The Protestant Reformation's departure from centralized religious authority and emphasis on individual interpretation of scripture is argued to have contributed to modern societal issues like hyperindividualism and the erosion of traditional authority structures. Historical analysis shows that the Reformation's core issue was not merely about indulgences or papal authority, but about the fundamental question of whether individuals could have assurance of salvation without institutional church mediation. This shift toward individual conscience and interpretation, while initially intended to reform religious practice, is seen by some historians as having paved the way for Enlightenment principles that subsequently influenced modern political and social structures.
Kelly Powers vs. Andrew Wilson Debate Review!本站添加:
Wonder Jesus coming back real soon. Take a look what my Jesus been through. He died for mankind. Although we being crew got a chance to repent, won't let it slip through. I got a dog out of Jesus like I'm a sister. When we preaching the gospel, we preach it true. Trying to give it to an atheist, a Muslim, or a Jew. Yeah. Got to give the Lord's word and give it right cuz he's coming back one day like a thief in the night. Be ready. So hold on to God and keep your face steady.
>> Yeah. This dum made another one.
I call this one the EOX's red ceiling out here just keep pack up and left we ain't kidding all of it dedicated to hurt feelings drama ruled up like a tireless tantrum we down with the TC now I can't stand them when it came to doctrine or prize traditions didn't matter what we believe we ain't Christian so y'all popping just to y say I just woke up yeah we saw that all day that woke time spent. Don't worry about it though. You may have time to repent and even more time to grow. Yeah. Don't want to talk doctrine. I just woke up.
We can pray but you ain't save man. I just woke up. You can't even talk to I just woke up. Did you just call me motistless? I just woke up. You can't b me because I quit. Quit. You can't b me because I quit.
You ain't eo. You ain't eo. You ain't eo. I quit. I quit. I quit. I quit. I quit. Red rose faded white ceiling caves and these boys claiming enlightenment with no priest in sight. It's just a lack of permission because they tradition ain't right. Ro just whine and silence cuz that's all you can do. When you cross the TC, you end up crossing the whole crew. Tradition states that we can't pray together or sing one song.
Can't even say amen. If the vibe feels wrong, hey, this made another one.
I ain't going to like this.
>> Yeah.
>> They call it a corner meal.
>> Everybody mad.
>> Yeah.
>> I said corner.
>> Everybody mad.
Yeah. Same old from the block.
>> They say they in the heart, but they not.
>> They saying that my circle just a hated on them. Then he came back with a problem. I just spent a whole lot of time with the father double my prayers cuz my church ain't making sense. I've been in my parents playing with the incense when they all fell off the boat.
Yeah, I'm talking about fans. I know it's a whole lot of folks I was hating.
I know it's a whole lot of comfort I was faking. So I shut the folks up. I feeling always knew that I was getting so I had to stay patient. Taking over brother tell me what's the solo tell me what it is. You ain't keeping fast buying no books reading no saints. Let a brother live. All I see is visualiz everybody mad.
>> I said everybody mad.
Yeah. Same old eo from the block. They saying but they not.
They circle ain't hard to do. Can you hear me?
>> Now she live it up. My ass girl trying to make me jealous saying that I'm moving worse.
She don't know she like but I'm still in the heard a couple.
Man, I'm tired of being right.
>> This is late, so we got to get down to business.
Let >> the Holy Spirit move.
>> Everybody mad.
>> Everybody mad.
All right, let's get a cracking from the block. They say they in the heart, but they not. They in my circle just die. Everybody hat.
Everybody man, >> wait a minute. Are we live? I think we are. Cuz there's the theme music. Uhoh.
Oh no, I didn't. I was debating whether I should start the show doing this, but those who watched know what I'm talking about. Well, uh, Chad, I'm just going to say something. I think it was from, uh, Jerry Maguire where he tells them, "Oh, you're loving me now, right, Chad? Chad, come on. Tell me. Tell me.
You Christians, tell me you Christian YouTubers, huh? You're loving me now, aren't you? I told you. I told you that there was going to be people jumping into this that had no business jumping in. And I was right. Listen, we have to call a strike, a strike, a ball, a ball, and be honest. What happened tonight wasn't good. And listen, I'm going to be very, very straightforward and honest because I want people to learn from this that just because you can talk or debate something doesn't mean you have the ability or the right to just go out there and wing it.
So, what we saw today was Andrew a little bit more in his element and Kelly took a debate. I don't know why, but did so and couldn't keep up. And that's just it. And I'm going to tell you how this all breaks down, and we'll watch a little bit of it, but this is exactly what I was saying was going to happen.
So, let this be a lesson to some of these folks out here that are just thinking, "Oh, I'm going to go ahead and say debate me, bro." Back to the debate me bros. Cuz sometimes it don't fair out for you. All right? And I'm not being mean. I'm not being mean, okay? I'm being real. I'm keeping it real. And if this is your first time here, welcome.
This is the cartel of truth. And I am your host, the Moller, the unapologetic apologist, inequivocating evangelist, the poignant pundit, the uncancellable conservative. And why can't I be cancelled? Well, in the end, if you tried to cancel me or report me, you would be a racist because in the end, I'm just a dumb Mexican. So, if you're going to try to cancel a dumb Mexican, well, the Lord be with you because there's a bunch of people that are going to be like, "No, Mer's just a Hispanic.
Let him talk. What we saw today is going to be an example of what not to do or how not to approach something. Listen, just study some material, get some basic ideas of arguments, and then you can have at least a decent conversation.
That didn't happen today. I don't know what this was, but I told you that the conversation was going to be steered by Kelly Powers when I saw they sent me the debate topic or whatever it was. He was going to say sin.
And I'm pretty sure Andrew knew that.
And if he didn't know that, well, I mean, I don't I don't I don't think he didn't know that, but he knew that. So, it was sin versus Andrew trying to make the argument. Now, the argument that he's making is a historical argument.
Um, it's just the view of history. It's opinions on how things shake out. And sure enough, there's going to be sin that's going to skew the intentions uh or the best intentions of the best, let's say, philosophical movements, religious movements, whatever it may be.
Okay, but can can I just say something, chat, man? Already in the Discord, you guys are killing me, bro. You guys are killing me.
Somebody drop Kelly power outage, bro.
Kelly unplugged.
You guys, you guys are relentless, bro.
Okay, but the listen the whole the whole staredown for however long it was. I I just I can't believe it, man. I can't believe it, man. Like, man, I'm tired of being right, chat. All right, let's get into this chat because this is crazy.
This goo this this this debate. We're just going to kick off and just start watching it. We just watched it right now, but you're just going to have to watch a little bit of it with me. And this is a late stream, so it's, you know what I mean? I I get it. Everybody's like, they don't got time right now, but this is not good. This isn't good. And it's going to be an opportunity for people to basically say there's somehow some sort of connection to, you know, uh, Kelly's philosophy, viewpoint, or let's say lack lack of understanding of what the conversation was about. Uh, and he just it just it's unfortunate. But, um, let let's go let me go ahead and share the screen and we'll just jump into Let me get my screen set up, right?
Let's just jump into the video. Um, let me do this.
Let's just watch this uh from the top.
Uh, Andrew pulls up and then we're we're just going to see a little bit of this conversation and then uh I just I want to give my comments, but chat uh I just want to know right now in the chat. Okay, this is why I told you guys we don't do we don't do this fluff stuff. And I I understand that certain people may have been charitable with the way um I handled myself with with Andrew Wilson because they think that, you know, we're on the same side in a certain debate. I I I never asked anybody to do that. And most people ignored it. They didn't even want to show our conversation. So I would never go, "Hey guys, what you need to do is you need to be nice to me because we're on the same team." That's not how this works. Truth is truth.
So, um, I I I I I'm trying to tell you guys they they weren't loving me before, but they're loving me now. Okay. So, let me show you.
Uh, we'll kick this off here in the first couple minutes, but I just I just want to tell you that Kelly I don't know what the strategy was. And by the way, Kelly could have messaged me and asked me like, "Hey, what's going on?" But he's not going to do that. he wouldn't do that and I understood it. You know, I don't have anything against him, but you know, if he wanted to prove his point and make make uh Andrew's claim uh uh actually come out with evidence, meaning be tested, bring out the different uh historians that are going to, you know, reference history and the way that um that they blame the Protestant movement, hyperindividualism, and all that stuff.
I mean, he should have pressed that, but I think that he lost track of where everything was going and then went off the rails.
Um, and then to throw him off because, you know, he was acting a certain way.
Well, you should have known that. But let's get into this uh uh video just the first couple minutes here because I just want to, you know, I don't want to spend too much time on this because I know what the play is going to be now. This dude's going to be clipped to no end.
And watch the ratios of the clipping.
So, I was sent a message by somebody who I do respect and this person said, and oh, by the way, other people in the Discord said it, so I want to give a shout out, too, is that they noticed that the conversation between me and Andrew has almost kind of disappeared.
You know what I'm saying? It's like all of a sudden it doesn't really exist. You guys notice that? Somebody was telling me they're like, "I'm surprised the clipping wasn't out there. What happened?"
Well, this is what happens now. This is going to be clipped for eternity. I'm going to keep it a whole buck. This is going to be clipped for eternity.
And you you know, sometimes you got to think about that. All right, so let's play this video. We'll just watch a little bit here. Let me let me move it though.
I hope he I don't think he's going to take it down. I don't imagine he would.
Let's go 125 on it and watch a little bit >> on other issues. So, um I agreed to this one. So, anybody else is popping up here, guys? Don't don't come up here, please. Nobody else in the background.
Okay. I knew I was going to do that.
That's how that was going to work. So, Andrew, welcome here. Um, what are your thoughts of how the format's going to go?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Real quick, tell me tell me real quick. Uh, >> freeforall.
>> How's the video? Uh, is is the sound okay?
>> Yeah, the power outage is great, chat.
The power outage was great. That's crazy. All right. Does it sound okay or is it doubled?
Yo, what's up? I can't even see you guys' news. It's good. Okay. All right.
So, let me actually forward a little bit because they they let's get into it over here where they're actually talking already.
>> Does it is it erodess institutions over time and the authority of institutions over the time for the idea of self and the idea of egalitarianism uh over and individualism over the idea of having actual authority or some sort of centralized authority around governance.
And so that's well how it links in with problems of today.
Okay. So in your opinion then what you're saying is you're just saying that the protest reformation had a hand in it. But what would be in your opinion then the major cause for our dysfunctional society today? You wouldn't say it is the Protestant Reformation, would you?
>> It's a well I wouldn't put anything in a monolith. But I I think it's a it's an it's a whole bunch of different issues together. But I do think that the Protestant Reformation had a large hand in it. Yes. because of the starting point of the erosion of centralized authority, which is still a tradition kept to this day by most mainstream Protestant denominations.
>> Now, what in your opinion, if you remember, and and I know you don't like to debate Bible or theology, so I'm not going to try to that's not my intention to force that on you anyway. Um, >> and and I'll just say something. Kelly was trying to start out to stick to the topic and not go to scripture. But what did he he quickly he quickly went to the sin argument right now? All all Kelly simply needed to do was just keep pressing them on the evidence. So in other words, produce the evidence. In other words, this particular debate is simply an opinion or opinions of let's say a group of uh mainly historians or even philosophers that can see over time that certain philosophies uh produce or or or u affect cultures and you know religion practices society.
and he could have just pressed him for the evidence and he began to there for a minute and then he lost his way. So right here they're going fine and I figured they were going to go to fine.
They're going to try to they're going to try to be going back you know trying to doing this thing where you know we can be we can be boys, we can be friends and that's good. Um, but you it starts to quickly just shift when Kelly loses his way and then Andrew sort of goes around, you know, around with him, takes a walk around this park that he wanted to walk and they kind of both get lost and then they both get frustrated >> not wanting to submit to the Pope's authority and to keep on going along with the indulgences. You don't think that was a good thing for them to stand up against?
>> That that has no bearing on anything.
Whether I think it's good, bad, or indifferent, I'm telling you what is reason why they kind of protested.
>> I don't care why I'm telling you what is >> so you think it's okay to just go along with you understand that me telling stop no please don't tell why a thing is >> I didn't interrupt you when you talk let me talk for a second okay >> you're strong manition I didn't interrupt you I let you talk freely give me a second here I'm trying to get from you >> I'm trying to get from you just an honest answer >> it's irrelevant >> you may not agree with protestants relevant to the debate >> no that's the whole point you you brought up Bingo. Bingo. Right here. This is real simple. Bingo. Real simple.
Yeah, that's all.
He didn't even have to go there. He could just say, "Well, that's great.
Whose opinion?" Well, this person's opinion, this group of historians. Oh, really? That's great. Well, I have all other group of of historians that would say the opposite.
And all movements are corrupted. you know, we could say centralized authority turns into authoritarianism. It turns into um you know, what we see in history, especially the 20th century.
That's all that's all he kind of had to do. And he started to do it cuz he was trying to frame the papacy. So, I think his idea was, hey, you guys were against the papacy, so was the Protestant movement, so we're kind of buds in that way. But it didn't work. He got thrown off.
