Broadcast live 8 to 10 pm Eastern on Revolution.Radio.
First hour: E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine, argues that Pope Francis ought to become the second pope in a little over five years to resign. Such calls for the Pope’s resignation have followed the release of a letter by Archbishop Vigano accusing Francis of removing papal sanctions imposed by his predecessor, Benedict, against credibly-accused sexual predator and ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick—despite knowing about McCarrick’s wide-ranging depradations. (Vigano says he forcefully told Francis about McCarrick’s history of wide-ranging sexual abuse, and even handed Francis a detailed dossier…and yet Francis essentially rehabilitated McCarrick!)
Was Francis elevated to the Papacy to front for a cabal of “sexual freemasons“? I first heard that rumor even before Francis was elected Pope. As I wrote in “Pope Benedict Fired by the Knights of Malta?“: “Here’s the hot rumor going around Italy, passed to me by journalist Roberto Quaglia: Pope Benedict was fired in order to pave the way for a new Pope who will sanction homosexual marriage, non-celibate priests, and other projects aimed at sexualizing and de-sacralizing the Church. According to this analysis, the judeo-freemasonic secret societies responsible for Vatican II have been pushing Benedict to allow gay marriage and a sex-lovin’ priesthood – but Benedict’s eternal response is ‘not on my watch!’ So, goeth the rumor, they ended Benedict’s watch.”
Will Catholics who don’t want the Church to turn into a gigantic freemasonic gay bar succeed in taking back the Vatican?
Second hour: Ellen Brown was planning to discuss her latest article “Banks Are Becoming Obsolete in China—Could the U.S. Be Next?” We were also planning to discuss the coming annihilation of the US dollar which is being led by Russia and China. Will the end of dollar hegemony crash the US economy? Is it just a coincidence that just hours after Russia declared all-out war on the US dollar, the Russian Central Bank suddenly and mysteriously went up in flames?
Unfortunately I was unable to connect with Ellen. So that show will have to wait. Instead, I wound up bringing on Buddhist Studies teacher Brian Ruhe to continue the first hour discussion of religion and sexuality.
Comment from a listener:
Hi Kevin. Interesting show tonight!
I’d like to add my own 2 bits for pondering. In conversations concerning right, wrong, good, bad etc. … we often get lost in a labyrinth of comparing cases where good could be bad, love is hate etc. I’d like to add my own thoughts on how to (possibly), better, sort out the answers.
In the Gospel of John -Bible/NTestament- we find a very curious beginning … venturing an explanation of “the Christ” and its manifestation in “the flesh” … ie, Jesus.
While I don’t for a moment agree that Jesus is God or that the Bible is all true, I think the Bible is still a good reference material for life considerations. Here we see a “theory” which (I imagine) was hashed out by a lot of discussion amongst a lot of thinkers.
John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
In English, this bit doesn’t make much sense but in Greek, I think it makes considerably more sense!
1 en <1722> {IN [THE]} arch <746> {BEGINNING} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} o <3588> {THE} logov <3056> {WORD,} kai <2532> {AND} o <3588> {THE} logov <3056> {WORD} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} prov <4314> ton <3588> {WITH} yeon <2316> {GOD,} kai <2532> {AND} yeov <2316> {GOD} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} o <3588> {THE} logov <3056> {WORD.}
2 outov <3778> {HE} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} en <1722> {IN [THE]} arch <746> {BEGINNING} prov <4314> ton <3588> {WITH} yeon <2316> {GOD.}
3 panta <3956> {ALL THINGS} di <1223> {THROUGH} autou <846> {HIM} egeneto <1096> (5633) {CAME INTO BEING,} kai <2532> {AND} cwriv <5565> {WITHOUT} autou <846> {HIM} egeneto <1096> (5633) {CAME INTO BEING} oude <3761> {NOT EVEN} en <1520> {ONE [THING]} o <3739> {WHICH} gegonen <1096> (5754) {HAS COME INTO BEING.}
4 en <1722> {IN} autw <846> {HIM} zwh <2222> {LIFE} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS,} kai <2532> {AND} h <3588> {THE} zwh <2222> {LIFE} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} to <3588> {THE} fwv <5457> twn <3588> {LIGHT} anyrwpwn <444> {OF MEN.}
5 kai <2532> {AND} to <3588> {THE} fwv <5457> {LIGHT} en <1722> {IN} th <3588> {THE} skotia <4653> {DARKNESS} fainei <5316> (5719) {APPEARS,} kai <2532> {AND} h <3588> {THE} skotia <4653> {DARKNESS} auto <846> ou <3756> {IT} katelaben <2638> (5627) {APPREHENDED NOT.}
“God was the word”
Who was “God”? 2316 yeov theos theh’-os. And what was that? 1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
Ok, I think you already know my position on God as a singular entity so I won’t belabour that except to say that a singular entity -all powerful- having strong requirements of humans to conform to his will and/but then never DOING anything about it himself and evidently helpless to change our proclivities … simply does NOT make logical sense. If he don’t like it, why doesn’t he CHANGE it … fix it … or simply leave things alone?
