วีดีโอ

Most Churches in England don’t preach the Gospel. Liberalism has taken over in most Churches.This is unbiblical and not Christianity. Even when Calvin said,he could understand people switching to the Roman Catholic Church in a previous talk,my heart sank.

Reason is not the problem. Read Thomas Aquinas. Lots of reason there. The problem is the rejection of metaphysical reasoning that took place at the end of the 16th century, when the rational investigation of physical reality, and the technological application of physical knowledge, increasingly became over the next few centuries, the only fully legitimate fields of intellectual endeavor.

🎉

James Lindsay is just the status quo of like 20-30 years ago. He brings nothing new to the table, and advocates for the void that the very wokism he despises has filled.

Lindsay is a zionist He's not a Christian. He only cares about Christians as an ally to zionists

Lindsay is the perfect example of what happens when exposed to a little philosophy but not much. His background is in mathematics, thats good. But he has close to zero formal training in philosophy and therefore little insight into the history of ideas and their development. His discourse therefore heavily relies on opinion but not much on actual philosophical research. For that one must go to the great philologists like Nietszche or more recent figures like Charles Taylor or Robert Bellah.

Nothing of this world is working

🎉

He’s a hack.

so because you rode on the coat tails of jordan peterson in to semi fame you now get to tell us what does and doesn't work for society lmao

why are christian ideals considered not working, haven't they been around for longer and remain pretty prominent?

I agree that Christianity is the underlying bedrock of Western values and culture. That a secularism that seeks to be free from religion is essentially 'cutting off the branch' upon which we sit. That said, Encyclopedia Britannica: "It was thought during the Enlightenment that human reasoning could discover truths about the world, religion, and politics and could be used to improve the lives of humankind." Does Mr Pageau reject the proposition that reason can be used to discover much truth? Does he disagree that enlightenment ideals have improved the world? "Religious tolerance and the idea that individuals should be free from coercion in their personal lives and consciences were also Enlightenment ideas." What about the above proposition "doesn't work"? I would argue that it is the separation of enlightenment ideals from their Christian Roots which is why they appear to him to not be working.

I use to think James was great but as time went on he's more of a liberal than I thought

The part about encyclopedic enlightenment reminds me of the Judge in Blood Meridian

Ironic position for Pageau to take, since the enlightenment begins with the breeching of Romans 13 vs 1-2. All political ideologies that a conservative feels themselves at odds with were born at that moment (as well as the ideals behind the American Revolution). This, in conjunction with the unobjectifiable commands of the New Testament, of kindness (or objectifiable ones, that were written in absolute terms, that were by tradition hedged on), surreptitiously transferred to the atheist, are the source of leftism.

Some categories that need to be better articulated: prerational, rational, transrational. One of the primary confusions of modernism is that everything non rational is pre-rational. One of the primary mistakes of post modernism is that everything non rational is trans-rational. Shooting from the hip, I would say impulses to sin are generally pre-rational or below our rational nature, pure rationality wouldn’t have any impulse at all, and impulses to genuine virtue would be trans-rational, or above our ability to reason.

I think one of the major stumbling blocks in these conversations is the lack of a clear demarcation of the political vs the cultural spheres of influence. Obviously these spheres influence each other, but I would argue that it is also not necessary for the Vatican to have direct control over the political levers of a society for a rejuvenated Catholic or more broadly Christian culture to implement policy that is fundamentally pro human in a way that a secular humanist would appreciate.

Pageau, sadly, misses the ORTHODOX ETHOS in this talk. When confronted with the idea of "this isn't realistic," he forgets to mention one tiny detail. Because Christianity is the truth of the universe, creation, etc., because there is a very real incarnate God who really is interested in mankind....GOD HIMSELF can bring this about. Oops. Got caught up in scientific materialism, I guess.

Fuck religion

He fails to even understand Gnosticism and Herneticism outside of a dullards metaphysical dualism.

James Lindsay is insidious. His singular role is to sit at the edge of the Overton Window to prevent people from going any father right. He provides an off-ramp from real political ideology, rather than being an on-ramp to more serious ideas. He is not a friend or an ally. James Lindsay is an establishment stooge. He believes in only modern atheistic neoliberalism. There's not a shred of integrity in his body.

"The monster is intercategorical" So Pageau's criticism of D&D's "Monster Manual" would be not so much that it depicted demons, but that it is an incoherent attempt to categorize monsters?

Lindsey is absolutely brilliant until he talks about the esoteric, then he's a complete idiot.

"Enlightenment values", is basically just taking the parts you like from Christianity, discarding the rest, and removing God from the whole equation. That's why you end up with nothing more than the descent into satanic degeneracy, i.e. self worship.

