Feminism, Exorcism, Truthism – The Dialogue #57

49
247

First we talk about feminism in Britain and why it’s really “Womanism”. Then in the second half of the show, Tim and Cal square off, talking about medical professionals’ thoughts and diagnosis upon reviewing a real exorcism, presented by the director of the movie The Exorcist.

Subscribe

49 COMMENTS

  1. Thanks so much for doing The Dialogue Tim and Cal.  I’m 40 minutes in and agree completely…Cal just said, “…a sexist buffoon!” and made me almost choke with laughter!  Great work.  Please, keep it coming for we are living in odd times when these 2 women feel they have any ground to stand on–they are totally indoctrinated into the upside down thinking world.  Who gives these buffoons a microphone???  Thanks, again!

  2. Also, think about it this way Cal, somethings have purpose right? A hammer’s purpose is to hammer stuff, a fly swatters purpose is to swat stuff. A batteries purpose is to power something, and wires inside that something connect the other things, and that somethings (lets make it an alarm clock) purpose is to do something greater than that of the battery (to wake us up). These things can only be given purpose by something greater than they intrinsically, in this case us.
    So now think of this, If our eyes have a purpose (to see) and our ears and brains have purposes (to hear and think) then isnt it logical that the purpose of a human himself is greater than the purposes of our individual parts? And if this is true, then shouldnt there be a being greater than us that gave us that purpose?
    We live in a world of mindless atoms and chemistry and physics that has no intrinsic purpose. How did this purpose in the thing we call Life come about then? The theory of evolution implies that there is a directive in all life forms. This directive is to survive. In a barren chaotic world, does it seem plausible that this directive came from physical laws?
    Also Im going to have to disagree with Tim a little bit, because I think that Ultimately God’s purpose for us is to be with Him in heaven BUT He also has a temporal purpose for us. For example, some people were literally born to preach, to be great saints, mystics, prophets, etc. We each have our calling that is in accord with the graces and talents we are given as noted in the Bible. But God allows us to either chose His path or to misuse our talents.
    Thats my perception of it anyways. But thank you guys for doing this show. I really enjoyed it and was thrilled when I saw you talked about the article I posted on the Facebook site xD

  3. Milo is a social Darwinist that teaches homosexuals are genetically superior to heterosexuals as they supposedly have far higher IQ’s:
    https://youtu.be/M0505RbdG5k?t=3m50s
    https://realdoctorstu.com/2011/07/11/the-iq-myth-and-its-fascist-origins-just-how-intelligent-are-you/
    Milo is being “pimped” and (willingly) taken advantage of to promote perversity on the “right” side of politics. We don’t need a practicing homosexual to “teach” us about conservative Christian values and political conservatism. His success and celebrity has been carefully manufactured.

    I’m not saying we should dehumanise Milo. In fact I’ve written to him with love to reach out and offered some Catholic readings from the Catechism for him to cconsider and ponder and other articles. I am saying we shouldn’t be “promoting” Milo or his work which is being used to promote sexual perversity and social Darwinism.

  4. mat_y  But we are not even talking about either of those subjects and Milo was only featured on this show because he happened to be in that clip me and Tim were talking about. And he was only featured on the show for about 17 seconds. It’s worth noting as well that the little of what he said was spot on too. So I’m rather puzzled as to the reason why you left this comment and this video here. Care to shine some light for me? 🙂

  5. TheDRSophia So now think of this, If our eyes have a purpose (to see) and our ears and brains have purposes (to hear and think) then isnt it logical that the purpose of a human himself is greater than the purposes of our individual parts? And if this is true, then shouldnt there be a being greater than us that gave us that purpose?

    Sure there could be. I’m just not convinced that there is one. Nothing more to it than that. I look out at the universe and I just don’t see anything that convinces me that the same thing that inspired the bible (or any hold book for that matter) created the universe and even if I did one day come to believe in a divine creator, all the questions I have about how the universe came into existence still stand. So me believing in God doesn’t get me any closer to understanding the origins of our universe and leaves me still the same confused ape clinging to a rock flying through space trying to figure out what’s ging on lol 🙂

  6. CalKane mat_y 
    I’d be glad to Mr. Kane.
     Although Milo and Darwinism weren’t the central themes of this episode both topics were touched upon.

    I’ve been a regular on the show for a while and Milo is regularly referred to in The Dialogue in glowing and endearing terms. When the reality is, (the evidence is linked above), Milo is a raging homosexual who preaches homosexuals have superior genetics/IQ’s plus he’s a reckless sex addict. He couldn’t care less about std’s according to the above video. He also couldn’t care less who he influences to follow in his footsteps obviously.

    It’s all in the video above. You don’t need a second hand explanation from me. I’m happy to let Milo speak for himself.

    Yes, he is intelligent, charismatic and witty. Is he a healthy “voice” for conservatives or Christians (he publicly claims to be a Catholic)? The evidence and common sense say otherwise. 

    In this video Milo attempts to promote Christian values to moral relativist (hippy)hippy Joe Rogan and Rogan makes a mockery of him:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AHjsSdapI4

    That’s why I have charitably reached out to Milo. If he is sincere in this video he genuinely believes in Catholic values. In order to be effective promoting Catholic values he must first repent and heal through the Churches sacraments, etc. Once his life is in order only then can he be a true voice for Christ and the Faith.

    Christ is crystal clear in the Gospels:

    Matthew 6:22-24
    22 The light of thy body is thy eye. If thy eye be single, thy whole body shall be lightsome.
    23 But
    if thy eye be evil thy whole body shall be darksome. If then the light
    that is in thee, be darkness: the darkness itself how great shall it be!
    24 No
    man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love
    the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot
    serve God and mammon.
    That’s why Rogan was able to decimate him with ease. If Milo was actually living the Catholic Faith, Milo would’ve had upper hand and destroyed Rogan for his simpleton arguments.

    Milo is allowing himself to be exploited for fame and fortune like a crack whore. Those who promote his work are little better than the pimps who are promoting him to serve the homosexual agenda (on the right side of politics).

  7. mat_y CalKane  Correct me if me if I’m wrong but it seems like you’re saying that since Milo does things you consider to be sinful, the things he says that are correct and worth sharing around should be disregarded. So anyone with a differing lifestyle or point of you don’t like should not be listened to or spoke of, even if they are correct on certain points. Am I on the money or way off? 🙂

  8. CalKane mat_y When we promote a persons work we are promoting what they stand for by association, whether we like it or not. Let’s live in the real world here. An “integral” part of Milo’s “celebrity” is his shameless homosexual lifestyle. It’s not a side part of Milo’s work it’s a central part of it.

    Would you promote such a man to your children?
    The Dialogue can draw from the work of a whole litany of conservative/Christian thinkers. It doesn’t need to lower itself to the gutter and promote the work of Milo. Would you promote him to your children? I wouldn’t.

    That’s my 2 cents worth. Take it or leave it 🙂

  9. mat_y CalKane  Ok well let me put it to you this way. I disagree with what you say about Milo and homosexuality in general so since, like you said, When we promote a person’s work we are promoting what they stand for by association, whether we like it or not, I now have to disregard everything you say from this point onwards, even if it’s true, since you think homosexuality is a sin and I don’t believe in sin. In fact, I promote the dangerous ideas of atheism and abortion in certain circumstances so you shouldn’t listen to what I say either, otherwise you would be promoting what I stand for.

    Do you really think it would be a good idea if you or me just stopped listening to each other because we disagree on certain points?

  10. CalKane mat_y Now you’re playing mental gymnastics.

    You and I are having a “conversation” via a blog comments section. If you were to endorse me on The Dialogue (or even here to a lesser degree) that would be considered promoting me.
    I’ve got nothing against anyone talking to Milo. He’s a person and should be respected as such. It’s the promotion of him I question.

    I’ve shared my piece on this matter. If you want to promote the work of a homosexual supremacist (given his superior homosexual genes), that’s your call.

