To understand God, God left a teaching authority in his Church. God is a Trinity is that there is one divine nature, one divine substance. A “substance” or “nature” is what something is. God, as a Trinity, exists in three Persons. A person is “who” someone is. In our experience, one human person each possesses one human nature. A husband and wife, no matter how closely united, are still two separate beings. In God, however, three Persons possess the same divine nature. If you were to ask each Person in the Trinity, “Who are you?” each person would answer something differently: “I am the Father;” “I am the Son;” “I am the Holy Spirit.” If you were to ask each Person, “Who are you?” you would get the same answer from each Person: “I am God.” Not, “I am a God,” as a human would say, “I am a human.” Rather, each divine Person, while not identical to the other divine Persons, is one in being with the other two divine Persons and is fully God.
Hahaha. You all don't knoe what to say anymore. Christianity is democracy and always has been. You've been hiding your crusades behind democracy. It's over!
1:04:13 very clear re: liberalism asking more of it's participants than was originally obvious. I feel the S&P 500 is encountering this impasse as well. As companies scale, 'neutrality' of the 'bottom-line' isn't so obvious. We gotta learn to not stab our colleagues to keep the Company going lol.
☦️I only heard it now, I mean what??? Take this lie that we didn't allowed the *shema* for Jews back. This is so outrageous & offensive, how dare you claim such a thing?? "Not Trinitarian"? I mean, what? All Church fathers cherished the Shema & says it is refers to the Father, and we Orthodox say they are infallible! And as I already pointed to you, the term "trinitarian" is a modern one & never existed in our faith. Being a Christian entails a belief in the Trinity by definition, that is all. You claimed that simply for your unitarian confirmation, that is so dishonest. And Muslims, Christians & Jews always had debates with one another, Jake is correct - this is not a trait of Liberalism, only it had certain rules of decency!
@@transfigured3673 You are the one with the burden of proof, then I will debunk it. Have you ever read our fathers teachings about the 'shema'? You think you are coherent saying that the Orthodox Church, who holds every letter in the OT as divine, would reject this fundamental important verse of Moses? I ask you to please take this back. You started this accusation of our Church.
1:41:25 but it doesn't give these rights unless you are an abrahamic monotheists. So Hindus and Buddhists and atheists would be expected to do what exactly?
1:28:49 do we actually know liberalism #1 had to lead to #2? We have basically a sample size of 1 it seems and are assuming that's the only way history can play out. But that took centuries as we saw. Could we be happy with systems that last 2-3 centuries? Or do we need to think at an even longer time scale?
If you unrealistically assume independent treatment effects, different countries went down different paths so we can have a sample size >1. America is in many ways, as Sam notes, the nation that has most preserved Liberalism #1. Sweden is also not bad, UK is shaky And the nations that were Liberalism #2 from their inception are quite bad, France, Turkey. And then there's the question of Marxist/Communist nations and the unclear relationship between those ideologies and other liberal thinkers.
@@marcusshera1232 too unrealistic. Liberalism #2 evolved from #1 basically in the US specifically and then was re-exported, sometimes with #1 but more often on its own. In countries that already had #1 and countries that didn't....
