DEBATE: Is Mormonism Christian? @MadebyJimbob Vs @LiftLogicLabs

Any other definition that he presents isn't actually relevant because they would be something such as having to accept the Nian creed, including doctrines such as the secession of public revelation, or perhaps the Trinity, or maybe a rejection of theological concepts such as create aexilo, none of which are concepts that we would accept, partially because they're not demonstrated in the biblical texts which he will be appealing to. But any other definition isn't actually a definition that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is using when we call ourselves Christian.

And what I mean by that is obviously we reject the creeds. In fact, we are of the belief that God himself rejects them per his words to our prophet in the first vision account as published in our canon. And then if you go and ask the leaders of our church, what do you mean when you say you identify as Christian? The definition they will provide will be from Merriam-Webster. It will not be anything based in theology. It will be an objective stance, not a theological stance.

So in order to claim that we are not Christian, despite the fact that based on that objective definition that we we are, it will be up to my opponent to either prove that we don't align with that definition or prove an alternative definition that he's going to use as the correct definition and then prove we don't align with that. The problem that will very rapidly manifest itself is the fact that to do so, Jim Bob will make theological arguments rather than objective arguments. And those theological arguments will disqualify any other particular, any other church rather than his particular version of orthodoxy from being Christian. But in doing so, he will inevitably concede the original premise that we objectively are Christian. And in doing so, and the method he will use to concede this will be by arguing the subjective theology instead of the objective fact.

Furthermore, when he does so, assuming he follows his normal pattern of arguments as per his past debates I've watched, he will attempt to argue a straw man of our theology, stating things like, "You don't believe God was always God," or whatever other recycled Protestant arguments he's prepared. And even if those were true, that would still not preclude us from the definition that I have laid out, which like I said is the only one that we actually affirm or claim. He would preclude Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and every other denomination of Christianity from the definition of Christianity, a statement that is itself logically incoherent. Because certainly a social anthropologist studying our faith and those previously mentioned would identify them all as denominations of a broader philosophy of Christianity, just like how social philosophers and anthropologists studying the first century identify many Christianities in their studies. The position he's actually going to be arguing would probably be more accurately stated as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are precluded from salvation, a completely subjective claim, but a more cohesive claim to what his actual premise is.

Um, and he will be doing so by appealing to a closed canon of scriptural texts that I nor my church actually accept, as well as what ends up being a bastardized version of our theology that he's going to straw man based off of either out of context scriptures or quotations from other members from previous discussions, thus demonstrating that in debating with Latter-day Saints, he hasn't objectively looked at our faith tradition before doing so. But with that, take it away.

>> Thank you very much for that opening. And folks, if it's your first time here, I'm your host, Dr. James Coons. Modern Day Debate is a fully neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. If you have been living in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and you didn't hear, Debbcon 7 is going to be in Houston, Texas, Saturday, January 31st. As you can see at the bottom right of your screen, it's packed with talent. It's going to be amazing. Check out the link in the description boxes. We're expecting this to sell out. So, grab your tickets now. With that, we'll kick it over to Jim Bob. Thanks for being with us. The floor is yours.

[clears throat] >> Could I do something a little unorthodox? Um, my audio did something when you opened. Can you just give me the quick definition that you said of Christianity, please? Sorry.

>> Yeah, for sure. So, it's just the current Merriam-Webster definition, which is one who professes a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

>> Okay. All right. Thanks. Okay, you could start the timer now. Thanks. All right.

[cough and clears throat] >> So, yeah. Is Mormonism Christian? Um, I could actually show up to this debate as a complete atheist and still determine that uh my opponent can't actually defend the claim that Mormonism is Christian. Um, so first of all, uh, Christian uh, I think we might even agree on the definition. I would add something important there. Christian would be one who follows the theology, doctrine, and traditions established by Christ and the apostles. Um, if Mormonism is Christian, then the LDS doctrines and traditions could be traced back to Christ and the apostles. The problem is the only source for LDS doctrine is Joseph Smith, which is 600 years uh, 600 years later.

Now, it's interesting my opponent came in with a sort of a, in a sense, a broad view, including everyone as Christian. Uh, meanwhile, his own doctrine. First Nephi 13 says, "Every other church that's not Mormon is of the most abominable church, the corrupted church, the [ __ ] of the earth." So, it's kind of interesting. He kind of defeated his own position right off the bat without any of my help. Um, if it's the case that he's arguing he ought be included in other Christian denominations, generally speaking, he has to then include other denominations into his Christian theology. But this is inconsistent with his own theology being that First Nephi 13 establishes all other churches are false. They're actually from the devil. So that doesn't even make sense right off the bat.

[clears throat] Second of all, Christian theology uh just like he would claim that the LDS is the one true church. Uh, we would claim any other Christian would have to claim that uh Christ started one church, not a plural church, not a plural body. Uh uh, we don't believe uh no one was uh uh practicing LDS doctrine in the first century. Um, so that's something he's going to be challenged on here. My opponent believes that a false church uh further compiled and kept the Bible, the New the New Testament. Uh, that means a false church, I mean Mormonism holds as per their scripture that any false church is the mother of abominations. He would argue that orthodoxy or Catholicism or anything else other than LDS would necessarily be in the broad uh category of the church of Satan, the church of the [ __ ] of the earth. But the [ __ ] of the earth actually compiled the scripture for Joseph Smith to then discover and on his own uh authority uh figure out how to pick and choose and write himself into doctrine. LDS believe that the church fell into apostasy. Um, and if he's going to say anyone who claims generality to Christian doctrine and totally disagrees on the apostasy, how could he include contradictory uh positions on Christianity and include him as an authoritative Christian? So, if someone doesn't believe in the apostasy, but they generally believe in some sort of Christian doctrine, according to my opponent, they're also Christian. It sounds like there's no standard for Christianity being that there can be contradictory views of Christianity.

So he believes that the church fell in the true church of LDS fell into a zombie-like bride scenario only to be resurrected by Joseph Smith later on. The problem with this claim is that there's no indication historically of such an event. Uh, there's no indication of LDS theology being alive and well in the first century, let alone falling into apostasy. So I mean, a key element of Christian Christianity is that if we both hold that Christ started the church and he set out with his apostles the great commission to teach and to practice what it is to be Christian according to Christ. You would be able to point to the LDS uh doctrine and tradition of that time. You would also be able to track when it actually failed. Now, the LDS hold that around 100, which they just, they don't put a date on it, but they say the death of the apostles, they said they say generally that's the beginning of the falling away. Well, they haven't, no evidence of this either. In fact, if they had some sort of tracking system for their tradition, they could say, look, here's a uh LDS practice tradition, and here's the counter to it, parallel running parallel to it, and here's where it fell. They can't tell you. They just have to say, trust Joseph Smith. This is a big problem for their ecclesiology, which is uh, aside from Joseph Smith and all of his false claims, is one of the guillotines against Mormonism. Uh, the ecclesiology is non-existent. In fact, church history begins for Mormonism with Joseph Smith. There is no church history according to LDS. There's only church history according to Joseph Smith. There's nothing in the past that points to a Joseph Smith coming. Uh, there's no uh previous prophets. Uh, surely the LDS, if they said they were Christian, they would hold to the standard of Christian, what constitutes a prophet. Well, we're going to find out tonight that the LDS Mormons do not even have a standard for what a prophet is. In fact, a prophet from their view can actually say something false. So, what are we, what are we determining? How do we determine a true prophet from a false prophet? And if you don't have a standard for what a prophet is, how are you going to say Joseph Smith is a true prophet? And how are you going to further even buttress the claim that Christianity is is a, a thorough theology carried forth throughout the ages? You can't. You need the Old Testament um prophets and you need the last prophet.

The other thing is they say the church fell into apostasy when the the apostles died, but the problem is they also think John is still alive. Now, if John was still alive, you'd think that John, wherever he is in Miami, maybe waiting to go on Fresh and Fit, would actually announce, "Hey guys, Joseph Smith was right." And all of the other presidents elected of the LDS church who call themselves prophets um, even though they counter some of the revelatory claims of Joseph Smith like plural marriages, um, uh, polygamy, then uh suddenly who has the keys now, right? So, how did they determine who got the keys and why? And what is this great apostasy and how do you track it? You can't track it. It's just a claim. There's nothing in the in the history that says that this happened. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite. Uh, for one of the claims that Joseph Smith makes is that uh the the scripture was lost in translation and it was manipulated and that that church at the time after the death of the apostles manipulated some of the scripture and some of it's missing, right? And I go, "How do you know some of it's missing?" Well, well, we know because Joseph Smith said so. Well, the problem is they claimed that Genesis was changed, right? That's why Joseph Smith altered Genesis, altered the commentary, and kind of inserted himself in there. Well, the problem here is that Joseph Smith uh apparently, you say he was a prophet, but he didn't have the prophetic powers on apparently. Maybe he was charging his prophecy battery uh and it didn't come through the fact that years later in the 1940s, I believe, um, that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. And interesting, when you look at the Dead Sea Scrolls, what you see is copies of Genesis. They happen to be identical not only to current Christian uh biblical texts, but the Jewish texts as well. I think Joseph Smith forgot about the Jews. The fact that they actually maintain Genesis and copies of Genesis, copies of the Torah, they not only maintain copies of them that demonstrate they're unchanged and uncorrupt, uh, they compare them with Christians. By the way, we don't agree on our theology. After after uh Christ and the Jews of the time rejected Christ as the Messiah, they developed their own doctrines, but they kept Genesis. And the thing is the uh reconciliation of Christian accounts of Genesis and Jewish accounts of Genesis. If Joseph Smith was right and that was manipulated, um, these texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls wouldn't be dated uh, you know, back to 300 BC. Now, that's being aggressive. Let's say let's say these things were buried 70 AD and not 300 BC. Well, you know, when the when the second temple uh was was uh destroyed and the Essenes at the time buried in a panic, buried their text, including the Torah, including Genesis, they buried it in there, right? Well, it was it was pulled out of the ground. It was well preserved because of the lack of moisture, uncorrupted. No sign or indication of manipulation or change. Okay, this is completely inconsistent with Joseph Smith's claim. So, if you look at that, that's a big problem. Uh, Joseph Smith didn't see that coming.

Um, further, uh, when we get into prophecy, I I mentioned that prophecy is required. You need a standard for a prophet. Um, a true church of Christ would have a true prophet system. Uh, a true standard for what constitutes a prophet. That is irrelevant. In fact, uh, he's brought up orthodoxy. You don't even need orthodoxy tonight because if there's a true church and you claim it's Christian, you'll be able to trace its traditions and ecclesiology all the way back to Christ. And you'll have a documented commentary. You'll have church fathers commenting on it. You'd have the LDS version of church fathers maintaining the true faith that eventually Joseph Smithy Smitty's going to come and rescue it and revive the bride. Right? But that didn't happen. Right?

Now for let's look at some prophecies like now. Now, I know already uh the LDS don't care if uh there are false prophecies, but I just want to make sure you guys understand um there is a variety of false prophecies from Joseph Smith. One, the temple in Independence, Missouri, the prophecy God commanded that the temple would be built in Independence, Missouri on a specific site by that generation. Well, you know, uh 180 years later, didn't happen. 190 years later, didn't happen. The redemption of Zion by force. God revealed that Zion, Missouri would be redeemed quickly and that the enemies would be overthrown. DNC. This is their own doctrine, by the way. 101720. DNC. 1031520. Outcome. Zion was not redeemed. The armed expedition Zion's camp failed. They failed. It didn't work. Uh, three. David W. Patton's mission and survival. Apostle David Patton was told by the old prophet he'd go on a mission in spring 1839. Well, he died. Uh, this was in DNC 114, 1838 written down. Didn't happen. He died. He died a year or so earlier at the Battle of Crooked River. That is a false prophet right there. Joseph Smitty. Uh, Salem, Massachusetts. Treasure revelation prophecy. God revealed that Joseph Smith would find hidden treasure in Salem to pay the church debts. DNC 111 1836. Written outcome: No treasure found. The trip failed financially and spiritually just like Joseph Smith. Uh, the Canadian copyright revelation prophecy. Some LDS leaders testified that Joseph Smith received a revelation that selling the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada would succeed. Sources statements: David Whitmer, Brigham Young, and others other Mormons claimed to uh uh to the authority of Joseph Smith. The mission failed completely. No buyer was found. Worldwide civil war prophecy. Prophecy American civil war would begin in South Carolina, lead to a worldwide like an actual world war, cause the end of all nations. Didn't happen. This is written in DNC 87 1832. Uh, outcome didn't happen. None of it happened. The Civil War began in South Carolina. Partially accurate, right? But of course, leading up to the the war, everybody's talking about it now. All the tension is around, oh, there's going to be a war. Maybe there's going to be a war. Everyone else got that partially right, too.

>> 30 seconds left.

>> So, so if there's no prophet standard and there's no tradition or ecclesiology tying you back to Jesus Christ, you can't say we hold to the church of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the apostles if you cannot trace your authority or your ecclesiology back to it. Furthermore, we didn't even get into the uh the doctrine of LDS, which is incoherent. I would hold that Christian doctrine is coherent, not incoherent. Mormon doctrine is absolutely incoherent.

>> You got it. With that, we'll jump into the open dialogue. Want to let you know a couple housekeeping things, folks. First, after the open dialogue, we'll have the Q&A session. If you have any questions, submit them in the live chat. You can tag me with that modern day debate or if you use a super chat that pushes your question to the top of the list. Also, if you didn't see it, our membership's goal for today is one out of three. In other words, help us as modern day debate is striving to improve our membership. Check them out. Give us feedback. We're excited about these. With that, we're going to jump into the open dialogue.

>> So, yeah.

>> So, you do agree. Do you agree that if Mormonism is Christian, that it would have to be in place in history around the time of Christ and the apostles?

>> No.

>> So, Christ didn't start Mormon theology?

>> No. Christ You see this is this is what I was saying in my opening.

>> Do you want to debate something else now? [laughter]

>> Kind of because look, this is what I was saying in my this is what I was saying in my opening statement. You don't understand Mormonism. I've been a member of this church for like two decades now. Everything you said in your opening statement was incorrect with very sparse exceptions. You actually don't understand how our theology works or what the truth claims of our church are. Like I don't think Paul was a Mormon. Nobody's saying that. Did I mention your theology?

>> The truth claims in my church. How about that?

>> Uh, well, I didn't mention theology. If you claim that Christ Okay, let's start easy. Did Christ

>> You said my theology is incoherent and you were referring to infinite regress.

>> No, no, I didn't I didn't get into that. I don't even plan on getting into the theology because the ecclesiology is so bad that I don't even need to talk about the theology. Now, I'll ask a very simple question and see if you can answer it very simply. Did Jesus Christ start a church in reality?

>> No.

>> Jesus Christ didn't establish a church.

>> What do you mean by establish a church?

>> "Here on this rock, I start my church." The church is the pillar of truth.

>> Okay. So, like a physical location of worship?

>> Nope. Did Christ exist?

>> Uh, yeah. There was a guy called Jesus.

>> There was a guy called Jesus.

>> Yes. That is a historical fact.

>> Okay. So, you're a Christian and you're saying there was a guy called Jesus.

>> Right?

>> Okay. So, there was some guy called Jesus and according to your own doctrine that was partially adopted by Joseph Smith, did Joseph Smith believe that Christ started a church?

>> Sure. Let's say yes.

>> Okay.

>> Cuz because now that I'm saying yes because you clarified the definition of church, by the way. I I agree that he started a church.

>> Okay. So, if Christ started a church and he started the church with the apostles, do you agree that he started a great he set off a great commission too?

>> I look, here's the problem, Jim. I don't Christ didn't write anything. I don't have a basis for belief of what Christ did or did not do. What you have is you have ancient documents written decades after Christ's death that allege he may or may not have said certain things.

>> Okay.

>> So

>> So that's true of Okay. But that's true of all of all of the Christian um scripture. Right.

>> Right. Right. So you're you're getting you're getting to an important point here.

>> There's objectivity and there's subjectivity. And that's why I said I'm arguing an objective definition. Once we start getting into theology, we're getting off in the weeds on subjectivity.

>> Hold on a second. Objectively.

>> I'm talking objectively. If Christ started a church, clearly if a church fell into apostasy, it existed, right?

>> It It's not an objective fact that the church either existed or fell into apostasy.

>> Right? Okay. So, it's not a fact that the church that Christ started existed.

>> It's not an objective fact. It's a subjective fact. I choose to believe.

>> There are subjective facts.

>> Yeah. Yes, there's subjective and objective.

>> Oh, okay. So um so when you say Christianity, are you latching yourself to the mission and the words and the teachings of Christ or not?

>> I am defining myself as exactly what Merriam-Webster says.

>> That didn't answer my question. I didn't ask for a definition.

>> It actually it actually did.

>> So when you

>> It is directly responsive. So the Merriam-Webster says you're a Christian if you follow Christian theology.

>> The the teachings of Jesus Christ, not Christian theology is actually what it says.

>> Okay. So the teachings of Jesus Christ. So Jesus did come and he established a church and the church is the teachings of his of him, right?

>> Not necessarily.

>> Oh my gosh, that's a contradiction. If you say being a being a Christian is following first and foremost Christ establishing a church and teaching. He set off a great commission with the apostles to teach his teachings. Right? Do you believe Jesus Christ conveyed his teachings to his apostles?

>> I believe that as a theological position that's not objective.

>> So you're not sure if Jesus Christ existed and taught theology.

>> Are that's like saying, "Am I sure God exists?"

>> So you're not sure God exists. Nobody can be 100% certain God exists, right? You would agree with that?

>> No, I disagree with that.

>> Okay. You can prove God objectively.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. That would be a great starting point.

>> That's that's not the debate. Is God does God exist? If you're going to say you're Christian, but you don't believe

>> it would be No, no, wait, wait, wait. It would be a good starting point to proving that Christian has to have an external definition from the one I pro.

>> No, no, no. I'm just I'm trying to get your position on what Christian means. You could be Christian. Let's say let's say a version of Christianity is not true and you claim to be a Christian. I'm not seeing how you're going to argue it's Christian if you don't have a standard for what's Christian. If your standard is the teachings of Jesus Christ, someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Okay. If it's Do you at least say to be a Christian is to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?

>> Yeah, that's the only thing.

>> Okay, cool. Do you know for certain what the teachings of Jesus Christ are?

>> You can't. He didn't write in.

>> So then you can't be a Christian. The debate's over.

>> Right. Yeah. You could say that.

>> So you you concede. You concede that you can't.

>> No, I don't concede. You concede because you're trying to invalidate the Merriam-Webster definition.

>> Look, look, we got to focus here, buddy. I don't care about a definition. A definition doesn't make something true. If the definition,

>> it does in this case. If the definition is someone who's a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, but you don't actually know the teachings of Jesus Christ. You can't follow the teachings if you don't know what they are.

>> Okay. Look, you're you're struggling with the concept.

>> I'm struggling.

>> Yes. You came into this saying I could argue this as an atheist and you're not liking the agnostic view to history.

>> You're an agnostic Christian.

>> No, I'm not agnostic. I am religious.