  11. CalKane TheDRSophia 
    2. What is this evidence for God’s existence, apart
    from the Bible?
    There are
    many indications, the chief of which I shall give you very briefly:
    The first is from causality.
    The universe, limited in all its details, could not be its own cause. It
    could no more come together with all its regulating laws than the San
    Francisco Harbor Bridge could just happen, or a clock could assemble
    itself and keep perfect time without a clock-maker. On the same principle,
    if there were no God, there would be no you to dispute His existence.A second indication is drawn
    from the universal reasoning, or if you wish, intuition of men. The
    universal judgment of mankind can no more be wrong on this vital point
    than the intuition of an infant that food must be conveyed to the mouth.
    The stamp of God’s handiwork is so clearly impressed upon creation, and,
    above all, upon man, that all nations instinctively believe that there is
    a God. The truth is in possession. Men do not have to persuade themselves
    that there is a God. They have to try to persuade themselves that there is
    no God. And no one yet, who has attained to such a temporary persuasion,
    has been able to find a valid reason for it. Men do not grow into the idea
    of a God; they endeavor to grow out of it.The sense of moral
    obligation confirms these reasons. In every man there is a sense of right
    and wrong. A man knows interiorly when he is doing wrong. Something
    rebukes his conduct. He knows that he is going against an inward voice. It
    is the voice of conscience, dictating to us a law we did not make, and
    which no man could have made, for this voice protests whether other men
    know our conduct or not. This voice is often quite against what we wish to
    do, warning us beforehand, condemning us after its violation. The law
    dictated by this voice of conscience supposes a lawgiver who has written
    his law in our hearts. And as God alone could do this, it is certain that
    He exists. Finally, justice demands
    that there be a God. The very sense of justice among men, resulting in
    law-courts, supposes a just God. We did not give ourselves our sense of
    justice. It comes from whoever made us, and no one can give what he does
    not possess himself. Yet justice cannot always be done by men in this
    world. Here the good often suffer, and the wicked prosper. And, even
    though human justice does not always succeed in balancing the scales, they
    will be balanced some day by a just God, who most certainly must exist.1. I am an atheist who wants his
    difficulties answered without being accused of moral depravity.
    I believe, in the ultimate analysis, with Pascal, that there are two classes
    of men, those who are afraid to find God, and those who are afraid to lose God.
    But, to spare you, I will admit that your fear that there might be a God may be
    perhaps unconscious. Of those who say that they are atheists some are merely
    unintelligent and do not think; others do think, but merely reject false ideas
    of God, without knowing how to replace them with the right idea. Since you are
    not unintelligent I rank you amongst the latter class. Will I accuse you of
    being morally evil? Of course, I maintain that atheism cannot exist without sin
    of some kind. If you do not deny God in order to be free from moral restraints,
    I would have to accuse you at least of a guilty neglect to examine the question
    as you should. That God exists is certain for everyone with a right conscience.
    6. Unlike intrinsic evidence, extrinsic
    evidence is not conclusive.
    Extrinsic evidence is certainly conclusive. I have no intrinsic evidence
    that Napoleon ever lived. I have the extrinsic evidence of a multitude of
    documents, and I am historically certain that he did live. Again, if I see the
    last car of a train disappearing into a tunnel, I have only extrinsic evidence
    of the existence of an engine at the other end of the train. Meantime, it is
    intrinsically evident that a thing which does not contain the ultimate reason
    of its existence within itself, has that ultimate reason in an outside being.
    That principle is self-evident, and cannot be refuted. On that principle, a
    being which obviously is not self-caused is evidence of a cause outside itself,
    and gives sound and certain knowledge of the fact.
    7. The variety of philosophies now extant
    shows that your conclusion as to the existence of God is not beyond all
    argument.
    That is true, but it is not to the point. I maintain that the conclusion is
    beyond all valid and reasonable argument, a very different thing. There is not
    a single argument against the existence of God which cannot be proved
    fallacious.
    3. How do we know that it is not in the
    nature of things themselves to act in an orderly way, according to a plan?
    We know that it is not in the nature of created things of themselves to act
    in an orderly way according to a plan, for if they are working towards the
    fulfillment of a plan, there is a constant adaption of means to an end, which
    supposes an intelligence which has both formulated the plan, and perceived the
    fitting relationship between given means and the given end to be attained. Now
    blind matter is not endowed with intelligence. Nor can mere chance produce
    order. Scatter indiscriminately over the ground thousands of letters written on
    slips of paper, they will never by mere chance fall together in such a way as
    to make, say, an oration of Cicero. Now the only intelligent beings in the
    world are men. But prior to the advent of men to this world, order prevailed.
    It can be accounted for only by an extra-mundane Intelligence. As surely as it
    needs intelligence to understand the order prevailing in the universe, it
    needed intelligence to produce it. Employing all the resources of his
    intelligence, a genius may devote the whole of his life to a study of the
    orderly arrangement of crystals. Will he ascribe the whole of the universe to
    an intelligence so much less than his own that he calls it a blind force? The
    moment one speaks of the laws of the universe, he speaks of a legislator. And
    all legislation supposes intelligence, even though human legislation indicates
    often enough how badly employed human intelligence can be. If it be in the very
    nature of certain things to tend in an orderly way towards the realization of a
    plan, that tendency was implanted in their nature by the Supreme Intelligence
    responsible for the plan; and that Supreme Intelligence is God. Source: http://www.radioreplies.info/

  12. mat_y CalKane  No I’m not I’m using your own reasoning against you and I think you can that it’s not very useful.

  13. CalKane mat_y You failed to establish your point and I made your argument mute. Promoting a person and conversing with them (or listening to them) is not the same thing.
    You claim to be concerned about “moral relativism” all the while claiming “I don’t believe in sin.”

    It really does take a special kind of faulty logic to be an atheist.

  14. CalKane 

    Here would be Aristotle’s argument on the way we can know purpose exists then XD

    Ultimately it relates if there can be a wrong way of functioning, then there must also be a right way of functioning, and the ultimate right way of functioning must be out purpose. Similar arguments are constructed from this idea of error, to suggest that if there is that which is wrong, then there must also be that which is right. And ultimately, there must be something that can judge with authority that which is wrong or right. 

    Dwell on the idea that if there is wrong, then there must be right. Munch it over a little bit.

    But anyways, I’d like to thank you two again for all you do ^^

    Source: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~korsgaar/AristotleFunction.pdf

    The person who minutely observes the structural arrangements of a thing but does not know what it does could not be said to know or understand the thing. But neither can purpose by itself be the object of knowledge in any very strong sense of ‘‘knowledge.’’ All of us know, for example, what the heart is for, and to this extent we know what it is, but this does not make us all cardiologists. But someone who knows what the heart is for, and its structural arrangements, and how those arrangements enable it to do what it does can truly be said to understand it. Or take an artifact. Aristotle says that the art of building is the form of a house. But knowing the purpose of a house does not make one an architect. The architect knows both the structure and the purpose, and how the structure makes the purpose possible: they understand the construction of the house functionally. They know, for instance, not just that the bricks and timbers are arranged thus and so; and that the house must withstand the winter storms; but how this arrangement of bricks and timbers enables the house to withstand the winter storms. So, function in the sense of ‘‘how a thing does what it does,’’ of structure as tending to purpose, is from the point of view of knowledge the best candidate for form. This account also allows for varying structures in the same kind of object, since various structural arrangements could tend to the same end, and the expert would know how each does so. The accomplished architect knows how the construction of both teepees and castles enables them to withstand the winter storms.
    In Aristotle’s text, the notions of shape, recipe, purpose, and functional construction all seem to be candidates for form. Different ones work better in different cases. The bronze sphere and cube do not exactly have any purpose, so the shape seems to suit them. Recipe suits things whose contours are not so much of the essence as the ratio of their mixture. The form of a simple tool is virtually identical to its purpose. More complex things seem to be best characterized by their functional construction. As it turns out, there are other candidates as well. In Metaphysics 8, Aristotle undertakes to show that items from almost any of the categories can serve as the form of a thing.
    But evidently there are many differences; for instance, some things are characterized by the mode of composition of their matter, e.g. the things formed by mixture, such as honey-water; and others by being bound together, e.g. a bundle; and others by being glued together, e.g. a book; and others by being nailed together, e.g. a casket; and others in more than one of these ways; and others by position, e.g. threshold and lintel (for these differ by being placed in a certain way); and others by time, e.g. dinner and breakfast; and others by place, e.g. the winds; and others by the affections proper to sensible things. (M 8.2 1042b)

    These accounts differ, but without too much strain all of them can be understood in terms of functional construction. In each case the matter is organized or constructed (or simply placed, or mixed) in a certain way; this organization or construction enables the thing to do what it does; to understand how the construction makes the thing capable of doing whatever it does is to have knowledge of the thing, and this knowledge is a grasp of its form. Usually the construction is an internal one, but as the cases of the lintel and the winds show, this need not be so. But in each case the form of a thing can be understood as its functional construction, and so as how it does what it does.

