Daily Archives: September 23, 2012

If Jesus Had A Wife, Christianity Is A Fraud

… which clearly means that Jesus did not have a wife.

In the face of the ocean of stupidity currently flooding the blogosphere, let us make clear a couple of rather elementary concepts:

– You either believe that Jesus is God, or you don’t.

–  If you do, you cannot at the same time believe Jesus would lie to you, or would allow the Church to be plain wrong on the matter of his celibacy.

The chain of absurd consequences of even examining the possibility of Jesus having being married is much longer than that. It makes the prescription that bishops should be celibate (last time I looked, celibacy for bishops was a matter of doctrine, infallible Magisterium) look rather strange, as if Jesus had said “I eat meat, but you must be vegetarians”.

Then there is the matter of what values would the Gospel have even as a realistic record of Jesus’ working and times, if the Gospels failed to record something so evidently huge as Jesus being married; we would, in fact, have to take the Gospel as… Gospel only until the next fragment of papyrus emerges. The stupidity of all this is mind-boggling.

Furthermore, there are the obvious consequences  of his alleged marriage. Was Jesus married, and all those who followed him after his death had simply become oblivious of the matter? Was Jesus part of one of those couples who prefer not to have children so they can afford a Mercedes? Or did he have children with his wife, for whose record we are now waiting for the next scrap of papyrus? Did all those martyrs who have known him personally, or who knew personally people who had known him personally, just forget to mention the fact to their acquaintances? And how it is that the Jewish tradition of the times, absolutely obsessed with genealogy and family trees, would simply forget to register the fact? 

It this were only a matter of stupidity (immense one, of course; but still stupidity) it would not be worth more than a tired smile and a sad reflection about the imperfection of human nature. But the problem is that such astonishing bollocks openly undermines the authority, the function, and the same legitimacy of the Church; then if one is stupid enough to believe the Church of God “got it wrong” on whether Jesus was married, there is absolutely nothing on which the Church might not be wrong, either; and the list is too long for me to bore you with it. 

Please, please whip in the face (if this is legal in your country) every smartass talking with you about the “interesting possibility” of Jesus having been married.

It will be a salutary lesson, highly beneficial to his (or her) soul.

Mundabor

 

 

 

Ka-Ching, Kirchensteuer, Communion

And so we are now informed that (courtesy of an “acknowledgment” of the Vatican) a German bishop is allowed to consider (or at least to say so) a German devout Catholic who refuses to pay the Kirchensteuer not a member of the Catholic Church anymore (I do not say this is the case, as this seems to be the most simoniacal bollocks heard in the last several centuries; I merely refer that they say so).

At the same time – and I link to only one of the many astonishing pieces of news you can read on the German press with sad regularity –  200 German priests and deacons openly announce they give communion to divorced and remarried so-called Catholics (the number might have grown or gone down in the meantime, but this is not material here).

Let us reflect on the implications of this:

1) It is to be strongly assumed the divorced and remarried Catholics believing they receive communion do pay the Kirchensteuer. Therefore, if one pays one receives the sacrament (or at least he think he does; but what counts here is that  his priest says that he does) and his state of mortal sin, and a scandalous one at that, is not seen as impediment  because of the “commandment of brotherly love”, whether the devout Catholic who does not live in scandal but does not pay the pizzo* is told by his own priest that he is outside of the church, and cannot receive the sacraments, or – what counts here – his priest says that he can’t.

This is worse than stupid: this is simoniacal, utterly disgusting, and a clear case of prostitution.

Twice.

2)  It is not very clear how fast Archbishop Zoellitsch (one of the men behind the new initiative concerning the Kirchensteuer and the chairman of the German Bishops’ Conference; go figure) has told the relevant priests and bishops that they are now suspended from service due to their obvious, and very public acts of sacrilege, and invited very fast to repent or face sanctions up to and not excluding being defrocked. Hmm…

Now let us reflect: what does this tell us about Archbishop Zoellitsch, and the hierarchy who put him in his place? What must we deduce from the very obvious fact that those who continue to pay as wished by the Archbishop are not only pandered to continuously, but priests and deacons behaving in an obviously and publicly sacrilegious way are left unpunished, whilst those who merely want to be treated like the other 1,2 billion Catholics and in conformity to the Church understanding of charity and the duty of a Catholic for 2000 years are threatened to be excluded from the sacraments?

Is there a scandal bigger than this one in the entire Church? Nay, is there a scandal bigger than this one in the entire history of the Church?    

