Andrew Wilson vs. NotSoErudite HEATED MARATHON DEBATE | Whatever Debates 25

Date: 2026-02-21

Duration: 8h 47m

Guests

Brian Atlas

NNotSoErudite >

AAndrew Wilson >

Identified Speakers

SPEAKER_00NotSoErudite (Kyla)(guest)

SPEAKER_01Brian Atlas(host)

SPEAKER_03Andrew Wilson(guest)

Key Moments

IntroBrian introduces debate: Andrew Wilson vs NotSoErudite (Kyla). Four prompts on Christian nationalism.

QuoteAndrew: 'I do hate leftists... God will punish my soul for it'

Key MomentKyla introduces Agrippa's Trilemma - becomes central philosophical battleground

Key MomentKyla spills energy drink on stream equipment

Key MomentRobot claw beer pass disaster - major spillage incident

Key MomentKyla reveals Brian offered her Whatever host position before Andrew

ControversyAndrew tells Kyla her main problem is being 'supremely unlikable'

OtherDebate ends after ~8 hours. After-show segment.

Topics Discussed

Christian Nationalism and American Identity

Whether Christian nationalism is unAmerican. Founding fathers, 1st/10th/14th Amendments.

Agrippa's Trilemma

Central philosophical battleground: all belief systems are foundationally unjustifiable.

Jesus and Political Power

Kyla argues Jesus rejected political power citing John 18, Matthew 4, John 6.

Abortion Ethics

Kyla's pro-choice legal/pro-life personal stance. When ensoulment occurs.

Content Creator Likability

Andrew critiques Kyla's streaming career, argues unlikability is main barrier.

Transcript

Page 5 of 9

NotSoErudite (Kyla)imposing federal religions onto others, imposing religion generally. But that was never in question whether or not the feds were supposed to impose a religion. >> Well, the question is is it an American ethos to impose religion on others? And

Andrew WilsonI'm saying no. >> No, it that's not true. You you equivocate again between you say the federal government's not allowed to impose religion. I say yeah that's true.

Andrew WilsonAnd you say well so then America is not supposed to impose religion. No, that doesn't follow. One thing doesn't follow from the other. America's not just the federal government. America is not just federal amendments. America's not just

Andrew Wilsonthis. America's also states, states rights. What the states want, what states are, and by the way, the most key American thing, uh, the states used to be the ones who sent up Congress. You didn't get to vote on that [ __ ] The

Andrew Wilsonstates were the ones who did that. >> That was the most American system. So, I don't I don't know what you're even talking about with this. You never demonstrate how it's unamerican for Christian nationalists to use the system of liberalism in order to change it

Andrew Wilsonaround for Christianity because oh the feds aren't supposed to impose religion. Christian nationalists aren't proposing one single unified Christianity. They're saying that the states should be able to impose Christianity if they [ __ ] want to.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> But you already granted me that if Christian nationalists had power, they would probably prefer a federal religion. They would probably prefer federal policies on abortion and on gay marriage. They would impose these things at a federal level. system is set up for them to do that.

Andrew Wilson>> That doesn't make it good. >> That doesn't make it bad. >> Uh for Christians, it makes it bad. Yeah. >> No, it doesn't make it bad for Christians cuz you say so based on tri grius trilmma of your assumption of God. >> That doesn't make it bad. Nothing's bad for >> I know that I know a grippa trilmma

NotSoErudite (Kyla)really stressed you out. But I would say that it's it's it's uncchristian. Yeah, I think it's heretical. Right. Jesus. >> Well, I think I think that >> the typological argument is the embodiment of some of Christ himself rejecting kingship. Right. John Oh,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Christ. >> After feeding the 5,000, he perceived they were going to crown him king. So, he withdrew to the mountains. Right? We see Christ, Jesus, regularly rejecting political office, regularly rejecting

NotSoErudite (Kyla)political power because he said, "My kingdom is not here on earth. It's not a state. It's it's a heart condition. It is a kingdom of heaven." >> But you also said on the other side of your mouth that the reason that God

Andrew Wilsonanointed kings and Jesus Christ is God is because we just weren't ready for liberal values yet. >> Yeah. In the same way that I don't think that we say that not liberal values, God's values. >> Yeah. When did where does it say that? Anywhere in [clears throat] the Bible

Andrew Wilsonthat the reason that God uh anointed kings, he only did that because well, we didn't have a better system yet. >> Why? So why? >> No. Now answer my question. Don't ask me one. Where where in the Bible can I find anywhere in the New Testament? I don't

Andrew Wilsoncare if it's Matthew. I don't care if it's Mark. I don't care if it's Luke. I don't care if it's John. I don't care who you want to reference. Yeah. Show me anywhere in the New Testament where it says that God stopped anointing kings because we just weren't ready yet for democracy.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I'm not throwing memory verses at you like I'm some scholar kid. What we when we actually engage in theology, right, we look at chapters, we type >> Can you answer my question? >> Yeah, I said I'm not throwing memory verses at you like a >> So there's nowhere in the Bible that says that. >> No, I would say that there was a strong

NotSoErudite (Kyla)theological typological argument. Would you reject typological arguments as a sound form of theology? No. >> Oh, okay. I'm just saying that that here when we're talking about typology, >> I didn't say that there's a specific verse that says Jesus went and he said you guys democracy is actually the best

NotSoErudite (Kyla)thing. >> But you're going to cite a verse where he decides he's not going to be king as proof that he doesn't want any more kings >> as evidence that like in my typological argument which looks at the transition over time. Let's look at the transition over time.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Sure. Yeah. So in the case of Moses, we have like extreme statecraft and uh Christian law. The judges, right? We have tribes. King David also King David. Let's talk about >> was anointed by the prophets. Right? So

NotSoErudite (Kyla)now we have one step of se step of separation between the king and God. So in the case of judges, they were both kind of acting as statesmen and as like spiritual leadersish. Whereas by the time we get to David, we have Samuel anointing the king. But Samuel is

NotSoErudite (Kyla)actually the prophet. He's the word of God and the kings are supposed to honor that. Then by the time we get to the priests, now there's no statecraft at all. The priests are existing under Roman occupation. And then we get to Jesus, the final typological fulfillment

NotSoErudite (Kyla)of this. And it is a complete and utter rejection on Christ part of politics. That's what we see over time. >> Then how come the apostles engaged in politics, including Paul? >> Um I don't Paul, when did Paul ever say

Andrew Wilsonthat we should like usurp? Didn't he say render unto Caesar? >> Paul literally went to Corinth in order to battle for the position of authority because the super apostles came in and usurped his position. >> Not not for state craft.

Andrew Wilson>> Yes, that was part of state craft in Corinth. Yes, it was. Yes, it was. You're incorrect here. >> No. Was state was Corinth run by Romans or by the Christians? >> Well, that that's not relevant here. >> It's kind of important to craft under

Andrew Wilsonthe Roman Empire. >> But do you realize that inside of many of these Roman places while they were under Roman occupation, there were still a lot of govern within the cities as long as they didn't violate Roman rules. >> As long as they didn't violate Roman. But that doesn't mean that they couldn't

Andrew Wilsonimpose and they did all the time their own cultural spiritual various things like this. >> Yeah. They didn't engage in statecraftraft. >> That is statecraftraft. >> No. So >> if you can pass could you pass laws inside of Corinth as the as a spiritual

Andrew Wilsonleader? Because the answer is yes, you could. So if that's the case, as long as they didn't violate Roman law, you could do that. How is that fill in with your typog or your your um your typo typographic whatever it is? How? Show me.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> At no point is Paul going there and saying that we should impose Christian laws and all these things. He's saying this is what good Christians should do. This is how we should must and ought conduct ourselves. when he's >> Why is he removing these people? >> What? >> Why is he removing the super apostles? Why is he there to remove the super

Andrew Wilsonapostles? >> Probably because he found them unbiblical, not because he thought they were bad statements. >> He said both. >> He said both. He said the informing >> Where's the verse? Give me a verse. >> Yeah, let's go into Timothy. Let's first

Andrew Wilsonof all, let's let's let's go into Timothy and we can go uh to Ephesus. What was going on in Ephesus, especially when it came to the ideas of the cult of Artemis? This was purely political. The

Andrew Wilsonfact of the matter was >> worshiping the cult of Artemis was only political. >> It Yeah, it was. It was economic. It was economic and political. >> Had no bearing on your spiritual condition if you were engaging with the >> It was both. >> It was both. >> What do you think actually mattered here to Paul? >> Both. >> No.

