Breitbart has excerpts from a book about to be published by a member of Hillary' security detail when she was Monica's First Rival.
It makes for rather entertaining reading.
First Bitch at the White House?
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
From the Disgrace-in-Chief’s interview to Il Messaggero (another left-leaning newspaper, if you want to know): the first Q&A is reported only to give the context. Please focus on the second Q&A. Emphasis mine.
M: You speak, perhaps, little about women, and when you speak about them you take on on issue only from the point of view of motherhood, woman as spouse, woman as mother, etc. But women by now are heads of state, multinationals, armies. What posts can women hold in the Church, according to you?
Francis: Women are the most beautiful things that God created. The Church is woman. Church is a feminine word [in Italian]. One cannot do theology without this femininity. You are right that we don’t talk about this enough. I agree that there must be more work on the theology of women. I have said that we are working in this sense.
M: Isn’t there a certain misogyny at the base of this?
Francis: The fact is that woman was taken from a rib … (he laughs strongly). I’m kidding, that’s a joke. I agree that the question of women must be explored more deeply, otherwise one cannot understand the Church herself.
What on earth is this?
1) What is the joke? Is he joking about his provocative (but truthful) answer to the woman, or is he saying that the word of the Lord is a joke?
If it’s the first, it smells of great cowardice not to explain things to the end, and make clear a couple of things about the God-given order of the Universe, and the equality of dignity in the diversity of the roles (look, I am quoting a V II Pope here).
The problem is, Francis says it in a way that will induce many to believe that he thinks the Genesis account is a joke . This is so like Francis, I am not surprised.
2) So, the Church has not understood itself for 2000 years? And will not be able to do it unless and until she “explores more deeply” the “question of women”? Why does this man think that there be any “unexplored question” concerning women? Did the Blessed Virgin feel she did not know enough? What about the great female saints, and the countless saintly women who have lived a life fully deprived of “deeper exploration” these 2000 years?
Can’t you see that Francis is once again selling the Church to the enemy with honeyed and suggestive words implying that the Church of Christ has some homework to do to satisfy some, well, unsatisfied feminist?
Let me stop here. I feel the adrenaline level rising already.
I notice again and again that even among secularised people a subterranean desires emerges at times, to know more about God. This desire has several way of manifesting itself, and is certainly not strong enough to move to a real search, to the determination to take the matter seriously; but it is probably fair to say in many it sits there somewhere in their consciousness like a mixture of mild curiosity to search, and acute discomfort at what might be found.
We have now a rather brutal example of this in one of the most atrociously secularised countries of the planet, Norway; where, as EF informs us, a new edition of the Bible has now become the best seller, dethroning Fifty Shades of Gray, a book certainly much more in tune with the country's psyche and attitude.
I have few doubts this new Translation will be an atrocious one, trying to erase Christianity from Scripture as much as it can. Still, the mere fact that people buy his book is, again, an indication of this subterranean desire to know more.
Whilst I personally consider suspicious every new translation of the Bible, as I imagine the desire to make Christianity more palatable is the main motivation behind such enterprises, it is probably better to have a bad Bible at home, than none at all.
The inauguration of the Evil Bastard is now rapidly approaching, and two elements have emerged which I found particularly noteworthy. The first is the substitution of the already certainly very liberal pastor with another even more liberal. I have already written about this and today I will only add the poor idiot managed to not (as far as I know) officially retract his condemnation of sodomy, but still pointed out he hasn’t preached anything of the sort for the last ten years. He certainly thinks he is saved anyway, so where’s the problem….
The second is the vocal request from the usual suspects to renounce to the use of the Bible in the inauguration, coherently with the party’s view of life and society in which God has no place at all, unless to function as a comfortable alibi for their social engineering agenda. In fact, it seems to me those vocal atheists are, semel in anno, perfectly right. Why should you abuse a Bible for an empty ritual if your entire life goes against everything the Bible stands for? Isn’t it more honest to say “I am an atheist with an atheist agenda, and I do not want to swear on a book whose values I have opposed for my entire life?”
