Broadcast here September 27th 11 to noon Eastern then archived. All my shows are archived at my Patreon page – please consider subscribing!
 |
| Interfaith dialogue in Tehran |
In this interview, Jones asserts that the New Atheists are symptoms of the collapse of fatherhood in Western culture. He says they have troubled relationships with their fathers, and project their father-hatred onto God.
Is Jones right when he says the metaphysical argument for God is airtight and irrefutable? Or are David Ray Griffin’s arguments better? Below is Jones’ short summary of the argument; listen to the interview and make up your own mind.
Aristotle refers to the being which cannot not exist and is at the bottom of every chain of contingent beings as the unmoved mover. Feser invokes the image of a freight train as his explanation of what Aristotle meant by the term:
“Suppose you see the caboose of a train pulling out of the station, and demand to know what is pulling it. A freight car, you are told. And what is pulling that? Another freight car. And that? Yet another freight car. All true enough; but none of these answers really explains anything, because the freight cars, like the caboose, have no independent power of motion of their own, and so no appeal to freight cars explains anything, even if the series of cars pulling the caboose went on to infinity. What is needed is an appeal to something that does have the power of movement in itself, such as an engine car.”
The locomotive, in this instance, is a symbol of the “a first mover,” which in such a series must be itself unmoved or unchanging; for if it was moving or changing – that is, going from potential to actual – then there would have to be something outside it actualizing its potential, in which case it wouldn’t be the first mover. An infinite number of box cars is no substitute for a locomotive.
What you are talking about is pure Theosophy. Original theosophy, not the hijacked Theosophy of bailey, besant, Ledbeater. The Theosophy of all ages detailed in the secret doctrine. Why do you think this hatred of Theosophy was inserted into the truth movement so early on? All the conclusion s you are coming to here are pure Theosophy. At least read the key to Theosophy. There is no political agenda or any agenda behind it but spiritual progress and the unifying force in humanity which is the higher self or good. The sermon on the mount is pure Theosophy. Actually read the original literature
I don't know that much about Theosophy, but I did read some Krishnamurti back in the day, and as far as I can tell it lines up pretty well with perennial philosophy/primordial religion/Islam. (Coming from me, that's a compliment. Mike probably wouldn't agree.)
Yes, the krishnamurti story is really interesting. He was basically abducted by the hijacked Theosophical society (bailey, Ledbeater/a pedo who liked young Indian boys). He was raised to be the maitreya or world saviour, something blavatsky was totally against. At an international meeting where he was to be unveiled, he took the stage and disavowed the whole thing!!!! What a dude. I like him alot. Theosophy is anti dogma, that is what pretty much caused the split. The original Theosophists would not make it a dogma that there were masters. It's kind of like the anarchy of spirituality. Cool fact though, almost all the first American nationalist groups formed in the 1800s were started by Theosophists. I am the librarian of the United Lodge of Theosophy Canada. This is our declaration:
United Lodge of Theosophists Declaration
The policy of this Lodge is independent devotion to the cause of Theosophy, without professing attachment to any Theosophical organization. It is loyal to the great Founders of the Theosophical Movement, but does not concern itself with dissensions or differences of individual opinion.
The work it has on hand and the end it keeps in view are too absorbing and too lofty to leave it the time or inclination to take part in side issues. That work and that end is the dissemination of the Fundamental Principles of the philosophy of Theosophy, and the exemplification in practice of those principles, through a truer realization of the SELF; a profounder conviction of Universal Brotherhood.
It holds that the unassailable basis for union among Theosophists, wherever and however situated, is “similarity of aim, purpose and teaching”, and therefore has neither Constitution, By-Laws nor Officers, the sole bond between its Associates being that basis. And it aims to disseminate this idea among Theosophists in the furtherance of Unity.
It regards as Theosophists all who are engaged in the true service of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, condition or organization, and
It welcomes to its association all those who are in accord with its declared purposes and who desire to fit themselves, by study and otherwise, to be the better able to help and teach others.
