I like how kayak's goons are in the comments writing entire essays trying to justify kayak's sophistry, bad argumentation, and bad attitude, and then are like "got'em" when you respond with inviting them to a discord server as opposed to spending hours exchanging paragraphs on a YT comment section, they're literally seething at kayak's loss...this is embarrassing for kayak and his friends, brother John won!
Mumkey Jones, the polytheist OrthoCOPE lost the debate. So now he's trying to convince everyone that he won the debate and inviting his puppets to support him. He even commented with his second account "Artin Javid", lmao. He's truly an immature kid.
problem? also Kayak is going around glorifying himself in the third-person on his YT account, and forget me, and focus on the dozens of other people who thought I won apart from your toxic neo-darwinian community, also you were an "Orthodox Aspirant" just 2 months ago and now you're going around as an unbaptized inquirer damning people to hell like a lunatic, everyone knows that Kayak lost, Eastern Orthodoxy is the Only True Church!
@@artinjavid1987 Stop liking your own comments with your fake and puppet accounts. LOL this is embarrassing. You're a kid who got humiliated by Kayak. Go worship your fake Hindu God. You have nothing against us and the Catholic Church other than barking and calling us "Papist". You're an Emperor worshipper OrthoCOPE. There's a distinction between Eastern Orthodox believers and you as a Hindu polytheist. You aren't even Eastern Orthodox. What you preach is not Eastern Orthodoxy. Also, you should stop checking the comments, I understand that you're nervous and you have to, since you lost the debate, but stop embarrassing yourself, this is so bad.
@@iteadthomam how am I giving myself 20-30 likes as you see in other comments? others see your guy's hypocrisy and they like our comments because were speaking the truth and the truth is that I won and your boy kayak lost, you're just talking out of your ass like you usually do, imagine thinking God is hurling thunderbolts at people for having two YT accounts. All you do is insult and Larp which you never responded too and me, and many other apologists have already refuted your False Papist Religion (which you're not even a part of) just like in this debate where I refuted Kayak to the point where he banned me and then claimed victory when in reality (as the audience has made clear) I won because I defended the true position, the Eastern Orthodox Position and I am an Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christian through the Russian Orthodox Christian Church and I will not betray my faith! also ironic that you want to say these things against me when you're not even a Roman "Catholic", you're just an Unbaptized Inquirer who was aspiring to be Orthodox like 2 months ago but is now running around damning people to hell on your Toxic Neo-Darwinian/Neo-Platonist Larp server outside which nobody thought that kayak had won, also somebody on discord notified me of your retarded comment, do you have a problem with me responding? or are you scared like kayak that i will give a solid response but unlike kayaks server, you pope-worshippers can't ban me when I win the argument, this is embarrassing for you clowns, you guys lost so badly...it's unreal especially considering you guys are probably on your jerk circle discord server nervously talking about me and thinking your dumb comments actually have substance. LOL
@@badtaco14 which audience? you and astro? sorry but dozens of people say otherwise also unlike you guys my statement's have substance hence why when I make them kayak runs away by banning me
I mean 35:22 literally proves Kayak's point that he is using theology not philosophy. When asked what essence or nature is in itself Ortho responds with what essence is with respect to God lmaoo. Perhaps he does not understand that the subject matter of philosophy are things in themselves (such as understanding fire as a substance or understanding fire insofar as its properties and actions are understood) whereas theology understands things not in themselves but in relation to God (such as understanding fire as that which represents God's sublimity), and by this distinction you can obviously see Kayak's point.
@Jacob Power the debate was on a theological subject as even kayak himself admits in calling the doctrine of the Essence-Energy Distinction "PolyTHEISM", so when speaking on theology, you philosophically examine it which is John's great point that theology and philosophy are not divorced, hence he used the philosophical defense of the Churchfathers for a theological doctrine which Kayak couldn't handle hence he banned Mumk mid-debate.
@@gregoryofchalcedon3419 @orthodox John Wow it's great that I get two non-responses in a row, one cheeky comment and another just stating things that are contrary to what I say and not actually having any argument at all. The fact that theology and philosophy are related has literally no bearing on the point regarding John's failure to abstain from theological arguments. The fact that theology and philosophy are related doesn't mean they don't have distinct subject matters lol. Aquinas himself says philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, but there's obviously a distinction between a philosophical and theological argument, the way you people want to look at it is that those two things collapse into one or something. Also to your "THEISM" point you know there is such a thing as philosophical theism, correct? John is appealing to theology insofar as he is appealing to religious figures which expound upon revelational teaching, which is completely separate from philosophical theism which is independent from any particular religion or revelation. Natural theology is a different question because that uses strict philosophical argumentation independently of any religion to arrive at a conclusion, but that's not the kind of theology he's doing either. And with respect to the question on nature instead of speaking of natures as what they are in themselves he tries to define natures by talking about the nature of God, but it's literally the mistake of Euthyphro to respond to a question about the definition of something with a specific instance of that thing like when Socrates asks to define virtue, and this is also obviously the case because everything in the created world has a nature so there isn't even a need to refer to God to define something that is applicable to all created things as well. The point is he never used any actual philosophical arguments at all. There's just so much wrong with his thinking. This is my first introduction to John and it's a pretty poor first impression.
