¶1Hello. Uh my name is Jeff. This is uh going from Jesus. Um I have a guest on special guest on uh Syncretic I uh idealism. I ran a I don't know how I found you.
¶2I guess it was just the algorithms uh and I commented and uh we uh touched base. Um, I've been interested in kind of like uh Catholic uh there's in the last I don't know three months or so there's been a bunch of uh Roman Catholic uh cases for their their denomination uh based on miracles and I kind of ran into you um and I just uh wanted to uh have you on and just get I just uh wanted a different perspective because um I think you're coming from a perspective I um I've kept in mind maybe not your specific perspective but um like a non you're you're coming from a Buddhist perspective correct? >> Yeah. So um my channel I used to be a Christian. In fact I used to be a Catholic.
¶3I used to um I used to basically believe the same thing that Joe does now except I went from Catholicism and then I deconstructed from that and then eventually I got to Buddhism which I have a whole if people want to know that story they can watch my video on why I converted to Buddhism and then there's also an interview that should be coming out in the next few days that someone else did that we'll I'll give I give my longer story there but um so I mean that's a whole different discussion um because you know we're not going to really talk about that today. Um, but I do think it's helpful to >> talk about Joe's um Joe's arguments, right? Because a lot of his arguments are actually originally from Ethan Muse. >> Um, so you can say they're like Ethan Muse's arguments >> um that were able to convince Joe and now Joe is just largely just paring off of Ethan. Um, and I mean I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
¶4Like of course if someone has a big influence on you and if you use their arguments that that's not really I don't really see that as an issue. I mean like for example like I used to be very convinced of like Richard Swinburn's arguments and I had a whole series based on his arguments right and I kind of modified a little bit. So I mean it's not a bad thing. So like you know my criticism of Joe is not simply that oh well he's only based off of one dude. it's that these arguments don't you know they don't work right for various different reasons which we can discuss um and then you know um my response to Joe of course is pretty long so I have three-part series >> yeah I I've linked to the at least the third part in here and hopefully people just to let you know in the description uh so people can find your channel and then kind of backtrack to kind of a more expanded um version of your arguments Yeah.
¶5>> So, I mean, my thing is I guess like the re I mean here's the thing, right? So, I was going to respond to Ethan Muse eventually like cuz people because there's another channel called um that I run. It's called um what your priest didn't tell you. And it's basically, you could call it like a counter Catholic apologetics YouTube channel where basically we critique Catholic arguments from more of a historical critical perspective. So >> me and Zach from uh what your pastor didn't tell you.
¶6We're the ones that run that channel. >> What what I'm just curious what your his background is. I know. So you So were you a traditional Catholic? >> Yeah, I was.
¶7>> Okay. Okay. And then you went Buddhist and uh your your friend Zach, what was his >> He's still he's still a Christian. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
¶8So, like cuz I'm reformed. I just to lay my cards on the table. I'm refor I grew up nominally Catholic and then I became uh uh reformed Christian. Uh but I I've been that way for about 30 years now. I'm old.
¶9>> Yeah. >> And as you can tell on the top of my head, uh you know, my uh you know, I've been that for a while. So, I just I just wanted to say so like when when whenever we give our critiques, uh people just kind of understand where we're coming from. That's all. >> Yeah.
¶10And I mean I mean as a Buddhist like I'm not a dogmatic Buddhist and I don't even necessarily believe that Buddhism is literally true in the strong sense although I do think certain ideas are probably correct. >> Um I do think like because there's different perspectives, right? You can look at this from a Protestant perspective like what you've have what you've done, but I also I think it's helpful to also look at it from a Buddhist perspective because Buddhism is a tradition that kind of steps outside the normal dialectic between Christians and atheists. >> Yeah. And that's why I wanted to have you on.
¶11Yeah. >> Because someone like me like I don't I don't have to deny Joe's miracles, right? Um I'm not going to be I don't have to be a naturalist skeptic where I just debunk everything, right? Um I could grant >> Well, I I I don't I grant like something supernatural is happening. >> Yeah.
¶12Yeah. >> Um >> um and the the weird part about it, of course, from my perspective, right, is I'm stepping outside of some, you know, I'm operating from a tradition that's outside the normal dialectic. And what I'm seeing is that these arguments have various different problems. and that the inferences that are being made from the miracles to Joe's specific religion, in this case, Catholicism, just they don't work when you really start to close closely examine the assumptions that you need in order for them to get off the ground. Um, and so that's kind of my critique.
¶13Yeah, >> that's your critique. Okay. Yeah. So, my kind of like I wanted to hit a like a I kind of almost want to hit a timeout. It's like, okay, you're um for for they're making these arguments and I I just didn't find the miracle claims that strong where I think they're very they might make at best a good case against naturalism.
¶14And I just I just kind of was like they kind of I've I've made a a case in the past where um a lot of converts to um I don't want to say Roman Catholicism in particular, but more of like an online brand of Roman Catholicism, they're they're looking for like a very um uh weird sense of certainty. So I was thinking like it's like they want the these miracles trying to fit into that is kind of one of my concerns. And one of my concerns is they're being used as a a cudgel against other denominations and other faiths. Uh where I want to we need to slow down and kind of see like do they actually make the case that they they uh do they logically follow like what do they actually prove? Um and I think a lot of times what things prove uh depend on the framework um like the proper frame uh like a a proper framework like I believe in the resurrection but I believe the resurrection it uh makes sense within the Christian framework of this was predicted ahead of time and you know but the the resurre everything has to be interpreted within a framework Right.
¶15Y >> um so that's kind of where I'm coming from. Okay. So with that out of the way, um so as best I understand Ethan Muse/Jemid's arguments, it's uh kind of a combination of healings, eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, um >> demonic possession as well. Some at least some of the cases are demonic possession. Oh, like uh so uh the fact of denimmonic uh uh possession or like uh or that the fact that some Catholic priests can do exorcisms is that >> so like basically there's this I would call it a myth because it's just not true but like there's this idea going around like only Catholic priests do ex exorcisms and that's just not true, right?
¶16>> That that is not true. Yes. So like automatically that so I don't even know how you even get to Catholicism from just the the the e the exorcisms. Um I think the strongest ones are going to be of course the at least the strongest not in terms of the evidence but strongest in terms of the bentory status of the miracle would be like um like a eucharistic miracle and then perhaps some of the marian stuff right um but even those I think have problems which we can discuss but um >> yeah we have our own specific take on the Marian stuff on this channel. Yeah, I >> I I view them as mostly demonic.
¶17Uh which I know from a Buddhist Buddhist perspective, you might not. So I'm more interested in >> getting your perspective than my perspective on this video. Um okay. So um so he would argue that or they would argue that these arguments uh these things, these healings specifically vindicate Roman Catholic claims. Um, okay.
¶18Um, and and what would your um I do you want to break them apart by category or do you want to break them apart or do you want to go over like in general first? >> Well, we we could discuss in general because I think for example like there's two ways you can approach this. I can approach it from a pure British perspective or I could approach it from a more accommodationist theistic accommodationist perspective. Um, so >> you do both perspectives. >> I'll just do both.
¶19Yeah. So like >> if I were to approach this, let's say from a accommodationist perspective, I I would say that God, you could argue that God works through the symbols that um a particular community worships God through, right? And then um basically like a eucharistic miracle for example could happen because he's God is showing these people like hey I am present with you through this host or whatever right and because again the the whole point is the whole point is not necessarily that some system of belief is true right it's more about God being present with them with within their framework if that makes sense. So, >> so it's like a you you're you would interpret it as a um uh >> I call it divine manifestation. That's that's sort of what um how I would >> so God um loosely defined in your worldview wants to uh kind of accommodates uh condescends uh with the his audience's belief and wants to kind of just confirm that he's present with them.
¶20That sort of thing. Is that >> Yeah. So that I mean that's the basic idea, right? At least assuming of course I'm using the the the accommodationist framework. A Buddhist would a Buddhist framework would be a little bit slightly different than that but it has the same basic notion that basically like a Buddha or a god or whatever you want to call it would accommodate with the um individual that um or at least with the symbols and the of the individual.
¶21Um one way to think about this so this is sort of a Buddhist perspective. a little bit more of a Buddhist perspective is that a Buddha will appear to you in the form of your karma, right? So like if you have Catholic karma, then Mary's going to appear to you, right? Even if Mary um so like the basic idea is that you're you can have a Buddha appear to let's say a Catholic group as Mary, right? Because that's that's how their karma works.
¶22And then the the Buddha will encourage them to continue to practice in their tradition because that's that's how you build good merit and good karma, right? So that your next life could be better than it otherwise would be, right? Um so I'm not saying that's there that's I don't I'm not saying that's what I personally believe in, but I do think something like that is probably happening. Some version of that is probably taking place. Um, and I say that because of course there's different hypotheses that might be able to account for a Marian apparition and I I don't want to necessarily endorse any particular model or any particular supernaturalist I guess viewpoint.
¶23Um, but I mean here's the thing, right? The point is like, okay, I can grant that Mary appeared to people. Um, and perhaps this apparition was an actual real apparition, like a supernatural apparition, but you can't like conclude therefore Catholicism is true, because there are you're just not taking into account alternative, like you said, like alternative frameworks, alternative theories that can also predict the same phenomena, right? Um, and explain the same thing. Um, so that that's what I would that's what I would say.
¶24Um now of course there's other things I could say about like how let's say like a Catholic hypothesis would have problems. So for example um one of the objections that I bring up is with the uh cases right so the whole point of transepidation for example is that um that according to the doctrine of transepsidation there should be you know the body and blood right there they're they're always that's always going to be the they're always going to appear as bread and wine right that's that's literally just the doctrine >> um >> but it but of course the issue with the miracle with the with the eucharistic miracles that just doesn't happen, right? In certain cases and you know in Eucharistic cases that just isn't the case. So you have this weird scenario where you have a miracle that's supposed to quoteunquote prove transepsidation even though technically the miracle actually contradicts the doctrine of transubstation. Um so it's kind of weird right now.
¶25Again, >> okay, I see >> the point is how do we explain this? Right? And of course, I would personally go with a more karmic view of it. But notice how my karmic I call it the ripening hypothesis. But if I go with that hypothesis, I don't run into the same problem that a Catholic would, right?
¶26Because their theory says that it should be, you know, all the, you know, actual host of the Eucharist should always be bread and wine no matter what, right? Right. Oh, the accidents or >> Yeah, it should always be accidents in every case because that's literally what the doctrine says. >> Um, but of course, if the ripening hypothesis is true, then you could, you know, potentially have um eucharistic miracles. And I say that because I'm I'm simply just granting for the sake of argument that the these miracles have happened.
¶27And of course, you know, of course the the Catholic would just say, well, they didn't happen. It's like, okay, well then there's no argument for you to make here. So you they kind of run into this weird dilemma where basically their their own theory says that um the Eucharist always has to appear as bread and wine, right? According to their doctrine. Um, but then you look at a Eucharist miracle and it actually weirdly contradicts that doctrine somehow.
¶28Like cuz, you know, I don't know. It seems kind of weird to me that any Catholic apologist would even try to use Eucharistic miracles to prove transepidation because I don't know how it proves it. It seems to me to contradict the doctrine. Um I don't know that that's just looking from my perspective, right? If I'm looking at this from like a purely predictive scientific in a purely scientific way um of how theories make predictions and stuff like that.
