Mangled Thoughts

Just another anecdote, to use the tactics of the believers in Man Wanks the Universe (Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate change) AGW is false (though one has no need at all, unlike the boosters of AGW/C, to use such a cheap trick), there is no global warming. Agw, however, is not the subject of this post; it is only used in a metaphorical sense.

I went into a freeze because, what the dumpkofs called politicians and bureaucrats are doing to Australians is chilling. The antidote is a bit of scotch taken literally and neat (ice, water, and ginger? Bah, anyone who takes even a merely good scotch so adulterated should be shot); I’ve thawed out.

Some-one aksed the other day about what I frang on about when I blog. I gave a brief list, the occasion required impeccable manners and politics is bad manners, blogging is too, no doubt, as a subject that is/ I gave a brief list of matters that are ripe for blogging. In response to prod, I remarked, well, the great thing about blogging is it is not p.c. and it is about eviscerating things which warrant evisceration, `You call it a fucking cunt.’ A couple of gentleman drew breath and properly.

The occasion, was in the middle of a concentrated evisceration of those ignorant, slimes called Sheezel, Barry, their Krogerite fellow glove puppets, that derelict David Davies (the case of X and Y, which even Ted has not yet lifted a finger to defend against Bracks and his stasiland goon squads). Needless to say, one was still in combative mood. I felt ashamed after but, the nice thing about ladies, they like a bit of whiffy scandalous repartee, so long as it is delivered in good vein. Two lovely ladies patted me on the arm, as they defended me against the bullies who choked over what turned out a very felicitous remark.

Well, it was felicitous; two charming ladies were hanging off my arms, so you can?t get anything more felicitous than that, can you? Nonetheless, and it is not a confession, but for the best part of a week I’ve been flailing my hide.

Well, having thawed out, it’s time to call a few fucking cunts fucking cunts, and do so with gusto.

A brief read of a few passages in the novel, ?The de Vinci Code??, in a bookshop, suggested a tedious read. The movie might be better. The axle of it is a ?what if? bit of speculation. Mixed with the elements of a thriller; conspiracy, murder, an innocent who gets wind of a deep secret, powerful antagonists who can crush a chap with one flick of the eyebrow; and what do we get, besides a pot boiled story, demonstrations in the street.

Perhaps the timing is unfortunate. With governments and bureaucrats in the West persecuting Christians and bending over backwards to appease Islamo-nazis in our midst, the sensitivities involved are understandable, Not another damned leftist attack on Christianity? The record of Hollywood half witted lefties is not re-assuring as to whether the film is a good thriller only or another leftist indulgence. Having neither read the book nor seen the movie, the judgment is in suspension, so I?ll take it at face value, it?s merely a thriller starring lanky Hanky Tom.

The dirty secret of the story, Jesus married Mary, they had a son, and Jesus lived a pedestrian life until old age, has invoked the ire of Christians.

Well, the historical Jesus certainly was crucified to death. The difficulty with the gospel narratives is, they are not factual biographies of Jesus, they are texts written to set out christological and theological claims. This observation clears up why the gospels are not biographies, what the authors were at pains to set out can be demonstrated from biography. What facts would establish the theological and christological content which is the kernel of those books?

Answering, for example, the Resurrection doesn?t cut any ice. One, would is not referring to whether it occurred or not, and what happened. Though, to draw out the question of what happened, is not the same as what witnesses experienced when they met the risen Christ. Such questions, to repeat, are beside the point, the life of Jesus anchors the proclamation but the Jesus of Nazareth is depicted entirely in terms of that proclamation. Thus, even loose questions such as, was Jesus married cannot be answered. A bit of shrewd speculation, however, is not altogether out of order.

The wedding at Cana is an intriguing narrative; whose wedding was it? The telling detail is Jesus? mum and he serves the duty of hosts. Guests then, as now, did not supply wine In short, Jesus? part is that of the groom, and certainly not a guest

A few funerary casks of the period, in which the remains of the dead are kept, were discovered in a tomb in Jerusalem a few years ago. They are inscribed respectively:

Jesus of Nazareth
Mary Magdalene, wife of Jesus
John, son of Jesus

In the N. T. narratives the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is intimate and depicted with a delicacy is matched only by the depiction of the relationship between Jesus and John, which has long impressed me as filial.

Speculative it might be, but one has long been intrigued by the possibility of a marriage. First because of the narrative units and, later, the recent archaeological discovery, by whether Jesus and Mary were in fact married and that John was indeed their son. It is possible that, for example, the casks were deliberately made to discredit the claims of Jesus? followers.

To be clear, it can?t be firmly secured either way, as this little bit of speculation shows. The real question is, does it follow the proclamation and claims of Jesus? apostles are undermined if in fact Jesus and Mary M. were married and John was their son?

My short answer is, the claims would not be undermined. The matter devolves upon what Jesus? apostles witnessed and understood of Jesus? life, death and resurrection. What they understood wasn?t built out of earthly details of Jesus? life. What they understood is decided by the conclusion, which is what they witnessed as the resurrection and not just the resurrection, but as the author of Luke-Acts relates, `Pentecost?. It is from that perspective, to mark, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus is appreciated, including the other wise inexplicable resolution of Jesus to surrender himself in the Garden of Gethsemane and his refusal to defend himself on a capital charge before Pilate.

