LET'S TALK ABOUT JOKES THIS MORNING

Richard's been banging on about humour recently and has suggested that my puns, witticisms, aphorisms and wry observations might be a little too highbrow for Wellington and in particular The Hutt Valley and Wainuiomata. 

Wainuiomata, it seems, is still into 'dad' jokes and has recently discovered the 'NOT!' jokes.

It's not surprising that Wainuiomata means big water or stream of Mata ('Wai' means water and 'Nui' means big in Te Reo).  A big stream of piss seems appropriate. I don't know who Mata was but what does it matter.

Humour is defined in the Oxford dictionary as:

"... the quality of being amusing or comic, especially as expressed in literature or speech.

"his tales are full of humour""

And in The Cambridge dictionary joke  is defined as:

" ... something, such as a funny story or trick, that is said or done in order to make people laugh".

Obviously in Waiunuiomata, 'Oxford' and 'Cambridge' are only known by the old cars they drive. No doubt Richard will be replacing his big and snazzy Mitsubishi automobile with something from the now defunct Morris or Austin stables.

Robert, who has resurfaced with a new blog - 'the spiritual diary of a sinner ' started off strongly with a Christian joke:

"The devine presence

Jesus is always there. When I say Jesus I'm thinking the Trinity. Jesus, Father and Spirit. That gets hard on the brain, and Jesus is tangible. It's shorthand. Jesus equals and represents the sum of God.

Jesus is always there. Never for a moment does God stop being aware of each part of his creation, including me. I wish that I could say the same in reverse. Ereht syawla si susej. No I mean that I gave Him even a moment of thought. Though I'm sure he's happy when I'm with his mother, praying the rosary.

I think we would be greatly surprised at the graces that would be showered on us for remembering his presence."

That's a cracker - there's nothing like the old classics. This has everything going for it - misspellings, convoluted logic, twisted syntax, clumsy grammar and, of course, utter nonsense. Well done that man.

He followed the opening with this howler:

"I came across Isaiah 65 in someone's profile. It speaks to what I was thinking about today.

“I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;"

Ha ha - I hope that he doesn't get arrested.

***********************************

I removed a Clement Freud joke that I copied and pasted as, when I did a Wikipedia search on him I discovered that (posthumously) he'd been accused of child sexual abuse and rape, a charge that his widow seemed to accept and who apologised to the victims. I detest that sort of things so I won't be 'visiting' old Clement again.

************************************

 

A BETTER VISION OF THE FUTURE*

*    Sorry - more USA stuff but, let's face it, it affects us all.

Three years ago, I said in a post that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez known as AOC would be my pick of a future US president and one who has the brains, guts and determination to win and maintain the position for two terms like Barack Obama did. See: AOC

Earlier, I posted on Kamala Harris being the best Democratic leader and had the makings of being a very good president. See:HERE, HERE and HERE

Harris ran a very strong contention for the Presidency last year but ultimately failed due to the general weakness of the Democratic Party, the outright lies and false promises made by Trump, the behind the scenes manipulations of the right wing power base in USA e.g. 'Project 2025', the ignorance of the majority of the population, Russian interference, massive contributions by Elon Musk and his fellow Oligarchs amongst others.

In 'the others' category is the elephant in the room and I don't just mean that Republican elephant.

It's the fact that Harris is a woman of colour! Oh no! Not just a woman but a woman of colour (Indian mother and black West Indian father). Unfortunately too many of The United States of America voters just couldn't hack that. They are cowards, racists, misogynists and general bastards holding on to outdated and very unwanted beliefs. It was too soon to challenge their biases.

Harris may come back but I doubt it. Her vitality and enthusiasm has been knocked badly and - time moves on. Probably the best bet now for the USA democrats is to put forward the Californian governor who I suggested should have been put forward last year. See: ENTER STAGE LEFT

That might work if he doesn't curb his enthusiasm (a TV joke there) and disappear beneath Californian hubris and indulgence. He certainly, to me, appears to offer a life-line for the democrats who've been making asses of themselves recently as seen in Democratic Chuck Schumer (Senate Democratic Caucus leader)'s recent debacles. 

