Post: #101

Speaking of coincidences, I just finished listening to a Fr. Ripperger clip on the levels of prayer and thought "I wonder if AB has posted anything new lately".

Neat.

Post: #102

EMJ mentions Roosh, delving into the notion of the logos of sex, based on his interview with Roosh, in this talk about the state of cultural degeneracy in Ireland and Germany with Irish blogger Grand Torino (a forum reader?):

https://youtu.be/bvdzKKMfn3Y?t=1463

Here is the entire interview:

Post: #103

Here is an interesting one. Jones vs. a Kabbalist.

I actually think the Kabbalist came out on top in this one, which I haven't seen yet from Jones, clearly being the loser.

This dude is a very tricky speaker, and he didn't so much beat Jones head to head as slip some ideas past Jones that Jones should have called him out on and instead let stand.

A casual listener would come away from this debate believing that the Kabbalist was more forward thinking, more reasonable, and more loving than Jones.

He would also come away from this debate believing that all religions are pure products of ego and must be done away with by following the Kabbalah which, of course, adepts like the speaker himself can teach you, teach you from their secret knowledge.

This guy was a very subtle rhetorician, and slipped his heresies in subtly while appearing to take the high road. Jones didn't seem to notice, or to tell him that Christianity wasn't just the product of the ego, or tell him that many Christians do in fact live out the Christian ideal. He just let a lot of gentle mudslinging slide by.

Interesting to hear what people think about this one.

I am not an expert on Kabbalah, but this guy seemed to be really good at obliquely using words to create exactly the impression he wanted and I kept waiting for Jones to unload on him or call him out and he never really did.

Post: #104

Jones struggles a little here precisely because he is Roman Catholic and is less adept at understanding how to deal with the smoother gnostic types (such as this) because his traditional is hard-line juridical (and thus in error).

Post: #105

The original interview is spliced in: