Cliff is too busy self interpreting "his own truth." I am sure he could prepare some sort of rebuttle but he seems to already have a platform to mislead unsuspecting souls.
This is why Heterodoxy is so wickedly pernicious. You could spend your whole life under the assumption that you are part of the Church, but in reality you are living within an inversion of truth, meant to divide and conquer (John 17:21).
Thank you brother! Glad you enjoyed. It was sad that Cliffe shut this down so quickly, he is going to have a difficult time moving forward with this strategy as more Orthodox enter his space.
“There is no set of beliefs where it’s like ‘well I kinda have to break this down for you, it isn’t actually a yes or no question [whether I hold those beliefs]’”
Your claim here seems very far afield of reality. A “set of beliefs” as referred to in any conversation is going to be a set of words, and those words are going to be interpreted in different ways by different people, and especially when there are a lot of people who popularly hold a set of beliefs to be true, and interpret them in ways which are importantly different than you do, of course it can be important to hedge your own affirmation of those beliefs, lest others mistakenly assume that your interpretation is that of any number of popular interpretations.
Nice effort. The structure is solid, even if played out. But unfortunately you’ve missed the target by a lot, and anyone who has the bad luck of reading your comment might be wondering, as I now am, if orthobros are going to be a lot of cranky upper-mid-IQs who feel they are an intrusion on reality and so must constantly try to prove themselves in public.
it means losing your composure, often evidenced by way too many words and not a lot of substance
what you’re trying to say doesn’t apply here, and especially not to his response.
nobody would have criticized him for asking “what do you mean by ‘the church?’” well, nobody honest anyway.
he retreated to “i dont give yes or no answers” at *best* in attempt to hide behind a desire to define terms, but the problem is that he could have simply made the effort to define the terms and he didn’t because he knew it would show his position to be incoherent.
if what you’re saying is that people can misunderstand a yes-or-no answer when terms are insufficiently defined, then yeah that’s true and that’s fine, but that’s not what happened as evidenced by the fact that he made no attempt to have them defined.
Obviously both of the performers in the video were playing a game of rhetorical chess, both have their stock arguments and maneuvers, etc.
I personally don’t have much taste for the “I’m going to ask you yes or no questions as a way to make my argument” precisely because it creates this false sense that if I say “yes” to your questions, I should agree with your logical conclusion. But, as you say, terms can be insufficiently defined, and much much more - one can reject the law of the excluded middle and see why three-value logic allows for truth where yes/no doesn’t - one can see that a question makes a lot of assumptions that one may or may not agree with and need to explore - a question may posit absolutes that don’t accurately reflect a subject - etc etc. I mean just watch any lawyer trying to paint a picture by asking a witness yes or no questions that deserve nuanced answers. It’s like Anthony asking “Why are you crashing out?” The question attempts to force me to accept his conclusion as forgone that I am “crashing out.”
Despite what the bro says, I don’t think he was coming in good faith and wanting to connect. I think they were both their to try to make their points, and the dude didn’t want to get wrapped up in the bro’s deep arguments that we all know aren’t going to get resolved on a campus lawn in front of people.
But my comment was not about the dude’s response to the bro. You’ll see in my original comment that I provide the direct quote from Anthony which I am commenting on. Whatever we think about the dude and the bro, I think Anthony’s totalizing statement is deeply wrong, and it’s that kind of belief which prevents good faith dialogue (even when otherwise very “civil”).
Excellent interview. You do great work Anthony. Appreciate your voice.
Thank you for your support, Father!
I thought this talk provided I need intersectional View of Orthodoxy and protestantism. Thank you for having the guests on to expand on this dialogue
Христос воскресе!
Cliff is too busy self interpreting "his own truth." I am sure he could prepare some sort of rebuttle but he seems to already have a platform to mislead unsuspecting souls.
This is why Heterodoxy is so wickedly pernicious. You could spend your whole life under the assumption that you are part of the Church, but in reality you are living within an inversion of truth, meant to divide and conquer (John 17:21).
Well done Anthony!
That was a good interview. It would have been good for cliff to have given him the courtesy of a conversation at minimum.
Thank you brother! Glad you enjoyed. It was sad that Cliffe shut this down so quickly, he is going to have a difficult time moving forward with this strategy as more Orthodox enter his space.
“There is no set of beliefs where it’s like ‘well I kinda have to break this down for you, it isn’t actually a yes or no question [whether I hold those beliefs]’”
Your claim here seems very far afield of reality. A “set of beliefs” as referred to in any conversation is going to be a set of words, and those words are going to be interpreted in different ways by different people, and especially when there are a lot of people who popularly hold a set of beliefs to be true, and interpret them in ways which are importantly different than you do, of course it can be important to hedge your own affirmation of those beliefs, lest others mistakenly assume that your interpretation is that of any number of popular interpretations.
Right?
Man discovers his ability to form subjective opinion based on objective truths via free will, circa 2025
Nice effort. The structure is solid, even if played out. But unfortunately you’ve missed the target by a lot, and anyone who has the bad luck of reading your comment might be wondering, as I now am, if orthobros are going to be a lot of cranky upper-mid-IQs who feel they are an intrusion on reality and so must constantly try to prove themselves in public.
Why are you crashing out?
You’ll have to forgive my lack of hipness but I’m not sure what that means
it means losing your composure, often evidenced by way too many words and not a lot of substance
what you’re trying to say doesn’t apply here, and especially not to his response.
nobody would have criticized him for asking “what do you mean by ‘the church?’” well, nobody honest anyway.
he retreated to “i dont give yes or no answers” at *best* in attempt to hide behind a desire to define terms, but the problem is that he could have simply made the effort to define the terms and he didn’t because he knew it would show his position to be incoherent.
if what you’re saying is that people can misunderstand a yes-or-no answer when terms are insufficiently defined, then yeah that’s true and that’s fine, but that’s not what happened as evidenced by the fact that he made no attempt to have them defined.
it’s not complicated.
who here is cranky anyway?
Obviously both of the performers in the video were playing a game of rhetorical chess, both have their stock arguments and maneuvers, etc.
I personally don’t have much taste for the “I’m going to ask you yes or no questions as a way to make my argument” precisely because it creates this false sense that if I say “yes” to your questions, I should agree with your logical conclusion. But, as you say, terms can be insufficiently defined, and much much more - one can reject the law of the excluded middle and see why three-value logic allows for truth where yes/no doesn’t - one can see that a question makes a lot of assumptions that one may or may not agree with and need to explore - a question may posit absolutes that don’t accurately reflect a subject - etc etc. I mean just watch any lawyer trying to paint a picture by asking a witness yes or no questions that deserve nuanced answers. It’s like Anthony asking “Why are you crashing out?” The question attempts to force me to accept his conclusion as forgone that I am “crashing out.”
Despite what the bro says, I don’t think he was coming in good faith and wanting to connect. I think they were both their to try to make their points, and the dude didn’t want to get wrapped up in the bro’s deep arguments that we all know aren’t going to get resolved on a campus lawn in front of people.
But my comment was not about the dude’s response to the bro. You’ll see in my original comment that I provide the direct quote from Anthony which I am commenting on. Whatever we think about the dude and the bro, I think Anthony’s totalizing statement is deeply wrong, and it’s that kind of belief which prevents good faith dialogue (even when otherwise very “civil”).