Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin  (Read 2987 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Anonymous

  • Guest
WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
« on: May 01, 2019, 01:50:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This person just released this video against MHFM.  Very interesting....https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=713jhGWpiv4

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #1 on: May 01, 2019, 01:54:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Only just started watching but it's already very creepy. What on Earth is with all the weird "Get Out" pop-ups and the strange music? And the chains? The cave???


    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1371
    • Reputation: +547/-838
    • Gender: Male
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #2 on: May 01, 2019, 02:27:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Is this guy Orthodox? Sounds like it so far. 

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #3 on: May 01, 2019, 02:48:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yep this is an Orthodox schismatic casually paving over the issues of ecumenical councils(i.e that Orthodoxy has NO WAY whatsoever of determining the ecumenicity of a council) which completely and utterly refute their religion. 

    The only argument the Orthodox are able to put forward for the ecumenicity of a council is that it becomes ecumenical when the entire Church accepts it. But this is circular reasoning, as the Church is comprised of those who accept the council. Their reasoning goes like this:
    How do we know the Council of Nicaea is ecumenical? Because the entire Church accepted it. Why does it not matter that the Arians didn't accept it? Because the Arians are not part of the Church. Why are the Arians not part of the Church? Because they rejected the Council of Nicaea.

    The circular reasoning here is obvious, and that's the absolute best explanation they can offer for what defines the ecumenicity of a council. It's pathetic and untenable. The rest of their religion needn't be debated when they can't even logically establish this, because it's the ecumenical councils that define 100% of their dogma. So they cannot logically know their own dogma. If they can't even know their own dogma(without picking and choosing councils based off whim with no logical basis), then their religion has no grounds to stand on whatsoever as they can't be sure of ANYTHING. Not even the Trinity, not even Monotheism.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1371
    • Reputation: +547/-838
    • Gender: Male
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #4 on: May 01, 2019, 03:09:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • All these replies are Forlorn by the way, sorry I keep forgetting to click the button. 

    The narrator goes on to defend the Orthodox position on the Divine Energies. He lambastes the Dimonds for not naming Jan Dyer in their refutation of him, when normally not naming someone without their permission would be considered polite if anything, and supposedly "misrepresenting" him, while completely ignoring the Dimonds' examples in the same post of how Jan Dyer directly lied about what they said. He says the entire Dimond video is just a "distraction tactic" which is ironic, as this accusation is the narrator's tactic to avoid having to refute their points. He does not refute how created energies being God means that God must have changed, which is a direct contradiction of both Catholic and Orthodox dogma. He claims that the Burning Bush, etc. being created effects(not part of God) rather than energies(part of God) leads to atheism, without giving any explanation or reasoning to this. Just a wild claim thrown out there. He goes on about how Dimonds cut out parts of quotes that refuted their points, but then he doesn't actually show what they supposedly cut out or what it proves and just rushes on to the next "point" as if nothing happened. He goes on and on about the "errors" and "misrepresentations" of the Dimonds without explaining any of them. Then he states the Orthodox view without actually proving it at all, just throwing more insults at the Dimonds here and there.

    If he cannot even explain how created energies that ARE God are compatible with an unchanging God, then the rest of it automatically falls apart. But what's so bad here is there isn't even a "rest of it" anyway. He offers no refutations of the Dimonds' points at all, and no defence of the Orthodox position other than merely stating it. Pathetic.


    Offline Your Friend Colin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 285
    • Reputation: +134/-45
    • Gender: Male
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #5 on: May 01, 2019, 03:29:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Yep this is an Orthodox schismatic casually paving over the issues of ecumenical councils(i.e that Orthodoxy has NO WAY whatsoever of determining the ecumenicity of a council) which completely and utterly refute their religion.

    The only argument the Orthodox are able to put forward for the ecumenicity of a council is that it becomes ecumenical when the entire Church accepts it. But this is circular reasoning, as the Church is comprised of those who accept the council. Their reasoning goes like this:
    How do we know the Council of Nicaea is ecumenical? Because the entire Church accepted it. Why does it not matter that the Arians didn't accept it? Because the Arians are not part of the Church. Why are the Arians not part of the Church? Because they rejected the Council of Nicaea.