Um Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I would I would have definitely done better. You should go watch the debate that nobody's clipping of your boy getting torched. Is this one of these uh one of these uh uh what do we call them? What do we call the Andrew Wilson followers? Wil Wilson's Wilsons. S O Ns. Is that what we're going to do? We're going to call Wilson's. So, is is that your daddy Wilson?
Is that your daddy Wilson? Is that what's going on here? This is crazy.
uh dropped the what a clip short. Oh yeah. Yeah. The the one that didn't didn't do didn't do anything was like uh Mer's so bad.
Yeah. Listen, um um I don't know where where the side conversations are going to go uh with with this particular debate, but I want to point something out that Kelly, it looks like he had a plan, but where I I said that it was going to go arai even if he stuck to it was he was going to go to sin too early and he did. He made it all about sin, right? and then that he wasn't going to be able to deal with the antics because technically what happened was he quit from the debate with that staredown for 20 minutes. I don't know what that was, right? It was both of them essentially not running away but kind of running away. That's what's happening.
>> Both running away but they're both there.
>> So I don't know what that was but >> so uh but that that's all he needed to do. So I'm trying to be fair here. Okay, I'm not trying to beat up Kelly or say something that's wrong, but that's all he had to do because these are these are grand claims and they're going to be claims from historians that that would view history in this in this certain light. But they're going to discount that let's say the Reformation had authority structure or that it didn't say that, you know, uh this hyper individual autonomy or whatever hyper autonomy, whatever it is they call it.
There's a bunch of different names out here. um that that's what the uh that's what the reformers were even teaching. So I I want to do something. Okay. I want to show you guys this is a this is a huge mischaracterization of the reformation.
Okay. And what I'm going to show you here, let's see if I can actually bring this note into a web page. Can I do that? Nope. Or certainly can't. All right. Let me see if I can pull this quote because I just have it pasted. But much much like um Kelly and and others who like look at the Reformation and study it. I want to make this point.
Okay. Many people think that the Reformation was simply about the papacy or indulgences.
Right? So here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to try to give you an accurate view of the actual historical claim made by the people involved in the reformation.
Right? So, if I have evidence quotes that could combat uh Wilson's assertions, then I'll use those as they come up appropriately. So as the conversation shifts and he wants some evidence to combat let's say his historical uh um uh his historical assertions or not his I'm sorry but his view that he aligns with historians that make this sort of connection that the the enlightenment and the the um the reformation were just you know there were bedfellows and all this or that it led to that. I want to share with you that the reformation in the end according to Luther came down to a departing. Listen to this. A departing of actual tradition.
Now most people won't tell you that.
What they'll say is no it wasn't. It was the actual abuse. It was the indulgences. It was the the uh you know the persecuting of or the silencing of different Christians. It was about, you know, uh, people wanting the Bible and they wanted to print it and, you know, they they'll give you all kinds of reasons, but I'm just going to tell you, um, Luther actually in his conversation with Arasmus gives you the reason. So, I'm just going to read a quote cuz I I can't pull it up, but this is the words of Luther speaking to Arasmus and their debate.
Okay? And this is what he says. the essential issue.
Um, and it says, "I give you," this is Luther speaking to Arasmus, "I give you hearty praise and commendation on this further account that you alone in contrast with others have attacked the real thing. That is the essential issue." Listen to this.
You have not worried me with those extraneous issues about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and such like trifles. This is Luther.
Luther is saying smokec screenre all of those red herrings.
But wait a minute, he's the guy, the central guy that kicked this whole thing off. So is he saying in the end this was just what? the product, the logical entailment of what? What he says the reformation is really about. So he says indulgences and such like trifles. You and you alone have seen the hinge on which all turns and aimed at the vital spot.
Arasmus this commentary had understood the issues clearly and went straight for the jugular.
This is what Luther is saying. Luther is saying this is all about free will.
Luther in the end was saying that they had departed from the sociological tradition of Augustine or Augustine, however you want to say it. And because of that, they've allowed this idea that a person could potentially not be secure in Christ or fall away. And therefore the abuses through the papacy of purgatory the the the creation of or the accretion or whatever you want to say in Christian history of a doctrine like the purgatory right or purgatory indulgences and as he put it such like trifles.
So what are we really talking about right now is that if you look at history, if you start to examine certain things, anybody can construct a claim and anybody can assert certain things, but you need to build the case with evidence.
So if the evidence is that individualism or hyperindividualism, whatever you want to call it, egalitarianism, which is, you know, let's say rights or rights with no um duties or responsibilities, and that's what came out of it. That's why you have what you have today, which is even a loss of of, you know, uh of of uh identity or hyperberalism, whatever you want to call it. You have to be able to build that case with the evidence.
And so you could just easily ask him, "Where where did you get this?" And how did you come up with this? Well, this historian mentions this and then just have a historian or quote the actual uh reformation, the intention. And then you could at best in this conversation chat have the person leave going, "Oh, so what you're saying is that others hijacked this movement or took a piece of it and ran with it and twisted it." That's easily what he should have done. And I thought he was possibly going to do it, but I didn't have high hope. And he didn't.
So let's continue. If they can't even admit that the origin that they were going against the Catholic Church of doing wrong things, then how can you say the Catholic Church does anything?
>> And then look at this what the brother said here. Again, we're not going to we're not going to crush this. Worth mentioning that Luther loved the church.
He wanted to uh exercise uh corruption, meaning basically get it out.
uh from it got uh what is this? Leave it. They excommunicate him. He also never meant for the 95 thesis to go quote unquote viral. Yeah. Uh agreed. But what he was saying is just as Andrew is making the argument that you know the the uh individualism that came out of or questioning central authority or absolute central authority through the reformation how that turned into okay there's now no central authority at all.
We've lost it all and now society is just, you know, literally uh relativis uh relativism is just taking over and it's hyper and now you can't even tell me uh if the sky is blue anymore because it's going to be like, well, what kind of blue? Right? So, everybody can make these points. You have to be able to prove the case. And so, I just think that Kelly started this and he I don't I don't I think he lost grip because right here he's still doing it. Watch.
>> Wrong at all. It's irrelevant. What's the debate topic? It's not irrelevant.
What's the debate topic? What's the debate topic? What is it?
>> Well, we're going back to the origination, right?
>> Debate topic.
>> Hey, buddy.
>> This is not my first rodeo. And I'm not going to get bullied by you. I'm not going to get bullied by you. I want to have a conversation.
>> Topic. Can you tell me?
>> All right. You can make yourself look like a [ __ ] That's fine. Tell me the debate. I'm trying to have a conversation with you. I'm not Mer. I'm not these other guys.
>> Wait.
Wait. What? Chad?
Did I just catch a stray chat?
Yo, did did this dude just did he just bring me I was just chilling. I said the computer say what just happened, bro.
Yo, Kelly, what do you mean by I'm Matt Muller, bro? What is this?
What is this?
What What is he doing? Did you see this?
Like I'm I you know I'm kind of hurt. I I I I'm going to honestly say I'm hurt.
I'm not Mer. What does this mean? Chat, help me figure this out. We have to figure this out. Chat.
Chat. Yo, what's up with my screen? What does this mean? Tell me.
Does this mean what? Um I could go at it with him toe to toe. What? What does this mean? I'm a jerk off. I'm not Mer.
What does that mean, chat?
He assumed Mer made Smokey man angry.
Maybe he's definitely not Mer. Uh, he just said you got bullied. Is that what he said?
What?
No.
Hey, we I could cry all the time. I said you got to cry. V. You got to put on the actual track. I said, "What do you know, homes?" It says, "Catholics don't really matter." Oh, here we go. I'm going to join a state. Uh, what? And stare at you for 15 minutes. Huh? Gay.
>> Hey yo, >> I want to know why I got called out.
Chat, please tell me.
It means he thought that it would be better than you. That he would Is that what he Yo, chat. No. No way. No way.
Let me Let me at the record scratch. It means he thought he would be better than me.
Mwah.
Bro, what is going on here?
Mer got bullied. Nah, that was a joke.
That hadn't been a joke.
This is This is crazy.
Maybe I should just Let me Let me message.
Oh, he's only on Facebook. Huh? I haven't I don't even think I can log into Facebook. Sorry.
Um, anyways, maybe somebody can ask Kelly what he meant. But, you know, I'm kind of hurt.
I'm kind of hurt because if that's what he meant, well, got some explaining to do. That's my interpretation. Well, I mean, you're pretty good at interpreting this stuff.
Um, that that's what What are you talking about? We I literally answered all his questions for for two hours.
Oh, this is one of those Wilsons, the little boys.
Wilsons.
But he threw me under the bus, bro, for no reason. Like, I was just chilling watching and then all of a sudden, maybe he maybe he was just like, "You know what? I'm I didn't like the way Mer did, so I'm going to go ahead and take a shot." All right, just tell me the debate topic.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Can you actually answer a question?
>> If you answer what the debate topic is, I'll answer relevant questions.
>> This is not talking about the process information. Yes or no?
>> No, it's not specific.
>> You brought this up, my friend. You put the words Protestant Reformation had a big hand in our thing. So I'm going back to where it all st started.
>> Tell me tell me the >> right here. He's still on point. He hasn't lost his way. He could have just stayed there. Been like, "What's the chat about? Why did you bring it up?" So let's dive into what you think the fundamental elements, moves, the principles that were being espoused by the the Reformation fathers and let's talk about it. I mean, I think that if he wasn't prepared for that, he shouldn't have. You should have just kept asking him, "Where's your proof?"
>> You have to prove from when it started.
>> You tell me the debate. The problem.
>> Tell me the debate topic.
>> You have to prove that.
>> Tell me the debate topic.
>> You tell me the debate topic.
>> Okay, great. I'll tell you the debate topic. Did the Protestant Reformation have a hand in problems of modernity?
Whether Protestantism justified or not has nothing to do with that [ __ ] topic, dork. Now, do you want to argue the topic?
>> I knew you couldn't last too long enough.
>> Do you want to argue the topic or not?
>> No, I do. I want to get to the origins of why they protested. So, it's irrelevant. you at least to say originally started with.
>> It's irrelevant.
>> Okay. How is it relevant?
>> Because it's biblical. We're talking about what >> has nothing to do with the debate topic, dude.
>> No, no, it does. The cross reformation started because of what they believe the Bible teach because of the papacy bad authority.
>> That's nice. What does that have to do with the debate topic?
>> Are you going to have any type of decency here?
>> Yes. As long as you stick to the debate topic that we agreed to.
>> Yeah. But I'm not going to play by your rules. I can ask questions. You can ask questions that are the debate topic. I can ask questions that go back to the origin of when it first started and just ask you simple questions. I don't think it's that.
>> Yeah, you can ask me simple questions that are relevant to the topic of the debate.
>> So, so you don't think it's relevant to know why it originally started, but you can criticize Protestant Reformation last 500 years because you just think you can criticize them.
>> Let me ask you a question. During the Holocaust, did 6 million Jews die?
>> Uh, yes, I did. Yes, they did.
>> Oh, okay. Is it relevant to for you to know that to know how World War II started or not?
>> The answer is no. You don't need to know how World War II started to know that six million Jews died in the Holocaust.
See how that works?
>> Well, actually, that would be why did it start.
>> Don't play that game. Why did it start?
>> Uh, World War II started for a whole bunch of >> Why did World War start? Tell me why.
>> Say I would say it started >> right here. This is it. This is it, chat.
Why did the World Wars start, chat? All right, everybody. Let's get ready. You ready? Go ahead, chat.
What is the word that Kelly is going to move to way too early in this debate?
Could have just said, "Let's get back to the topic and prove the topic. Show me your sources. Let me see your argument.
I'd love to hear it."
Oh, look at what we have here.
Sin. Sin.
The sin argument.
That's That's It came up too quick. Too quick.
Too quick.
They're fighting World War II. That's facts.
Oh, man. I tell you. I tell you. All right. So, he brought up the s word.
Let's go back. Let's see where he goes.
Because right here is where I told you he went left, Andrew went right, and then we're going to get the famous gay staredown >> around Hitler invading Poland.
>> And why did he do that?
>> Uh because he wanted to see a reunified Germany.
>> And why did he want to do that?
>> For well, he had a whole host of reasons. Uh the Treaty of Versailles, things like this.
>> Uhhuh.
>> But none of that's relevant.
>> What's the cause? But if the debate topic were in, >> what's the cause? Million Jews die in the Holocaust, the cause of the war would have no bearing. It would It has a top. Why did 6 million Jews die?
>> Cuz they killed them.
>> Why did they kill him? Why did they kill him?
>> For a whole host of different reasons that they justified.
>> Can you come up with at least a good one?
>> Uh because they they wanted him out of the country. They wanted him out of the nation or they saw him as a threat or any number of different reasons.
>> You know, I I hope that you would agree with my my my answer here.
>> Oh my goodness.
Oh my goodness.