This is, my dear readers, the poisoned fruit of the German Church being allowed to get in bed with the secular authority, and becoming both addicted to the money and the whore of those secular laws and values by which she gets so obscenely fed. It says here when the then Bishop (or perhaps already Cardinal) Ratzinger first came to Rome he was surprised to see it had fewer employees than…. the diocese of Munich. I couldn’t verify the statement, but it seems rather credible to me. 

 The German Pope sees all this, and “acknowledges”. You reflect on this very sad circumstances and start to understand why the 200 priests and bishops aren’t punished; and why so many German bishops and cardinals (and one Pope, even) are so ready to shower almost unlimited understanding for the “suffering” of Catholics living – poor lambs – not only in sin and open scandal, but in open defiance of elementary Catholic rules.

Mala tempora currunt. I truly hope the next Pope will not come from a country of the Kirchensteuer area.

Mundabor

*pizzo = Kinnbart = chin-beard. Also the unofficial name of the payments made to the mafia by shopkeepers and others out of fear of retaliation if they refuse to pay (because the mafia always avoids open threats, and stroking one’s pizzo was the way to make the shopkeeper understand it was ka-ching time..)..

The Shroud And The Papyrus

Strangely, the Sacred Shroud of Turin (here a film negative) does not seem to excite the curiosity of the media.

The Shroud of Turin has been accurately examined for many years now, and even fragments of it have been taken away and examined with the most sophisticated means available to modern technology. After all this, its authenticity is not definitely proved.

A woman wants some publicity and when she find a papyrus fragment reporting that Jesus would have had a wife, she automatically concludes that Jesus might (but we don’t know, she hastens to say; you don;t say?)  have had a wife. If she had found a papyrus saying “asses fly”, she would probably have told us it might have been that in ancient times asses used to fly.

What an amazing discovery, and what an academically challenged researcher.

This is very interesting. On the one hand, you see no liberal press – or feminist “researchers” – ever defending the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, which is an utterly, utterly impressive archeological find and, by the way, several metres long. On the other hand, a small piece of papyrus written several centuries after Christ is found and everyone thinks he can play Dan Brown.

I am afraid this papyrus story will give us some angry moment yet. Stay tuned.

Mundabor

Reblog of the day

Mundabor's Blog

You only need to click on this article to understand what is wrong with today’s “Telegraph”.

1) The Photo

Taken by Alamy, a professional Data bank, it has clearly been chosen to convey a positive image of sodomy: smiling, likely staged young faces surrounded by the support of the present, and a festive atmosphere. The “Homograph” clearly approves. Faggots.

2) The Caption

Read the usual homosexual language: “gay” instead of sodomite or homosexual; “gay right” as if they existed in the first place; “pioneer” as if the insitutionalisation of sodomy were anything worth “pioneering”. Faggots.

3) The Article

Whilst the article reports some of the criticisms, it has at least two big faults:

a) it does not condemn in the least. Just imagine an article writing about combined marriages in some Muslim country, where the  interviewed says “we’re so proud our human right to decide the fate of our children has been…

View original post 274 more words

Homophobic Australian Parliament Discriminates Against “Loretta”

We are informed after days of debate the Australian Parliament has decided to face reality and reiterate that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Make no mistake, this is still a rotten Parliament, utterly friendly to the sodomites and ready to sanction scandal and abet perversion. The country is, apparently, even worse than its Parliament, being – allegedly, but I do not doubt it – in its majority in favour of the so-called “gay marriage”.

Still, the elected representatives seem at least in their majority able to preserve a bit of decency or, failing that, a bit of logic.

“Look” – they seem to say – “we support pretty much every kind of perversion and would never dare to be counter-cultural or, even, Christian. But this here is a matter of simple logic and of facing the realities of life, and there’s no way two Lorettas can be considered “married” unless we want to cause in the future generations the same hilarity the Monthy Phyton video caused today in heterosexual people.  Therefore, we will continue to be your bitches in everything concerning sexual perversion, but we will stop struggling against reality and we suggest Loretta does the same”.

At least in that, they are right.

Who knows, perhaps now that this decision has been made the one or other Australian will, even in the horrible cultural environment he finds himself in (this is the country “Anty Moly” hails from; not good at all…), start thinking in a halfway rational way and decide that this madness has gone on for long enough, and the encouragement of sexual perversion must stop.

Mundabor

%d bloggers like this: