But no theocracy, please. There may be legitimate roles in the “scheme of things” for a few countries with state religions—for those who choose to live there.
My country (the U.S.A.) is not a theocracy and I intend that it never will become one. Not an Islamic theocracy; not a Jewish theocracy; and not a Catholic or Protestant or Mormon theocracy. The America I love is one where I can be a Christian because I sincerely and of my own free will choose to follow Christ, not because Christianity is compulsory or “strongly encouraged” or an informal requirement for making the “right” business or social contacts.
(I suspect that Jesus prefers followers who actually “mean it”, without ulterior motive.)
Happy Independence Day to my fellow Americans.
Yes. EMJ Explains that when a Jew converts, they become a Christian. This would be a minority but of course they are brothers in Christ. When we speak of Jews, we speak of the vast majority.
Even if we go back 40 years, most countries had a State Religion. France & Spain were Catholic, in Scotland - the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) is still officially recognized as the state religion. Obviously, these countries are not USA. Having a State Religion does not mean that you crack skulls of everyone who is in the minority, at least not in the Christian example. A level of freedom is provided with the understanding that the laws of the country are inherently Christian, and the non Christian is somewhat of an 'outsider'. The cultural ethos of the country is Christian, and laws are made to match Gods law so things like abortion, sex education are not allowed.
I am reading Logos Rising now. Funny I can't find any 'hate' in it.. I am half way through. Meanwhile "White Fragility" screeds are promoted on Amazon's home page. The hypocrisy is mind numbing.I learned that E. Michael Jones' books just recently got banned from Amazon. To be honest, I was surprised that they lasted on that website as long as they did. They're still available for sale from Fidelity Press though.
"May Saint John Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan, and all who participated in this celebration, a memorable celebration. I’m very grateful to all of you. "
This guy put EMJ on his back foot. Made him stutter and mumble, "Well you can spin that any way you want." I was shocked at the weakness of that reply. EMJ was taken off guard by that interviewer being as prepared as EMJ usually is. EMJ was the one "spinning" for his hero JP2 by saying Assisi was a "one-off". It was NOT a one-off.
JP2 also went on record supporting African voodoo. JP2's ecumenism was manifestly heretical....I don't think EMJ will ever move his opinions, and I respect that about him. EMJ is accustomed to being a "maverick" living outside the sphere of acceptance by the masses. He won't be lured by the promise of ecelebrity. He could care less.
This problem of having too much affection for JP2 has come up in other Catholic chat groups I am involved in. It is a cause of much division in the current world of Catholicism. Catholics who are convinced of the errors of V2 are inevitably forced to criticize JP2 whether they want to or not. Then the "disciples" of JP2 get their feathers ruffled and go on emotional defenses of their "saint". EMJ did mildly criticize JP2 in that interview when he said that JP2 was "too close" to America. But the emotional attachment of EMJ to JP2 is clearly still there.
Is there another website where I can buy Logos Rising and Libido Domandi in the UK without having to pay $70 for shipping? I don't mind paying $48 for the book itself, but to more than double the price with shipping is a bit much.
E. Michael Jones in my assessment met his match today with an extremely well prepped Catholic interviewer. It'd be my assessment that he got taken to school more than a few times.
The interviewer was able to put some pointed questions to him which I think show some gaps in Jones' synopsis of issues with the Catholic Church right now. EMJ was solid as always, and what I respect most about him is that he loves the spirited debate and doesn't shy away from it, he respects it. It's an excellent back and forth, perhaps the best interview of EMJ I have seen in a while. Alot of TLM people talk about these issues, while I love EMJ on a political historical basis, he has always been able to gloss over certain topics. In EMJs' defense, there were a ton of other topics where the back and forth was just fantastic, they find agreement and explore issues.
(1) Errors of St. Pope John Paul II
The interviewer pushed EMJ into a corner in citing various forms of heresy and weakness shown by JP2.