“The true Theosophist belongs to no cult or sect yet belongs to each and all
Sounds like my grandmother's Unitarianism. Today, since the Unitarian Church lacks ideas and rituals and even hires atheist ministers, I prefer "Unitarianism with camels" i.e. Islam, which is the best and last exoteric statement of the esoteric truth that underlies primordial religion and all revealed religions.
Yes, I think something we share is a total misunderstanding of our belief systems by the general public. This is due for the most part to a massive and insidious propaganda program but also due to there being a certain level of intelligence being necessary to grasp them. I must admit that I know very little about islam, basically due to laziness lol.
Here is link to my videos expounding Theosophy. My Path: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzg3ie-_i1tHdMhqzXkFs4dl0zwuN_yrV I have been a guest on fetzer and Giuliani s shows
Also, being an old punkers, I've always wanted to ask, what band were you in?
Xeno Evil. We were grungy in Seattle in 1984, before it was popular.
E Michael Jones says he would become Muslim if he thought Islam provided the solution
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/e-michael-jones-says-he-would-become.html
What did Christianity add to the Abrahamic faiths anyway?
Only the unreasonable requirement to believe that Christ is divine, which is irrational, unprovable, plainly absurd and irrelevant to the maintenance of morality in a modern society where free speech, a free press and freedom of belief exists. Oh, and antisemitism. Christianity is inherently antisemitic because Jews and Christians fundamentally disagree on the nature of God. Not only do Christians insist on the existence of God, they insist that Christ is co-equal with God.
Jews on the other hand are perfectly comfortable in believing that all their prophets were sinners and only God is perfect.
Christians once burned heretics who denied Christ's divinity as poor Michael Servetus discovered to his cost when John Calvin ratted on him.
Islam is very reasonable all things considered. It meets Christians and Jews half way by acknowledging all their prophets and goes the extra mile towards Christians by acknowledging the Virgin Birth.
While Judaism is for Jews only, Islam is for gentiles who accept that Christianity is kaput and was awful when Christians took their religion seriously to kill each other over how their differing views on the nature of God and Christ.
However, because the post-Christian by definition does not believe in Christianity, it means the West now has no religion, which is why feminism has been allowed to run rampant throughout the West. A functioning religion would have protected the West from the poison of feminism.
If Judaism is for Jews only and Christianity is kaput, Islam is waiting in the wings.
Your whole post is absurd and ignorant. First of all Islam is the culmination of Christian heresy. Secondly Christ was Devine. Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets, I did not come to abolish but to FULFILL,” (matt. 5.17) so, first we see that Jesus did not come to get rid of the Law or make it invalid. Instead, he came to FULFILL the true meaning and purpose of what the law was about. Where the law said do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery (Exodus 20:1-17) etc. Jesus obeyed the moral law perfectly. He never sinned (1 Peter 2:22) where the law talked about sacrifices and requirement of shedding of blood for forgiveness of sins, Jesus was the high priest (Hebrews 3:1; 5:10; 6:20) who shed his own blood for the forgiveness of our sins (Hebrews 9:12, 14; 10:10, 19; 13:12, 20) where the law talked about the coming Messiah, Jesus was that Messiah, the one born of the virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18, 25) who is the seed of Abraham (Genesis 22:18; Matthew 1:1) who was to be a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:18; Matthew 21:11) a priest (psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:5-6) who was crucified (psalm 22:1, 11-18; Luke 23:33) and rose from the dead (psalm 16:10; john 2:19-31; Matthew 28:6-7; Luke 24:6)
Lastly you can see Jesus FULFILLED everything and jews became heretical to even their own religion. Jesus changed everything and from then on the jew was defined by their rejection of Christ.
It doesn't matter if we believe in God or not, as long as we obey His laws our civilisations will survive.
Judaism is for Jews only and Christianity is kaput, but Islam is waiting in the wings.
Happy to come on your show and promote my legal system of Secular Koranism, if invited, Kevin!
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html