Timestamps: 18:58 - RC: Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew trying to be the Eastern Orthodox Church version of the Pope 21:25 - RC: The Roman Catholic Church can be wrong? 30:08 - Libertarian: Taxation is theft. 31:45 - Protestant fan: Church of Christ paradigm and baptism. 36:11 - Is faith necessary for baptism to work? 43:50 - Libertarian Church of Christ Protestant 51:44 - Bitcoin debate 55:22 - Fan 1:00:04 - Epistemology and the Trinity 1:06:59 - Sin is an act of the will, not the desires themselves 1:09:57 - Caller gets stuck with the Bible being the Word of God 1:17:34 - Orthodox Inquirer: Absolute Divine Simplicity 1:27:49 - Caller is not a fan of Billy Carson 1:30:37 - Protestant looking into Orthodoxy 1:32:03 - Lapsed Orthodox Christian and secular girlfriend. 1:33:08 - Existence 1:41:34 - Penal substitution and the Orthodox view 1:49:55 - RC convert: thinks the Council of Ephesus was wrong in condemning Nestorius 1:52:08 - Another RC convert: Actus Purus and Thomism 2:15:09 - Hesychasm 2:17:35 - Arguments against Sola Scriptura 2:19:01 - Non-Chalcedonian inquiring into Orthodoxy 2:31:26 - Role of the Orthodox Church and the formation and preservation of the canons and more 2:33:38 - PSA vs Orthodox view on redemption 2:36:45 - Uniates not reciting the Nicene Creed with the Filioque 2:39:34 - Prot convert to EO/the Theotokos not mentioned by St. Paul or the books of the Apostles? 2:46:57 - New Ager 2:48:22 - Baptist 2:51:42 - Retreading the non-Chalcedon discussion 3:00:08 - Prot Orthodox Inquirer 3:01:04 - Orthodox Christian: how to eschatologically approach the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints 3:03:40 - Is Pepe the Frog excommunicated and are RCs who use it bound to remove it? *US Conference of Catholic Bishops 3:08:24 - An old caller 3:17:19 - When did leftism cease to be any alternative to liberalism? 3:30:24 - Choosing a Christian denomination on the basis on which ones are less Pharisaical? 3:31:19 - Empiricism 3:35:53 - TAG and science 3:42:55 - Orthodox Inquirer who looked into Calvinism 3:45:34 - “Why should I trust the authority Early Church Fathers when St. Paul corrects early church leaders?” 3:47:19 - Objection to TAG? 3:48:58 - Patriarch Kirll of Moscow calling the war in Ukraine a holy war and our differences are theatrics? 3:49:52 - Atheist materialist: why do animals have to suffer? *END
Thank you for bringing back that absolute banger right at the start. I wonder if someone can make a studio quality version that’s a bit more polished. It really is good
I think we are in a period when people are openly accepting a lie over truth because the masses are convinced that you can somehow create your own truth, your own reality, and whatever worldview validates your identity (i.e. makes you feel good about yourself) is truth.
Does anyone know of any of Jays material where he refutes byzantine catholics? Apparently they are in communion with rome not the orthodox church. And at least one deacon is claiming that they are orthodox and teach orthodoxy and havent changed. Any good readings or streams on byzantine catholic refutations?
Hey libertarian church of Christ guy, if you read this, I'm interested in participating in your discussion. Formerly church of Christ and now Orthodox.
No. They think “God is pure actuality, and is not subject to change because change involves a passage from potency to act. God is without beginning or end because these require change.” So there is no potentia in their view. This view reduces God to His essence and falls into modal collapse. They define God/His essence as actus purus.
