QUE SIRA, SIRA

I've been quiet for a while, being mildly amused at Robert's almost daily publishing of scripture that no doubt has been fed to him via the Catholic Church's publicity department - read propaganda - but happy to leave him to it as long as he doesn't get too silly.

Over the last few days he made a name change to his blog which has probably shagged him out.

His last blog was named Robert of Bob's discombobulate Bobadilish I think but he changes it so often it's hard to remember. Anyway yesterday he'd changed it to Robert's Daily Discourse which I suggested would be better named 'Robert's Daily Disconnect' and, lo and behold I see that he has just taken my advice and changed it again:

Well done that man. I won't charge him for my sub-editorial advice.

Anyway, in his latest post under the new banner he's being silly again. He wrote:

""The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, to give his life as a ransom for many". Mat 20:28. Nothing wrong with that; some might wonder who the Son of Man is. "I thought Jesus is the Son of God". I guess He is both. Did you know that Sirach is written by someone called Jesus? Son of Eleazar, son of Sirach. What's going on there? Maybe Jesus wrote what his granddad used to say."

OK, It's a bit wobbly and confusing but does show a bit of promise in his questioning of his Catholic religion. The thought that his Jesus and god changes his name and descriptors often matches Robert's own predilections as well.

Richard whose blog's name has been unchanged since day dot was quick to reply saying:

"The last thing Sirach said is "Work at your tasks in due season, and in his own time God will give you your reward". Sirach 51:30. Hence the saying "He has gone to his reward" (when someone dies). I do usually read Rob's blog, though I must admit that the majority of what he writes doesn't make much sense to me. Also, his grammar takes some interesting turns. It seems that another Jesus (Jesus son of Eleazar, son of Sirach) has shown up. I assume that one of those two people is his mother. I guess that Rob will have more praying to do and will perhaps have to add to his rosary time."

While not as wobbly and confusing as Robert's post I still don't understand what Richard means about Sirach and must confess that, even though I go by the moniker of The Religious Curmudgeon (name unchanged since November 2017) I haven't read much of the Bible and never really listened to the nuns, brothers and priests blathering on about The Catechism and Religious Doctrine. I decided to go to the new temple known as Google and asked "Who was Sirach?"

On Google's Wikipedia I discovered that The Book of Sirach, also known as The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, The Wisdom of Jesus son of Eleazar or Ecclesiasticus is a Jewish literary work originally written in biblical Hebrew. It consists of ethical teachings, written by Yeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira, a  scribe of the Second Temple. It 'has it's chops' then so can be believed as much as any of the other old nonsense in the Bible.

Wikipedia goes on a lot about the Book of Sirach and it's too much of a fankle to cut and paste it just so you lazy readers can skip over it so I'll just provide you with some highlights as hairdressers say to the old dames.

• Although the Book of Sirach is not included in the Hebrew Bible, and therefore not considered scripture in Judaism, it is included in the Septuagint and the Old Testament of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East. In the Protestant traditions, historically, and still in continuation today in Lutheranism and Anglicanism, the Book of Sirach is an intertestamental text found in the Apocrypha, though it is regarded as noncanonical.

• Authorship. This is the latest image of Sirach. He liked this one as it features his favourite hat. Sirach liked hats kind of like Richard of RBB in that regard - in fact, there is some similarity. We won't go into what's on his finger though. You'd be best to ask Richard about that.

• The Book of Sirach is a collection of ethical teachings that closely resembles Proverbs, except that—unlike the latter—it is presented as the work of a single author and not as an anthology of maxims or aphorisms drawn from various sources. The teachings of the Book of Sirach are intended to apply to all people regardless of circumstances, although commentator Verna Holyhead suggests that Sirach can be read as "a collection of wisdom for the "middle classes". Many of its teachings are rules of courtesy and politeness, and they contain advice and instruction as to the duties of man toward himself and others, especially the poor and the oppressed, as well as toward society and the state and, most of all, toward God. Wisdom, in Ben Sira's view, is synonymous with fear of God and sometimes is identified in the text with adherence to the Law of Moses. The question of which sayings originated with the Book of Sirach is open to debate, although scholars tend to regard Ben Sira as a compiler or anthologist.