Andrew Wilson>> No. Both did. And I'll tell you why. >> Constantly talks about >> what was going on with the cult of Artemis. The reason they were so [ __ ] pissed off is because the entire economic model of Ephesus revolved around the fact that they were making these silver statues. Okay? This was a

NotSoErudite (Kyla)political battle and it was a spiritual battle. It was both at the same time. >> So did they say that nobody can now make these silver statues or did they say that Christians should not engage in it, not make it, not buy? >> Christians were trying to remove that as an economic forum for the cult of Artemis.

Andrew Wilson>> And did Paul go there and say we should get rid of it as an economic forum and >> told Timothy just that. >> No, he said don't engage with it. Christians are >> No, no, no. Yeah, you need to read the letters to Timothy because you're incorrect here. Okay. The truth is is

Andrew Wilsonthat the reason the re and I understand why I understand why you came up with this idea. The anointing of kings happened. God put kings in place, but it was just because they weren't ready for another system that didn't have kings.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Does that mean right this second anywhere that there's a king that king sinning? >> U depends on what the king is. What do you mean? >> Like in your country, is it sinful to be a king in your country? >> Uh no. Because the way that I mean the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)kings are exclusively performative. like they have no actual monarchic power. The king can't, for example, tell Canada that they must impose Christian morals. >> But let's just say that you had like a king, I don't know, in Zimbabwe and this king, >> is he Christian?

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah, he's a Christian. Zimbabwe is like hell on earth. Okay, let's say. And this king gets into authority and he imposes all these Christian values and it brings in all sorts of economic prosperity and people are very happy. >> A great outcome. Is he saying he might

Andrew Wilsonbe? Yeah. Does he know that it's wrong for him to impose Christian statecraft? >> I don't I don't think it is wrong. It depends on what he's imposing. What is he imposing? >> He's imposing that you can't murder, no homosexuality, no prostitution. He's

NotSoErudite (Kyla)imposing no drugs. He's saying all sorts of things like this and imposing them from Christian ethics. >> Yeah. So, I would have an issue with uh a number of the Christian ethics that is only conducted around sin and not as true about statements. >> But you can't demonstrate that he's actually sinning. >> What? What do you mean you can't

NotSoErudite (Kyla)demonstrate? >> Show me how this Christian king is doing anything which is incorrect biblically by being a Christian king. >> Yeah. So if he imposed on his people, for example, something that they can't do because he thinks it's a sin, not because he thinks that it makes for like

Andrew Wilsona worse statecraftraft, I would think that that would be wrong. Show me the sin. Show me the wrong robbing peoples of agency. >> He's not you're not robbing them of agency by having rule of law based on Christian ethics, you still have agency. >> If you're forcing it exclusively because

NotSoErudite (Kyla)it's sin, right? So if there are secular people in Zimbabwe that are gay and you force them to not be allowed to engage in it. And there's there's let's say there's >> how is that sinful? uh throwing people in jail who are non-Christians would be s would be wrong to do. Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> Why? >> Uh well, it depends on what you mean by sin, right? Like if when I talk about sin, >> if the king of Zimbabwe says you homosexuality is not to be engaged in anymore and you can't get married, how is he sinning? >> Uh because he's imposing on

NotSoErudite (Kyla)non-Christians uh something about sin. >> So >> So I think the issue would be that that's inherently anti-Christian. >> No, it's not. You can make impositions. Where does Jesus impose himself on non?

Andrew Wilson>> He doesn't have to. Jesus wasn't here specifically to give us the message of how to rule. >> Should you be more like Jesus or Paul? >> He was gi He was giving us the ethical framework for how we were supposed to live our lives. And if it's the case, >> shouldn't we live our lives politically

NotSoErudite (Kyla)then? If Jesus if Jesus wanted us to live our So why? So why did he reject it? >> Reject what? >> Politics. >> Because that wasn't what Jesus was here to do. >> He So we shouldn't act like Jesus. So Jesus wasn't here to do.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> We are acting like Jesus. So theoretically though uh if Jesus if it was actually more Christian to impose Christian policy shouldn't have Jesus established the kingdom of Judea and Samaria shouldn't he have done that united established he established

Andrew Wilson>> should he have thrown off the Romans >> he established the brand new kingdom which is Christianity >> which is where is it >> which is the body of people who are Christians yes >> where is it like what state is it >> state what >> what state did Jesus make >> no he didn't make a state

Andrew Wilson>> oh you're right he didn't >> that was not what his purpose was >> uh so should we be more like Jesus or like Paul, we're still like Jesus. Even if you're a king who imposes Christian ethics, how are you not like Jesus? >> Because if you impose on other people, >> should we all get crucified at 33 to be

Andrew Wilsonlike Jesus? >> Does Jesus think that we should all get crucified? >> You tell me. It's your >> answer. >> That's not an answer. That's a question. Should every Christian get crucified at 33? Cuz Jesus did. >> No. >> Why?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Because Jesus didn't say that his crucifixion was him. >> He didn't say that kings couldn't be Christians and impose Christian ethics. Did he say it's sin to not get crucified? >> Did he say it was sin to be a king and oppose Christian ethics? Show me where. >> He certainly seemed to reject it outright.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> He certainly didn't. Show me where. >> Uh, sure. We'll go back to John 6. After feeding the 5,000, he perceived they were going to crown him king. So, he withdrew to the mountains. >> So, >> Matthew, render unto Caesar. What is Caesars's? >> Yeah,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> right. Uh, Matthew 4. >> Does that say Caesar can't be a Christian? >> Offers Jesus political dominion over the earth and he refuses >> because because why? because he is not here to do political power.

Andrew Wilson>> [ __ ] The reason that that happened was because Satan came to him and he said to him, "I'll give you everything if you'll worship me." >> Mhm. >> And so he rejects So he rejects it not

Andrew Wilsonbecause he's saying you can't be a Christian and rule. He rejects it because he God is not going to bow at the feet of Satan for material [ __ ] >> So then why did he reject? >> So why would you bring that up as an example? That even that doesn't even make sense. I I brought it up and

Andrew Wilsonexamine a litany of other things of Jesus regularly rejecting political power. >> Yeah, he was his mission was not to come here to be a politician, but that doesn't mean that he rejects politicians can use Christian ethics. >> Well, a lot of Jews seem to believe that the Messiah's role was specifically to

Andrew Wilsonbe >> Are you a Jew? >> No. >> Then I don't care. >> Okay. So Jesus rejects the political position and we should what? Embrace it. >> There's nothing there's no problem within Christian ethics of having a position of political authority. I

Andrew Wilsondidn't say that there is. >> Then if you're going to be >> from Christians onto non-Christians, >> that's fine. >> Is wrong. >> No, it's not wrong. And you haven't demonstrated it. >> All you've done is given me some passages out of context. One of them in

Andrew Wilsonwhich he was supposed to bow at Satan's feet. Another one where he says, "I'm going to reject being the king of the Jews." >> So what? >> How are these out of context? >> Becau be Well, the first one we're talking about was Satan. He did not

Andrew Wilsonreject it due to political office. He rejected it because Satan said you got to bow down to me in order to get material share. >> I could grant you that one. Yeah. >> Yeah. When it comes to the when it comes to the kingdom, that did not serve his mission. His mission was to come here

Andrew Wilsonand give us the good news. He was to give us the good news that his kingdom has come to earth. His kingdom is here. >> How would reestablishing Israel not help him with showing that the kingdom is here? That we're here to bring the good

Andrew Wilsonnews. >> Ask him. Why? Why are you asking me that? [laughter] >> Because you're the one who about the the guys the guys of God. His entire mission here was just give you the good news. >> That was his mission.

Andrew Wilson>> So we shouldn't be like Jesus. >> We How are you not like Jesus because you rule with Christian ethics? >> Because he regularly pushed off imposing himself politically on >> he did not anywhere ever show us where

Andrew Wilsonsecular governance was supposed to be the order of the day and Christians were supposed to only follow secularism. He never showed us this. >> So then why does he say render unto Caesar? Right? Even Paul in the case of Paul >> because they were talking about taxes.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. So Paul for example >> so what was happening is >> existed under Nero. >> Do you want the answer? >> Uh >> do you want the answer to why he said render under Caesar? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So here's what happened. He was dealing all the time with lawyers. And

Andrew Wilsonlawyers would come up with these >> well not just Pharisees but yes also Pharisees. And they would come over to him and ask him oftentimes hypothetically loaded questions. In this particular case talking about taxes

Andrew Wilsonright? Right? So he gives a parable and he says, "Render unto Caesar what is his." Right? Yes, you can render unto Caesar what is Caesars's. That in no way says that Caesar shouldn't be a Christian or use Christian ethics. >> Okay. >> There's like nothing there for that at all.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Sure. I would argue that alone wouldn't substantiate this. >> None of that substantiates. >> I would say the consistent pattern of Jesus rejecting political power over and over. >> His mission wasn't to come here to be a politician. It was to die for mankind.