Weird

Once the rational becomes ultimate concern the mystery which is beyond Reason will break out into irrationality and the rational will be lost. In modernism/Enlightenment thinking it rejected God as Ultimate Concern and put human reason on God’s throne. Science thus became Scientism. But as man became the measure, no one individual could claim transcendent knowledge. Which man’s mind is the measure? And so, subjectivism rises and objective knowledge is gone. This leads to the post-modern deconstruction of Derrida and others. Science without God, in attempting to sit on God’s throne, slipped off and the crown fell to the floor. “Science is just one more metanarrative claiming to be truth when all is subjective and there is no truth” was always going to be the end result of Enlightenment thought. A return to God on the throne and rejection of all idols is necessary to keep the transcendent from turning into the monster.

You have ideals, and I have ideals, and Jonathan has ideals, but the enlightenment does not have ideals.

I don't see the US Constitution locking society in the liberal Enlightenment

Not only is James Lindsay wrong, so is Arch atheist creator Peter Boghossian. Thank you Jonathan Pageau for taking the Cross of Christ to demolish the stupidity put forth by these men.

11:56

Enlightenment ideals aren't working, so let's go back to Christian ideals that this retrd would tell you leads to Enlightenment ideals...

Sorry Creed and Culture. Stupid Trolling. Great way to turn people off of Christianity, who are undecided.

There is something, but I think that some fear on Lindsay side, is, how maybe, in U.S, there are some optics, about, like Mega churches, leader's type, that is even me, from Europe, a strange optic, but yes, we Christian's, can be strange, but a different force, but force of good, but those around are playing with our patience & tolerance, that's the problem, because, i will never abandon our traditions & values, and this people, who arrived here, embrace the wrong way, from communism/marksism to radical islam & don't understand what are they poking around, so there is problem's in horizon, question is, are they sure 🧐

Really what did the devil did when the harp was played

Steve you’re heading a broad path to HELL

Complete mischaracterization of Lindsay's views and goals. This is complete and utter nonsense. Starting to lose all respect for Pageau. If he cannot get into his head that a liberal secular order is the ONLY way we will all get along going forward, as opposed to killing each other as in the "good ol' days," then I don't want to hear anything further from him. He is a dead end. I am on Lindsay's side all the way on this. There can be NO compromise in this area.

Calvin says that Baptists are progressive, yet his reason makes no sense. Chaulke’s position on the authority is an abomination, a complete denial of biblical teaching

Being a Reformed Baptist, I disagree with both of these. Calvin embraces the errors of the Roman Church, while Chalke embraces a view of God’s love that is unbiblical.

For everyone here praising James Lindsay, I suggest you actually read the primary sources he’s citing. He’s wrong about most of the conclusions he comes to, once you honestly dig in. He builds these expansive phylogenetic trees of philosophies and theories, with his own post hoc obfuscations of said philosophy’s intent, completely castrating them from their own critique and context. There’s a lot more to that which he’s on about. Plus, he blocks and namecalls everyone who slightly challenges any of his assumptions with the offer of friendly discourse. Thinkers and philosophers in the discourse sphere distance themselves from him for a reason. Much like the woke will call you an ableist or a transphobe, Lindsay will call you a Gnostic or Wizard; a libertarian-ish sort of intersectionality.

Because enlightenment ideals have been left behind long ago. Socialism swept through American academy in the 1930s. We are suffering from over a century of "progressive" government. So anyone who claims that enlightenment ideas are at fault now is full of it.

The orthodox don't have historical experience as a relevant minority under protestant dominion theology (at least a version of it - remember Cromwell) to really fear a repristination of that once the iluminist delusion is lifted...

Dude when thesr guys are talking about Fascism they are SOOOOO naive... RESEARCH PROJECT 2025

Big respect for JL in all he has done. But I think he was wrong to criticize religious mysticism so strongly when he did his delve into gnosticism & woke. As he said himself there is a difference between wizardry & mysticism.

According to these guys, what IS the proper way to deconstruct these "categories?" Are they sacred and beyond question? Why can't we critically analyse history and reevaluate the invention of the categories and what motivated them?

I do not agree with Jonathan that the problem of science not being able to counter the gender fluidity debate, is down to an excess of reason. It is because gender fluidity arguments come from a postmodern anti-truth perspective and science has moved away from its reliance on empiricism. If science were to return to empiricism, then they have ample arguments against the "biology isn't real" viewpoint. As a person of faith, I am amazed I am siding with the empiricists. Though, I appreciate that empiricism and rationalism are different.

Biggest glaring problem with Lindsay is that he upholds the enlightenment and detracts from Gnosticism without seeming to know that they are the exact same thing Gnosis = transcendence and enlightenment through knowledge Same exact force (which is Luciferian at its core)

good stuff

the enlightenment movement was not even athiestic, it was inherently satanic. lucifer was the angel of light. the end result of liberalism is implied by the enlightenment philosophy it came from.

I love James

'Miracle' is a straw man