I agree, as a moral person with some of that but can see why The Roman Catholics have embraced it with that old "faith is more important than common sense" logic.

• By contrast, the author exhibits little compassion for women and slaves. He advocates distrust of and possessiveness over women, and the harsh treatment of slaves (which presupposes the validity of slavery as an institution). 

That probably explains why The Catholic Church and Robert like Sirach's book as it fits in with their misogyny and contradictions.

• The Book of Sirach contains the only instance in a biblical text of explicit praise for physicians, though other biblical passages take for granted that medical treatment should be used when necessary. This is a direct challenge against the idea that illness and disease were seen as penalties for sin, to be cured only by repentance.

Good on old Sirach for that then. I give him an overall score of 4 out of ten but then I'm a male. No doubt women would kick him to touch ... which reminds me ... is there an All Blacks game today? I'd better check. I'm sure that old God would approve.

GOOD(?) HEAVENS!

 

The other bloggers have, predictably, drifted off into religious la la land in their latest posts. I say predictably because old people's memories tend to dredge up experiences from many decades ago rather than what they had for breakfast this morning or whether they put their pants on the right way.

Robert, having finished and actually having deleted all of his nonsensical ramblings on the cross and how it should be carried, has recalled some silly stuff that the Catholic nuns 'taught' him at primary school.

"You are probably wondering which John I am talking about. It's the one that baptized. Tradition says he was born without original sin. The magisterium of the church doesn't pronounce this as doctrine so I guess RBB and TC may choose not to accept it if they want.

So which two other persons full in this category I hear you ask. Both Jesus and Mary were conceived without sin. John had to wait until Mary visited Elizabeth to get the Holy Spirit and move in her tummy.

In the Catholic calendar only three birthdays are celebrated. Jesus, Mary and John. Most of the rest of the feast days are for saints entering heaven i.e. dying."

At least he's consistent in his naive witterings but I do wonder why he still believes in and propagates this puerile nonsense unless ... he's regressing.

Richard, while being a professed atheist (and who is going to Hell) still obsesses about religion and particularly the nonsense that those nuns 'taught' him at primary school. His current obsession is rewriting bible stories, largely to piss Robert off and to try to get him to delete his posts and even his blogs - the equivalent of disrupting sports games and taking his rugby or soccer ball home which he apparently used to do as one of the Garden Road boys.

This is from his latest post:

"I see that Robert is back. He's going on about Original Sin and how three people were born without it. That doesn't seem fair. The story goes that God the Farter Father inflicted it onto everyone because Eve bit his favourite apple. This 'all loving god' evidently let three people off. 888 was one of those three people. Hang on, he's part of the three entities in one god. One of the other two was a woman who became 888's earthly mother. Then there was a bloke named John. I don't know why he was so highly respected by this third of a god. Is God the Farter Father supposed to be older than 888? Well, they have both evidently been around for eternity, along with Karen. That makes them both very old, by human standards. If this father - son stuff is true, Karen MUST be the real mother and not Mary. Robert should start saying the rosary to Karen."

And this from an earlier one:

"I don't think the Holy Spirit (formerly the Holy Ghost) is a bird, I think it is more likely to be God the Mother. Catholics tell us that there are three entities in one god. Supposedly they have always been there, so the labels father, son and mother are a bit silly. This god has existed forever. Imagine just a little bit of this eternity, before man was created and God the Father sent his 'only begotten' son down to Earth.

Here is just a little bit of this pre JC time...

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.

Hey, eternity is a very long time!

I suspect that the whole mum and dad thing only came along when '888' was sent down to Earth to die on a cross."

I like these more than Robert's earnest evangelising.