@@JayDyer Thanks for the response! Can you be a bit more clear, please? In your quotation, everything seems to be agreeable with us because it's about God not being mutable because He has no potency. Ed Feser in p. 43 of his Scholastic Metaphysics, after distinguishing real/subjective potency (potency in a really existing subject) from logical/objective potency (only existing as thought), further divides subjective potency into active and passive: "On the side of real or subjective potencies a further distinction is made between active potency, which is the capacity to bring about an effect, and passive potency, which is the capacity to be affected. Fire’s capacity to melt rubber is an active potency, whereas rubber’s capacity to be melted is a passive potency. An active potency is a power; a passive potency is a potentiality in the strict sense. (Cf. Coffey 1970, p. 56)" Here I might add the note the awkwardness of contrasting power and potentiality, since Aquinas simply has the Latin word potentia and it's translated often as either power or potency, including when he says "passiva potentia". But Feser immediately continues with: "We will have much to say about active potency in the next section. For the moment let us note that for the Scholastic, active potency is, strictly speaking, a kind of act or actuality (in particular, what is called a “first actuality”); more precisely, it is a kind of act relative to the substance possessing it, though a kind of potency relative to the action it grounds (Koren 1955, p. 59). By “potency” what is usually meant is passive potency. (Cf Koren 1960, p. 122; Renard 1946, p. 29) Pure active potency or power unmixed with any passive potency or potentiality is just pure actuality, and identified by the Scholastics with God; in everything other than God active potency is mixed with passive potency. This difference is marked by the Scholastic distinction between uncreated active potency and created active potency." So, should real, subjective potency be denied of God then His active power cannot in principle be mixed with potency, which means it's nothing other than actuality or a pure active power. Whereas our active power is still mixed with subjective potency, so it's a mixed active potency. Considering all this, what would be the error? I think Thomism is deeply in error on divine simplicity, but I don't see the precise error here. You hinted at what I would deem to be a serious by saying that the essence for them is defined as pure act. Like yeah, since the essence is an unlimited formality that's somehow neither purely communicable nor purely incommunicable in the same respect destroys the Trinity. That and the formal identity (even according to our imperfect minds) of the divine esse/actus w/ the divine essence.
@@JayDyer I thought it'd be also good to include a citation from 1.25.1 of the ST "Relinquitur ergo quod in Deo maxime sit potentia activa." "It remains, therefore, that in God there is active power in the highest degree." There's literally 'in Deo', 'activa potentia'. It's literally saying that there's potentia in God. Obviously, this isn't truly potency, but the point is that there's 2 respects to reject potentia in God. It's to deny it in the active sense and in the passive sense, with the passive sense being the more proper notion of potentiality as opposed to actuality. Thomists deny potentia qua passivity, but not activity.
Jay honest question, a lot of people say that St. John Chrysostom’s teachings somewhat affirmed penal substitutionary atonement. I don’t know if that is true or not or if people are mis-interpreting what he says, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed to be honest. And if there is a book or something to help shed light on it that would be awesome.
@kyriakosathanasiadis7970 I wouldn't say that lol it's not inappropriate or anything. Does have esoteric stuff I guess. Interesting story though. Jay really should just review anime films because all the symbolism they have more then American films
Anyone know in the scriptures(orthodox study bible) where it says not to break them? In parenthesis there was a line and now I cant find it. Thought it was in the book of john. Someone please help. Someone said John 10 35 but it doesn't even go that high for me in John even in my osb. Am I missing something?
Dear Mr. Atheist Q: What is your favorite fruit? A: Mango Q: How does the mango tree know that there is a species called human beings, which has an organ called the tongue? This small organ can decode the "mango taste" produced by the tree's fruit. There could be one of three possibilities to explain this: a. The mango tree is a professor with a Ph.D. in tongue/taste buds studies, fully understanding how this small organ works, and thus produces a fruit that can be identified, appreciated, and enjoyed. b. There is a third entity with complete knowledge of the tongue, which created the mango tree to produce something called taste. This taste can only be experienced when the fruit is placed on the tongue; no other place on Earth can recognize this "taste" code besides this small organ. c. The tree randomly created the mango taste without any idea why it produces the fruit or who is going to use it.
Hey Jay does your book Essays on Theology and Philosophy contain everything that’s in your Meta-Narratives: Essays on Philosophy and Symbolism book? Remember you addressed this before but can’t remember what stream
@@blessedmikko Yeah I don't think Dyer means passive potentia is in God, but idk why he's seemingly implying that thomism rejects God having active power.
Timestamps:
18:58 - RC: Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew trying to be the Eastern Orthodox Church version of the Pope
21:25 - RC: The Roman Catholic Church can be wrong?
30:08 - Libertarian: Taxation is theft.
31:45 - Protestant fan: Church of Christ paradigm and baptism.
36:11 - Is faith necessary for baptism to work?