¶29So yeah, I don't know. It seems kind of a double-edged sword in that case. >> I don't know if you think about that, but yeah. >> Yeah. No.
¶30So, uh would you view stigmatada stuff kind of in the same way like >> Well, yeah. So, the weird thing about the stigmata case is like I said in the video um in my first response to him is the historical Jesus likely had his, you know, had the nail stuck right here. So, like red >> below the below the wrist. Yeah. >> Right.
¶31But Powdery Peio had it right here. He had his stigma right here. Um, so it's like, okay, so obviously Padre is not trying to literally enact the real historical Jesus. Um, he's only enacting what, you know, of course, popular um, Catholic iconography would have presented Jesus with the nails being here, right? Um, so again, I'm not saying that Padre Peio is a fraud, right?
¶32Of course, there are arguments for that which I've seen people make that make that argument. Um, so it certainly could be the case that Padre Pio's whole thing is a fraudster. But even if we grant it, like let's just grant it argument. Okay, even if we grant this as a miracle, right? I could just say, yeah, it's just a karmic ripening event where um Padre Peio has enough Catholic karma, enough merit so that he can do these sorts of miracles, right?
¶33Um, and I don't again I don't need a god hypothesis to explain it. Um, so that's that's kind of the weird thing is like >> yeah in a yeah in a Buddhist view sorry for interrupting. So, so in a Buddhist view, would there in um I don't know exactly what you hold, but I know in Hinduism there's like a there seems to be more of a spectrum between kind of like uh like a one god behind everything and like maybe closer to a Buddhist view or something and also I guess more a polytheistic view. So, I just wasn't sure what the I'm not as familiar with the Buddhism. um um uh as I I know enough to be dangerous, I guess, you know.
¶34>> Yeah. I mean, >> so I I just want to say like so um would there be any in would it be something that the practitioners are manifesting through connections to whatever or is it like could there uh is there like a a Buddhist view where would be like an intentionality from say God or whatever version of God or from beyond the veil or you know I guess there could be gradations But um >> so it depends on which tradition you go to. So okay >> um >> you could take the Hindu view where there's a god behind it right and of course >> as someone who has practiced vianism before. So >> um I will say at least from what I've read of their tradition um Krishna appears let's say as Jesus or as Mary or whatever to accommodate the people right >> um yeah condescension as I I said earlier >> so like literally you could have it to where you could have Krishna working through these Catholic miracles right and it wouldn't course been in fact I think there was there's a guy um he has a YouTube channel called theology unleashed and he wrote this article in response to Joe as well. So I I'll tell you the link later if you want to I'll just email it to you.
¶35>> Is his background >> he's a Hindu. >> He's a Hindu. Okay. >> Yeah. So there are Hindu like perspectives, right?
¶36So a Hindu would basically say like yeah God is just accommodating that. Um, from a Buddhist perspective, it's a little bit different because in Buddhism, there there is no God in the strong ontological sense. But of course, nothing has inherent existence anyway. So, it's not like there's some ground to reality in the sense of like everything else is built from some ultimate layer. It's more that on Buddhism, the nature of reality is basically like the nature of mind.
¶37It's the nature of appearance. Um and the world that you see around you right now for like you know just speaking from my own experience is basically a result of your karma. Um and >> how are you can can you help me? Um >> yeah. Yeah.
¶38>> Um can you define karma in a way I can understand beyond because I know you get like the popular level like karmas um you know what I mean? So I I don't want to like I I just want to make sure I'm not I'm definitionally and my audience definitionally understands what you're saying karma. >> I'll just be brief about this. So like it karma is not a nec it's not it's not a moral thing. So that's one thing you have to understand.
¶39It's more of me you can think of it as like mental causation um or at least like think of it like um one way I like to think of it is like what's what we draw our attention to. That's one way to you can sort of um imagine it if that makes sense. So like for example like when you go to dream at night the world that appears before you like the dream world is you could say is a result of your karma. It's a result of your like your mental patterns. Um so it's not necessarily like it doesn't it's not like a moral thing if that makes sense.
¶40>> Okay. >> Yeah. I I think I'm getting you. Yeah. >> Yeah.
¶41Now I say this because in the so the Buddhist view would basically be well because the nature of reality is empty so it has no inherent existence then whatever appears is just karmic patterns. So you could have like enough karmic merit and karmic patterns so that you produce these miracles. Um and of course the the miracle is going to be a com it's going to be associated with whatever karma someone has right so like a Catholic monk or whatever it doesn't matter is going to you know could do miracles given the sort of devotion that they might have to their understanding of you know god or whatever right um so that that's basically the idea if if I hope that answers the question I don't know if that there's more I could talk about but >> yeah I think that's enough for I I I I just want to, you know, because when most people think of karma, they think uh, you know, instant karma is going to get you as John Lennin said or something. >> And to be clear, >> more like when you do bad, bad comes back to. So I just wanted it more like a like a actual like what you're saying.
¶42I just wanted to clarify that. >> Okay. So you're saying the car um what their what their mental attention to >> mental attention Yeah. >> Yeah. kind of produces.
¶43>> So would that explain like say um so um like so when Marian apparitions appear, you know, they're talking about purgatory and things like that. Is that coming from inside the person having the marionette or is so basically in in the Buddhist view the nature of reality is like even this reality right now you could say is a projection or a manifestation or whatever of the nature of mind. Um, and so literally you could have Mary appear before you in an actual apparition because of your karmic patterns. And Mary herself could also from her perspective um because she also lacks inherent existence could also exist from her perspective and understand herself as Mary as the mother as the mother of God. Um and then you know through Mary she gives visions let's say to someone and then they see purgatory or their understanding of purgatory or their understanding of hell right and that's what they see right now again what they're seeing is not ultimate reality it's simply just an appearance it's it's a projection of their of their mind right but again everything is a projection of the mind everything is a projection of the nature of mind so there's no like stopping point there's no like ultimate I guess true reality beyond just the nature of mind.