@@TheBrunarr kayak's behavior was very poor in this debate if you want to speak on impressions, and I understand your point except that kayak is roman catholic therefore he has an objective philosophical (which is bound with theology) standard that John was trying to shackle him too, if kayak was an Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Platonist, etc than that is a different story.
@@gregoryofchalcedon3419 You're actually proving something that I had a hunch on. My hunch is that people who think John won the debate think he won based on his conduct, and those who think kayak won the debate think he won because of the content. I couldn't' really care less about the conduct, which is why I generally don't like debates in the first place because of people who put value on conduct and rhetoric over content. A debate is about a point, so whoever makes the best case in substance for or against the point wins the debate, period, regardless of whether they were an asshole about being correct or not or whether their rhetoric was inspiring or not, for example. And I honestly don't even think Kayak won because of his content, but because of the unsatisfactory content of John's.
Kayak lost
Hindus won
huge L for kayak LOL
true
John won, and John absolutely mutilated kayak to the point where he got banned mid debate for his valid arguments Lol, kayak lost so badly...
the comment section and audience is clear, kayak lost!
didn’t know you take a consensus theory of truth
@@cherisebomb nah, it's just that in formal debates specifically the listeners determine who's the winner and in this case they're clear, kayak lost!
@@cherisebomb your "great friend" kayak lost, you guys need to take an L
@@artinjavid1987 i don’t know how that’s different from what i said lmao
John won lol
That sutra part got me
I like how kayak's goons are in the comments writing entire essays trying to justify kayak's sophistry, bad argumentation, and bad attitude, and then are like "got'em" when you respond with inviting them to a discord server as opposed to spending hours exchanging paragraphs on a YT comment section, they're literally seething at kayak's loss...this is embarrassing for kayak and his friends, brother John won!
No one has time to read paragraphs like these what're you doing come on man
Why does Kayak have a female anime pfp lmaoo
this has nothing to do with the debate. once again, keep the comments civil. it's not that hard.
because it comes with being a catholic
@@carbohydratelofton8590 keep the comments civil, not that hard for you to do
Kayak banned Mumkey cause Kayak was malding lol
Why is he groaning and moaning like a girl?? What is he doing behind the screen
you clearly didn't read the description. Keep the comments civil.
Mumkey Jones, the polytheist OrthoCOPE lost the debate. So now he's trying to convince everyone that he won the debate and inviting his puppets to support him. He even commented with his second account "Artin Javid", lmao. He's truly an immature kid.
problem? also Kayak is going around glorifying himself in the third-person on his YT account, and forget me, and focus on the dozens of other people who thought I won apart from your toxic neo-darwinian community, also you were an "Orthodox Aspirant" just 2 months ago and now you're going around as an unbaptized inquirer damning people to hell like a lunatic, everyone knows that Kayak lost, Eastern Orthodoxy is the Only True Church!
@@artinjavid1987 Stop liking your own comments with your fake and puppet accounts. LOL this is embarrassing. You're a kid who got humiliated by Kayak. Go worship your fake Hindu God. You have nothing against us and the Catholic Church other than barking and calling us "Papist". You're an Emperor worshipper OrthoCOPE. There's a distinction between Eastern Orthodox believers and you as a Hindu polytheist. You aren't even Eastern Orthodox. What you preach is not Eastern Orthodoxy. Also, you should stop checking the comments, I understand that you're nervous and you have to, since you lost the debate, but stop embarrassing yourself, this is so bad.
@@iteadthomam how am I giving myself 20-30 likes as you see in other comments? others see your guy's hypocrisy and they like our comments because were speaking the truth and the truth is that I won and your boy kayak lost, you're just talking out of your ass like you usually do, imagine thinking God is hurling thunderbolts at people for having two YT accounts. All you do is insult and Larp which you never responded too and me, and many other apologists have already refuted your False Papist Religion (which you're not even a part of) just like in this debate where I refuted Kayak to the point where he banned me and then claimed victory when in reality (as the audience has made clear) I won because I defended the true position, the Eastern Orthodox Position and I am an Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christian through the Russian Orthodox Christian Church and I will not betray my faith! also ironic that you want to say these things against me when you're not even a Roman "Catholic", you're just an Unbaptized Inquirer who was aspiring to be Orthodox like 2 months ago but is now running around damning people to hell on your Toxic Neo-Darwinian/Neo-Platonist Larp server outside which nobody thought that kayak had won, also somebody on discord notified me of your retarded comment, do you have a problem with me responding? or are you scared like kayak that i will give a solid response but unlike kayaks server, you pope-worshippers can't ban me when I win the argument, this is embarrassing for you clowns, you guys lost so badly...it's unreal especially considering you guys are probably on your jerk circle discord server nervously talking about me and thinking your dumb comments actually have substance. LOL
@@artinjavid1987 sorry bro, nobody has time to read your essays of no substance. Kayak won, the audience decided.