43:50 - Libertarian Church of Christ Protestant
51:44 - Bitcoin debate
55:22 - Fan
1:00:04 - Epistemology and the Trinity
1:06:59 - Sin is an act of the will, not the desires themselves
1:09:57 - Caller gets stuck with the Bible being the Word of God
1:17:34 - Orthodox Inquirer: Absolute Divine Simplicity
1:27:49 - Caller is not a fan of Billy Carson
1:30:37 - Protestant looking into Orthodoxy
1:32:03 - Lapsed Orthodox Christian and secular girlfriend.
1:33:08 - Existence
1:41:34 - Penal substitution and the Orthodox view
1:49:55 - RC convert: thinks the Council of Ephesus was wrong in condemning Nestorius
1:52:08 - Another RC convert: Actus Purus and Thomism
2:15:09 - Hesychasm
2:17:35 - Arguments against Sola Scriptura
2:19:01 - Non-Chalcedonian inquiring into Orthodoxy
2:31:26 - Role of the Orthodox Church and the formation and preservation of the canons and more
2:33:38 - PSA vs Orthodox view on redemption
2:36:45 - Uniates not reciting the Nicene Creed with the Filioque
2:39:34 - Prot convert to EO/the Theotokos not mentioned by St. Paul or the books of the Apostles?
2:46:57 - New Ager
2:48:22 - Baptist
2:51:42 - Retreading the non-Chalcedon discussion
3:00:08 - Prot Orthodox Inquirer
3:01:04 - Orthodox Christian: how to eschatologically approach the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints
3:03:40 - Is Pepe the Frog excommunicated and are RCs who use it bound to remove it? *US Conference of Catholic Bishops
3:08:24 - An old caller
3:17:19 - When did leftism cease to be any alternative to liberalism?
3:30:24 - Choosing a Christian denomination on the basis on which ones are less Pharisaical?
3:31:19 - Empiricism
3:35:53 - TAG and science
3:42:55 - Orthodox Inquirer who looked into Calvinism
3:45:34 - “Why should I trust the authority Early Church Fathers when St. Paul corrects early church leaders?”
3:47:19 - Objection to TAG?
3:48:58 - Patriarch Kirll of Moscow calling the war in Ukraine a holy war and our differences are theatrics?
3:49:52 - Atheist materialist: why do animals have to suffer?
*END
Thanks man, don't think this goes unappreciated.
Thank you!
Thank you very much so helpful
Thanks dude! Really helps out when you missed the actual live.
God bless
Daily reminder that skipping the intro is considered heresy
Forgive me for I have sinned
“We are taking people who disagree”
“Hey Jay orthodox catechumen here”
Always gets me 💀💀😂😂😂
feels like Christmas when jay drops an open debate stream
Matt Dillamonkey starts @ 0:04
Unmute Dude 1 starts @ 2:10
Unmute Dude 2 starts @ 4:53
Those are three number 1 hits right there 🤙🏻
Bro I cannot take this song out of my mind 💀
Best livestreams on TH-cam!
Stream starts @ 5:56 for the heretics that skip the intro
@OrthoBro28 Please start issuing anathemas fr. Orth
Open debate starts @ 18:57
CoC libertarian dude really said "True Scripture is what I personally think is Scripture"
Thanks for the wonderful stream. Always amusing how many personalities are representated in this tiny culture niche.
Great stream! Now I have some material to create clips from.
Another banger!
Intro is straight gold
If devolving into Matt Dillamonkey doesn't prove evolution, then I have no idea what will
26 years on this planet. But this is 1000% my first time on the interweb. Jay unmute forever ❤
Don’t you know we know scripture is canon based on its street cred?
When I feel sad and listen to your intros, makes me happier… or it does bring me a smile…
Thank you for bringing back that absolute banger right at the start. I wonder if someone can make a studio quality version that’s a bit more polished. It really is good
+1:02:50 The point about where does knowledge come from under solipsism is amazing. I can't believe I never came across that before.
Lol the name of that song is “Unmute Dude” 😂
I’m 41 years old and I feel like we most be the same age based on your intros 🤣
I think we are in a period when people are openly accepting a lie over truth because the masses are convinced that you can somehow create your own truth, your own reality, and whatever worldview validates your identity (i.e. makes you feel good about yourself) is truth.
