http://truthjihadradio.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/e-michael-jones-on-rise-and-fall-of-new.html
You know antisemitism is endemic in Christianity. Christians when they took their religious seriously not only hate Jews, they hate Muslims too. This is because both Jews and Muslims deny the absurdity that is the Trinity.
It does not appear that either EMJ and Kevin Barrett are aware that it is impossible to prove the existence of God to those who don't feel the need to believe in Him or the non-existence of God to those who feel the need to believe in Him. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Barrett, a Muslim, does not appear to know quran.com/6/111 is the verse that says even God Himself won't be able to prove His own existence to Unbelievers. The more interesting debate would surely have been whether Christianity has failed the West and whether Islam is the only religion to replace Christianity, now that it has failed.
Social engineering by the forces of matriarchy promotes fornication. Social engineering by the forces of patriarchy promotes marriage, and this means to forbid and punish extramarital sex. Neither EMJ nor Kevin Barrett dare mention this.
At the 42nd minute EMJ mentions bastards. quran.com/24/2 would treat those guilty of having had premarital sex as sex offenders, Catholicism consigns them to eternal damnation. Which would work better in the West, bearing in mind Westerners are overwhelmingly atheist?
I see that Kevin Barrett refers obliquely to sublimation at the 40th minute without actually mentioning it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_(psychology)
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.
**********************************
F Schmidt:
"So evolutionary salvation requires one god and the right god. And the god of the Old Testament is certainly the right god. Are there any others? Are there any other books in this world that address the issues of human evolution even close to the degree that the Old Testament does? None that I know of. And this is why the only means of evolutionary salvation is through God."
http://www.mikraite.org/Human-Evolution-td17.html
F Schmidt:
"Feminism is the natural expression of women's changing mating preference in a decaying society. But let's imagine that we could magically eliminate feminism. Would this be better for humanity? I believe that what this would look like is America almost permanently stuck in the 1950s. As I explained in "The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture", American culture began to break down in the 1800s when religion went from encouraging people to follow Jesus's moral teaching to simply having a personal relationship with Jesus. With such a change, it was inevitable that society would lose focus on the core issues of sexual morality, and lose the ability of effective enforcement. In the 1950s, America retained the facade of a moral culture, but underneath society was breaking down. Women clearly expressed sexual excitement for "bad boys" in movies. And I am certain that this must have corresponded to a rising adultery rate. Without feminism, the facade could have remained intact for centuries, with moral men continuing to find wives but these wives cheating on them and having illegitimate children with immoral men. The genetic breakdown of society would have been much slower, but the ultimate result would have been the same. So instead of taking decades for society to call apart, it would have taken centuries. Which is preferable? I think it is preferable for a morally broken society to fall apart as quickly as possible so that it can be replaced by something else. Feminism doesn't change the end result, it only speeds it up. And so I support feminism.
What about the poor suffering moral men in modern culture who can't get women? One can read the complaints of these men all over the internet. If you suggest options to these men like using a prostitute or looking abroad, they will tell you that they want validation. Any moral man who wants validation from a woman in modern culture is simply a moron who deserves to suffer and die without reproducing. Unlike feminists, he hasn't slightest understanding of evolution. The only sound evolutionary strategy for moral men is to join together to form moral patriarchal societies. Such societies are evolutionarily superior to modern culture. When modern culture has decayed sufficiently, a good moral patriarchal culture should attack modern culture and slaughter all of its men for the genetic good of humanity.
If a woman from the modern culture calls a moral man a loser, the correct response is "I would be a loser if I were a member of your culture, but I am not. My culture is superior to your culture and my culture will eventually destroy your culture." Intelligent moral men must reject modern culture and find an alternative. And from the perspective of an alternative culture, we can recognize feminism as a good thing that is helping to destroy our enemy, namely modern culture."
http://www.mikraite.org/In-Defense-of-Feminism-td570.html
Let's assume God exists then. Judaism is for Jews only, and Christianity is kaput. Therefore Islam must be the new religion of the West, if it knows what's good for it.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
Debate - Richard Dawkins vs Jonathan Sacks - Science And Religion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK0tpvcIRhU
Darwin pointed the way to an unselfish evolution
http://rabbisacks.org/darwin-pointed-way-unselfish-evolution/
2 comments:
I thought your comments on the YouTube page are pertinent and fair. So far there's a general level of agreement on what EMJ is saying, though I disagree on his statements such as there being no theological basis for English Protestanism and that it happened in the 15th Century - what about Wyclif and the Lollards (that gave rise to Jan Hus and the Hussites in Europe) in the 13th, or Pelagianism from the 4th? - but then he's a Papist so he's going to dismiss all other Christian denominations out of hand, as is their wont, even if he's somewhat freethinking in his rhetoric about matters dealing with science etc. He could have pointed out that Darwinism isn't the fault of Darwin (who was an Anglican believer) but of his sidekick Huxley. As he's on Kevin Barrett's radio show he could have raised the matter of the Islamic scholars - such as Al Jahiz - theories on "evolution" from way back in the early middle ages.
Christianity is the fulfilment of the faith of Moses and Abraham. The Jewish leaders understood Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus is even noted by contemporary Jewish writers and historians as being a worker of miracles who raised people from the dead. Nicodemus told Christ at the start of his ministry that the Jewish leadership were aware of him and that he was sent from God. What is now called "Judaism" is not the faith of Abraham, but a rebellion against the Messiah, who they themselves acknowledged to be the Messiah at the time. The old faith of Abraham and Moses is now called The Catholic Church. The new faith of Judaism was created several hundred years after Christ. Google it. Does that mean hatred of the Jews is allowed? - absolutely not. St Paul talks about how they are God's chosen people and should be treated with total respect. That doesn't mean agreeing with their anti-Christian views though - but that is the same with everyone who hates Christ and comes up with paper thin arguments to hide their addiction to sin behind.
You deny that God exists, but the fact that something ( i.e. the Universe ) exists is a direct rebuttal of this claim. There's no argument in Cosmology or Science that adequately explains that fact that there is something and not nothing. Bertrand Russell was totally defeated on this point in a debate with Professor Copplestone. There's no need to rehash it with inferior intellects. It is self-evident that there is a creator, and the greatest minds of the twentieth century couldn't come up with an alternative explanation. There's no need to "prove" God exists - you are not the judge of God, God is your judge. No-one will argue with you, it's entirely up to you to accept or reject the truth.
You mock the Trinity, but the Trinity is mentioned throughout the Old Testament and the fact that God is three persons of one nature was made clear by Christ. Psychological people have three aspects, and this was even noted by the ancient Greek philosophers independently of revelation. Maybe you should try reading their thoughts before pouring scorn on that which you can't comprehend or subjugate to your will.
The murders of the reformation and beyond were caused by corrupt monarchs and capitalists deliberately stealing from the Catholic Church. The various "protestant" sects were simply politically co-opted groups of men in the pay of the rich.
JQ
Post a Comment