Andrew Wilson>> You're right. In fact, not a single Christian. your mission to die for mankind or do you have a different mission? >> Uh, no. My mission is to uh represent Christ as best as possible. >> Okay, got it. So, it's not to die for mankind. You have different mission than

Andrew WilsonJesus Christ did. >> Got it. So, where what's where am I going to find that Christians must live in only secular countries? >> I didn't say that. That's where you would find.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. Then why should I assume that Christians should only be able to rule in a secular way? Uh, I didn't say that they should only be able to rule in a secular way. What is the problem? I said that they should not impose onto

Andrew WilsonChristians Christian moral law that would that it only exists. We do it all the time of sin. >> Most of the common law that you're referencing is imposed from Christian ethics. >> It's not imposed from it. It's informed by it. >> Yeah. And it's, by the way,

Andrew Wilson>> you might notice I never said I had an issue with being informed by it. >> Yeah. Why is it that Christians can't impose that, but secularists can impose that? >> Because secular people aren't Christian.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)So they can just rule over Christians, >> but Christians can't rule over them. >> Yeah. >> What? Why not? >> Because they're not Christian. >> So what? >> So Christians shouldn't be imposing tyranny on other people.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> That's not tyranny. >> Yeah. Imposing imposing your religious election onto others when it's against their interest and not their religion is kind of tyrannical. Yeah. >> No, that's not tyrannical. >> How not? >> It's not a t then all laws would be uh

Andrew Wilsontyrannical if it's an imposition on somebody's values that they don't like. It would be if it's compelled. Yeah. Compelled speech, for example, is >> Is that So, so um when you're talking about compelling a person to do a thing,

Andrew Wilsonare you saying that secularists don't compel people to do things? Nope. >> What about the draft? >> Uh yeah, that that's not moral necessarily. >> It's not. >> States can compel. Christians should not compel.

Andrew Wilson>> I I don't understand the the draft is is it compelling people to do a thing, right? >> I don't have a problem with states compelling. I have a problem with Christians compelling. >> Yeah, but I understand the >> the difference here would be Christians

Andrew Wilsonversus what you said was that secularists should be able to unless it's the case that they're pushing some value. >> Uh yes, so not secularists, states. >> Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> States shouldn't be able to compel people to do things that they uh would be a violation of some of the fundamental like rights and liberties. They shouldn't do that. >> Those rights and liberties are informed literally by the perspective of the person. And so if people are like, "Hey,

Andrew Wilsonwe want to be able to watch porn if we want." You're like, "No, you can't. You can't do that." Or, "Hey, we want to run stop signs." You're like, "Hey, you can't do that." They're imposing their will and they using force force of law. >> I don't have a problem with states compelling or using a force of law.

Andrew Wilson>> Well, I don't have a problem with Christians doing that. >> Yeah. That's where we differ. >> Yeah. And you haven't made a compelling case anywhere from anything. >> You So, just because you don't find it compelling doesn't mean that >> it's just not compelling. You haven't shown me anywhere that Christians can't

Andrew Wilsonimpose Christian ethics. Nothing. In fact, I have the entire standard of the Bible to show that God anoints kings, that Jesus Christ is God, so he anointed kings. Your whole the entirety of your argument to that is it's because we didn't have democracy yet.

Andrew Wilson>> That's because we weren't ready for not kings yet. >> No, it's the Yep. So, >> yeah. Show me where that's the case. Show me where it's the case that God said. >> Jesus did not say we were not ever going to have moral kings again. Ever. >> You're right. But if we look at the type

NotSoErudite (Kyla)I never said that he did. What I said is a typological argument. In the same way, for example, >> the typology makes no sense. just do everything that the Old Testament says? Of course not. Why not? >> Because we because of Acts.

Andrew Wilson>> Go through it. Why don't we um >> Okay. Well, not a pop quiz. I just want to make sure though. >> Are you familiar with Acts? >> Yeah. >> Okay, great. So, then you should know why we don't do everything the Old Testament says.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. So, for example, why don't we follow um uh you know, mixing of fibers? >> Because of Acts. >> Walk me through it. >> Okay. So in Acts this question is asked

Andrew Wilsonespecially about the idea of like um well this was the question circumcision. Do you have to get circumcised? >> What did they say? >> No. They said no. And but they because

Andrew Wilsonthey imposed three new laws. >> They said no. In order to convert you no longer have to do circumcision if you're converting over from being a gentile.

Andrew Wilson>> Uh but you have to adhere to these moral laws which is strangulation of animals. That was one. >> Mhm. Uh, I think it was strangulation of animals. And then there was two other ones. We can pull them up real quick, though. >> These weren't laws, right? These were like precepts for Christians to do.

Andrew Wilson>> Yes. >> Which are not laws. >> Uh, well, wait a second. They're laws within Christianity. >> That's not the same thing as state laws, right? >> Yeah. But I think that's equivocation. We were specifically discussing Acts. >> Sure.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. And you were asking how it is that you were like, why don't we follow Old Testament law? And it's because in Acts this was reconciled with what with what the conversion of the Gentiles needed to be. >> Right. >> Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. >> That makes my point, not your point. >> This doesn't make any point. >> Yes, it does. It answers your question as to why we don't do that anymore. Did you have some reason that you were asking that question? Was it just for fun? >> Yeah. It was for an establishment of a

Andrew Wilsonnew covenant, right? >> Old no covenant theology, the way that you view it, I don't view it that way. I view it I view things as a continuum. It's not old and new covenant. There's no reconciliation. This is a continuation. We still follow the old

Andrew Wilsoncommandments. >> Okay? So, >> we still follow the old commandments. We still follow all 10 of them. Jesus Christ told us to and then gave us two additional commandments on top of it to follow. So, no, that's incorrect. We do follow much in the Old Testament. We

Andrew Wilsondon't generally follow Levitical law and we don't follow Levitical law because Gentiles converting over, we were told exactly in Acts how that was supposed to operate. So if they engaged in Levitical law, would it be sin or why is it not sin for the Gentiles to not participate

Andrew Wilsonin Levitical law? >> Ask the question again. >> Why is it not sin for Gentiles to not participate in the Levitical law? >> Why is it not sin to not participate? Ask it a different way cuz I sound I hear two. >> Why is it not wrong for Gentiles to not

Andrew Wilsonget circumcised? >> Why is it not wrong for Gentiles to not get circumcised? Ask it in positives. >> Uh

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> should maybe should. Why is it wrong? Why is it okay for Gentiles Yeah. >> to remain uncircumcised? >> Why is it Oh, because that's what was

Andrew Wilsonlaid down in Acts by the apostles. >> Yeah. But why? >> Because they were trying to figure out how to convert over people who wanted to convert over to Christianity and whether or not they needed to follow Jewish law. Right?

Andrew Wilson>> And the answer was no. Right? >> And they drew on the teachings of Jesus Christ, which they were infinite or intimately familiar with, which you're not. uh that yeah, no, you don't have to do that. >> Okay. So, they looked at it and they

NotSoErudite (Kyla)said, "These laws actually, they don't matter anymore. They were valid in the Old Testament. They were sin in the Old Testament, but now they're not sin. We've updated it." >> No. No. >> So, was it sin? >> Those are still sinful things.

Andrew Wilson>> So, being uncircumcised is sinful. >> No, no, no. Not being uncircumcised is sinful. But even in the Old Testament, this was prescribed for Jews only. >> Well, was it a sin for Jews to do? It

Andrew Wilsonwasn't a sin for not Jews to do it, but it it is still sinful. Even if you don't follow Christian ethics, you can still sin. This is the thing. There's a distinction in our worldview. >> Sure. The issue is like when we talk

NotSoErudite (Kyla)about non-Christian sinning, right? It's it's um it's it's almost empty, right? Because >> it's not empty. >> Of course it is. When we talk about sins Yeah. Of course we do. Because when we talk about sins, we're talking about the sins of omission, commission, and

Andrew Wilsonoriginal sin, right? >> No, we're talking about Well, first of all, I don't believe in original sin. Okay. >> Believe in ancestral sin. That's a Catholic thing that you're referencing for original sin. >> Okay. So, you don't believe, let's let's

Andrew Wilsonsay you don't believe that humans are born into a state of um separation from God. >> No. >> And that we need salvation to bring us back to him. >> Well, wait a second. You do need salvation. That's true. But when you're

Andrew Wilsontalking about original sin, this gets into Genesis, the ideas of Genesis. So, um, >> do you not recognize Genesis? >> Yes, of course I do. But I'm giving you a distinction in theology. When you say

NotSoErudite (Kyla)original sin, you just mean Adam and Eve both sinned. And so, no, that's not okay. What do you mean by original sin? >> Okay. What I mean is a state of being that we are bent towards sin and need the mercy of salvation, right? The existence that all humans are kind of born into.