>> Okay. Let me ask you again. Let's swap out following Jesus Christ with following the ancient tradition of samurai sword wielding. Let's say there's a source for samurai sword wielding techniques and it's the same age. It's about the the time it shows up, the time of Christ. We're swapping Christ and the teachings of Christ with this ancient character who teaches samurai. Okay. So if you said, "I'm a follower of Kanakawa." You said, "I'm a follower of Kanakawa's teaching." And I go, "That's interesting." Yeah. Wasn't he like an ancient sword wielder? And you go, "Yeah, that's what they say." And I go, "So you're a follower of his teachings?" And you go, "Yeah." And I go, "Yeah, but um do you know his teachings for sure?" And you go, "No, I don't know. I don't even know if he really existed." Does that make sense to you? You don't even know. You don't ultimately know the teachings of Christ, but you're claiming to be Christian, but you admit that you don't even know for sure the teachings of Christ. How could you be?

>> That's an inconsistent analogy.

>> No. How can you look Look, answer this question. How could you know you're a uh a follower of the teachings of Christ if you admit you don't know the teachings of Christ?

>> Because I choose to accept them and identify with them.

>> So, it's a trans argument. No,

>> I identify as a woman and I identify that way and I don't need to know what a woman is. Does that make sense to you? I don't need

>> That's not what a trans person would even claim.

>> They do claim that all the time. They say it's self-identification inside. So, so

>> right because they separate genders.

>> Okay. Is it true? Is it true that you know that you need to know a past about Jesus Christ to even know if you're a follower?

>> Why would that be true? If you say I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, is it true you have to know who Jesus Christ is?

>> Personally, sure. But that's not the definition of Christian.

>> I didn't ask about I'm using your definition, dude. If you say

>> No, no, no. Those these those are two different things. You conflated two things.

>> What I've on one hand, you have a believer and what they believe and on the other hand, you have an anthropological classification.

>> Okay. Your belief is about a reference, right? Do you know what a reference is?

>> Define that for me.

>> A reference is the object or thing that you're pointing to in the world. The reference is the word or the phrase you're using. So Jesus, when you say Jesus, are you talking about a who?

>> A who?

>> Yeah. Is there is Jesus a who? Person.

>> What do I I'm not following.

>> Is Jesus a person? Was he a person?

>> Yes. Jesus of Nazareth was a person. Okay. And you know that, but you don't know that actually because

>> No, I do know that. That's a historical fact.

>> Okay. So Jesus did know. So you're not agnostic about Jesus existing.

>> No, obviously not. There was a Jesus of Nazareth.

>> Okay. So tell me why you're not agnostic about Jesus existing, but you're agnostic about his teachings.

>> I'm not agnostic about his teachings. But I get

>> You said that.

>> No, I didn't say that. But I get what you mean. Um, Jesus didn't write anything. What you have are historical texts of unknown authorship written decades after his death. Those are not reliable translations of what he would have said word for word.

>> So then why is Joseph Smith's reliable then?

>> Because I choose to accept it the same way I choose to accept the biblical text.

>> Wait a second. Wait a second. The choice that you make legitimizes the epistemic uh backbone.

>> It's a religious belief. That's how religion works.

>> Holy crap, dude. So, look, if you're saying, "We don't know what Jesus really taught, but I choose to follow it, but I don't really know what he taught." By the way, Joseph Smith comes 1600 years later, writes a bunch of stuff, claims a bunch of stuff. And I go, "How is it that you're affirming your your Joseph Smith's claims with confidence, but not cor?" Hold on, hold on, hold on. No, no, you're interrupting. You're interrupting. Stop.

>> Yeah, I'm interrupting because you you're making a false

>> premise. No, no, hold on. You just said,

>> You just said the standard you use to verify or buttress your faith in Joseph Smith is you just choose to believe it. That's your criteria.

>> That's all religion. Literally all of it. Find me a religious belief that doesn't work that way.

>> No. No. It's not all religion because

>> it actually is.

>> No. How do I know this? We know from a Christian perspective that there is a history of the church also also written about.

>> You mean a normative authority? Not even normative. Just the history of the church. Just the way there's a history of Jesus Christ, there's a history of a church. Now the question is,

>> you choose to accept,

>> dude. The choice of accepting a past that exists. Is that what's in question today? Are you choosing to accept you have parents?

>> Yes, I choose to accept I have parents, but that's not the point.

>> Hold on. Is it a necessary fact that if that that if you believe you had parents, is it a necessary fact that you probably did that you had parents? It's like like to make the belief that you had

>> it's an objective reality that to exist I have to have

>> okay so to be a Christian

>> do you know the difference between objective and subjective you've conflated them like four times in that one

>> session we're not talking about objective or subjective

>> we actually are that's all we've been talking about is objective versus subjective

>> okay cool are prophets objective or subjective

>> obviously subjective they're making religious claims religious claims are subjective by nature

>> okay so when you say

>> but you can't falsify a prophecy this is something I wanted to respond to directly

>> okay so You said that Joseph Smith made several false prophecies. There are things in the biblical text that could be identified as false prophecies too in the exact same manner.

>> Yeah, you would we would isolate them and see if they're conditional. Whereas you can do the same with Joseph Smith and demonstrate they're not conditional. Easy.

>> No, they are conditional in many cases. I know you're

>> or they're commandments because No, here's the thing. You haven't read the Doctrine of Covenants, have you? Have you read it?

>> I've read a bunch of the DNC uh

>> read the chat GPT pasted in there. Why does that matter if it's subjective?

>> Cuz it cuz you're misquoting them and taking them out of their context.

>> Wait, wait, wait. I thought you said it's subjective. How could I misquote it if it's subjective?

>> What the text says is objective.

>> No, no, no. Text requires interpretation.

>> Text does require interpretation subjective. You're misinterpreting it.

>> How do you No, that's subjective according to you.

>> Right. The interpretation of the text is subjective. So then how could you are choosing to misinterpret?

>> No. Misinterpret would be if it's subjective interpretation. And there's no such thing as misinterpret. That's an objective claim. That's an objective claim.

>> Okay. Okay. Sure. Yeah. There there is

>> a contradiction, dude.

>> No, it's not a contradiction, but I just conceded it. I just conceded it.

>> Okay. You concede. There is no incorrect interpretation.

>> Great. So, if there's no incorrect interpretation that all of it's correct.

>> Yeah.

>> Every every contradicting interpretation of scripture is correct.

>> Are you trolling me a little bit? Look, when it comes to the scripture, objectively, there are problems with it. That is the case of the biblical

>> subjective or objective.

>> It's not subjective. It's objective. There are objective truths about a text that we would even agree on. Like we would agree solos scriptura is objectively not a biblical concept, right?

>> A biblical No, solos scriptura is a is a

>> Yeah, that'd be nonsense to say. Yeah, exactly.

>> Yeah, that's what Joseph Smith did. That's what Joseph Smith did.

>> Right. He said that

>> Oh,

>> yes. He said that solos scriptura is a heresy.

>> No, no, no. He did solos scriptura.

>> No, he didn't.

>> Yes, he did. He read the Bible.

>> He produced additional scripture. What are you talking about?

>> No, he altered he altered the interpretation of scripture and also added to it.

>> Yes, that's a rejection of solos scripture.

>> No, it's not, dude. If you interpret the Bible and you come to the conclusion that something's missing, how is that not solos scriptura? that you're looking at the the soul of scriptura and you're actually going, well, scripture alone is the truth, but I by the way, I'm the authority who needs to add more scripture.

>> See, once again, you don't understand Latter-day Saint theology claim of Latter-day Saint. Yes, it is.

>> you you know it is because what you're saying is a straw man. None of that has anything to do with what we believe.

>> you don't you only look dude

>> we are not a scripture-based religion.

>> Really? Then why did then why did

>> you don't understand our religion then why did Joseph Smith adds so many scriptures?

>> Because that's what prophets do. But scripture is not the necessary foundation because you need to interpret scripture and that is the calling of a prophet.

>> Okay, cool.

>> So you don't understand any of this. You're telling me that's not an argument. You believe that is an argument. It is an argument. It's not a cool.

>> You don't understand isn't an argument. So

>> Okay. No, no, no, no. I'm explaining a narrative, right? It's technically not cool, but it's an important narrative because you keep making straw man positions. Don't let me respond to that.

>> Did the church fall?

>> Did the church fall?

>> Yeah.

>> What What do you mean by that?

>> The church. Do you guys believe in a great apostasy? That there was a church universal apostasy.

>> Okay. And do you have a year for that?

>> Uh, the general consensus would be Nica. Typically

>> because the claim of a universal apostasy is a secession of public revelation.

>> Okay. And is there any evidence um historically now that you affirm that there were councils, right? You're trusting that there's a history of councils that happened.

>> They existed. Yes.

>> Hold on. So So if they existed and they were well documented and there's a lot of surrounding um commentary on all of that stuff during the time. There's commentary on heresies of the time like Arianism and a lot of other things about Christology. Certainly the LDS, their position if the true church was LDS from Christ leading up to the apostasy, there would be some indication of their practice and traditions at the time.

>> No, none because we have new practices that didn't exist back then.

>> What? No. Did the church at all exist back then?

>> Yeah, if we're presupposing it did. Sure.

>> Wait, if you're if we presuppose that Well, no, you are presupposing it. If you say Christ Jesus Christ started the Latter-day Saints church on the rock and he taught that doctrine.

>> He didn't start the Latter-day Saint church on the rock.

>> So, what church did he start?

>> Have you read Michael Heiser's position on it? That's our position.

>> No, I'm asking your position.

>> Have you read Michael Heiser's? Are you familiar with the argument?

>> Uh, no. That's not an argument. I'm asking for

>> Are you familiar with Heiser's argument?

>> No. Just answer the question.

>> Okay, that's fine if you're not familiar. It's a contextual interpretation based on the historical context of where Jesus was preaching.

>> Okay? So the thing what he's preaching not where what he's preaching is what's in question. If Christ

>> is that Christianity will not cease. Right?

>> If Christ started a church, was it alive and well at the time of Christ and the apostles?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. So there has to be a time where it fell. So, you're saying it fell around the end of the 4th century, right?

>> There was a universal apostasy fall. What does that mean?

>> It's your claim.

>> Right? So, let's make sure we get it clear. You said, "I believe in a zombie bride." That's not a universal apostasy.

>> Well, it's called rhetoric.

>> No, I know it's rhetoric. That's not the point.

>> Did it Is it a comeomaos bride?

>> Sure. It's asleep.

>> Okay. Zombie bride. Zombies are asleep. They wake up. Okay. So, you're saying

>> But it's not a zombie. Okay, cool. So, can you can you walk me through um the true church that was established by Christ and how you determined that it fell into apostasy other than appealing to Joseph Smith?

>> No, the claim of a universal apostasy comes from Joseph Smith. Of course, he's the

>> other than him because historically, if it's a historic claim, it would be verified in some way historically. Can you find me a denomination or let's just go with orthodoxy where there isn't a secession of public revelation?

>> a sec? We're not talking about the continued revelation.

>> That is the claim of universal. So the object, wait, follow the argument. So the claiming of univer No, I'm not follow the argument. Follow the argument. Follow the argument.

>> Universal apostasy, great apostasy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You keep misdefining it. The correct definition of the universal apostasy is a secession of public revelation that objectively did happen.

>> Okay. Revelation, right? You said the church went into apostasy, right? At the death start

>> closed the scriptural canon.

>> starting with the death of the apostles, right?

>> No.

>> That's the claim, right?

>> That's not the claim.

>> No, it began with the death of the apostles. You're saying it finalized in Nica, right?

>> No. No. Death of the apostles is not

>> Oh. So, so do you guys have an objective time period of when the apostasy began, like actually, or you said Nica, you said the the council of Nica, right?

>> That would be when it had been fully realized, but apostasy is not broadly speaking something you can classify as a binary because it's determined by individuals within the church and there can be some in apostasy and some not. Right.

>> Uh-huh. Okay. So, is there any historical evidence that the church went into this state of apostasy other than Joseph Smith?

>> Public revelation.

>> And how did you determine that happened?

>> Because there isn't more public revelation.

>> So, wait a second. There was no more public revelation. And because there's no more public revelation, um, then there's no more church.

>> Right?

>> Okay. So, you

>> because you're an apostasy. So, so, so revelation is like um the garbage you put in the flux capacitor to keep the DeLorean going.

>> No.

>> Okay. So, when the faith is delivered, right, uh Christ comes, delivers uh revelation, Old Testament prophecy of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ comes on the scene, establishes a church, right? You're saying now you're saying that um from Christ on because there's what is there any more revelation?

>> Yes. There's where where is there a revelation? After Christ. Tell me.

>> After Christ. Yeah. The writings of the biblical texts were all written after Christ.

>> Wait. No. The documentation of a revelation. Uh, right. You're talking about ongoing revelation. So if you're saying

>> so like Paul, for example,

>> Yeah. But the death of the apostles, right? You you hold that John's an apo.

>> Wait. So John was is alive though, right?

>> What does that have to do with what I just said?

>> Is he a Is he a revelator? What does that have to do with I just said what I just said?

>> I'm asking is John someone who can reveal the truth.

>> John was an apostle.

>> Could he could he be a prophet in LDS? Is he the last prophet or

>> That's actually a good question. That's a good question because we actually have two different definitions for prophet.

>> So if you look Yes. So prophet in the Old Testament is actually the same definition as an apostle in the New Testament. The corollary term in the Hebrew of prophet is one who is sent or an emissary. Apostle is one who is sent or an emissary.

>> In the New Testament, a prophet is a seer. So you need to be clear as what prophet means. You mean leader of the church? He was an apostle. He was a leader of the church.

>> Okay. Who's the last prophet according to LDS?

>> The last pro. There is no last. We have a current prophet.

>> No. No. The last before the current. But okay, just say apostle because you're gonna confuse me.

>> Well, no, I'm talking about prophets because you're the one saying you need pro. You need Well, yeah, if you want to call it a seer.

>> future tell. No, those are two different things. This is your problem, Jimbo. You talk to Latter-day Saints who have their own definitions for things and you use orthodox definitions and it doesn't

>> I'm not using any definitions. I'm asking you based on your definitions, okay? I didn't say anything about orthodoxy. Okay?

>> But I have two. So, which one

>> are they contradictory or? There can be one who is one and not the other.

>> So there's two prophets and you go that's a prophet, that's a prophet, but it's not the same.

>> Right? There's two different types.

>> Okay. So So you're saying revelation stopped happening, therefore the church and the teaching stopped happening.

>> That's the claim of a universal apostle.

>> Okay. And how is it that um revelation stopped happening but the false church of Satan properly compiled the Bible?

>> What's the false church of Satan have to do with the Bible?

>> Who compiled the Bible?

>> You think the Orthodox did it, right?

>> I don't care. Who do you think did it?

>> Probably the Orthodox. Maybe the Catholics. I don't know.

>> Are they LDS?

>> No.

>> Okay. So, an apostate church compiled the scripture.

>> Yes. It's apostasy to close the canon. That's what they did.

>> Hold on a second. They compiled scripture. You appeal to

>> Uh-huh. No, I don't appeal to it.

>> So, you don't appeal to the scripture.

>> I don't appeal to the I said at the beginning.

>> All right. Cool. So, if you don't appeal to the scripture, why do you trust an apostate church to tell you about Jesus Christ?

>> I don't.

>> Well, that's the end of the debate.

>> Say I have problems with the No, it's not. Listen, I just said I have problems with the direct interpretation of the biblical texts because the biblical texts objectively are flawed. That doesn't actually hinge on whether or not I believe in Jesus as a divine being or as a savior or anything like that.

>> Hold on. You're not understanding the pickle you're in here.

>> If because it's not a pickle.

>> If an apostate church who is the [ __ ] of the earth compiled the scripture which includes the

>> It's not the [ __ ] of the earth. Where are you getting that idea from?

>> Um, I got it from your scriptures.

>> Where?

>> Um, First Nephi 13.

>> Okay, let's look at that real fast.

>> Either way, it's not the LDS church. It's an apostasy, right? It's a It's a

>> That wouldn't make it the [ __ ] of the earth.

>> Fine. It's an apostate church.

>> Okay, cuz surely you understand. You've had this

>> Oh my god, dude. Oh my god, dude. You're just not focusing. I'm talking to jumping all over the place and you're telling me I'm not focusing.

>> Dude, I'm asking you.

>> You make like 19 presuppositions and I have to break each one down and you keep jumping.

>> I'm not presupposing, dude. We're both

>> Yes, you are. You presupposed an interpretation of First Nephi 13. I was about to go into that and then you say, "Either way, let's jump to this other thing."

>> Well, I mean, if you're going to use the definition to avoid answering my question, I'd rather just skip.

>> To avoid answering the question, we have to go one.

>> Okay. Define most. Okay. Go ahead. Tell the audience what the most abominable church of the [ __ ] of the earth is.

>> What is it? That's a good question. It doesn't actually clearly state a specificity in the scriptures. No, I do. The scriptures identify

>> followers of Satan specifically. That would not be any denomination of Christianity.

>> Well, the Orthodox Church is not the [ __ ] of all the earth.

>> Wait a second. If someone if there's a body of people who claim to be the true church and they're telling lies about their doctrine, is that not satanic?

>> It's not a lie. It's just a misunderstanding.

>> Oh. Oh, the trinity is just a 2,000-year misunderstanding.

>> Yeah. [laughter]

>> Okay. So, okay. Let's I'll I'll get this too because

You deal with this every day. What? People come to you and they say things like, "Oh, you believe that or you think you're polytheist because you believe in monarchical trinitarianism." And you have to go, "Oh my gosh, dude. What are you talking about?"

And you have to break down their bad assumptions. No difference. It's just them misunderstanding the actual difference. No, no. We don't actually hold from my position, by the way, which is not on the chopping block. Yours is, but just to entertain you. No. The Orthodox don't hold. It's just a misunderstanding. We actually declared through many years in councils what heresies are and they're very serious heresies, right? They're actually have siological implications.

Yeah. Yeah. That's important. Not to you apparently. So the back to the claim.

No, it's not. Back. Yeah. It's not. It's not. Okay. So back to the claim. So if an if a false church, an apostate church compiled the Bible and Joseph Smith is using that preserved text for the for what is true about Christ's teaching, but you admitted already in the opener and in the cross-examination that you don't actually know Christ's teaching. Why? Well, you said scripture can be wrong, which LDS holds. But first, second of all, if the apostate church actually compiled the scripture and everything you know about Christ, Christ's great commission is through scripture that's completely wielded and preserved and guarded and compiled by a false church. Why is it you believe the stories about Jesus Christ?

You need to stop restating my claims incorrectly, first of all.

Holy [ __ ] dude. You're just a total dodger, man.

It's actually I'll answer your question. What did I say?

You said, you know, what did you say? Repeat it. Exactly. You're not listening.

So, no, I'm listening. It's just here's the problem, Jim Bob. Like I said, there's like 11 presuppositions you make one from the other.

I didn't just said I don't know the teachings of Jesus Christ. You said actually explain. No. See, again, you're misquing. Do you know the teachings of Jesus Christ?

I cannot objectively know. I choose to accept that the writings of the biblical texts are teachings of Jesus Christ. But that's a religious thing.

Okay. What's the difference between I objectively I don't objectively know the teachings of Jesus Christ. I just know them.

The difference is we're arguing theology now and my premise was an objective claim.

I did I asked you the difference between stating I objectively know Jesus is Christ's teaching versus I just know his teaching. What's the difference?

Choice.

