducing Christianity to my girlfriend. She was atheist, an Alawite. Well, that's a weird combo. I mean, it's hard to know with that kind of a sort of a unique upbringing. I'm not sure what. I mean, what do you think is the most likely vector of. Of interest for her? I mean, would she like, you know, the aesthetics and the beauty of iconography, Would she like history, you know, take her to the liturgy. I mean, it's just hard to know what kind of a thing she might find interesting. So I would tailor it to what she's into more so than, like, trying to find a debate. You know, most women are not into debates, so I wouldn't be sending her Muslim debate. She probably didn't care about that. Adrian, 50 bucks. Thank you so much. Pleasure meeting you guys. Last weekend, job well done. It was a great way to kick off the weekend. Yeah, we had a lot of fun. I had an absolute blast. I mean, it was just like, probably the biggest event that we've done. Almost 500 people. I mean, by the last day, 450, 500. So I loved it. I had a blast. It was like a giant debate party for, like four days. It's crazy. And again, the one versus five, I don't know when they're gonna put that up, but I'm gonna go ahead and tell you. First of all, the 1 versus 5 is just. Just think of it. It's comedy, dude. It's basically admitted. I just approached it like comedy. Okay? Now, I didn't know exactly what it was going to be, but we've got one cholo cheater. We've got a portly Karen and four skinny, nerdy dudes. They're all Protestant. Okay? So it's not a serious debate. It's pure comedy. So just be expecting that in the filth $10. The. I think you mean the Muslim guy. Naim's lack of preparation made for an entertaining, informative debate. You defended and explicated orthodoxy well, perfectly showing that the position of soul scriptura Islam is actually. So, yeah, that guy, for those that don't know, naim is a 0.01% Quran only Muslim. And so even Jake was like, hand waving. That dude refurbished poop $5. Did anyone see the orthodox Serbian fighter won the first Serbian UFC card? No, I didn't know that, but I was catching up on my ufcs recently on the drive, and I noticed as I was watching a whole bunch catching up on Max Holloway fights, even though he did get knocked out for the first time, I was like, we do the Max Holloway strategy in debate. We just let the people punch and flail for like 20 minutes and they get worn out and then we just swoop in. But thankfully, we've not yet been knocked out. Like, unfortunately, I. I like watching Max hallway because he'll just box the whole time until you get worn down, let you box a lot, and then let you hit him a bunch, and then he just takes you out. Ken Fresno, $10. Who has a lower IQ in most of your debates and your experience, Muslims, Protestants, atheists, or Catholics Catholics are not the lowest iq by far. Lowest iq probably Muslims then maybe Protestants and atheists tied El Shaddai five bucks. Do a video addressing Aaron opk. Okay, I don't know who that is. He did nine problems with Paul. He has a case on Paul being a false prop. Oh, this is so stupid. Dude, I don't. This is just a referral. A lot of this stuff that gets popular is like refurbished old bull crap from like five, 10 years ago. So this is like old Muslim that's just getting re refurbished and the Muslims get it from the higher critics. So this is just like waste of time stuff. Old stuff. But yeah, it probably does need to be re refuted. Even though there's probably already a million reputations out there. Plug this in. It's about the. It's about to die. Mo. Jay. I started going to a catholic church and then I listened to you and I stopped. We'll find an orthodox church bank. Piggy, eight bucks. Jay, you created an Internet Tsami. What by what do you mean with erudite or the debate or what are you talking about? But thank you. Next time we'll create a mega planet with my mind like that dude said he was going to do. Vanessa, 10 bucks. I spoke with Coven. Who's Coven? The ladies agreed that there's no such thing as a tampon. We need a cringe cartoon. Then we will pink pinky swear to stop witchcraft and banish astrology all for once. Okay, you're joking. I like that. So yeah, I told Erudite I was just messing with because it was getting so stupid. But so you notice with the air Dite debate eventually just got stupid. By the way, I forgot to tell you, there's if you're really want it, there's seven more hours of debate with that loon. So not only did we debate for the two or three hours you guys understand, the next day we had the seven hour stream which is as far as I know only on Jim Bob's stream. So if you really want to see seven more hours of insanity with her and me, it is on Jim Bob's channel. Still 753, dude. Oh my gosh. Consider donating through. So yeah, that's what I'm saying. Like if you didn't get enough in the the two hours with her or three hours, however many it was, good news. There's eight more hours with her and a T R A N Z who showed up. Which that was all its own crazy. Like I was like I don't think that's I don't think that's a chick. And, I mean, this whole thing is its own insane, crazy thing here. All of this. This was crazy. This was its own other thing. And for about three hours of this, me and Erudite end up going back. You can see. Look at her looking at me. Just. Just scowl. Look at her scowling at me right there at the very beginning. She's still scowling from the day before. It's also, like 100 degrees in there in Brian's place. And I'm like, oh, my gosh, dude, I got eight more. I was like, eight more hours of this. Is this MK Ultra? What is this, dude? I mean, I had. I had a blast. Ultimately, I'm not. I'm not saying that it wasn't fun. It was, but it was a challenge. Not. Not the debate, just the whole being in there, dude. So the way this works is the next day.

[Erudite]

I don't.

[Brian]

I don't know if Brian still does the same thing for his podcast, but the debate was its own special event on Friday or Saturday. I don't remember. And then the next day,