This is a certified hood classic
That was a sudden end 😂😂
Extremely pissed I’m not getting notifications about your lives. But at least I have this to watch tonight if your not live today. Ty Jay
☦️☦️☦️☦️
The caller around 40:00 provided a very good discussion even if the questions were low tier, you can tell he's genuine
I feel bad for judging him by the chirp at the beginning of the call. He really was a good guy
@slowboywhiteboardv4 I don't blame you, there's a lot of trolls
The convo with the non chalcedonian was amazing
The voice of reason voice was epic hahahahahahah! You got to do that more!
Great stream as usual
Yippee another one ❤
Awesome content
Great stream Jay
Unmute Dude been going nuts with these intro songs😦
Excellent stream
“Cowards in the chat” - we need a new Jay dyer song with that
42:32 caller's fire alarm battery?
I pray for quantum cushion comfort thanks to my Funkopope, next step revival of the deceased.
Can anybody tell me the book he was talking about, just enough info for me to find it?? 4:02:52
1:32 people asking for relationship advice now?😂 Jay Dyer relationship advice guru?
Adult baptism is a big thing for adult converts, but only because they missed out on being made part of the church as infants.
Would you debate wess huff?
Does anyone know of any of Jays material where he refutes byzantine catholics? Apparently they are in communion with rome not the orthodox church. And at least one deacon is claiming that they are orthodox and teach orthodoxy and havent changed. Any good readings or streams on byzantine catholic refutations?
Unmute!
19:03 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!😊
20:50 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂!!!
Fantastic!
Voice of Reason impression @ 1:51:54
Jay, I think it would be fun for you to have a conversation with Doug Pinecreek (atheist TH-camr) someday. Jimbob could possibly set that up
Or Jimbob himself could talk to him, Jimbob and Jay basically say the same thing
@@Jhadarjimbob has spoken to Doug loads of times
Hey libertarian church of Christ guy, if you read this, I'm interested in participating in your discussion. Formerly church of Christ and now Orthodox.
1:17:34 - Orthodox Inquirer: Absolute Divine Simplicity
No. They think “God is pure actuality, and is not subject to change because change involves a passage from potency to act. God is without beginning or end because these require change.” So there is no potentia in their view. This view reduces God to His essence and falls into modal collapse. They define God/His essence as actus purus.
@@JayDyer Thanks for the response! Can you be a bit more clear, please? In your quotation, everything seems to be agreeable with us because it's about God not being mutable because He has no potency. Ed Feser in p. 43 of his Scholastic Metaphysics, after distinguishing real/subjective potency (potency in a really existing subject) from logical/objective potency (only existing as thought), further divides subjective potency into active and passive:
"On the side of real or subjective potencies a further distinction is made between active potency, which is the capacity to bring about an effect, and passive potency, which is the capacity to be affected. Fire’s capacity to melt rubber is an active potency, whereas rubber’s capacity to be melted is a passive potency. An active potency is a power; a passive potency is a potentiality in the strict sense. (Cf. Coffey 1970, p. 56)"
Here I might add the note the awkwardness of contrasting power and potentiality, since Aquinas simply has the Latin word potentia and it's translated often as either power or potency, including when he says "passiva potentia". But Feser immediately continues with:
"We will have much to say about active potency in the next section. For the moment let us note that for the Scholastic, active potency is, strictly speaking, a kind of act or actuality (in particular, what is called a “first actuality”); more precisely, it is a kind of act relative to the substance possessing it, though a kind of potency relative to the action it grounds (Koren 1955, p. 59). By “potency” what is usually meant is passive potency. (Cf Koren 1960, p. 122; Renard 1946, p. 29) Pure active potency or power unmixed with any passive potency or potentiality is just pure actuality, and identified by the Scholastics with God; in everything other than God active potency is mixed with passive potency. This difference is marked by the Scholastic distinction between uncreated active potency and created active potency."
So, should real, subjective potency be denied of God then His active power cannot in principle be mixed with potency, which means it's nothing other than actuality or a pure active power. Whereas our active power is still mixed with subjective potency, so it's a mixed active potency.