    The circular reasoning here is obvious, and that's the absolute best explanation they can offer for what defines the ecumenicity of a council. It's pathetic and untenable. The rest of their religion needn't be debated when they can't even logically establish this, because it's the ecumenical councils that define 100% of their dogma. So they cannot logically know their own dogma. If they can't even know their own dogma(without picking and choosing councils based off whim with no logical basis), then their religion has no grounds to stand on whatsoever as they can't be sure of ANYTHING. Not even the Trinity, not even Monotheism.
    Great point, forlorn.
    While the Dimond bros. are quite off-putting, I do appreciate their videos exposing the "Orthodox".
    Humble thy spirit very much: for the vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worms. - Ecclesiasticus 7:18

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #6 on: May 01, 2019, 04:01:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Great point, forlorn.
    While the Dimond bros. are quite off-putting, I do appreciate their videos exposing the "Orthodox".
    The Orthodox position is further harmed by the fact they haven't had a single ecumenical council* since the Great Schism. They claim they don't need a Pope to have one, and yet they find themselves completely unable to.
    *There are some synods that some Orthodox consider to be ecumenical councils, but none of them have anything close to universal regard as ecumenical councils. Which just hurts their arguments even more. The fact that they can't decide whether or not a couple of synods are ecumenical councils further proves that they have no actual way of determining the ecumenicity of a council, they can't put their (highly flawed, illogical, and disputed even among themselves) theories into practice. 

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1371
    • Reputation: +547/-838
    • Gender: Male
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #7 on: May 01, 2019, 04:21:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • This moron in the video even cites 'Tikon''s comments on this article as his arguments. All Tikon did in those comments was argue in circles about ecumenical councils as I described earlier, he argues that the gatherings of legitimate bishops are protected and made infallible by the Holy Spirit, but he doesn't see that Orthodoxy has no way of establishing whether the group X of bishops or group Y of bishops are the real bishops when both groups teach in opposition and excommunicate each other. He just says excommunicated bishops aren't valid as a hand-wave, without realising(in probably his malice, as this takes huge stupidity otherwise) that Arians could just as easily argue that their bishops were the legitimate ones and the Nicene bishops the excommunicated ones. Orthodoxy has no way of determining who is right there. 

    Tikon also showed himself incapable of explaining how Orthodoxy teaches on moral issues such as contraceptions and just dodges the question multiple times before saying some nonsense about his conscience and spiritual director deciding, completely ignoring how this would lead to a different answer for every individual. And as truth is universal and unchanging, they cannot all be right. He doesn't say anything of substance at all and dodges questions by misusing terminology clearly beyond his grasp in barely decipherable tautologies. In response to being asked about the Ravenna document, he just says he won't get into it and that "the underlying ecclesiological presuppositions are not clear." Nowhere does he actually address or respond to any question raised, and he even says he "won't enter into" "the successes and failures of ecumenical gatherings to express Orthodox teaching" as if it was somehow off-topic, when the entire debate was about ecumenical councils in Orthodoxy and its failure to define them in any logical way.

    Throughout the entire video the author never actually makes any arguments, he just throws around insults and refers to the arguments of others(without actually repeating them, because he hopes if he doesn't that we'll just believe them without reading them and seeing the errors) like this moron 'Tikon', all of which are pathetic and riddled with holes and fallacies.


    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1371
    • Reputation: +547/-838
    • Gender: Male
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #8 on: May 01, 2019, 04:45:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Perhaps more ridiculously again, this Jan Dyer he refers to attacks Catholic theology for making sense. He claims that one of the proofs that Orthodoxy teaching on the essence-energies distinction is that it's a mystery, and this proves it's "revealed dogma" rather than the "philosophical dogma" of Catholicism on this issue. While the Trinity is a mystery, to assert that x making less sense than y is somehow proof of x is still ridiculous and flies in the face of all laws of logic. God did not give man reason to tell him to ignore it. The Trinity will never fully be understood until the Beatific Vision, but that does not mean that the less reasonable a belief is the more likely it is to be true. That's nonsense. God gifted man with reason so that he may know the truth.