Andrew Wilson>> Well, I would consider this to be ancestral sin. That we can call it ancest. The curse the basically the curse on the earth >> and we need salvation from our Yes. Of course, we need salvation, >> right? And we're all in that status

NotSoErudite (Kyla)without salvation, right? >> Yes. including non-Christians. >> Yes. >> Whereas in the case of omission and commissions, right? One of the important things about uh omissive sin is knowing something is right and failing to do it

Andrew Wilsonor commission which is knowing something is wrong and failing to do it. >> You just made a big mistake because remember earlier you said the truth's written on your heart. >> Yeah. I think that we should know the like broadly know these things. >> Well, then that would mean that you

Andrew Wilsoncannot allow people who are not Christians to give them a pass on sinning because they know the truth, right? uh not not in the specific way of like religious precepts, right? In the way of what truth do they know the the

Andrew Wilsonvirtue ethics of orienting towards like less harm and doing. >> So then they know what's not sinful. >> Not necessarily. >> So So I don't understand why do what do they what do they know here exactly? >> They have an orientation towards the

Andrew Wilsongood that God builds into them. >> Okay. So an orientation not to sin >> because to not sin is good. >> What depends on what sins we're talking about? >> All sins are bad. >> Sure. >> Okay. Okay. So then they would have an orientation to not do any of those bad things which is sitting. >> Okay. So let me ask you this. Why do

Brian Atlaspeople >> No, don't ask me. Answer first then ask. Answer then ask. >> No, I'm not going to. >> You're not. Okay. Then I'm not going to. >> Okay. >> We'll just sit here and stare at each other. >> Sure. >> This is such a perfect time to let some

SPEAKER_02chats come through. We have uh Chaw here. Thank you, Ch donated $100. >> Thank you, Cha. >> How exactly is opposition to evolution anti-science? Evolution doesn't even

SPEAKER_02satisfy the scientific method. It requires faith-based presuppositions. It's not even science. Opposing it is science. >> Uh, thank you. >> I don't know. You just don't know

NotSoErudite (Kyla)anything about the scientific method. Of course, it's it's falsifiable. It's testable. You can make hypothesis on it and then test for those hypotheses. Yes. And we have robust scientific validated evidence for it. [snorts] >> Jaw, thank you for your message. If you

SPEAKER_02want streamlaps.com/ $100 for your own >> Kyler, the equality of human beings regardless of differences or liability is not even established without Christian beliefs endowed with

Andrew Wilsonunalienable rights by creator etc. equal rights and democracy. >> But no create creator doesn't mean God. It means something else that's creator. >> I don't just talk to seculars who believe in like natural law. Like yes,

Andrew Wilsonthere are secular arguments for like all humans having value. I don't know what to tell you. Frost, thank you very much for your message. If you guys want to get your own, >> you just don't find them compelling. Streamlabs.com. >> It's not It's not even a matter of compelling. It's a matter of Christian ethics. You're a Christian ethicist,

Andrew Wilsonright? >> Okay. Well, when you're talking about secular natural rights, what the [ __ ] are we even talking about? You know, you believe in them. >> Well, we're going Well, because we're going back to a Griffith's tram, right? I I understand. >> Back to Grippa. Your least favorite.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So, it's not justified. So, your beliefs aren't justified. Neither are theirs. >> Um, well, in the way that he's saying this, right? So he's trying to say you can't even establish this thing because secular beliefs are unjustified. And it's like at a foundational aimatic

NotSoErudite (Kyla)level all beliefs are unjustified. Right? A natural law theorist while I don't find it compelling is a coherent recognized philosophical system that does have strong argumentations for how it establishes like equal moral value. Yes.

Andrew Wilson>> And while I don't find Kyla's, you know, entire worldview compelling, right? All that matters is that because both of us can't establish justification. and I can do whatever the [ __ ] I want because I don't find it >> what anyone has said or

Andrew Wilson>> but it reduc lit. No, I'm I'm I'm making an argument. >> It literally would reduce to this that there's no moral facts and moral anti-realism. If it's the case that Kyla just says that she assumes her

Andrew Wilsonworldview, therefore it's true. She's building everything up to me. >> That would be the point though. Neither if neither of us can justify. We have no moral facts. >> You were lying before when you said that you >> lie. I just said I adopted the entire worldview.

Andrew Wilson>> So you believe that? Well, then of course, of course you think >> there's no moral facts. So when you say I didn't say there's no moral even and by the way even when it's the case when he says secular ethics if it's the case that you're like oh okay well the thing

NotSoErudite (Kyla)is is like I don't find that compelling. The secularist says oh okay that's nice. I don't find your [ __ ] compelling. >> How do we determine who's right? You >> reason and logic. We argue it out right we grant each other's assumptions. I grant infinite regression.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Why should we follow reason and logic? Why? Uh I think it's led to the best outcomes and I think it's the only sense data that we can possibly >> but when you say best outcomes right uh when you say >> in a virtue ethicist way and a pragmatic way >> right within the way that you think that they're the best.

Andrew Wilson>> No I think the way that God thinks it's the best >> right the way that you think God thinks it's the best. >> Yeah. Of course the same as you. >> Right. So if you think it's the way that God thinks it's the best and somebody else says I think that that's the way that God thinks it's the best. How do we do draw the delineation between the two

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to determine you're right? >> Usually we use reason and logic to make arguments. use reason and logic and they disagree with a found yeah found well the problem is that some some reasonable beliefs are are fundamentally unresolvable that like there are

NotSoErudite (Kyla)reasonable conclusions that we can hold that are built on an foundationally unjustifiable system where we have to go I think that's a reasonable conclusion but I think you're wrong because I prefer dogmatism and they go well I I think what you're saying is kind of reasonable but I think you're wrong because I prefer infinite regression and

Andrew WilsonI use utilize infinite regression in this case to make a natural lie >> okay so then if that's the case then if all of us are just going off of like vibes bro because It's not just vibes. Don't reduce philosophy to just vibes.

Andrew Wilson>> Well, in your case, I'm sorry. In this case, in our case, it's just vibes, man. See, if I don't agree with Kyla and we get through logic, we it's the most good faith. We get through logic, we get through reason, we get through all these

Andrew Wilsonthings. We have fundamental disagreement. Still, we don't agree on any of this. It's just like that's fine. Okay. How do you solve? It's fine. I'm agreeing. It's fine. So, if we agree, this is the I just agreed. You just don't want to solve a grip. Totally

Andrew Wilsonfine. You believe that there's objective moral fact, right? >> Literally. Wait, we believe it. >> Well, you do as well. >> Don't we believe there's objective moral? >> You do as well. >> Okay. How do we believe that there's objective moral facts, though? >> I'm asking you. >> I don't know cuz I don't believe in

Andrew Wilsonobjective moral facts because I'm going to grip a trilmist. >> It's that's what are you a trolleyist? What does this even mean? It's just >> It just means I don't understand problem. I'm asking you. >> I don't believe in moral facts. I'm a moral anti-realist and I have

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> This is obviously not true. It's obviously true. >> So I'm asking you how do you solve a Grippa's trilmma? >> Why would I solve a thing? I concede it is true >> because you don't actually believe it's true. >> Prove it. >> Uh based on everything that you've said.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Hence we talked about a grippers trilmma. Right. You keep on insisting that I don't believe in moral fact. But you present it in such a way as saying this is so absurd and silly. >> I don't believe in moral facts. >> I believe in moral facts. Maybe you don't. >> Oh, but you can't figure out how you get

NotSoErudite (Kyla)there without >> I already told you foundationalist lens you can use. So moral objectivity can exist in a in a foundationalist lens, right? So you build some axiom. God is real. >> Okay. God is my athology.

Andrew WilsonYeah. And God can make real moral facts >> and then you can build off of that. That's how you do it. >> Okay. I believe >> that's how you do it, too, by the way. >> But I have an axiom for more powerful god than your god who negates your moral facts.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> That's not an axiom. >> Why is that not an axiom? >> How is how is my god's more powerful a tautology or an axiom? God is more powerful because he's more powerful. >> What do you mean by powerful?

Andrew Wilson>> Like he can do more stuff than your god. >> Like uh what do you mean by more stuff though? >> Like I don't know. He can make gods more powerful than himself. >> Prove it. >> Well, wait. I'm sorry. Uh we can't justify things.