This seems more coherent to me, and it would perhaps serve to open the eyes of some of those who tell themselves Christians but then vote for the Evil Bastard and his associates. Some might say the Evil Bastard could then swear on the Koran; but seriously, Obama is not one bit more Muslim than I am. His often mentioned love for Muslim culture and respect for the Koran are nothing more than easy sentimentalism fed by childhood remembrances. In every orthodox Muslim society, a man like him would get in trouble really fast. Still, this is the way of the liberal. He will “adopt” and at the same time “adapt” whatever suits his way of thinking. He’ll warp Christianity until he can say himself a Christian, and actually many of them will warp every religion on the planet and say that they, actually, belong to all. Therefore, Obama will swear on the book he probably hates most, and will not make anything of it. It serves his purpose, and this is enough for him.
Welcome to the second Obama mandate.
You’d have thought even Protestants would, at some point, open their eyes as to the utter madness of their own guides. But in fact, if you look at things more carefully, you easily discover that this simply can’t be.
What is Protestantism? In its essence, it is the desire to sit in front of a Bible and make one’s own theology. No more Only Church, no more immutable rules, no more unpleasant obligations. Granted, there are a lot of Protestant who are very sincere Christians, but the initial planning mistake is forcibly present in their own edifice, too.
Protestants will, then, basically decide what they want to believe and then look for a congregation more or less in line with what they have already decided is the Only Truth. Until, of course, they change their mind (because inspired by the Holy Spirit to a New And Better Truth, one assumes) and move somewhere else, or their own congregation changes the “policy” but they themselves don’t agree with that so their line with the Holy Ghost must be disturbed.
You want divorce? Hey presto, let us have one and who cares what Luther & Co. would have said of that. You want several wives? Easy, just find a suitable quotation in the Bible and found your own church on it and failing that, let us recur to …… the Holy Ghost inspiring us. You want priestesses? Same. You want lesbian priestesses? Ditto. The list is very long.
But what happens if you want…. rapture? Will you find people so clearly disturbed as to agree with you? Yes of course you will! Hey, in Protestant lala-land common sense is only an option, just make some calculation and come up with something you wanted to think in the first place! Isn’t it just what every other Protestant “church” is doing?
This is, you see, the perverse beauty of Protestantism. Even nutcases tired of living but clearly not allowed to think of suicide, frustrated losers dreaming of some “revenge” against the world considering them nuts and idiots, and people who simply enjoy scaring others and being scared themselves can find their own church. How wonderfully inclusive. The only think the rapture nutcases must do is to find a deranged (or clever and greedy) individual whom they can accept as a guide; then, they have everything: the “church”, the “pastor”, the infallible “prophecy” and the excitement whilst waiting for the great event to happen. Wouldn’t want to be one of their relatives, though.
The event will, obviously, not happen as predicted. Never, ever. Why is that? Simply because – as every Catholic knows – we know neither the day nor the hour. But this being simple logic based on a coherent, rational interpretation of Scripture it has the great defect of not saying to the nutcases what they want the Bible to say. No problem, let’s find (or found) a church.
But what happens when the event does not happen? Do you think they’ll open their eyes? Nonsense! If they had had eyes to see, they would have opened them long ago! What they will do is simply… continue to do what they have always done! A mistake in the calculation, say. Or Jesus having really come back in 1941 as foreseen, but no one having noticing it* (I think he was seen drinking a coffee, though). Failing everything you can even say that the Holy Ghost has given you extra time. The possibilities are endless…..
Therefore, the amused world is now informed that the rapture is going to happen not on the 21st of May, but on the 21st October.
Slight mistake in the calculation, apparently. Apologies. Regular millenarianism to be resumed shortly.
I can’t wait for the 21st october, I would almost say. But no, really, what will happen on that day is the same that has happened this time. Sorry mate, calculation had a slight glitch. Keep believing.
* That will be the Jehova’s witnesses, I believe.