Uh the effects, not the cause. Well, I I I just like I said, he was on track and then he says, "Well, I'm just gonna because Andrew rattled him a little bit with the I think did he cuss or something?" I forget what he said to him. I think he called him stupid or something too, right? I forget. The point is he's already got him thrown off. He should have stayed on. Well, prove your assertions like actually show me what you're talking about. So he could lay out the case and then he could say, "Well, isn't it the case you can do this?" Well, isn't it the case that there are historians that disagree? In fact, those that review the uh principles, the authority behind uh the reformation, how it was created, put together, the opinions of those reformation fathers uh would disagree with, you know, let's say that view or you know, a particular uh uh enlightenment claim. It's a it's a contradiction. Just have that in your back pocket. Well, here we are. is because we are a fallen humanity. We're depraved. We are sinners, right?
>> I don't care about your preaching, dude.
I don't care about the debate topic.
>> You came to my channel. That's all my channel.
>> The channel you told me.
>> So, you don't want to answer a simple question of why we are fallen people.
>> Not relevant today.
>> No, no, no. We are all fallen people.
Yes.
>> How's that relevant to the debate topic?
>> No, it is perfectly relevant. We're talking about we're talking about a dysfunctional society.
>> Great.
>> It is relevant because we're sinners.
Correct.
>> Uh even if I grant it still wouldn't be relevant to the debate topic. You can't even grant that we're sinners.
>> Yeah, sure. We're sinners. How's that relevant?
>> Romans 1 teaches about mankind.
>> How is this relevant?
>> Because that's the anything that's relevant of dysfunctional society has to do with what? Sin.
>> Okay, sure. But there's going to be a sequence of events which also lead through historic prison.
>> What causes all these events, Andrew?
What causes them?
>> Great. Okay.
>> What happened with Noah? Why did Why did God have to wipe out the whole world almost with Noah? Andrew, why do you have to do that?
>> I'm glad that we were dysfunctional then, Andrew World, sir. Were they dysfunctional with no >> World War I soon?
>> What about the work soon?
>> Andrew, were they dysfunctional with Sodom Gomorrah?
>> Uh who the Sodom the Sodommites and the and the uh Sodom Gomorrah?
>> Yeah. Yeah. What about it?
>> Were they Were they a dysfunctional society back then?
>> Yeah, sure.
>> Why were they dysfunctional?
>> Uh because they weren't adhering to the edicts of God.
>> What does that even mean?
>> It means that essentially they broke the idea of hospitality and tried to essay an angel. And so when they did that, God got really mad and he blew them up.
>> Okay. So they were sinning, doing homosexual activities.
>> Uhhuh.
>> Same thing with Noah, >> right?
>> What was the first sin in that in the Garden of Eden with with Adam and Eve?
What did >> the origin of all what they're asking him about all these different scenarios with sin? Made his point. Now he's I guess trying to this is his version of filibustering. I don't know. I don't know. But remember when we were having these conversations about real dialogue of, you know, these people wanting to talk about authority, doctrine, and all of this, right? And I say these people, I'm talking about the Orthobos, not the Eastern Orthodox, right? Everybody wanted to raise their hand and jump in and pretend, okay, I know these topics.
I mean, Kelly was like a week ago was getting torched on X because he he didn't he didn't know how to, you know, he didn't know what how to say the Philly Oak way and and then he decides, all right, let me just challenge him on any debate. I I I don't know. I don't know what was going through his head, but if he would have just stuck to the basic game plan, it would have been it would have been over. He'd have been struggling to pull up the authority that he has. the historians like okay so these are your historians this is random or as they say it's arbitrary right this would have been very very simple but he didn't do that and uh in the discord those that are there I told you guys he was going to bring this up I told uh JP and others I said that they were going to bring up uh Kelly was going to bring up sin that was going to be his argument and here we are 21 minutes into this video and now this is where he's going to go. Just sin and then talk about sin throughout the Bible.
>> Have to do with the debate topic >> because if we're going to talk about a dysfunctional society, we have to get to the root of it.
>> Okay. So, you're just saying that the pillar of this is sin. Great.
>> Do you agree or disagree?
>> Sure. What does that have to do with the debate topic though? How does that tie into the Protestant Reformation's erosion of authority which has led to most of the modern I would say well maybe not most but at least many. Give give me the proof that you think the big hand >> in our modern society is caused by Protestant Reformation. What's your proof of that?
>> The fact that it eroded central authority inside every single western nation >> right here. It's back on it.
>> Okay. Do you want it?
>> Sure. Do you want to go through the various philosophers who were Protestants who egalitarianism? That's evidence that Protestant Reformation is the big hand of cause in our modern day society.
>> Because the historians broadly agree that the idea behind why it is that most central authorities began to become questioned moving into the enlightenment period was due to the Protestant Reformation unempowering the church by moving away from the church and arguing against centralized authority when it came to scripture and the gospel. And >> and which church was that? The Catholic church. Right.
>> The one that they moved away from. Yes.
>> Right. And and was that a good or bad thing in your opinion?
Um, what does that have?
>> That was the best question he asked right there. Did you guys catch it? Did you guys catch the best question that he asked? It was right there.
Was that a good thing?
Did you guys you guys know why that was the best question?
Yeah, you got it, Zanzi. Why? because they seem the Protestants in Eastern Orthodox seem to be betfellows.
They seem to have been sharing this dislike of central authority and they were what? Rebelling. They had their own rebellion in 1054, I believe.
So, right there. So, Kelly picks up on a good question. And I'm like, "All right, maybe this is going to go cuz Andrew's not like spazzing out, you know, or calling him names." I'm like, "All right, this can go for another hour on this and maybe he can actually get him to provide the evidence and really put meat on this argument." You know what I mean? Flesh, you know what I mean? Uh, so like build it out cuz it's just a skeleton. So he got him. He's uh uh look look watching.
Well, if it was not good means they should have still kept, you know, listening to the false teachings and authority has nothing to do with good.
>> Look, look, look what >> um what does that have to do with anything?
>> What church was that? The Catholic Church, right?
>> The one that >> Okay. So, he's going to ask them the the best question. Ready?
>> That they moved away from. Yes.
>> Right. And and was that a good or bad thing in your opinion?
>> Um what does it have to do with anything?
>> Done. Right there.
Then it has What do you mean? Aren't you arguing that it's a bad thing?
Well, my opinion doesn't matter. Wait, what?
You guys see it? This was it. That was the question. That could have steered the conversation over to proof, more evidence. Build it out because now you're in a contradiction, sir.
It's real easy.
In fact, you can make arguments against even the the structure the structure authority of the church that he's a part of. doesn't doesn't operate.
Um what? There's no ecumenical counsel on who left. Yeah.
Well, that's facts. They just stopped talking.
>> Well, if it was not good means they should have still kept, you know, listening to the false teachings and authority has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church. It has everything to do with it. It has everything to do with >> What does it have to do with it?
Anything.
>> Does it have to do with anything? Has nothing to do with anything. You either have to say they made a wrong decision and they should have stayed.
>> Why do I need to say that? This is a descriptive claim, not a prescriptive claim. Good batter.
>> We challenge you, Andrew.
>> Wait, what?
>> Wait, what?
>> You're ch he's a Kelly asking him the question as to whether he agreed with it is the principle behind his argument.
And I think Kelly was on it, had it, was pushing. And then Andrew, this is where this is where things shift again.
Andrew, you're the one that made the claim.
>> Do you want historians? Do you want me to utilize historians? Do you want me to utilize historians? Because what you're trying to What you're asking me for is a normative claim. That's >> I'm asking for proof. My turn. My turn.
Hang on. Calm down.
>> You're asking me for a You're asking me for a normative claim. That's ought should That's normative. I'm talking about descriptive.
>> Okay. But you haven't told me whether it's or whether it's good that they would go ahead and disregard the central authority of the papacy.
So is it is it good?
I'm wondering because I'd like to see how you would justify any other authority structure after that. What are you claiming? Are you claiming that there was abuses by a central uh uh uh structure or the monarchical structure of the of the church or the pope or whatever whatever it is that your reformation your schism was about. Do you agree with it? Okay. Now you have a comparison but that would be something you have in back pocket and then let him build this case.
Uh yeah we I mean you're going to have to define everything with these guys but I'm just saying you see it. So, Kelly has the right idea. This is this is where people were back and forth. We were commenting in Discord where people were like, "Okay, he's okay here." Yes.
If he doesn't if he doesn't lose it, ask him to prove it. And I gave him I gave him points. In other words, right here is where I'm like, if he stays right here, this will be good because now Andrew is going to have to be consistent. He's going to have to be consistent with his argument, right? So, it's like when Andrew pulled up and says, "You don't do apologetics.
I'm here to defend Jay Dyer's claim that you are nothing but grifters because you don't defend your faith. And then I said, "Let's prove it. Ask me questions." No, I want to ask you the way I want to ask him. Well, you can ask me the questions you want, but you're going to have to answer mine.
So now, if he doesn't want to ask me the questions and engage, then now he's a grifter.
Now he's the person that's just lying because I'm willing to be interrogated about what I believe. So when you show the inconsistencies and you're able to throw him off the balance of his argument, right? And then he starts to go, "Oh, dang. That's going to make me look I'm here. I have the opportunity."
And this is what Kelly was doing just for five to 10 minutes. Not even. It was more like five minutes.
>> Descriptive is not. Stop. Stop.
Descriptive is not ugh. Descriptive is not should. Those are normative claims.
This debate is about descriptive claims, not normative claims. So, if you want to ask for a burden of proof, that's fine and fair and I should stop and I'll provide those.
>> Just say stop. I'm almost done. Then you can talk, dude.
>> That's fine. Just stop, dude. 5 seconds so I can finish and then you can talk.
>> You did say this is a free-for-all. I'm not done. Just stop talking for 5 seconds.
>> My goodness.
>> My point is when you make when you make a normative claim, right? This isn't about normative claims. My is or mys have nothing to do with this. This is about descriptors. So if you want descriptive evidence, we can go through the descriptive evidence.
Yes.
>> Just give me something. What's your best evidence that you would say in our modern day was caused by the Protestant Reformation of a >> Okay. body language says a lot. He's off. He got thrown off with that question. Since that question, Andrew is not doing so well.
Yeah. The normative Yeah. Normative claims has nothing to do with that. It's just that's just literal u rhetoric talk to try to throw him off to use a term where he's going to be like what do you mean normative claims and then he wants to debate normative claims. So Kelly didn't bite it. But did you see you guys saw the question that started this where I was giving credit and I was saying okay if he sticks to this this will be good but now he's he's abandoned that question and look where he's at. He's now he's now off the trail >> functional society. You didn't say it was caused by I said it had a large hand in it because >> I would have paused to just get back to the question. So answer the question according to your view are you saying that there is a time in history where a group of individuals can raise their fit to c fist to central authority right centralized ultimate authority and say you have got it wrong. We are out of here. Yes or no? Is that good or not?
And then he's gonna say, "Sometimes it is." Ah, sometimes it is.
Interesting. Boom. Criterion. We'll have that. We'll have that debate a little bit later cuz you said yes. You said yes.
All right. So now you're going to have to qualify all of that. But that's assuming you can build out this case.
You're going to have to build out the case with evidence. And then you're going to have to go in to see why this particular case fits the criterion which seems to be a contradiction to your your your your basis your foundation of your argument is that anytime individuals get together and say hey this authority has gone arry and we need to decentralize it a bit or it's gone too powerful in one particular person let's say i.e. the pope then you need to be able to justify all of these moves. Now you guys seen it?
You see it?
Real simple.
Kelly's there around this time. I think in the if I look at the uh cuz this is trying to tracking on time. If I look at the um Discord, I think this is where our brother Joey Joe is saying like, "Oh, he's got him." And then me and Joe agreed for like five minutes. Meaning we we dropped a couple comments saying, "All right, there you go. Here's the point. Well, watch. Andrew is not doing so well. He's turning looking at his screen. His body language has changed because he knows if he were to continue down this path and just, you know, ask for some evidence or get some agreement on that that later that could be pulled out. Uh that card could be pulled out, that whole authoritative card could be pulled out on him saying where was your authority here?
Where was that authority here?
Huh?
Why did why did you get to dismiss it?
Well, because they they were not acting according to the scripture. Well, he Wilson would never say that.
Well, they were doing wrong and they were abusing their power. You better not say that.
>> See the point?
>> Right. Does matter. Big head. Well, so what is your biggest evidence for that?
Wait, hold on. Did he just call him big head?
>> He's like, "Hey, hey, hey, listen, listen. Listen, you big head. Oakally doy. Hey, big head. Listen, bro. If you're just going to have conversations with these people, it's better that you just don't insult them. Don't call them names. If anything, tell them they're looking foolish. I think he calls him moronic. I think that was appropriate.
But, you know, don't just don't engage in the back and forth and, you know, but calling them big head. I mean, chat, are we are we co-signing that? Hey, listen.