Considering all this, what would be the error? I think Thomism is deeply in error on divine simplicity, but I don't see the precise error here. You hinted at what I would deem to be a serious by saying that the essence for them is defined as pure act. Like yeah, since the essence is an unlimited formality that's somehow neither purely communicable nor purely incommunicable in the same respect destroys the Trinity. That and the formal identity (even according to our imperfect minds) of the divine esse/actus w/ the divine essence.
@@JayDyer I thought it'd be also good to include a citation from 1.25.1 of the ST
"Relinquitur ergo quod in Deo maxime sit potentia activa."
"It remains, therefore, that in God there is active power in the highest degree."
There's literally 'in Deo', 'activa potentia'. It's literally saying that there's potentia in God. Obviously, this isn't truly potency, but the point is that there's 2 respects to reject potentia in God. It's to deny it in the active sense and in the passive sense, with the passive sense being the more proper notion of potentiality as opposed to actuality. Thomists deny potentia qua passivity, but not activity.
1:41:35 damn forgot about tyrannical reigner
Why does the Bible that I've never read say that the Earth is flat while science has proven it to be pear-shaped?😏
Jay honest question, a lot of people say that St. John Chrysostom’s teachings somewhat affirmed penal substitutionary atonement. I don’t know if that is true or not or if people are mis-interpreting what he says, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed to be honest. And if there is a book or something to help shed light on it that would be awesome.
Lmao amazing debates
Would you and Tristan review The Boy and the Heron? It's a studio ghibli film with Christian Bale. Look up when u get chance
Very esoteric many symbolism , not for children and not to watch without your "guards"up in my opinion.
@kyriakosathanasiadis7970 I wouldn't say that lol it's not inappropriate or anything. Does have esoteric stuff I guess. Interesting story though. Jay really should just review anime films because all the symbolism they have more then American films
Jay gets refuted at 3:07:47
What book is Jay referencing in about 3:27:00 ?
Spengler maybe?
@bondservantandbrideoflogos7570 h3 said it 5 minutes later but now I forgot
@notstrong5789 yeah yeah something like that . If you find the author and the book and you remember to reply to me here please do !
@@nikstrthe was talking about "Imperium" by Francis p yockey
@@nikstrt he was talking about "Imperium", by Francis, (he says the last name not long after your timestamp)
1:52:11 *eye roll* *deep sigh* 💀💀💀
Anyone know in the scriptures(orthodox study bible) where it says not to break them? In parenthesis there was a line and now I cant find it. Thought it was in the book of john. Someone please help. Someone said John 10 35 but it doesn't even go that high for me in John even in my osb. Am I missing something?
1:40:40 “Really dumb stuff” is self evident
Dear Mr. Atheist
Q: What is your favorite fruit?
A: Mango
Q: How does the mango tree know that there is a species called human beings, which has an organ called the tongue? This small organ can decode the "mango taste" produced by the tree's fruit.
There could be one of three possibilities to explain this:
a. The mango tree is a professor with a Ph.D. in tongue/taste buds studies, fully understanding how this small organ works, and thus produces a fruit that can be identified, appreciated, and enjoyed.
b. There is a third entity with complete knowledge of the tongue, which created the mango tree to produce something called taste. This taste can only be experienced when the fruit is placed on the tongue; no other place on Earth can recognize this "taste" code besides this small organ.
c. The tree randomly created the mango taste without any idea why it produces the fruit or who is going to use it.
😂😂😂
Me laughing during exam: ( yes that is true )
Haha people are too confident in debating, yet they have no idea what basic logical fallacies are😂
3:36:36 watch Pageau on “science is nested within religion”
Hey Jay does your book Essays on Theology and Philosophy contain everything that’s in your Meta-Narratives: Essays on Philosophy and Symbolism book? Remember you addressed this before but can’t remember what stream
yes
When is the full interview out with Pearl? Did you blow her mind so much that she is scared to upload it or what
Na "debate daddy drill instructor" must be a step too far 🤣🤣😭
that Muslim be one of the drifting kind. 1:06:26
"potentia in God"🤦🏽♂️
Yeah, come defend modal collapse goober
@JayDyer ohhh wait i think what you mean when you say potentia, youre talking about active power in God right? my bad (if thats the case)
@@JayDyer im not a Thomist
@@blessedmikko Yeah I don't think Dyer means passive potentia is in God, but idk why he's seemingly implying that thomism rejects God having active power.
Matt Dillamonkey 🗣️🔥🔥