¶44Um, and so that that's one thing you have to kind of understand about the Buddhist view is like and I I do mention this also in the video and also my conversion story about to Buddhism is like yeah I could accept literal heavens, literal hells and not just Buddhist hells but like literally Christian hells or whatever. Um, so like a m so like someone seeing Mary or someone seeing hell or someone seeing purgatory, I don't have to deny any of that. But the question is not whether they've seen it. The question is what is the actual nature of reality? That's that's the real question, right?
¶45Um, >> okay. >> So as a Buddhist, right, what that's what matters is what is the actual nature of reality? And the whole point at least the Buddhist view is that reality again has no inherent existence. So everything is just >> what do what do you mean by has no inherent existence? Is it um because it seems like if something's appearing something has you know like a like a um decart at least something has to exist you know I think therefore I am or something like that.
¶46Um >> well I mean >> or would that be disagreed with like so what would you >> kind of go ahead >> is it like that we're p is that are you talking more about what we're perceiving or or is it is um I guess I'm not quite maybe I'm so in my own framework I'm not I I just want to be like fair to you and kind of >> so the simplest way to understand it is simply when we say that nothing has inherent existence it means there's no thing in the world that like has a self-existent nature that is not that can't be deconstructed that can't be shown to depend upon other phenomena if that makes sense. >> Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um Okay.
¶47So, I can I'm trying to remember I've heard of stuff in the paranormal world. Um, and I I wonder I I'm trying to remember if this comes from Tibetan Buddhism or not, but there's something where like you almost uh some people can create like a shadow self of themselves. I'm I'm like and I'm trying to re I'm racking my brain trying to remember what the term is. um an ego or >> No, it's like something that's like almost becomes real, but it's like I'm and I um uh give me just a second. Shadow self.
¶48Um oh man, I can't even remember. I I don't remember what it is, man. But there is something um that I thought came from Tibetan Buddhism. Uh >> you talk about astral projection or >> No, not so much astral projection but it it was like you almost like I I think it was like either through meditation or something else you almost create like a shadow version of yourself that you can like interact with or something. >> So it's it's called the um illusurary body that So that's okay.
¶49I've heard another term for it, but I think you're >> there's I I I should be clear that some of this stuff is esoteric, so I have to be careful what I say. Um, but there is this idea um at least in dream yoga where if you go I'll just be brief about it. So like basically if you get deep enough in the dream yoga, you can you can actually simulate the the actual process of death itself. And I'm not going to talk about like the visions that you might see because that's kind of outside what we what should be talked about on YouTube. Um but there is a practice you can do that um eventually you can have like an out-of- body experience like an actual one that you can verify and stuff like that.
¶50So those practices do exist both in dream yoga and in high in high chra. It's just you have to look for them right. And um so maybe that's where these ideas come from. Um, so yeah, because again, if nothing has existence, then there there are going to be certain practices you can do to have those kinds of experiences. And again, I'm just mentioning this not to say that it's that it's literally true, right?
¶51Because even I myself have I've I've I've only heard of other people talk about it. And I myself have not I've never had an out-of- body experience like that. So I kind of am I'm kind of reliant upon other people's word for it. and of course what the texts themselves say about what happens. But again, the whole point is Buddhism like I don't have a problem with supernatural things like that occurring, you know.
¶52>> Yeah, I guess I brought it. Yeah, just to interrupt. So, I did I didn't bring it up because, you know, like from my Christian perspective, that's not something I would want to do. Uh um um but for reasons you probably understand as a former uh Catholic, but like I um I bring that up to say like I I I just was wondering from um um your point of view if like say the Marian apparitions are more akin to something like that. um where so if someone through I don't know if it's a cultic practice or meditation or Tibetan Buddhism or something can create like something they actually talk to okay that has like some sort of form of consciousness or something like that >> you can summon other entities I don't recommend it but that does exist in the tradition >> so you okay in in the Buddhist tradition particular or a subset or like a Tibet Tibetan tradition or something.
¶53>> Um I mean you'll find it in the Buddhist tradition. You'll find it also in certain Hindu traditions and you'll find it in certain western esoteric traditions. Um so like there are certain practices you can do to literally summon demons. I don't recommend you do it. So yeah.
¶54>> Okay. And you would you would view view them as like actual evil entities and that sort of thing? >> I mean it depends. So, I mean, you could view them as, you know, beings that are separate from you, but I don't even as a non-duelist, I don't think anything's separate from me in the in the ultimate sense. So, I'm >> You're monist.
¶55>> Yeah, I'm a Yeah. So, I guess like you could say that like you're summoning demons or whatever, but >> and you know they might act on their own, but you know, whatever their ultimate nature is is, you know, the whole point is they're empty of ultimate existence. Um, but of course, we're we're empty of ultimate existence also. So that's kind of the weird thing about about it is you could have I guess like autonomous entities that act independently. In fact, I mean I didn't talk about this in my response to Joe, but there are secular post-materialist like views on how demons work that no one has really discussed, right?
¶56unfortunately because either you just deny everything or you go with like some religious or Catholic interpretation of it and there there are other interpretations of how demons work that don't require you to view it as like you know it confirming one tradition over another. Um so yeah I think this I guess my whole point is like this whole idea of like using miracles or demons or whatever to confirm one tradition over another is like that's just stupid. like have you even looked into the other traditions? Like most Catholics haven't done that, right? There's only a few Catholic priests, you know, experts that have actually like looked into Tibet Buddhism.
¶57Um, and even there like they don't use these arguments. So that's the other thing too about this which we can I mean if you want to talk about it, but like >> Yeah. Yeah. Let's you I I wouldn't mind going down this path. Yeah.