@@marcusshera1232 that is one framing... Interesting approach, because it wasn't proceeded by liberalism #1 exactly Also if our liberalism #2 is just downstream of that then it gets back to the export problem confound
1:13:17 the final answer on where to draw the line is Noahide law. It is the bare minimum of laws that guarantee larger society it compatible with the Tanakh
Interesting verses from the Quran and New Testament worth pondering over: (3/3) *Q83:4* "Do such people not think that they will be *RESURRECTED.”* *Q22:7* "And certainly the Hour is coming, there is no doubt about it. And Allah will surely *RESURRECT* those in the graves." *Q64:7* "The disbelievers claim they will not be resurrected. Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “Yes, by my Lord, you will surely be *RESURRECTED,* then you will certainly be informed of what you have done. And that is easy for Allah.” *Q**7:25* (clear) “He added, “There you will live, there you will die, and from there you will be *RESURRECTED.”* *Q72:7* (clear) “And those ˹humans˺ thought, just like you ˹jinn˺, that Allah would not *RESURRECT* anyone ˹for judgment˺" *Q**36:12* (clear) “It is certainly We Who *RESURRECT* the dead, and write what they send forth and what they leave behind. Everything is listed by Us in a perfect Record." *Q**56:47* (clear) “They used to ask ˹mockingly˺, “When we are dead and reduced to dust and bones, will we really be *RESURRECTED?"* *Q50:2* "˹All will be *RESURRECTED,* yet the deniers are astonished that a warner has come to them from among themselves ˹warning of *RESURRECTION.* So the disbelievers say, “This is an astonishing thing!" *Acts 24:14-16* (LEB) [14] But I do confess this to you, that according to the Way (which they call a sect), so I worship the God of our fathers, believing all things that are in accordance with the law and that are written in the prophets, [15] having a hope in God which these men also themselves await: that *THERE IS GOING TO BE A RESURRECTION OF BOTH THE RIGHTEOUS AND UNRIGHTEOUS.* [16] For this reason also I myself always do my best to have a clear conscience toward God and people.
Interesting verses from the Quran and New Testament worth pondering over: (2/3) *Q**43:59* (clear) “He was only a servant We showed favour to, and *MADE AS AN EXAMPLE* for the Children of Israel." *Q21:91* (clear) "And ˹remember˺ the one who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her through Our angel, ˹Gabriel,˺ *MAKING HER AND HER SON A SIGN FOR ALL PEOPLES.”* *Q**23:50* (clear) "And We made the *SON* of Mary and his mother *A SIGN,* and gave them refuge on high ground-a ˹suitable˺ place for rest with flowing water." *Acts 23:8* (LEB) "(For the *Sadducees say THERE IS NO RESURRECTION* or angel or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.)" *1 Peter 2:21* (LEB) For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you AN EXAMPLE, so that you should follow in his footsteps, Acts 17:30-32 "[30] Therefore although God has overlooked the times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent, [31] because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness by the man who he has appointed, having PROVIDED PROOF to everyone BY RAISING HIM FROM THE DEAD.” [32] Now when they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed, but others said, “We will hear you about this again also.”
Interesting verses from the Quran and New Testament worth pondering over: (1/3) Q38:29 (clear) "˹This is˺ a blessed Book which We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ so that they may CONTEMPLATE ITS VERSES, and people of reason may be mindful." *Q**3:54* (clear) And the disbelievers made a *PLAN* ˹against Jesus˺, but *ALLAH ALSO PLANNED* and *ALLAH IS THE BEST OF PLANNERS.* ----- *Colossians 2:2* (CEB) My goal is that their hearts would be encouraged and united together in love so that they might have all the riches of assurance that come with understanding, so that they might have the knowledge of the *SECRET PLAN* of God, namely Christ. *Acts 4:23-30* (LEB) [23] And when they were released, they went to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. [24] And when they heard it, they lifted their voices with one mind to God and said, “Master, you are the one who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them, [25] the one who said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of our father David, your servant, ‘Why do the nations rage, and the peoples conspire in vain? [26] The kings of the earth stood opposed, and the rulers assembled together at the same place, against the Lord and against his Christ.’ [27] For in truth both Herod and Pontius Pilate, together with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, assembled together in this city against *YOUR HOLY SERVANT JESUS* whom you anointed, [28] *TO DO ALL THAT YOUR HAND AND PLAN HAD PREDESTINED TO TAKE PLACE.* [29] And now, Lord, concern yourself with their threats and grant your slaves to speak your message with all boldness, [30] as you extend your hand to heal and signs and wonders are performed through the name of *YOUR HOLY SERVANT JESUS.”*
1:03:00 I don't understand his argument. He can think the Western nation states have failed but what Muslim countries are comparatively more successful or not failing themselve?
