The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 codified this craziness and used those new and big words to bamboozle the masses at Mass who were also their sponsors, giving up a lot of their hard earned money to keep the old guys in frocks going in a manner that they liked to be kept in. The councillors decreed that it is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten and the Holy Spirit who proceeds. Good luck in knowing what that means.God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons (hypostases) sharing one essence/substance/nature (homoousion).[4]The Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from trinus 'threefold')[1] is the Christian doctrine concerning the nature of God,
- Wikipedia
This doctrine is called Trinitarianism, and its adherents are called Trinitarians.
There was no mention of it in the writings of the Old Testament. I doubt if the bullying, psychopathic maniac who was the old and original Bible god would have tolerated being split into three.
No doubt discussion on this will be on-going and will keep Robert in the blog fraternity for a while yet. Robert has a new supporter for ridiculous Catholic beliefs in Richard's new pal Rick Tim Bagno.
**************************
Now, what do Rick Tim Bagno, John Barron and Ron Vara have in common? These three - The Unholy Trinity - are all made up entities.
Rick Tim Bagno was made up by Richard of Richard's Bass Bag to further his latent Catholic beliefs, inquisitiveness and yearnings.
John Barron was made up by Donald Trump who pretended to be him when calling major newspapers and magazines giving them an inside view of how wonderful Donald Trump is.Belief in the Holy Trinity.One person (a god) is actually three entities. Father, son and holy spirit. That's a tough one to work out. Why can't there just be three gods? I asked a priest this question and he just said that some things are beyond the comprehension of us humans. Also, if the three entities have always been around, how come one of them is the son of another one? Maybe it's just a translation mistake, or something. Maybe it would be better if they were just called One, Two and Three. though I guess that suggests a hierarchy of 'command'.- Rick Tim Bagno
Trump used the pseudonym "John Barron" (sometimes "John Baron") throughout the 1980s, with its earliest known usage in 1980 and its last acknowledgment in 1990. According to The Washington Post, the name was a "go-to alias when Trump was under scrutiny, in need of a tough front man or otherwise wanting to convey a message without attaching his own name to it". Barron would be introduced as a spokesperson for Trump.
The pseudonym first appeared in a May 7, 1980, article where "John Barron, vice president of Trump Organization" spawned rumors of a $1 billion deal to buy the World Trade Centre: "I don't know if it's going to happen or not, but it is a possibility." In a June 6, 1980, New York Times article, "Barron" defended Trump's controversial destruction of sculptures on the Bonwit Teller flagship store (now the site of Trump Tower) that he had promised to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The pseudonymous vice president acted as Trump's spokesperson for three days in that case. Trump continued to pose as "Barron" on occasion for the rest of the decade.
In May 1984, "Barron" lied to then-Forbes reporter Jonathan Greenberg about Trump's wealth and assets to get Trump on the Forbes 400 list. "Barron" stated to Greenberg that "most of the assets [of Donald's father Fred Trump] have been consolidated to Mr. [Donald] Trump." In April 2018, Greenberg retrieved and made public the original audio recordings of his exchange with "Barron", and stated that "Trump, through this sockpuppet, was telling me he owned 'in excess of 90 percent'" of Fred Trump's assets. Ultimately, Greenberg included Trump at the end of the Forbes 400 list at $100 million, one fifth of the $500 million which "Barron" was claiming as Donald Trump's net worth. According to Greenberg, Donald Trump was only ever worth just under $5 million, which was 5% of the net worth which was attributed to him by Forbes at the time and only 1% of what "Barron" was claiming. Greenberg has corrected the record by stating that, as revealed in court documents in proceedings years later, Donald Trump never owned any of Fred Trump's assets until 1999 after Fred's death, and even then, inheriting only his share of Fred's deceased estate, with Donald Trump's three siblings and some grandchildren beneficiaries inheriting their corresponding shares.
Some New York editors recalled that "calls from Barron were at points so common that they became a recurring joke on the city desk".
- Wikipedia
Ron Vara was made up by Peter Navarro and used as a 'famous economist' via comments, emails and other support statements to endorse his crazy economic beliefs in his body books.