I choose to objectively know the teachings of Jesus.

No, no, no, no. You choose to believe them or you objectively know them.

Oh my gosh.

But you can't objectively know them. So you have to choose to believe them. You're really struggling with the distinction between subjective.

No, I'm not. Dude, you are like define it for me then. Define objective.

Objective is independent of your mind. It's true.

Yeah. Like this is a monster.

It's not an opinion.

This is a monster.

Cool. Is Jesus Christ's teaching his actual teaching did that is that objectively a fact? His teachings that his teachings exist? No, because he didn't write anything.

Okay.

So it's subjective.

So teach so Jesus Christ's teachings, you don't know if they really exist.

He didn't write anything.

Oh my gosh. He taught. You don't need writing for teaching.

Yes. Okay. There was a guy called Jesus who taught things at some point.

But that's objectively not true.

What they are.

No, that's objectively true that he taught things. What those teachings are is not an objective reality.

That's great. So that's what that's exactly what I'm pointing to. Now, why if you're going to assign yourself as a Christian, why would you claim to be Christian? And why would you hold to that the teachings of Jesus Christ occurred if one you just admitted you don't objectively know it? You just choose to believe it. But further, why do you believe an apostate church that compiled the story for you? Why do you believe them?

I don't believe the apostate church. They didn't write it.

They compiled. They could have eliminated stuff. They could have manipulated. According to Joseph Smith, they did manipulate.

You knew they're well preserved.

No. No. Not according to me. Dude, look. According to Joseph Smith, the the scriptures, some of them were missing, right?

Oh my gosh. This is why you're so arguing.

You're not answering my question.

Dude. You need to actually let me make a gosh dang sentence.

You're not answering my question. Does Joseph Smith believe that scriptures were missing and taken out of the text, the verses?

That's not the claim. No.

Yes, it is.

No, it's not. You don't understand the claims of our church. That's what I keep saying.

Okay. Correct us then. Tell me what Joseph Smith.

Let me correct you. Yes. Cuz that's actually what you should do is you should ask me what I believe, not tell me what I believe.

I asked you.

The claim is that the biblical texts have error.

How do you know that?

And they do because they objectively have error.

No. No. That's a claim. How do you know they have error?

They simply do. You don't know that.

No, no, no. That requires a methodology, dude. You can't just claim they have error and that's it. They look watch. If I could do your method, they don't. They just don't. Does that sound right to you? I just say they don't. Does that sound right to you?

But but if you were explaining a narrative relative to a claim like are you a Christian? Actually supporting that claim wouldn't be relevant.

How do you know these scriptures are errored?

Because they contain contradictions, anacronisms.

According to what normative interpretive authority.

That's not according to a normative interpretive authority. That's objective reality. No, no, no. Text requires interpretation in order to make an apologetic argument. No, let me finish. To make apologetic argument to make contradictions in a text co no listen doesn't mean anything.

No, no, listen. If there is a body of text like the Bible, which is a lot of references of Old Testament, a lot of overlapping references and things, a lot of language changes, right? Uh, for instance, someone I was just talking to read a scripture about and and it used the word kid. They thought we were talking about a kid like a child, but it was talking about a goat. Okay. So, if scripture can be misinterpreted, you would at least agree there, right? Scripture can be misinterpreted.

You misinterpret all of my scripture.

[ __ ] dude. Just answer my question. Can scripture be misinterpreted?

Obviously, you were demonstrating.

Okay. If scripture can be misinterpreted, doesn't it necessitate an interpretive authority?

Yes. Then that's a contradiction. You just said it doesn't. It just You just said it. It just is a contradiction. It's just a fact.

No, no, no, no, no. Follow the argument. I have an interpretive authority for scripture.

Who is it?

My prophets and apostles.

Okay. Your prophets and apostles interpreted the flawed scripture.

Yes.

And how did they determine what was flawed in scripture?

They asked God and God told them.

Okay. And can people ask demons and demons tell them the answer? Why would they do that?

No. No. I didn't ask why. Is it possible that demons can tell you answers to things that aren't actually from God? Is that possible?

If they're real, sure, I guess.

So, how do you how do you So, how do you know Joseph Smith was right just merely by claiming it? You just He just cla choose to believe he's right.

Okay. You choose to believe he's right. Even though his claims, right, are are actually the evidence historically, the claims, right? like Genesis was manipulated, right? That's a claim. Okay. What's his what's his claim then?

His claim is that the texts have error and require prophetic interpretation to understand.

So, Joseph Smith didn't claim that there was missing verses.

No.

Really?

Really?

Okay.

Yeah. This might be a good opportunity if you wanted to ask questions lift logic to Jim Bob. We're approximately halfway through the Q the open dialogue. This is a chance if you did want to.

Yeah. Let me let me go back to this book.

Okay. I actually do want to.

I just want to clarify one thing and you could ask. Joseph Smith taught, not only claimed it, but he taught that the Bible is originally correct, but that many plain and precious things, he says, were removed or altered.

Would you like to retract your claim?

The way you think it is.

Joseph Smith dictated in the Book of Mormon.

I'm familiar with it. I taught it. I know it. You're misinterpreting it.

Okay. Cool. So, so when they say when Joseph Smith says that they removed the text, what does he mean then? That's not what he's saying. Do you think it's like a better call Saul like he cut a section out and glued something on there type thing?

So tell me how what it means by remove then.

It means plain and precious truths would mean correct principles were not contained in the text. There are incorrect principles in the text.

So So okay. So is it not it's not it's metaphorical or is the claim direct of textual corruption?

It has to be metaphorical. Do you think somebody dug up the Dead Sea Scrolls and cut and paste sections? Do you think that's what I'm claiming?

Uh.

Is that somebody dug up the Dead Sea Scrolls and altered them physically?

Hold on a second. It's actually documented that it is a direct claim of actual legitimate textual corruption. Not metaphysical.

Textual corruption in what sense?

Like you you like you physically manipulate the the text like he did with the Egyptians like the Egyptian scrolls.

Okay.

Where's that documented?

Uh, well, you could formulate your question. And I'll actually look right here.

Okay. You're going to tell me where that's documented. That's fine.

It wouldn't matter anyway because the claim itself.

Wouldn't matter. You incorrect.

No, it doesn't matter if you correct that claim. Let's just go really charitable and say he meant it poetically like the truth of the text was lost, right? Forever, right? And he had to reinstitute it, right? But the problem is he wrote a lot more. So obviously there was missing. Something was missing.

No, something's not missing because there's more.

What are you talking about dichotomy? Really?

Yes.

Right. So.

You think the biblical texts are sufficient? You don't even believe that.

What are you talking? No, no, no. Look, if Joseph Smith needed to write turbo style all these extra new verses, that means the verses that he's writing um now the text is now the verses are complete, right?

No.

No. So, they're always complete.

You know what the JST is? You clearly don't.

Holy [ __ ] dude. You're such a dodger. You can't answer simple questions.

I'm not a dodger. I just said no.

So, okay. Why did he write new text then? What is the JST? Do you know what it is?

Stop dodging. Why did Joseph Smith.

Dodging the question to establish a foundation before I answer your question? Because you fundamentally misunderstand what we're even talking about.

Okay. Did Joseph Smith write new verses.

To Genesis.

That are cons? No, that are just generally. Did Did Joseph Smith write new verses? Okay. New scripture.

Okay. Was Christianity as it was before those scriptures? Was Christianity incomplete?

No. Really? I thought it was apost it was apostate.

It was apostate because of a secession of public revelation.

So So it was incomplete. No.

That's really dumb. And let me explain why it's really dumb. I'm going to explain to you why that's really dumb right now. Okay.

Is it the case that the first century Jews were in apostasy when Jesus was preaching to them?

The first century Jews?

Yes.

The the Jews that Jesus was preaching to, sorry, first century. Well, there is a continuation of old Judaism um second temple and before the continuation of lurggical practices. There were Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and those who didn't. I don't know if uh the declare the word or the declaration of apostasy was rigorously used at the time. It could be um but essentially it's just the rejection. Apostasy would be like there's a true church and then something falls away. I don't I don't necessarily know.

That wouldn't be apostasy. What what would it be then from a Mormon view?

Literally just.

To step to step away, right?

To not accept the new revelation.

What? What?

To not accept the new revelation is apostasy.

No, that's according to your definition. Apostasy is to not accept Joseph Smith. Right. [laughter]

Right.

How how convenient.

That's why you're in apostasy is because you don't accept the new scripture because you believe in a secession of.

Public. Well, no. You believe that an apostate church actually gave you the scripture?

What does that have to do with what I said?

The to re look dude.

You keep jumping around saying things that are.

Completely nonrespons. No, they are totally connected if you say if you say it's an apostasy to reject the revelation of Joseph Smith right then you're saying that there was no real Mormon church or whatever the true church is for how many thousand like uh 1600 years. That's what you're saying.

Dude. You You don't actually understand the claim.

Stop saying I don't understand, dude. That's a cope and I'm tired of hearing it.

Stop making bad claims that are straw man.

Okay. Was the straw man stop? Was the LDS church comes? What What word do you want to use?

Oh, the LDS church came about in the 18th century.

Oh, the beginning of the LD LDS church wasn't Jesus Christ.

Nobody's claiming otherwise, dude.

Okay. If the LDS church is distinct from the Christ, the church Christ started. Hold on. Let me let me finish my question. No, no, no, no. You totally interrupted your Let me If No, no. This is a key point. If that you just admitted the LDS church is not the church that Christ started, what is the name of the church that Christ started?

The church of Christ. I don't know what he call it.

So, is it the L is it the continue is LDS the continuation of that early church?

Yes. It's a restoration of it. It's not the same physical thing.

Gotcha. So there's two churches.

It is the foundation of the same church restored.

Is there is the latter day church? It literally claims to be separate. We don't think the other Mormons.

Is there one Mormon? Is there Paul Mormon?

Is there one church?

According to you, yes.

No.

Then then it's not one church then. Then you cannot look I said it in my opener. If you can't connect Joseph Smith's accounting and his his his relaying to you of what this church is, if you can't bring that church back to Christ, then it's not Christian.

Why not? That has nothing to do with my definition of Christianity.

Yes, it is. Define it again, dude.

One who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, they can follow them incorrectly even.

Oh, you could be a Christian and and incorrectly follow Jesus Christ. So, if I'm a Satanist because there's so many denominations that believe so many different things.

So, it's pluralism. So they're all Christian.

Yes, they're all Christian.

Then there's no apostate church, dude. That's a contradiction.

Yes, there is.

That's a contradiction.

A correct Christian church and an incorrect Christian church.

Unbelievable, man. So look.

Why is that unbelievable? An incorrect and correct Christian church.

What do you mean?

You said.

If it's unbelievable that there can be correct and incorrect Christian church.

If it's an incorrect Christian church, it's not Christian.

Yes, it is.

Is a Look, dude. Is a Is an apple a banana? Does that make it a false banana? That's not this. That's not a good analogy.

[ __ ] amazing, dude.

It's like this. A heretic or somebody who strays from the church has to be that thing before they can be identified as being. So gnostics are Christian because they're being judged.

For their departure from the mainstream Christianity.

Yeah. Early Gnostics you could say were heresics.

They're not pagans. They're not pagans. You guys do you guys have heresies?

We have apostasy. That's the correlary term.

No. Do you have a heresy?

We don't use that word.

So, you don't have heresy is the answer. You don't have heresy.

The corlary term would be apostasy.

No, no, no. Apostasy is to uh is a different word than heresy, dude.

Yes. But what do you mean by heresy?

A heretical position would be something that counters the doctrine, right? So, if there's doctrine.

Apostasy.

No, no, no. Okay.

Definition. Okay. You could stand away. You could be standing away from the church and be an apostate, but the heresy is the position that you're holding that makes you stand away, right? You have to have a position, right? The heresy would be the position. The apostasy would be basically the status that you are. So.

We have different definitions.

Okay. So, if it's true that you could that you include false Christianity as also included as Christian, right? That's what you're saying, right? Okay. Yep. So you're So listen you guys, if it's the case that Mormonism is Christian, then everything else that's not Christian, that's just practiced wrongly, is also Christian. What that establishes here is that my opponent actually doesn't even have a rigid definition for what Christian is. So he can't even say.

I said that in my opening.

So he can't say he is a Christian or he's not a Christian because there's no standard.

Christian is what somebody claims to be. It's an ideology.

Cool. I'm a woman. No, you're not.

How do you know?

It's the same epis It's the same epistemology you're using. Yeah, it is. You just claim it.

Ideology and biological sex are two different things.

No. No. Uh your from your view, it's not about what they are. It's about the epistemic criteria, not what they are. Dude, do you understand what makes them analogous? Is the claim that I'm a Christian from your view is no different than the claim that I'm a woman because it's self- internal. That's all it is. It's an internal de declaration. You admitted there's no standard.

Correctly understood gender theory. Is there any understand that there's a separation of gender?

I do want to jump in really quick really is as I mentioned earlier if you want to ask questions lift logic this would be a good time to do it is you have to ask a question and then Jim Bob will answer and if you're more assertive you know keep asking the questions quickly otherwise Jim Bob prefers to interrogate.

Oh, I'm I'm aware. I appreciate it. So yeah, no, let's let's depart from that. There is one example that I think is really good of you straw manning my theology that I wanted to get into. You say our doctrine is incoherent. In past debates, you've talked about God not always being God. Is that something you understand to be the case within our theology?

Uh no, it's something I understand. Uh two of the debaters I debated actually conceded that there there could be a reality in which God didn't actually exist.

Right. Because that would be inconsistent with our doctrine. Well, then that person's inconsistent and not a good representation. It's fine.

Okay, good. So, why did you quote that in your opening statement?

I quoted what in my opening statement?

That we have an incoherent doctrine.

Oh, because that's not the only claim. You think that's the only claim that's incoherent?

Uh, that's the one that you've cited, too. What is the incoherence?

What's the incoherence? Uh, uh, you guys believe that, um, divinity is humanity realized.

See, that's the same thing.

Don't tell me what the same thing is. Do you guys believe that? No.

You don't believe that humanity that divinity is humanity realized?

No.

Oh, okay. What's the What is it you believe that is is divinity then? If it's not humanity?

Where are you getting before I answer that? Where are you getting the idea that we believe that?

Okay, let me just look it up for you. This is what Mormons do, by the way. You you tell them what they believe, they deny it, and then you have to search what they believe, and then they go, I guess, I I guess that's what we believe.

Cuz cuz you straw man us in every debate.

Okay. Do you believe that humans become become actual in the nature of God?

We believe in theosis term.

Okay. No, it's not actually. I want to know.

Just to be sure is that because the chat is uh they just want to be absolutely sure because lift logic.

The default is going to be Jim Bob interrogating you. And unless you when you give an answer, you have to just quickly ask a question back because otherwise the chat is basically wanting me to force this where you're interrogating Jim Bob, but you won't interrogate him. You no offense, but you just kind of fall back into just answering questions. And that's okay if you want that. It's not a bad strategy.

Are you responding to the the chat?

Yeah, the chat is like, "Hey, I want to make sure that Lift Logic gets to ask Jim Bob questions." And if you want to clarify for the chat, you're like, "Hey, actually this is my style. I like it." like this.

Yeah. No, I'm I'm I need him to site his sources. And so that's what we're working on right now.

Well, by you just answering his questions though, that's probably not going to come through. You got to ask him. You have to press. We need like a full court press here cuz otherwise the chat thinks that you're.

We're going to press this one and we're like, "James, stop. Make sure Lift Logic gets to ask the questions." If you don't want to, you don't have to. It's okay.

Yeah. No, no, we we got this one. We're We're gonna have Jim Bob site his source on this. Alrighty. That's the last time I'm jumping in. By the way, I I prefer to let these be organic.

In the King Flet discourse, April 7, 1844, primary and explicit um sermon delivered, April 1844, the general conference in Illinois, he taught that God the Father was once a man. So that means God, eternally uncreated God was once a man. That means that if he was once a man, he became God. And that's also what you believe? Yes, it does. No, it doesn't. Okay. No, it doesn't. Okay.

How much of the King Fall discourse have you read?

I'm not. Dude, how much I read has you read? How much of it have you read? It's relevant because you don't know the context. Have you read?

Yeah, tell me.

I don't know. How much have you read?

None. Tell pretend you're teaching me.

You haven't read the King Fallout discourse. So, why'd you bring it up?

Because it's a reference. I could reference teachings. Dude.

You're referencing something you haven't states my belief.

Hey, can can I reference?

You told me you Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Can I reference the dictionary without reading the whole dictionary? Wait, Jim. Bob, let me talk. You told me I have to go look up what Mormons believe because they say they don't believe what they believe. And then I'm telling you, you haven't read the the reference. You don't know the context. It's relevant.

No, it's not. It's one to one relevant. Stop. I'm conceding that I don't know it. Teach me.

You don't know it. So.

I conceded. Teach me. It's your.

You haven't read it. Why did you bring it up?

Because the the debate topic is what?

The debate topic is irrelevant to what I was asking you. What I was asking you where do you get this idea?

I got it from this. God the father was once a man.

You haven't read that.

Why do you have that idea?

Oh my god, dude. Why Why did Joseph Smith say God the Father was once a man?

Because what is he talking about in the sermon?

I don't tell me.

Right. You don't.

Yeah, tell me.

Bring it up.

You do.

And Jim Bob, Jim Bob, let's zoom out a little bit. I not yourself, dude.

You can't defend. You can't defend his own theology.

Be intellectually. No, I can't. He He Okay, he's talking about the physical body of God. He doesn't ever say God wasn't always God. But that's beside the point. That's irrelevant. We don't believe that God wasn't always God. That's irrelevant, though. Yes, really. But that's irrelevant.

So God So God was always God.

Zoom out.

Wait. Yes. God was eternally God.

Okay. But he was once a man.

No, he has always been God. He took upon flesh. Oh.

Just like Jesus did. Okay. Jesus did the same thing. Does that change his godly nature?

Uh, not necessarily. The hypothatic union, right? Hold on. Moving on.

Hold on. No, no, no. You want to move on.

You just You just Oh my gosh. No. I have to finish my statement. I.

Dude, you're my statement. You're unbelievable.

I have to finish my statement. Let's zoom out. You're doing this with every single statement you've made.

You won't even get into it. You won't even get into it, dude.

I'll get into it in a second. You cite First Nephi. You haven't read First Nephi. You cite the Doctrine of Covenants. You haven't read the Doctrine of Covenants. You cite the King Fall sermon. You haven't read the Doctrine the King sermon. Every time I tell you that's not what we believe. You go and you don't correct it. Yes, you do. That's irrelevant. I'm trying to correct it. Interrupting.

Stop doing meta and correct it. Dude.

I'm It's an important meta analysis because it showcases your bad faith.

That's not an argument, man.

That is actually.

Bad faith for me to ask you what you believe. How is it bad faith to ask you what you believe?

No. Now you're being good faith, but you started by telling me what I believe. Why did you do that?

Do you I asked you, do you believe that God the Father was once a man? That's all I asked. No, obviously not. That'd be incoherent.

Okay, God the Father became man.

Yes, he took upon flesh.

Okay.

Just like Jesus did. That's what he says in the actual sermon. You would know that if you read the sermon. So, if you're going to come out and debate Mormonism, you should have actually done your homework on Mormonism.

