Jay Dyer

RonaldB

Sparrow
I'm a catholic who still enjoys some of his content, but my problem with Jay Dyer is that I don't TRUST him. When I listen to Roosh and Michael Wittcoff, I can feel their WISDOM which comes from years of living degenerate and unchristian lives leading them to Christ. Jay cannot stop bringing up the Catholic church in his talks. Many times I listened to his theology streams, but quit after his long and obnoxious rants about the Catholic church, and most of what HE THINKS Catholics believe are not true. Also, Jay has said some PREPOSTEROUS things like "Absolute Divine Simplicity" leads to Atheism and the decline of Western Christianity which just proves his binary 2d thinking as "The Kurgan" calls it.

I know many don't like vox day, but when Jay debated Vox's friend "The Kurgan", Vox and his readers were quick to identify the flaws of jay's thinking and behavior. Here are some relevant posts from Vox's blog if you want to check them out:

 

MichaelWitcoff

Ostrich
Orthodox
Thus far every debate I've had with a Muslim goes the same way:
1. Muslim claims the Bible never says Jesus is God
2. I point out all the places where it does
3. He claims "well those parts were added later"
4. He turns around and claims the Bible never says Jesus is God

When Muslim apologists send their people, they're not sending their best.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
Orthodox
Thus far every debate I've had with a Muslim goes the same way:
1. Muslim claims the Bible never says Jesus is God
2. I point out all the places where it does
3. He claims "well those parts were added later"
4. He turns around and claims the Bible never says Jesus is God

When Muslim apologists send their people, they're not sending their best.
Another part of the fundamental challenge of "debating" restorationists at all.

What's more interesting to me is what gets them out of the mental box of "no matter what we do, because it's later, we can explain away."

I harp on the persons of Jesus Christ vs. Muhammad. I think it's the biggest aspect of bizarro world of muslim thinking, especially muslims that can see the truth and harmony in many of the civilizations they desire to live in, or historically have tried to live in after escaping islamic ones.
 

SilentCal

Robin
Was really surprised by Jay’s opener in the debate that @RonaldB mentioned - he becomes an excellent defender of Catholicism against a sede (The Kurgan), even though he is ultimately trying to defend Orthodoxy. I only listened to the first 10-20 minutes but he seems to do a really great job of showing the inconsistency of sedevacantism. Here is a link if anyone is interested:

 

NoFunInAus

Kingfisher
It seems only "certain" Catholics have an issue with Jay Dyer (is this thread still about him btw?).

I've followed Jay for almost a decade, way before most of you did and he's been ace. He actually got me to this forum.

Sure he is a sinner, aren't we all? This high and mighty behaviour of finding "proof" (of what?) that he's a "bad man" is totally moronic and not Christian at all. You people who do this shit should look in the mirror before judging a fellow Christian, appalling behaviour. I doubt you lot have done as much as Jay or have taken as much risk as him. I stand with Scorpion on this.

Jay's analyses of certain movies (especially Kubrick's) is top of the world. The way he showed us how freemasonry, the intelligence agencies and crime syndicates all link together has been eye-opening.

Him not being a 7 million subbed channel says enough as he has many many people convert to the right religion and this is a no-go for our ((friends))) in charge. Sure, he doesn't bring them up DIRECTLY, but you should already be at this page to begin with. Going all Dailystormer is not helpful at all (I know we have a lot of overspill here) and actually results in the opposite result desirable.

Jay is a bro and I support him completely.
 

SilentCal

Robin
You people who do this shit should look in the mirror before judging a fellow Christian, appalling behaviour.
You are judging multiple Christians by saying this. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that makes you a hypocrite. You might learn to roll with the punches. We can handle Jay’s criticism, and I’m sure he can handle ours without White Knights galloping to his defense on an internet forum.
 

NoFunInAus

Kingfisher
You are judging multiple Christians by saying this. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that makes you a hypocrite. You might learn to roll with the punches. We can handle Jay’s criticism, and I’m sure he can handle ours without White Knights galloping to his defense on an internet forum.

Isn't that true "silent" Cal?
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
I tried to listen to this today. I really had a hard time getting through Jay's opening statements and the respondent's rebuttal. To be honest, I am sure Jay has theological accuracy and correctness... but I just tuned out after listening to 5 mins with him. It was the same thing when I listened to his stuff before he became big into Orthodoxy commentary. He is well read... but sometimes his own arguments are esoteric beyond that which a layperson is willing to invest in.

He is verbose. It turns off many newer listeners. I listened to him with my wife recently. My wife doesn't have a classical degree or though she reads Shakespeare for free time. Her comments echo my own sentiments " why does this guy have to use the dictionary to prove a point when simple English would do?"
 
Their arguments rely on terrorism and mass rape.

Centuries of consanguineous breeding hasn't been kind to the Mahometan intellectual capacity.

Their argument is the sword and the whiplash. Its only because the comprehensive Intellectual system of Europe was also likewise applied to the Military Sciences as much as to the development of Infrastructure and Economy that Islam was eventually overtaken.

Being good at explaining the Trinity didn't stop the sword from chopping off said Scholar's head.

Gunpowder and modern organization did a lot to grant Europe the edge. Prior to Gunpowder, European Armies didn't seem to do so well against Islam Militarily(alongside central Asia).

Virtue doesn't necessarily win over others as Confucianists in China would erroneously believe. But Virtue over time grants the edge in defeating enemies and in this way virtue is spread.
 