¶58>> The the the Catholic Church, right, doesn't do this, right? The Vatican is not putting out all these miracles and be like, "Oh, look at all these miracles. You should join the Catholic Church. They don't do that. This it's only people online like Ethan that do this, right?" And that that kind of like frustrates me because it's like actual Catholic experts on like people that know more about these miracles than even Ethan use does, they don't present these arguments, right?
¶59It just seems to me like it it's really just an online Catholic thing that this is happening in and the actual Catholic Church does not like it doesn't make these bad arguments. >> Yeah. I feel like from my perspective, from my reformed perspective, I would rather I take a more presuppositional route where I would like to compare world views and then say which you know and then >> let the world views we do a pro and con or like >> you know make our arguments on a worldview level. Um because I think as I said I think like all these things kind of fit within worldviews. Now if if I'm talking to a Catholic we share so much that like I can have a different conversation than say I would have with you.
¶60So with you I would have much more of a worldview conversation. Um, yeah, >> but I think, you know, there's a temptation to just have like an easy um >> like there's this easy thing that proves XYZ, you know what I mean? Um, not that I'm saying that can't happen or is bad or whatever, but it's like I think it's like it's almost um it's it's too um wanting to do that like wanting that so bad that you kind of overlook things I guess is what I think might be going on on their side. Um, if that makes sense to you. >> Yeah, I mean I guess that makes sense because like one way to think about this is like if you want to like if you want to get to a point, let's say in an investigation where you say, "Okay, I think this is very plausibly correct, right?
¶61I feel like miracles themselves like by themselves don't really do that. Um I would say it's something more like if you want to get to that point right you have to actually perceive it yourself you have to like test it and verify it yourself and then you can say okay I am very confident this is true. So for example, and I'll make this, you know, this is how like I could let's say convert back to Catholicism or whatever is if let's let's say Mary appeared to me, right? >> And then I had all these I had a conversation with her, right? And then I could ask her very specific questions and then she could answer those questions.
¶62Um we can have like a conversation back and forth, right? And then um all of my guess I guess philosophical worries with Catholicism or whatever if those are addressed directly by her right something something crazy like that right you know and then like I don't know I was able to like verify with other people like I'm not hallucinating or anything like that then would I convert to Catholicism yes of course I would convert but notice that's only because I've like explicitly laid out the scenario so that like those specific like step by step um that step-by-step process, right, actually plays out, right? Rather than me just saying, "Oh my god, I saw Mary, therefore, Catholicism is true." Like, no, that doesn't follow. Like, you haven't interrogated her. You haven't figured out what this being is, right?
¶63There's like so many other things you have to consider. Like, you can't just look at a Marian apparition and, you know, be like, "Oh my god, like Catholicism is true now." Like no, you have to like why not interrogate the apparition itself, right? Like that's what I would do if I were >> Yeah. Well, from my perspective and the work I've done on specifically the Marian apparitions is I'm not ditching my understanding of scripture just because of Marian apparitions, if that makes sense. Um like I I test the Marian apparitions to scripture.
¶64um uh which is essentially saying my worldview interprets the Marian apparitions not >> the other way and I guess I mean everything has a give and take in life right you don't you know some things make you understand things differently so I don't want to be like completely like you know nothing I'll ever see will ever change anything I think um but um but in general that's kind of my point of view um one thing I guess this would be a good time to uh go off on is so when I was hearing kind of the let's say the Joe Schmidt Ethan Muse arguments is that I knew like okay so the Catholic uh offshoot the Jansenists had miracles that the Jesuits did not care about in the 1700s and I I've known from interacting with um um Hindus and other stuff online even though I'm not an expert in that area that they have their own miracle claims. Um, and then I also know um I think there's been a Buddhist uh miracle of the sun within the last century or something like akin to Fatima. >> Very similar. Yeah. >> What's that?
¶65>> Very similar. I mean, not exact, but >> not exact. I forget who was from. I forget where >> Mr. D.
¶66I talked about in my video, but um of course I wouldn't I wouldn't use that example. I mean I think the rainbow body stuff is more interesting >> especially because um you can again you can as I mentioned many times is you can some of these things you can you can actually test yourself um and verify yourself like there's certain visions and zogchin you you can get by doing the practice. Um, so I mean there there's you just have to consider like you know it's not simply like just miracles. It's like no miracles from the practice. Um, and this that's I think that's important because >> well you want to explain like one or two of these things because I guess the only reason I bring them up is not because I feel they disprove Christianity or whatever.
¶67It's just saying like hey you have to look through miracle claims. You can't just say miracle therefore you know it kind of counter them as like look so if you're saying these miracle claims Rome and then you have these miracle claims in kind of these eastern traditions >> um um and there's also miracles in the Protestant tradition right >> well of like what am I what am I do like I need to step back and kind of process them is that that's all I'm Yeah. I mean, one way to think about this is like in Buddhism at least, like I would never use like, you know, manual bodies as like proof that Buddhism is true, right? Um, that's just that's a stupid argument, right? >> So, what what is the thing you're referring to?
¶68Um, I think I've heard >> the rainbow body, right? >> Yeah. There's there's two kinds of rainbow bodies. So, there's this there's the small rainbow body. So like basically a monk will when they die their body will shrink to like a very small size sometimes like this big like it's not very big >> and then other times the body completely disappears >> right.
¶69Um a Catholic priest >> actually investigated some of these and found them to be very plausible. Um and then also like a lot of these rainbow bodies happen in different contexts as well. Um, >> we're talking like Yoda at the end of Return of the Jedi sort of like >> it's very similar to that. I mean, it's not exact, but like literally like I mean, of course, um, you could think of it like that where basically like you know, you look at Luke Skywalker, I think it's I forgot. I think it's in the in the eighth episode where he like disappears.