  15. CalKane
    4. The Human Function
    With that in view, let us return to the objections to the function argument. First of all, does the claim that a human being has a function amount to, or imply, the claim that a human being has a purpose? And if so does it depend upon an unacceptable teleological metaphysics?
    Arguably, anything that does anything has a function in the sense of a ‘‘how it does what it does.’’ It doesn’t matter how or why the thing came into existence, or whether it was made for a purpose. Suppose, for instance, I construct a little mechanical device which, when set on a table, hops around in a circle. Perhaps it has no purpose — that is, perhaps there is no reason anyone would want something that does this, I don’t want it, I was not trying to make something that did this, but something else, or I was just fiddling around, and I made this thing by accident, and it is not even good for a toy, since it is not especially amusing. Nevertheless, there is something that this device does and a mechanically-minded person could tell you how it does it: she could tell you, in this sense, what its function is. And this would be the person who understands it, and so knows best what it is. 
    Of course, there are limits to the intelligibility of assigning functions to things without purposes. If what the thing does is not a purpose, we may not know exactly when to say that the thing has broken down. Perhaps my device sometimes misses a step. Has it malfunctioned? Is it clumsily tripping or happily skipping? There is nothing to say. But according to Aristotle, a living thing does have a definite purpose, in the sense of a ‘‘what it does.’’ That purpose is to keep its own form, its own manner of functioning, in existence. It does this in two ways: first, through the continuous self-rebuilding activities of nutrition, which maintain its form in a spacio-temporally continuous stream of matter, and, second, through reproduction, by which it imposes its form on individually distinct entities. This is not a controversial metaphysical thesis about what living things are for, but rather a definition of ‘‘living.’’ If a thing has a form that is self-maintaining in these basic ways, then it counts as ‘‘living.’’ So far as this goes, there is nothing objectionable about Aristotle’s teleology. The appropriateness of teleological explanations need not have anything to do with claims about how or why the object whose parts and activities we seek to explain came into existence. Teleological explanations may be appropriate to an object simply because it has a self-maintaining form. We seek such explanations when we ask what contribution its arrangements or parts make to its self-maintenance. That is why Aristotle says that teleological or final cause explanations in nature tell us that something is better ‘‘not without qualification, but with reference to the substance in each case’’ (PHY 2.198b). Suppose a lion pursues an antelope, catches it, and eats it. We can give a teleological explanation of why the lion gives chase, kills, and eats—that is, of how these activities contribute to a lion’s self-maintenance, and are better for the lion. And similarly we can give a teleological explanation of why the antelope attempts to escape. We cannot give a teleological explanation of why the lion succeeds in this case, nor could we if she failed. Aristotle’s is not the complete teleology of Leibnizian optimism, or at least we need not understand it in that way. Anything capable of maintaining itself has a way that it does that. Consequently, any living thing has a function.

  16. CalKane 
    So when Aristotle says that the function of a human being is the activity of the rational part of the soul, he does not mean simply that reasoning is the purpose of a human being. Nor does he mean merely that it is a characteristic activity of human beings, if we understand that to mean only that it is an activity which, as it happens, picks out the species uniquely. He means rather that rational activity is how we human beings do what we do, and in particular, how we lead our specific form of life. 
    This brings us to the list from which Aristotle selects our function—the list of the three kinds of life. I have already suggested that the ‘‘purpose’’ of an animate being is to maintain itself—to live—and its function is how it lives. But there is not just one kind of thing that lives and maintains itself. Quite differently constructed things live, all of the different kinds of plants and 
    animals. Each of these has its own form, which is to say its own specific manner of maintaining itself. But though in one sense each species of living thing has its own manner of living, living things can be divided into larger groups which ‘‘live’’ in different senses. In On the Soul, Aristotle asserts that there are three forms of life, corresponding to what he sometimes calls three ‘‘parts’’ of the soul (OS 2.2). At the bottom is a life of basic self-maintenance, a vegetative life of nutrition and reproduction, common to all plants and animals. Animals are distinguished from plants in being alive in a further sense, given by a complex of powers related to the possibility of perception and action (or at least self-guided locomotion)—perception, sensation, locomotion, appetite, and imagination. The third form of life is that distinctive of human beings—the life of reason, and in particular, as I will argue, the life of rational choice. Each ‘‘part’’ of the soul, and each corresponding form of life, supervenes on the one below it. The addition of each new part of the soul changes the sense in which the thing is said to be alive or to have a life, both by influencing the way the ‘‘lower’’ functions are carried out and by adding new kinds of activities. Because it has the complex of powers that make perception and action possible, an animal lives or has a life in a sense that a plant does not. An animal is conscious; it does things; it pursues what it desires and flees what it fears; in some cases it builds a home and raises a family; if it is a ‘‘higher’’ animal it may even know how to love and to play. But these are not just powers added, so to speak, on top of the animal’s nutritive and reproductive life: they also change the way the animal carries out the tasks of nutrition and reproduction. The animal’s capacity for perception and action determines the way it gets its food and ensures the existence of its offspring. But these capacities also lead the animal to engage in activities not possible for a plant, like love and play. These things make the ‘‘life’’ of an animal a different sort of thing from the ‘‘life’’ of a plant. And a human being in turn lives, or has a life, in a sense in which a non-human animal does not. For a non-human animal’s life is mapped out for it by its instincts; and any two members of a given species basically live the same sort of life (unless the differences are biologically fixed, as by age and gender, or by kinds as among bees). A human being has a life in a different sense from this, for a human being has, and is capable of choosing, what we sometimes call a ‘‘way of life’’ or, following John Rawls, a ‘‘conception of the good.’’15 Where her way of life is not completely fixed by some sort of cultural regulation—and the Eudemian Ethics quite explicitly addresses itself to those who get to choose—a human being decides such things as how to earn her living, how to spend her afternoons, who to have for friends and how to treat them, which fields of knowledge, arts, causes, sports, and other activities she will pursue, and, in general, how she will live and what she will live for. And again, we find a double result. The power of choice changes the way we carry out the activities we share with the other animals, such as housebuilding, childrearing, hunting or collecting food, playing, and sexual activity. Human beings approach these activities creatively and develop various ways of going about them among which we then choose. But we also do things the other animals don’t do at all, like tell jokes and paint pictures and engage in scientific research and philosophy. So rational choice introduces a whole new sense of life, a new sense in which a person can be said to ‘‘have a life.’’ And—importantly—it is life in this sense that we primarily have in mind when we say of someone that he lived well or badly—whether he was eudaimon or not. So this is the sense of ‘‘life’’ relevant to the function argument. Reason is the function of a human being, because it is how we do what we do, which is to lead a specifically human form of life. We are now in a position to see not only why it makes sense to speak of human beings as having a function, but also why that function turns out to be rational activity. It is because eudaimonia is goodness of life that Aristotle’s candidates for the human function are the three functional complexes of the soul associated with the three senses of ‘‘life’’. And it is because eudaimonia is not something that the other animals achieve or fail to achieve that Aristotle looks for that sense of ‘‘life’’ which distinguishes us from the other animals . Aristotle looks for what is unique or peculiar to us not because he values uniqueness for its own sake but because he already supposes that this particular kind of ‘‘goodness of life’’ is distinctive of human beings. If there were other beings capable of rational choice, this would not undermine Aristotle’s argument, for they too would lead the kind of life that can be eudaimon or not. And in response to Nagel’s question—why only one of the three kinds of life should be identified as our function—I think Aristotle could say that reason is the function relevant to eudaimonia because of the way that it transforms our manner of performing those activities and tasks that we share with plants and the other animals.

