AndyAsh

Lord, have mercy! These Islamist terrorist groups and Fulani militia must be stopped! We decided to support a small ministry (Carry Them Ministries) that works to help malnourished infants. While the malnourishment is not always directly tied to persecution (there are other things that also impact the lives of infants, like the impact and advice from traditional spiritualists), they certainly see persecuted families coming through with their children. Either way, please pray for those who are suffering in Nigeria. Please consider supporting Carry Them Ministries. Check out their documentary and their website: carrythem.org/documentary

@Methlynblue @TheOtherPaul2 I'm not sure. That would be interesting if it were!

@Andy_Ashenden @TheOtherPaul2 Isn’t this a standard at eastern seminary’s?

Claude... are you okay?

@GmorganJr @LWCnewswire I believe that some were addressed, but not all. And where they issues were addressed, they could not admit that Luther was correct in his diagnosis, so they labeled his views in ways he would not even accept.

Why? None of the problems were addressed.

@andmava @RuslanKD I’m not assuming everyone’s motives. There are people claiming that Ruslan is motivated by things that he denies to be motivated by. And they have no evidence. What makes you think my there is no good faith attempt?

@Andy_Ashenden @RuslanKD Why are you assuming everyone’s motives and assuming they’re trying to psychoanalyze? Come on, dude. I think people just want a good faith attempt and a dialogue.

this is what a man child melting down looks like. jay can't get in the room with the people he feels entitled to, immediately escalates to insults then acts confused why people don't want to deal with him. non stop cope.

@FHRITA2 @GabrielofBoone I was looking at this: orthodoxstudies.org/documents/11/a…

@Andy_Ashenden @GabrielofBoone Did it have a graph? Would you send me a link to what you were looking at? Thanks!

Why do you think Orthodoxy is growing in the South?

@FHRITA2 @GabrielofBoone This would make some sense, because the data I was looking at was 2024 and the median was 48. So that would be 8 years later. We'd have to assume about equal Orthodoxy growth in each category (or not much change). But that seems reasonable. Thanks!

@Andy_Ashenden @GabrielofBoone I saved it to my hard drive on June 10, 2025. I did a Google Image search and it looks like it is from 2016. Now I'm going to try to find a more recent/updated graph.

@FHRITA2 @GabrielofBoone Still lower than I thought. Out of curiosity, what is the date this data was collected/used for this chart?

@Andy_Ashenden @GabrielofBoone You're right! I've been reading it wrong for a long time now. Thanks for the correction!

@FHRITA2 @GabrielofBoone Isn’t it 40 according to that graph? 26 is the percentage of adults from Orthodoxy that fall into the first age category.

@Andy_Ashenden @GabrielofBoone It's 26 according to this graph.

Revelation 21 - A New Heaven and New Earth x.com/i/broadcasts/1…

Going live tonight at 7:10pm CST. Rev. Dr. Brian German joins me to talk about Revelation 21. Join us, we'd love to see your comments in the live chat. Link in comments below.

It seems to me that “person” is being used in a fundamentally different way (legally) from the original claim. Even if Dan's claim is correct, it does not establish the fetus was merely property. Even if we grant a developmental account where the embryo passes through vegetative and sensitive stages, it doesn’t follow that it only becomes human at the rational stage. That assumes that humanity is defined by the actual exercise of rational powers rather than by possessing a nature ordered to them. But Aristotelian metaphysics distinguishes between what a thing is and what it can do in act. So the fact that rational operations are not yet fully developed doesn’t show that the being is not human, nor does it show that the fetus is an animal because it has activity (in Luke 1). Rather, it shows that there is activity from an internal principle (the soul) and its characteristic powers are not yet fully actualized. The account of Aristotle's "soul" is not three souls that develop at different times. And Dan makes the further claim that rational activity/development makes one a "human person." At that point, the debate isn’t really about Aristotle anymore, but about whether personhood is grounded in nature or in currently exercisable functions. I don’t see a recognizable account of a technical Aristotelian ensoulment or metaphysics in the text. Luke was certainly writing with Hellenistic accounts in the air, but I don’t see ties to Aristotle in the text in any obvious manner. Later we do get interesting connections to that text through the Boethian-Aristotelian tradition which defines a "person" as an individual substance of a rational nature (not needing to be fully actualized).

There is no "inherent" principle to call ins and formal debates. Not every formal debate is representative of a wider population, it's based on how the audience takes it practically (de facto). At this point there is nothing more to say. You don't seem to want to try to prove how de jure there is some inherent difference between the two other than saying "look, the structure of the debate is different." It's quite obvious the claim that there is a higher obligation does not follow from that alone. It's also quite obvious that formal debates are also voluntary and call-ins are not inherent non-representative. I think if you take some time to think about that, you'll see your point collapses. You can post more if you'd like. But I think I've made what I have to say clear. Thanks for the discussion.