51:54 I think that characterization of liberalism being built for Protestantism was brilliant - showing where the limits get pushed. I do think here its worth differentiating Judaism (even orthodox) from Islam re:how they relate to governments and perhaps why Judaism pushed liberalism the way it did, especially in the 50s-70s in court cases (often with seventh day Adventists) which were toward more liberality (less control of Protestantism of the secular space) and contrast how Islam might push it in a different way. The current set up of both sharia and Jewish courts within the US is almost closer to how Christianity dealt with non-christian autonomy in the pre-enlightenment period, though those religious courts powers are highly curtailed under liberalism. It is interesting to see how the US courts have worked against and with these subsidiary systems and negotiated around them while pushing the limits of their own liberal accomodationism vs imposition
Interesting. I think Judaism had a pretty easy time fitting into American Liberalism because it was mostly similar, but even better, to how Judaism had been living under Christian rule since the Constantinian age. Judaism, unlike political Islam, doesn't have governmental ambitions.
@@transfigured3673 sort of. For almost all that time since Constantine it wanted what the protestants did. Local autonomy and little intervention of state-religion. But judaism evolved to work in the diaspora. Islam is only just beginning to see what diaspora Islam looks like, judaism is just beginning to see what modern Jewish governance looks like. We are moving in opposite directions
@@transfigured3673 it's also not incidental that at first many of the cases Jews brought in the US were not by Orthodox Jews, but by the 70s-80s that shifts
37:00 it might appear that the seculum becomes even more limited over time. As society becomes more individualisyic, the secular isn't just of their age instead of the age to come but limited to the life of an individual and maybe one generation down the line and eventually just to the cycle of an individual life...
The idea is that society would maintain a semblance of decorum where what’s deemed holy will remain holy and not be defamed and lambasted…. Half of the problems in America today are due to sacred stuff being poked fun at and the youth thereby growing up in confusion. If you think you have “freedom of speech” in the USA try criticizing certain sensationalized events that supposedly happened during WW2 or the proclivity of certain minorities to congregate in positions of power… 🤔
The idea is that society would maintain a semblance of decorum where what’s deemed holy will remain holy and not be defamed and lambasted…. Half of the problems in America today are due to sacred stuff being poked fun at and the youth thereby growing up in confusion. If you think you have “freedom of speech” in the USA try criticizing certain sensationalized events that supposedly happened during WW2 or the proclivity of certain minorities to congregate in positions of power… 🤔
@@moosa86 yes, i believe in truth. no, i don't think it needs protecting from the likes of conversation and discussion and debate. no, i don't think a state needs to protect truth from the people nor to protect the people from potential falsity. and regardless, i don't think it even can do that. but does there really exist this supposed dichotomy of either implementing Jake's governance model or leaving truth unprotected? also, do you believe you know the truth without error? it would seem to me that we need other people and their (varyingly flawed) views to refine and improve our grasp of truth. there are things you don't know that you don't know. and how do you arrive at truth, or expect others to arrive at it without open discourse? by force or nominalism? reckon neither is a compelling conversion, or a conversion that occurs through actually coming to know the truth. the finding is in the seeking.
Put simply: “Liberalism is from the devil” *Q**2:11**-12* (clear) (11) When they are told, “Do not spread corruption in the land,” they reply, “We are only peace-makers! (12)Indeed, it is they who are the corruptors, but they fail to perceive it. *Q**2:27* (clear) those who violate Allah’s covenant after it has been affirmed, break whatever ˹ties˺ Allah has ordered to be maintained, and spread corruption in the land. It is they who are the ˹true˺ losers.
@1:54:ish…. The Quran informs Muslims that Christians also have a place in Heaven. God is there Judge and will adjudicate which of them is deserving of Heaven or Hell (theological mistakes and all). *Q2:62* (clear) Indeed, the believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabians -whoever ˹truly˺ believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good will have their reward with their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve.