  17. CalKane realtimhaines Also, sorry guys for all the comments XD I can only hope it’s good for the ratings ^^

  18. Cal/Tim,
    You certainly have diverse topics in listening to the Maths doctors comments essentially I’m looking for a biased level playing field now if that’s not a contradiction I don’t know what is.
    Tim I saw an interview with an American exorcist Fr Chad Ripperger who tells you that the workload of exorcist has increased due to factors including a rise of the occult new age psychology practice.
    Cal if you get the chance to see an old movie called “the song of Bernadette ” there is a line that says “for those who believe no explanation is necessary for those who don’t believe no explanation is possible ” it tells the story of Lourdes France its watchable though a bit Hollywood
    Keep up the good work

  19. mat_y CalKane Actually I have criticized Milo more than once on Vericast and I did a show on what I call “new conservatism”, telling people to be careful of these new spins on conservative characters.  But when we mention him here on The Dialogue, it’s in reference to what he says that we happen to agree with.  The context is not “Milo is a superstar of the conservative cause” but that “Milo is talking sense here, on this topic”.  We’re not promoting his work, we’re talking about what he’s said in very specific contexts, on very specific topics.
    I do appreciate what you’re saying, because I have a very similar mindset to yours. There are folks I won’t mention at all, because I don’t want to help give them any publicity, because I consider them to be that dangerous.  So I understand what you’re saying.  But to be fair you’ve done more to promote him than we have. You’ve posted two videos that feature him, here on a Catholic website.  In addition to that, you’ve promoted two atheists’ shows here on a Catholic website.  Were you trying to promote them? Of course you weren’t. There was a very specific reason for your posting those videos.  And there are very specific reasons why we talk about Milo.  When we mention Milo it’s more that we’re talking against someone else.  In this case, we aren’t patting Milo on the back so much as we are calling out the nonsense of the host of the show he was interviewed on.  Aquinas wasn’t endorsing the moral vices of Greek philosophers when he quoted them or referred to his work. In fact it was Aquinas who said that ‘the truth, is the truth, no matter who speaks it’ (paraphrasing).   
    That having been said, I have sincere appreciation for your concerns and I’ll take them into serious consideration.  It’s important for me to remember that not everybody watches every episode of ever show that we do here, and there may be people who have never heard me criticize Milo (and others), or warn about taking some of what he says with a grain of salt.  Thanks for the comments my friend. God be with you.

  20. JediMasterTim mat_y CalKane Hi Cal,
    Thanks for taking the time to ponder this. Your thoughtful, reasoned and intelligent response indicates that you are sincere in your concerns. You are also correct in that I haven’t seen an episode where you or Tim criticise Milo for his radical views and lifestyle choices in areas. You personally might not see homosexual unions as sinful/disordered. But I’m absolutely certain if you had a son who lived life binging on drugs and sex and glorifying it like Milo does, you’d be distraught for his welfare and well being.

    My feedback via this comments section isn’t promoting Milo. It’s critiquing him. Continually referencing Milo’s work in endearing terms and using his videos to support your arguments is promoting him whether you like it or not. The videos shared were solely shared to support this critique from the primary source himself.

    Good day and God Bless.

  21. mat_y JediMasterTim CalKane Hi again.  Once again, I do appreciate what you’re saying.  But just as you didn’t intend to promote Joe Rogan or Dave Rubin, we are not trying to promote Milo. Milo, the man, is incidental. It’s “Milo the guest on a news segment” that we focus on.  In this episode we aren’t praising Milo, we’re criticizing the feminists.   What are we actually accomplishing here; are we validating Milo, or invalidating the feminists?  Are we doing the latter more than the former? Are we doing the former, despite the latter?  I don’t know….I think the focus is on the invalidation of the feminist, not the perceived validation of Milo. That’s just how I see it. Maybe I’m wrong.  I don’t have the audience’s perspective; you do. So I’ll consider that.
    Bottom line: I hear you. I’m not tossing away what you’re saying. I’m listening, and will absolutely consider what you’re saying.  I’m only offering the other side of the argument.

  22. JediMasterTim mat_y CalKane Tim, I might not watch every single episode. I have seen at least a dozen episodes of The Dialogue or more, and it seems in almost every episode Milo is spoken about endearingly albeit briefly.
    This episode you went as far as showing a segment of his work.
    You, like Cal before you, are playing mental gymnastics. I don’t want to talk about Milo, Rogan or anyone of their ilk. You continue to promote Milo so I felt a need to address what I believe to be a lapse in judgement on your part. In order to address this lapse in judgement I had to show you firsthand what Milo stands for and did. I called Rogan a “moral relativist hippy” in doing so. That’s not exactly an endorsement.

    It might help if I illustrate my point with a personal example. 7-8 years ago I began regularly listening to the Alex Jones Show (nowadays I rarely listen to it). I admired Jones’ candor, sincerity and unique perspective because I was so sick of political correctness and “polished feminised” men by that stage. 
    Jones opened my eyes up in ways they were previously closed. During this 3-4 period of listening to Jones regularly he would have regular guests and also make references to Christianity and the Bible from time to time. As a listener of Jones those he endorsed by regularly interviewing them (e.g. Lord Monckton) or talking about their work admirably (e.g. The Drudge Report) I felt were given credibility by his endorsements. I would then investigate their work when I had the extra time. If it wasn’t for Jones continually speaking about Christ and the Bible offhand on occasion, I might never have found my way to the Catholic Church and Faith.
    I rarely listen to Jones now, if ever. He was a stepping stone to Christ and the Catholic Faith. I’ve matured past Jones’ present paradigm all glory be to God for bringing me to the Truth i.e. Catholic Church/Faith.

    The point being when we choose to listen to a particular person or program, we are placing a certain amount of trust in that person/s. We listen to them because we respect and appreciate what they have to say. We are influenced by their perspectives and influences. By continually referencing Milo you are inadvertently encouraging your audience to explore his work, when Milo is obviously a plant being used to push the homosexual (LGBTQ) agenda (on the right side, it’s already conquered leftist politics). The so called attacks against Milo by twitter or Facebook I paid back 100 fold from the time and attention Brietbart and people like yourself give him. The right is saturated with Milo promotion, that includes Alex Jones.

    Again, the last person I want to talk about is Milo, Rogan, or any person who promotes degeneracy for a living. I’m hoping that by addressing this lapse in judgement with you now your audience will be spared the distaste of hearing about Milo on your show in the future (unless he repents and truly comes to the Faith, what a monumental story and testimony that would make).

    I respect you and Cal. That’s why I listen to the show. This is all I wish to say abouth this. I’ve made my points.

    Thanks for your time and consideration.

  23. JediMasterTim mat_y CalKane Tim, on second thought I do have one final thought to add. The gender bending LGBTQ agenda (and its ever growing list of disorders) needs to be taken deadly serious by us Catholics who know better. Psychology textbooks once deemed homosexuality a mental illness to give the field credibility within Christian nations. Today the textbooks deem it “healthy and normal.” This is an example of where our formerly Christian cultures and nations are presently heading:
    http://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/im_a_pedophile_youre_the_monsters_my_week_inside_the_vile_right_wing_hate_machine/ 
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html

    Perversity has become the standard norm on both the left and right of mainstream politics today. It’s so deeply ingrained in our culture Catholics and Christians in general have largely become desensitised to it.

    When we remove natural law and God (the source/author of natural and divine law) from the equation literally “anything goes” because we no longer have an objective and universal measure for human ethics. Moral anarchy required a totalitarian communist (Marxists) or fascist government (Nazis) then to maintain order. Whereas Catholic nations are largely self-governed.

    Outside of natural law truth is “relative.” That’s why I raised Milo’s promotion of social Darwinism as an issue. Those who accept Darwin as their Messiah and his Origin of Species theory, as the Bible, like Cal, have replaced natural law with “moral relativism.” Now everything is the result of evolution, such as artificial birth control. There is no longer a universal and objective standard. The sex crazed culture this has caused by systematically separating sex from procreation and how its devastating the traditional family is irrelevant to them. Now man through the accumulated knowledge of his ancestors has artificially usurped his organic God given nature by abusing accumulated knowledge “evolution.” When the reality is our nature hasn’t changed in the slightest. The law of procreation stands as it always has.

    Atheists claim “logic, reason, and evidence” is their standard measure on one hand and then reject the law of procreation on the other. It’s absurd. You are a healthy influence on Cal but please don’t let it come at the expense of him being an unhealthy influence on you.

    Catholics have become far too relaxed about these matters. One of the greatest tools Satan uses to disarm us and put our defenses down is comedy. Men like Milo who make a joke about the radical homosexual lifestyle and promote homosexual supremacy are a cancer upon our society and culture at large.

    I trust you have now come to your senses and don’t mean to come across demeaning towards you (or Cal). Your service to Christ and your audience is priceless and underappreciated. I listen to your show because 98% of the time your sharp and on point. The truth isn’t always nice though Tim. Sometimes we just have to call a spade a spade.