I have also written bogus epistles and Gospel outlines along with fantasised religious figures (go to the 'search this blog' tab to find these) and decided to look up the internet to find other ones. While doing so though I found actual - real - bible stories and anecdotes that are so wacky that invention isn't necessary.

Here are some of these:

The Talking Donkey and a Hidden Angel
Scripture: Numbers 22:21-35
The prophet Balaam is riding his donkey on a mission when the animal suddenly veers off the road into a field. Angry, Balaam beats the donkey. In a shocking twist, the Lord gives the donkey the power of speech, and the animal turns around and complains about being beaten. Balaam, entirely unfazed by the talking donkey, argues right back until God opens his eyes to see a sword-wielding angel standing directly in their path, which only the donkey could see. 

Elisha and the Two Bears
Scripture: 2 Kings 2:23-25
While the prophet Elisha is walking to Bethel, a large group of local youths emerges from the city and begins mocking him, chanting, "Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!" The prophet turns around, curses them in the name of the Lord, and immediately two female bears come out of the woods and maul 42 of the youths. 

The Deadly Church Service
Scripture: Acts 20:7-12
During one of the Apostle Paul's famously long, late-night sermons in Troas, a young man named Eutychus falls fast asleep while sitting on a third-story window ledge. He drops straight to the ground and is pronounced dead. Without skipping a beat, Paul goes downstairs, embraces him, and brings him back to life before returning upstairs to break bread and finish his sermon. 

A Terrifying Angelic Titan
Scripture: 1 Chronicles 21:14-17
After King David conducts a census that displeases God, he is given three choices for punishment: three years of famine, three months of enemy attacks, or three days of a plague. David chooses the plague, which takes the lives of 70,000 men. David then looks up and sees an enormous, terrifying angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth with a drawn sword outstretched over Jerusalem.

Zipporah Saves Moses
Scripture: Exodus 4:24-26
In one of the most bizarre and abrupt passages in the Old Testament, the Lord meets Moses at a lodging place and is about to kill him. In response, Moses' wife, Zipporah, takes a flint knife, cuts off her son’s foreskin, and touches Moses' feet with it, declaring, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" The Lord then leaves Moses alone. 

Jesus Curses a Fig Tree
Scripture: Matthew 21:18-21
On his way into Jerusalem, Jesus is hungry and walks over to a leafy fig tree looking for fruit. Finding nothing but leaves, Jesus curses the tree, saying, "May you never bear fruit again!" The tree instantly withers and dies, leaving his disciples completely astonished. 

OK, are those weird enough for you? There are many, many, many others - lots in fact. Talking about lots or Lot I'll leave you with this from Genesis 19:

Genesis 19
Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed

 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.  “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”

“No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him  and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.  Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

“Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”

So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”

When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them.  As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”

 But Lot said to them, “No, my lords, please! Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die.  Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.”

 He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar.

 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.  But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord.  He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.

 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.

 

Lot and His Daughters

 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave.  One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.”  So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.  The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today.  The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

You couldn't make that stuff up - well, you couldn't but I could only this time I didn't have to as it's in the bible.* Vile stuff really and no, on second thoughts I don't think I'd write about a man offering up his daughters for rape along with the other depraved scenarios.

* Cutting and pasting brought to you by The Curmudgeons Inc.ⓒ 

CANON LAW

 

I visited Richard and Shelley today and we had a pleasant chat.

At one stage we discussed Robert's religion and its vagaries, and one of these is the Catholic Church's official position on divorce and remarriage. We discussed this for obvious reasons which I won't go in to here.

When I got home, and as The Old Girl has gone off to see one of her French Film Festival choices, I looked up The Catechism* to check out the  Catholic Church's official position on divorce and remarriage.

As you might appreciate it's a jumbled mess of homage to ancient scripture and ambiguous gobbledygook peddled by unmarried men in frocks to naive and compliant followers. 

Here's a summary of what has been written. Hang on to your hat!

1. Divorce, understood as the dissolution of a marriage, is not possible between two baptised persons

Jesus forbids divorce, decreeing that husband and wife are “no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6). 