@transfigured3673 The thing is Christians and Jews who “hear the message of Islam” and choose to remain in their covenant will be judged by God for their deeds, etc. God is not unjust. Just because some guy w/ a beard and kufi invited them to Islam after giving them an elevator pitch doesn’t mean that he’s answered their questions regarding it. Many Muslims don’t even have all the answers and knowledge to satisfy an inquisitive Christian or Jew that are trying to decipher the validity of the Islamic covenant and/or legitimacy of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ If a Muslim invites you to Islam after satisfying your questions, explaining the wisdom contained in the Quran and Sunnah, and showing you evidence in your own scriptures for Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ legitimacy and how the messages align and it stirs your heart to want to convert but you don’t for worldly reasons then this will be something you’ll have to give account for on Judgement Day. Ultimately there’s no compulsion in others converting to Islam. It should make sense to you and be something you desperately want to strive for… not something you feel forced to do or be a part of. Islam doesn’t reject or disqualify the former (very legitimate) covenants that God’s holy prophets (Moses and Jesus Christ) brought humanity…
Sam your intentions are honorable but you are having a debate with an imdoctrinated person. The sunnis have brainwashed him beyond salvation. Everything he is saying about sunny government has proven to be an idealisation that has had a grim contrast in reality. The Taliban are deeply sunnified in their governance and they have brought nothing but misery for their sunny people. Isis was so sunny in its agenda that they Ended up oppressing the sunnis and commiting genocide against the yazidis. When ever your guest says ”islamic governance” he means governance According to the sunny doctrine wherein their leaders would be top rulers while the common sunnis and minoritets, both muslim and non-muslim would be treated as the lowest of creatures. When your guest says that the Quran is engaging with triniarians he is not being completely honest. The Quran is referencing a trinitarian mutation called Philoponus tritheism and the arabian heresy of dual death of both body and soul before day of Ressurection. Here is the academic reference and you should invite prof. Peter von Sivers to your show: www.academia.edu/117163912/The_Arabian_Heresy_A_Neglected_Source_for_Understanding_the_Resurrection_in_Islam
Look, I am a perennialist. I believe that there is some divine truth in Islam. I personally focus my reverence and trust towards the more esoteric form of Islam “Sufism”. Some great thinkers in that field. I am a Christian BTW, but this guy… this guy ain’t it. This guy is every terrible thing about dials personified. He is a fundamentalist in the worst way possibly. Please don’t give him credit as some voice for Islam. And if he is considered a voice for Islam then let me be removed from shy respect I have for that tradition….
@@transfigured3673 my position has nothing to do with some dogmatic idea of perennialism. I don’t even like the term. It’s just a way of explaining I think more then one religious world view is valid. There is truth in many different religious traditions. That word is often used describe people who have a similar world views. Beyond that I don’t consider myself some hardcore devote of “Perennialism”. I think some world views are worthy of respect and others mostly aren’t. I tend to find any world view that considers the murdering of apostates “Jake’s position” to be one that is not worthy or any respect. James Cutsinger was good on this. He believed that Christianity on the whole was a valid tradition. But not ever single tradition within Christianity could be considered valid. Like the Westboro Baptist Church for example. I tend to think the same thing about fundamentalist Islam. Or at least the Islamic tradition he comes from. Any tradition that claims child marriage and the murdering of apostates to be permissible is not a tradition I can give one ounce of respect. There are of course Muslims “they tend to be sufis, but not always” who are great thinkers and I have respect for their tradition. A great example of this would be Charles Upton. Not all paths are valid. Not all paths are valid to the same degree either. And some paths are downright evil. If you worship satan for example I’m not putting your traction on the same footing as a Sikh.