    The last word is yours if you’d like it. In any case I trust you’ll make the right decision on this matter and be more discerning in the future.

    God Bless

  24. mat_y JediMasterTim CalKane It’s not mental gymnastics.  I’m starting to feel like what you’re doing is mental gymnastics.  Catholics (and others) sometimes think that because doctrine is on our side, we can do whatever we like, say what we like, and act as we like, as long as we’re pressing doctrine against a person.  Even Jesus never did that.  Jesus focused on what was good/true in the person in order to bring them closer to a Truth.  The only ones he rebuked with any hostility were the self-righteous Sanhedrin and elders (I’m not calling you self-righteous).
    Doctrine being on our side does not give us license to treat persons as though they are diseases (even if their sins are). 
    If Alex Jones was your stepping stone to Catholicism, I’d like to encourage you to re-approach the faith from the perspective of Our Lord, not from the mindset-perspective of Alex Jones and the like.  When folks come into the Church (or come back to the Church) with a political-fundamentalit mindset, it translates to an imbalanced approach to Catholicism.  I know you said you’ve grown past Jones’ present paradigm, but I offer this with all honesty, respect, and charity—the way you’re applying Catholicism in  your argument sounds like how Alex Jones presses an argument.  The answer to rigidity is not laxity, mind you; but the answer to laxity is also not rigidity. The faith is more organic than that.  The faith is not only about adherence to doctrine. Doctrine is the mandatory guide, to be sure.  But the faith isn’t just about the doctrine, it’s about how we interface with reality—with God, with creation, with the opposite sex, with sinners, with each other, and in this case more specifically how we interface and interact with the human order.  That is the model of Jesus.  

    This was not a lapse in judgement on my part, this is a difference of philosophy.  It’s a bit proud of you to just assume I’m the one who’s wrong. I have not been so bold with you.  I am humbly and honestly considering your point of view.  I hope you will give me the same respect.  I feel like you’re acting as if we endorsed Milo’s sin.  We’re not. Neither are you endorsing a “married” gay atheist when you posted a video of the Rubin Report. 
    Incidentally it’s on Vericast where I’ve criticized Milo and other new conservatives (Including Alex Jones). I’m not sure we’ve covered any of that on The Dialogue.

    God keep you, my friend.

  25. JediMasterTim mat_y CalKane 
    Hi Tim,
    A brief clarification is in order. It seems I failed to
    properly convey the criticism. I never said I’m against you listening to Milo
    in your private time. I’m not against you having homosexual friends. Those with
    a homosexual attraction are people. They need us to be a light, a possible
    stepping stone, to Christ for them. I said that I am against your frequent promotion
    of Milo because of the LGBTQ agenda he is being used to push.
    Think of it this way, “fame” is a drug to Milo, and
    according to his own words, it’s thanks to his shameless homosexual lifestyle
    that he is privileged and famous. By jumping in the Milo bandwagon, you’ve
    effectively joined the chorus of “fans” who are feeding his fame and therefore
    his addiction. I’ll be honest. I’m deeply concerned for Milo’s welfare. I don’t
    hate him. I just don’t believe in giving crack to a crack head. Fame is Milo’s
    crack.
    I’m intimately aware of what the Catechism and Bible teaches
    in this area. The Catechism:
    Chastity and homosexuality

    Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience
    an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.
    It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different
    cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself
    on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141
    tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically
    disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They
    close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine
    affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be
    approved.
    2358 The number of men and women who have
    deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is
    objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be
    accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust
    discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to
    fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the
    sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their
    condition.

    Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that
    teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship,
    by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely
    approach Christian perfection.
    The catechetical
    tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”:
    the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the
    cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner,
    the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143
    One example of Sacred Scripture:
    Luke 17:32
    32 Remember Lot’s wife.
    Read (short):
    http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1347958?eng=y
    Psalm 13:1
    13 Unto the end, a psalm for David. The fool hath said in his heart:
    There is no God, They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways:
    there is none that doth good, no not one.
    Cal, an atheist is the product of a broken family.
    Statistically speaking children from broken families rarely if ever recover
    from the trauma. Despite Cal’s claims, being men, (we have a tendency to bury
    our emotions to the point where we don’t recognise them), his hatred of God is
    likely related to this trauma.
    His love of the disorder of homosexuality indicated his
    hatred toward God. Pay special attention to the Scripture I underlined at the
    end:
    Romans 1:-22-34

    22 For
    professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
    23 And
    they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image
    of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping
    things.
    24 Wherefore
    God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour
    their own bodies among themselves.
    25 Who
    changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature
    rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
    26 For
    this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have
    changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
    27 And,
    in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned
    in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy,
    and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
    28 And as
    they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a
    reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;
    29 Being
    filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of
    envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
    30 Detractors,
    hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things,
    disobedient to parents,
    31 Foolish,
    dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
    32 Who,
    having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such
    things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also
    that consent to them that do them.
    You are playing with fire here Tim without seeing or knowing
    the gravity of the situation. (I love Cal and have enjoyed watching his maturing on your show. Tim, Cal, please don’t take this analysis the wrong way. I believe God has His hand on you Cal and one day you’ll come around. That’s why you found your way here. I’m sorry for the trauma you suffered as a child even if you haven’t fully comprehended its impact on you yet).

    God bless you and keep you both my friends.

  26. mat_y JediMasterTim CalKane 
    P.S. I repeat, the one and only reason I shared those videos was to show you firsthand what Milo promotes (because you keep promoting him). That was it. The subject was homosexuality so naturally the video is going to feature homosexuals e.g. Ruben. Homosexuality was the topic.
    To compare this to showing a Milo video ((a form of promotion, as you continue to promote him most weeks), to expose “secular feminism” is a weak argument at best. Are you honestly saying Milo’s work is that indispensable you had no other alternative but to promote his work/celebrity?
    That’s a rhetorical question because we both know the answer. You’re usually above playing mental gymnastics.

    Don’t get me wrong, Alex Jones eventually was a stepping stone to the Catholic Faith. But he led me down a lot of bottomless rabbit holes too e.g. David Icke. Your audience can and will dig into the work of the people you promote.

    Good Day and God Bless

  27. mat_y JediMasterTim CalKane 
    P.S. 2: I will close my part in this discussion irrespective of any further contributions you might add with one final thought. 
    According to your logic you might as well start selling tickets to Milo’s “Dangerous Faggot” tour on your show as an extra revenue stream. You agree with “most” of what he says after all and it’s irrelevant to you that he’s an icon/leader for the militant homosexual (LGBTQ) agenda/movement. 
    On that note, if you were paying attention Ruben was quick to challenge Milo on his promiscuous lifestyle choices solely due to the risk of std’s not for any ethical reasons. Ruben was perfectly fine with Milo’s position that homosexuals have superior genetics to the rest of the population thanks to their so called homosexual gene.

    I understand Cal’s ignorance on this. Atheism requires one to be a professional mental gymnast in the arts of irrationality. I do not understand yours. I am hopeful you’ll eventually come around if you take the time to properly examine the sources and references shared.

    Good Day and Gob Bless.

  28. mat_y JediMasterTim CalKane ” I understand Cal’s ignorance on this. Atheism requires one to be a professional mental gymnast in the arts of irrationality”

    If you would like to continue our conversation I’m happy to do that but can you please not make underhand comments about me whilst you’re talking to other people? I see no reason why anyone has to start being unpleasant 🙂

  29. CalKane mat_y JediMasterTim 
    In future, I can do that for you Cal in respect to your wishes. I’ve said all I wish to say on this particular matter. This is a public forum and there is nothing stopping you from responding to any offhanded remark I’ve made.

    God Bless

  30. mat_y CalKane JediMasterTim  If you’ve said all you want to say then so have I. Thanks for engaging in this back and forth man this is the whole point in me and Tim doing the shwo 🙂

  31. CalKane mat_y JediMasterTim 
    Thanks. I do love you Cal and appreciate the fact you and Tim welcome and engage in straight talk with your fans.