Okay, cool. So, when God the Father became a man, did he have to acquire and achieve God status?

No, he didn't.

He was God before he became a man. Okay. So, he became man, but.

Just like Jesus was God before he became anos.

So, God the Father didn't require theosis.

No, that would be incoherent.

Okay. So, God the Father became man to have sex with Mary.

No.

Yes.

You didn't have sex with Mary. Where the hell are you getting that?

You guys don't believe that either.

No.

Oh, interesting.

Jim Bob, stop doing what I just said you're doing. Stop reading the chat. This is what Mormons believe. No, you just asserted [laughter] a claim. No, I read that in various places that that you believe that you read that Joseph Smith taught that God the Father came down and had sex with Mary.

No, that's the most dumbass thing I've ever heard.

Dude, let me see.

You look You've done this with every point though. That's my point. Literally everything you've said is.

Unrepresented nothing accurate.

That's fine. You could talk. You could ask me a question while I verify that.

Sure. No, I want to hear your I want to hear your citation for that. Because if you're going to challenge the Christian nature of Mormonism, you better understand Mormonism. And so far, you've demonstrated that you don't.

Well, nobody quite understands it, and you're not doing a good job teaching it.

I understand it way better than you do.

I understand that. But.

I'm not here to teach it. I'm not here to teach it. You should have done your homework before you attacked it, dude.

Well, no. I attacked the ecclesiology. I did a fine job already.

No, you did a horrible job.

Really? And that's demonstrated by the fact that every time you say this is Mormon ecclesiology or whatever, you don't represent it correct.

Uhhuh. Okay.

And that's why I keep interrupting you and you go, "Don't interrupt me." But you're creating a false premise that you're attacking. You've done that this whole debate. And that's why the chat's getting mad right now. The chat's not getting mad because they want me to ask my own questions. They know I'm affirming. They're getting mad because every time I try to say something to you, you interrupt instead of actually accepting that I'm saying your premises are false. You don't know what you're talking about.

Okay. So, we're talking about the incoherence or coherence of of Mormon theology, right?

Now, we're talking about how you don't know what you're talking about, but we can go back to that.

That's fine. I'll just accept I don't know what.

You are going to produce. I'm glad you've accepted that. So, why are you attacking me as not being Christian?

Not. Well, that's a different question of whether or not your theology is coherent.

You would have to know Mormonism to know it's not Christian, wouldn't you?

Well, no. I already established it's not Christian. You did actually for me. You did the work for me.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It's Christian in the definition I provided. Now, if you're going to Yes, it is. Now, you actually conceded that at the beginning. No, at the beginning, you conceded that because you added to my definition.

No, no, no. I I looked at your definition, but what's in question is the teaching.

And you added to it.

No, no, no. Do you understand what happened?

No, no, no, no, no. Yes, I understand what happened. You don't. That's the problem. That's why I'm on this tangent. You actually think you won that section of terrible according to good at.

Debate. According to you, I just believe it. I just believe I won and that's enough.

No, there is an objective scoring criteria to debate. You also don't know the difference between objective and subjective. Why do you not know that, dude?

Okay. So, um, is it objectively the case that you don't know the teachings of Jesus Christ?

What What do you That's an incoherent statement. Is it is it true that you actually don't objectively know the teachings of Jesus Christ?

It's impossible to objectively know something that you don't have an objective source for. That's not the same thing as what you're saying.

So, how do you know how do you know you're a follower of Jesus Christ if you don't know the teachings of Jesus Christ objectively?

Because I choose to understand them a certain way. And when an anthropologist who's an atheist looks at me, he's going to go, "Yeah, he's categorically a Christian."

Yeah. No, no, they're going to colloquially say that, but I don't care about an anthropologist.

That's the only definition I'm claiming to, dude.

Okay, so everybody's a Christian then?

Yes. Everybody who claims to be a Christian can be a Christian. And that's not the same thing as gender theory.

That's a [ __ ] So if.

Gender theory is objective, Christianity is subjective. That's what I'm.

How do you determine that someone's not a Christian then?

They don't claim to be one.

Wait, someone can't be a Christian. Someone can't follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and just not know it. No, they wouldn't be claiming to be a Christian then.

No. No. Could they be a Christian?

No. An atheist can't be a Christian because they're not claiming to be one even if they follow the same moral principles.

Well, no. No. If if someone you just said that someone could be a Christian if they don't actually know the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I didn't say that. I said to be categorically a Christian, you're choosing these are Jesus's beliefs and I'm a follower.

No, no, no. You don't know. The question isn't whether or not you're choosing. The question is whether you not you know Jesus's teachings.

Do you even hear yourself? You like say two different sentences that are totally opposable to each other every time you talk.

Do you understand the difference in do you understand the difference?

Literally categorically insufferable.

Do you know the difference between uh an epistemic claim and a claim of just saying I choose to believe it?

Evidently not.

Yeah. You don't. So if the if the criter if the thing is that you're saying you believe in you actually don't know what it is you're believing in. You can't say you believe in something.

You know, because you choose a framework. Dude, why is this so hard to follow?

Oh my gosh, dude. You're you're interrupting me again. If.

I'm interrupting you because you're using a false premise over that 5 seconds.

You keep interrupting. If you don't know.

Cuz you keep using false premises.

If you don't know the doctrine that you're choosing to believe in, how do you know you believe it?

I know the doctrine I'm choosing to believe in. That's not what I said.

Okay. So, you know the doctrine of Jesus Christ objectively.

I know what I choose to believe are the doctrines of Jesus Christ. So, do you know the doctrine of J Jesus Christ.

In a subjective sense? Yes.

So, you don't know. It could be wrong.

I could be wrong cuz he didn't write anything. How would I prove I'm wrong?

So, you might be wrong about being a Christian.

No. [laughter]

Christian.

This is nuts, dude.

You think it's a You think it's a terrible.

Because you're actually logically incoherent.

How?

You what is a Christian is defined socially, right? Oh, like gender.

So, an anthropologist.

You're transition.

You're trans Christian.

Dude, it's an inconsistent analogy.

Look, trans people claim that gender and sex are not the same and that gender is a social construct.

And you just said Christianity is a social true. Wait, it it is. If Christianity is a social construct, then yes, you could. It is. It's a Dude,.

Wait a second.

Are you saying Christianity is a social construct?

Yes. So, it's fabricated.

No. Why would that make it fabricated?

Yeah, you're blinking a lot cuz you don't actually understand anything I'm saying.

Is math a social construct?

No, math is objective.

Does math come from Christ?

No, math doesn't come from Christ. He doesn't teach math.

Holy [ __ ] [snorts]

Anyway, do you have any more questions?

Holy [ __ ]

Because I didn't ask if he teaches math. I said is is if Christ is the source is anyone the source of math? Is God the source of math?

Oh, math is self-existent.

Math exists without God.

Yes.

Oh, wait. Oh, yeah. You guys believe in uh matter is eternal, right?

Right.

Oh, so ma is is God eternal?

Yes.

Is so matter shares an eternal property with God?

Okay. This is another thing you.

Oh, here we go.

You're going to ask me. You're going to ask me, I'm going to prophesy here. You're going to ask me, do I believe, what is the term you use?

Why don't you just let me do the cross-examination instead of just guessing?

No, cuz you're taking too long.

P. I can make your death really quick if you want.

It's not a quick death, dude.

Okay. You believe you believe material material is eternally uncreated alongside God.

Uncreated.

Yes.

Okay. So that means material coexists eternally with God. That means it shares a divine property with God. At least one.

No, that's not a divine property.

Eternally uncreated is not a property of God.

Wait. Okay. So you you're asserting that anytime there is a parallel between something that God has and something humans have, that means that that's godly. Uh.

No. Eternally uncreated is a specific one. So if.

Why is that specific of God and not of.

Did God always exist? Yes.

Did you always exist?

But that's like that's like that's like saying does God have a nose? Did you have a nose?

No. Did you always exist?

Yes.

You always existed?

Yes. I've always existed.

You've always existed. Before you were born.

I've always existed.

You existed before you were born.

So did you, Jim Bob.

I existed. I existed before I existed.

Yes.

So I existed before I existed.

Before you were born.

Okay. So if everyone existed in your current state, if everyone existed uh eternally with God including matter, what's the distinction that God has that we don't have?

There's a number of things that he has. Power over death.

He has power over death.

Yeah.

How can you? There's no death. If you if you never lived, you never die.

No, there is death.

Wait a second.

My physical body is going to die.

Okay. But then God himself, you said God the father be was a man. Did he die?

I don't know. I don't think so. If he didn't, he still has a body.

If he laid down actually the King F ser, yes, he still has a body. We believe that.

So God the Father is walking around in Miami.

Maybe.

No.

Why would he be in the spirit of the earth?

Oh, you guys believe in spirit matter. I forgot. Okay, so.

Spirit ma all spirit is matter.

What's it made of?

We're materialists functionally.

I know that. What's it made of?

Well, then why are you making false premises?

What is spirit matter made of if it's material?

I don't have the first damn clue. Why are you making false assertions if you know that they're false?

You just said you believe in spirit matter.

So you know that it was a contradiction. So why are you doing that?

What's a contradiction?

To say to say.

P and not P, please P and not P. Do it in structured form, please.

God is in Miami. Oh, never mind. Actually, you guys believe spirit is matter.

Well, I know I asked if he has a body, a physical body, doesn't doesn't it mean he's physically here or not?

Not here. Why would he be here? Anywhere on the earth. Is he physical?

He's not on the earth. He's not on the earth.

Okay. I have another I have.

He's in heaven, right? That's a separate place.

Where is it?

It is.

Wait, is that local heaven or deep time heaven?

I don't know what the difference between those two things.

Well, according to you, don't don't we all uh when we become gods, don't we all reside over our own celestial kingdom?

No.

We don't.

Again, you don't understand Mormonism.

I'm asking you.

No. Why are where did you get that idea from? Where did you get the idea to ask me that?

So when we die, according to you, when theosis is achieved.

Where did you get the idea to ask me that?

Uh throughout all the debates, people claimed it.

Right. So stop referencing past debates. Ask.

I asked you. They're we've already established they're incoherent. I asked you a question. God was always God.

I asked you a question. You're just getting mad that I'm asking you a question, dude.

Yeah. I'm getting mad that you're acting in bad faith because you're making false premises.

If everything I learned from other Mormons debating they hold these statements, it's totally reasonable for me to bring them up with you. If they're false, fine.

No, cuz you you know, you should have actually read the supporting material if you wanted to debate Mormonism.

Okay. So, do you guys you don't believe.

You can't assert us as non-Christian without doing that. You don't actually know what we believe. Your basis for us being uncchristian is based on our beliefs, which you don't understand. You can't assert yourself as a Christian because you don't have a standard for it.

I just gave one that's not relevant to what I just said either because you have a standard for it. And if you're comparing us to that standard, you have to understand us.

I want to know about your the because you don't believe in a creation, right?

No, we do believe in a creation just not in from nothing. It's.

Okay. So it's a more.

Okay. So it's like a more of a manipulation of existing matter.

That's what creation is actually. Like I created this can, but I took aluminum and I formed it.

Okay. And before God, from your view, formed order in the universe, you're saying matter actually still existed alongside God.

Right? That would be consistent with the biblical texts.

Hold on a second. So if you believe that matter is eternal and uncreated alongside God, but God needed to order and manipulate the matter into form, would you say that the matter that existed before its formation into order was chaotic matter?

No.

What would you call it? Chaotic.

Would it be disordered?

Unorganized could be a term you could use to describe it. But I could take this can, melt it down, and turn it into something else. It's organized and I could make it another organized thing. That's a false dichotomy.

No, no, no. But before order.

And it would be paradoxical and it logical conclusion.

Hold on a second. Before order is made like the world is made and the and and the way the world.

There was stuff there before.

Okay, dude. Just let me ask the question. Before when there's just stuff before the formation of the ordered universe, like I assume that the sun and the way that the world operates is a result of the order that's that God manipulated for me.

Why did you assume that? I'm asking you.

I I'm saying is it a good is it a fair assumption to say what you mean by God created meaning manipulating? You're talking about something that's disordered and just kind of floating about and then it's intelligible. It's made into intellig.

Not necessarily. No, I just provided the example at the camp.

Okay. So you're saying God coexists with pure matter and there is a distinction between coexisting with matter and then what we have now?

Not necessarily.

So then what the hell are you talking about? God created then. What are you even referring to?

He took what was there and made it something else.

He made it something else.

Mhm.

So it could have been.

Being what it is now.

So So it could have been exactly what it is now. Probably not because that's not something else.

Okay. So, what is the You don't know what the something else is then from your theology or.

No. Why would I know that?

Okay. So.

I wasn't there.

Okay. So, well, you weren't there when Joseph Smith said he he received revelation either. So.

Right. Which is why I choose to accept it. We've been over this. You don't understand how religion works as an epistemology.

You keep saying that, but it you're not.

You're not actually fail to represent otherwise.

No, you're just making assertions. You know how many times, dude, tonight you said you don't understand something? That's not an argument.

I'm saying you don't understand them and then when I'm actually pressing you on them, you're citing a source and you're going, "You're right. I don't understand it." So, yeah, you don't understand.

How does that make your theology first of all Christian or coherent?

Doesn't. You can't define me as not Christian if you can't understand me and I defined Christian in my opening statement.

Look, dude. And it's coherency would also be relevant on you understanding it which you don't.

Okay, let's talk about prophets.

Is there a why should we talk about prophets? That's not responsible what I just said.

Well, you're just claiming things about me, but that's not relevant.

Those are all true things and then you're going to dodge that cuz you're the

You're talking about me though. The topic of the debate is not me.

The topic of the debate, you don't think I'm a Christian. I think I'm a Christian. In order for you to think that, yes, but in order for you to think that, you have to identify Christianity, which you failed to do. And then you have to identify why I don't fit within that, which you can't do because you don't understand what I am.

Well, you don't apparently understand what you are either.

No, I do understand what I am very well. You don't understand it at all. You haven't read any of these source materials.

Well, no. This the source materials is distinct from your claims. Like, right, if you're pulling from

No, they're not.

Dude, you keep interrupting. So if you're saying what it means to be Christian is merely a statement of internal fact, I just choose to

It's an ideology that you ascribe.

You just keep interrupting, dude.

Because you keep making false premises.

Is it true that according to you the standard for what constitutes Christian is if you identify with the definition?

Sure.

Is there any other

What I said, but sure.

Is there any other criteria required for

Following the teachings of Jesus Christ as you understand them? Okay, cool. Let's do it one more time.

Okay, great. Let's do it one more time. So, if the criteria for being a Christian and you're making the positive claim that you are an LDS is is one criteria is you claim it and the second criteria is you following the teachings of Jesus Christ. What I've established pretty rigorously tonight is that if you don't objectively know the teachings of Jesus Christ, you actually can't fulfill the second criterion.

You haven't established that. That's an assumption.

You just asserted that. You haven't established that.

You admitted that you don't objectively know the teachings.

You assert that that means anything. You assert that that means

If you don't know the teachings of Jesus Christ. If you don't know them,

How do you know you're following them?

I said as I understand them so you don't get hung up on that. Let's just go with that. Okay.

If you don't know the teachings of Jesus Christ, how could you say you're a follower of the teachings?

As I said, let's just go with my understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ because that's consistent with the definition I provided.

If you're if you have a false understanding of the Jesus of the teachings of Jesus Christ, are you following the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Yes. You're just mistaken in your understanding.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. So, if I understand the teachings of Jesus Christ to do some sort of like weird sacrificial things with with animals or something, you're saying I'm following Jesus Christ.

You're following a misunderstanding of Jesus Christ. I just said that, dude.

That that imagine you as a teacher. You're like, "Well, the student tried to do the spelling correctly." But um he gets credit for spelling it correctly. Even though there's no correct spelling in this analogy because there's no objective Christianity.

Oh, that's the end of the debate again.

That's not the end of the debate again. You're literally incapable of an argument. Let me let me let me actually incapable.

Let me give you the contradiction. There's no

It's not a contradiction. You're incapable of following the argument. You're going to make a contradiction off of a false premise.

You just heard it. There is no objective Christianity. I follow Christianity.

Yes. Which is a subjective claim cuz it's a religious belief. I've said this like 10 times. Dude, what are you not getting about that? Tell me what you're not getting about. What are you not getting about that?

No. No. You tell me what you're not getting.

I get it fully.

Then I win. I look I can do it, too. The debate's over. I win.

Okay. Let me just give it back to you.

Conceded my definition.

Yeah. No. No. I just want to give it back to you. Make sure you understand what's being said here. There is no objective Christianity. I follow Christianity.

There are multiple Christianities that could be identified. Yes.

Okay. There is no objective Christianity.

Saying there's no objective communism, but I am a communist and I believe slightly different things from this communist, but I'm still generally a follower of Karl Marx.

Okay. There is no objective Christianity. I am a follower of Christianity. Are you going to go to someone and say they're not a communist even though they're identifying that they are because they believe something different from another communist? That's literally what you're doing.

Well, communism does have a a definition to it you can look at, right?

It does have a definition that's more objective than that of a Christian because your Christian is totally asinine.

You think that helps you?

Even so, it does help me. But even so,

Yeah, you're you're such an ass, dude. Look,

Name calling.

Even so, yeah, name calling call all the time, dude. Don't. Uh, no, that's not Christian.

Yeah, it is.

It's Christian to name call.

Yeah, you viper.

Oh, sure. Fair enough. Okay, then I'll call you an ass and feel good about it. So

So how do you know you're following Christianity if it's not objective?

Again, ideologies are subjective.

How do you know you're following Christianity if it's not objective?

Because ideologies are subjective. These two communists believe slightly different things about Karl Marx, but they're still both communists. Okay. So, communism you would refer to as a way of operating a society, right?

It's a it's a political science.

There's criteria to it, right?

It does have criteria.

Okay. That's there's objective criteria to a communist. So, they could make the claim, but you could measure the criteria against their claim and what they hold and say, "Well, you could say you're a communist, but I just want to make sure you know that you don't actually match the criteria." Now, I'm fine with you just saying you're a communist, but I just want you to know that you don't match the criteria. The difference is is you're claiming there is no actual criteria that's knowable for being a Christian. That's that's why it's different.

There's different types of Christian is what

Are they all are they all true Christian?

What do you mean by true?

Is there a correct Christianity?

What do you mean by that?

Christ established a church. Is there a true and correct way to be Christian? See, you keep restating the question that I'm asking. What do you mean by that?

Is there a correct way to do math?

Yes. But that's inconsistent. Why is a follower of Christ's established church the only Christian?

Is there a way to properly be a Christian? Yes or no?

No.

Okay. So, you don't know if you're a Christian?

No, I do. I just explicated that.

What is wrong with you, bro? What is wrong? How old are the wrong with you?

Are you in your under 20? Okay. Thank God you're 22.

Yeah. Thank God.

That was a close one.

You just took the Lord's name in vain. That's cute.

I No, I didn't. I said, "Thank God."

Yeah, you did.

I said, "Thank God." Sincere. You were being sincere.

No. No. Sincerely, I'm sincere. That

Do you have formal training? Do you have formal Did you go to college?

Formal training? No, I'm a metallurgist.

Yeah, I can tell.

You can tell I'm a metallurgist.

You're No, I can tell you're not formally trained in logic because you don't actually understand it. Yes.