Listen here, big head.
maybe called clown >> standard for this and what history historian broadly agree on. Well, if you give me a second, I can pull up the historical standards that I would appeal to.
>> I thought I think that that's fine >> right here. Still on the same path. So, from the 20 minute, no 21 minute, 22 minute mark to 20 coming up on 25. Kelly is in is in the right spot. And I'm like, all right, all right. I still think they're going to crash out later, but right here, Kelly's doing good.
>> Okay.
>> So, if that's Google, that's fine. If that's what you want, wait a second.
You're asking me for formal evidence.
You want me to freehand it?
>> You You're the one that gave me the descriptive debate. I thought you had become prepared for this.
>> I I am prepared for it. But formal evidence, then you got to give me Google it. Can't tell me.
>> Why am I googling anything? I'm just pulling up something up.
>> So, I just want to make sure. I just want >> He didn't do He didn't need to do all that. He could just say, "Pull up the evidence. Let me hear. What is this evidence? And who is this? And how do we know? And how is he in authority? Are you guys starting to catch it?"
Uh, who says that he's in authority?
Hey, what? Right.
>> Make sure that you want me. You don't want me to use any formal sources or you do.
>> I'm asking you to prove your claims.
You're the one.
>> Why don't you let me do that and close your mouth?
>> So, we're going 26 minutes now.
>> I just like I don't get it. Do you want me to prove the claim through historic standard or not?
>> Come on, man. Give me something.
>> What? Uh oh.
>> He was good for five minutes.
For five minutes he was in the zone. Do you want What do you want for the claim?
>> What is your evidence?
>> I'm using the historic standard >> and that is >> that Protestants brought that historians broadly agree. There's consensus that Protestantism led to in to the adoption of enlightenment principles. That's not even a dispute by most >> mainstream came later. So you can't blame that on the Pro Reformation.
>> Do you see what he's appealing to, chat?
Did you hear it?
Do you see the the error in what he's appealing to? Andrew Wilson, what is he appealing to? He says, "What has now made this particular opinion in his in his mind an authority or something that he agrees with?" What did he say, Chad?
Did you catch it? What was it?
It was a word that he used.
If you're not going to if you're not going to pick this stuff up, then we might as you these people are laying stuff down.
You got to be able to pick it up.
Examine it. Yes. But he used something else.
He used something else. He said historians, but he said a broad consensus.
All right.
thing that I've ever heard in your life on that. That's >> great. World War II came after World War I, so you can't blame World War I for World War II.
>> Genius logic.
>> Brilliant logic. Your logic is man, you have you have laid me low, sir.
>> It's funny. You haven't provided a single evidence yet for your claim. It's funny.
>> Well, every time I begin to, you already begin with a reputation, which is do you do you agree? Do you agree that historians agree with the standard or not?
>> Historians have disagreements. They're not all my question. What's my question?
What is your question, Andrew?
>> Do historians agree? Is there broad consensus that the Protestant Reformation paved the way for enlightenment principles?
>> No.
>> Don't get me wrong. I'm sure some >> You're sure there's some. You don't think that there's broad consensus for that?
>> Yeah. But here's my point. Let Let me talk for about 30 seconds to a minute, please.
>> Sure. So myself as a born again Christian and I'm looking at the Bible and I look throughout history and I see how cultures like I mentioned Noah uh Sodom Gomorrah we see the book of Judges Judges 21:25 says that everyone did what was right in their own eyes because there was no king. Solomon said in Proverbs 14:12 that everyone a man does what's right in his own eyes yet the way there is death. Jesus warned that before he came back that there would be wars and rumors of wars and love of men would grow cold. Even Paul wrote about these things. We live in a fallen world.
Nothing is new under the sun. So in order for you to blame in our modern-day society of the dysfunctional issues and to say it's the big hand from the Pro Reformation, I'm asking you to prove that assertion because historically we've had these issues before the Protestant Reformation.
>> Which issues?
>> The dysfunctional society?
>> Which dysfunction?
>> How about this? Tell me, give me the list of what you think in our modern day >> of dysfunctional society was caused by the product information. How about >> the idea of positive rights >> is that function positive rights?
>> I don't actually know what that means.
What does that mean, please?
>> Well, do you've read the constitution, the amendments in the constitution, correct?
>> Yeah. When I was younger, I don't remember all that stuff. Yeah.
>> Well, let's just take one that you do remember. It's not a trick. It's not a trap. Uh you're aware of like the second amendment for instance, right?
>> Sure.
>> Okay. That that means you can own a gun.
Yeah.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> Okay. Great. So, if we're talking about that, do you have a duty to own a gun, though?
>> Do I have a what? a duty to own a gun >> in our modern day >> just period as as far as that right is concerned.
>> So I understand saying a duty like in regards an obligation. Is that what you're saying?
>> Mhm. Yeah. Duty and obligation can be synonyms for this. That's fine.
>> Sure. Um >> I don't think it's a duty. I think >> that seems fair.
>> I also agree with you broadly that uh the first amendment you have the freedom of speech but you don't have any duty to speak out. Right.
>> Okay. So these are all things which are um assumed with no duty. So that's not the way that rights ever traditionally worked not even in Christianity that they were entitlements which were given.
They were duties which were asserted and then you would assume the right from the duty. Let me explain what that means.
>> Okay. Go ahead.
>> I as a Christian am not allowed to murder you. Right.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So therefore you have a right not to be murdered.
>> Agreed.
>> Yeah. So you see how the right that you entail to yourself is coming to you from the idea that I have a duty to not do the opposite of that, right? That's where you're inferring.
>> I think I'm tracking you. I mean, there's no real reason to to argue with this with with what he's saying right now because in the end, it doesn't it wouldn't tie to his argument because he's going to say something like, well, there's writings of of, you know, uh, within the reformation that shows, you know, the individual to now read God's word. This all goes back to scripture and that, you know, and the the right of one man's interpretation, which is where the church comes from. So right now, these are just little technicalities that I would say I would disagree with him, but I wouldn't disagree with him. I would allow him to get his point off the way Kelly is right now. There's no reason to disagree with him. Even if I could push back and say, "Well, I wouldn't agree with the last point." But it's neither that. It's just let this go because in the end is even if he makes this point, it still brings us back to the question that he asked before.
>> Hey, God-given rights, what anything that you would appeal to as a god-given right would likely be in the context of that. It's not just that you have some entitlement. It's that you have a whole grouping of duties and those would be the entailment of the entitlement to other people. So you're not allowed to um I don't know, you're not allowed to murder. You're not allowed to steal.
That's a good one, right? You're not allowed to steal, right?
>> According to the word of God. Amen.
According to the laws of our land. Yes.
>> Okay. So then if you stole from me under any governmental system that you would come up with under Christianity, even if it was just like you and 10 people and I came to you with a grievance, hey, this guy stole from me, you would be forced to concede then that I had a right to not be stolen from. Right?
>> Based on what you said, sure.
>> Makes sense, right? That's how we would infer right. I would agree. Yeah.
>> The Enlightenment disagrees with you.
>> Okay.
>> What the Enlightenment is talking about with egalitarianism is that there's ideas of natural rights which are entitlements that come with no duty.
that is one of the key provinces for almost all problems in modernity.
>> Now I have to give an answer so you understand what I'm giving you in response here even though you may not >> that is true. Uh I mean there are certain there there are certain arguments that can be made um the way Andrew is talking right now uh you know what he's referencing. So this this this is something that now modern day or even view of the constitution it gets into amendments certain rights um and then folks can argue you know it goes back to the woman's right to vote you know different rights from individuals in society and so on so forth so that's where he's going with this but Kelly doesn't really bite um on this and wants to move the conversation somewhere else but this is where it starts to get ugly >> the answer okay I come from a biblical point of view with a by what you're sharing. And so I base my decisions and what I do in my life, my morality is to first the Lord. Okay? And just like >> see right here, I don't I would have just let Andrew keep making his case.
So then now show me the evidence of how the reformation, right, or the writings of the Reformation, this histo this historian that you're quoting that it looks like he was trying to look up, right? He said broad consensus, but I think he was going to pull up a document. So then figure out how that ties in to the Reformation. In other words, compare the principles being found in the Reformation and the principles um in the Enlightenment and how they're brought together. Now um you can make links throughout history to different forms of government ideologies that you can link together or they can produce certain movements. But again, the argument in the end at best would be it's a corrupted movement and Kelly would then have his defense to show, well, this is what the actual reformation taught.
But I don't think he was prepared to do that. I don't even think Andrew was prepared to read sort of the sources. He just made he just wanted to pull up to say a broad consensus of the historians.
But you have to you have to be able to prove that >> like when Jesus said render to Caesar what Caesars and render to God what's God's. So I base my decision what you're talking about here, duties, rights, whatever. I'm I'm putting the Lord first. Going back to some of the original conversation here about, you know, what I was asking the question about back in the early days with the Pro Reformation, was it right or wrong what they did? You think it's irrelevant? That's your perspective. But I believe biblically speaking, we're not to be robots. We're not to be machines.
We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of thought. And we can actually challenge people who are so claiming to be in authority, right? And if they're doing something that goes against what God's taught or given us in his word, then I believe that is an appropriate thing. Going back what I was asking about the pro reformation.
>> But do you have a duty to do that?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Bible says to condemn the faith.
>> So then do you see how then what you're doing is you're making appropriation of rights based on duties. But that's not how enlightenment the the idea of enlightened rights work. Those work based on the entailment of entitlement.
I'm entitled to this with no duty. There is no duty. I just am I'm justified in this thing because I am. That's a whole concept of natural rights by the way.
>> Yeah. Let me finish my answer. Yeah. Let me finish. You just did finish.
>> I did. No, I wasn't done. I wasn't done.
>> Okay.
>> What I was trying to say is according to scripture, we are told to contend for the faith. We are told to actually study the scriptures. We are told to test what people claim.
>> So this is actually what the Bible does teach.
>> So >> well, I'm going back to what we're talking about the origin, the pro reformation. So what I'm saying is when they started off good, >> just because there may be some bad apples over the years, that doesn't mean necessarily that the cause or the big hand as you like to say is from the Protestant Reformation because again I I'm a biblical person. So you may not want to argue this way. I get it. But I'm looking to the origin to the root.
We by nature are depraved people, right?
>> Yeah. But you can't you can't limit every cause. Let me just I'm not trying to You got to let somebody else talk. Dude, you can't filibuster.
>> You're You're being silly. I let you talk a lot already. I'm just trying to finish my statement.
>> Okay.
>> Throughout history in different civilizations, there's always been immorality. There's always been people who've done what they want to do, right?
And nothing is new under the sun. We live in the same age today. So, what I'm trying to say is for you to try to pin this on the pro reformation, you've got nothing to really prove that. It's just your assertions.
>> That's literally a lie. I just told you that I can appeal to the historic standard of universal empirical agreement by scholars for where enlightenment principles came from. And I'm willing to pull up a list of scholars that you can look up yourself if you disagree with this claim that nobody disagrees with. But wait, my turn. I just let you go. My turn.
>> So, the next thing that's funny that's funny about this, and it's actually hilarious to me, is great. We could just say that about everything, can't we?
Only Only Fans cause is that there's sin in the world. Great. Oh, prostitution's cause is there's sin in the world. Oh, thank you. That's so helpful. Oh, the cause of me falling down the stairs is that we live in a fallen state. Great.
Why replace the floorboard then? After all, I mean, that's just the way the nature of the world is corrupt, you know? I mean, that's just how it goes, bro. No, we obviously are going to look for correlating factors and explanations, including in the natural world, for cause and effects when it comes to social and societal impacts.
You just going, "Well, hey, bro, there's sin in the world." It's not helpful. It tells us nothing. It doesn't get us to any of these causes. It does nothing for us. Mhm.
>> So far, all of this is being said as Kelly's talking and not, you know, he's he's they're allowing both to express themselves and they both agree >> the founders and duty and writes even if Kelly, but I don't know if that's because Kelly is he's in Canada now or you know, but those things are inseparable.
That's how you know the founders set this up. So what Andrew is trying to say is well that eventually led to a cor at least a a corroded view of that and there now we have people under hyperindividualism thinking that you know um maybe he's all the way he's going to my body my choice or LG and all that movement but right here they've gone way off and Kelly is not going to bring it back on track and it's about to go sour >> has an effect right yeah so the effect is dysfunctional society, right?
>> Well, I mean that's that's not the only thing that made society dysfunctional.
I'm saying yes, it's a reason. Yes, it's a reason for dysfunction. Yes, correct.
>> The effect is the dysfunctional society.
Correct.
>> No, the effect is at least partial responsibility for dysfunction in society. Okay. See, now he got back to something. All right. So partial what what part? And if I if I said, well, based on that, now here's here was here was going to be, you know, what what Kelly was almost close to doing when he asked that one question that stumped him, right?
Is he that one question that stumped him is, well, when you rebelled against the papacy or against the church and schism, was that a good thing? So now Kelly's back in the field where he could have he could have employed that question again.