Andrew Wilson>> Remember? >> Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. So >> these aren't axioms. >> Why is that not an axiom? >> Because none of this is tautological aimatic. They're not foundational. >> Wait, do you think you think you have to have a tautology to have an axiom? Uh,

Andrew Wilsonnot always, but most most axioms reduce into tautologies. Yeah. >> Well, you're you're talking about a reduction to a tautology. Does an axiom need to be a tautology? >> Um, no. >> No, but basically, yeah. >> No. No, they don't have to be

Andrew Wilsontautologies. So, if it's the case, >> a moral a moral So, what's the moral case for my God is more powerful? >> What do you mean moral case? Why would that be a moral case? >> I'm about morality. >> Why would that be a moral why would God

Andrew Wilsonbe more powerful be a moral thing? I'm assuming if you're using it as your axiom for your moral basis because we're talking about moral God. We're talking about I'm just saying God. Are >> we not talking about moral? >> I'll use Crom. Crom is the God man.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)[clears throat] >> Yeah. And and and Crom doesn't believe in these moral facts. He just doesn't. >> Okay. So you would be so therefore command theorist and also a subjectivist I suppose. >> What do you mean that's objectively true?

Andrew Wilson>> That Yeah, that's what I said. Subjectivism, right? >> Wait, subject. I shouldn't say subjectivism. the opposite of object of objectivity, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, you're saying that I can't have objective moral facts. >> No, I didn't say that. You said I

NotSoErudite (Kyla)believe in Crom and I said why? And you're like, well, my subjective thing and you can be I guess a subjectivist and a divine command theorist, but I'm a divine command theorist who is also an objectivist. >> Oh, okay. Then I'm confused. The God

Andrew Wilsonthat you believe in >> establishes moral law outside of me engaged in. Yeah, >> he does. Okay. And can you name one of these moral laws? >> Yeah, you can go through the Bible. kindness. Goodness. >> I asked you to just name one.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Love. >> Love is a moral law. >> Yeah. >> Based on a moral law, that would be an objective like moral fact. Love >> universal. >> Uh, it depends on when you when you say universal.

Andrew Wilson>> I don't know what you mean. Do you mean in an absolutist way? Do you mean in an way? Yeah. Um, >> no. Because you like ho how how would it be absolutely what does love look like?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. Do is there any moral universals from your god? >> Uh universals as in like they exist outside of us and they like are can affect us. But the issue is how do you know them and you have to know them? >> I'm not even asking you how you know

Andrew Wilsonthem. I'm just asking if it's the case that there's a universal >> a universal moral fact. >> Yep. >> What is it? >> Uh love. >> Love is the universal moral fact. >> It would be one. >> So everybody ought love.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Kindness justice. >> Everyone ought love. >> Everyone ought be kind. Everyone ought seek justice. And if if those people don't do that, they're sinning >> theoretically. But we would have to look into the context of what's going on to actually know if they're not doing that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)or if there isn't a pluralist. >> Let's just say they're not loving and they don't know anything about God. >> Well, if they don't know anything about God, >> right? You It's hard to do sins because when we're talking about sins, we're talking about sins of omission of commission mostly and action. If you

NotSoErudite (Kyla)don't know something, >> they don't know anything about God. Are they sinning? >> Uh, no. Uh, wait. If they're not, I don't I don't know. What are we talking about? Wait, no, hold on. You're being like, if they don't act in love, what does that mean?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Whatever you mean by it. >> Well, I'm I believe in relativism as well, right? This is relativistic. So, what when you >> I thought you just said that it was an objective moral universal. >> Yeah, you can have objective stuff that

Andrew Wilsonis also relativistic. >> Okay. So, in this case, you're Okay. Well, what what would you have that's moral universal? That's relative. Most like justice is a moral objective thing that exists outside of us.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Sounds like you're saying it's a moral subjective thing. >> No, I'm saying it's a moral objective thing that exists outside of us and we have to use like the relative context of the situation to figure out how to enact it. >> Well, let's find out that's true. What

NotSoErudite (Kyla)is justice? >> Uh I I'm not sure if I could define um seeking um I mean this this is the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)issue. These are irreducible. Uh doing things just justly. >> Justice is doing things justly. >> Yeah, it's circular.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. >> You don't like sattologies. What do you think justice is? >> Why would that matter? >> I'm curious your thoughts if you're so unfased. >> Justice is doing things justice. >> What's your answer? >> I just gave you my answer. >> No, that's my answer. What's your answer? >> Same.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> It's not. >> I have the same view. >> You're being bad faith again. >> How is that bad faith? >> Because you don't believe that. because you scoffed at it. Unless you think your own purview is >> I didn't scoff. I just repeated it. >> Justice is doing things justly. So is that not a scoff?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> No. >> So you don't think that that's a silly answer? >> No, of course not. >> Oh, you think it's a good answer? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> I think it's fantastic. >> Okay, great. >> My favorite answer of the night. >> So you So again, you're being dishonest. >> How is that dishonest?

Andrew Wilson>> It that's your favorite answer of the night is that justice equals You don't think that there's a better answer? >> I'm I don't understand. Why do I have to continuously answer your questions for you?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I'm asking about your answers. >> But I I literally believe the same thing you do. >> You convinced me of a grip of trilmma. I told you that. >> Yeah. But you're being bad faith when you say this. >> How am I being bad faith? >> Because you don't actually believe in

NotSoErudite (Kyla)this because this would require you to just concede that there's uh that according to you, you were saying, "Well, if I agree to Grippa's dilemma now, there's no moral object uh um sorry objectivity." >> But the issue is >> facts.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. that same thing. Good job. >> Yeah. I still don't understand how we we believe in moral facts because justice is just. >> So axioms you so objectivity just means that we believe that something exists

NotSoErudite (Kyla)outside of our minds, right? Where subjectivity seems says it only exists because of my mind. >> So I think justice exists because God made it. >> Yeah. Objective is something that does not require mind. >> Yeah. >> Subjective is something which requires mind.

Andrew Wilson>> Correct. >> Agreed. So when I ask you about when I ask you about objective moral facts, these are going to be moral facts that require no minds. >> Mhm. And the context to understand how it's being implicated. Yeah.

Andrew Wilson>> So what's a moral fact? An objective moral fact. >> Justice. >> Justice exists. >> And what is it? >> Uh acting just. >> Oh. >> Do you have a better answer? >> Nope. >> So then why are you shrugging and

NotSoErudite (Kyla)shaking your head at? >> What do you mean? I just said, "Oh, >> it's pretty obvious what's happening right now." What? >> Uh that you are saying I'm accepting this, but you're saying it in such a way to appeal to like absurdism. You're trying to be like, "Oh my gosh, it's

NotSoErudite (Kyla)just circular." Yeah, it's Yeah, >> I don't know. It sounds like you're assuming. >> Okay. I You win caddyy girl of the year award. I [laughter] don't know what to tell you. >> I don't know what I'm doing that's catty. >> Okay. If you don't want to keep talking

NotSoErudite (Kyla)and you just want to be like, "I'm a moral nihilist now." Which is not true obviously, then we can do that. But I don't know how to go forward. >> I don't know what I've done here except I'm just adopt. You convinced me of the trilmma. That's all.

SPEAKER_02>> I don't even know what that means, but okay. You've convinced me of the trolley problem. What? >> We do have some chats here. >> Thank you, Joe. >> Joe DC donated $99

SPEAKER_02to the pro-choice chick. Why do you get upset at the point of the founding fathers deferring religion to the states? >> I don't understand it either. >> You can't separate federal from state because the 10th amendment combines ideas.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Man, it's crazy. My audience agrees with me. So, my audience. >> Of course it is. Most of the whatever audience is down in there. >> Most of my audience is on the Crucible watching >> and they're not watching here. >> I don't think most of them are.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> But the thing is is like that is a good question. We didn't I don't understand either. >> Could we see ones in chat for how many people watching are also Crucible fans that are watching because Andrew Wilson's here?

Brian Atlas>> We're currently in members only mode. >> Yeah. Well, even with members only mode, we can see how many of the members are crucial. >> We can do that. We can do that. Uh, really quick before we let the next one come in. Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video. We're about 300

Brian Atlaslikes away from 5,000 likes. There's still 10,000 plus people watching. Uh, I mean, even if you guys can get it to 6,000 likes would be much appreciated. >> Wait, you're in members only mode. There's 10K watching. >> Uh, for the chat.

Brian Atlas>> Why are you in members only mode? >> Like the chat I >> Oh, the chat's in members only. >> So, they couldn't spam it. Anybody can watch, but just sometimes we put the chat just to members only mode. If you

Brian Atlasguys want to get a TTS in uh $99 and up for TTS, that's via streamlabs.com/ whatever. We have a chat coming in here from Giovani JD, a name I recognize.