What What are the three laws of logic?

The three laws of logic are irrelevant to this debate.

[laughter]

You [ __ ] This is arrogance, dude.

So, you don't know the three. You don't know the three laws of logic.

You say you're Why don't you tell them to me?

No. No. No. I want to know if you know him or not. Cuz you just accused me of not knowing.

I don't know him. I don't know him. I'm not completely trained in logical. So, how would you know I'm formal training? So, how would you know I'm untrained?

Because you make logical fallacies in nearly everything you say.

What fallacy? Name one fallacy.

Straw man. I named that like 20 times.

Okay. The straw man fallacy. And you said 20 others.

No, I I you do you want me to name everyone? I'm not going to do that. Sorry. Two.

But you you do logical. You do straw man. You do no true Scotsman.

You do two couet. You do a lot of them.

Wait a second. You're telling me I'm doing no true Scotsman when that's actually impossible from your view of Christianity?

No, it's not impossible from my view of Christianity. You're actually misunderstanding my view of Christianity in a way that's intentionally incoherent because you don't want to actually understand my position. You just want to win.

No, no, I understand your position. I think Let me keep misrepresenting it. Let me see if I can get it. You misrepresent.

Can I try to get it?

Go ahead and try.

Cuz cuz you've tried and I keep telling you no. Go ahead and try again.

Can I just try it one more time? I think I can get it.

Try it one more time. I can reread my opening statement.

No, no, no. Please, please, no. Um so um there is no objective standard for Christianity.

Yes.

That's your position.

Right? It's just an ideology that you identify as

Let me let me just steal man you. Okay. You don't believe You don't There is no objective standard for Christianity. That's one position you hold. I got correct. Steel man. The other position you hold is that you're a Christian.

Yep. But you can't tell me an objective standard for what a Christian is because you just denied it in premise one.

I identify as one.

Trans trans philosophy.

Yeah. That's not trans philosophy.

It is. It's literally

We just We just went through this this

Can you tell Okay. Okay. Can you tell me the the the Do you know what a symmetry breaker is?

No. What's a symmetry breaker?

Okay. There's two things that are parallel, right? That are said to be the same or said to be different. You're saying they're different in this case. So the symmetry breaker is you tell me when I say you're a trans Christian because your epistemology is literally I identify it. So if I asked a person who said who was a male and said they were a female and I said how do you know you're a a female or or a woman I should say that from their philosophy. How do you know you're a woman? Is there any a standard? And they say no it's totally internally created and there's no objective standard but I'm a woman. And I go well I don't know you're a woman if there's no standard for what a woman is. You're saying you're a Christian while holding the same position that you don't have an objective standard for what a Christian is. So, can you tell me the symmetry breaker? The thing that makes the analogy of trans the trans uh rhetoric makes it different than the Christian thing. Tell me the difference.

I don't actually even understand the trans rhetoric.

You don't understand isn't an answer to the question. The the question was

Directly responsive.

The question was

Symmetry breaker would be

How's it different? Trans people are not claiming to be able to change their biological sex.

That's right. It's a philosophy. They're identifying with an identity like Christianity internally. Yeah. So, it's the same category, right?

No.

What's the difference?

Because you suggested that they are in fact that change in sex, right?

No, I don't affirm it. They're claiming it's not a change in sex. They're claiming they're a woman even though they're a male. They're making a distinction that there's a thing called a woman. The way you're making a distinction, there's a thing called a Christian. When I ask the person who's doing the gender stuff on us, if there's a an objective standard for what constitutes a woman, they say, "No, it's just internally declared. I feel it." So that's your standard.

There's two there's two classifications. There would be a woman of biological sex and that is somebody who can get pregnant and whatnot, right?

And gender

And then there's gender. Gender social construct. Those are two different things cuz gender roles. Who said Christianity

Social imposition onto sex.

Okay. If gender is a social construct and that's the category, didn't you admit in this debate that Christianity is a social construct?

Yeah.

Okay. So, what's the symmetry breaker?

There's the symmetry breaker is where's the objective sex in the analogy?

No, we're not talking about sex. We're talking about gender.

No, you asked for the symmetry breaker in the analogy. It's that there's no objective sex corollary in the Christianity. We are talking about what the symmetry.

No, no, no. The sex according to the gender yes.

Kyle, is your name Kyle?

No, it's Zach.

Zack. Zack. The person who's claiming gender, the sex is irrelevant to them.

No. Right. It's irrelevant, but it is relevant to this claim.

Let me Let me make it simple for you. Someone says they're a gender, whatever it is. You're not letting me do it, dude.

Yeah, cuz you're struggling with

No, I'm not, dude. I'm a man, right? I Well, I call myself a man. I I identify man as male but some people are these people are not doing that right so they're abandoning their male parts and they're saying I'm a woman and they're asking me to affirm that they're a woman right and I asked them what's the standard for what constitutes a woman such that you're claiming to be one they say there isn't one it's just internal you're claiming there's a thing called Christianity that's also a social construct and what makes you a Christian holding simultaneously there's no objective standard just like there's no objective standard for a woman, you're claiming you are this, you are this Christian.

So,

So you actually accept that there is a distinct difference between sex and gender?

No, dude. It's not about my claim, dude.

The analogy is inconsistent.

No. Holy [ __ ] If I don't believe it, it doesn't have anything to do with the analogy. It's not my view.

So, why are you calling me something that doesn't exist?

Okay. You're calling yourself something that you definitionally hold that doesn't exist. Dude, a Christian.

It's a social construct.

Christian exists. It's just a social construct.

Yeah. Yeah. Doesn't actually exist objectively. That's what a social concept.

It doesn't exist objectively. You're right. Thank you for finally getting it.

Yeah. So, so the standard for Christianity doesn't exist subjectively.

You're right. It's subjective. It's an ideology. You Why don't you understand the difference between these two things?

So, so I do. You don't understand the entailment of your position here. I'm trying to get you.

There's no entailment to your position because you're trying to play Gotcha badly. You're not actually good at it. Look, you're very you're very arrogant right now because you're defending a a philosophy

Arrogant. If you're if you're if you're saying an incoherent philosophy, wouldn't you want to know?

No,

You wouldn't want to know.

Not from not from you because you don't understand logical coherency.

Okay.

I'd rather I'd rather anybody else tell me.

What's What do you mean? What What do you mean by logical coherency?

You actually say things that are not logically cohesive to the other things you say.

Tell me if this is logical. Okay, let me let me do something. Let me tell you tell me if this is logically coherent. There's no standard for being a true swordsmith. I am a true swordsmith. Does that is that coherent to you?

I didn't.

Holy [ __ ]

I'm asking you a question. Is it coherent?

Subjectivity and

I didn't ask if you there's subjectivity. Objectivity. I ask you you claimed I'm incoherent. Please tell me if this statement's coherent. There's no such

Coherent to the rest of the discussion because it's not

Can you just Can you just answer the question if I

Coherent to what do you mean? That doesn't even make sense. Coherent to

It's not coherent if you think it's relevant to the discussion.

If I think it's relevant, it's not coherent,

Right?

That's your definition of coherent.

Coherent would mean it would

The previous premise, right?

Do you know relevancy and coherence are different? Yes.

Then why are you collapsing them?

I'm not.

Yes, you are.

No.

Are you okay?

Yeah. Are you okay? I think you were dropped on your head as a child.

It could be, but I'm still doing better than you. So,

Evidently not. I mean, maybe I've got CTE, but you clearly don't understand a lot.

Is a is a sheriff a social construct?

Yes.

If I declared internally that I'm a sheriff, would that make me a sheriff?

No. Okay. So why does it make you a Christian?

Because Christian is an ideology, not a position in a governmental structure.

Okay. So there is a standard for being a sheriff. It's not a it's not totally socially uh it's there's objective standards for being

Social construct and subjective aren't the same. Why are you collapsing those?

Well, no, you could change them. So they're not they don't hold true no matter what. So they would be subjective. No, there can be objective social constructs like the government is an objective body that is socially constructed.

Well, well, people exist and force exists. That's what's objective.

This is this is useful because this is why we keep getting off track.

Are is there an objective? Is there objective? Look, look, let's go to ecclesiology. Is there is there a truth?

Switch things and then you always get mad at me.

Hold on. Hold on a second. No, no, it's it's totally relevant. If there's no Hold on, hold on a second, Zach. If you hold that there's no objective standard for Christianity, is there an objective standard for the prophets in Christianity?

No. So, Joseph Smith is not objectively known to be a true prophet.

How would you prove that?

I'm not. Don't ask me the question. If it's true that Christianity

I'm explaining to you that the question is incoherent. How would you prove that he's a true prophet?

You're the one claiming it.

I'm claiming to believe it. I'm not claiming to objectively prove it. You don't. You shouldn't. Why should I believe?

Why should I believe Joseph Smith?

You should You should choose to believe in Joseph Smith if you have a religious experience that aligns with Joseph Smith's teachings, just like you do with orthodoxy. You choose to believe orthodoxy. You can't prove God exists.

You can prove God exists. Yeah.

You can't prove God exists.

You want me to do it right now?

I'd love you to.

Is is truth objective and conceptual?

Is truth What kind of truth? There's different kinds of truth. truth universal truth.

I unless this is very brief, I am open to you guys discussing whether or not we can prove God exists. The only thing I'm concerned about is that the audience is going to

It's fine. We don't need we don't need to. It's fine. We can save that topic for another time. What I just want to establish here tonight and I think I did a good job just just asking the question is if it's the case that something's the the title of something in this case Christianity is not objective then when someone says they are that that can't be known to be true because there's no standard for what you're assigning your your identity to this thing to be. So it's very subjective claim. It's very similar to the trans thing and uh the failure to present the similar

Dude, you're interrupting. The failure the failure to present the uh the threshold or the symmetry breaker in this case demonstrates that if Christianity like gender is a social construct check mark same category from his view if the word uh woman is also something you self-identify that's too

It's not though.

So woman is not something someone can identify.

No, woman is not a social construct. I reject that.

Okay, but their philosophy is that it that it is. So you have an

Your philosophy is incorrect.

Yeah. But yours is by the same notion because they're just claiming. So look look watch this. This is great. The reason tell me the reason you reject that they're a woman is because you hold that there's an objective standard for what a woman is. Right.

This is why I said physical sex is the symmetry.

Please answer the question. You reject

I just did. Why can't you see answer?

No. No. I want a yes or no question. So

I don't care what you want. I'll answer how I damn well please. And that is why still fighting with daddy is the symmetry

Still fighting with daddy. Okay. So listen what does that even mean?

If look you just debunked your own view and I'll tell you how. I'll show you how the symmetry break. Let me actually finish.

You don't care if you're wrong dude.

I actually am right though. That's the point.

The reason you're wrong about everything Mormonism. You don't care about the reason. The reason you reject the symmetry breaker is sex. Because to say, "Oh, it's trans Christian," would be to assume you don't have a symmetry breakerist. It would it would be to assume that trans exists the way they claim it, which it doesn't. You agree with that, right? You don't think you can actually change your gender?

Would you like to know how?

Actually, I didn't cuz I provided a symmetry.

Would you like to know? Would you like to know how

The symmetry breaker is the thing I'm actually looking for for your claim? And you're actually correctly

Just provided it. You're you provided it for gender, which is the reason, let me make it really simple. Please listen. Okay, I know we're all contentious. I really want you to listen to this. The reason you and I correctly reject the gender claim, I am a woman, even though I have a dick. The reason we reject it is because there's no there's no standard for the term woman for them. There is for us, right?

Right. It would be biological sex.

Got you. Okay, perfect. The reason we reasonably reject the gender claim is because they don't have a reference or a standard for gender because they're claiming it's not sex.

No, that's not why. It's because it's actually different from objective reality.

Yes. Thank you. So, it can't be established internally by just simply declaring it. Right.

Right. But there's no objective reality for Christian. So, you don't have that same criteria.

Yeah. Yeah. So, you have the same philosophy as the gender person. No, because they don't reject the concept of objective of of sex being a thing.

Okay, look again.

So, it's an inconsistent analogy, but it's not.

You could say it's the same type of thing, but it's different because philosophies are very different from the objective thing of gender.

No, no, it gender is not from these people's view. It is a philosophy. We're not using our

Standard. We disagree with them.

Yeah. Yeah. And why do we disagree with these? We disagree with them because it is factually a reality.

Okay, cool. So, if it's a factual

But where's the factual Christian? Point that out.

You're debunking yourself.

I'm not debunking yourself.

You're saying there's no factual. You're saying there's no factual Christian.

I'm saying it's a subjective ideology.

Yes.

Look, look, look. There's no factual thing from their view. The the wacky people, there's no factual.

No, they still they still believe.

Let me ask Dude, let me ask the question. There's no factual thing from their view that there's a gender absent sex, right?

Yeah.

There's it's not in reality. You just said there's no thing in reality called a Christian. So, according to you, nobody should actually call themselves Christian the same way nobody should say they're they're a woman independent of sex.

No, that those don't

Yes, it does. Dude, you're not thinking, bro. You're not thinking.

I actually am thinking. Look, you are trying to make a faulty analogy by saying

What's the symmetry breaker?

I just gave it to you like four times.

The symmetry breaker is that sex is a real thing in the world.

We compare.

So there is an objective standard.

Yes.

Where is the objective standard for Christian?

Correct. From your view. Exactly.

Right. So where is it?

Yeah. If you hold that there isn't none, then you can't say you're Christian the same way they can't say they're a woman separate from sex, dude.

No. No. Why? Why are you losing? Where are you losing me?

Are you really Are you trolling me?

No. Oh, yes, I actually am. Are you trolling me right now?

Where are you losing me?

Where are you losing me right now?

Let me Do I have to talk slower?

No, I agree. you're you're actually presenting your own position quite well right now. The the thing you're not getting is that what you're saying is actually uh butresses my my critique of it, which is this. Let's do it again. There's a thing called sex, and then there's these wacky people who think there's a thing called gender separate from sex. [snorts] This this is the sex. This is the gender. You and I reject this one, right? We go, "No, there's this.

They're the same."

Sure.

Yes. So we reject a second option for them because it's not based in reality. This one is.

You in response said, "Where's the objective standard for Christianity?" I go, "From your view, there isn't one."

Right?

SO YOU SHOULDN'T CALL YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN BY THE SAME REASONING.

NO, that doesn't logically follow.

Yes, [laughter] it does.

No, it doesn't. Let me show you how I

Holy [ __ ] dude. For it to logically follow, you would need that objective standard which is sex to have a corollary in the Christianity. Yeah.

So what's that?

Yeah. It doesn't exist from your view. Therefore, you shouldn't call yourself.

Where is it in your view? So you reject my view.

Let's pretend Christianity.

It's not too You don't actually understand what too means.

What about you is a tooqu.

What? No. What about you is not too is a smoking doctor. It's to suggest that hypocrisy invalidates the argument.

No, no, no. To quote is to say, "Well, you don't have one either."

No. So, hypocrisy invalidating the premise, right? So, if the doctor smokes cigarettes and he says smoking's bad for you, you say, "Well, you smoke cigarettes."

I'm internally critiquing Mormonism right now.

No, I'm explaining the topic of the debate logical fallacy. What's the topic of the

Debate? It's our members of the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints, Christians. If there's no standard just like there's no standard for a gender absent sex if there's no thing called sex to refer to

Is subjective.

Yeah. Exactly. So if for for your review do you understand this? The reason you reject one more time the reason you reject gender independent of sex is because sex is the real objective thing you're pointing to. That's why you reject the gender thing. Right.

Right. I have a reason to because there's objectivity.

Gotcha. So why what reason do you have to call yourself a Christian if by your own reasoning there's no objective standard?

That's not following.

Yes, it does. It's a one to one

Because there's no objective standard. I am allowed to identify as it. That is my statement.

How can you identify something objective standard?

How can you identify

Philosophy? It's not an objective thing.

How could you identify something you can't define?

Because it's a philosophy.

You can define it, but there's different ways to define it. There are different forms of Christian.

How can you define yourself something that is completely arbitrary and doesn't it doesn't correlate to reality? Dude, you're granting the trans people that they can do with that, too.

No, I'm not. They do have a correlary in reality that they reject. Where's my correlary?

No, no, no. They they can say that a gender exists and it's nothing like a sex, but they don't really know what it is. Just Just like you're doing.

Sure, they can do that.

There you go. You're a trans You're a trans Christian. Yeah. It's what you're doing reality. That's what you're doing.

That wouldn't be cohesive with reality.

Where do I not cohhere's reality? I'll tell you.

The absence of the reference allows me to do that when they can't.

Where's the reference for Christianity? The thing you're you're saying you are. Where's the reference for it?

I just said the absence of the reference allows me to do what they're not allowed to do.

No. No. Where is the reference for Christianity?

The absence of the reference allows me to do what they're not allowed to do.

You're I'm not saying reference. I'm saying referent. A reference

The thing in the world that's reality. Where is that for Christianity?

Isn't one.

So why are you calling yourself a Christian?

Because I choose to ascribe to

Someone chooses to be a woman and they don't assign it to a

No, they reject that there.

No, they reject that.

They they can reject it, but there is one.

No, no. If someone says I'm a I'm an X, right?

Okay. I'm a trans Christian, but I'm a Christian.

So, you're a trans Christian. You admit it.

Sure. Okay.

I don't admit it. I I actually totally reject the premise, but you don't logically follow it. I don't know what it has to do with what I've claimed in my opening statement.

If the Well, it's this. If you're next to someone who also claims they're Christian, but you guys have a contradictory view of what a Christian is, you can't actually argue who's a true Christian.

Why does it matter who's the true Christian?

What's the topic of the debate?

Are we Christian? Why does it matter who's true or not?

Why does it matter in a debate called are you Christian? Why does it matter that there's a thing called Christian?

No, that's not what I said.

Christian?

No, no, no.

One is true, one is false. Both are Christian.

Is there Is there any false Christian then?

No, they're all Christian.

Everyone's a Christian.

No, everybody who identifies as a Christian is a Christian.

Okay. Um uh someone could just say I'm a Christian. They don't even know what it means. They're a Christian.

Yeah.

Okay. So, I'm a Christian and I've never heard of Christianity or the teachings of Christ. I'm a Christian. Well, then where would you get the word from?

Oh, interesting. Now there's a reference suddenly.

The reference meaning you mean the word definition of Christian.

And where did you get the word Christian?

The dictionary.

No. Where did the dictionary get it from?

I don't care where the dictionary got it from.

Really? So this is where theologude you're totally cooked now. The thing that you're referring to when you say Christian is not the dictionary because the dictionary is actually No, it's not. The dictionary needed to refer to something.

But the only one I'm claiming is the dictionary itself. Not what the dictionary is claiming.

No, the dictionary.

I know where the dictionary got it. They got it from Well, you go way back with the back Christ follower, the epithet.

No, no, no. That means

Yes, that's objective. Okay, sure. Let's use that. That's objective. I'm a Christ.

Okay, hold on. Now we're talking. In fact, this is exactly what I wanted to debate, but you avoided it the whole time. Now, look, if you admit if you admit that the term Christian necessitates a historical um narrative of Christ, right? Now, you can't say that. I'm just

It doesn't say necessitate.

No, it does because the word Christ refers to something historical.

I didn't say necessitate, though.

Do you know what that means?