That said, and it will be an interesting next 3 plus years of the orange idiot's term (if he lasts) and then hopefully a major switch back to the centre with someone like Newsom or other male Democrat ... I believe that AOC's time will come.

Sure she's a Latino and a left-leaning Democrat and (gasp) female) but, given a few more years so they can't keep throwing the 'too young' card at her, AOC should be the best prospect in a new and enlightened world.

Yes, I'm an optimist and a dreamer despite having The Curmudgeon as my alter ego but .... the world needs positive change.

Have a look at this where AOC is speaking to huge audiences in traditionally Republican regions as part of the Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez where they set out to show Senate and Congress representation where the sitting senator or congressperson (Republican) has been too cowardly to show up.

Good old Bernie and well done AOC but, reading between the lines this could be a glimpse into the future. Sanders is 83 years old and a Senator representing Vermont. He might be considering passing on his mantle to someone he sees as representing his values and, who better than the powerful congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? I'd like to see this happen and, later (not too much later) see AOC given the position that she deserves and the rest of the world needs.

Watch this space.

IT WAS ME ...

... today.

I played 7 holes of golf this afternoon.

It's been a scorcher of a day so I waited until after 4pm before going out. The T20 Women's cricket looked like Australia were going to thrash us again so I didn't mind missing out.

I played the second nine of the course which I rarely play, preferring the first nine. I started off very well on the number 10 par 5 and scored a birdie (4) for the first time ever on this hole, Beauty!

I played the next hole, the 11th well scoring a par 4. I was happy.

Heading off over a bridge across a stream to the 12th hole (par 5) I spied some joker making a bee-line across several fairways towards me. I ignored him. As I set up on the tee of the 12th this joker called out to me asking if he could join me to play. WTF! I called back "No, I prefer to play on my own". He wasn't expecting this response and sort of stopped and said "Oh". I didn't feel guilty as I like to play golf at my own pace and not be pressured or delayed by someone else. What the hell was he thinking? Was he lonely? Was he friendless? I thought about referring him to one of my old blog posts about The Friendless Society (Ivor Cutler) but thought he might not understand. Anyway, I didn't want to encourage him into conversation. He wandered off and I teed off very well ending up with a par 5.

I got a par (3) on the 13th but then my golf deteriorated and I badly played the 14th and the 4th but got a par(4) on the 3rd. I don't think that Jesus/God/Godman was watching. That's probably just as well because he seems to be a stickler for the rules and would have disapproved of me mixing and matching the holes I played.

I hope that this post doesn't cause any Christians reading this to remove their blogs.

IT WASN'T ME

 Yeah, I know that I've used this before but it's funny and catchy OK?

Robert's blog's gone again. Richard suggests that I influenced this but ... it wasn't me.

I don't know why Robert aka ROB 'flushes' his blog so often, not that it's a bad thing.

I'm not sure though if he's got his settings right as sometimes readers can comment and at others they can't. Maybe Aunty Google cancelled his blog out of sheer frustration.

THERE WAS BEER, BEER, TO BRING US ALL GOOD CHEER ...

My eyes are dim I can not see
I have not got my specs with me
I have not got my specs with me

       Chorus from The Quartermaster's Store 

No, I haven't taken to drinking beer and got 'rat-arsed', the lyrics refer to me mastering my new eyesight.

Having been shortsighted for nearly 60 years I've had to wear prescription spectacles all the time. While being a hassle for playing sports and other activities, as wearing them was an absolute necessity for being able to see my way through the world ,I always had them on and never went anywhere without them.

The 'new eyes' I have, have corrected my long vision to 20:20 so I no longer need to wear spectacles all the time, no longer have to have an endorsement on my driving licence, can freely go swimming like I did today and generally it is life-changing.