The narrative presentation of the trial of Jesus depicts Pilate is given to the conclusion Jesus is harmless and would acquit him. Jesus says nothing of help Pilate, and answers questions with questions. What was said during the trial and what evidence was actually presented is another matter, but that is not the point to the narrative.

St. Paul has met only the Risen Christ, not the historical Jesus, but for Paul, that the Risen Christ and the Jesus of history are identical secures the truth of his proclamation.

In the gospels, until the Resurrection, that Jesus is not only truly a Son of God but is Son of Man is glimpsed and not apprehended as Jesus perambulates around Judaea. In the book of Revelation, the identity of Jesus and the Risen Christ is glimpsed from the other side as it were. The historical Jesus is glimpsed through the Risen Christ.

What is decisive for John, is the unique relationship between the Jesus and the Father. This, and not the historical details of Jesus? life, and the implications of what was disclosed by the life death and resurrection of one who was and remains true to the Father, and transparent to the Father. No historical fact establishes what John and the other writers of the N. T. collection are concerned to establish.

Thus, whether Jesus and Mary M. were married and John was their son doesn?t add or subtract to what the writers of the gospel narratives were concerned to relate. The veracity of their theological-christological claims is not yielded out of historical facts. A reliable life of Jesus would have been an entirely different work.

If Jesus and Mary M. were married and John was their son, and that could be established, that detail would only add charm to the proclamation, though it would add weight to the anthropological term, Son of God.

This speculative line is, of course altogether different to a fiction thriller titled, The de Vinci Code. The reaction to the movie, assuming it is a good movie, is a tad excessive. One of the departure points, Jesus married Mary M. and their son was John, is, however, a tantalising question and one for Christians to give careful consideration to.

In view of the slanders against Prodos, from the likes of that malicious thug called Barry, and that cowardly weasel, Sheezel, and those snivelling whiners at Crikey, readers might view , Prodos not only has guts, Liberal convictions, amusing, colourful, he is a very serious man too. So, Just to guide the record straight:

the complete list of
all PRODOS.COM interviews
currently online! Click on these and listen now to discussions on philosophy, science, business, art,
world affairs, human rights!

A few titles:

ALLAN GOTTHELF DISCUSSES HIS BOOK “ON AYN RAND”
From the PRODOS.COM archives 2000 …

How should a person gain his philosophy? What is philosophy? What is the meaning of life? And is mysticism required to answer this question? What is ?value??? What does human survival require? What does it mean for a human being ?to live??? Selfishness: what is it according to Ayn Rand? Contrasting it with the Nietzchien view. The harmony of rational interests. In Ayn Rand?s novel, “The Fountainhead,” Howard Roark gives up a job that would bring him wealth and fame. How was that, by Ayn Rand?s philosophy, a selfish act? How did Allan Gotthelf first meet Ayn Rand?

THE CAPITALIST MANIFESTO BY ANDREW BERNSTEIN
JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS: A JOURNEY INTO AMERICAN IDEALS
In his “dissenting opinion” in the Kelo vs New London eminent domain case, United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas takes us on a journey into the thinking and the spirit of the American Founding Fathers. With San Diego based attorney, James Valliant, we analyse Justice Thomas’s approach and learn about how the framers of the American Constitution approached defending man’s rights - defending it against the very kinds of people represented by Justice Stevens and the Supreme Court’s majority opinion!

REVIVAL AND INFLUENCE OF ANCIENT SKEPTICISM IN MODERN SCIENCE
Skepticism?s Medieval alliance with theology. Extreme skepticism and moderate skepticism. Montaigne?s skeptic view regarding the statement ?honey is sweet??. Rene Descartes ?? the material universe as a giant piece of clockwork; ?I think; therefore I am.?? Looking for that which cannot be doubted. The ?evil demon?? hypothesis. When Science shook up the old views of the world. Thomas Hobbes ? his solution for the problem of finding a criteria for true knowledge. Influence of skepticism on modern science. Newtonians: ?We can do science without knowing the ultimate causes of things.?? Is statistical evidence proof of cause and effect?Skepticism and quantum mechanics Skepticism in ethics and politics. The elephant and the 3 blind men.

Prodos doesn’t simply have a thorough understanding of economics, he’s engaged in first rate inquiry and examinition of ideas.

The ALP prides itself on its thinkers and as a Party of ideas: Prodos leaves them behind and on a very sound lead of considerable distance.

Here are hard hitting items on Castro and Cuba:

Here’s an interesting excerpt from a radio interview on the last linked site:

JOSE BASULTO: Let me say something here. Ninoska mentioned something very important which is Eli?n’s wish. Eli?n has mentioned time and time again, and I have been there when he has said it, he wants to stay. He is very happy here. The only times that I have seen Eli?n kind of sad or concerned or worried is when somebody mentions the possibility that he may have to be returned to Cuba.