The Church is clear that “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death” 

Note that when the Church grants an annulment it is not “divorce, Catholic-style.” A divorce breaks (or tries to break) a real marital union; an annulment recognises that no real marital union ever existed. Persons whose marriages are annulled by a Church tribunal never were bound in marriage to begin with, and so are free to marry in the Church even though they are civilly divorced.

2. Divorce and remarriage makes for adultery

Since marital life ordinarily includes sex, remarriage after divorce creates the conditions for adultery. On this, Jesus did not mince words: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:6-8). But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress (Rom. 7:2-3).

 
3. Divorce is a “grave offence against the natural law”

The natural law is another term for the universal moral law of God. We are all bound to this unchanging moral truth, and there are few things more primal, more inherent in creation itself, than the marriage covenant. Marriage is the basis for the family, and the family is the foundation of every human society 

4. Divorce “introduces disorder into the family and society”

Divorce “claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death”, and human societies simply cannot flourish where marriages are broken and families shattered. 

5. Divorce is “contagious”

Divorce spreads like a contagion. When a woman gets divorced, it plants a seed of that possibility in her friends who are feeling unsatisfied and “unhappy” in their own marriages. This can also happen with men who find younger or more “understanding” women elsewhere, and decide they are no longer compatible with their wives. 

6. Divorce and separation are two different things.

Divorce is an attempt to break the marriage bond whereas separation is simply that—the cessation of common conjugal living between the spouses. The Catechism states that “the separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law”.  Physical and/or grave mental danger to spouse or children is cause for separation, as is adultery. “In all cases” conjugal living must be restored if and when the cause for separation ceases, unless the bishop establishes otherwise.

7. Civil divorce may be “tolerated” under certain circumstances

Civil divorce is not embraced, but only “tolerated”—and only if there is no other possible way to secure legal/financial rights or care of the children. “Tolerance” of a civil divorce does not touch the true bond of the marriage, which stands intact between the spouses and in the sight of God.

8. A spouse who is divorced unwillingly is not culpable for the breaking of conjugal life

It isn’t just a remarriage that constitutes a sin for divorced spouses, it’s the breaking of the conjugal life in the first place. The one who unjustly divorces his or her spouse is guilty of a grave sin—even if there is no remarriage—and should not approach Holy Communion. By contrast, the innocent spouse who remains faithful to his or her marriage vows is not culpable for the sin of divorce and, assuming he or she is free from any other mortal sins, is free to receive Holy Communion.


As you can see the Catholic Church and any Christians and Catholics complying with this are not in the real world. Maybe that explains the theological doctrine that a believer belongs to the kingdom of heaven rather than to earth and secular society. 'Other Worldly' in other words.

***************

 
* 

CARING IS SHARING

 

I stumbled across the very first episode of Father Ted tonight.

This series, as many know, is an outstanding example of television comedy, balancing farce, pathos and subtle humour against a backdrop of irreverence and rebellion against state religion and silly entrenched beliefs.

I doubt though that Robert - the very reverent Catholic in this blogging community has seen it (without going immediately to Hell) so I thought it important to share it with him.

I was going to excise some pertinent episodes to underscore a lot of the silliness in the Catholic religion and the existence of the priesthood, for example the lecherous pedophile Father Jack (both current and in the past) but as it all flows so seamlessly I thought that the entire episode would be the best way to view these - that is, if it is allowed to play.

Enjoy ... or, rather, sit back, watch and be amazed as much as appalled:

AND NOW FOR A LITTLE BIT OF NONSENSE ...

... today brought to you by Robert's blog:

As per usual there are several threads of lunacy in Robert's recent post part of which I've copied and pasted below.

I've highlighted the most extreme ravings but to be frank - not Frank , he's no longer with us - I might as well have highlighted the whole thing.