NickK

Woodpecker
Orthodox
but I just tuned out after listening to 5 mins with him.
I did too for the same reason. The opening monologues were boring.
But I tuned in about an hour or so into the debate, when the format changed to "interrogation mode" and it was woth it.

Jay just destroyed that poor mohameddan.
 

OrthoLeaf

Sparrow
Orthodox
This is gonna be lit :) prep your popcorn, my version of the super bowl

Jay ended Islam with this debate. It's over. Done. Finished. They will never recover from this.

But on a serious note, I had no idea Islam was so Gnostic in its hatred for the body. It's a sort of bizarre Gnostic and Aristotelian hybrid. It was a good debate simply because it exposed these philosophic underpinnings of Islam that are usually never brought to the surface so clearly. Jay's presuppositional critique totally leveled the entire theology of Islam.

It's clear that they cannot justify Tawhid and require distinctions in Allah while denying the possibility of distinctions in Allah. Their doctrine on epistemology is totally incoherent; they claim that Allah is so far beyond the created order that there is no way for him to be imaged or signified by creation - yet they require created things to tell us about Allah, his nature, his actions etc. Worse, Theosis is impossible within this worldview as their can be no similarity between creation and Creator. We are fully separated from God, cannot know God and cannot become like God. All this forces me to ask - what is the point of human life within this worldview? They deny God can enter time and space, yet claim Allah did precisely that when he spoke to Muhammad. Given their ADS position and claim that God is pure act, they unwittingly collapse the God and creation into a dyad, which refutes their aforementioned position of no similarity between God and creation. They claim that they can reason up to God through natural philosophy and that they hold the perfectly rational position, but cannot bridge the gap between cause and effect (creation), observation (creation), language (creation) and God (Creator). Is this a theology of reason, or revelation? Which is the higher epistemic condition for knowledge of God? It appeared to me that they claim reason as their standard, which blew my mind tbh. I'm still trying to reconcile their hatred for the body, with their overly carnal interpretation of paradise. There must be a connection here, but I have not yet pinned it down. All in all, the whole theology is just all over the place.

This whole debate is a textbook example as to why we Orthodox have the Energy/Essence distinction. This is why St Basil stressed this point, it's why St Palamas reinforced this position so forcefully with his debate against the Latin Barlaamites. Man is severed from God without it! This is why it is so crucial. We are not presenting this doctrine to our fellow Christans because we get the jollies from it, we are presenting it because you end up in a totally incoherent theology without it! If there are two things to take away from this debate they are: without energy/essence distinction you cannot know God directly and presuppostional critiques will always be more devastating and a faster means to the truth or falsity of a position than natural philosophy will - which essentially just boils down to both sides throwing out as many factoids as possible.
 

Caramasão

Sparrow
Orthodox Inquirer
I tried to listen to this today. I really had a hard time getting through Jay's opening statements and the respondent's rebuttal. To be honest, I am sure Jay has theological accuracy and correctness... but I just tuned out after listening to 5 mins with him. It was the same thing when I listened to his stuff before he became big into Orthodoxy commentary. He is well read... but sometimes his own arguments are esoteric beyond that which a layperson is willing to invest in.

He is verbose. It turns off many newer listeners. I listened to him with my wife recently. My wife doesn't have a classical degree or though she reads Shakespeare for free time. Her comments echo my own sentiments " why does this guy have to use the dictionary to prove a point when simple English would do?"
I think you missed the point of the debate, Jay was arguing the Holy Trinity against an Aristotelian Muslim, you can't avoid philosophical and theological jargon against this kind of opponent.

Jay Dyer's apologetics is precisely that we must not subjugate our idea of God to the Greek philosophical project of autonomous human reason, but to Divine Revelation.
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
I think you missed the point of the debate, Jay was arguing the Holy Trinity against an Aristotelian Muslim, you can't avoid philosophical and theological jargon against this kind of opponent.

Jay Dyer's apologetics is precisely that we must not subjugate our idea of God to the Greek philosophical project of autonomous human reason, but to Divine Revelation.
No i didn't miss it. I understand what he was saying. I am saying it was unnecessary to be so verbose.
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
I agree, he has the verbosity of a philosphy doctoral student, the tendency to be unnecessarily verbose and arcane, taking pleasure in using as much as possible the concepts and terminology that they've newly been trained. He also does a lot of that in geopolitics.
That is an excellent way of putting it and is ultimately my criticism.

I don't doubt his intellect, sincerity, or even correctness. I am not an intellectual light weight, and appreciate folks having a good vocabulary and verbal depth of expression. But at a certain point you lose your audience by showing off.

I don't doubt that he does a lot to bring folks to the Orthodox Church. I appreciate that. I just don't care for his delivery and style.
 
All of Jay Dyer’s debates sound like this to me:

Dyer: "Okay so the presuppositional argument is (blah blah blah) and there are presuppositions that (blah blah blah.) Now if you take the presupposition (blah blah blah) then you are forced to (blah blah blah) which has to occur based on that presupposational argument (blah blah blah.)

TWO HOURS LATER…

Dyer: "And that is why one has to take that presupposition in order for it to make sense."

[Some debate back and forth]

Dyer: "I just said that man, weren't you listening?"

Debater: "Well yeah, but I'm trying to get to the point of (blah)."

Dyer: "You can't do that, I just proved you can't."

Debater: "Well if I could just..."

Dyer: "No."

Debater "..."

Dyer: "Because I had already explained it and if you are too stupid to understand then there's not point going further."

[back and forth]

Dyer: "You're an idiot, dude. You're just an idiot. I answered your questions, I proved why you are wrong, you're an idiot."
 
Top