You’re still collapsing distinct sources of obligation into one. I never said call-ins have no fairness norms. I said they don’t carry the same level or type of obligation because they aren’t presented as representative in the same way. Consent matters, but that’s not the whole point. The key difference is how the platform frames the exchange. Formal debates: curated + presented as representative =>higher obligation for equal footing Call-ins: voluntary + non-representative => lower obligation, even if some fairness norms still apply Your host example actually proves my point. If a host frames a clip as representative (“Protestantism destroyed”), then he creates a representational claim and inherits obligation from that framing. But that’s not inherent to call-ins. That’s an added layer you’re introducing. So the principle doesn’t stay the same. The obligation tracks the presence of representation, whether built in (formal debates) or added later (framing/clipping). You’re trying to universalize the highest standard across all contexts, but that ignores the very factors that generate the obligation in the first place.

"I can encourage the dog-pile against you, label you with 'Dyer Derangement Syndrome,' but HOW DARE YOU say I copy Daddy Dyer 😭" @Alex_Ortodoxie wouldn't survive a night in an Australian pub. Toughen up, princess. And *I'm* the one who crashed out 💀

I'm not trying to collapse the distinction between debates. Remember? I don't need to say the obligation is the same. I'm providing a principle that shows that call-ins have an obligation still. And that obligation could be higher than in a formal debate if the content creator frames things in a particular, is a big leader of thought in that area, etc. I don't understand why you're missing that?

That’s still a misrepresentation of my argument. I never said de jure representation is the only source of obligation. The point is that it’s the relevant factor that sets the standard in formal debates. Your ‘de facto’ claim doesn’t collapse the distinction. People interpreting something as representative after the fact is not the same as a platform presenting someone as a representative by design. That’s the difference. Call-ins: no built-in claim of representation Formal debates: built-in expectation of representation So the obligation isn’t the same. You keep broadening ‘representation’ to erase the distinction, but that just avoids the point instead of answering it.

You're literally arguing that de jure representation is the only thing that can create obligation. Representation is also built in de facto. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly.

That’s a strawman and a dodge. No one said representation only attaches to the guest. The point is that representation is built into curated debates by design, which creates a higher obligation for fair matchup. Call-ins don’t carry that same representational claim. That’s why the standard differs. You keep trying to drop the formal/informal distinction, but that’s the very feature that explains why the obligation changes. So you’re not refuting the argument, you’re avoiding the distinction that grounds it.

Ok, look at what you wrote: "Your asymmetry exploitation principle only applies once a representational expectation exists." You keep treating this as a given. My whole point is that someone who is calling into the show need not be formally introduced as "the official representative of Protestantism" (for example) for the audience to take the exchange as evidentially representative of Protestantism. In fact, the host can do that himself, especially when he is a major figure like Dyer. The disagreement is simple: you think only formal representation can trigger the fairness norm. I think de facto reprsenation can. You haven't ruled that out and I don't see any reason to reject that.

You’re still missing where the category error actually is. A category error doesn’t require claiming the events are identical. It occurs when you apply the same evaluative standard while ignoring relevant differences that change that standard. That’s exactly what you’re doing. You’ve already conceded the formats differ. The question is whether those differences are morally relevant. They are, because they change what obligation exists in the first place. And no, I never claimed representation is the only source of obligation. That’s your mischaracterization. The point is that different contexts generate different types and degrees of obligation: • Call-ins: voluntary, non-representative => lower obligation, no expectation of authoritative representation • Formal debates: curated, representative => higher obligation, expectation of competent representation Your “asymmetry exploitation” principle only applies once a representational expectation exists. That’s why your professor example works there, but not in open call-ins where no one is presented as representative of a position. So you’re not exposing some broader principle. You’re applying a principle that presupposes representation to a context where representation isn’t present. That’s the category mistake. So the symmetry still fails, because the relevant features that generate the obligation are not the same.

He also seems to think "representation" only attaches to the guest, which is opposite of Dyer's complaint and Alex's complaint. It's hilarious. Ruslan renames the videos to take debate it. They shift the argument to "Ruslan is a big content creator and it just looks bad because it comes off as a debate." So they won't even accept it when the "formal debate" aspect is dropped, even though this is waht is being argued for. Then, if you try to argue that representation also attaches to the host (which would ALSO apply to Dyer), they just go back to the formal/informal distinction. They just want to have their cake and eat it too.

@IchimokuSatoshi @Andy_Ashenden @Alex_Ortodoxie You keep asserting that I relied on symmetry when I never did. Formal/informal is irrelevant: hypocrisy over not wanting bad representation for your side in one place but allowing it elsewhere is the irrefutable point. Stop coping for your idol.