"In today's Gospel Luke 24:35-48 Jesus scares the daylights out of his disciples by suddenly appearing among them saying "Peace be with you". They thought at first that he was a ghost. But he encourages them to touch Him and see for themselves that He is real. (1) Their jaws drop. So to offer further proof He asks them for something to eat. They were having a barbeque so took a piece of grilled fish and gave it to Him, which He ate. He added, rather mysteriously, that "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached to all the nations".

In today's Gospel we see Jesus in His new resurrected body like wot we will get. Yesterday a lady I had lunch with was playing a protestant song over and over. I forget the exact words but it implied that Jesus had died for our sins once and for all and there was nothing more we needed to do. It's part of a rather insidious protestant teaching 'once saved always saved'. We Catholics say we have to 'work' at our redemption and this is implicit in Christ's teaching. (2) Today's Gospel reminds us of the need for repentance, which is an act of the will, and requires daily examination of conscience. A continual re-aligning of our lives to the teachings of Jesus.

I've been praying to 'Pope Francis' asking his guidance. I'm sure he hears me. A warm, kind sensation comes into my heart and I sense him smiling at me. (3)

Don't forget Devine Mercy Sunday which is coming up. (4) A chance to be returned to the state just after baptism. I told my protestant friend at work about it, but she seemed disinterested and went back to listening to her songs about Jesus. Poor Protestants miss out on so many graces with all their protesting. (5)"

(1) This one has always got me. How stupid are those people that Jesus met who bought into his story of being resurrected? It is so self-evident that he didn't die that it makes me wonder if Jesus was some sort of hypnotist or that 'Cana wine' he created had some sort of hallucinogenic in it.

(2) I don't see the 'Protestant' teaching as insidious and don't distinguish between it and the Catholic teaching. They are both ridiculous and should be left in primary school teaching along with fairy tales and Janet and John books.

(3) Nonsense. Frank's dead QED. I liked Pope Francis but I don't think that he can hear me if I say or think that.

(4) This has been bugging me for ages where Robert writes 'devine' instead if 'divine'. It's stuck in his head for some reason that I cannot fathom. He .... oh, that's right, he's a Catholic so things in his head don't have to be correct or real. He just has to have faith that they exist. Carry on Robert.

(5) Robert's attempt at a pun I guess but again this is ridiculous. They are all bloody Christians believing in fairy tales and nonsense yet they quibble over minutiae. Sheesh!

******************

"While there isn't widespread "hatred" between Catholics and Anglicans, there are significant theological differences and historical tensions that can lead to misunderstandings and even animosity. The main disagreements revolve around the authority of the papacy, the validity of Anglican orders, and differing interpretations of scripture and tradition."

        AI Overview from the web 

I disagree about there being no hatred between Catholics and Protestants especially as any reading of the history of conflict is anything to go by. The theological differences, when exacerbated by social and political tensions can be fanned into dangerous fires. People like Robert with deep feelings of animosity can be duped into violent action given the right (and I mean Right) environment.

Catholics and Protestants  worship the same God, but the principles of their faith are different. Here are some examples:

1. Understanding of the Bible

Catholicism and Protestantism differ on the importance of the Bible. For Protestant Christians, Luther made clear that the Bible is the "Sola Skriptura," God's only book, in which He provided His revelations to the people and which allows them to enter in communion with Him.

Catholics, on the other hand, do not base their beliefs on the Bible alone. Along with the Holy Scripture, they are also taught that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church and that anything that the Vatican decrees is 'gospel'. This thinking stems from the 4th century when Rome - as controlled by the emperor Constantine - sought to neutralise the potentially dangerous Christian faction by controlling them through the establishment of the 'official' Roman Catholic Church.
 

2. Understanding the Church

Catholics and Protestants have a different view on the nature of the Church. The word "catholic" means "all-embracing," and the Catholic Church promotes itself as the only true church worldwide (not unlike what Richard does with his bass bag thingy) with a pope to rule it.

The Protestant Churches, on the other hand, do not make up one united Church. They were created by the Reformation and are driven by the idea of  'Evangelical' which means 'according to the Gospel'.  There isn't 'one true Protestant Church' - there are thousands of different denominations around the world - all considered equal.