¶70>> Not considered cannon by me in my head, but I Yeah, I got you. Yeah. >> So, it's very similar to that. I mean, of course, the actual rainbow body itself, you know, it's not exactly like what you see in the movie. It's a little bit more has a it has a slower process, right?
¶71But there is this notion like your body disappears. Um, it's just not there anymore, right? Um, and that's the that's of course if you achieve rainbow body, right? Um, and at least in Buddhism, we we don't use those as proof that Buddhism is true because to know that Buddhism is true, you have to do the practice. So, it's a little bit different method.
¶72It's not an argument from miracles. It's more of an argument from practice, right? So, um, that's what I would say that would be like kind of the way that I would approach it is miracles are not vindicatory. miracles are rather the result of a technology that you know is the practice right of the tradition u so it's a little bit different right um but yeah that I hope that kind of makes sense like that >> I think so >> that basic >> go ahead >> sorry uh in your con and so in your framework how how how do your adherence to Buddhism or your brand of Buddhist ism kind of like interpret what that that rainbow body stuff means like what does that mean to them? >> Is it mean anything or is it just something that happens or >> so it's it's it's typically I mean just seen as something that happens as a result of it's like basically like the full consequence of the practice itself.
¶73Um and the reason for that is um at least in the Zogchin tradition. So that's the that's the practice that I do. Um in Zogchin you there's like there's like four very specific toall what's called toal visions. Um I don't know what they are because you in order to find what they are you have to like look into restricted texts and I haven't even looked into those texts because I'm not supposed to. All I know is there's these four tool visions and once you reach the fourth vision, so typically this like takes a lifelong process, then you'll just achieve like right then and there just a rainbow body.
¶74Um >> it's like would you just die and then >> so you basically it's more of like your body becomes so transparent to the external environment that it just becomes like empty, right? it diffuses or something like that. >> Yeah. And like the the way that Tibetan masters describe it is basically like your karma just like you just get rid of so much of your karma that even your physical body just goes away, right? You become just you literally become a pure be like Buddhahood like automatically like just you are a Buddha.
¶75Um so that that's the that's the idea. So would uh if you reach that state in in your religion, would that mean um you do you retain any of your consciousness after death or is it like there's only one sort of pool of everything or >> I mean you I mean so be if you become a Buddha um basically means you're you're no longer in samsara you're in nirvana and when you're in nirvana it's it's so like in nirvana you can still have appearances appear to you but you're not constrained by them. So like one way to think about this is like a good analogy would be like imagine like an endless lucid dream where you are just you are constantly aware that you are dreaming right but again because you're aware that you're dreaming you're not bound by the dream. So literally you can just experience every possible reality no matter what you can experience every possible appearance and you're not constrained by anything at all. Right?
¶76That's basically the idea of that's what Buddha that's what Buddhahood is. Now, of course, there's other like allegedly you can have like supernatural powers and you know do some crazy things allegedly. Of course, u but that's basically the idea. At least it's it's kind of hard to describe because when you become a Buddha, you're not really a self in the in the strong sense like how we're selves now. um you you've completely transcended the subject and object like dichotomy.
¶77Um and so like you can appear as you know any entity you want like you can appear as a form but you're not bound by that form. Um that's the basic idea of when you be at least that's what happens when you become a Buddha. Um you're you're just no longer constrained by any you're just no longer constrained by whatever this experience right now is. Okay. Um Okay.
¶78So, I would assume um let's get back to Ethan Muse and Joe Schmid. So, healing seemed to be um that would be based on karma too, right? Or >> Yeah. So if you can you can manifest a um an or um if your karma um manifests entities of some sort, it would also can manifest healings. Would that be your >> Yeah.
¶79>> Okay. >> And I mean the other thing too is like there are certain um Buddhist practices. I I won't mention who he is, but I do know at least one person who their mother had to be healed. And so like they went to Taibet and they got healed from um a certain Buddhist practice. Like literally like there was an actual miracle involved.
¶80I won't mention who it is, but I do know at least one person that uh went through that process. >> So I mean those things happen right now. Of course they're not like documented in in some of the cases that you'll see in Catholicism, right? or you know a lot of the cases that that Joe goes over but the whole point is not is it the whole point is we have a like a Buddhist has a framework to explain these right they don't need to infer that because this miracle occurred then therefore you know that Catholicism is true like that just doesn't just doesn't follow like there's there's obviously an alternative explanation on the table here that you just haven't considered >> well I guess the other thing is if miracles occur or healings, let's say, occur outside of Roman Catholicism, whether they're Protestant. I think they would I I'm pretty sure even Ethan Muse uh knows.
¶81I don't I I don't I haven't I guess watched enough of his to say like the um they know healings occur outside of Roman Catholicism. So, uh, what would I guess the they have to argue that there's something particularly that about the healings that make them vindicory, right? And like >> yeah, I mean that's basically the argument that the miracles that they're talking about are supposed to be vindicatory or >> because they wouldn't because they um they wouldn't um I guess miracles I guess they could explain more miracles within an Eastern Orthodox or Protestant perspective of God just being gracious, >> but I guess you could have God being gracious outside of Christianity, too. >> Yep. I mean, That's that's a hinder view, right?
¶82So it's like it just doesn't I don't I >> No. So, so like from my pers um um from a strictly Christian perspective, even if you don't go with say like, you know, um healings within a demonic con uh uh framework or something like to to fool people, which I I'm I'm willing to postulate. But like um you could also say like look, God chose to have mercy on somebody according to their flawed understanding and just wanted to be merciful to someone out of his own goodness. Um so I don't understand in that framework how that would particularly vindicate say something happening at Lords or something vindicated. you could say the same thing as a Protestant about something that happened in Roman Catholicism.