>> The harder question, what's the cause of it? What's the cause of a dysfunctional society?
>> Uh there's a whole host of correlating factors.
>> Mhm.
>> Give me some, please.
>> Right. Cuz now now Andrew's backed away from it being a big cause to apart the reformation or the ideas of questioning central authority, took away the authority, and therefore caused chaos over the last 500 years.
So well, let me ask you, I'd ask you the same thing. in history, there was a major event that the church you're a part of did the same thing. Are we still seeing benefit from it, but is there also corrupted uh corrupted uh systems or or ideas that came from that schism? In other words, did people take that and think, "Oh, you guys can schism. Then we can schism, too. All we have to do is create a good argument that they didn't follow the historical precedents or they didn't agree with the apostles. They were teaching something incorrectly. What do you think Luther did?
He literally said that the reason that we're leaving or you're kicking us out is because you have departed from the tradition. You guys get it? It all comes full circle.
Uh like for instance um let's say that the sun right disappears in Europe and they have a really bad famine. Are you saying that that's because they sinned or could there be a natural explanation for that?
>> Can you say that again? Sorry.
>> Let's say that they just don't get a lot of sunshine in England for a year and it causes a famine. Is that due to sin or is there just is there a natural cause for that?
>> So like you like to use the word that's irrelevant. That's not even answering what I'm talking about. Uh >> it is your chat.
Yo chat.
Yo chat. Do you Are you guys Am I hearing something wrong when he says irrelevant?
>> I don't know if I want to bring that up.
But what is it?
>> So like you like to use the word that's irrelevant. It's not even answer.
>> Oh, he does.
He puts he goes IIL relevant.
Illrelevant.
Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't >> what I'm talking about. Uh it is there a natural cause for that or are you just going to say well there's sin in the world?
>> That would be uh obviously not a natural part of God's natural laws for this world. So whatever the reason be a natural natural law for the world. The weather, the weather's not part of the natural plan, but we as people are caused for anything of what do you mean that's not a normal mean that that's not God's natural plan for >> everything that we do in this world moral dysfunctional wokeity whatever it may be because you like to you know do your politics debates with a lot of people on the woke side which I probably have a lot of agreement with you but the problem is why are we dysfunctional why do we do what we do >> I just gave you a reason that you could appeal to for a natural cause of dysfunction that has nothing to do with human behavior irrelevant what I'm talking about right now.
>> It does because not all forms of dysfunction have to do with human behavior.
>> The Bible is very clear, my friend. We all sin. Correct.
>> Has nothing to do with what I just said.
Do you agree with me that there are there can be causes there can be causes of human dysfunction that are not sin based? Right.
>> Can people sin without >> answer question, dude?
Sorry, let me ask you. Can people have immoral lives?
>> No more answering until you answer my question.
>> No, no, you're you're then we'll just answer.
All right. So could have if I have answered this question, I could have went ahead and been like, you know, taken the Kelly route and says yes, ultimately we're in a fallen world because of sin. So ultimately, yes. But no, there are some things that, you know, the cause of sin or why there's dysfunction or why, you know, let's say I think he's talking about weather, famine or something. I just grant Yeah, that could have been okay.
Yeah, that's that has no direct cause of sin. It's just, hey, the weather, you know, the clouds or whatever. So, he could have easily just granted that, but it went sideways. So, here's where you're about to see what I call I think I What did I Who did I text?
What did I say? Did I say this to Where is it? Oh, yeah. This is This is the silent crash out. I've never seen two people crash out in silence. Here it is. Let's watch. Let's do that. I'll listen to heavy metal. We'll stare at each other till you learn how to answer a question and then ask one.
>> All right. Go ahead and listen to heavy metal.
>> All right, I'll do that.
The sign.
>> It's Metallica. It's really good.
>> Well, it was silent on on the on on Kelly's side.
Crazy, huh? So now I can just pretty much talk because these guys, how long do they go through this? I think it's like 10 minutes. No, he puts them up. Are they talking again here? No, they're still not. So what is this? We're at 38. They go at least 10 minutes, right?
Yeah, it's 10 minutes.
No, they start talking like 12 minutes in. Right here.
>> My question first. Some point we'll find prop.
>> Yeah. So it was 10 minutes. It was a silent crash out for 10 minutes. Now I'm wondering, is Kelly like listening to music or is he like trying to act? Can he hear his music? Maybe. Maybe he can hear his music.
All right, chat. Listen, it was a late live, but I kind of knew this is why I set this up because I knew this wasn't going to go well. There's a second part of this where they have a conversation about free will and I'm just going to be honest with you, it didn't didn't get much better. Um, and I think that Kelly just missed an opportunity to actually have him lay out his case and then deal with the evidence as it came. Um, but so chat, I don't know if you've watched uh so far we're watching now. I'll play a little bit on the on the outside here, but if you want, what I can do is let me play a few minutes here when they start to engage again.
Okay? And then you guys got to give me your honest opinion. Okay? You have to you have to tell me what you actually think happened.
If you think that Kelly did well, back, let's just go ahead and start that.
Okay? If you think that Kelly did well or Kelly won, then go ahead and drop it in the poll and then we'll just watch this next couple of minutes. Got this window open.
What is this?
All right. So, I'm just gonna say, did Kelly win?
That's it.
Start the poll. Let's play a couple of minutes after this and then I'll show you the ending where eventually this just cuts >> the night before. Is that due to my sin or is it due to like just me being a dummy?
>> So in the Garden of Eden when we >> answer my question, >> McFly, your shoes are untied. Yes, the answer to your question is sin. Because of the fallen nature, we all do things that our bodies are corrupted and falling apart. So the answer to everything is sin is sin.
>> The answer to everything.
>> The answer is still sin. So the answer to all problems is sin.
>> How about that?
>> Mhm. So there you you wouldn't give any causitive explanation. The reason the pipe broke in your fridge are dysfunctional outside of sin.
>> Yes. Did your pipe did >> How can we do things outside?
>> Did the pipes break in your house because of sin?
>> That's irrelevant to our action.
>> Answer the question.
>> No. No. No. No. You're not going to play that game. In our society of dysfunctional people, of immorality, of homosexuality, abortion, >> what is the problem? Yeah, >> when you're talking about empirical claims, and that's what we're making here is an empirical claim.
>> What is the cause of a dysfunctional society?
>> So, it's going to be a whole host of different reasons. And some of it, >> no, it's only one answer.
>> No, it may not have to do with sin. A tsunami may have nothing to do with sin.
>> That has nothing to do with a dysfunctional society, Andrew.
>> Yes, it could, [ __ ] Yes, it could.
>> No, it does not.
>> Oh, I see. So if a tsunami hit the eastern seabboard in New York City, you know that's because of sin >> sleeping around doing abortions, lying, cussing, all these different things. You think that's going to cause a tsunami?
>> No, dummy. That's my point.
>> Are you smarter than that?
>> Are you smarter than that? I thought you were supposed to be this big bad wolf debater.
>> Yeah, you he just you made his you made his point though.
The tsunami which can cause dysfunction, disrupt the government in the city is not directly caused or at least I don't know how you're going to be able to prove that. I mean unless you can say well because of this in the tsunami came I suppose you could say that but you just proved his point >> and you still haven't proven a single thing.
>> All you do is filibuster. How would you know what I can prove? You don't answer any questions. You refuse to engage the cause for all of our problems in society.
>> Well, let's just start with this steel man what my position actually is. I don't even know what your position on.
>> And why are you making commentary on it, [ __ ] >> You're the one, Andrew, who caused this debate. You're the problem. You're the problem here, not me. You didn't want to.
>> You know what? I'm sure anybody with an IQ is a problem for you.
>> Cursed at me, cursed at me, called me a bunch of names, then said >> I didn't call you I didn't call you anything, which was not which was in any way vulgar. I called you a dork and said you were a [ __ ] Both of those are true.
>> You didn't say I was a gay mullet kind of person.
>> Yeah. Yeah, after screenshotted it after you called me a potty mouth.
>> Yeah, cuz you cussed all you cussed earlier.
>> Yeah, but I mean potty mouth is what a potty mouth is.
>> It's vulgarity.
>> A potty mouth is one who vulgarly speaks language all the time.
>> No, no. Saying potty mouth itself is vulgar. You're saying that I speak [ __ ] You're saying I speak [ __ ] Oh, you being a gay dork is a fact.
>> That's called >> Where this is going is now potty mouth gay dork. Um, this is, like I said, I just did this because yesterday, uh, I'll be honest with you. I'm not surprised this happened. Um, but let's see. You know what? Let's see.
Let's see what my brother from another mother JP. Uh, hold up. Let me cancel this screen sharing thing and get back to this this view. Wow, this is crazy. Hold up.
>> Yeah. While you get that fixed, let me make let me make a statement. So now the narrative on Twitter is that you now also got cooked because Kelly got cooked. So a lot of the Ortho Bros are going, "Oh man, um Andrew Wilson should stop uh debating people like Kelly and Mhler. See, now I can throw Mhler in there cuz Kelly did so bad." So that's what they're trying to do on Twitter now. To which I said, "Hey, you're live.
So feel free to call.
>> Yo, I don't know why. Sorry, I got gota remove. I don't know why it's it's doing this block. Kind of annoying.
>> All right. So So um >> yeah, I'm live. I'm live now. Uh going to go live tomorrow night. Uh tomorrow as well. Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
But yeah, >> and that's what I'm saying. That's the narrative that they're trying to push to try to >> But that but that's the narrative that I told you they were going to push.
Remember?
>> Yeah. Correct. Correct. And I told you that if they push that narrative, that works on your favor and because at the end of the day, they're going to have to substantiate how you lost and they're not going to do that. Um I I would say that the discussion with Kelly went so poorly. I mean, a staring contest, man, it was just ridiculous. Um, >> would you agree that when we talked about this this whole thing that that we kicked off um some months ago and then I told you that there was going to be people jumping in, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, listen, this EO bandwagon thing, um, a lot of people are jumping in. They're seeing the opportunities to jump in. They think this could make your channel go big. The reality of it is is that if you're not competent in this field of work, you need to take a sit a seat back because you're going to make all of us look bad.
The end of the day, we've been doing this for years all the way back from the Discord days, debating these people, having these kind of discussions.
And um I it it's sad when people just look at this. He should have never taken that debate. He should have never taken that prompt. I don't. And then Kelly didn't even understand the argument for a whole hour. So, it was just kind of frustrating to me. Um I It just feels like he was unprepared and he was doing this because possibly it could give him a bump in the algorithm. Um and let's be honest, like Kelly should have known this is how this was going to turn out.
So, there was really no reason for him to do this discussion if he knew that he didn't have the temperament to do such a thing. And the reality is is that he did it anyways. I'm assuming he didn't think this was going to go good. I I think he had the discernment to see how Andrew was and he did it anyways. And this was the result. I think he looks silly. Um, a lot of people agree. Doesn't mean Kelly's not a good debater or Kelly's a terrible person, but what it means is is that this is not his field of work. And if this is not your field of work, you need to take a seat a si a seat back and just relax to take it easy. And another thing he keeps mentioning, oh sin, sin, sin. Yes, sin is the foundational reason why evil happens. We get that. You understand? But if me and Mohler are playing basketball and Mhler punches me in the face, right? And I and and someone goes, "Hey JP, why did Mhler punch you in the face?" Because of sin, >> right? You're going to think that I'm completely [ __ ] Excuse my language.
You're going to go, "Wait, wait, wait.
What do you mean Mhler punched you because of sin?" No. The reason Mhler punched me was because I hit a jump shot and then when he tried to hit a jump shot, I closlined him and fouled him and I did a dirty foul. So, he got up and punched me in the face. That's the reason why Mohler punched me in the face. Oh, JP. uh certain person got um knocked out in in the school in in in the in the school lunchroom. Why did that happen? Because of sin? No. Because he tried to take the kids school lunch and he got punched in the face.
>> Right. So, um are you are you hearing from folks out there in the YouTube sphere uh that are saying that that you know we're feeling the same way that he shouldn't have taken this debate? Oh yeah, everybody. Everybody, all my guys on Twitter. So I because I I've been running Twitter space. So I have a bunch of guys that I've created a small little Twitter space community on Twitter. And you know, side note, I'm going to be doing most of my lives on Twitter going forward, but that's neither here nor there. Most of my guys on the Twitter space world are pretty much agreeing that Kelly did not do good in this discussion. And some guys are even upset that he took the prompt at all. And so that's why I would have to say I don't again I like Kelly. I have to be objective in this. I cannot say Kelly won when he did not. Um I don't know what was going on. A staring contest for 15 minutes. I don't know what he was doing there. He didn't know what the argument was for an hour. Um, and then you're going to just try to slam dunk with the word sin. Oh, sin. Sin is the reason. Yeah, that doesn't work.
>> Remember when we were having our conversation, I told you what he was going to do is move it.
>> Yeah. You predicted, you actually predicted that in this particular prompt, he was going to use the argument sin. Now, you beat me to it in the sense that I didn't even think that first off, I didn't think this would go 30 minutes.