    Peace Out

  32. mat_y JediMasterTim CalKane Hi. First, to be clear, I don’t listen to Milo in my private time. I’ve seen a couple of fort clips from talks or arguments that featured him, and that’s it.  I’ve seen enough of him though to know what I like, and don’t like about him, his style, his choices, his reasoning.  I just wanted to offer that backdrop for clarity.
    I know you weren’t sharing those videos to promote the people in it, or to promote the shows themselves.  I wasn’t really saying that you were.  I was making a point.  You shared those videos to give a context and to convey or support a point. What I’m saying is that is why we featured that Milo/Feminist panel video on this episode.  To give context and to support a point.  We were no more featuring Milo than you were featuring Rubin.  My earlier point was that if we apply and adhere to your logic/reasoning, then as a rule we’d have to say that you are promoting the shows/talents in those videos that you shared.  But I don’t believe that you were.  And clearly you know that you weren’t promoting them, and yet you do not apply the same fairness of reasoning to us as you apply to yourself, because you conclude that we were promoting Milo when our motive and context were identical to yours when you shared your videos.
    “…The subject was homosexuality so naturally the video is going to feature homosexuals” — And for us, the topic was the irrational nature of feminism, demonstrated in an environment of rhetorical conflict.  So naturally we’re going to show a video where Milo—a staunch, vocal, and prolific anti-feminist—is a component in this rhetorical conflict.
    “Are you honestly saying Milo’s work is that indispensable you had no other alternative but to promote his work/celebrity?”
    What I am saying is that I reject your narrative.  You keep calling this “promotion” of Milo. Despite my explaining a few times that it is not, you keep basing your argument on idea that it is.  You’re asking me to respond to, and to defend and justify my position in a false narrative.  But I can’t argue with you about a fallacy, I can only argue the facts of the matter.  The facts of the matter is this was not a promotion of Milo, that’s just how you see it.  
    The audience can and will dig into the work of people we talk about, whether or not we’re actually promoting them.  And the audience can decide for themselves.  
    Regarding, “According to your logic you might as well start selling tickets to Milo’s ‘Dangerous Faggot’ tour on your show”.  Well you’ve proven my point again here.  Do you think the audience knew there was a “Dangerous Faggot” tour before you “promoted” it in your comment?  And yet I would not say that you are actually promoting the tour. There is reason, context, and purpose to your mentioning it.  And there was reason, context, and purpose behind our use of that interview segment.  
    I don’t “agree with most of what he says”. I think modern conservatives have a lot of correct conclusions, but their reasoning is half-baked most times.  So their correct conclusions are 70% reasoned, and 30% luck.  Also, I wouldn’t say he’s an icon/leader for the militant homosexual agenda, since from what I understand most of them hate him.
    God be with you my friend

  33. 34 comments!  Wowsa!
    Yesterday was the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.  My son sent a reminder of this scientifically quite solid miraculous sign given to St. Juan Diego and his Bishop.  I’m certain Tim is totally aware of these details, but Cal may not be.  This info came from Mountain Catholic and Crux.
    On December 12 of each year, the Catholic Church celebrates the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, marking the day when, in 1531, the Blessed Mother appeared in Mexico to a 57-year old peasant named Juan Diego. According to the earliest reliable account of the story, Juan Diego was walking near what is now Mexico City (Tepeyac Hill) when he came upon an apparition of a “Maiden” who he soon came to recognize as the Virgin Mary. In trying to convince the archbishop of what he had seen, Juan Diego eventually was asked for a sign to prove what he had seen.
    Upon returning to Mary and sharing this with her, Juan Diego was instructed to climb to the top of the hill to gather flowers to bring back to the bishop. Reaching the crest of the hill, Juan Diego found Castilian roses, which were neither in season nor native to the region. The Blessed Mother arranged the flowers herself in Juan’s tilma (a burlap-type cloak) and instructed him to open the cloak only upon return to the bishop.
    When Juan Diego arrived back at the bishop’s residence and opened his cloak, the flowers fell to the floor and left on the surface of the tilma was the image that’s come to be known as “Our Lady of Guadalupe”.
    What happened next is history. The image became the wellspring of a conversion movement the likes of which have rarely been seen before or since. The fact that the Virgin Mother not only spoke to Juan Diego in his native language, but appeared to be wearing the dress of an Aztec princess sparked millions of conversions to the Catholic faith in just under seven years. The shrine that was subsequently built on the spot, where the original tilma can still be seen, remains one of the most popular pilgrimage sites in the world.

  34. I. The Inexplicable Quality of the Icon

    Experts in infrared photography, studying the tilma in the late 1970s, determined that there were no brush strokes, as if the image was slapped onto the surface all at once.
    Phillip Callahan, a biophysicist at the University of Florida, discovered that the differences in texture and coloration that cause cause Our Lady’s skin to look different up close and far away is impossible to recreate:
    “Such a technique would be an impossible accomplishment in human hands. It often occurs in nature, however, in the coloring of bird feathers and butterfly scales, and on the elytra of brightly colored beetles … By slowly backing away from the painting, to a distance where the pigment and surface sculpturing blend together, the overwhelming beauty of the olive-colored Madonna emerges as if by magic.”

    This, along with an iridescent quality of slightly changing colors depending on the angle at which a person looks, and the fact that the coloration in the image was determined to have no animal or mineral elements, and synthetic colorings didn’t exist in 1531, provide a lot of seemingly unanswerable questions…II. The Preservation of the Icon
    Adolfo Orozco, a physicist at the National University of Mexico, spoke in 2009 about the remarkable preservation of the tilma. Orozco said, no scientific explanation is possible for the fact that, “the original tilma was exposed for approximately 116 years without any kind of protection, receiving all the infrared and ultraviolet radiation from the tens of thousands of candles near it and exposed to the humid and salty air around the temple.”
    In 1785, a worker was cleaning the glass encasement of the image when he accidentally spilled strong nitric acid solvent onto a large portion of the image itself. The image and the rest of the tilma, which should have been eaten away almost instantly by the spill, reportedly self-restored over the next 30 days, and it remains unscathed to this day, aside from small stains on the parts not bearing the image.
    In 1921, an anti-clerical activist hid a bomb containing 29 sticks of dynamite in a pot of roses and placed it before the image inside the Basilica at Guadalupe. When the bomb exploded, the marble altar rail and windows 150 feet shattered. A brass crucifix was twisted and bent out of shape. But the tilma and its glass case remained fully intact.

    III. The Human Characteristics of the Icon

    Jose Aste Tonsmann, a Peruvian ophthalmologist, conducted a study of the icon, and one of his tests involved examining the eyes on the tilma at 2,500 times magnification. With the images of the magnified eyes, the scientist was reportedly able to identify as many as 13 individuals in both eyes at different proportions, just as the human eye would reflect an image. It appeared to be a snapshot of the very moment Juan Diego unfurled the tilma before the archbishop.

    In 1979, Phillip Callahan, a biophysicist at the University of Florida, was analyzing the tilma using infrared technology, when he discovered that the tilma maintains a constant temperature of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the same as that of a living person.
    IV. Details & Symbolism in the Icon-The constellations on her mantle are in the exact position as they appeared before dawn on the morning of December 12, 1531. -Her robe is colored rose or pale red and covered with Aztec flowers, symbolic of an Aztec princess.-In the center of her robe, overlying her womb, is a four petal quincunx flower in the shape of a cross which is the sign of the Divine and the center of the cosmic order to the Aztec. The Virgin’s Baby, Jesus, is Divine and the new center of the universe.-A black cross is on the brooch around her neck. This signifies she is a follower of the God of the Spanish Missionaries, Jesus Christ who died on the cross for all.-She stands on the moon. The crescent moon symbolized the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent moon god. She has clearly crushed and defeated him (Apparently Mary doesn’t hold with inter-religious dialogue)-An angel with eagle’s wings supports the Mother of God. The eagle was the “bird of the sun” and the sun was the Aztec’s greatest god. Here the eagle is the servant of the Virgin. -She holds her mantle in one hand (stars) and robe with the other (flowers), signifying the Son she bears is from both heaven and earth.
    V. Our Lady’s words to Juan Diego
    Our Lady told Juan she wanted a chapel built in her honor on Tepeyac hill, which is significant because it was the site of a former pagan temple. [Guess Mary doesn’t believe in religious diversity either.]Any thoughts on this Cal?