    Even ignoring all that, his point there is still untenable because he later contradicts it. He later goes on to say that what he perceives as Catholicism's inability to explain certain Christological issues stems from our lack of essence-energies distinction and that this perceived lack of explanation is proof Catholicism teaches falsely here. But the contradiction and hypocrisy here is that when Orthodoxy cannot explain something fully, it's a mystery and proof that it's "revealed dogma" - in fact Catholicism is even lambasted for its scholasticism and "philosophical dogma". But when Catholicism apparently can't explain something fully, it's also somehow proof that Orthodoxy is right. So Orthodoxy not being able to explain something as well as Catholicism is proof of it, and Orthodoxy being (according to him) able to explain something better is also proof of it. Every outcome is somehow proof of Orthodoxy. It's a Catch-22 scenario. How can Catholicism prove itself if by proving itself it somehow proves Orthodoxy? He's intentionally holding Catholicism to impossible standards and declaring everything that happens somehow proof of Orthodoxy. Ridiculous.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1371
    • Reputation: +547/-838
    • Gender: Male
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #9 on: May 01, 2019, 05:12:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I've noticed in all the Orthodox apologist videos and articles I've read today, they all conspicuously avoid mentioning that there are divine energies without a beginning. They can explain eternal energies in terminology that sounds orthodox(small o, as in not heretical), but they cannot explain energies with a beginning whatsoever, so they avoid mentioning them as much as possible. "St." Gregory Palamas taught the existence of both however, and his teachings are now official Eastern Orthodox teaching. I quote: "The superessential essence of God is thus not to be identified with the energies, even those without beginning."(emphasis mine) He also taught that "essence and energy are thus not totally identical in God, even though He is entirely manifest in every energy."

    From these two quotes alone, it is clear that in Orthodox theology, the energies are God. He is entirely manifest in every energy as it says. The fact that energies are uncreated also means they must be God/part of God, as only God is uncreated. We also know that God is eternal, without beginning. But Palamas says that at least some creations have beginning. This means that while God is without beginning, part of God had a beginning. Not only does part of God having a beginning contradict that God is without beginning, but that parts of God came into existence at different times means that God changed. But it is dogma of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy that God is unchanging. That energies could be uncreated(that is part of God), yet still have a beginning, logically means that God must have changed when those energies came into existence. Before He was without those energies as part of Him, after He was united with them, according to Orthodox teaching. This is heretical. 

    I'm sure Jan Dyer would love to tell us that his inability to reconcile the immutability of God with non-eternal energies is one of the reason-defying mysteries that just proves Orthodoxy. It must be nice to have a magic wand to wave away every contradiction in your religion. It is not a luxury that believers in the Truth have. 

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #10 on: May 01, 2019, 05:34:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    The narrator goes on to defend the Orthodox position on the Divine Energies. He lambastes the Dimonds for not naming Jan Dyer in their refutation of him, when normally not naming someone without their permission would be considered polite if anything, and supposedly "misrepresenting" him, while completely ignoring the Dimonds' examples in the same post of how Jan Dyer directly lied about what they said.
    On just this particular point though, don't the Dimonds name people without their permission all the time?  Given that they do, this one instance seems odd, at least.

    (not defending anything else that was said in the video.) 


    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 419
    • Reputation: +87/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #11 on: May 01, 2019, 05:35:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Above was written by me.  Didn't mean to post annonymously.

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1371
    • Reputation: +547/-838
    • Gender: Male
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #12 on: May 01, 2019, 05:48:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • On just this particular point though, don't the Dimonds name people without their permission all the time?  Given that they do, this one instance seems odd, at least.