SPEAKER_02Good to see you. >> Giovani JD, you donated $100. You're pro-life personally because you know dismembering your unborn child is evil. And yet you you're pro-choice

SPEAKER_02legally. so other women can dismember their babies. What a vile human you are. >> We We don't want in our worldview to impose Christian ethics on women

NotSoErudite (Kyla)killing their children. That's >> well with state craft. We want to do what works best for society. So when you impose abort abortion on states, women die more often, children die more often, unborn children die more often, children move into foster care more often at a

Andrew Wilsonsignificant rate. Uh and child poverty overall increases. And if you don't if you don't ban it, more children die. >> Just saying. >> Well, it depends on what you mean by children. >> That would be fetuses. >> Well, when do we insole? When does a fetus get insult?

Andrew Wilson>> Conception. >> Where's your biblical evidence for that? >> Uh, we can go all the way back to the Old Testament, in fact. And the old the Old Testament portion that you would use here >> is the most interesting. >> Yeah, you prepped for me. Hey. >> Yeah. Well, the thing is it's

Andrew Wilson>> I appreciate that. >> Like genuinely. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I just want to make sure um before we get into this, I want to ask a couple of qualifiers so that we make sure that we're on the same page. Is that okay? >> Possibly.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. So, under your Christian belief, right, which denomination do you adhere to? >> Or do you adhere to any? >> I'm a Protestant broadly, but I don't think there's a specific Protestant denomination. >> So, you adhere to Protestantism. >> Sure.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. >> Although Catholics looking I don't know. I like their theology a fair bit. >> Catholic theology. I'm not Catholic, but um and there are some issues I have, but I like Catholics, too. >> Got it. Why would you be against

NotSoErudite (Kyla)abortion legally? >> Uh legally, because I think it leads to more harm in all of the things that we care about as Christians if if if God is like kind of a virtue ethicist, I think. >> Makes sense. And then why are you against it personally? >> Um because I don't know at what point a

Andrew Wilsonhuman life confers and I also don't think that any of the negative outcomes that I'm concerned at a statecraft level is going to happen in my case specifically. So if you don't know when a human life is going to be in sold. Do you is the reason you're against it because you assume that it's possible it could be insold at conception.

Andrew Wilson>> Yeah. >> Then I'll just take that position. >> That's a concession on the position. >> Sure. But the issue is that I'm not imposing that on non-Christians. >> Yeah. But I think it's fine to impose it if it's assumed. Yeah. I'll have one more. I think it I think it's fine to

Andrew Wilsonsay that if it's assumed that it is the case that we can say with some degree of certainty within both of our worldviews that insulment could potentially happen at conception then we should heir on the side of life. >> So why didn't God

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> well I don't ask him >> Exodus we can Exodus 21:22 from the >> Why are you unsure? >> But because in the Bible which is part of how we figure out what God thinks about things we have the Septu >> but no I mean why are you unsure about

NotSoErudite (Kyla)installment? Uh because there's nowhere in the Bible where it says God insoles us at age zero. >> Then why would you assume that it's even possible that we're insold at conception? >> I'm not What do you mean?

Andrew Wilson>> Why Why would you even assume that at conception it's even a possibility for insole? >> Cuz I don't know when God insults a fetus. >> Okay. So then we can just assume that it's possible he insults them at conception.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Not really. >> Well, but you do though. Well, the issue is how do you So, I'll read Exodus 21:22 cuz you I don't know how you would deal with this one, right? So, Exodus 21:22. Um, and I'm going to read from the >> Oh my god, I'm [ __ ] [laughter]

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> I'm actually [ __ ] >> Today is the day of spills. Can we >> Okay. >> Is it Oh, it's over here. I got it. >> Throw it to me quick. >> Throw. >> Okay.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. I was trying to do a little bit >> your claw. No good. >> Sorry, Andrew. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Andrew. >> Hang on a second. I got some beer on my leg here. >> Oh [ __ ] [laughter]

Brian Atlas>> Thanks, Brian. >> Oh, man. >> One second.

Brian Atlas>> All right. So, you're wrong about everything. >> Base. >> I win the debate. >> Uh >> oh. You sound just like Andrew. >> Uh oh. You didn't mean to do that. [laughter]

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> You're like, "Wait, [ __ ] I should have you come clean this up. >> I don't know. >> Sorry, chat. >> I think it's the man of the house. >> It's up to you.

Brian Atlas>> Very unfortunate. Very unfortunate situation.

Brian Atlas>> What were you trying to do? >> [ __ ] up. I was trying to slightly pass it to him with a robot claw. >> Is that like a bit? Is that why you keep using the claw? >> Well, you know, dude, he got that [ __ ] everywhere.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Wait, is that worse than my spill now? Is this the number one spill? >> Ah, come on. >> Anyways, continue on. >> Well, I'm gonna have a smoke real quick and then we'll come back and do this. >> Uh, can you wait just >> Hey, I'll wait 2 minutes.

Brian Atlas>> Well, I just uh >> 2 minutes.

Andrew Wilson>> Um, can I have more water? >> Yeah. >> You guys want >> Oh, you guys continue on with the convo. I'll I'll take care of >> Yeah. I don't want to get in the combo before I have a smoke. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, >> cuz otherwise it'll be like 30 [snorts]

NotSoErudite (Kyla)minutes. >> I got it. >> Do you think fundamentalism I'm just curious, this is a broad thing. Are you a fundamentalist? Like you think that um Genesis is a literal story of how God made Earth and genealogy is like an

NotSoErudite (Kyla)actual legitimate timeline. Like are you a fundamentalist? I don't actually know. I don't think Eastern Orthodox docs is usually fundamentalist, but I'm not sure. >> Well, that's not what I would consider fundamentalism to be. >> It's taking all of the Bible as like

Andrew Wilsonliteral. No, it's well, it's stating the Bible as being literal, allegorical, and spiritual. >> So, is the Genesis story allegorical? Like, it didn't literally happen. >> It's allegorical, spiritual, and literal. >> So, it literally happened or it did not happen.

Andrew Wilson>> All of those things. >> Okay. So, you are a fundamentalist. >> No, because there's some things there which could be specifically allegorical, but also literal. >> So, when we use fundamentalist, we're usually meaning like the Genesis story

Andrew Wilsonis a good case test of fundamentalism. >> Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Adam and Eve literally existed in >> Yeah, I do think Adam and Eve literally existed, but but do you understand that you can have

NotSoErudite (Kyla)something which is a literal and allegorical interpretation >> um sort like there's a mythologized history but the issue is that the mythologized part is kind of important right so like can be >> in the case of the battle of like Troy

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> we don't even know if it really happened but battles do happen >> it probably happened though >> it probably happened but probably not in the way I don't think Achilles was like running around doing Achilles stuff >> I think there was an Achilles likely Yeah, but he probably wasn't blessed by the gods with a heel.

Andrew Wilson>> And I think they probably got I think Agamenon probably did get pissed off that they what happened with the holding of the heel didn't have the dipping in in >> he might have got shot in the heel. That that may have been where >> that's what killed him because the gods

NotSoErudite (Kyla)dipped him in like a pool of god >> water probably mythologized. Yes. >> So what part of Genesis is mythologized? >> Well, I think I think Genesis is literally true and allegorically true. >> How is it both? >> Well, because >> what part is the allegory?

Andrew Wilson>> Thank you. Well, some of the parts that are allegorical are also literal, but that doesn't mean it gives us the full picture. >> So, remember that there's cannons outside of Genesis about Genesis,

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> which are still considered inside the Catholic and Orthodox Church to be true. >> But that doesn't mean that we thought Adam and Eve literally lived in uh in an Garden of Eden and that they're the beginning of human creation and that all of human life descended down from there.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Right. >> Yeah, we do believe that. >> Okay. Okay. So, do you think that Samson um killed a thousand uh soldiers with a donkey bone? >> Um I actually mythological uh Samson uh

NotSoErudite (Kyla)I'm sure you're familiar with the Samson story, but he's killing u it was used to like describe how strong he was, right? He's killing a thousand people with a donkey bone. He takes foxes and ties their tail together and releases them into a field with their uh tails lit on

NotSoErudite (Kyla)fire. Do you think he literally took two foxes, tied their tail together, and then released them into the into the wild? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Do you How did they run? >> Do you literally believe that a donkey talked? >> Um, probably. I don't really care.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. >> Maybe not. I could be moved either way. >> Okay. >> Yeah. How did they run with their >> How did they run with their tails? >> Well, if God can make donkey talk >> Okay, so we just made them run around. If if God can make a donkey talk.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. >> I mean for sure. >> If God can make a donkey talk. >> Sure. Yeah. But I don't think that like Genesis is um literal fact. No. >> You don't think there's anything literal or just some things aren't literal?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Some things aren't literal. This is >> Do you don't think that there was an Adam and Eve? >> Uh I think anything that's for example written in like pretty like prototypical oral orally translated Hebrew poetry is literally true. Right. For example, if we look at Egypt, >> do you believe that there was a literal