  35. JediMasterTim mat_y CalKane 
    You don’t deny that you talk about Milo on your show most weeks.
    You don’t deny that you could’ve chosen a million other videos from youtube to demonstrate your point and argument on secular feminism.
    If your segment was a critique on the homosexual lifestyle and how the media is saturating our culture with this propaganda and you used a Milo video to demonstrate that, I’d take no issue with it. This is the fundamental point you continue to miss.
    I critiqued and you promoted. Big difference.
    God Bless

  36. JediMasterTim CalKane 
    P.S. As for the “Faggot Tour” reference that was clearly written in jest. Neither you nor your audience have any dellusion about where I stand on this matter. Yes, Satan, does use humour to hypnotise the masses. That doesn’t mean humour is exclusively his domain. I used humour here to show you how silly your argument is (on this particular matter). Again 98% of the time you are sharp and on point.

    Peace be with you.

  37. He is righy Tim. It’s better if you don’t use any source from Milo. You’re Tim Haines of the Vericast Network. You don’t need to outsource. Besides, Milo brags about the nastiiest things and I regretted listenng to one of his shows. Now its stuck in my mind.

  38. JediMasterTim mat_y CalKane 
    Finally, “Also, I wouldn’t say he’s an icon/leader for the militant homosexual agenda, since from what I understand most of them hate him.” Tim Haines
    Milo travels the country being paid for a tour he has titled “The Dangerous Faggot Tour.” If that’s not an iconic homosexual leader what is?

    The Holy Bible concluded in that previous Scripture quoted from Romans 1 (about homosexual acts):
    “32 Who,
    having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such
    things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also
    that consent to them that do them.” 
    Here we can correctly use your argument in defense of this Scripture “There is reason, context, and purpose to your mentioning it.”
    Every person who promotes, funds and supports Milo’s “Dangerous Faggot” tour are worthy of death in Biblical terms. These are filthyacts again in Biblical terms. It’s second on the list of the sins that cry to heaven (for vengeance). You don’t have to be a homosexual to consent to homosexual acts. Milo is a major iconic homosexual leader for all those who consent to his promotion irrespective of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Those who consent according to Scripture, are as bad as those who commit these acts. Even the Catechism itself states regarding homosexual acts “Under no circumstances can they be
    approved.”

    Now this is where the following Biblical (Catholic) truth comes into play:
    Romans 12:19
    19 Beloved,
    do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is
    written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
    The Bible says they are worthy of death by the standard of God’s law and divine justice. It doesn’t instruct Catholics to be vigilantes and put God’s laws into our own hands. I’m not advocating anyone harm a practicing homosexual or one who consents to homosexual acts (outside of a legitimate unavoidable reason e.g. self-defense).
    Our focus as Catholics isn’t God’s vengeance. It’s obedience to Christ/Church and the conversion of sinners (including practicing homosexuals). We pray for their repentance and salvation, not for their eternal damnation.
    I agree with your most recent episode of Vericast that our Faith in God is inextricably linked to our Faith in His Church (doctrine):
    Matthew 16:17-19
    17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+16%3A17-19&version=NABRE#fen-NABRE-28009a] has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+16%3A17-19&version=NABRE#fen-NABRE-28010b] and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+16%3A17-19&version=NABRE#fen-NABRE-28011c] Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
    Remember the Catechism does stay the Church will imitate the death and resurrection of Christ in the ‘End Times.’ She will die a brief death (due to the apostasy of former Christian nations including Christians themselves from our disobedience of Church doctrine not because of it). Then just when the enemies of the Church think they have won she will be resurrected in the same way Christ was. Just when the enemies of the Church finally believe they have one, they will find their final failure. That’s when Christ will claim victory, as He Himself did on the Cross, and the Final Judgement will be at hand. If you’d like me to reference this from the Catechism feel free to ask. 
    It’s men like Milo and those who promote him and/or consent to his lifestyle that are helping crucify Christ’s Church. Milo is a militant homosexual leader full stop who promotes the same Social Darwinist ideology Hitler did in Nazi Germany. The difference is it’s not Jews who are inferior to Milo it’s heterosexuals. I’m not saying Milo is calling for our extinction or that he desires it. I am saying he holds to the same ideology Hitler adhered to in essence by claiming heterosexuals are inferior to homosexuals.

     

    God Bless

  39. CalKane mat_y TheDRSophia 
    Cal, I know by virtue of your existence that you have a biological mother and father. I don’t need to see them to believe it. Seeing you alone is evidence of their existence. In the same way as seeing creation is evidence for a Creator.
    The law of gravity, procreation (exclusively between a man and woman), we breathe out carbon that plants breathe in, plants breathe out oxygen that we breathe in, etc. The complexity and genius of the human person alone proves an intelligent designer i.e. Creator. Creation has a source, God.

    As noted previously, it’s obvious to me that you harbor hatred toward God. You recently said to Tim (paraphrasing) “I don’t care if there is a Creator. It makes no difference to me or my life.” In other words, even if there is a Creator you have little to no interest in knowing Him. 
    Your problem in truth isn’t an intellectual problem. It goes deeper than that  You might have seen my remarks to Tim as underhanded: A) I knew you would read them. B) It’s my honest analysis of your present stumbling block to Christ.

    God Bless

  40. AFlowerofStTherese 
    Thank you AFlowerofStTherese. Tim doesn’t know me. I’m not a polished university graduate and don’t have Tim’s smooth communication skills and style.
    What we share are the simple truths of the Catholic Faith. Praise be to God we don’t have to be university graduates to understand the Catholic ethic.
    When I have feedback to share I generally don’t beat around the bush and simply state it. I never intended for this conversation to drag on like it has. To be honest I thought Tim would get it straight away. It’s nice to know he is simply a person like the rest of us and can err 2% of the time! hahaha

    Thank you for not being ashamed to state the truth: 

    Romans 1: 16-17

    16 For
    I am not ashamed of the gospel.It is the power of God for the
    salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek. 17 For in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith;[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+1&version=NABRE#fen-NABRE-32267k] as it is written, “The one who is righteous by faith will live.” 

    Christians are taught to be ashamed of the truth today (God’s truths), even among ourselves, and we’re bullied and slandered as being hateful when we simply tell it like it is. I’m not saying Tim did that here. He did not. He does seem uncomfortable with the teaching of the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture though when universal natural law is behind the Churches teaching 100% as is the natural instincts of the average person (before we are bombarded with the social conditioning of this sick anti-Catholic culture anyway). For example, the Hollywood blockbuster film Philadelphia with the mega star Bruce Springsteen’s title song, gives us an intimate artistic portrayal of Tom Hanks’ homosexual character’s deterioration from aids. It is a powerful film no doubt it and we should have compassion for the suffering. The part of the story it conveniently skips though are the lifestyle choices that got him there in the first place. What the TV portrays and what reality is are often two very different things particularly on this topic. 
    Catholics need to get back to the simple truth by not pandering to the homosexual movement/agenda. Milo is not a friend to God or the Church at this time. Promoting Milo isn’t a virtue nor is it loving. It’s a grave sin that feeds the disease itself as well as Milo self destructive lifestyle. We should not condone or minimise Milo’s homosexual behaviour ever. We will love homosexuals enough to tell them the truth without malice, be the best Catholic examples we can, and pray and be there for them if/when they are ready to repent and heal through Christ and the Church i.e. face their own unique God given trial as Catholics.

    I recommend everyone here study Romans 1 carefully and unashamedly:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+1&version=NABRE

    There is nothing wrong with being repulsed by homosexual acts. That doesn’t mean we should demean homosexual persons or pander to the homosexual agenda. Christ teaches us to follow the “narrow way.” As long as we honour the Churches teachings we can’t go wrong i.e. love the homosexual without condoning or legitimising homosexual acts. The best thing we can do for Milo at this time, those outside of his immediate circle that is, is ignore him.

    God bless you Miss (or Mrs) Flower.

  41. CalKane mat_y TheDRSophia
    P.S.
    3. You, as a Priest, argue to a clock-maker. I, as a rationalist, ask, “Who created your uncreated clock-maker?”
    That
    is not a rational question. I say that the universe is obviously
    created, and that what is created supposes a Creator who is uncreated,
    or the problem goes on forever, the whole endless chain of dependent
    beings as unable to explain itself as each of its links. It is rational
    to argue to an uncreated clock-maker. It is not rational to ask, “Who
    created this uncreated clock-maker?” God was not created. If He were, He
    would be a creature and would have a creator. His creator would then be
    God, and not He Himself. God always existed. He never began, and will
    never cease to be. He is eternal.
    Source: http://www.radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=1
    We exist from our mothers womb. We are a creation. We, like the earth we occupy, had a beginning. God is eternal. He has no beginning or end. He is Creator. We are creature/creation. Our flesh, like the earths core is finite. God is eternal. Our bodies change from conception until death. God is the same yesterday, today and forever..The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. He just revealed more of Himself and His nature to humanity. Even the Catholic Churches understanding of God has continued to mature since its inception.

