The Catholic Church hasn't been backward in coming forward with new saints to inspire the congregations. They seem to roll one out whenever things get a bit slack down in the trenches and, going by past choices they're not very picky.
Old Pope Frank just announced 10 new saints but, to be fair to him most of these, at last, seem to be deserving of some accolades (although I don't believe in the idea of sainthood).
Some of Frank's earlier canonisations have been a bit suspect though like for a couple of previous popes John 23rd and John-Paul 2nd who supposedly produced miracles (that no-one's ever seen).
Earlier popes were worse having given sainthood to assorted mystics, histrionics and nutters like: Saints Francisco and Jacinta Marto from Fatima; Saint Adjutor; Saint Bernadino of Siena; Saint Drogo; Saint Catherine of Siena; Saint Padre Pio; Saint Theresa of Avila; Saint Margaret Mary; Saint Rose of Lima; Saint Lutgardis of Aywières and, Robert's current favourite Saint Faustina. It's worth looking some of these up on Google. They are true nutters and time-wasters but somehow have managed to convince some old guys in dresses that they are worthy of being elevated to sainthood. Old Drogo's story is a doozy and hold onto your hat when you read about Saint Lutgardis of Aywières.
 |
| Calm down Lutgardis, you'll only further encourage Robert |
So where does Robert come into this you might ask.
You'd know the answer to that if you read his posts like wot he writes on his blog ...... his blog named ..... Oh, yeah I see......
Robert writes (tosses a few lines amid cut and pasted quotes, pictures and links to podcasts and videos) on a blog currently titled Robert the sanctimonious apathetic sinner and toilet cleaner (don't ask). The posts are usually about violin playing, Paganini, Catholic Apologists, the Pope, Mass, Catholic Sacraments, abortion, homosexuality, his pets, his family, his dinner, how our government manages to be simultaneously fascist and communist and some other things. Often all of these themes are contained in the one post which is quite a feat when he only uses about fifty words.
In one of his most recent posts he had this to say:
He seems to be moving into the mystic (no, not this: INTO THE MYSTIC which is one of Van's greatest songs) and is looking for a 'Faustina-type' revelation.
Looking at the monstrance* held by the priest he seems to be desperately trying to see Jesus and almost convinces himself that he's done it. Almost. A little bit more fasting and some stimulating drugs might help in the future.
.jpeg)
With practice and dedication, along with a bit of natural glutamate enhanced by a psychedelic he might achieve his ambition. The next step will be to get noticed by the church and its hierarchy. This is where hysteria, fainting, talking in tongues, stigmata, religious ecstasy (not one of the little helpers ingested earlier), visions, fantasies and even death come in. Beer will help.
* Short for monstrous nonsense.
"Christians have multiple proofs of the existence of God"
ReplyDeleteThat's good to hear. Give us a few examples then.
I'm listening too.
ReplyDeleteWell that was a lot of words for saying that something triggered the creation of the universe so that something must be god.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I don't get the conclusion. That something might just as easily been a speck of dust that mutated.
Try again Sparky.
Anonymous above was me. Sorry but the 'Sparky' might have given that away anyway.
ReplyDeleteOK Robert, what else have you got?
ReplyDeleteYou know, given your bold statement that Christians have multiple proofs of the existence of god, I thought you might easily pull a couple out ( a rude expression comes to mind) and show us - in you own terms seeing that you are the one who believes it.
No. no-one is asking you to cut and paste anything.
ReplyDeleteAll I'm asking you to do, from your heart, is to explain, in your own terms, what proof you have for the existence of your god - or any god for that matter.
Let's face it, you made the statement "Christians have multiple proofs of the existence of God"
I don't know what you mean by "I want see if the opposition will respond with respect and prudence first".
You put up son - some sort of serious, reasonable, simple and believable 'proof' and I will respond to it, hopefully not imprudently.
So? Give me one sensible reason, of your own and not some gobble de goop you download, why you believe in god. In your own words now please otherwise you're just wasting my time.
ReplyDeleteAnd what the fuck is 'teleological'?
ReplyDeleteA new game show on TV?
No, no, no. That's not proof. It's just more mumbo jumbo.
ReplyDeleteFace it, you've just proved that there's no proof of the existence of god, or none that you can come up with anyway. This makes me wonder why you cling to something that you yourself can't even rationalise. It's like an addiction I suppose.
Has Evil Doctor Richard helped you?
ReplyDeleteNay, but seriously folks...
I haven't been swayed. The first 'argument' just came across as lots of big words to me. The last statement was just that - a bit of your history and a statement of your beliefs. I guess I was expecting a simple statement , that anyone could understand, that proved beyond all doubt that your god was there. Eg. Him making a statement and demonstrating his power on TV or interfering in that Russian/Ukranian war.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat deleted comment was a non comment. It's hard commenting on this phone.
ReplyDeleteYes, I know, I'm using the iPad and it's just as difficult. The bloody thing always wants to second guess what I'm typing and, even if you think you've corrected it, it slips back in a bit of nonsense belief in god is the default setting - there! See? I told you.
DeleteFrankly it's a load of rubbish but, if that's your belief then I guess it explains your stance and actions. It doesn't prove anything of course because it's nonsense but it's your nonsense. You just shouldn't try to ram it down other people's throats and certainly shouldn't use it to denigrate what others think or to use it as some kind of foundation to support misogyny, anti LGBQT sentiment, anti-abortion and right wing politics.
ReplyDelete....... and, further - "Belief in God , we must remember is the "default" setting". That must be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen about catholicism, Christianity or any type of religion. That's worse than the claptrap I was force fed in the Catechism at primary school.
ReplyDeleteI can not see anything in that long paragraph you wrote Robert, that properly answers your opening question -"Why I believe in God".
Sorry, I don't men to be a nag but can you try again. Maybe follow Richard's line of questioning - "I guess I was expecting a simple statement , that anyone could understand, that proved beyond all doubt that your god was there. Eg. Him making a statement and demonstrating his power on TV or interfering in that Russian/Ukranian war."
Surely a god that exists still wouldn't be relying on some historical (2000 years plus) 'eye-witness' accounts by people who supposedly observed Jesus'? miracles.
There's ample opportunities nowadays (not just burning bushes, marks on tea towels, funny clouds, stains on walls and voices in the wind) for a god to communicate with humans. He/she/it could take out advertising on billboards and TV, write op-ed articles for major newspapers, appear before special committees of the UN and various government select committees, use Twitter, Facebook or other social media platforms or, as we do start up a blog. What's so hard about that?
Okay, Mr. I Believe In The Easter Bunny, but can you just give us a plain, simple proof. You know, "I know that the Christian god exists because he stops babies in Africa dying of AIDS and leaves videos that show he is involved."
ReplyDeleteReally! That's the best you can do? I've sort of answered this in my latest post just published.
ReplyDelete