Yes. It would mean it would require that to be Christianity could exist independent of Christ because there are Christians who believe incorrect doctrines.

Bro, did you just say that Christianity could exist if there was no Christ?

Independent of his teachings.

You're saying that you could be a Christian if Christ never existed?

Yeah, you could. Because Christianity exists. Christ may or may not have existed as God, right? So, if an atheist is looking at what we're arguing about, they're kind of laughing because they're like, "Zack is just saying these groups of people who believe in this guy who never existed are real." And yes, those people are real and I'm one of them and you're one of them.

Okay. Um, if there was a madeup character named Christ who never existed, you're saying to be a true Christian, you could still be a Christian even without knowing that guy exist. be a true Christian if there was no Christ because that's a theological straying from the premise. I'm not in a contradiction. You're the You want the P9?

Stray from the premise.

Do you want the P? I don't want the P. Not straight from the premise.

There's no I'll give it to you. P. There's no such thing as a true Christian. P not P. They're not being a true Christian.

H

There. Don't look at your phone. There's P. There's no such thing as there's no true Christian, right? That's your claim. Not P. They're not being a true Christian.

I didn't say there's no true Christian. I said true Christian is not objective.

So then Christian then false Christian is not objective.

Right.

You can't prove one true or false. It's notifiable.

So how can you say you're you're a Christian then? Dude,

What do you mean? How can I say? That's not responsive.

So you don't know if you're a false Christian or a true Christian, admittedly. How could I know that?

Cool. So, the debate's been over for many hours.

Okay. So, you concede that I my point is correct and my premise is the correct way to view it.

There's if it's No, correct would assume it's objective.

The premise is subjective, Jim Bob.

Okay. So, just so we're clear, just so as we wrap things up, uh the person who comes to the debate with the affirmation and the opening statement that Mormonism is indeed Christian actually bites the bullet very early and continues to bite the bullet that there's no such thing as a true Christian and somehow thinks he's affirmed.

I didn't. The premise was not true Christian, was it? Though, Jim Bob,

No. A Christian, that would mean there's a standard.

That's two different things. That's two different things.

No, no, no. To determine someone's a Christian or not a Christian assumes that there is something called a Christian and something not. You don't have a standard for that.

I just provided one like 40 times.

You just did you just told the told the audience and myself the whole the whole night that there's no such thing as a false or true Christian.

Right. That's not the same thing. You're saying two different things. False or true Christian is a theological claim. Christian is an ideology that you subscribe to. How do you say if you say you subscribe to it?

What's the difference between What's the difference between the ideology and the theology?

The ideology and the theology are the same thing.

You just contradict yourself again.

The theolog No, I didn't. You're contradicting.

You got to get out of Mormonism, man. This is rotting your brain.

Rotting your brain, bro.

Hell your brain. The theological claims can be different amongst different denominations of Christianity.

None of them are wrong or right.

That's how religion works. So no, there's no such thing as a Christian then cuz you don't have a standard.

See, how does that logically follow what you just said?

Here, I'll tell you how. Are you ready?

Yeah, I'm ready.

There's no standard for what constitutes a Christian.

You agree?

Sure.

So if No, I don't. But sure.

Oh, now there is a standard. It's the one I laid out. But yeah, let's say there's no standard.

Well, no. What's the standard?

Somebody identify identifies as one.

Cool. I identify a as a Christian and when I ask you, well, what does that mean? And they give me a list of things that mismatch my idea criteria of a Christian. Which one's the Christian?

Who? You're both Christian.

So, contradictory people and views and ideologies, they're both Christian.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay. You concede the premise then? If you call that a concession, fine, you can take it.

[laughter]

Great. Now,

That's [ __ ] Dude, that's unbelievable.

You see, that's what we're claiming when we say we're Christian. Now, we're not saying that we believe in the Trinity or anything else.

I know you that's unnecessary. You don't actually need to go back to Christ or the teachings.

Gosh.

So, what's your definition of Christian? Just so we're all on the same page. My definition of Christian, well, from my perspective, being an Orthodox Christian is Christian, but it's synonymous with what I my opening statement was, which was this,

Right?

Following. You asked me a [ __ ] question, dude. You want me to answer?

I didn't realize you I didn't realize you were still gone. My bad.

So, the definition would be a Christian is someone who follows the theology, the doctrine, and traditions established by Christ and the apostles. The key word here tonight I really wanted to get into but we didn't is traditions because the only way you know of what Christianity is in practice would be I'm not talking about reporting on Christianity existing like historically I'm saying to get into the practice of what's cons constitutes Christianity would be something that you would want to necessarily track back to Christ and his teachings teachings you admit you and I um would be passed down through generations that's the way you keep traditions intact right through the generations you need next generations

Aren't relevant to the thing but yes that would be how tradition

Wait wait wait wait hold on I like that I like that what' you say uh traditions traditions not relevant to Christianity

Right.

Okay. So if tradition

If it's relevant to your definition of it that's not the definition I'm claiming.

That's great okay so you're saying you could be a Christian without it following any traditions of Christianity.

Yep.

Okay. So what's the practice of Christianity?

I'm saying what a Christian is is somebody who chooses to believe.

Okay. Are you are you a Christian if you failed to teach your kids Christianity?

Yeah. You'd still be a Christian.

So if you willfully didn't teach your kids Christianity, in fact, you taught them the opposite. Are you still a Christian?

Yep.

Okay, got it. That's all I needed. Yeah, that's that all you needed was to stop going down subjective rabbit trails and just actually accept the definition I'm providing. That you disagree with it is fine, but that's all I'm claiming.

No, no, do you understand that the definition you provided includes a word called Christian, which is a historical reference? Do you understand that?

I don't have to ascribe to anything other than my claim. I can define my claim.

Can a Christian be someone who establishes a new responsive?

Hold on. Hold on. If someone establishes a new uh culture and tradition and practice today and they call it Christian, are they a Christian?

If they are Christian, they are Christian.

No, that doesn't make sense. If someone

So if it has

If someone establishes a new practice today that's completely counter to what we in faith heard about the life of Christ and his teachings. If someone practices the counter to that explicitly but calls it Christian, are they actually Christian too?

They are a new type of Christian.

Okay. Okay. That's all.

That's all I need.

I know that's all you need. You need to stop going into subjective rabbit trails.

That's fine, dude. You accept contradictions.

I That's not a Dude, there could be two different definitions to one word, right?

And is there a correct definition?

No, it's subjective.

So there's no correct definitions of anything?

No, cuz language is not an objective construct. It evolves and changes over time.

Okay.

This might be a good opportunity to go into the Q&A.

We do have a lot of questions.

So, quick housekeeping stuff, folks. As I had mentioned, as you see at the bottom right of your screen and pinned at the top of the chat right now, it's also in the description box. Debatecon 7 is happening in Houston, Texas. Houston, Texas, Saturday, January 31st. You don't want to miss it. It's gonna be amazing. So, get your tickets at the link in the description box. We're excited about this for religion, you could say interreligion debates, primarily Christianity versus Islam. Also though, we have one that is instead atheism versus Islam. So, check out those tickets right now. We're expecting it to sell out and early bird tickets go away this Friday. With that, we're going to jump right into these. Thank you very much for your question coming in from Blake says, "Lift logic. Can you give us a quick explanation of the origin of black skin from your Mormon sources?"

I can you explain what black skin means?

There's

But Mormonism wouldn't claim to define what black people are. I think he's referencing how in the Book of Mormon they say like skins of blackness. That's understood to be a Hebrewism meaning like a dark countenance. So like in Job, Job's becomes black. Like the text says, "I became black." Job did not become like dark skinned. He just was very upset because he's going through a lot of bad stuff.

You got it. We'll jump to the next one. This just because there might be questions like uh that are not super directly related to whether or not Mormonism is Christian. Uh, I do want to ask, do you want to feel the questions that might be like that last one where it's like, I don't know.

Yeah, I'm I'm okay to answer general Christians questions about Mormonism.

Okay. Bigly Drew says, "Honest question. What is with the Mormon magic underwear?

It's not magic. It's just like an undershirt and it's like a reminder of your covenants. The same way like you might wear a cross or Jewish people might wear a yamaka." It's been really mystified by non-members who don't understand it. And to your guys's credit, we don't really talk about it, but like it's just a reminder of your beliefs in Jesus.

This one coming in from Distracting

Game says, "Lift logic does not understand Mormon theology or doctrine. Mormons do believe that Christ and the first generation of apostles taught what is effectively Mormonism and that was lost by future generations." Do you agree, Lith Logic?

Well, see, that would assume that there couldn't be new teachings, that everything that could be known by the church had been established. And we believe that there are new things being established. Now, there are things we believe that are consistent with what the first century church believed and things that would be consistent with even orthodoxy, right? Like baptism or regeneration. That's something the first century church taught that got corrupted because people came along and rejected baptism or regeneration in some capacity. And then we restored it. And that's actually the claim of a universal apostasy.

>> You got it. This is coming in from do appreciate it. Big League Drew says, [clears throat] "You did not start a new religion. The term Christian wasn't coined until 1st century AD as a porative." And they say it's in Acts 11:26.

>> Yeah. You have anything to say on that, Jim Bob?

I think that's correct.

>> He's saying the word itself. Um, I'm not sure what what position that's attacking. I mean, I would just say like words

>> the word came from the first century.

>> Well, yeah. As a word concept fallacy, people say like, well, the trinity, the word itself didn't exist. It's not a good argument for anything. So, from either our of our points,

>> bless my code, my vibe code, pardon me, says Jim Bob and all of us are small creatures in this grand limitless universe. None of us know if God exists or not. Jim Bob's uh Uh, cu k for the j ews.

>> Jews. Really? The people who oppose me. I'm the I'm a cuck for the people who reject and and make my life harder. Really? Okay. So, uh, no. I mean, everything you just claimed is is an absolute claim that you actually have no access to. You don't know the limitness the limitlessness of the universe. You don't know what the [ __ ] you're talking about at all. Um, if you wanted to debate me, just contact James and you can get your loud ass mouth up on the screen like a real boy. How about that?

This one coming in from Big League Drew says, "What is a church?" How would you guys define it?

>> A church singular. I'll let you define it first.

>> I think uh broadly abstract church.

>> Yeah, there's there's more more than one definition of church.

>> Well, I would define the church singular.

>> Uh I would I would reject any other account of a church uh other than a colloquial sense of it. I would say the church is the body of Christ that he established. Uh the bridegroom relationship of Christianity is is we are the body of Christ. So true Israel today is the church. That's what I would say the church is.

>> What about you, Zach? Any or I mean live logic.

>> Yeah. No, you can call me Zach. It's fine. I like to generally have that described. Um I would say the church is the followers of the philosophy. So there can be multiple churches.

>> You got it. This one coming in from do appreciate it. The emperor fat ass dogs. You sick freak says to lift logic. Do you have any evidence that proves Jesus Christ came to America and preached his gospel to the Native Americans or any evidence there were white Native Americans like Joseph Smith says?

Okay. Well, white is needing to be contextualized, but evidence for Jesus existing and doing miraculous things. No, I very firmly affirm that you can't objectively prove religious claims.

>> You got it. Thank you very much for this one from Danica Brave Blood says, "My dad was a Mormon missionary in college. You should see his copy of the KJV Bible highlighted almost every line. Tell me he's not Christian. Jim Bob.

>> What?

>> Sorry. Say that. Sorry that again. Say that again. I was looking up the curse of Cain, which actually is actually rooted in the leaders, the the authoritative leaders of the priesthood. But go ahead. Say say that again. I apologize. Go ahead.

>> I want to give Zach a chance to respond if he wants really quick before we go to this question. Did you want to respond anything?

>> There was a ban that was authorized by the actual institutionalized LDS leaders in 1844. So, um, do you do were they false leaders of the LDS church being that they banned a priesthood on black men? Cuz obviously they thought it wasn't just a metaphor for crispy uh, spiritual status. They thought black people, I'll say it clearly, Patrick Ewing uh, was banned on being a priest, citing the curse of Cain. Now, these are the your leaders, right? These are your leaders. Are they authorized? You said earlier we understand that our leaders can be in error.

>> Okay. So you're that's fine. If you said that there were leaders after

>> I I hate to do it but just because I worry we're going to spiral because we have a lot of questions.

>> Okay. What did the guy ask?

>> Yeah. Yeah.

>> What the girl ask? Your dad was a Mormon. No, he's not Christian. What are you talking about?

>> They said the whole story was

>> my dad was a Mormon missionary in college. You should see his copy of the KJV Bible highlighted highlighted almost every line. Tell me he's not a Christian.

>> Yeah, he's not a Christian because he's just reading his own interpretation of a text that's lurggical. And if he's not participating in the liturgy and baptized into the body, he has no context really to engage with the scripture. He's actually idol. Most likely your dad is idol uh he's he's he's being an idoltor of the scripture and thinking he's getting whispers from the text. Really, he doesn't even know if he's he's correctly interpreting it. I want everyone to understand the New Testament compilation in the end of the 4th century was explicitly functional. It was liturggical. It was never intended to be mass- prodduced so that Ricky the ex- Mormon could read it in Seattle. It was never the case. In fact, that's very recent. In fact, the goo the printing press Gutenberg, that was the stapled um moment that really exploded this idea that you could just grab a Bible and read into it like it's some sort of codeex. It's [ __ ]

>> Yeah, I would agree with that. Linguistic context and scholarship reflect that.

This one from Jordan Lofren says, "To claim the theological that theological claims can't be objective is at root a theological claim and by your logic would be subjective. Go do a keg stand, buddy.

>> That's true. That's true.

>> But theology is not an objective epistemology.

>> That's a the Yeah, but that is an epistemic claim about theology, right?

>> That wouldn't make it a theological claim.

>> Okay. Is epistemology grounded in God?

>> No.

>> So there's there's different epistemologies.

>> So no knowledge itself does knowledge from your view come from God?

>> Not inherently. Okay.

>> this one from do appreciate it. Trumpinator says, "I like Jim Bob's style. He reminds me of Andrew and those that don't like them, it's because they smash their opponents in debates, they like soy."

This one from Big League Drew says, "Is soaking real?"

>> No, I think they mean

>> Next question.

>> This one from Big League Drew says, "The S is silent in Illinois, Jim. Bob,

>> it's fine.

>> True.

>> I don't know. That's a social That's a social construct.

>> Well, yeah, it's a French word.

>> Free Fisher the Breezebuilder says, "Jim Bob, would you rematch with Manar reports?"

>> Uh, no. That guy, that guy needs to be put in an asylum.

>> Yeah, do that.

>> This one from Marilyn says, "Idol worippers." She's always like that.

>> She says that about both of us. She's saying that about both of us.

>> She thinks she's God, by the way. Just so you know, Marilyn actually believes she's God.

>> That's funny.

>> This one from

>> correct.

>> MP Jax T556 says, "Christ is God. Never needed a Joseph Smith reading out of a hat to tell me that, nor would I accept it. No quote unquote prophet, especially a hat reader, is necessary. Christ is all that is needed. Hope you find God."

That's consistent with what I was saying to be fair because that person is a Christian irre irrespective of my own religious belief.

This one from even Lord says LDS claim whites were the real Native Americans and the black Hebrew Israelites claim blacks were the real Native Americans. Who are the real natives? The whites or the blacks?

>> That's funny. But um we don't claim the Native Americans were white. It's just a misunderstanding of the Book of Mormon, which is what Jim Bob's squinting at because he hasn't actually read the Book of Mormon.

>> Why would I read the that [ __ ] I have toilet paper.

>> So that you could actually debate it properly.

>> I don't need to debate it. I don't need to know the whole Book of Mormon. Like, like, do you think you need to understand the subject?

>> No, hold on a second. Do you think you need to know? Let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question.

>> Context doesn't matter. Okay. Liberal.

>> Hey, Kyle. Do you think that um I know do you think that uh you need to know everything about um the Quran to debunk some foundational beliefs about Quran about Islam?

>> If I'm going to argue the Quran, I'm going to read it.

>> So you're No, I didn't ask that, dude. I asked I didn't ask what you think you should do. I asked, is it possible to debunk Islam without reading the Quran?

>> I don't I don't know

>> what the [ __ ] you talking about then. Shut up. Okay.

>> this one from Miro 409 says, "According to the LDS, the Muslims are Christians. They quote follow the teaching of Christ." They claim

>> Are they Are they Christian?

>> Kyle,

>> is who Christian?

>> Muslims. Zach, they Muslims say they follow the teachings of Christ. Are they Christian?

>> They don't identify as Christian. So, no.

>> Oh,

>> this one from Big League Drew says, "What is Collab?"

Collab is an analogy of Jesus.

>> This one from Bless My Vibe Code says, "The JWS singlehandedly Oh boy, here we go. Single-handedly got billions of people to worship them through stories they wrote." This reminds me of that uh blonde, the tall the the guy with the long blonde hair. They say they've got full grown men to blindly obey them. It's humiliating. Job well done, I guess.

>> Wait, Hulk Holan? Who's he referring to?

>> There was this guy, he was banned from YouTube several times, but he was very big on like, oh, uh, he said the Christian religion is like secretly, it was the J.

>> Oh, Adam Green. Adam Green. Adam Green. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He's a He's a real dummy.

>> Is this guy I don't know if if this guy's in the same camp, but they say the JWS single-handedly got billions of people to worship them through stories they wrote. L M AO. Yeah, but that's [ __ ] because we don't worship like that. Like the idea that Jews, by the way, who by the way, these people, the Adam Greens, they don't make a distinction between uh pre-sec temple Jews, the Essenes, and the rest from Talmudic Jews who come out hundreds of years later with all of their new Ben Shapiro documentation, right? So, they just collapse the word Jew to mean one big thing, which is like, you know, a big nose and hunched over and rubbing their hands, but they don't actually look into the their own narrative. Like if it was true that Christianity is merely a feature created by Jews, it literally dominates civilization. So according to them, Jews crafted Christianity. By the way, one of the most prominent Christians, a lot of the prominent Christians in fact, but the most one of the most prominent Christians, St. uh St. John of Chroastum wrote a homaly called against the Jews. Literally what you would call anti-semitism is is what you would call it. I don't agree. But what you would call it is rooted in Christianity. So, uh, so that's what what that's the scop is that all Christians are, uh, find Jews despicable because of their behavior and their theology, but that's a scop from Jews. I mean, it's just idiotic, dude. Talk. You know what I mean? Adam Green is an absolute [ __ ] Well, we'll see if uh, bless my vibe code. Well, bless my vibe code. Let me know if you're uh if I was right in guessing you might be in the Adam Green camp or if it's a different camp because now there's but Big Lee Drew says you will know them by their fruits. Wrote it on your heart. Follow me. These are the teachings. Yosua also taught that strict adherence to the quote unquote law is not a path to righteousness.

>> Yeah, that's referring to the law, the the legalistic law. So everything you read about Christianity was actually applied liturggically. And so people, this is another example of just people picking out the Bible and going, "Look, the law, it's not the law." Well, no. The law when it was written, when we're referring to the law, you're referring to legalism. So that's true, but that's all all that is today is a cope to say, "Well, I could be Christian and I don't have to do anything. I don't have to appeal to a church body. I don't have to do anything. There's no deontology. I just believe and everything else is legalism. Let's just lazy thinking. I mean, you know, pray for that guy.

