More trad tears pls.
Are you suggesting here that it is some kind of sinister ploy by Jay? If it's wrong to direct people from RCC to OC then you should also view Roosh as some type of CIA agent who's mission is to condemn people by making them join a 'false' Orthodox Church.For me the point of Dyer is to steer young men away from Catholicism and into Orthodoxy. The red flags were too much for me in the end.
My take is that he intends to demoralize the West by any means necessary. One of his fraud talking points is that St. Anselm concocted the idea of Adam’s sin as debt (even though Eastern Father St. John Chrysostom said the same thing in the 4th century).Are you suggesting here that it is some kind of sinister ploy by Jay? If it's wrong to direct people from RCC to OC then you should also view Roosh as some type of CIA agent who's mission is to condemn people by making them join a 'false' Orthodox Church.
Indeed! Also, seemingly not a single Dyerite can admit that Dyer has erred on any matter at all, so I have to conclude that their opposition to the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is entirely prejudicial based on their far more extreme de facto doctrine of Dyer inerrancy.The vibe from the Dyer fans is protective and I am left feeling like there is a cult aspect to Orthodoxy for many. Any criticism is quickly dismissed. The critic is "othered" and his opinion is discarded, out of hand.
You forgot to add Jay's constant bragging about how many books he's read. I gotta admit that his debates against atheists are very satisfying to watch, but sometimes Jay reminds me of the new atheists. For example, atheists would say something like, "This is what Christians actually believe." Jay does the same with Catholicism by constantly saying, "This is what Catholics actually believe." Or, "This is what Catholics have to believe". However, when you ask someone with authority in the Catholic church, it's nothing like Jay says.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: "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."
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.
I wouldn't put it in those terms. I don't believe EO will be condemned at all. However, EO has zero potential for taking on the zio-globo-homo in any way whereas the Church has done and will hopefully again do so again in times to come. In that sense, drawing men away from the Church weakens it further, and as the arch-enemy of the zio-globo-homo this leaves the latter without any real threat.Are you suggesting here that it is some kind of sinister ploy by Jay? If it's wrong to direct people from RCC to OC then you should also view Roosh as some type of CIA agent who's mission is to condemn people by making them join a 'false' Orthodox Church.
…à la Michael Witcoff…If I remember correctly from the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, Jones describes how Jews in previous ages were kept away from any public positions for quite some years after they converted because of the damage that new converts can do to a community.
As would Roosh, for that matter…I think Milo would benefit from this tremendously, but of course Jay Dyer might also.
I think your criticism is a bit unfair to what actually happened in the discussion. Roosh simply asked Milo what his experiences were and explained the expectations of an Orthodox regarding prayer/relationship to monks ect... Milo is the one who, through anger, was pretty insulting toward monks (to include the fact that there are monks in the Catholic Church) and assumed that the only reason someone would convert to Orthodoxy is because of Protestant lies about the Catholics.I wouldn't put it in those terms. I don't believe EO will be condemned at all. However, EO has zero potential for taking on the zio-globo-homo in any way whereas the Church has done and will hopefully again do so again in times to come. In that sense, drawing men away from the Church weakens it further, and as the arch-enemy of the zio-globo-homo this leaves the latter without any real threat.
I don't believe Dyer is a member of a false church. I believe him to be in error and due to his public position he is inadvertently strengthening our mutual enemy by dissipating our forces.
I've never taken issue with men who are born into EO, rather with some converts in the West. EO is a foreign religion. The West, in the sense that it was ever something to aspire to, is Catholic. The Deformation created a catastrophe that the West has never recovered from.
Converts don't know what it's like to grow up in their new faith, and we see how touchy many of them are about this, because they are very self-conscious of it. It seems they always have something to prove, to justify. And I don't blame them for it, but they must realise it colours their vision. This is like how Roosh in his interview with Milo repeatedly tries to undermine Milo's pull to the Church and he not so subtly tries calling Milo to EO, which Milo of course called him out on on a number of occasions, but at the same time Roosh sees nothing wrong with this undermining of Milo's religion.
The truth of it is that basically no EO have any real understanding of Catholicism. To understand it properly would take many years, decades even, because it's not about reading a few books, or making clever written arguments. As far as I can see EO criticise what they don't understand. In my opinion they see a great aesthetic and the appearance of something more pure, and they are attracted to this most fundamentally, and not the trueness of one faith over the other, which is impossible to prove in any case.
This I would not begrudge them, but their incessant and snarky attacks on the Church suggest to me that there is something else driving them, and this is most certainly not Christian charity. Of course, I would not expect many of them to admit this, but this is my understanding of things.
I would expect there to be some kind of rule for new converts to stay away from public life because of the danger they pose to others. If I remember correctly from the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, Jones describes how Jews in previous ages were kept away from any public positions for quite some years after they converted because of the damage that new converts can do to a community. I think Milo would benefit from this tremendously, but of course Jay Dyer might also.