- The interviewer asks EMJ about the effects of JP2 putting buddha on a tabernacle, EMJs' response "well its isolated", and the interviewer immediately pulls out another example of JP2 petitioned St. John the Baptist to protect Islam JP2 blesses islam
A friend of mine had a very good take:
(2) Catholic Monarchy in the USA
EMJ holds an opinion that Monarchy isn't suitable to the USA, that the ideal governance is some form of Constitutionalism run by the Catholic Church. In my Opinion EMJ held his ground pretty well here but the interviewers points were extremely prescient.
The interviewer makes the point that the king is a symbol of the father in the family, and that when the king was thrown out, every fathers' hands were tied. There is a good back and forth on this topic.
(3) New Mass vs. Latin Mass
EMJ maintains that the Latin Mass (?) or SSPX has a tendancy for schismatic belief. The interviewer does an excellent job questioning who is truly out of line in terms of dogma, teaching. There is an interesting back and forth between what EMJ describes as "poor teaching, poor catechisis" vs. the interviewers take that the teaching is subverted, or a result of Vatican 2.
(4) Vatican 2 Documents
They go into a couple of troublesome vatican 2 documents, should these documents be rescinded as having error? Should there be steps to actively clarify them? EMJ says they should sort of be left in the dust bin as we move forward and interpreted in light of historical teaching. To me the interviewers' arguments are very compelling
(5) Pope Francis heretical teaching
Amoris Laetitia is a document Pope Francis put out essentially saying that communion can be taken by common law couples / remarried couples. The Catholic Church has been very strict on this as dogma related to the 6th commandment throughout time. EMJ argues that it is vague, and this is true. But the interviewer counters that a Bishop in Argentina is now allowing this, and that Pope Francis told him he was interpreting it the only correct way. EMJ says it isn't his job to deem if the Pope is a heretic, but the counter argument goes straight to the Bible in that we are to "know them by their fruits"
(6) Opus Dei Funding
The interviewer flat out asks EMJ if he is funded by Opus Dei. This part was just fun. EMJ says no, but the interviewer says "well they are a secret society so..."
Would you like to elaborate on this (or perhaps somebody else has elsewhere) ?
That the Puritans were Judaizers... They saw themselves as eliminating the Judaizing of Rome on the Gospel.
It's long been a question of what obligation we have to follow the OT law.
Many things... For one, dismissing Calvin as a revolutionary who ran a police state in Geneva. The town council was the civil magistrate. He was the town pastor. The relationship was often uneasy and at one point he wanted to resign but was refused.
David Anders said:Calvin's first request to the city council was to impose a common confession of faith (written by him) and to force all citizens to affirm it.
Calvin’s most important contribution to Geneva was the establishment of the Consistory – a sort of ecclesiastical court- to judge the moral and theological purity of his parishioners. He also persuaded the council to enforce a set of “Ecclesiastical Ordinances” that defined the authority of the Church, stated the religious obligations of the laity, and imposed an official liturgy. Church attendance was mandatory. Contradicting the ministers was outlawed as blasphemy. Calvin’s Institutes would eventually be declared official doctrine.
Calvin’s lifelong goal was to gain the right to excommunicate “unworthy” Church members. The city council finally granted this power in 1555 when French immigration and local scandal tipped the electorate in his favor. Calvin wielded it frequently. According to historian William Monter, one in fifteen citizens was summoned before the Consistory between 1559 and 1569, and up to one in twenty five was actually excommunicated. Calvin used this power to enforce his single vision of Christianity and to punish dissent.
Calvin (...) a formidable intellect
David Anders said:Outside of Geneva, without the force of the state to impose one version, Calvinism itself splintered into factions. In her book "Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism", historian Janice Knight details how the process unfolded very early in American Calvinism.
Since the eighteenth century, Calvinism has devolved more and more into a narrow set of questions about the nature of salvation. Indeed, in most people’s minds the word Calvinism implies only the doctrine of predestination. Calvin himself has become mainly a shadowy symbol, a myth that Evangelicals call upon only to support a spurious claim to historical continuity.
It is literally one of the most embarrassing debates I have ever seen.