risk
April 10th, 2019
These aren’t jokes. They are facts. You can read the Pope’s entire post-synodal apostolic exhortation here, appropriately titled CHRIST ALIVE.
Latest book…
Random oldie…
February 10, 2006-
- NICE T-SHIRT (Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust). Currently unavailable.
If there is one thing I can give organized religion, it is that they are consistent.
Disgusting and contemptuous, but consistently so.
Like somebody is always saying, ya can’t make this shit up. Unfortunately you dohn’t need to either.
“Jesus picked no females for his gang of disciples, so our little local god obviously doesn’t want women to be priests or to teach or to be of equal social standing with men.” – the Church.
“Jesus picked no Blacks for his gang of disciples, so our little local god obviously doesn’t want African-American Afro-Caribbeans to be priests or to teach or to be of equal social stnding with men.” – the Church, logically extended.
“Jesus picked neither Englishmen nor Germans for his gang of disciples, so our little local god obviously doesn’t want Anglio-Saxons or Teutonics to be priests or to teach or to be of equal social standing with men, not even as head of the Church .” – the Church, paraphrased.
“Jesus picked only Judeans and the occasional Roman or Greek for his gang of disciples, so our little local god obviously only wants Jews and Greco-Romans to be priests or to teach or to be of equal social standing with men.” – the Church’s thinking taken to its idiotic extreme.
Basing the property of “being fully human” on the choices made two millennia ago in a relatively crude, insular and exclusivist part of the more cosmopolitan, tolerant and accepting Roman culture would mean Liz II is illegitimate, as are all of her priests, and as are just about every priest in Africa, England and America.
Once again, they haven’t thought through their position, though it would be nice to see the White Supremacists use this argument. “Nice” as in, “bring lots of beers and popcorn and watch the fireworks”.
I wonder whether we should email the idea to Westboro?
Cat,meet conflagration among the pigeons. 🙂
Someone< you mean "contemptible". "Contemptuous" is what we are of them. Lots of people get that one wrong, as they do with “learn/teach” and “bring/take”.
Though, to be fair, I expect the leadership of the various churches are fairly contemptuous of their peons. They certainly don’t seem to respect the mental powers of the masses who pay for their lives of luxury.
While I’m doing the grammar thingy:
“We could have eaten the cake this morning.”
“Tonight, we have eaten the cake.”
“We could of eaten the cake this morning.”
“Tonight, we of eaten the cake.”
In context, it’s quite evident which makes more sense.
I thought “Someone” meant “contemptuous”, quite correctly, although I don’t suppose s/he would object to “contemptible” as a description of religious leaders (talking snake oil salesmen).
The respect given to the balloons in black and purple dresses is a frightening demonstration of childhood indoctrination. I was lucky to be virtually ignored by my parents in terms of organised religion as both were irreligious hippy types. The clergy should be made to wear red noses and makeup to make them appear the clowns they really are…
Michael Jackson was a Jehovah’s Witnesses but acted like a Catholic priest. (I sure the majority of Roman priests aren’t quilty of behaving like MJ, but AFAIKT MJ never covered up other people’s child sexual assault.)
Tinkling Think, could of may be taken as a misspelling of could’ve. The negative is couldn’t’ve.
“We could’ve eaten the cake this morning.”
“No, we couldn’t’ve! I barely got it out of the oven before we had to leave for work!”
“It’s a moot point. Tonight, we’ve eaten the cake.”
I find contractions interesting. I rarely hear ’tis or ’tisn’t used in ordinary conversation–the common versions where I live are it’s and it isn’t (or it’s not). One of these days I’ll study linguistics and find out why the usage changed. I’d also like to know when and why I have/thou hast/he hath was edged out by I have/you have/he has in common usage. Did the King James Bible make have/hast/hath seem reserved for religious speech, leaving have/have/has for everyday use? Also, am I the only one who’s irked when someone who is trying to be funny says “I hath”?
Back on topic, don’t forget that there are nuns who are sexually abused by priests :-/ . I think they don’t get much press because (unlike the laity) the nuns have taken a vow of obedience, and they’ve been told not to tell.
I’ve heard that archaeologists uncovering a monastery and a nearby convent found the bones of many infants in the connecting catacombs. Were most of these infants foundlings who died of natural causes? The unwanted fruit of consensual sex between monks and nuns? The unfortunate offspring of nuns who were forced to have sex?