And if we remove the silencing part where they were not talking for about 15 minutes, maybe I was right. It was probably 30 minutes worth of conversation if you remove that silence part. But yeah, you hit it on the nail.
You were very accurate when you said that Kelly Powers was going to rely on the sin thing. And again, Kelly's not technically wrong, but it's just it again, it's really stupid to make such an argument. Why did World War II happen? Because of sin. World War I because of sin. Oh, why did why did uh JP get in a fist fight? Because of sin.
It it you can't argue like that. That you don't win an argument like that. It he was getting clowned on the on the Crucible show. He was getting clowned there. Um it was bad on Twitter. And I was getting text messages from prominent Christians who were really distraught and confused at this whole situation.
There's a particular Christian I told him he needs to poke his chest out and he needs to hold the same kind of smoke that he held for you and me on Kelly.
I'm not going to say any names. He knows who he is. But he's going to have to hold himself to the same standard and keep the same energy he kept for you when he does his review of the vid the video he's going to do on Kelly and Andrew. And even he said this prominent Protestant said that this is going to be very bad for Protestants um for the next two to three weeks because of this performance by Kelly Powers. He did set us back. Now obviously we hold our own. You hold your own. and I hold my own. Um, and a couple of the other brothers hold their own and I'm going to be on Twitter space doing what I got to do. But this is a lesson to everybody. Um, there's a couple of other brothers that I don't think this conversation would have went any differently. Let me go on the record.
Um, there's a other there's a couple of other brothers that this should be a learning lesson for them.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> You know, u stay in your lane and shut your mouth. This is do what you can do, right? Debate on Twitter space, debate on YouTube, do those things. But if you know you have a particular temperament that does not allow you to have this kind of dialogue with certain individuals, then don't force yourself to do it. Now, the question again remains, did Kelly not know this was going to go this way?
And if Kelly knew it was going to go this way, now we have to question what was his motive for doing this discussion. If he knew it would go this way and it would go nowhere, I can honestly say your discussion went somewhere, Mhler, because the Christian community was talking about how the the gospel wasn't presented accordingly. He got things wrong. He agreed with you in a lot of aspects. uh had analogies that were stretched from one side of the planet to the other. Right? So, a lot of people in the Christian community actually said, "You had the better end of that conversation." And although there were many rough patches uh through it, right? A lot of people ended up saying that uh you had the better of it.
And even the EOS and the Ortho Bros on Twitter that said you did bad and you got destroyed couldn't say how you got destroyed and you went live after that and none of them called up and joined to give you an explanation.
>> So that's just the reality there.
>> So let me Okay, so then put it this uh let's put this in the proper context.
So, we talked about when we started that there was going to people jump on this bandwagon and that they were going to jump on this bandwagon and actually make it uh a little bit worse for us. Um, so the the the problem that we have is that it's not that you have to check in with us, it's just the affiliation between, you know, this debate and let's say my conversation with with with um with Andrew Wilson. There's two totally different worlds, >> right?
>> That's what I'm saying. Like Kelly Powers is a nice guy.
>> Yeah, issues with Kelly.
>> Yeah, he took a shot at you. I don't know why, but he did take a shot. Uh, but Kelly's a nice guy. Uh, and I think Kelly can have productive conversations, but this is not for Kelly. This is not his This is not his his speed. He's an He's a Christian man. He's an honorable man, I would say. right? He's a a sagacious man, uh respectable man. He is those things, right? So to get a a a pastor to play street basketball against Allen Iverson, it it's just not going to work, right? I mean, you can't put a pastor in a Sunday outfit to go play street ball against Allen Iverson when he was in his prime. And you know, that's what I think happened today. You had a pastor playing street bowl against Allen Iverson tonight and uh it showed uh it was a terrible performance.
It it was it was bad and we have to be honest uh with each other, you know. Um if you don't know what you can do with certain individuals, you know, and and I and I and again I I really do question I hope that that wasn't his home run. Hey, sin is the reason why World War II happened. I really hope that wasn't the argument he was trying to bank home because if that was um it's just very sad.
>> Yeah, I think he was going somewhere um and he got sidetracked. Like I said, for five minutes there he was on the right track and probably easily could have tripped him up because he did with that one question and didn't see how to capitalize on it. But um all right. So then we talked about people jumping in and then this is a casualty. So by the way, we we also said that this was going to happen. We just didn't know if it was going to be Kelly or somebody else, right? That it was going to be the person that was going to kind of create the All right, now we can we can go out and you just, you know, essentially stop the conversation, say, "Oh, this person got dunked on. It's over." because this is what they were trying to do. This is what Jay Dyer was trying to do. He's trying to get people to pull up to his boomer show so that he can just say, "Oh, we had a debate." And then it's over. So, he came outside and I'm trying to figure out why. If this had nothing to do with the Bible or if it had to do with Protestants versus EOS, he didn't even position it right.
So, what was the skin in the game for him?
>> Well, let me say this. Let me say this.
Do you think that he really woke up thinking I could actually win in this debate and therefore I'll be the hero?
Is that what he was saying?
>> Well, let me tell you this. For at least the next couple of weeks, maybe three weeks, the EO Ortho Bros are going to be celebrating this victory. Um, that I will say now. Um, but you know, again, that victory is going to be shortlived because pretty soon people are going to know that Kelly Powers isn't a representation of the Protestant faith.
And so, pretty soon, uh, that's going to be very clear. And I've made that very clear on Twitter. I said, "Listen, um, you can say Kelly Powers perhaps didn't do the best in this discussion, but you can't group Mhler in there, and if you do, feel free to join Mhler's platform and explain to him how he didn't do uh well in in his discussion." And of course, none of them call in. The reality is is that for the next two to three weeks, there's going to be a lot of celebration over that performance that Andrew Wilson had against Kelly Powers. And unfortunately, until Protestants learn where uh your talents belong and what lane you need to stay in, this will continue to happen. Now, I will say the good news is is that I believe that at some point Andrew Wilson will have to give you a rematch because it's very clear that he uploaded a video, took it down, uploaded a short, took it down, and even the live stream has been down, and they're trying to remove you from existence because of how poor Andrew Wilson performed. So, I believe at a certain point in time, Andrew Wilson's going to have to give you a rematch. And um >> well, there's there's no rematch. He's trying to get his lick back. That's why he he talks the way he does on Twitter.
Um but uh to have conversations in the future is on the table. Uh what is this?
Kelly lost, but Wilson won nothing. He never proved his case. Yeah, but Kelly never allowed him never to prove his case. So from the perspective of those that are watching, he proved his case by him leaving and the staredown and there was just questions where he had him stunned where the logic didn't follow. He he couldn't pick up that that was going to be a question he was going to get got. So there was a lot of of points there.
Wilson in the end didn't have to prove his case. And if you want somebody to fail at proving their case, you have to question them. you have to be able to pull the the the case uh that they're putting together and ask them to lay it out and if they don't then you could show it. But he didn't. He started to do that for like five minutes and then he quit. Uh he went on to something else because he got caught up in Andrew's shenanigans and stuff. So um All right.
So then who do you who who what what do what do you say from here? Um who do I mean who who talks to to Kelly? I suppose I could message him, but I don't I don't think he's going to want to talk about this. I think he's just going to say, "I forget you guys. It doesn't matter what you think. You know, I did what I had to do." But really, did he have to do this?
>> Shitty.
>> Yeah. I I'll say I'll say this. Um I'll say this. It's unfort I mean I I'm kind of in a loss of words right now. Uh, regarding this situation at hand, I'm going to have to sleep and, you know, just kind of see where the chips fall. Uh, but like I said, um, you know, is it's there you have it, man.
>> Yeah, I hear you.
>> Uhhuh. Well, uh it's late anyways, uh on my side, but I think we had to go live to to kind of go over this to capture it in the moment, but um yeah, it's unfortunate, but you know.
>> Yeah. Uh any chance you can open up the panels uh or or you're you're wrapping it up?
>> Yeah. No, I'm going to be I'm going to be wrapping up here in a minute. What a minute. We can I Let me Let's get some um let's get some feedback from some folks and see what they say. Um so if you guys want to pull up there and give your honest assessment, I know some folks in the Discord um already wanted to kind of voice it.
So, we'll give you fellas want to click up um and then just give your assessment because I don't think you know I'm going to be staying on this too long uh or showing the rest of the video to be honest with you here. Let's pull up uh Layman just pulled up in the back. Let's see what he says.
Layman.
All right, bro. What's your honest assessment, bro?
>> Well, I'm not a fan of Kelly. I'm not going to lie, man. And he shouldn't have been in this in this debate. That's the truth.
>> Yeah.
>> It's it it's I mean I made the joke in the chat and come to find out they were actually saying the joke on Crucible.
You know, I said why did he lose?
Because of sin.
>> Oh yo. Yo.
>> Come. And I think it was Neil that told me that that's what they were saying over there, you know.
>> Yeah. Well, I mean, that's the that's the I mean, if that's your argument, I mean, that's just a horrendous argument. I mean, you can blame that on anything. Why did we get in >> Hey, why did Layman and JP get in an argument?
>> Oh, because of sin. I mean, >> I mean, where where where do we draw the line with this kind of >> specific sin, you know?
>> Yeah, I was going to get down to it. It was funny, though, because um I forgot where I was at. I remembered it because um I told JP I was like, "Yeah, they're going to have this." Oh, this is like when we initially found out they were going to do a conversation. And then I said, "Yeah, he's Kelly's just going to say it's sin." JP then was probably like, "He wouldn't be that dumb, but you know, that's just a dumb argument. Kelly could have thought more through this."
But Neil, uh, he knows Kelly a little bit. He go they go back a little bit.
Um, what are your thoughts, Neil? What you saw?
>> Uh, can he hear me? Okay.
>> Yeah, I can hear you. Okay.
>> Okay. So, I think the main the main feedback I will give Kelly is that the burden of proof was mostly on Wilson and if he would have just allowed Wilson to make a case and then >> Yeah, these people are these people are clown, bro. Look at Do you see the comments? Mhler.
>> Jay, don't be [ __ ] Excuse my language. Pete Jay at the end of the day. Pete uh Jay real quick real quick.
Yo >> yo yo bro these guys are great.
>> The comments are >> Jay on the record. P Jay I'll say this P.
>> Yo this is hilarious bro. These guys are >> going to be they're going to have to make t-shirts for it. So Neil so then uh I'm sorry. Pick up the point uh where you left off.
>> Yeah. So if if he would have just allowed Wilson to make a case, make his case and then poke holes >> that is what what he should have done rather than for some reason Kelly was assuming a burden that he did not have.
>> The thesis of the debate was that there was causation between the Enlightenment and the Reformation.
>> The Reformation, right?
>> Yes. And that that was Wilson's case to prove.
>> So this should have gone very different than the way it went.
>> So you just just following just allowing the conversation to happen. Um not not overreacting. It would have been him laying out his case and he would have saw opportunity to attack the piece he was putting together. Yeah, I agree.
>> Yeah. So Wilson should have led this discussion and and Kelly should have just reacted to it and give given a rebuttal when the opportunity arose.
>> That is all he had to do.
>> Wilson's position is reductionistic.
There's several different strands that you could say has led to postmodernism right now. you know, erase erasements, you know, influence the Renaissance and other factors like that. So, you just can't blame it all on the the Protestants or whatever. And aren't they Protestants?
>> Yeah. They're the first No, >> that's precise that's precisely the point, right? So, all these opportunities would would come.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh later on if he was just allowed to talk. The entire burden was on Wilson.
It wasn't on Kelly. He had to make the case. He had to prove the case. Wilson.
>> Yeah. Unfortunately, Unfortunately, it seems like he didn't have the facilities. He didn't have the facilities to do what he had to do. So, >> facilities or faculties?
>> No, the facilities. That's what they say in the UK. See, you don't have the facilities for that big man.
>> You don't have the facilities for that.
Okay. Okay. So then you guys are essentially saying he didn't prepare and he just wanted to wing it or he didn't want to study or because >> I think Kelly saw an opportunity to potentially be on the map with such a big discussion like this where Andrew Wilson was going to be joining his panel. His eyes glued up or or glowed up and he was like, you know, like the cartoons when your eyes leave your sockets. And he was like, "Yo, I can't believe this. This guy's going to come on my channel. It's going to explode me and I'll be on the map. Now, to be fair, Kelly is on the map, but just not in the way he wants to be.
>> Well, he needs to get on the mat.
>> Train.
>> Yeah. Well, that and he needs to learn how to grapple, you know.
>> Yeah.
So then uh and the reason and the reason that I'm starting to, you know, not uh come in so so heavy-handed anymore about about what I'm about what I'm saying on on Kelly's side is because I do see that he had some kind of a game plan there for a few minutes. He just he just it it went somewhere else with the antics.
>> Yeah. Uh is that did did you even see that Neil that he had he was on the track where I was we were pointing that he was hitting a couple of of of soft uh spots or the underbelly of his argument >> right and then for some reason it was it was it just slipped through his hands.