The downside though is that my near vision for reading, checking my phone, typing at a computer etc. needs correction - not by much but enough to require using reading glasses occasionally. I've been using some cheap, low magnification hobby glasses I bought at the supermarket. Not knowing the exact strength needed I bought a 1.75, a 2.0 and a 2.25 magnification pair. None of them are exactly right but are useful. I leave one pair in the car, one pair by the computer and the other as a 'floater' for reading. I'm finding that it's a fankle having to keep track of them and, while using them have to keep putting them on and taking them off. Often I'm in another room from where any one pair is and have to go and find them to say, read recipe instructions in the kitchen.

The Old Girl has very powerful long vision but, over time her short vision has diminished necessitating having to use reading glasses. She obviously faced the same issues I am as she bought several pairs of cheap hobby glasses that she would leave all over the house. She was forever misplacing them and I'd have to help her hunt a pair down. I always threatened to buy her one of those 'old lady' chains for hanging them around her neck.

Recently she bought two pairs of prescription glasses with progressive lenses. One she keeps close by and the other is permanently by her computer in my study her office. These work very well (I've tried them). The top part of the lens is clear so long distance vision isn't impaired and the bottom part of the lens has a low magnification (measured to match exactly her short sightedness for reading). They can be worn constantly with just a slight tilt of the head catering to long or normal vision and close up reading. I've decided that I'll do the same. I'll get two pairs - one for the car and the other, hopefully to be within reach at all times.

Maybe I'll have to get a spectacle chain like Mrs Richard's.

Hoisted by my own petard.

GODMAN

 Robert wrote something strange in his latest blog today:

"TC's posted a very disrespectful video. Not something I'd do if I was 72 and liable to come face to face with the Godman he's laughing at any day!"

Despite the dodgy syntax I think I understand what he's saying. He's suggesting:

1. That I'm disrespectful of the Catholic religion. OK - guilty as charged.
2. That I'm old and likely to snuff it soon. Fair enough.
3. That when I soon snuff it I'll meet up with his god. Well, we know that's a load of bollocks.

The thing is though that he refers to his god as "the Godman". This is new - or new from Robert at any rate. It must be from the latest talking points (propaganda) from the Vatican that are sent out to Catholic churches around the world so as to keep everyone 'on song'.

I decided to look up 'Godman' on the internet.

AI Overview told me:

1. Godman (India):
In India, "Godman" refers to a type of healer or con artist who is often elevated to a demigod-like status by their cult following.
These individuals typically claim to possess paranormal powers, such as healing, the ability to see or influence future events, and mind-reading.
They often have a high-profile presence and attract support from large sections of Indian society.

 

2. God-man (Christianity):

In Christianity, "God-man" (Greek: θεάνθρωπος, romanized: theánthropos; Latin: deus homo) refers to the incarnation and hypostatic union of Christ, which are two of mainstream Christianity's most widely accepted and revered christological doctrines.
This doctrine states that Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully human.

 

3. Other Notable Uses:
Ike! Godman: A Japanese tokusatsu Kyodai Hero kaiju television series.

 

OK, all good, it's interesting to learn something new every day especially as Robert says that I'm on my way out. Maybe Godman will give me a test when I meet him. I hope that it's multi-choice as the old memory's getting patchy nowadays .

I'm pleased to see that the Catholic Church hasn't got sole claim to 'Godman' although, like they've misappropriated most things in the religious world, no doubt soon their acolytes will be going about saying things like 'Jesus the one true everlasting and original Godman' (sounds like something that Richard says when advertising his blog).

I knew a guy named Goodman a while ago. He was older than me so might have passed on now. It could have gotten confusing when he met up with Godman. It could have been like one of those Marx Brothers, The Three Stooges or Abbott and Costello circular logic routines:

That's what discussing the Holy Trinity with Robert is like.

Anyway, whether I meet up with Godman (and maybe Goodman as well) is hopefully well in the future. Meantime Robert's going to put in a good word for me as he said:

"I've got a nice quiet day ahead, just 9 am Mass (where I'll pray for TC's soul)."