>> You got it. This one coming in from do appreciate it. Funny Farm says communists say quote that wasn't real communism. Lift Logic says quote that wasn't real Christianity. Then they say Christianity is not subjective. The truth is not subjective. W Jim Bob lift logic. I have a feeling you disagree. What are your thoughts?

>> Yeah. So that was actually my point with the communist analogy. You can't say that they weren't communist just because the new communists say that the old ones weren't cuz it didn't work out the way they say it should.

>> Well, no. Whether or not it works is distinct from what defines a communist. So do you

>> They're saying that's part of the definition.

>> Well, no. Yeah, I understand. But that's what's interesting about this whole debate is like if I define communism, it would have a pretty rigid uh definition in so far as it applied to society. Right.

>> Right. But they're saying it doesn't work not because of those things, but because if they had applied the principles correctly, it should have worked.

>> I don't think they were saying it should have worked. They're just saying there is a rigid definition for what communism is. And what they're saying is when people say it wasn't real communism, they argue that because it didn't work properly. But they're not negating that there's something called that's defined rigidly called communism. Right. That's a

>> Yes. But that doesn't make them not communism either.

>> Right. So someone could be a strict capitalist actively and as long as they declare themselves a communist according to you they're a communist.

>> See it's a misrepresentation of my initial claim. But sure.

>> Well no let's doing let's get No, no. Let's get it real more more more on the nose here. If I'm an practicing Satanist and I'm doing all sorts of rituals and I claim to be a Christian and I'm doing it in the name of Christ and I just misinterpret the teachings of Christ, but I'm doing sacrifices with like all sorts of animals and [ __ ] I'm drinking bloodshots. Am I according to you? I'm actually still a Christian because I declared it. So

>> you couldn't you couldn't identify as a Satanist and a Christian, but that's identity. You could do bad things in the name of Christianity and that doesn't remove your Christian.

>> No, no, I didn't identify as a Satanist. I actually read.

>> You said I could be a Satanist.

>> No, no, practicing. I'm looking at the the the teachings of Christ. I'm just interpreting it differently and I'm actually objectively you would say I'm actually practicing Satanism, but I think I'm practicing Christianity and I just identify as a Christian. You would say that's a Christian, right?

>> So a good example would be the Waco cult.

>> Yeah. They thought they were appealing to Christianity, right?

>> They they are Yeah. They they were for all intents and purposes Christian. They were a Christian cult that did bad things.

>> Really?

>> Yeah, that's that's actually the standard I laid out.

>> Okay.

>> might well this is a good opportunity. Kevin Blackwell says, "Question for Lift Logic. Can you be both a Christian and an apostate at the same time?"

>> Yes, that is what I was saying.

>> Um,

>> sorry, I have a one question. It says in Mormonism DNC 93131 that the King Flet discourse it said discourse it says creation out of nothing is denied and a prime matter is considered eternal with God which is considered all God's glory. How is it different than hermetic alchemy? That's a deeper question someone asked. Um I don't know if you know the answer to that but he's saying it sounds it's similar to hermetic alchemy. I don't know if you studied that. There are a lot of things you could say it's similar to to be materialist, but fundamentally it's just a form of materialism. I don't know why they threw King Fallout discourse in there because DNC and King Fallout discourse are two different things.

>> This one from Trumpinator. Christianity has no truth. It's all subjective. It has truth claims, but yes, it's subjective. You can't prove God exists. Rachel Wilson says, "Listen, Kyle, aka Zach. The only one here who doesn't understand things is you."

>> This one from John says, "Which of the some 20 versions of the gold plates are true? Do you believe the Trinity is separate beings? And how do you justify polytheism?"

>> I wouldn't be a polytheist.

>> You're an APtheist. a henotheist practicing a monolatry. I would say you're a pyophist which would uh which would hold that there's actually infinite gods because if we become gods and we become the nature of god then everyone who achieves theosis from your view theosis becomes identical to the nature of god whatever that means is super intelligent all powerful and so if that's uh continued then then you would have an infinite number of gods

>> well that would assume there's an infinite number of people. But sure.

>> Okay. This one coming in from John. No, no. Big League Drew says, "Does LDS reject Yosua as the Messiah? If not, I think maybe technically Christian plus."

>> Yeah, exactly. That's that's another another point I'm making.

This one from Nazir says when lll gets triggered by basic questions quote where you learn this unquote or you don't understand that doesn't make sense. Incredul fallacy abounds and then they say uh okay so we'll give you a chance to respond to that lift logic if you'd like.

Well, that that wouldn't be an incredility fallacy, first of all. But the reason I was doing that is because Jim Bob is actually not reading anything we're claiming. He's reading anti-sources or AI compilations of it and they're complete categorical misrepresentations. And I just wanted to admit that that's his sources.

>> Well, now we are getting that.

>> Well, we don't trust you because when the black thing came up, you actually stated something and I found that is actually not true what you said. So, you want to you want to you want to take the foot out of your mouth? How did how did you find that wasn't true?

>> Uh it's it's documented that that that that uh Joseph Smith was clear that the that the pre the people who carried forth Joseph Smith's teaching actually put it instituted that black people not a burned crispy spiritual uh status. Black people um they couldn't be priests, right? That's that was instituted. No, that wouldn't be relevant to the Book of Mormon describing a people as having a skin of blackness, which is what I was responding to.

>> Well, so you're saying that they they just totally Is that an apostasy when the

>> racist?

>> Yeah. Yeah. Is that an apostasy? A second apostasy or

>> It wouldn't be a general apostasy. It would be a form of personal apostasy because apostasy is not being led by God in your actions. If you do something that is not led by God,

>> you have committed a form of apostasy. Okay. But the thing was

>> Brigham Young an apostate. No. But was that doctrine doctrine quotes correct? No.

>> Well, the problem is it's revoly. The the other thing that didn't come up tonight is that

>> it did. No. No. No. No. That was never revolic.

>> Was it re revvelvatory that uh Joseph he claimed it was revvelatory that he could sleep with multiple wives.

>> He didn't say sleep with. He said marry.

>> Mary. Was it revelatory? Did he claim it was revelatory?

>> Polygamy was a re revelation.

>> Okay. And then the the next the next president who's just as valid as a prophet as Joseph Smith, not the next one, but the successive ones, they went back.

>> Okay. They went back on the revelation. Does that mean God's revelation?

>> They go back on the revelation. They created a new revel. [laughter]

>> That's funny.

>> because polygamy No, no, wait.

>> That's hilarious.

>> Polygamy we don't reject. Like that's still a doctrine

>> in our church, right?

>> Is it or not? But we don't practice it because our understanding is God does not want us to practice it.

>> Oh, but God did want you to practice it.

>> Yes. There was a time when it was wanted and there's a time when it's not. Just like the law of Moses, right? Like you don't follow the law of Moses.

>> Well, well, there's some laws that we continue to follow. It's not an abolition, right?

>> But generally speaking, generally speaking, the thou shalt and thou shalt not of the Old Testament about like shellfish, pork, that kind of stuff.

>> Yeah. The Well, that be that's because in our system, we actually have a metaphysics change with Christ. But I'm not sure what your metaphysical change is.

>> No, I I understand that. But it's the same concept where God comes along and says, "Now we're going to do it this way." And that's fine.

>> Okay. So any type. So hypothetically, it could be the case that if there was a president one week that had a revelation, there could technically be uh a president the next week that's elected as the prophet who completely contradicts the previous revelation. Right. Under your system.

>> Yeah. Okay.

>> Yeah, that's fine. That's you've you've probably heard this before. Mormons are like are trying to pin down a Mormon is like trying to nail jello to a wall. You think it's because we dodge questions. Really, it's that we don't actually have to firmly concrete ourselves in past tradition. No, I totally get that.

>> Yeah. This one coming in from do appreciate it. MP says, [clears throat] "Oh, we I missed this one." Big League Drew says, "Jim Bob, what are the teachings of Yosua?"

Yosua, the teachings of Yosua, the teachings of the Orthodox Church, the sacraments, the gifts, um lowering yourself, fossis, uh fasting, um these things are um the the fruits people commonly refer to as the fruits, uh philanthropy, being of service, being a good father, uh having a family, procreating. Um I would say all of those things are consistent with the teachings of of Christ, if that's what you're referring to.

>> At least he gets it. This one from MP says, "Are LGBT churches who accept witchcraft Christian?"

>> If they identify themselves as Christian, they are a form of Christianity, even though I don't agree with their beliefs or practices.

>> What if what if someone who who's like super pro not just abortion, but they actually make a ritual of abortion where they do like intentional um sacrificial rituals in the name of God, Christ? Are they Christian?

>> Right. So the followers of David Caresh were Christian even though they killed children. Not bad. We don't like them.

>> I didn't ask about David Caresh. I'm talking about people.

>> It's a consistent it's a >> correlation. So you're saying someone who actually habitually um does baby sacrifice. As long as they say in the name of Christian, they're a Christian according to you.

>> In the definition I provided.

>> Okay.

>> Mhm.

>> You got it. Also, folks, we have a poll in the live chat here at Modern Day Debate on who you think had the most persuasive arguments tonight. With that, we're going to jump into the next question from Bubblegum Gun. Says, "Jim, why do you reject Mormons as Christians?"

>> Uh, because they can't trace their tradition and doctrine back to Christ. Simple.

Rachel Wilson says, "Who has an impression of me? It's a terrible impression. It's just disgraceful." says, "Kyle here is conf Kyle here is confusing physicality with objectivity. Physical metaphysical things can still be categorized objectively.

>> Can what be categorized objectively? Sorry.

>> So, let me read that over because I just screwed it up. I got all excited. But, okay. So they say Kyle here is confusing physical with objectivity or physicality with objectivity and says metaphysical things can still be categorized objectively.

>> Mhm.

>> Yeah. I'm I'm not though cuz like math is objective and math isn't physical. That's what she's saying is that like metaphysical things like math or spiritual things, they can still be categorized objectively. And she's saying like why

>> it's supernatural. But

>> I guess

>> she's saying that you earlier in the debate you were saying that something was subjective. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it had to do with religion. And she's saying like, well, it doesn't have to be just because it's religion or metaphysical. I mean there there are objective claims within a religion like you can objectively claim that the bib the the Bible doesn't support a certain belief because it's just not in there but that wouldn't mean that that particular thing means that that religion is true that's claiming that

>> this one from big league Drew says Christ quote unquote didn't start a new religion so yes the religion existed before Christ trumpinator says I identify as a dog. Am I a dog?

>> Nope.

>> Wow.

>> Trumpator, you get where it come from. Come on, man. Let's Let's be nice.

>> This one from Big League Drew says, "The word set has over 1,000 definitions. Which one is the real one?" Jim Bob,

>> say that again.

>> The word set has over 100 definitions. Which one is the real one, Jim Bob?

I'm not aware that the the term set has 100 definitions. Um in fact it does if the term set is defined in different contexts and they apply in those contexts right those are being context specific. In fact that's actually proving the rigidity of each of those definitions not the plurality and the subjectivity of all of them. So um the question itself um what does set mean? Well, in math it's a set or there's a set of this or there's a set of that or there's a game set match and all these things. Depending on the definition, you'll be able to know what it means. But that doesn't actually uh reduce everything to subjectivity at all. So the question is like a a nonsequator doesn't even matter.

>> You got it.

>> Okay.

>> It doesn't though. It's like don't you agree that when we look at the definition of set, if I just generally say the word set, you're going to have to ask, well, can you tell me what you mean by set? And when you define it, you'll know exactly what you're talking about. Right? If I say set game, set match in tennis, you'll go, "What? What are you talking about? A a mathematical set?" And you're like, "No, no, game, set, match in tennis, right?"

>> You'll be right. So, in context, I am not a Christian by any other definition than the one I supplied.

>> Well, there's only one context for Christianity and and that comes from

>> True though. I'll tell you what what it is.

>> There's multiple Christianities.

>> No, I'll tell you what the reference is. Okay. If the term set, if the definition of set in regards to tennis, it's going to be rooted in the game called tennis. If you say Christian, you actually, there's no way to refer to a Christian without going back in history to the man, a man who lived called Christ. There's no way of doing it. No way around it.

>> That's not No.

>> Yeah,

>> there are not a reference. You choose that.

>> Christ isn't a reference.

>> There's no Okay, dude. Did Christ exist? No. No, dude. You don't have an answer.

>> Did he write anything?

>> I didn't ask if he wrote anything.

>> I know you didn't ask that. I'm rejecting your question.

>> Okay, cool. Watch this. It's not Watch this. Watch this. Watch this. If you had a grandma before who was who was couldn't read or write, but she she knew how to make cookies properly and it was really good. Isn't it the case that she could teach her cookie recipe to people without writing it down?

>> It could be. theoretically the case. Then then shut your mouth. You don't know what you're talking about.

>> No, don't shut my mouth cuz you can't actually claim 60 years later. That's not even relevant.

>> I just debunked you that what you said about cookies isn't relevant.

>> Yes, it is. It's an example of something that's not require shitty.

>> I just proved that something doesn't even written down by a teacher for it to be conveyed. You dummy.

>> No, no, no. You've proved in one particular context where it's theoretically possible. That does not mean that it generally

>> in any in any situation if it's possible to teach without writing then your entire view you should just stop dude just stop Bob. No Jim Bob tell me how it's false.

>> No

>> because you can't quote what I say

>> 60 years later. That's what I'm saying.

>> Why not?

>> You're saying me to shut up after you asked me.

>> Shut up Kyle.

>> Saying shut up after you asked me not. So then you don't have

>> Shut up after you ask.

>> So then you don't have a reason to trust the the story of the apostles in Christ then dude.

>> Yeah, I don't I said that.

>> Okay, good job. Christopher Scott says he just said definitions are subjective but the whole debate his definition of Christian is objective in the pre-existence.

>> Yeah, that one's actually a fair criticism.

>> Wait, wait, wait, wait. What is that criticizing you or me? church has

>> um because in my initial um summary I said

>> this is an objective definition of Christian and I laid out the one I provided and I said definitions are subjective because they're socially constructed they sounds incompatible at a surface level but it's misunderstanding my point [snorts] objective has yeah laugh at that [laughter]

>> it's funny dude what you're trying to do is funny man I mean

>> you can you Jima you can at least understand what I'm getting at even if You completely disagree. You understand what I'm saying?

>> Yeah, it's a contradict. I'm get you're getting to maybe the fifth contradiction tonight. That's what you're getting to.

>> Okay. Yeah, you don't. I I I hoped you did. Maybe you're not in bad faith. Maybe you are just an [ __ ] [ __ ] That's besides

>> it's possible, but that doesn't make what you're saying wrong. Not wrong, though. So,

>> no. Right. So, [laughter] I am saying this definition is objective because written in the words of this dictionary here is Christian. That's what I'm subscribing. Just redefine it. And you can't

>> Okay. Who who who can redefine it? Can we redefine what a Christian is tomorrow?

>> What do you mean?

>> Can we redefine? Do you know what words mean?

>> See, that's why I was saying it is subjective. Can you generally decide the definition of words?

>> Then you could answer the question. Can we redefine what a Christian is tomorrow?

>> Yeah, you could.

>> Okay, that's all we needed from you.

>> Words Words have no inherent meaning.

>> That's a contradiction.

>> That's not a contradiction.

>> You're using words. Words have to have meaning for that meaning. For that to mean anything, dummy.

>> Words have meaning, but they are based on a collective acceptance of them.

>> No, no, no. Words are referenced for actual things or concepts, right? And so,

>> but those can change.

>> Yeah. No, the sound can change, but the reference doesn't change. An apple is still,

>> right? Right. The sound can change. So, tomorrow we could decide the sound Christian means something completely different.

>> Well, no, no, the sound Christian could be uh a different sound, but the reference is the thing in question. Well, that wasn't what I was affirming.

>> And well, actually, I I developed throughout the night that that you'd actually don't have a reference. And you actually bit the bullet and said, "Yeah, the same way trans the people who say um a woman is different than a female, they actually don't have a reference either."

>> Okay,

>> this one from Christopher Scott says he just No, we got that. You time out, you lose. Says, "I identify as Zach's mom. Make your bed, wash your magic underwear, and take the chicken out of the freezer. I think they're trying to mock you. Uh,

>> I do more. They're trying to mock me.

>> This one from

>> I would hesitate to mock me, but that's fine.

>> Zach will not be trifled with R says, "Are the parents of this smart young man related?" Okay, now Zack, you have to ignore these. Some of these people, they're just trying to get to you. So, don't let them get to you. This one from Oneshot A17. It's just the internet. They say, "What?"

>> I know. I' I've been on the internet for a while.

>> Okay, good. They say, "Wait, if the def definition of Christian is subjective, how can tradition like baptism be corrupted?"

>> That's true.

>> No, that's a good point. There are Christians who believe incorrect things about baptism.

>> No. No. If it's subjective, there's no such thing as a correct or incorrect thing.

>> No. Correct is subjective. You're right.

>> So then there's no such thing as an incorrect correct thing. Therefore, uh, Joseph Smith correcting a broken corrupt thing is subjective, right? It's not actually true.

>> Yes, Joseph Smith's claims are subjective.

>> Okay, [laughter] good. This

>> Why are you laughing at that?

>> WHY AM I LAUGHING AT THAT?

>> YEAH, why are you laughing at [laughter] that? Religion is subjective.

>> Okay, cool. This one from Keg Dog says, "If all authoritative relation to God ceased for centuries, then LDS lack lacks the epistemic grounds by which it could even validate its own restoration.

>> Yeah, there's no restoration there because there's no objective fall or apostasy if that's also object subjective. There's no such.

>> The objective fall is the secession of public revelation.

>> But that's subjective. No, no, that's claim that that idea Theological? No. No. Is that a theological claim?

>> That which part of that?

>> An apostasy to the stopping of revelation. Is that a theological claim?

>> Definition. No,

>> I didn't ask about the definition, bro. I asked

>> there's two parts to your answer.

>> I understand your term def your definition of revelation is is also subjective. That could change just like Christianity. The claim that something went into apostasy due to the the stopping of revelation, continued revelation, is that a subjective theological claim?

>> It's objective because it objectively happened. It's subjectively theological in the sense that is the the correct definition of a universal apostasy.

>> So, can you interpret something that happened in the past without using your subjective theological lens?

>> Yes.

>> Oh. You can

>> that's what you fail to do and you fail to critically analyze the biblical text.

>> Well, no, biblical text requires interpretation and you agree and even you hold it uh uh in LDS theology that scripture itself even today is still errant, right?

>> Yeah.

>> Okay.

>> But you don't you think it's inherent, which is nonsense.

>> Well, no. No. Saying it's nonsense would be an appeal to scripture, right?

>> No.

>> Well, how else are you going to determine it's nonsense? that it factually has errors.

>> No, that requires interpretive authority to to Dude, this is wild.

>> No, no, no, no, no. It's an objective reality, not an interpretation.

>> You have to interpret scripture, bro.

>> Aan Goldie says, "Would Abraham and Moses be considered a Christian?" Obviously pre-Crist, but believed in the coming of Christ.

>> Is that for him?

>> Uh, both of you.

>> You can answer it first. I'll answer it after you want. Not according to the definition I was using, but I'm fine with you calling them Christian.