He is not an extremist, but an average Muslim. We do not want your respect. If you dislike people like Jake and myself thats fine, because it doesnt matter eventually
I had no idea you were so passionate about politics, Sam. I've always viewed politics as a sort of substitute for religion. Personally, I believe that Christians should steer clear of politics, although I doubt that will change. I find it surprising that you think liberal democracy helps in promoting truth, especially since Unitarians, I think, would mostly agree that Christianity lost its "soul" after Constantine. Back then, Christians had not only immense religious fervor but also a deep and sincere passion for Christ, even to the point of martyrdom, which is rare to see today. Pre-Edict of Milan, the spread of biblical Christianity was driven primarily by religious persecution, something that goes against the principles of a democratic society. So with that, what are your thoughts on the idea that liberal democracy actually contributes to atrophy rather than the nurturing of true biblical Christianity? Isn't it interesting how trinitarianism gained momentum once religious persecution ceased in Rome? I'm not exactly eager to martyr myself for my beliefs, but perhaps persecution is required for Unitarian Christianity to thrive. It seems like the strategy is to bring cultural (trinitarian) Christianity back into political dominance by using the progressive boogeyman, so Unitarians can become proper targets once again and illuminate the lawn of Mar-a-Lago. Is that your plan, Sam? Just kidding, but not really. Also, I think you are conflating the deism of the founding fathers with Unitarianism. Perhaps you can make a case for John Adams, but even then, it's not clear. I understand that he preferred Unitarian sermons, but did that make him properly Unitarian? I don't know...
I wouldn't say "passionate" really, because I don't particularly enjoy discussing partisan politics. But how political philosophy intersects with religion is certainly most interesting to me. Maybe you are referring to my comments about being a patriotic American and that was surprising. I think some of the founding fathers, especially the Adams family, are better understood as Biblical Unitarian Christians rather than deists, but certainly there was a lot of deism going around too. But even Thomas Jefferson's "deism" sometimes seems to have a much more active role for God than many modern people's "theism"
@@transfigured3673 The reasoning behind the political label (didn't mean offense) was because of your active opposition to woke ideology. Although I see wokeism as problematic as well, I also view it as deliberately provocative, transitory, and a stepping stone to a broader objective that involves a synthesis between both opposing sides. That's why I typically steer clear of culture war debates, and I think all Christians should do the same to avoid being sucked into its ultimate agenda. BTW, I read somewhere John Adams become a Unitarian later in life. Do you happen to know if that was pre or post 1776?
The end result of "liberalism" will be to permit everything. Sam, quite noticeably, deferred to saying things are "complicated" and it is "hard to know where to draw the line" when asked to define a boundary. Liberalism will continue to struggle to maintain any boundaries as various interest groups push for more things to be permitted. And since "liberalism" never actually existed these new found boundaries and beliefs will then be imposed back on Sam.
@@transfigured3673 The evidence all points to the fact that I am right. What reason do you have for hoping that still lies within the liberalism framework?
Sadly I don’t think Brother Jake understands the New Testament reasoning for why “Jesus died for the sins of the world.” Unfortunately many Christians also don’t know even though they use such a statement as a testimony of faith
@transfigured3673 …well if he does he didn’t do a good job representing it. Out of curiosity (and because you’re a Believing Christian) how would you explain to a non-Christian the significance of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion?
@min 53: I just want to correct Brother Jake regarding Christianity having fixed daily prayer times. I believe the term is “canonical hours” and there were originally 7 fixed times of prayer for early Christians. Sadly this practice has fallen to the waist side and is no longer talked about or even known by lay Christians…
Liberalism Number #1 never existed and can never exist. It is just as much a figment of the imagination as the Marxist utopia. The procedure of government/laws are a religious exercise and do impose particular religious views. There is no "view from nowhere" where supposedly unbiased Spock-like people make purely rational decisions and laws. The right to free speech is not encoded into reality nor is the free exercise of religion.
@@williambranch4283 Sure, Saudi Arabia much better for them. But I'm going to guess this guy's sectarianism has limits, and his wife's probably even more. Just sayin'...
@transfigured3673 🤔 you don’t think ole Benny Franklin’s membership in the “Hellfire Club” and/or the occult iconography and symbolism of the Freemasons is a lil bit “suss?”