Andrew WilsonAdam and Eve or not? >> Not in the way that the Bible describes. No. >> Okay. So, what do you think happened in Genesis? >> I think it's an allegory of a creation story. >> I see. So, how many people do you think God created?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Uh, all of all of us. >> From how many different people though? >> Uh, I don't know. U thousands. I don't know the evolutionary numbers of like when that >> And where are you getting that information? >> Uh, both from science and the creation story. Allegory. What what part of the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)creation story allegorically would lead you to believe that thousands of people? >> Well, God created mankind, right? >> Yeah. >> So, where did the people come from that Adam and Eve meet outside of the Eden? >> From Adam and Eve. >> How did How did they come from Adam and

Andrew WilsonEve? They were outside of the garden. >> Because Adam and Eve had multiple children >> that they kicked out of the garden. >> Cain. Cain also. Well, wait a second. This is post garden, >> right? So, as soon as they get kicked out of the garden, they meet up with other people. >> Yeah. So, remember how women

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So, where do those people come from? Well, wait a second. That's not exactly what happened. >> No. >> No. >> Yeah. >> No. Pull it up. That's not actually what happened. So, what you're talking about, >> they did incest

Andrew Wilsonand daughters and then we incestously turned into all the humans of the planet. >> Well, no. Hang on. You got to back up. So, the first thing is when we're talking about Cain, you know, Cain founds Enoch,

Andrew Wilson>> the city of Enoch. True. >> Okay. And yes, there was Yes, that early on that was how it went. It all came from two people but the genetic line was much more thous or at least a thousand years I think is around it. >> Yeah, that's correct.

Andrew Wilson>> Okay. Yeah, I don't believe in that. >> Okay. Can you show me the source in the Bible which would negate that? >> Uh this the it would >> like all of the Old Testament prophets. >> I'm not a biblical deconstru. >> All of the Old Testament prophets that

Andrew Wilsonyou would defer to who heralded Jesus Christ coming pointed to the Genesis and would literally say that that was true. That these people lived for hundreds and hundreds of years, thousands of years. Sure, but that doesn't

Andrew Wilson>> Why were those prophets who were getting prophecy from God not know that that wasn't true? >> Because they didn't have the invention of modern science. For example, >> why would they need the invention of modern science for God to tell them, "Hey, we know how long people live, man.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)About 86 years in your life." >> God is specifically uh predisposed towards concerns about sex. >> Where do you get the information that they extra biblical information to negate Genesis from? What?

Andrew Wilson>> You're not negating Genesis. I'm saying it's allegory. When you say that though, where are you deriving that information from biblically? You're a Christian. Where are you deriving the information that Genesis is incorrect? >> The I didn't say incorrect. Stop. Stop.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> That it's not literally true. >> Yeah. It's an allegory, right? But the principles that emerge under >> Where are you getting the information? It's allegorical from the Bible. >> Exoggetically, >> you executed that it's allegorical.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. Part of exigesus is looking into like history and like how how these things came to be written, how the saints understood. Show me how you give me the process for how you exedated that Genesis is allegorical and not literal.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> So we know at the time that like when writing was first coming into the ancient Hebrew people that the main tradition of conferring stories was through the oral tradition often through poetry which is why a lot of the original allegory in Genesis is actually

NotSoErudite (Kyla)written originally in ancient Hebrew. >> Where does Jesus come in? >> The the exogetical would be the like the research that we've done into the people groups at the time. >> Yeah. Where's the exes Jesus from the Bible here? >> Exesus doesn't just mean only literally.

Andrew WilsonIt doesn't just mean Bible verses. >> But you are going to exedute the Bible here. >> It's exes. I know. Don't ask me what I think. You are the Bible. >> I get to ask you questions, too. >> You're going to exedute the Bible at some point here.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> What do you think exeetical means? >> I think that that means that you're driving meaning from the things that you're reading. >> How do you derive meaning if you don't, for example, look into the culture at the time to understand what they thought and felt? >> I think that is necessary.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Yeah. So that's part of how we do it. >> But as that as that's a conditional, I'm granting the conditional. I'm asking when we get to the Bible. >> Yeah. So for example, in the case of Genesis, we know that most of the early fathers didn't think about history in the way that we think about history.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)They engaged in mythologized history. So it didn't matter that Jews literally weren't probably slaves ever in Egypt. That doesn't matter because Egypt was the largest nation that people had heard of. And when these priests are telling

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> that's allegory, too. >> Uh the the slavery part, yeah, is seems to be >> Moses's allegory. Um, there was probably a literal person named Moses who was a tribe leader or it might have been a collection of tribe leaders.

Andrew Wilson>> So, so you you think that all of the early parts of Genesis are just total allegory? >> Uh, if we have evidence for being allegorical? Yeah. Which there's lots of Genesis that we have evidence for being allegorical. >> When does the Bible stop being

Brian Atlasallegorical? >> It's it varies on different like uh books. Like I think there's >> I'm asking you which when >> I'm not I don't have it on the top of my head. All right. >> I don't think there's like this hard Wait, do you think Job is allegorical? Andrew, you did want to take a little smoke break at Yeah. So, we'll do we'll

NotSoErudite (Kyla)do that. We have some >> He does think Job is allegorical. But that one's okay. Some chats come through. It's >> not alorical. >> You don't think Job is allegorical? >> Come back and [laughter] >> let the man smoke. >> Let the man

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> It's important that you do your sins, Andrew. Go. Hurry. Smoke. It's important. >> Smoke and drink. Come on, Andrew. >> That's a sin. Drinking is a boy. Being drunk is. Yeah. >> Let the man have >> Aren't you hung over from being

Brian Atlas>> Let the man have some peace. Let him have a Listen to this in peace. Let Let the man smoke. >> He's welcome to smoke. >> Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, you want to see more debates, we're going to have Kylo back. We're going to have her. >> Who Who do you want to debate? Who do you want to debate? Tell me who you want

NotSoErudite (Kyla)to debate. >> Um, >> who do you want to debate? >> You had told me about um one of the politicians, a Republican politician. He's got the eye patch. >> Oh. Uh, yes. Yes. Yes. >> What's his name? I don't know. >> Actually blanking on me. Nathan, do you know who? >> You can look it up. Look up Republican

Brian Atlas>> Croft. Denaw Den Croft. >> That'd be great. >> Yeah. What about uh Trentor? Would you square up with him? >> Um, yeah, but we've already got plans to talk. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Here.

Brian Atlas>> Well, guys, uh, we have the likes at about 5,100, guys. If you want to see more debates, get us to 6,000. There's still 10,000 people watching. Get us to 6,000 likes. Uh, we have also, if you're enjoying the

Brian Atlasstream, >> yeah, like the video. You want to see more debates, guys. If you want to get a TTS in, uh, $99 PS wrong. $100 to destroy this stupid feminist liberal. >> We do have some uh TTS.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Did you do the ones in the chat, by the way? What was the answer? >> I wasn't paying attention. >> What do you susp What percentage of the people who watch your show are probably also major Crucible fans,

Brian Atlas>> are have huge Wait, what? Sorry. >> Have huge dongs and are Crucible fans. Those two things are ontologically tied. Uh, of the current viewers, I want to say it's probably like 60%. Okay. I

Brian Atlasthink 50 60% of the viewers. >> Yeah. >> Me, too. Yeah. At least. >> Uh, maybe even more to be honest. >> Speaking of which, I'm going to let the as the chat I don't think they're I'll let the

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> They can be fans of both, right? But when people are sending in clearly religious chats that are [ __ ] on me, it's not overly surprising that they happen to be Andrew fans. Sure. But I don't think that my fans are sending in dollars at all. >> Wait, hold on. Don't do Raqqa. >> Well, she says she's Christian.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Don't do Raqqa. Don't be Don't Don't insist that I'm Raqqa. Raka means like fool. So, it's it's questioning other Christians faith. >> Yeah, I am. You don't think? >> I would not do that. >> Well, I don't care. I'm doing it. Do you don't think that uh you don't think that

NotSoErudite (Kyla)Job literally happened? >> No, it's definitely it's very obviously poetry. >> Very obviously. >> Yeah, I don't think that >> was Ecclesiastes poetry. >> I'm not sure. I haven't looked at Ecclesiastes. >> Proverbs. >> Uh Proverbs is literally just poet. What

NotSoErudite (Kyla)do you mean? What do you mean something literally happened in Proverbs? Proverbs isn't literal. Like what what's known in Proverbs is literal either. >> I mean it's it's mostly like ideas and and poems about how to conduct oneself, right? Do you think Songs of Solomon is

Andrew Wilsonliterally true? >> Well, some of it. Yeah. But the thing is, it's funny. That's not There is allegory there. Yeah. >> Yeah. True. >> The thing is is Job is trying to reconcile two positions. Do you know what the two positions are from the

Andrew Wilsonwisdom books? >> Um I don't know. No, I'm not sure. No, there's Ecclesiastes was interesting because >> Are we going to talk about Job or >> This is Job. I'm telling you what what happened with Job. C

Brian Atlas>> Can we pause it super quick just to let some of the the chats come in? I'm going to write down Job. >> Is that Job? Jo. >> Is it Job? Job. >> Job. >> It's J O. But it's Job.