So my own perspective is that “God” is a collective and as such, only has influence as a democratic entity. This collective has no direct power over us but DOES have a type of power in influencing human attitude through the power of suggestion.
What is “logov”? That’s what we know in English as LOGOS … and it more or less encapsulates the modern word of “logic”.
If we then apply a logical shortcut we can read the first verse of John as, ‘in the beginning was the logic and the logic was with the gods and the logic WAS the gods!’
Thus … LOGIC is supreme. All other things have to fall UNDER the banner of logic (according to this theory).
Whatever is true also HAS to be logical and the application of logic (taken to its full extent) … will reveal the truth. If two supposed truths happen to contradict each other then one or both of them are false.
Under logic, we would have opposed issues of competition vs. co-operation.
Under that we would have love vs. hate.
Under that we would have good vs. evil.
You could almost create a flow chart to logically extract the most logical/practical/sensible answer to any conundrum concerning human conflicts … right?
I mean, there is probably no such thing as a universal right and wrong because each scenario requires it’s own individual logical scrutiny.
Where LAWS can’t discriminate the mitigating circumstances -(and a woman would be sentenced to a life term prison sentence for shooting an abusive husband) … LOGIC could decide what was right to do … in every given instance.
So, let’s take the example of homosexuality and whether it’s good, bad, evil or what …
In your discussion on homosexuality, Michael Jones says, “homosexuality is “ENTRINSICALLY WRONG!” (because it doesn’t result in procreation.)
But, if you break it down LOGICALLY … what is actually wrong about it that isn’t wrong with any other forms of procreation avoidance?
If procreation is the sole objective of sexual acts, then masturbation would be just as evil. In fact, even having the urge for sex and abstaining would be eqaully as sinful because it thrwarts the potential for procreation!
You have to look at it logically. Two people having sex with each other, giving them release, satisfaction and feelings of love -which impacts NO ONE ELSE in any negative way- can NOT be logically wrong … since the purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness.
Really, it’s no one’s business but their own, is it?
But if sex (in any form) has negative impact on other people because of broken commitment or avoidance of responsibility .. then logically, such sex is wrong because it causes harm.
See how EASY it is, deciding right and wrong by simply applying logic? Why must ANY rules or laws be made about it? Why not simply encourage people to work it out logically for themselves? Which method brings about the best evidentual results -legal imposition or personal logical evaluation?
Generally, anything that comes from the bottom up (grassroots) … will develop into a good thing. If the same ideas are imposed from the top down (by laws) … it’s a bad thing. Necessity is the mother of invention but when invention becomes the mother of necessity … LOOK OUT!
Now into the arena of spiritual interactions (Brian Ruhe) …
Good, bad spirit entities? Should people venture into the spirit realm or not? Is it beneficial or just deceptive? Will it destroy or help us … etc.
My take on spiritism is that it’s a non-material realm where entities don’t have the same value system that we do. They have no conscience per-se … because they have no restrictions in their own realm. That is … they basically have NOTHING … but energy! They don’t quibble or compete over anything because they already have everything available to them that’s possible with pure energy. They are -essentially- bored silly!~
((WE)) are their big interest … because we are their material creation (out of energy and logic). They get their kicks through us. You might say that they “live” vicariously through us. They might even BE us by having given up their spirit energy to become material beings for spells of time?