PRODOS: Does [Eli?n] say why he does not like Cuba?

JOSE BASULTO: (laughing) I wouldn’t even dare repeat the words he used the other day talking to his father (on the phone).

PRODOS: Is that right?

JOSE BASULTO: He said, ?Don’t send me back to that so and so. Please, you come over here.’

PRODOS: Is he angry with his father?

JOSE BASULTO: No he’s not. He loves his father - (after all) it’s his father. What he would like to be is together with his father - but in the United States. And I’m sure the father would like that too but at this time and this juncture in which Castro found that Eli?n was a gold mine for his propaganda effort and to detract attention away from his internal problems he is not going to let him loose so easy. So if Eli?n’s father’s possibility of coming here to claim his child, I think, is next to zero. Most especially if he tends to bring his [Cuban] family along to do that.

NINOSKA PEREC: The difference is that the one is a system that destroys the individuality of the human being. When Castro took over and in post-communism - on the people of Cuba he had to turn them into atheists first and then turn them into what Che Guevara has said — and this is what was written on the ID’s that were found on Cuban soldiers that were killed in Angola. It said the following: “Hate as the motivation. The kind of hate that makes a human being a cold and calculating killing machine. This is the hate that our soldiers must have.”

PRODOS: Prodos world wide at www.prodos.com - defending the right of Eli?n Gonzalez to live as a free person in a free society. Escaping from Cuba his mother died, his step-father died - to take him to freedom - to take him to America. Now the politicians and many others think that he’s got to go back to his father and have ignored the fact that his father may be under duress and that in any case - whether or not his father wants him back and is genuine - it would mean having to grow up as a Cuban Communist and be subjected to what could only be described as psychological torture and brainwashing.

Erich Veyhl, a colleague of mine, sent me a note saying that “New York Congressman Rangler - one of the more brash, reckless loud-mouth - Clinton supporters during Clinton’s impeachment - claimed we only want Eli?n to stay, out of an obsessive hatred for communism”. Gee, I thought that would be a GOOD thing! Having an obsessive hate for communism sounds pretty healthy to me. Mark Da Cunha, as somebody who runs Capitalism Magazine, do you have an obsessive hatred for communism - in the nicest possible way?

MARK DA CUNHA: My main love is for Capitalism. The problem with Communism that it resurfaces in different ways as with Fascism and Socialism and so forth. But I’d like to ask a question of Cuban friends.

PRODOS: Sure!

MARK DA CUNHA: I was reading about life in Cuba for children and tried to concretized difference between life as a child in Cuba and life as a child in America. I was reading for example that children had to have compulsory military service until a certain age and that they have to work in a farm labor camp so many days per year. Can you verify any of this or explain any of this?

ED LOCKE: The American Left likes Communism.

PRODOS: They like Communism?

ED LOCKE: Yeah, they think Communism is a great system.

PRODOS: Gees!

MARK DA CUNHA: To continue Ed Locke’s point. I think the link between the American Left and Castro is that where Castro wants to force people into slavery, I think the American Left, like Clinton and so forth, wishes us to vote our selves into slavery.

PRODOS: (Prodos and Ninoska laugh) The freedom to be slaves!

MARK DA CUNHA: We see that through the U.S. government’s expanding public education system; we see that through volunteerism where if you don’t ‘volunteer’ to pick up garbage, you don’t graduate from High School; we see that in the drive by the Clinton administration to enslave American doctors. So no wonder the American Left can see no difference and nothing wrong with Cuba. That’s where they want to lead us to!

PRODOS: So here we have, on the one hand, these poor Cubans trying to escape to freedom while the freest country on earth is going towards Socialism and Communism. Folks we’ve got to leave it there. Thanks very much for your time and helping us to defend the rights of Eli?n Gonzalez!

Here’s Prodos on some Victorian and Oz affairs.

Prodos is just the sort of go ahead, gutsy, principled and brainy chap the Liberals need in the Parliament.

Haven’t blogged out this side of Easter as much as I had intended. Something interesting today delayed posting a couple of things, including excortiation of some Bishops whose statements amount to, Bonga Bonga and, Christ really was a commie thug. lent, it’s th eclergy who should get down on bended knees and repent.

But, it’s too late in the day and, perhaps, not the right thing to do. So, we’ll swing the axe after easter or, rather, on the 26th of April, when one shall have returned from a brief break.

From this morning, on ehas found out some interesting things.

Costello believes tax is low in Oz, and has report saying so. He might as well be a cleric or join the ALP. A load of rubbish Costello. The interesting thing I found out this morning is bound up with this, in the area of manufacturing. Oz is not a place for entrepenuers, its for socialistos like the `round-table of 6′ greeny hugging thugs pretending to be businessmen. Gerard Jackson summed it up, fascism and fascists.

So, Merry have a good capitalist pig out season.

Until the 29th, the Voice Leonine says, Meow.

The Brackistaniland election is looming? and the Lying, Stalinist, Pol Potian thugs are set to win!!, below.
Long and, I still omitted to include much. Hit the more link in the item to read the rest.