No. Theres clear verses postulating a theocracy to be the ideal and as servants of God we can not settle for anything less than that. You should look up Quran 12:40 for an answer to your question. That being sad, a theocracy is not mutually exclusive with respecting global order and prioritising harmony over conflict. Muslims are capable of accepting Human Rights conventions and upholding treatises
Liberalism is not and certainly OUGHT NOT be morally neutral. If a religion requires child sacrifice or female genital mutilation, for example, I see no reason why that religion should be respected under a Liberal regime. However, the problems you bring up here with Liberalism are not actual Liberal problems, but Progressive problems. Liberalism demands respect for certain negative rights (the right to be left alone, more or less), but Progressivism demands respect for POSITIVE "rights" (there is really no such thing, but that is what they are calling them), that is, the right to others not just leaving you alone, but positively affirming, both morally and materially, your personal preferences and needs. Calling the latter "Liberal" is a source of confusion and error. It is not. Liberals tolerate, Progressives demand positive approval (in thought and action). So be carful how you present all that stuff, it's easy to misrepresent reality (which is the Progressive way, by the way: misrepresenting reality).
Another relevant detail: When talking about church-state relations pre-Protestantism, it's important to note that it ain't clear that anything like the modern state existed back then.
At 37:30: 1) Liberalism of Grotius, Pufendorf, Hume, Constant, and Smith 2) Liberalism of Rousseau, Locke (I'm being unfair here) , Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson
☦️The Church fathers non of them were unitarians - that is the heresy of Arianism, nor were they oneness persons like most modern western Catholics & Protestants today - that is the heresy of Sabellianism, so you don't know what you are talking about, so let me please educate you with a few points: 1. The early fathers, were perfectly Orthodox, like the Blessed Tertullianus whom I studied all his works, who *coined the terms Trinity & 3 in 1* taught that the Trinity is the Monarchy of the Father, who is the One God, Christ is His Logos, hence eternal & divine, and the Holy Spirit is His Life Giver - 2 different beings & persons, who are subordinate to the Father YHVH the Creator (subordination does not equal unitarianism/Arianism, never condemned in itself as heresy - this is a modern invention by Modalists). That is the Orthodox view FYI taught by *all* Church fathers & explicitly in the Nicene Creed which you misinterpret like they do. The Trinity is the divine relationship which acts as 3 in 1 according to the will of the Father, who is the 'whole' (not some 4th entity the Modalists identify as the divine essence, which is by definition the Father's, which the 2 of course share). 2. Just like we reject those to heretical extremes, Scripture & tradition reject & despise the abomination of Liberalism, enlightment, Modernism etc, so I don't understand how you can say you are biblical & not see the Trinity in the Gospels & Scriptures, then go on to support this evil ideology. Jake is correct, Protestantism is the mother of Liberalism. 3. I am fluent in the Hebrew, and unless you go to the original text, you will never be able to understand it deeply & engage in apologetics with Muslims regarding the OT, hence you come to false conclusions when it comes to Christian doctrines. So I suggest you leave the imaginary invisible Church, convert & come to the true Apostolic Church of Christ, like we have here in Jerusalem, Palestine - like we eastern Orthodox have here, with the Churches of the Greek Patriarchate founded by St. James, and the Holy Sepulchre & Nativity, founded by St. Helena mother of St. Constantinus by his orders. Also we are not "Trinitarians" that is a false modern term - it is like saying Muslims are "Tahweedians", that is a joke, since being a Christian simply entails the belief in the Trinity & the Nicene Creed.
@@transfigured3673I have, you totally misinterpreted them & the Blessed Tertullianus. But I have to command you on correctly saying that St. Athanasius DID believe the Father is the One God & superior, since this is exactly what I am trying to explain to those Modalists I mentioned, who constantly trying to paint him like them, as believing in some Tri-personal being split, reducing the Father to a lil 'g' god or face or whatever word games they want to use, which is defaming the Saints & not to mention a blasphemy against the Father.