- Rob

Richard picked up on this and reminded me that free stuff is always worth having:

 "He's praying for you. Ah well, free prayers. You don't have to lift a finger."

        - Richard of RBB 

ABOUT JESUS - SOME MORE

 Due to the popularity of the previous post - Philomena Cunk on Jesus Part One we are bringing you Philomena Cunk on Jesus Part two.

No need to thank us.

SO, WHERE DID JESUS COME FROM?

 Philomena Cunk investigated this as you will see below in Jesus Part One.

We at The Curmudgeons Inc.ⓒ admire Philomena for her investigative style, observations and conclusions which are not unlike our own.

INCONSISTENCIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - PART ONE (of many thousands).

 

Robert, in a comment on my previous post said that all the old stuff in the Bible has "been shredded" whatever that means and that I guess reason and commonsense now is being used. The inference is that the Old Testament stuff was the raving of old Jewish loonies and that the New Testament stuff (nonsensically) is the informed opinion and fact of non-Jewish Christians. I was intrigued so looked up the web for inconsistencies in the New Testament and found this written by Paul Carlson. 

Christians will remember that they have been taught that Jesus had a family tree going back to King David. They were also taught that Jesus was miraculously produced by a 'seed' from The Holy Spirit.

Well, they can't have it both ways.

THE GENEALOGIES OF JOSEPH - Paul Carlson.

1. Matthew and Luke disagree

Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary’s, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph’s genealogy (Luke 3:23). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a “Church Father,” wrote in his The History of the Church, “each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages.”

2. Why genealogies of Joseph?

Both the genealogies of Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David. But if Joseph is not Jesus’ father, then Joseph’s genealogies are meaningless as far as Jesus is concerned, and one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke included them in their gospels. The answer, of course, is that the genealogies originally said that Jesus was the son of Joseph and thus Jesus fulfilled the messianic requirement of being a direct descendant of King David.

Long after Matthew and Luke wrote the genealogies the church invented (or more likely borrowed from the mystery religions) the doctrine of the virgin birth. Although the virgin birth could be accommodated by inserting a few words into the genealogies to break the physical link between Joseph and Jesus, those same insertions also broke the physical link between David and Jesus.

The church had now created two major problems: 1) to explain away the existence of two genealogies of Joseph, now rendered meaningless, and 2) to explain how Jesus was a descendant of David.

The apostle Paul says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3). Here the word “seed” is literally in the Greek “sperma.” This same Greek word is translated in other verses as “descendant(s)” or “offspring.” The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin – seed from the line of David was required.

Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man’s sperm (the woman’s egg being discovered in 1827). The woman’s womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children.

This is the reason that although there are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are no female genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some apologists that Jesus could be of the “seed of David” through Mary.

I hope that this is of assistance to you. If this post is popular (as measured by at least one comment) I will 'research' more inconsistencies in the New Testament of the Bible. I doubt that I'll have to look far. 

PATERNITY TEST

.

BIBLE CONFIRMS THAT YOU CAN'T GO TO CHURCH IF YOUR TESTICLES ARE DAMAGED OR IF YOUR PENIS HAS BEEN CUT OFF

One commenter on the blogs has asked "who can go to a Catholic Church?" and for proof of this.

Obviously anyone can go to a Catholic Church even women as long as they keep quiet and cover their hair and naughty bits.

However, gay and other LGBQT people obviously cannot. That speaks for itself. The Holy Roman Catholic Church isn't the YMCA. There you are talking serious damnation - just look at the decadence and sin in our modern world. Sorry, but don't rely on Jesus being reasonable. He's caring and loves (most of) us but there are limits, especially this one:

You can’t go to church if your testicles are damaged, or if your penis has been cut off.

Deuteronomy 23:1 (King James Version 1900)  is clear on this.

“He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” 

Sorry John Bobbitt. (SEE: JOHN BOBBITT'S PENIS)