¶83and uh you know uh so I I'm I'm I've been failing to kind of see how uh those specific healings I can see more of the Marian stuff and then I could even see so with the um um I don't know if you want to before we go to demon uh possession um I I didn't know if you had any comments on that like because I I'm just trying to say within their own understanding not within my Protestant framework or within your Buddhist framework. >> I mean, that's kind of the whole point, right? Is like the notice how the miracle itself doesn't tell us anything like we we're always approaching this from a prior framework. And that that's kind of my whole argument, which is like it doesn't matter what you're like in in other I mean, sure, I mean, I guess if you're if you're a naturalist, the miracle might be a problem, but >> yeah. So, I would say naturalism is would be falsified.
¶84But notice that their argument is not an ar like here's the thing, right? If their argument was purely an argument against naturalism, I'll be like, "Yeah, I'm I'm with you." But that's not their argument. They're trying to like vindicate their specific tradition. And it's like, okay, have you just you just completely ignored like every other tradition outside of naturalism, outside of materialism, physicalism, whatever. like you just you've just completely ignored all these other ways of viewing the miracle and you haven't really like you haven't addressed >> Yeah.
¶85you have to do a like a what I from a reformed camp we would do presuppositional uh apologetics or something where we put we would pit put worldview against worldview >> and and then battle it out at that level as opposed to um saying oh I got miracles and you don't if does that make sense >> yeah and that that's how I would kind of interact with you you know if we were debating like my point of view you know my framework versus your framework. So, but you know, so I feel like almost it's like the and that's kind of the reason I wanted to have you on it was like I kind of feel like they're cheating because I was like because I'm like um because it's like >> I I'm not a you know I'm not I don't have time to be incredibly well read, but I know enough that there's miracles outside of Christendom loosely defined. I don't know, you know. So, >> yeah. Um, uh, so I was like, you know, guys, like, uh, so kind of what you were saying, you're saying is kind of what I kind of intuitively or just kind of knew from background information is like, um, but maybe I mean, maybe they would have a counterargument to that, but I I I I feel like they they need >> they would I'm sure they would, but >> yeah, I'm just I'm just feeling like they need to do more battle at the at the worldview level than at uh they they just want to kind of go right to the miracles.
¶86Um which I think makes sense within their framework, you know, but it's doing a lot of heavy lifting. Um okay. Uh so let's go to the demon possession. Um or the exorcism. So from the from their arguments um is it more that the that the exorcism um vindicates or is is there something specific about demon possession?
¶87I think it's more of like the the basic argument is well look at these demon demonic possessions and then the Catholic priest has you know has the special authority to exercise the demon and only the Catholic Church has the ability to give them the power to do that. That's that's that's I mean I'm assuming that's what I mean of course Joe I don't know what exactly Joe's argument would be there at least for those cases because he doesn't really go over that in his video but like >> that would basically the notion right >> does Ethan go over that at all >> I don't know if Ethan makes that argument I mean that is the implied argument right I mean it's hard because you know they're notice how like of course Joe made arguments in his first video but like when it came to the miracle stuff he didn't I I didn't really see him give like a vindicatory miracle argument with premise by premise step-by-step pro like things. I had to like in my response video I had to reconstruct his argument and then respond to that reconstruction >> and kind of steel man it or something like that. Yeah. So, okay, that's so like my thing is at least with the with the exorcism stuff, I I was I was like, "Okay, well, maybe the argument is something like premise one, these, you know, exorcisms happen." Premise two, only the Catholic priest has the power to exercise the demon.
¶88premise three some something where like you know only the Catholic Church has the has the power to give those abilities out or something and the reason why the Catholic Church you know has the ability to do this is because it was founded by Christ right so like you know there's this step by you know so that's basically the argument um at least that would be the implied argument um and I'm just kind of scratching my head because there are exorcisms outside of there are exorcisms that Catholic priests don't don't uh are not involved with. Um >> yeah, there was Yeah. >> Okay. So before you go on like so for me like um I remember interacting with somebody on Twitter I forget how many years ago and a lot of Catholics on Twitter cath I'm just talking about the trad Catholics >> the the you know the E ones you know >> where they were like Protestants don't actually I was like yeah we do like we just don't like you know we don't t it a lot but Yeah, there's Protestant exorcisms. And then we got talking and then they were saying that um oh, the average Catholic exorcism takes a year and a half.
¶89And we're like, a year and a half? Like did the demon get bored? And like, you know, I was we was like, we were completely shocked in the conversation that people were involved in it. I was like a year and a half. But I was saying like even from a Catholic um you know if I was arguing with a Catholic I would say in the sermon on the mount it's it's talking about unsaved people doing exorcisms uh in Jesus' name and them still going to hell.
¶90So >> yeah, >> I'm like so I'm not entirely sure like how exorcisms >> and then I know you know there's shaman you know there is the tradition you know everything since me Mesopotamia like there's you can see Jewish exorcists in the book of acts you can see um um I guess what I'm saying is exorcism is a well-known phenomenon across um a spectrum. Now, I would interpret that as an evangelical Christian, however I interpret that, but I was just like I'm not I I wouldn't use that as a apologetic. >> Yeah. I would >> Does that make sense? Like with other people who know what they're talking about again, like I I feel like if they were just arguing against materialism, they would be doing a lot better job.
¶91Uh but they they uh push stuff too far. Like they they should just be going over evidences for the papacy and and and and things like that. I don't I don't I don't >> doing the normal stuff. Yeah. >> Yeah.
¶92And I mean honest like honestly I was like um Yeah. So if I'm interacting with an Eastern religion, I'm I'm still doing more of a worldview analysis than saying like, "Oh, you I would never be like, "You don't have exorcisms." Because uh or or you know, how I interpret your exorcisms, it depends upon my worldview, if that makes sense. >> Yeah. Um, and I guess um I guess that was um mostly I think we hit on all the four things you mentioned that they argue. Was there anything that you um anything we didn't cover that you think uh we should mention or uh >> I didn't know how I don't want to like you know do um you know we have a link to one of your videos and to your as which I guess they can get to your channel in the description.