I was already going to write a post about Dyer having listened today to his interview with Tim Kelly which I thought was excellent and throughout I was thinking I am probably too harsh on Dyer. He clearly has a great mind, and he can weave a great narrative. I really enjoyed the interview. I guess my only gripe is when he disrespects the Church and if he stuck to his discussion of elites, etc, I would have little to complain about. When you think about it it is crazy how we Christians are here at each other's necks, obsessing over the smallest details when our enemies are out there rampaging around.
Sir, you've been here a week and a half, and are throwing out a lot of heat. Maybe sit back a while and observe before coming in like Al Capone with a baseball bat and trying to crack skulls.…à la Michael Witcoff…
As would Roosh, for that matter…
I probably was too unfair and I regret those parts. It's too easy to lose sight of the bigger picture as one punches away on the keyboard and stuck in the world of his own thoughts. I think you make some good points and I congratulate you on your journey to ChristI think your criticism is a bit unfair to what actually happened in the discussion. Roosh simply asked Milo what his experiences were and explained the expectations of an Orthodox regarding prayer/relationship to monks ect... Milo is the one who, through anger, was pretty insulting toward monks (to include the fact that there are monks in the Catholic Church) and assumed that the only reason someone would convert to Orthodoxy is because of Protestant lies about the Catholics.
Being someone who left Protestantism, completed the RCIA classes but decided not to become Catholic, and now goes to the Eastern Orthodox Church... I found his characterization to be incorrect. The Catholic Church has become so heavily involved in to politics and Francis drove me away from it. Once you dive into the theological differences, you realize they do matter, and that there is legitimate reason for Schism. That doesn't mean there are not many wonderful people who are Catholics. I don't think it is productive to get into Catholic bashing... yet there is a lot of that going on here by a certain sect of Catholics who want to bash their own institutions as well as the Orthodox on the forum.
Jay Dyer writes movie reviews and books about the CIA/ Satanists controlling Hollywood. He then fills in for Alex Jones as a guest host when he is on vacation.
If anyone takes him as a serious 'spiritual authority' and gets upset over him, the joke is on you. His talent is in reading long books and analyzing what he just read for his listeners. Nothing more, nothing less.
Jay is an excellent Orthodox apologist, one of the best on the internet. I would consider that - "something more".
Are you the guy who just got banned? It's your first post and you come in with a critical attitude.
I will take Fr. Mark Goring, Father Josiah Trenham, Father Spyridon, and others when it comes to spiritual matters.
If I want to learn about the esoteric secrets of the Matrix movies and Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure, I will switch on to Jay Dyer.
And no, I just joined this forum and have been involved in these matters for a very long time.
Jay Dyer has no reservations against associating St. Augustine with 21st century atheism. He doesn’t deserve more careful consideration than the Church Fathers he casually slimes with claims that are as stupid as they are malicious. Dyer’s attack on Catholicism, St. Augustine, and Thomism as “leading to atheism & apostasy” is based upon the theorizing & writings of Joseph Farrell—theories which caused Farrell himself to apostatize! Jay Dyer’s “staretz” (ie. ortho guru), Joseph Farrell (of Giza Death Star, the intergalactic Nazi UFO conspiracy, and “Yahweh the Two Faced God” fame) was also a bishop of the “Celtic Orthodox Church.” He went by Bishop Photios. Dyer promotes Farrell’s asinine theories decades after his (Farrell’s) apostasy. Farrell eventually left the internet Orthodoxy racket that he founded to pursue the Giza Death Star and the Nazi UFOs full time. Jay Dyer is not an original thinker. Jay is an “anti-boomer” popularizer of boomer Joseph Farrell’s kooky religious ideas.
You're already being intellectually dishonest. I said Jay is an excellent Orthodox apologist which you didn't address and instead cited other Orthodox apologists who indeed are respectable.
In the next sentence, you're playfully mocking by mentioning a Pee Wee Herman movie.
Someone's first post is often pretty telling. Good luck.
Joseph Farrell was a solid orthodox apologist, then he apostatize and turned into a crazy gnostic.Wait, what?
How did everyone in here just skip over that one.
Is that true?
Now I’m laughing at you for filtering the Church Fathers through a guy who spent most of his life as an active homosexual occultist in an attempt to convict St. Thomas of heresy. If only you understood how ridiculous it is to attempt to convict St. Thomas of heresy by wheeling in Eugene Rose. Wheeling in Eugene “toll houses” Rose’s ROCOR doctrines and anathemas to “refute” St. Thomas Aquinas is a self-own.No, Jay's apologetics are based on the Church Fathers.
For more specific information on the link between Thomism and atheism I'd suggest fth Seraphim Rose's book "Orthodox Survival Course".