Convicted criminal and White House advisor Peter Navarro may have won the House Cup by citing a book written by an expert who didn’t exist. (And no, it wasn’t noted econometrician Dr. Otto Yerass.) Rachael Maddow busted him on TV last Friday.In his books, Maddow continued, Navarro often cited the work of a so-called economics expert named Ron Vara. “V-A-R-A, Ron Vara,” Maddow said. “Vara” shared a memo in Washington D.C. circles after Trump won the presidency. “At one point, Ron Vara wrote in the memo that Trump could, quote, ‘Ride the tariffs to victory,’ ” Maddow said. “The problem is, Ron Vara doesn’t exist. He never has. The economics expert that Peter Navarro has long cited to explain why he’s so gung-ho on tariffs, this person, Ron Vara, is a made-up person.”“He is a fictional person. Peter Navarro invented Ron Vara as his expert source, so he could quote this expert source over and over and over again in his crackpot books,” she continued. “Who is Ron Vara? Ron Vara is an anagram of Navarro, which is his last name. I mean, my name anagrams to Macho Wattler, but I don’t see myself trying to talk you into doing what Macho Wattler wants, right?” Maddow said.- Esquire
We live in funny times alright. Like those first three - the Holy Trinity, the second three - the Unholy Trinity will continue to make-up, embellish and bamboozle unwary readers. It's much safer to stick with the good old, reliable and mainstream communication sites like - THE CURMUDGEONS INC.ⓒ which is here to serve you or, as our new motto says:
IT SERVES YOU RIGHT.
11 comments:
" It's much safer to stick with the good old, reliable and mainstream communication sites like - THE CURMUDGEONS INC.ⓒ which is here to serve you or, as our new motto says:
IT SERVES YOU RIGHT."
But you have more 'made up people' than anybody.
THE LITERARY CURMUDGEON
THE WINE CURMUDGEON
THE CURMUDGEON EXPRESS
RIGHT AS RAIN
THE TWITTER CURMUDGEON
THE INCONSTANT CURMUDGEON
THE CULTURED CURMUDGEON
THE LAZY CURMUDGEON
THE MUSIC CURMUDGEON
THE FOOD CURMUDGEON
THE RELIGIOUS CURMUDGEON
CREME DOUGHNUT
THE MUNDANE CURMUDGEON
THE CHURCH OF THE BLESSED CURMUDGEON
THE NOSTALGIC CURMUDGEON
THE CURMUDGEON'S - AGONY AUNT
THE ALUMINIUM FOIL CURMUDGEON
IRASCIBLE OLD BASTARD
THE NEW DIFFERENT TIME ZONE BILL
THE CURMUDGEONLY LUDDITE
THE CURMUDGEONLY INVENTOR
THE HAPPY CURMUDGEON
THE POLEMICAL CURMUDGEON
THE PHILOSOPHICAL CURMUDGEON
DEACON TANIMATE
THE DARKER CURMUDGEON
and more...
No, no. They are just variations of me.
TC
What is the result of a bull going to the toilet?
Bullshit.
Obviously God hasn't behaved in the way you think he should. So what is your elaborate and well thought out explanation for our existence. Hope you include lots of adjectives.
You're talking of existentialism I think (therefore I am - a little non-'Nui' joke there).
There are lots of "well thought out explanations" on this and yes - lots of adjectives. Maybe you should read up on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche who critiqued rationalism and concerned themselves with the problem of meaning. The word 'existentialism' was first used in the mid 20th century and associated with Sartre, Heidegger, Simone de Beauvoir and Camus among others.
Well no. I didn't ask for references. I want your explanation of matter and how it came into existence.
There was a beginning right? Surely you don't spout infinite regression. Or other nonsense that puts the question off. What about the complexity of everything. How everything is so finely tuned. Why do we all havp a sense of what is morally right? Come on, front up. Give me something meaty.
Existentialism is just a silly idea that everyone can do what they want. That's going to work.
Have you finished?
Meataphysics?
The thing is about Christians is that they propose nonsense and then expect everyone to disprove it. It's as if I said "my car's made out of marshmallow and runs on golden syrup" and, instead giving proof, demand that others explain why it isn't so.
Post a Comment