¶93>> So I didn't want to you know keep you on more than was needed but um >> I just Yeah. So, this is your time to uh either close us out if you with a summary or if there's anything additional that uh I I just we didn't cover that you think would is pertinent to this. Well, I mean my thing is I think the ultimate I guess the main point of of my uh my response to them would be basically like you know if you look at this from within the tradition like you know it makes sense like you know all the miracles the mirror apparition the the demonic possession like oh yeah this vindicates my tradition you know um but then if you step outside of that you look at the tradition from the outside and you look you know you look at you know what these miracles actually do prove and it's like it's it's very thin on what they actually prove like from an ultimate you know metaphysical standpoint or ultimate like which religion is true standpoint right so like one of the in my video like my last video response at the very end I include like what what I what I call the Garblo parody where basically like imagine someone who was able to guess correctly like three lotteryies right in a row or at separate locations and it got notorized before that and you know it gets verified and all this stuff right and then that person says oh well I actually got those numbers from someone named Garbau who talks to me in dreams and he gave me those numbers um it's like okay that it seems really dumb to to like argue therefore Garbau is real or therefore garbloism is true because the whole point of the story is like garbbleism develops. It has its own theology, right? And it has like these additional claims that actually are not connected to the initial miracle at all, right?
¶94So, um I want to mention that because from from the inside to from inside the Catholic tradition like all these miracles might look like vindicatory but when you from the outside you don't have that framework like you just look at the miracle itself and what it actually proves it doesn't prove that much. um all the other inferences that you make from the miracle to your religion or your cosmology being true is actually a very very wide gap um and no miracle is going to be able to close that gap um at least no miracle that we've seen. So >> okay is would there be any miracle that you can think of that would um make you reconsider or is it would it just be like as you said kind of a personal experience or something? >> Yeah. So like again like I said earlier it's like one way is Mary appears to me and then I'm able to like interrogate her or whatever and you know verify certain things and verify certain dogmas being true right trying to like understand things from like a holistic perspective right and I'm able to do this with her right walk things through with her directly right not just in my own head but like literally onetoone like that would convince me Right.
¶95But notice like that's never happened. Like that is that is like that's literally an interrogation. That's not like that's not nec like that doesn't fit any miracle that we've seen. Right. >> Well, to me like um I'd probably be I I don't know if that would work on me because I would say, you know, from my script, you know, my bibl evangelical perspective, I'm like I'm supposed to test the spirits.
¶96So if I test the spirits and it and it and it goes against scripture, like how would that convince me, right? If I'm convinced a priority of scripture, like it it would be very hard for a miracle, you know, the the scripture in both the Old Testament and the New Testament tells me to warns me against false signs and miracles, >> right? So it's it's hard to uh it and I I'm just being honest here. So it would be hard to overcome that. Um and maybe on a maybe I can't say that unless it actually happened to me, right?
¶97May u but I could see a world where um if I I I mean and I hope based on what I believe now is like if something um contradicted scripture, I would uh I would say no, I'm I'm I'm going to I'm going to reject that. Um cuz that's uh the framework I come from and that's why I go you know um uh uh fra you know I I would rather have frameworks battle out than than miracle claims all the time. >> I agree. Yep. >> Um you know and I don't I don't think that that that means like I can't have my mind ch I don't want to be like I've had my mind changed on things in the past.
¶98Uh um I'm I mean I was an evangelical before and became one. So and and I'll be honest like I became one because I believe God spoke to me while I was reading scripture and it was a one-time event for me. It wasn't like it's not like God is constantly speaking to me. Um uh so I don't want to um um I don't want to um I I don't want to come off as intransient as I kind of just sounded. But at the same time, like once I have that belief in scripture, I don't want to be like uh as scripture says, tossed uh uh uh tossed with the waves.
¶99Um, and I think this come I think I I think what we're getting out of our conversation is like your your worldview uh uh miracles are interpreted through uh your your theological priors or your your philosophical priors, right? >> Yep. Yeah, exactly. >> Okay. Um I think I had another thing to say but I completely forgot.
¶100So, unless there's something else you want uh to talk about. Um >> No, that's pretty much it. >> Okay. >> So, >> no. Well, I'll probably think about it at like 3:00 in the morning or something as like, oh, I I should have asked him XYZ, but that's okay.
¶101I'll leave that up to God's uh providence or whatever. Um, uh, I appreciate you coming on and I I appreciate it because I I was thinking, you know, when they were making these arguments about like what people specifically from a a Hindu Buddhist perspective would say to them. So when I ran across what uh you know um uh by the Lord's mercy the Google algorithms and YouTube uh so I'm glad uh to bring you on to kind of get this perspective and kind of I don't I don't want the debate to you know I guess I'm kind of reacting to them kind of using it as like a like a cudgel to just be like Rome is true. Um um where I I would rather have like a a deeper conversation. Yeah.
¶102And they don't and it's kind of weird because they don't at all. They barely interact with like Hindu and Buddhist views on this sort of stuff. So yeah. >> Well, to be fair, that's probably a numbers game in the United States. And I think a lot of times they're focused almost always on they do a little bit of stuff with atheists.
¶103They do a lot with Protestants. They do a fair amount with Eastern Orthodox. So I don't think you're their intended audience, if that makes sense. Makes sense. >> Um, all right.
¶104Well, I'm going to end this stream. Um, why don't you hand back stay back for a minute and I'll just chat with you for a few seconds uh after the stream. All right. All right. God bless everybody.
¶105Have a good uh uh rest of your week. And um again, a link to uh his last video uh if you want to get more of his views and look at his channel is uh in the description.