They created us by mutual agreement of logic rules and applied energy but that doesn’t mean they’re all the same -all good or all bad- but just like the creators of “computer” … they cooperated to combine their works of logic which have mutual rules of logic and words of logic … to make a system that WILL work as if it had been designed by a single entity. (Is Bill Gates or Steven Jobs the GOD of computer creation? No, they’re just 2 out of THOUSANDS of computer gods who combined their labours to create what we enjoy today. There are also “evil” programmers who can create havoc because they HAVE the power to create … which destroys).
Thus, when it comes to spirit entities … they’re not necessarily good or bad and probably can be both … because they lack the conscience which humans have developed themselves for their own logical reasons.
And so … if we humans delve into the world of spirits … we start out as babes in the woods. The stuff can EASILY hurt us … but once understood, it can be a source of much knowledge and wisdom too. It’s like allowing babies to play with stuff. You restrict them severely because they can so easily harm themselves. But once kids have grown to adulthood, they handle dangerous equipment and situation quite nicely and efficiently … albeit, at times, they also get whacked unexpectedly in “accidents.”
How do we determine whether certain things should be left alone?
LOGIC.
Think things through. Examine your own motivations. WHY do you want what you want? What could your desires lead to and develop into? Do you want to apply spirit power to your desires … or to your AMBITIONS? Is it for love or for gain that you seek assistance. You can get EITHER of them from spiritual power!
And as for guardian angels, well …
Do they LOVE us because they protect us … or are they simply doing an assigned job like a body guard?
My own perception is that spirit entities DON’T have emotions like we do. That’s something which was built into us by our creators. By that, I mean that we were created to be autonomous. We are in control of our own destinies as material beings and can make our own rules and feel what we want to feel. We make our own rules … regardless of how it’s spun that “GOD” demands things of us. It’s all very human … but possibly with spiritual consultations.
So, that’s my little “contribution” to the discussion … as an armchair observer.
That is a great contribution!
My response:
I don’t see logos as just “logic,” I think it implies communication. God creates to communicate. See below.
As for the sexuality issue, I think you are looking at things from a post-Christian or post-Protestant individualistic perspective. René Girard provides a good supplement to that perspective. How each of us individuals deals with desire affects other people, not just those directly affected, but everybody who is aware of us. Why? Because desire is contagious and tends to lead to out-of-control rivalry and violence. People can’t live together lovingly with peaceful souls without social institutions that massively restrain desire (i.e. 99.99999999999% of all desires must never be acted on). These institutions include “religious” or “legal” prohibitions, but more important are customs and habits, and perhaps even more important are teachings that enable the fostering of non-attachment.
Have you read and pondered Girard?
Best
Kevin
PS The difference between “good” and “bad” spirits, jinn, etc. might be that the “good” ones have surrendered (their desires) to God.
https://www.icit-digital.org/articles/islam-vs-scientism-limits-of-the-scientific-worldview
“Behold, Allah does not disdain to make a metaphor of a gnat, or of something [even] less than that” (2:26). This ayah suggests that the tiniest and seemingly most insignificant things are created to convey meaning. Indeed, in the Qur’anic view, all of existence is made up of ayat, the power demonstrations of God.
The Qur’an repeatedly tells us that all existence comes from Allah, who simply says “Be!” and it is, “The Originator of the heavens and the earth, when He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be!’ — and it is” (2:117). This ayah suggests that Allah brings forth existence through speech. So existence is a communicative process! That would explain why the created world is so rich in meaning: because everything in creation is an ayah, a sign of Allah (swt).
So who is Allah speaking to when he says “‘Be!’ — and it is”? Clearly existence is full of sentient creatures with minds created precisely to enter into dialogue with their Creator; that is what life, at the deepest level, is really all about.
Interestingly, that branch of physics known as quantum mechanics may have found a faint echo of this deep truth in its consideration of the wave/particle duality. According to physicists, our world is made up of sub-atomic quanta that can manifest as either probability waves or actual particles. It seems that they are mere probability waves until a mind perceives them, at which point they “collapse” into the actual particles that make up our matter/energy-in-space/time existence. The clear implication is that existence is created for the purpose of being perceived by minds, meaning our universe is an act of communication.