3. The pope

Protestants do not believe that the Pope has any control over them. While they acknowledge that the Pope controls Catholics they believe that the Catholic view is not supported by the Evangelical view in the Bible. 

Catholics claim that the Pope is the successor of Saint Peter the Apostle who was the first head of the Catholic Church and appointed by Jesus.  This claim leads them to say that 'The papal office' is justified by an  unbroken chain of Popes from the first century to the present.

4. Understanding of the office

This continuous chain, known as the apostolic succession, is used by the Vatican hierarchy to justify spiritual offices in the Catholic Church. The 'Sacrament of Holy Orders' gives them the right to appoint bishops, priests, deacons and others who receive a 'lifelong seal of God', giving them sacramental authority over Catholic laypeople. This consecration of course can only be given to men. It's not unlike how Communist states once ruled their people and how North Korea and China still operate.

Protestants do not consecrate specific persons into office, but rather accept the principle that priesthood can be transferred to every believer — even to women.

That last difference alone would attract me more to Protestantism than Catholicism if ever I go totally doolally and want to become a Christian again.

END TIMES

"End times" refers to the period before the end of the world or a specific era, often associated with biblical prophecies and the Second Coming of Christ, and can also refer to the study of these "last things" called eschatology. 

Things are changing and to a sufficient degree that makes me think that the end times might be here.

The best ever pope - Pope Francis is on his last legs and there are rumblings in the Vatican about the need for change (again). Place this against the ridiculous and dangerous radical right Christian movement in USA being sanctioned by the ridiculous and dangerous radical right MAGA movement headed by the ridiculous and dangerous radical right Donal Trump and we are likely to live with more anti LGBQT and anti women's rights preaching from the nation's pulpits.

Cracks are showing in that though with some Christians already defying the Vatican's teachings and going their own way. I've become aware of one previously avid god-botherer who has for years promoted the Bible as real and worthy and the Ten Commandments as sacrosanct. He's banged on about this ad nauseam much to all the other bloggers' annoyance. Well, blow me down if he's not by thought and deed defying one of the commandments. These ones:

1. Thou Shalt Not Have Strange Gods before Me.  2. Thou Shalt Not Make Unto Thee Any Graven Image. 

Yes, you heard it here. That's what this joker has been doing. 

"How" you might ask and I'm glad that you did.

Have a look at this:

"Holy shit!" you might exclaim and you'd be right in two ways. It is scary and it is holy shit.

Robert now blogging as Rob (he's dropped all of the Catholic titles) has built an effigy in his back yard that he prays to. Click on it to see close up - it's as scary as fuck. No wonder God and Moses concocted that ban on effigies and graven images. I wonder if his priest and the congregation at his church know what he's up to? An excommunication is on the cards I think and might make the news like Lloyd Geering did when facing charges of doctrinal error in the Presbyterian church of New Zealand.

Watch this space.

OUR LADY OF KAPITI DID ALRIGHT TODAY

Today I watched a live-stream funeral service for my uncle at Our Lady of Kapiti Catholic church.

I was impressed, not by the religious side of things of course, but by the proficiency of the technology and frankly that there was a very good balance between 'churchiness' and family and friends gathering.

Fr. Michael McCabe presented the eulogy on behalf of the family and did it extremely well. Normally I'm against priests, celebrants or other agents doing this especially if they have no awareness of the deceased's life. In this case McCabe was respectful and, as my uncle had been a very regular church goer, knew him. The eulogy made from family members memories was a good celebration of his life and was followed by a photo collage accompanied by mt uncle's favourite music.

My cousin's husband presented a separate eulogy and did it very well.

To me, this is what religion and churches are all about. Places of sanctuary and gathering amongst friends and family and, in the case of funeral services, remembering the loved one and swapping stories.

I would have liked to be there but after the eye-procedure yesterday have blurred vision today and couldn't get to Paraparaumu at short notice.