Vatican officials are on the hunt for Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò.

I don't think the argument of public consensus generates enough reasoning to validate a system of belief. I think it is justifiable when there are grounds for it and based on certain symbolism and language structure. I understand the importance of Christianity as an anthropomorphic and materialistic structure that is inverted into a general schemata of thought that just can't be explained(the irrationalist aspect of Christianity is central to it and feeds back into a kind of Third-Worldism).

That said this is quite complex and not to be understood in this kind of manner, because of how essential it is for humans to have all things tied down to needing to have something anthropomorphized and materialized, but the main thing is how does one swing it back to a certain mode of truth and then go about describing that truth. I think ultimately it comes down to a certain of instinctualism, animalism, and obviously dependency on language constructs that relegates itself to the concept, so there is an appreciation of the abstract in the material and the Trinitarian even in the material, but I don't know how to explain it and certainly that is why I stressed Anslem's Cosmological Argument. I think the Truth is pretty obvious at times, but how do you tie it back into a higher logic of thought/intelligent design? I don't think we can that is where the faith part comes into handy. I'd say its safer and better to believe it because of how enriching it can be to one's life and how it can lead one to live a moral life and live a life tied down to reality. In this sense and when you fit things into a rewired Cosmological Argument then you have a chance to make things work, so I think a proof for God can be rendered in this context in an indirect/"symbolic" and referential sense.

It does not need to be formulated though, but constantly referenced to and which we work our knowledge around in a context that fits into a kind of appreciation of the objective as perceived from the point of the subjective and the "subjective" being worked towards the objective. Truth is pretty easy at this point, but it is paradoxical, but we use simple terms to explain it and then we retreat from it and let it work in the silence of our hearts. Relativism is flawed too, because its the belief that things revolve around reason, but reason is supposed to be the engine of faith and faith should work around reason and reason should always attempt to point back at it.

I think the current standing of Christianity is that it is too open to Third-Worldism, rather then taking a more open-ended approach and it is about a kind of bleeding heart mentality where everything needs to profess their guilt for being white in a certain sense. I think Christian theology is extraordinarily tyrannical and this allows it to be socially engineered at will in my opinion. I ultimately think its best to have a multi-integrative and multi-dimensional approach to truth, where truth is simple, but there are many ways to it and each has its own unique salvational trek. God is a God of love in this context and pours his grace out on the whole of humanity, but they all must work for it and do so in some sense in their daily living and their daily being. Somethings can be quite relativistic to be honest. I don't think Christianity is invalid in terms of what it represents, nor when we consider the message of Jesus/Gospels the Catholic Church would represent the core of the truth, but it seems rather mysterious like for something like this to be considered the grounds of truth. Maybe God works this way? I don't know.

I am not God and all I can do is have faith, but having father in the reason of others is not something that is acceptable, but dare I remove myself from it either. I say not. In this context, I think Catholicism is pretty legitimate and valid, but the fact that it validates itself as true because formally and spiritually it is correct or valid does make it sound in terms of structure, dynamics, and the general natural cycle and the spiritualities that have arisen out of that. I suppose one could say Jesus/The Gospels were meant for everyone in this context and indeed he might have been, but how does this explain the categories of people's religious experience does not conform to this particular form of Jesus existence, but represents him in a multitude of ways that distort or corrupt Jesus' existence? It does not mean Jesus does not exist or is not valid, but ultimately at the end of the day it does not correspond appropriately with common sense and our general understanding of nature. I guess we will leave this one up to the Gods/Trinitarian form. It is not something for me to answer, just like the question of God, although I think that it is simpler and clearer and I assert it to be true within myself and try my best to radiate this back to humanity in my good works, being gracious, and being charitable. I think this is all how it should work. I have some other ideas, if you want to hear them, but I think in many ways they are more of practical purport and work back into that structure and ground themselves on the non-I(God) and the denial of the I, as part of a process of internal resistance.

The main thing we need not do is project ourselves as God back into the realm of God and this can be hard to do and I think its called the process of life and recognizing ourselves as mere mortals, as mere humans, as all too much like animals. One must be a machine for God in the end and all work in the direction of conceptualizing the whole faith/reason argument in a procedural manner, but one that engages the larger community and Christianity has Balkanized and lost its communalism. Can you give me the link to the site? I think acknowledging Jesus' power is important, but I think personalism, interpersonalism, intersubjectivity, emergentism, and expressionism are not good things, but rather see Jesus as the grand artist and have an impressionistic understanding of him that ties back into reality, but from within that standpoint points back to something greater than ourselves and that those ideas we conceive are in fact embodied in ideas that we can neither categorize or relate back to the forms of existence, but in fact embodies the process and civilization of humanity in a form that emanates back to a primordial form of existence and then back to what Teilhard Du Chardin called the Omega Point, but the Omega point always comes back to the person/the individual and works back into the greater humanity and back there to some great distant and scattered nothingness. This is interesting though to me and I guess if we have some sort of consolation it is that Goethe said that all points back to the Cross(what he is meant by this is anything, but certainly a kind of figurative pointing back in ancient Germanic cultures to the form of Jesus' actual existence in some form of divination and almost extraterrestrial terrain).

In the end, it comes down to Divine Revelation and Teleological concerns and that is something that only the Trinitarian form can reveal to us and ultimately Jesus, which is the crux of it. I don't think its worth debunking Christianity or God or either breaking it down to an either/or kind of scenario, I think it is far more complicated than that and if it is not true then one might as well live a good life trying to believe in it and incorporate it into their practical/pragmatic considerations in life.

I prefer a kind of integrative Emergentism of consciousness to test where things are to work, along with a certain kind of Remotism and working it from that direction towards a greater Cosmotology.

I have mixed views of the Masons. I think anti-Masonic thinking has generally been non-productive, but I think the Masons are too Occultic. I like nothing about the Masons in how they were formed, because they were anti-monarchic, but considering how things needed to change they had a semi-positive role to play, but why create an occultic oligarchic cadre of people to just replace the old institution.

I think the Masons became infected with all kinds of unfettered rationalism and Zionism and that is why they are bad. I don't think Zionists are bad in themselves, but because of how they think and perceive of the world and how they place themselves in that world and others in that world view.