There’s an old question: is it better to seem good or to be good? Too many members of the clergy have demonstrated that they value appearances over reality.
This reminds me of what my mother said in response to my sister becoming a JW. “Ain’t no MAN going to tell me what to do.” I actually feel rather sad for women who believe they are inferior to men. Not very sad, just a little. After all, they could get out of there at any time.
RE: contemptible or contemptuous, either works because both are true.
I once lived with a Seventh Day Adventist and besides being one of the most hypocritical people I have ever met, not to mention a self-centred pathological liar, he was astoundingly gullible when it came to new religious “truths” that were revealed to him by senior members of his congregation.
One example of which being that blood transfusions are both sinful and medically unnecessary, and apparently there was a church-funded documentary that proved this that I needed to watch. I refused and was immediately labelled ignorant (pardon me if I don’t want to waste an hour of my life on watching propaganda).
Well, they can label me as they wish but first I recommend they stop talking to their reflections.
There’s a pretty decent Wikipedia article on “thou”. The short of the story is that we fell into the common European practice where the 2nd person singular becomes familiar and you have to use plural (“you”) in formal context. From French, during the period after the Norman conquest. As the French influence faded, we lost interest in that distinction, and particularly the idea of using familiar when speaking to inferiors. So we went to all “you” (giving rise eventually to the Southern US “you all.”)
The use of the familiar with God was apparently already common in European languages when Thomas More et al. were burning people alive for translating the Bible into English, so that probably didn’t have much to do with it.
Given that none of y’all even believe in God, why are y’all so concerned about the rules of the Catholic Church involving women? Their club, their rules. It’s none of our concern until they start breaking our rules (i.e., the law).
Donn, thanks for the summary of the Wikipedia article on “thou”! I’m still curious about the conjugation of “have,” but that’s a rabbit hole to go down another day.
Jb, “This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M . . . to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions.” Here in the Cock & Bull, we’re not concerned about the rules of the Catholic Church involving women; we just like to air our opinions about them. Unless religious folks are breaking a law honored by Western civilization (as opposed to Islamic civilization), we tend to refrain from discussions about how to get them to switch to a secular/scientific point of view–though I must admit that some things (such as circumcision), which are legal but abhorrent to many, can also give rise to a discussion on how to get believers to change their minds.
I could use a hot toddy. Can I get you something from the bar?
Has anybody read the full tub of bullshit? The pope needs that garbage typing up in a 64 point font and the document rolling up and rammed up his rectum….
M27Holts, that would be a gravissimum educationis, and harder to take than a diet of worms.
i couldnt force myself past the halfway point. it reads like a night-before book report written using a google search of “bible+ children” and cherry picking the parts that support the thesis “yay, us”
For the most part it reads like a bad sociology students piss poor attempt to justify ideas that caused the dark ages. Old men in frocks spouting shite should be ridiculed rather than given carte blanch respect that enables them to fiddle with children…
*two cents* – there are parts of England, particularly parts of Yorkshire, where the thee/thou form is still alive and kicking.
Well they still point in wonder at bicycles in Yorkshire tha knows…
Thanks for the info., Suffolk Blue! Do the people in Yorkshire also use have/hath/hast?
M27Holts, do I understand correctly that, in Yorkshire, thou is pronounced so that it rhymes with ha? When it’s used where I live*, it’s pronounced so that it rhymes with now.
*in churches and when people read Shakespeare aloud
English–so ancient and so new 🙂 .
I am no expert on northern dialects. But broad yorkshire and broad lancashire dialects have much in common. Near me we have a place called Atherton which the locals call Chowbent or more often Bent…and neighbouring Tyldesley is knows as Bongs by the natives….Strange but the living languages of England are always throwing up new colloquial patterns of speech…
*two cents” – I don’t think that the old conjugation is used in everyday speech any more … thou hast / thou art … etc.
“How’s tha doin’?” is a commonly heard greeting.
And in a pub in Barnsley, I was asked “is that my pint or thine?”
“Hath” has nowt to do with thee/thou. It’s the old third person form of the verb.
Are there no regulars from Yorkshire in the C&B?
“CHRIST ALIVE?” I prefer Cardinal Glick’s (George Carlin’s) “Catholicism Wow!” and the Buddy Christ from the movie Dogma!