So >> I think Wilson's uh behavior got to him at some point of time.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I I think that that's what happened. Uh, real quick before, um, we move on. Uh, Kmart, uh, what's your take on it?
>> Um, I would say that in the debate, I would say that Kelly didn't understand the argumentation, right? Andrew was laying out the argument and he's not receptive of the argument and he's not understanding the whole thesis of the argument >> from from you watch the debate and was laying out the foundation based on the premise his foundation was the idea of the doctrine of freedom of conscience right >> that was his entire argument based on >> individual >> yes he was laying out the argument based on that premise of freedom the doctrine of freedom of conscience however But Kelly was not understanding what the doctrine of freedom of conscience entails.
>> Right.
>> But but for a minute he started to figure out his line of argumentation was asking him to prove it and then he just he let that opportunity slip. But you're saying it's because he didn't understand the full scope of the argument where to go. That's why that opportunity slipped.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> So if he under if he if he did understand it, right? if he did understand that because at the end of the at the well I was say end in the middle of the debate Andrew said freedom of conscience right the do the freedom of conscience or freedom of conscience right >> if he if he if he allowed and andrew to lay out a point from there he would understand what he was getting at but he wasn't allowing that I understand what Andrew is getting because yes freedom of conscience of freedom of conscience allows for individualism And that individualism lead to the enlightenment ideas of freedom, freedom of speech and so on so on so forth.
>> Yeah. No, I agree. I think everybody's got the proper assessment here. I don't think it's a need to be a dead horse, but when when me and JP are talking about this stuff, I'm saying this is going to happen before it happens and then it happens.
It's I'm not going to sit here and say I told you so. I'm going to sit here and tell you just don't do it. Learn from these mistakes. Like they just don't jump in for the sake of jumping in.
Don't get into a lane that's not your lane. This is what happened when Wilson discussed with me. He was in a lane that wasn't his and that's how it went for him. So >> yeah. I mean it was just crazy to me seeing two grown men just playing a staring contest for 15 minutes. I think that was just ridiculous.
I mean it really was. I I just have no words. Again, I have to sleep this off.
When I wake up in the morning, I'll figure it out. See where I kind of stand. Maybe I'm my emotions are high right now. But, you know, um this is not good at all by any stretch of the imagination. It's good so that people can learn, stay in your lane, but unfortunately, man, this just was just not good. But by the way, everybody watching, drop a like. Let's get to a 100 likes cuz we have over a 100 people watching, >> you know.
>> Yeah. Amen. Amen. Go ahead. Uh layman.
>> Yeah. Um so Wilson sound like he was using some sociological terms, you know.
I mean even the term dysfunctional is sociological and uh Max Vber is the one that studied about the the Protestant work ethic, you know, and how it's improved society and other things like that, you know.
uh the capitalism and all of those factors. And I mean, do they really want to say what they really want to say?
Should we just submit to Mother Russia >> that the Orthodox Church is just a proxy for that?
>> Hold on. Let me address something real quick.
>> Yeah. I mean I mean that's that's the the current conspiracy theories online is that it ties to that. But uh >> No. Yeah. Let let me say something because of chat. Yes. Uh, Kelly took a Kelly took a prompt that I have no idea why he took that prompt. In fact, I think Andrew Wilson went a lot easier.
Um, uh, he went a lot easier on him than I think he than I think that he could have went because, in other words, I think Andrew Wilson could have went much harder because with a prompt like that, I mean, you can say anything like anything goes.
So, I I don't know, man. He took that prompt. I don't I don't know. I don't know.
>> I mean, he could have studied a little on the prompt and then and had him provide the evidence. Uh, Nuro Jack, you're there. You want to give some comments how you thought it went, brother?
>> Yeah, thank you.
>> Um, well, I think more in general, I just have more of a general take on it.
Um, I mean, I think the strength of Protestantism is that we don't, you know, you never know where the punches are going to come from from us, right? you know, it could be a lay person, it could be a priest, it could be any number of of people versus, you know, in the more rigid, you know, Catholic or Orthodox or some of these other more rigid, you know, styles of Christianity, you know, they kind of uh try to keep it more limited to like who can talk or whatnot. So, I I guess I'm not trying to like be your ops per se, but like I was just wanted to see like can we flesh out a little bit of like well how do we know who should or should not take on these debates? Like I don't really like what I saw on the debate with Kelly. But, you know, I do think that it's good that they don't that they're going to get a mix of people and a mix of styles coming at them because I think the you know, the EOS like I think they have some good points. Like I think that their concern with politics is good >> and I don't really see Protestants concerned with that because I think that ultimately like Christianity is a personal faith the way the Protestants say in some ways but at the same time like we do have to be considerate of like well what do we want uh the real real world results to be and I think that's why so many people young men are appealing to the EO you know whether it's right or wrong. So, I think that's something that we should uh keep in mind, but I don't know. That's that's that's the first thought that came to mind with the whole situation.
>> Yeah, I I think engaging in politics, I mean uh that's not something that we shy away from, at least under truth cartel, I ever have since I've been doing this.
So, and I would agree that Protestants engage more in politics now. I think that the cultural debate uh u you know about cultures where Andrew Wilson you know leans into the liberals insur you know the sort of uh the sin uh the sin problem in certain in certain uh cultural aspects of what's exploded online. So he's he's active in that area. But if you're asking whether we should just have anybody um you know or you're making the point is there should be different people speaking to them.
Well, that's not that's not our our point. Our point is that the person should be qualified in the air that they're discussing these topics, right?
So, I think >> well, how do you how do we as Protestants know what that what that is, though? Like, that's kind of my that's kind of my question. Like, because there's some lay people who are just like a plumber and they're going to have really good points on >> politics or even certain, you know, theological questions that frankly some priests are not going to have. You know what I mean? So, I'm just saying like how do we know that? You >> know, yeah. Intelligence and truth, you know, poignant arguments can come from Yeah. everywhere. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about somebody who who debates for a living, right? And another person who debates and yet everybody on this side knows that this wasn't going to go well, not just because of the prompt, but because he might not be able to handle what Andrew Wilson does. And that's what happened. So, how can all these people be right?
In other words, how could we've not just seen this coming? It's not a surprise.
That's that's kind of the point. So, it's not a dog out anybody.
>> I think one of the bigger blunders was to kick Andrew Wilson out.
>> Yeah. I think he could have kept going.
I agree. He should have kept going and impressing him on his argument.
>> No. Yeah, cuz that's what I think Andrew wanted. It was to get kicked out. Once he got kicked out, I knew it was over.
He should have kept going or he should have did something like, "All right, you know what, Andrew? Look, I got another 10 minutes. Um, let's let's wrap up in 10 minutes. I see we're not getting anywhere, so I gotta go. You know, just smooth that smooth it out. You know, don't just kick the man out all erratic cuz it makes you look like you don't have any kind of self-control and it looks like you lost. and you know, but he was so angry and and he was so brashed out that he couldn't control his emotions and he kicked them out right away instead of saying, "Let me give you 10 more minutes and then I got to get out of here." Uh, so it's just it was just bad overall.
>> Yeah. Well, I mean, I don't know. I I kind of reject the thing of like, well, this is like going to make us look bad as Protestants or something. I mean, look, I mean, there's, you know, I don't want to say anything bad about this guy in particular, but I'm saying anybody can claim they're part of anything and make other people look bad. I mean, that's kind of what these guys lean on.
They say, "Well, this one guy who's a EEO did something bad. That doesn't mean that I'm bad." See, like, they play that game all the time, right? So, I'm saying like, >> "Yeah, we're not necess We're saying that's not necessarily true. We're fighting against that." In other words, what I'm trying to say is if somebody is going to engage in this and it's from the e from the eo premise that that that popped off through this whole thing and they're going to inject themselves into it. We're just seeing that there's some people that are not understanding the topic whether Eastern Orthodoxy the orthoral culture and now in this case taking a prompt and just being able to have somebody who can just walk through build their argument. You can poke holes in the argument. That's simply what this conversation could have been. To not know that just says you weren't ready for the moment. This person, you know, uh, rattled you. And we're just saying is then maybe maybe you shouldn't raise your hand or jump into the ring. Uh, especially when the prompt is not going your way.
>> Well, how do we how do we get platformed by these guys? Because I mean, I can tell you like I know people who try to get platform and like like there's a lot of people that are blacklisted from even getting up there. So, I mean, it's not a free-for-all. That's for sure. If you go to if you go to Christian King, you can talk all you want. It may be a little bit of a wild west and when you pull up on these channels, you can talk as well.
The thing is is that Kelly is a formal debater and usually preaches in his debates and he doesn't and he doesn't even deal with the issues on this particular prompt. And so, I mean, if you've had skirmishes like me right now, I'm already engaging in in stuff outside of my comfort zone to get better, but that don't mean I'm gonna try to go after the biggest dude and and come in all cocky and and confident. I think I think Kelly likes to get in the ring with somebody that is well known and dominant, and he thinks that if he just yells or shouts, you know, or has a fit that he's done something, you know. I I I think there's something, you know, I don't want to use the word psychological, but there's something going on there, >> right? And I'll say this because I Well, actually, you know what? I'll save it for the wrap-up because I want to give uh the proper kudos and respect to a debate style that, you know, people that known here for years, layman's known us for years, court JP, this is how we've always run the platform, which is open dialogue. People pull up, they want to, it's not not an issue. and we can have a conversation, a discussion. So, I'm going to at the end address that Andrew Wilson has set because he's the the the the face or the name right now that's popular. He's setting the proper I think the proper precedence in this whole conversation is that you should be able to pull up to each other's platform, go one for one, no moderation, and let a conversation play out and and and see the end of an argument. and and he set the standard, meaning we've already been doing it, but it's becoming he's popularizing the standard, and I don't want people to to shy away from it. Uh I don't want Protestants to start to say, "Well, we shouldn't do that." No, that's absolutely wrong. You should do it. You should be engaging in this type of dialogue. Uh I'll let Yugi uh uh get off a couple comments there and then and then I'll swing back.
>> What's up, >> Yeah. What up, Yugi?
>> What's up? What's up? So, I was going to say um to be charitable to Kelly first, I'll say I think we all understood what he was getting at. He just maybe didn't do a good job of like articulating the position, right? So, I don't think anyone disagrees that, you know, our sinful nature is what ultimately causes, you know, issues. I think the problem is is that he didn't seem to know the data.
And I think something like this is like a topic like the Reformation, like somebody he should have maybe like spoken to somebody like Canon and Creed, right? or at least look over some of the data because there is nothing that I read from Luther that would indicate that like hey um because because he's making like a slippery slope fallacy.
He's saying things like, "Oh, you know, the freedom of conscious led to >> the enlightenment era."
>> He's really saying it led to the current decay LG this whole agenda.
>> Yeah. Exactly.
>> And it's like look like I'm not like a reformed or I'm not like a classical Protestant, but like you can read some of his writings and you know he's not ever saying that we can just be free from God. You know what I mean? Yeah, Luther's point is like, you know, an institution can't bind my conscience to the word of God. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Central uh and in his case, he was saying um it was becoming too powerful and it was essentially pointless because there were pe people still whing out and they were still trying to at the same time control uh mind people's conscience and this is his point of view. But even he didn't want to leave the church because he didn't want to leave authority. Right.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. So, I think it's a complete um miscatategorization on Andrew's part, but he kind of capitalized on, you know, Kelly's ignorance on the topic, it seems, because he just wasn't interested in because that's what I would have done.
Just attack the data cuz he's the one that's making the slippery slope fallacy.
>> Exactly. He's the one saying that apparently Luther wrote about you could just do whatever you want. And look, man, like I said, you don't got to be a classical reformer or studied on the topic to know Luther would never say such a thing like you could just do whatever you want. Like come on, let's be real.
>> Yeah. So, it was but a little bit of studying on it and maybe he did and maybe just he got rattled. But hey, it is what it is. But like I said, I like the fact that these conversations can be had this way. I think this is the way they should be done. People are getting tired of setting up debates six months in advance so that we can read PDFs and have, you know, a 10-minute a 10-minute cross-examination and then that's the whole debate. Uh but go ahead, Jack.
>> Sure. Sure.
>> Jack, you want to do Nuro? Oh, you wanted to say something?
>> Well, I mean, I I don't know. I think there's a lot going on. I mean, I've been following the stuff for quite a long time and uh I don't know really your guys' background, so I can't speak too much on the whole Protestant side because like I've been following, you know, kind of more, you know, stranger side of like, you know, Michael Heiser and Derek Gilbert and some of these more like outside the box guy. I haven't really seen the whole Protestant side of things like David Wood. I'm not really sure where all this is >> coming out of to be honest with you. But I will say that like on the EO side and and stuff like that like you know there's some fundamental differences that you know Christians in America are going to have to uh sort out. I mean you know orthodoxy is making a big push to convert the South in particular.
>> Yeah.