Out of curiosity these statements don’t inform you otherwise? *1 John 4:12* (LEB) *"NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN GOD;* if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us." *1 Timothy 6:16* (LEB) "It is *HE ALONE WHO HAS IMMORTALITY AND DWELLS IN UNAPPROACHABLE LIGHT, WHOM NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN OR CAN SEE;* to Him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen." *John 12:44* (LEB) "Then Jesus cried aloud: “Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in *HIM WHO SENT ME."* *John 8:40* "but now you are trying to kill *ME, A MAN* who has told you the truth that *I HEARD FROM GOD.* This is not what Abraham did." *John 5:30* *”I CAN DO NOTHING ON MY OWN.* As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of *HIM WHO SENT ME."* *John 6:38* "for I have come down from heaven, *NOT TO DO MY OWN WILL,* but the will of *HIM WHO SENT ME."*
I will never be able to understand how anyone can convert to Islam. I can see why people are Muslim by birth/culture, but converting? As an agnostic, I can understand conversions to Christianity without problems, but to Islam, nope. Does not compute. Especially today.
@@marcusshera1232 Just to be clear, I am being unfair to Jake the $audi Metaphysician. But that is because he doesn't deserve to be treated fairly and does not fight fairly. Which is an important part of this discussion. Sam is allowing this guy to game the game.
@@marcusshera1232 He is being influenced by Saudi money, that is for sure. The fact he doesn't realize it just comes from his ignorance. Calling him the $audi Metaphysician is far more and better descriptive to an English speaking audience than to call this man a Muslim. He is what Muslims would call a takfiri. But few people know what that is...
As a member of the Assyrian Church of the East, I want to say thank you for doing this discussion. Many people have no clue to our rich uniquely eastern tradition, let alone the exegesis/apologetics/demonstrations of our church Fathers. I would like to point out however that Aphrahat was not a unitarian, but rather that the style of his language may have been crafted differently than that of his contemporaries in the West, given that his target audience was different.
Thanks for listening. I find the Assyrian church fascinating. Check out my latest video on Bishop Mar Mari. I talk even more about Assyrian history. Still think Aphrahat sounds a little like a Unitarian though.
@@transfigured3673 While Mar Mari is respected, and we all prayed for him after his attack, he is not nor ever was part of the Assyrian Church of the East. He was previously part of a splinter group called the Ancient Church of the East. In any case, I'll check out the interview. As for Aphrahat, one has to remember that his dialogue was very much influenced by the post-messianic Jewish community in the region, so his choice of words should be understood within that zeitgeist and that geographic context. Also, generally speaking, early eastern Christianity was much more fluid and less structured in its use of terminology than in the west, as there was no philosophical influence at first.
I understand the complexities around Mar Mari and address that in the video. It's not an interview, just a commentary video. Part of what I like about Aphrahat is that he seems like a window into a Christianity less influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy.
Can you define what secular means? Secular seems to be a Christian concept itself. Therefore, a "secular" government might be duplicitously Christian a la Holland.
seems the diff between Origen and st Max logoi, is theyre already actualized in origen ( Tzamalikos, alludes in his books same), and in the incarnation christ became passible ; meaning there is or should be something to the temporal realm b4 getting lost in Gods activities / energies of immortality, as we dont become God by essence, but by grace
Hello Sam, I will preface this by saying I enjoyed your video, and I enjoy your content in general. You give very good lectures on the Church Fathers and Church history in general. I am an American convert to Shia Islam, and due to that I believe there is no compulsion in religion, and because of that we should have freedom of religion. However I also believe that without religion, or to put it more controversially, in late-stage secular liberalism, we see a complete collapse of morality and family. I, as a Muslim, would fully support a Christian Nationalist or Catholic Integralist government if it came to power. This is because systems such as those would restore, likely by force yes, but would still restore, morality and family, and I see those things as more important than the values of classical liberalism. A society where things like drag queen story hour exist, let alone have legal protection, is an utterly demonized society. A system where such depravities as childhood transgenderism are enforced at gunpoint needs to be fixed, even if that solution is not nice.