    (not defending anything else that was said in the video.)
    In their videos when they're showing clips they do, or when they're citing people of note/authority(i.e when they're refuting Protestants they'll name major Protestant leaders but not the random Protestants who email them), but not in their comments/posts. They often recount conversations they had with various anonymous Protestants, NOers, etc. without giving names at all. Their wording in that comment matches their normal tone. I wasn't saying they were being polite, but that not naming him wasn't out of especially malicious intent or trying to hide him, but was rather pretty standard practice. Calling him out by name would've been ruder.

    Regardless, not naming someone is not a huge issue, it's just as if they needed to give him credit or anything. All he did that they recounted was him lying. And yet the author of the video in his deep hypocrisy didn't address this at all. He attacked the Dimonds for not calling a guy out by name, but mum's the word regarding his boy in blue blatantly lying. He calls a highly informative and well-researched video on theological issues a "distraction tactic" while he meanwhile refuses to actually counter the points and just pours out a barrage of insults, broken only by a view brief re-statings of Orthodox teachings that did not address the Dimonds' objections at all. The projection there is obvious, the author was trying to use distraction tactics himself and projected that onto the Dimonds' video.

    Anonymous

    • Guest
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #13 on: May 01, 2019, 06:58:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I've noticed in all the Orthodox apologist videos and articles I've read today, they all conspicuously avoid mentioning that there are divine energies without a beginning. They can explain eternal energies in terminology that sounds orthodox(small o, as in not heretical), but they cannot explain energies with a beginning whatsoever, so they avoid mentioning them as much as possible. "St." Gregory Palamas taught the existence of both however, and his teachings are now official Eastern Orthodox teaching. I quote: "The superessential essence of God is thus not to be identified with the energies, even those without beginning."(emphasis mine) He also taught that "essence and energy are thus not totally identical in God, even though He is entirely manifest in every energy."

    From these two quotes alone, it is clear that in Orthodox theology, the energies are God. He is entirely manifest in every energy as it says. The fact that energies are uncreated also means they must be God/part of God, as only God is uncreated. We also know that God is eternal, without beginning. But Palamas says that at least some creations have beginning. This means that while God is without beginning, part of God had a beginning. Not only does part of God having a beginning contradict that God is without beginning, but that parts of God came into existence at different times means that God changed. But it is dogma of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy that God is unchanging. That energies could be uncreated(that is part of God), yet still have a beginning, logically means that God must have changed when those energies came into existence. Before He was without those energies as part of Him, after He was united with them, according to Orthodox teaching. This is heretical.

    I'm sure Jan Dyer would love to tell us that his inability to reconcile the immutability of God with non-eternal energies is one of the reason-defying mysteries that just proves Orthodoxy. It must be nice to have a magic wand to wave away every contradiction in your religion. It is not a luxury that believers in the Truth have.
    The author of the video made some very good points that should give Catholics a lot to think about.  What is your position Forlorn?  Are you a sedevacantist? 

    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1371
    • Reputation: +547/-838
    • Gender: Male
    Re: WHY I QUIT MHFM BY J. Austin
    « Reply #14 on: May 02, 2019, 02:22:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • The author of the video made some very good points that should give Catholics a lot to think about.  What is your position Forlorn?  Are you a sedevacantist?
    Yeah, and I think Poscont made good points against Sedevacntism from what I've seen of his book so far, and I'll have to get it to see his arguments. But the author of the video made no good arguments for Orthodoxy, or really any at all(even with Poscont and Jan Dyer he just referred to arguments without actually repeating them, "oh yeah Dyer can totally explain this but I won't") and none of his linked sources explain ECs in Orthodoxy or the problem of energies with a beginning, despite him attacking Catholicism over those. He doesn't explain why he's against the Filoque either despite heavily condemning it. He doesn't do much of anything, he just promises us great arguments from others while using distractionary tactics he falsely accused the Dimonds of(they actually make arguments in their videos).

    Like I said the people he links to do make arguments, but Tikon is just pathetic and unable to address a single post thrown at him, Poscont I haven't read yet but I don't think he covers ECs or energy in his book, and Dyer I've read a bit of and I've explained how he's ill willed amd contradictory above.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16