>> Yeah, I would I would call all of it. The whole the whole chronology of Christianity actually is the new is the Old Testament continuing into the New Testament. That's why we have distinctions like theophanes that um the revelation of of God through Christ the second person and the life of Christ is all continuation from the Old Testament to the New Testament. That's what makes it coherent. In fact, if you don't have that specifically Christ is God, you lose um uh the mechanism of revelation and its meaning to be Christian to begin with. So um that you know that's why I'm interested in other people who claim to be Christian because I get into ecclesiology with them and about the time of Christ and his teachings that's when most almost anything um falls apart. The only thing that has even a even a miracle uh chance at least going back to Christ would be Catholicism. So really there's only like two to me there's only two options of of what constitutes Christian.

>> Yeah. Thank thank you for that. Um so you believe Christian is significantly more limited than what literally everybody else believes. Well, uh, if if Christ said if you're appealing to Christ and he says, "I am the truth and I'm appealing to Christ." You're gonna let me answer, bro. Consensus.

>> Okay. No, consensus isn't what makes truth, is it?

>> It's what makes word definitions, though.

>> I didn't ask about a definition. If there is a true church, it would be narrow. According to you, it's wide, right?

>> This is why we're talking past each other.

>> If there's a true church, is it narrow or wide?

>> Narrow.

>> Okay. If it's narrow, it's exclusive, not inclusive. Right. Yep.

>> You didn't argue exclusivity tonight. You argued the opposite.

>> Right. Because being Christian and being part of the true church are not the same thing. And you think they are for some reason.

>> Well, you can't tell me how they're not the same thing cuz you don't have a standard.

>> Literally just Okay, whatever.

>> Wait, wait. Did you just say being be claiming to be Christian and being part actually being Christian are not the same thing? Yeah.

>> No, your definition of Christian that you just used in that sentence is bastardizing mine. This one. Okay.

>> Jim Bob is not amused. All right. This one from Trump and says, "Christianity isn't believing whatever you feel like."

>> Thanks, Trump.

>> That's true.

>> This from this one from [clears throat] Emperor Fats Dogs says, "Zack, you misqued my question earlier. I asked you for proof that Jesus came to America, not proof he existed. So, what evidence do you have that Jesus ever appeared in America?

>> That's an LDS claim, right?

>> Other than the Book of Mormon, there wouldn't be any.

>> How would you prove that?

>> This one from

>> It's like proving Jesus walked on water. Proving he floated down from the sky and another place is equally impossible.

>> Bubblegum Gun says, "Why are you terrified of Adam Green, Jim Bob?"

>> I'm not. I would love to debate him on evolution anytime you want. Adam Green.

>> Oh, you're you're a young earth creationist.

>> What? What are what are you?

>> You're I'm a old earth evolutionist guy.

>> Oh, you're you believe in evolution.

>> Yeah. That's okay. That's why you struggle with subjective and objective so much. You don't actually accept truth and science as

>> different things.

>> Wait a second. Do you think there's a truth to the claim that you evolved from something that's not human? Yeah.

>> Really? What did you evolve from that wasn't human?

>> Whatever. Whatever the pre-existing homo whatever.

>> That doesn't actually tell me what it is. What is that?

>> I don't know what it is specifically.

>> So, you don't you're claiming you evolve from something you don't even know what you're referring to. You're a [ __ ] idiot.

>> It wouldn't matter for the claim. Evolution is an observable fact.

>> Really? You observe science you in science. What's sc What's the scientific method?

>> What is the scientific method?

>> I'm asking you. You're a claim science.

>> The scientific method is right. Right. So, so science is an epistemology where you can prove things. Yes, it is. Science is an epistemology.

>> No, it's not. It requires an epistemology. Um, so science is a method that assumes an epistemology, dude. So, the epistemology science is using is correspondence and inductive reasoning. So, induction. So, if you're using your sense data, I'm asking you if you think evolution is a scientific fact or theory, can you tell me what the method of science is?

>> It is to make a hypothesis. Nope.

>> And then

>> you need an observation first.

>> Observation hypothesis.

>> So what did you observe in evolution? I don't remember. Yeah. Yeah. What did you observe in evolution?

>> So you have birds.

>> You observe a different beak type.

>> Are they still birds?

>> Yeah, they're still birds.

>> Did you come Did a bird come from not a bird

>> at some point? Probably.

>> And how did you determine that? By looking at different beaks.

>> I determined that that's how organisms change over time. How did you deterine? No, that's a claim. How did you determine they change over time?

>> It's the logical conclusion based on that.

>> The logical conclusion is that

>> I'm assuming.

>> So, so if I if I grow longer fingernails over time in my lifetime, it follows that I'll turn into a monster. You [ __ ] idiot.

>> Where did you get that from? Where did you get that from?

>> You just said you just said it's an entailment. If things change within an organism like a beak or an eye or a claw, it follows that their entire universal category changes over time.

>> Yeah. Yeah. That's why you're a young earth creationist. You don't actually even understand the claim of illusion. But that's fine.

>> It sounds like you don't. I I debate it all the time. How how often do you debate it?

>> I don't debate it.

>> You don't You don't know what the [ __ ] you're talking about, dude. You don't know what you're talking You're an arrogant kid who needs needs to be slapped around. Really? Honestly, your dad Your dad failed you.

>> Slap me around. Bob, come. Come do it.

>> Your dad failed.

>> Do you train?

>> I don't need to train, dude.

>> Yeah, you would need you would you would need to train to beat me in a fight,

>> dude. I'd body bag you.

>> Body. You're probably smaller than me.

>> It doesn't matter. I'd body bag you.

>> I'd bite your larynx out.

>> You'd get so badly hurt.

>> This one from Eric Peterson says, "Can you be a Christian and not a Christian at the same time as long as you claim it?"

>> Yeah, thanks, Eric. See, Eric's on my side. Finally, Planet Peterson is on my side. Yes. [laughter]

>> This

>> answer the question. No. No. Answer Eric's question.

>> Can you be a Christian and not a Christian at the same time? That would be to assume two different definitions simultaneously.

>> Is that possible though? Then you're both a Christian.

>> There are multiple definitions of Christian.

>> So, the answer is yes, right?

>> So, sure. I guess

>> unbelievable. It's just unbelievable.

>> If I take your definition of Christian and my definition of Christian, they're different. And if this one is satisfied but this one isn't, then they are both a Christian and not a Christian. Sure.

>> Okay. This one from do appreciate it. Bigly Drew says, "Fun fact, the sword >> the word set has more definitions than any other word in English prophets from Joseph." Correct definition depends on the context where they state that evolution is contrary to beliefs and unequivocally false.

>> Trumpinator says, "Christianity isn't believing whatever you feel like."

>> He said, "Yeah,

>> he already said that."

>> Oh, it's embarrassing. I'm sorry. Okay, this one from Big Drew says, "Sorry, update. Looks like they're trying to make run quote unquote the leader for most definitions, but not official yet. Maybe

>> run. I don't know what run is. Just like

>> Yeah. Run official.

>> Yeah.

>> This one from Al Chemist says, "Did this midwit just claim that David Caresh killed kids? What a

"perverse thing to say about a dude that was unjustly murdered by the government, including his own men, women, and children."

"Yeah. I mean, that's one interpretation of the historical events of the Waco siege, but I think the evidence would suggest that he himself started the fire."

"So, but he was just being a Christian, right? According to you."

"Different type of Christian than me. Nothing like I am."

"No, but he was a Christian though, right?"

"A different type. Yes."

"Okay. Wow. But that's it. Oh, wait. No, we we actually do have more. Hold on. Not many more. But the this one from Synopsis Pure Presbyteria says, "If Mormonism's God is finite and embodied, he is not the ground of universals. If universals are more..."

"...are more ultimate than LDS multiple gods, why should I worship LDS gods?"

"Well, he's not finite. Can you read the second half again?"

"They said, if universals are more ultimate than Mormonism's multiple gods, why should I worship those gods?"

"I I didn't understand that question."

"By universals, Jim Bob, my guess is you have a familiarity with I'll ask a a Jason question that's very similar like if if if under Mormonism someone who died who was like you know achieved divinity right from this life into the next um is it do you guys hold that currently there's someone who's not God the father who's actually shares the status of God in in his p in his power and knowledge and and everything right now?"

"Exaltation wouldn't wouldn't occur pre-resurrection."

"Oh, so people are waiting to be gods? It's a learned process. You have to develop. Yeah."

"Okay. Is there anyone Do you guys believe that there's anyone who reached the the level of God the Father in their development right now?"

"No."

"Okay."

"Um I could see how somebody could interpret some things that way, but generally no."

"Okay. Cuz the reason I ask, if hypothetically that's possible, let's fast forward to a time where the first person reaches that state. Are they the new judge? Are they our new god or..."

"Okay. Yeah. I I understand what he's getting at. Yeah. Yeah. So, it's incompatible with our theology. Yeah. But it's a good question."

"This one coming from Oh, I just realized folks, if you haven't hit that like button, do appreciate it. Whether you're watching here or at Jim Bob's or at Lift Logic's channel, hit the like. And even Lord says, "A question for both debaters. If there is room for not they said if a Muslims claims they are a true Christian because they follow the uncorrupted teachings of Christ are they?"

"We already..."

"Yeah, a Muslim wouldn't ever do that. So."

"Joseph Mullen says, "Thank you, even Lord. They said, I suggested you ask Lift Logic how the LDS justifies their Mountain Meadow massacre in September 1857, where they gun down 120 unarmed traveling settlers age nine and up."

"They're just being Christian."

"Zach laughs. Okay. What is it?"

"Yeah. Yeah."

"What have you got, Zach? Have you heard of this?"

"Yeah, and I'm familiar with the Mount Meadow Massacre. Um, to suggest that people doing bad things in my church's history means anything is kind of silly to me."

"You got it. Cryptic S says, "Why did Joseph Smith need magic rocks to interpret prophecy when no other prophet needed a medium?""

"There are mediums in the Old and New Testament. Old Testament especially like they had the yurum and thumbum they had divination there was like the the ceremony of the bitter water you might be familiar with that where you would drink the ash slurry to identify a woman's infidelity."

"The the yurman thr the the thing you the stone in the chest plate thing um that being mentioned even doesn't actually um exhaustively determine that they're using as a seer zone so that's a jump."

"I I didn't say it was a seer stone at best at best it was like Um, at best, you know, the the mo more common conclusion, you know, and because it's like kind of sort of like a a very short-lived reference, right? Um, is more so like rolling dice if anything."

"Than than like holding a stone and being like, "Show like show me the way." Kind of like that, you know? It was more like a a ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar arbitrary uh determining device, not a right, not a I'm going to I'm going to hold this and I'm going to see through a crystal ball kind of scenario."

"Still still divination though."

"Well, I mean you don't really you don't really have a distinction to what's divine and not divine. So."

"Okay, whatever."

"Matters matters divine, right? No, no, it's matters divine itself."

"Matter's not divine. No aren't divine."

"Eternal one from..."

"Anything eternal is necessarily partly divine. No way."

"Ass way 1988 says, "Guy doesn't train. Look at his ears.""

"Yeah. Um I only have some tiny little bumps. Cauliflower ear is largely genetic though. So."

"Is it really?"

"Yeah."

"You'll have people Yeah. Some people just don't get it. Like I have little hematomas. Like you can feel them. There's like hard little bumps in my ear. They're just not visually like the big puffy things. And some people get it like in a week of training. Like their ear just blows up. It's crazy."

"Interesting. I didn't know that. Okay, let me see if there one last one. Spencer 58:49 says, "Ask Jim Ba what makes one a Christian and who set that standard?""

"Christ set the standard. He's the high priest of the church. He established a church and his teaching and his great commission. He set out the teaching. uh the apostles then taught and the apostles taught 70 more and then the disciples and then the bishops and the commentary and the preserved faith and practice of lurggical practices through the in with scripture it continues today. So if you say Christian, the nobody disagrees. The moment you say Christian, you're actually simultaneously making a historical reference. And so um anybody who says they're Christian wouldn't necessarily be hearkening back to a reality where Christ exists. And so the the challenge for people who are competing in their claims of Christianity, the challenge ends up being not just doctrine if it's coherent, but whether or not their tradition and their ecclesiology and their church authority can actually be traced back to Christ, which orthodoxy can. Now, Catholicism has had a shot at it, but that's really the only two. Um, Mormonism hasn't there's no shot at any of the reformation stuff. No chance. any restoration theology the they're uh unitarians I just had a a micro debate with uh metaphysics Mike ecclesiology crushes these people and it crushed him tonight."

"Oh, did it okay."

"Yeah, I I know you think you won that's fine that actually perfectly."

"That's the only that's the only standard I need I just think I need I just think I need to be the winner of you."

"That's actually how you go about."

"Yeah, I'm the winner right."

"That's that's what you do I know so you subjectively define Christian as something Jesus taught. But Jesus didn't reliably teach anything."

"Oh, then you don't you can't say you're Christian then."

"Okay. I'm not Christian."

"You just debunked yourself, dude."

"I guess I did."

"This one from AG says LDS. They say, "Do Mormons worship the same God as the Muslims? Is Muhammad a prophet of the Abrahamic God?" This debate was depressing. Pray for the Mormons."

"It was a depressing debate. Um, I wouldn't know if they worship the same god as me or not."

"Jay Bowman says, "Kid Logic, so do you. An LGBTQ RS plus priest lizard is a Christian." [laughter]"

"I'm not an LGBT QAI plus priest wizard. So, um, sure. But they're asking if because you know like some of these uh they're all like, "Yeah, we're Christian, but we want you to be gay.""

"Right. Right. No, you can you can be a Christian and believe in correct things. That's that's fine."

"Jim Bob disagrees because he has a theological definition of Christian that is irrelevant."

"How is Christian How is Christian not a theological definition? In your case, it is because equate Christian to how is your definition of Christian not theological."

"Because it can categorize people who believe incorrect things."

"How is it not theological? The definition."

"Define it."

"Somebody who believes in Jesus."

"No. No. That's not what your definition was. You little snake."

"That's close enough. Such a snake, dude."

"Dude, you're such an ass."

"You are such a slime ball, dude."

"Oh my gosh. That's not slimeball. One who professes a belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ."

"Is that is teachings theological?"

"Teachings isn't."

"Jesus Christ."

"Sure. But that's not the same thing."

"Dude, you're [ __ ] all over the place, dude. Are you Do you have a Do you have a head injury?"

"All over the place. That's why I'm."

"Did you have a head injury?"

"Yeah, I'm You're all over the place. That's why I'm."

"It's not a theological definition, but it's a theological definition. No, the broader definition isn't theological. That definition of it pertains to theology."

"There is no definition of Christianity that doesn't entail a theological position. Dude."

"All you Orthros are the same. It's like talking to a."

"Cry harder. Cry harder. Did you fill your magic underwear? Cry hard."

"You're such."

"JD Bowman says we got Nazir says, "Hypothetically speaking, if one trains MMA for 40 years, are they faster than a speeding bullet like Superman?" [laughter]"

"No, but that would be cool because over 40 years of training, you're going to get slower. But."

"That's sad. But let me see."

"Your body catches up to you. It's a It's a sick reality. We've all dealt with Jim Bob more than many because of his mental capacity, but that's different."

"This one from says [clears throat] last one. They say for the Mormon, his name is on screen. Come. They say a slur. Please don't call me Mormon."

"They say subjectivism says truth is mind dependent. If you say subjectively that Jesus is true, is his existence mind dependent? No, because there's an objective definition of a true Jesus and a subjective definition of a true Jesus. And the objective definition would be here's a Jewish rabbi who said certain things. He may or may not have claimed to be God, whatever. The subjective definition is son of God, my personal savior, etc. And that one you choose to believe because there's no external evidence for it. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You only You're saying the standard for believing in something should be evidential."

"No, I'm saying the opposite."

"Okay. Something can be true and non-evidential."

"Right?"

"Okay. Okay. Just making sure."

"Yeah. No, see, that was another reason we were talking past each other. True and not true and subjective and objective are not the same thing."

"This one from do appreciate uh last one, they squeaked this one. Simply put, 1776 says, "How do you determine something is quote incompatible with your theology," unquote, without a standard? Can't I just be a different type of Mormon than you?""

"You have to follow what our church leaders say to be a Mormon, right?"

"But that's subjective. So that doesn't that's actually not consistent with your entire argument tonight."

"I can see why you would think that."

"Unbelievable. Dude, are you a lawyer? No."

"What are you? Are you a salesman? Are you a Yeah, exactly. You're a [ __ ] Are you Are you a."

"You are a sneaky sneaky little guy, aren't you?"

"Mhm."

"You're training You're training to be a lawyer. A sneaky sneaky little guy. How did I know that?"

"Because sneak you're a sneaky sneaky little guy."

"So, here's the thing with that. If you want to be a member of our church, there's certain things you have to do to be a member of our church. And those would be get baptized in our church, right? But like what's the Christian baptism? Jim Bob says it's the orthodox one, but I say it's mine. And."

"Well, no, no, no, no. You're saying No, no, no, no. You're saying that it's not even needed because it's arbitrary. That's what you're really saying."

"No, I'm not saying that."

"Okay. Can you be a Christian and not be baptized?"

"Yes."

"No, you are saying that. What is wrong with your What's wrong with your head, dude?"

"Jim Bob, Jim Bob, stop conflating definitions of Christian Every Why aren't you using my definition?"

"You're going to make a great lawyer."

"I appreciate the compliment. Why aren't you using my definition of Christian when you ask questions like that? I'm the one who defined it in the affirmative."

"You're going to make a great lawyer, Kyle."

"Do I believe Do I believe you can get into heaven without being baptized? No, that's not Zachary. You're going to do great in law school."

"You're dodging what I said cuz it's directly responsible."

"Oh, you're doing you're going to be so great out there."

"I want everybody who voted I didn't win to pay attention to exactly what just happened."

"O wow. Well, this has been interesting to say the least. Want to say folks, check out our guests. They're linked in the description box. The guests are what make modern day debate fun. They're also linked in the podcast. So if you listen on the podcast, if you're old school, do people listen to podcasts anymore? If you do, they're linked in the description box there, too. Check out their content. But I want to say even if you disagree, there's value to hearing it straight from them rather than hearing somebody summarize what their position is. So I want to say thank you though, Jim Bob, for being here as well as Lift Logic."

"Yeah. Yeah. Um to be."

"Fair, I don't talk theology on my channel."

"Oh, you have a channel? Is it Lift Log? Is it that."

"It's lift."

"Okay. It's like uh it's like health and and fitness."

"MMA is its main focus, but that's kind of."

"Cool. Uh well, I will be continuing my stream if there's anyone from James' chat or mine who wants to continue the stream after we wrap up here. You're will you're more than welcome to call in, especially the aggressively oppositional in my own chat. I have a feeling that you won't call in, but I'll give you the link to if you want to continue this debate. Um, you could do it over at my channel right here. So."

"Yeah, I was I was interesting in chatting with you, but if you have work, then that's fine."

"Wow. Well, I'll be back in a moment. I'm going to give a quick update on Debate Con 7 in Houston, Saturday, January 31st, and then I'm going to wrap up. So, stick around for that. And with that, thank you very much, gentlemen. I'll be back in a moment, folks. Stick around. Thanks, guys. That was amazing."

"Thank you so much. Is that it."

"You guys?"

"Yeah. Have a good night. Compare right. Thank you."