    If you’d like to dig deeper than the superficial, The Fall of Man, is a substantial starting point:

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm
    It explains a lot about where we are today and how we got here. We can’t understand human nature without understanding Original Sin and the fall of man. That’s why Genesis is book 1 in the Holy Bible. It is the foundation text for every other revelation. I do remember you once stating it was your favourite book in the Bible.
    Good Day and God Bless

  42. JediMasterTim mat_y CalKane 
    Using the work of a radical homosexual to expose a radical feminist. Oh the irony! hahaha

    Sorry had to add this final joke 🙂

    I did enjoy our discourse Tim and understood your arguments. I just disagree with them on the grounds summarised already. There are nuances to the English language. Your puritan argument that what I did in addressing this issue was the same as what you’ve done week after week in promoting Milo aren’t the same.

    I can accept that you weren’t consciously promoting Milo. That doesn’t change the fact that you do inadvertently promote him in general terms most weeks and it finally climaxed with you sharing his material (hopefully this can now be changed to ‘did’ as in past tense).
    Thanks for persevering through the conversation.

    God Bless

  43. JediMasterTim mat_y CalKane 
    Hi Tim,

    This conversation has served its purpose. I understand that the Dialogue isn’t exclusively a Catholic Show. It’s 50% a Catholic Show and 50% a Cal Kane Show. You can’t control what Cal, an atheist or agnostic (depending on the day of the week), says. They are virtually the same in essence, in that they both reject the role and purpose of God in our lives.

    Since we’ve had this robust discussion it hasn’t come across as though you personally are promoting Milo on the Dialogue (who promotes sexual perversity, degeneracy and other veiled evils for a living) . My sincerest thanks for that.

    A final link I’d like to submit to our discussion is the following:

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/01/milo-yiannopoulos-named-lgbtq-nations-2016-person-year-readers/

    Milo is an iconic leader of the LGBTQ agenda/movement as stated from the beginning.

    This link came courtesy of Stefan Molyneux who is another atheist like Cal with a relentless homosexual fetish! hahaha

    Again, I put this down to the hatred of God most atheists harbor. Molyneux basically admitted his hatred in a video titled ‘My Bias Against Religion.’ He blamed God for all the worlds ills as a child and then decided he knew better.

    A quote analysing Milo’s veiled radicalism:

    Many of the deceived are fascinated with Breitbart News where you have Milo Yiannopoulos…. On Breitbart he http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/ (Evolian Traditionalism)as being an essential part of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right philosophy while lamenting how they are accused of being racists:

    There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright. The origins of the alternative right can be found in thinkers as diverse as Oswald Spengler, H.L Mencken, Julius Evola, Sam Francis, and the paleoconservative movement that rallied around the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan. The French New Right also serve as a source of inspiration for many leaders of the alt-right. The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine.In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought. Alongside other nodes like Steve Sailer’s blog, VDARE and American Renaissance, AlternativeRight.com became a gathering point for an eclectic mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus in some form or another. All of these websites have been accused of racism.

    The tricks are simple to refute. Yiannopoulos is un-demonizing the Alt-Right through the same tactics as Islam’s Taqiyya. These types are familiar with deception separating ‘moderate’ activists as from ‘extremists’, distinguishing ‘propagandists’ as “smart” dangerously bright” from ‘terrorists’ “skinheads”. We all have seen this before from the Muslims. In other words, what Yiannopoulos is saying is that he and his movement including Breitbart are not really Christian from the sense of being Evangelical or Catholic, but are Evolian Traditionalists. Evolian is to adhere to Andrea Evola (Julius Evola). The naive read Yiannopoulos and they do not even realize, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola (1898 – 1974) was:

    “one of the most influential fascists in the history of Italy advocating ‘spiritual racism‘ that was personally endorsed by Benito Mussolini“.

    Only Taqiyya like trickery can cover the dung under the snowflakes. This will only herd the masses into an oxymoronic movement of conservative paganism. Why? Giulio Cesare Andrea Evola’s work was centered on spiritualism and mysticism. Evola’s work was influential on fascists and neofascists. He experimented with drugs and more importantly with magic until, around age 23, Evola then considered suicide until he had a revelation reading the pagan Buddhist text to gain absolute transcendence. This then led to Evola’s fusion of European Idealism and pagan Buddhist principles and practice.

    Friedrich Nietzsche, another prophet of the progressives, heavily affected Evola’s thought. It was Nietzsche who wrote in his The Antichrist:
    If Islam despises Christianity, it has a thousand-fold right to do so: Islam at least assumes that it is dealing with men…Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization [paganism], and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization [Islam].
    While these paint a facade of being anti-Islam, they are in reality not what they claim to be. And just as the Nazis did to unite with Islam at a later stage and so will these later on also will unite with Islam. Evola was the leading philosopher of Europe’s neofascist movement.

    Source: http://shoebat.com/2017/01/01/a-horrific-storm-of-evil-is-rising-up-and-is-sweeping-the-world-it-is-leading-europe-into-the-hands-of-the-antichrist/ (the whole article is worth reading, warning: it does contain stronger language in bits)

    God Bless

  44. JediMasterTim CalKane 
    This is part two of the series (part 1 is linked in the comment above):

    http://shoebat.com/2017/01/07/the-greatest-abandonment-of-christianity-in-the-west-is-happening-and-the-whole-world-is-being-plunged-into-paganism-as-biblical-prophecies-reveal/

    I’ll post the final two parts here as they become available for those who would like to consider the authors interpretation of this current rise of Paganism and Islamism that’s presently sweeping the world and how it pertains to Bible prophesy.

    God Bless

  45. JediMasterTim CalKane 
    Part four, and the series conclusion:

    http://shoebat.com/2017/01/22/the-most-horrific-evil-is-rising-up-the-false-church-of-the-antichrist-is-uniting-with-the-demonic-religion-of-islam-and-the-most-horrific-diabolical-empire-will-appear/

    Note: I do not agree with the authors every conclusion in this series. For example, Christianity was in a state of decline throughout the West before the rise of the European Union, during it, and probably will be after its fall. The rise and fall of the European Union is largely inconsequential. The real crisis is our falling away from God, the Catholic Church and the purity of her doctrine. This is a crisis that exists within our very catholic culture itself today.

    Thanks and God bless.

  46. JediMasterTim CalKane 
    The author originally announced that this was a 4 part series, upon reading part 4 he has since announced yet another edition next Sunday (US time). We’ll end it here, the point has been made. I’ll conclude that message with a warning about the rise of populism in general from the Pope himself:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-warns-against-populism-saviours-hitler-001439301.html

    I don’t want to share anymore of the Shoebat’s work because I do have mixed feelings about it as stated some time ago. They are one of the many majority people who claim the Catholic title while wilfully rejecting the Churches teaching. For example, Walid Shoebat blames Vatican II for the falling away of Catholics in modern times in that last article posted. When the reality is the collapse of Catholic culture had been building in the centuries prior Vatican II from the Protestant revolutions first and later the French and secular revolutions that followed. It wasn’t Vatican II that caused Church attendance to collapse overnight. Revolutions don’t happen out of thin air. They gestate first. The real cause of the collapse is the sexual revolution. A people can have God or masturbation (mammon). They can’t have both. Read:

    https://www.amazon.com/Libido-Dominandi-Liberation-Political-Control/dp/1587314657/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485182206&sr=8-1&keywords=libido+dominandi

    The Alt-Right (America)/Identitarian (EU) are populists movements that are extremely dangerous because of the radical racialism. As the world continues its collapse from Catholic values and traditions it will continue to become increasingly polarised and radicalised on both sides of the political sphere.

    I’m happy Trump won. I do not believe he is Alt-Right. There is no credible evidence to suggest that. But President Trump is not Jesus Christ! 🙂

    Signing Off (from The Dialogue)!

    God Bless

Comments are closed.