SPEAKER_02>> Okay. We have I recognize some of these names. Justin Martin. >> Justin Martins donated $100. >> Thank you, man. It's always fun to watch Andrew get his opponent to disprove their own argument in real time. >> That's what you want to think is happening. That's fine.

Brian Atlas>> Thank you for your message. >> Definitely not biased by Justin. Appreciate it. Uh I recognize your name there, Justin. Uh good to see you back. Thanks for the message. >> Wonder where he's from. Do you think he's from the Crucible fan audience?

SPEAKER_02>> Maybe. >> I think he's from the Destiny DG DG G. >> Do you think that he's more like Destiny than V? >> GG. >> And you donated $100. Thank you.

SPEAKER_02>> Andrew Carlay size. Are you done having a tantrum? You are truly the arbiter of good faith debate. Please don't come back to Canada. We don't want you. >> Durand Doll is another name I recognize. Thank you for that. Appreciate it.

Brian Atlas>> What do you think he falls between Andrew and Do you think he's more of an Andrew fan? >> He He's a fan of yours to be honest. >> I've actually never seen Duran Dolls in my chat. >> I don't know if somebody saying please don't come back. We don't want you would be a fan of mine. >> I think he's a fan of you. >> I would suspect not. >> I think he's a fan.

Brian Atlas>> Possibly not. He's probably a fan. What suggests he likes me there? >> Uh, the reference to Canada. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> Okay. >> He's a fellow He's a Canadian. >> He's a fellow Canadian. So, >> Okay. Interesting. >> But you're you're immigrating to the US. Is that correct? You're trying to become a citizen. I love America.

Brian Atlas>> Do you have to revoke your No, you'd keep your a Canadian citizen. We got Desert George, another name. >> Judge donated $100. >> Thank you, man. Appreciate it. >> Didn't think I could lose more brain

SPEAKER_02cells after last night's debate. Tyler proved otherwise as we are dumber for trying. Understand her nonsense. Constant pretle, filibustering, and goalpost moving. >> When did I move the post? When did I

Brian Atlasfilibuster? >> What about the pattle though? You didn't deny the paddling. So, >> woman, I can't help it. >> You didn't deny prattling [laughter and snorts] part. All right.

SPEAKER_02Desert. Is it Jorge or I don't know. We got another name we recognize. >> Giovani Jade. You donated $100. >> Where you been? The DDK was written in the first century and is still a

SPEAKER_02liturggical document that condemns abortion. >> True. >> Advocating for mothers tearing off the limbs and heads of their own children. Sick. Vile woman. >> I guess God was really bad when he ordered the Hebrews to kill infants.

Andrew WilsonSick. >> That was just allegorical though. >> You got to deal. Well, you believe in it literally, too. So, how do you deal with that? >> Because Well, the idea here is warfare. >> The idea here is warfare.

Andrew WilsonSo in warfare, it's okay to kill infants. >> It can be justified. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> We have >> like if a country attacks your country and you attack them back and you're bombing >> kill their infants. >> If you're bombing them, are infants going to die?

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> That's not the same thing as saying it's good. >> Well, it it's justified is not the same as saying it's good. >> But God ordered it. And what God orders is good, right? >> Yes. In fact, the Amalachites when they

Andrew Wilsondidn't get fully killed in genocide that God ordered, the Hebrews were punished for it. >> You said that everything God says is good. >> Mhm. >> So then if God says to kill those infants, because these are for reasons that he wants. >> So there are times where God can say

Andrew Wilsonkilling infants is okay. >> Sure. >> Okay. Based. Thank you. >> Yeah. Did he say that with abortions? >> Well, he definitely didn't make it clear with abortions in Exodus 21:22, which we still haven't gotten to. I'm I'm curious though. What does the church history

NotSoErudite (Kyla)that you adhere to say about abortion? >> What do you mean? >> The the church history that you adhere to? >> I I there isn't like a tradition that I adhere to necessarily. >> Oh, >> yeah. I'm not Eastern Orthodox or Catholic, right? And I don't have to be. >> Do you just adhere to your own

NotSoErudite (Kyla)tradition? >> Uh I use Exogis, is Jesus and Divine Revelation to try to figure out what's going on? So, I look at uh beloved scholars. I look at biblical scholarship. I look at Hebrew scholarship, right? And I try to look at all these things including what the saints say to try to figure out what's true.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Why do you care what the saints say? Uh because I I respect a lot of what the saints say. >> Which saints? >> Uh I love I'm I love Thomas. I'm a Thomasist. >> You're a tomist. >> Yeah. In a lot of ways. Not always, but in a lot of ways.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. So it's like a mix of tomism, Protestantism, otherisms. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. And then you use divine revelation. And what's interesting actually is on the basis of this Protestantism that you're mocking is how most of America

NotSoErudite (Kyla)got converted. Well, of course you are because you're being like, "Oh, there's just no tradition." But that's a Protestant thing, right? I didn't I didn't say, "Haha, there's no tradition." I just think that Protestants don't have Well, why did you ask me that if you weren't slightly condemning me? >> Because I'm just curious about your worldview.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> Okay. Do you think it's bad that Protestants don't have tradition? >> Bad? >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I think they [clears throat] don't have much to appeal to. No. >> Okay. So, you were saying that. >> Gotcha. I'm glad. >> Wait, I'm I'm sorry. Me trying to understand your positions, not mocking it. >> It wasn't you just trying to. I asked

NotSoErudite (Kyla)you. >> It was me just trying to >> of No, >> which is why I just asked you a question. This is again bad faith where he's acting as bad when he's actually engaging in another thing. Everyone can understand tone, Andrew. >> Everyone understands

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> the tone. [laughter] >> Well, not just the tone. >> Do you think that when you're like talking like that is that tone? >> Uh yeah, sometimes. >> Okay. So then is that you mocking me? >> Uh no, sometimes. Yeah, sometimes I'm being mean. Okay. So, but the issue is that when I'm being mean, I would

NotSoErudite (Kyla)probably just own it, whereas you have to lie about it. >> Have you been mean this whole debate? >> Not the whole debate. >> Have you been mean a lot of it? >> Sometimes. Yeah. >> You big meany head. >> Yeah. Okay. But what we're talking about here when I was outlining this like uh the tradition that you were asking about

NotSoErudite (Kyla)is the reason why I thought you were talking down to me is I said, "Do you think it's bad that we don't have tradition?" You said, "Well, yeah." And so it's like, "Okay, so you're obviously asking about the traditional route because you think it's bad to not have a traditional route. So you want me to answer yes so that you can be like, "Gh, see how absurd and silly she is?" >> Well, no. You got to

Andrew Wilson>> then just so it's clear to all the Protestants watching, he's saying all of you are silly. >> So what I said, I made a differentiation. She asked me about an appeal to uh or I asked her what tradition do you appeal to and she just

Andrew Wilsonsaid tomism and then she mixes it with this she mixes it with that and I said okay. >> I said I don't appeal to a specific tradition. >> That was it. I just said okay. Then she asked a separate question which is about whether or not Protestants have any church tradition to appeal to. And I

Andrew Wilsonsaid yeah generally speaking I don't think that's great but that has nothing to do with me trying to understand your view or being mocking of it. >> So you don't think that I'm stupid for not appealing to tradition? >> Stupid. Mhm. >> I'm not saying it's stupid. [clears throat] >> Really? >> Yeah. I didn't say it was stupid.

NotSoErudite (Kyla)>> What do you think it is? >> Wrong. >> Okay. Just wrong. >> Yeah. Wrong. >> I don't think that you're stupid. >> Really? >> Yeah. I've never thought you were stupid. >> Okay. I appreciate that. >> He heard it here, guys. Andrew Wilson

NotSoErudite (Kyla)actually disagrees with all of you fans writing in that I'm stupid. He actually thinks I'm not stupid, and I appreciate that. >> Yeah. I would use like the word [ __ ] >> Isn't that the same thing? No. >> What's the meaning? It's >> like more powerful than [ __ ] >> You think I'm more than just stupid? >> Yeah.

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next