@@badtaco14 which audience? you and astro? sorry but dozens of people say otherwise also unlike you guys my statement's have substance hence why when I make them kayak runs away by banning me
Love your channel cherise! Please upload more 👍
I will when I have some more content that's useful so that I can put my [somewhat] editing skills into work.
Interesting debate.
I mean 35:22 literally proves Kayak's point that he is using theology not philosophy. When asked what essence or nature is in itself Ortho responds with what essence is with respect to God lmaoo. Perhaps he does not understand that the subject matter of philosophy are things in themselves (such as understanding fire as a substance or understanding fire insofar as its properties and actions are understood) whereas theology understands things not in themselves but in relation to God (such as understanding fire as that which represents God's sublimity), and by this distinction you can obviously see Kayak's point.
- Somebody who hasn't read "On The Divine Names" by St. Dionysius the Areopagite
@Jacob Power the debate was on a theological subject as even kayak himself admits in calling the doctrine of the Essence-Energy Distinction "PolyTHEISM", so when speaking on theology, you philosophically examine it which is John's great point that theology and philosophy are not divorced, hence he used the philosophical defense of the Churchfathers for a theological doctrine which Kayak couldn't handle hence he banned Mumk mid-debate.
@@gregoryofchalcedon3419 @orthodox John
Wow it's great that I get two non-responses in a row, one cheeky comment and another just stating things that are contrary to what I say and not actually having any argument at all. The fact that theology and philosophy are related has literally no bearing on the point regarding John's failure to abstain from theological arguments. The fact that theology and philosophy are related doesn't mean they don't have distinct subject matters lol. Aquinas himself says philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, but there's obviously a distinction between a philosophical and theological argument, the way you people want to look at it is that those two things collapse into one or something.
Also to your "THEISM" point you know there is such a thing as philosophical theism, correct? John is appealing to theology insofar as he is appealing to religious figures which expound upon revelational teaching, which is completely separate from philosophical theism which is independent from any particular religion or revelation. Natural theology is a different question because that uses strict philosophical argumentation independently of any religion to arrive at a conclusion, but that's not the kind of theology he's doing either. And with respect to the question on nature instead of speaking of natures as what they are in themselves he tries to define natures by talking about the nature of God, but it's literally the mistake of Euthyphro to respond to a question about the definition of something with a specific instance of that thing like when Socrates asks to define virtue, and this is also obviously the case because everything in the created world has a nature so there isn't even a need to refer to God to define something that is applicable to all created things as well. The point is he never used any actual philosophical arguments at all. There's just so much wrong with his thinking. This is my first introduction to John and it's a pretty poor first impression.
@@TheBrunarr kayak's behavior was very poor in this debate if you want to speak on impressions, and I understand your point except that kayak is roman catholic therefore he has an objective philosophical (which is bound with theology) standard that John was trying to shackle him too, if kayak was an Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Platonist, etc than that is a different story.
@@gregoryofchalcedon3419 You're actually proving something that I had a hunch on. My hunch is that people who think John won the debate think he won based on his conduct, and those who think kayak won the debate think he won because of the content. I couldn't' really care less about the conduct, which is why I generally don't like debates in the first place because of people who put value on conduct and rhetoric over content. A debate is about a point, so whoever makes the best case in substance for or against the point wins the debate, period, regardless of whether they were an asshole about being correct or not or whether their rhetoric was inspiring or not, for example. And I honestly don't even think Kayak won because of his content, but because of the unsatisfactory content of John's.
Kayak (pbuh) won.
kayak made a complete fool out of himself, brother john won!
LOL you're literally kayak's yt account, you (kayak) lost that debate, take an L
Kayak won
@@franzel553 say's literally nobody, kayak lost!
@@artinjavid1987 No I'm not, I'm Korewa Krusader. We're completely different people John.
Go read the sutras
If you're going to speak on Atomism, than yes.
Orthodog polytheism 🤣
this was embarrassing for the kayak dude so far lord have mercy
For Mumkey*
Mumkey say “I’m sure it was because it was on his server 😂” if you think Kayak won and you now agree with ads
I'm sure it was because it was on his server 😂
@@EasternOrthodoxJohn half of the people in the voice chat were atheists or Muslims.
@@EasternOrthodoxJohn Well Kayak was completely correct about you relying on theology over philosophy proper.
@@TheBrunarr wrong!
@@gregoryofchalcedon3419 nah
lul
lel
How
@@Caleb_287 what
who are these people and why does that dude call himself mumkey jones lol