>> To orthodoxy. And I mean look I'm from the south and uh I you know I grew up Baptist. I'm not a Baptist anymore, but you know, I have a lot of reservations about EO. Not necessarily because I think their theology is bad, but again, I think the political implications of a lot of this is uh something that we should be wary of. I mean, everybody's looking for quick solutions, but I mean, Christianity has been at war for at least a thousand years with the Catholic Church, and you know, obviously, you know, Eio thinks that they're not a part of the Catholic Church because they broke off a long time ago. So, I mean, there's, you know, you have the Christian Cabala, you have a lot of this occultism that has, you know, snuck into the West for a long time. And, uh, you know, we've got some real battles, and I just, unfortunately, it feels to me that a lot of these debates go, you know, put some window dressing on the Titanic as it's sinking. And I think that's, you know, a mistake. I mean, we have, you know, if you see what's happening in Europe, I think it's a good preview of what's going to happen here in America.
and >> debating over, you know, minor little details on Christianity as the sink is kind of I mean, as the ship is kind of sinking and again, I'm not saying this to criticize anyone in particular. I'm saying in general, this is my wider concern that I >> Well, but that's the whole point why we had to deal with this. So, uh, no, I don't know, like I said, your background know you've been around the block, but I'm saying is this is why we took we took this this uh this topic on >> because nobody was doing this. Well, well, and the thing is, look, you know, you know, Andrew, I have my differences with him. Um, you know, and anybody can tell you that, but you know, the thing is, I think that, you know, he his style is abrasive and it gets attention. And unfortunately, we live in a situation where the attention economy is kind of a part of what we have to deal with, right? And um, >> yeah, >> you know, I don't like that, but that is the reality of what we're in. So, we have to take some notes on that front, I would say, to to get it to at least be more entertaining, right? You start with entertainment and then you get to the real stuff >> through that process. I would say >> I agree. I think everything's right on the money. If you think there's some, you know, deeper move to push Eastern Orthodoxy or people, you know, um push it for, you know, this uh uh for lack of a better term, hailing Moscow, um or you know, something deeper behind that. I don't know anything about that. Reason we got into I'm not saying that it's necessarily. I say you're you're saying that but but >> but there are people that do believe that for sure.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Of course.
There's going to be different political ideologies that they're pushing and you know there might be some you know background you know some deeper conspiracy behind it. Of course and I'm not going to doubt that those that those individuals ex exist or it's happening.
Uh why we got into this is just the lopsided debate, the two-faced sort of accusations and argumentation about, let's say, uh theology, but really about uh behavior and how these people were essentially gangsters of the internet and telling Protestants to stay inside.
And guess what? Protestants were scared.
I think what's happened is that we've proved it. We've proved that there are certain people out here that don't want to actually deal with this topic and they just want to kind of say, "All right, forget it." Well, as you can see, the Eastern Orthodox have Andrew as their their the face right now. He's the face of Eastern Orthodoxy, at least online, even if he's not debating theology. And he's not backing down. So, >> right. And I and I think that we should should should turn that in kind because again, we are talking about the most important topics, which is, you know, the salvation of man and our relationship with God and ultimately what that's going to look like in our everyday life. I mean we should not seed the fill to people who >> are lukewarm you know at the very least right so yeah that's >> yeah I agree I think I think in the end is we would see it as we would want unity but there's some people that want to they want to take the reigns and hold on to it they want to as I say hold the catalog keep the catalog they got it right now and uh but they're doing it in force and then they're doing it u with this this you know this hypocritic uh tone and actions when they claim that they're the ones um you know wanting answers or they they answer questions and it turns out a lot of times that they don't. It's just a lot of uh rhetoric, a lot of debate tactics and we don't get down to the nitty and actually discuss the differences where what you're going to find is even Kelly and him would have agreed on a lot. They would have agreed on a whole lot and what's wrong with you know quoteunquote the alignment hyper individualism.
>> I'm a big fan of finding common ground before you start parsing out your differences. You know what I mean? I think that that's where Christians should start from is find out what we agree on and then, you know, find the biggest issue and take it one at a time.
And again, this is my biggest problem with the >> orthobros in general is that they hit everybody over the head with theology and history and all these things. But again, you know, we still have to live in the real world, too. So, I think we have to balance some of that, you know, some of that.
>> Well, I don't think they're interested.
I think they're only interested in in not having that conversation with with Protestants or people that are not of their background. They're not they're not interested anymore. That's been the game plan at this point. They're not trying to find common ground in that sense. They want to win the debate.
They're winning uh you know, like you said, the the the entertainment war and that's how they see it. But I appreciate you coming on. Uh Jack, I wanted to give the last word to uh Yugi real quick and then Neil and Layman.
>> Oh yeah. No, I'm good. I mean hopefully he learns from this and does better. You know, I I did leave a comment. And I did tell him that like, you know, Andrew's logic is self-defeating. But like you said, brother, and I agree and I put it in the comment like, "Hey, look, you know, it's not about truth anymore. It really is just clips. It's points. It's who looks better." And that's the I think that's the real kind of like crux of the issue. And the, you know, people are more victims than they realize in the sense of the truth isn't actually being pushed.
>> You know, it's just entertainment and it's a shame.
>> Yeah, that's facts. I appreciate it. You make solid solid points, Narrow. you guys are trying to look at this objectively, but at the same time we're engaged in some other kind of war at the same time, but uh you know uh just pray that we can get some common ground, some unity because you know there's there's a bigger enemy. So I think we would all agree on that. All right, Layman and Neil to wrap up.
Yeah, I would just say that it's very important for different apologists to know what their strong suits are and to play to play ball based on that.
Um, there's a difference between preaching and debates like what we got to see today. Especially if you're trying to engage Andrew Wilson and Jay Dyer and that group, your approach cannot be the same approach you take when you're talking to other people theologically.
>> Exactly.
>> You have to be a lot more smarter than that. So, >> yeah. And you said that from the beginning. you said that even in my conversations with them and interactions is um that wasn't a conversation, a good a good faith debate. It was just an attack. It was rhetoric. It was points.
And so when people looked at that interaction and they're seeing me, you know, reacting or making moves, they're looking at it like, well, well, how come he's not engaging like this debate on on theology completely? Well, that's not what that was. That was literally a street fight, you know? Yeah, it that's the point, right? I mean, you have to know like what sometimes you have to debate the person as much as you debate the proposition.
>> And with people like Andrew Wilson, that is so true.
>> And I and the people who wanted your interaction with Andrew Wilson to be edifying. I think they they missed the plot there. He didn't come there to edify anybody, bro.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I don't know. I appreciate that.
>> People have weird weird expectations.
>> Yeah. And you called it. Uh Neil's right on. That's why he's one of the people that we discuss this with in the Truth Cartel Discord and he's a an absolute uh delight and I thank God for this, brother. So, I appreciate your take, bro. I'm going to wind down even in a late later stream for me. We'll get back at it tomorrow. So, thanks for thanks for pulling up, Neil.
>> Yep.
>> God bless you, brother. Uh, layman, finish it off, bro.
>> All right. I got a question and a comment. I'll give you the comment first.
>> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> One good thing about uh Kelly, at least in this debate, is nobody can say he used chat GPT because he would have came up with something better than just sin.
>> All right. Well, that's good. At least he wasn't willing to chat.
>> All right.
>> Hey, I I used it. I use it. The question is, who is this Amia Adj?
I think his name means the Messiah is the antichrist. He's talking trash in the chat, man.
>> Oh, I didn't even see him. What did he say? You will never be anyway. What?
Okay.
>> Yeah. Um anyway, if I see him on another platform, it's on site.
>> Oh, wow. Tell me to go to CK's channel.
Pray for more desperate Protestants to find affirmation in this mess. Uh I don't I don't get it. Is this Isn't this guy like a Muslim?
>> I don't know. The odd part. I know uh the Messiah Deja Deja is typically what the Antichrist is called, but most Muslims would say nowadays that the Deja is not really the Antichrist, but >> he's not the face of orthodoxy. Yeah, he is. He literally is right now. Wouldn't you say Andrew Wilson is the face of orthodoxy right now?
>> Kick, give me a beat real quick, Mer.
>> Oh, what? You're trying to get down like that, bro?
>> I'm going to go after that dude, right?
>> Uh, okay. Go ahead and drop it then layman. Let's see what you got.
>> You say he's not the one to face the orthodoxy. You know what? You afraid to go to war with proxies. We know what Russ is trying to do. What you trying to pursue? You try to centralize what you suish lies and everybody saying Kelly blamed it on sin. Well, you know what?
You consider grin because I know Angie Wilson is about to get stilted. If he ever deals with someone that's really free grace, call Mer that in his face.
Everybody knows that Mer's got the hate when it comes to that type of beat. Skip the street. So many people mad at me.
I'm going after Jay D and anybody in the line cuz I don't care what they say. It ain't got to be sublime because I all blind. Put them in the line. Line them up. Find them up. I'm ready like a firing squad. Don't get mad at me cuz I'm going after y'all. I ain't afraid to take my shots. I don't even have to have a GL. No, I can use a water gun because y'all are just wet like like a wet paper bag. Oh, you just sag because you're nothing. You're really not even standing up. You paper tigers. Mess around with me and get hit with vipers. I don't know. I just mess around.
>> Oh, what? This dude Layman just dropped a freestyle.
>> All right, my bro. Uh, I appreciate you.
Let me get back on the screen. But we're going to catch uh probably um some kind of static on CK's. If you pull up over there, you can see layman there on his channel.
>> Cool.
>> All right, my brother. I'll catch you later, bro.
>> Later.
>> All right, so let me uh wrap this by saying uh let me cut this beat. Sorry, that was the layman beat. But I'm just going to say something. my mood kind of changed because um I think that although there are you know some things you can learn from this.
I think it gets people to think and kind of reset and think about what exactly you're doing and why you're doing it. I think that that's really really important. Um I as I said I I kept joking saying man I'm tired of being right. I didn't want to be right about this, but you know there's a lot this is this is much deeper than you think. It involves Yes.
politics, it involves philosophy, involves uh tradition. It involves doctrine. It involves a heavy view of scripture. And so if you're going to have a conversation or engage in a debate, just be able to recognize the moment, read the room, and move forward or move through and weave through where you're supposed to be getting in where you fit in. You feel what I'm saying, chat? I don't think that this is too much to ask. And I'm sorry to say this is not a surprise. None of this is a surprise.
And the reason I keep saying that is because I want people to refocus, relock in. Why are you in this dialogue? What's happening? Is it purely personal? And if you're not going to engage in it because you got other business, then fair enough. Hey, we're all going to have to move on at some point. But don't just raise your hand and jump in because you know you feel moved in the moment or you want to prove that you're the tough guy, right? And I'm not saying that that's what Kelly is doing, but we know of others that are doing the same thing.
So, let's reassess. Take inventory of what you're doing and why you're doing it. And I think that the Lord will use those who are gifted in certain areas and push for the truth cuz that's really what this is about. And don't get lost, as they say, lost in the source. Stay focused on what the mission is. And the mission is that we can find common ground. Uh that's why I particularly like neutralizing arguments or as we say clearing the deck to where we're all on the same footing and build from there and may the best arguments win. And I think that you can do that. You don't have to be this person who says, "Oh, um I just want to jump in because I see other people jumping in. I just want to swing because I see other people swinging." No, let's not do that. Let's not be those type of Christians that just want to jump jump in for the sake of jumping in, okay? Let's not have that attitude. Um, and if anything, we can learn from one another. So, let's do that. But I have never and will never tell somebody like Kelly Powers what to do. You don't ask me for nothing. I don't ask him for nothing. He's his own man. So, he's doing he's doing what he wants. But maybe uh in the future if he does, he could reach out to some other people that have given him some counsel.
Uh because I would have told him, "Brother, unless you prepare, let me help you prepare for where the argument is going to go." That would have been an actually really easy conversation to have. But hey, it is what it is. We can't Monday morning quarterback everything. Remember, as I always tell you, it doesn't matter what tomorrow brings. I will serve the king. The truth cartel trafficking truth to the world.
相关推荐
#SeamansAct1915 #MaritimeHistory #LifeAtSea #BoatShitCrazyX #SaferWorkEnvironment
BoatShitCrazyX
859 views•2026-06-01
The British Crown Was a Death Sentence
BritanniaAftermath
699 views•2026-05-31
How a Letter Changed History #Shorts
SleepingHistoryDreams
213 views•2026-05-31
Black Women Were Banned From White Suffrage Groups
Peoplediduknow
782 views•2026-05-31
The Mystery of Kuldhara – India's Ghost Village
tracktheworld8050
129 views•2026-06-02
Born into slavery in Beaufort
RoadsanRoots
613 views•2026-05-31
The Peloponnesian War: Ep.2 | The National Idol Who Betrayed His Country #shorts
TheEconomicGenesis
209 views•2026-05-31
The Queen received over four million items of correspondence during her reign
UntoldRoyalNews
2K views•2026-05-31
