Catholics and Devils
Yahoo recently posted a Reuter’s article titled, “Exorcists wanted: apply to Catholic Church,” which began with the lead, ”Overwhelmed with requests for exorcists, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops are holding a special training workshop in Baltimore this weekend to teach clerics the esoteric rite, the Catholic News Service reported.”
Exorcisms? An overwhelming demand? What’s next, overwhelming requests for clerics to cast out evil politicians? Well, no, the Catholic Church believes that casting out evil politicians is and always will be the prerogative of voters, at least in America. Elsewhere, it may be the prerogative of the politicians who manipulate elections.
Point is, exorcisms, the ritualistic process of ”ἐξορκισμός, exorkismos–binding by oath, the practice of evicting demons or other spiritual entities from a person or place which they are believed to have possessed,” is alive and well, if not a favorite belief of most people, Catholics and otherwise, today.
The whole idea of exorisms and exorists is just, well, not popular.
Nevertheless, American Catholic clerics who refuse to concede that all is not exactly sweetness and light and jollity in America and that some nasty devils really exist are looking for people–males only!–who will commit to exorcising those devils.
Americans are woefully lacking in such exorcist-qualified men and ”each diocese deserves its own,” according to Bishop Thomas Paprocki. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2660)
Showing posts with label angels and demons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label angels and demons. Show all posts
Monday, November 15, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Limbaugh Demonizes Obama
Limbaugh Demonizes Obama
Rush Limbaugh has never been known for his subtlety nor for his reticence--and certainly not for his monogamy. As I've often said, he's an insufferable blowhard but he happens to be our insufferable blowhard, that is, a dedicated and highly influential conservative even if he engages in bombast and flame-throwing once in a while.
The bombast is always anticipated but a major flame emanated from Rush's EIB studio, his Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on Monday which will surely ignite the bubbling venom in the bowels of his countless liberal critics when he said--sort of--that the president of the United States was a devil.
Later,in an article posted on RushLimbaugh.com titled, "Helpless Liberals Watch as Obama Switches from Messiah to Demon." those broadcast comments were published for all to see.
Limbaugh cites pictures on DrudgeReport.com and ominously says, "Folks, these pictures, they look demonic. And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released. . . It's very, very, very strange. An American president has never had facial expressions like this."
When Limbaugh says, "I'm not saying anything here," he's being grossly disingenuous because he's obviously saying a great deal there. To see where there is, to see various recent pictures of Barack Obama as demon and read Limbaugh's analysis of the Democrat Party days before the election that could change America's political landscape, click here: http://bit.ly/db91lV
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, can evil also be detected by beholders? It is said that pictures never lie, no? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2276)
Rush Limbaugh has never been known for his subtlety nor for his reticence--and certainly not for his monogamy. As I've often said, he's an insufferable blowhard but he happens to be our insufferable blowhard, that is, a dedicated and highly influential conservative even if he engages in bombast and flame-throwing once in a while.
The bombast is always anticipated but a major flame emanated from Rush's EIB studio, his Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on Monday which will surely ignite the bubbling venom in the bowels of his countless liberal critics when he said--sort of--that the president of the United States was a devil.
Later,in an article posted on RushLimbaugh.com titled, "Helpless Liberals Watch as Obama Switches from Messiah to Demon." those broadcast comments were published for all to see.
Limbaugh cites pictures on DrudgeReport.com and ominously says, "Folks, these pictures, they look demonic. And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released. . . It's very, very, very strange. An American president has never had facial expressions like this."
When Limbaugh says, "I'm not saying anything here," he's being grossly disingenuous because he's obviously saying a great deal there. To see where there is, to see various recent pictures of Barack Obama as demon and read Limbaugh's analysis of the Democrat Party days before the election that could change America's political landscape, click here: http://bit.ly/db91lV
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, can evil also be detected by beholders? It is said that pictures never lie, no? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2276)
Monday, May 25, 2009
Angels, Demons, Dan Brown and the Vatican: Oh, My!
Angels, Demons, Dan Brown and the Vatican: Oh, My!
I honestly don’t know what to think about Tom Hanks’ new conspiracy flick, “Angels and Demons,” a prequel witten prior to his earlier blockbuster, “The DaVinci Code.”
I’m not crazy about Hanks to start with, although I must be admit he’s a talented actor. As for director Ron Howard, I still can’t get past the image of Opie of years ago but he seems to know how to direct movies. He was cuter as a kid but losing his hair seems to have sharpened his directorial expertise.
I didn’t want to go see “Angels and Demons” mainly because it was awarded a mere 2 stars by most expert critics and 3 stars is my criterion to lay out bucks to go to the local movie house instead of waiting for the DVD. However, I listened to the wife for a change who had reminded me that “Benjamin Button” had earned 3 stars, wasn’t all that special, and which was entirely too long.
So, we went to view ”Angels” on a semi-big screen. At 135 minutes, it too was much too long but I was glad I did. I think.
Granted, like “Button” and “DaVinci,” “Angels” is largely a fantasy thriller although, as with “The DaVinci Code,” author Brown swore it was factual which causes one to wonder what he considers fact as opposed to fiction.
Had F. Scott Fitzgerald, author of the 1921 short story on which “Button” was based, had read the screenplay and heard any suggestions that the film was based on fact, both he and Zelda would have retched, and then would have quaffed a few more martinis.
In “DaVinci,” Brown fabricated a plot postulated on age-old and long-discounted conspiratorial slanders against the Catholic Church, such as Jesus Christ being a family guy who wed Mary Magdalen. He invented obtuse anagrams and silliness about the Priory of Sion, which dates to the 1950’s, not to the 1600’s: http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id43.html. Brown also cites the ancient Knights Templar and the relatively new Catholic organization, Opus Dei, (est. 1928), as conspiratorialists and vicious murderers.
The author brings to mind the truism that even paranoiacs have enemies. If true, Brown has tons of enemies, all somehow associated with Catholicism.
In “Angels” he ranges even farther afield from reason with some anti-matter nonsense and an attempt to vaporize the Vatican with an anti-matter experiment run amok, which may have been wishful thinking on Brown’s part.
You see, many hundreds of years back the Church was supposed to have slaughtered a bunch of Illuminati in order to suppress scientific advancement, . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
I honestly don’t know what to think about Tom Hanks’ new conspiracy flick, “Angels and Demons,” a prequel witten prior to his earlier blockbuster, “The DaVinci Code.”
I’m not crazy about Hanks to start with, although I must be admit he’s a talented actor. As for director Ron Howard, I still can’t get past the image of Opie of years ago but he seems to know how to direct movies. He was cuter as a kid but losing his hair seems to have sharpened his directorial expertise.
I didn’t want to go see “Angels and Demons” mainly because it was awarded a mere 2 stars by most expert critics and 3 stars is my criterion to lay out bucks to go to the local movie house instead of waiting for the DVD. However, I listened to the wife for a change who had reminded me that “Benjamin Button” had earned 3 stars, wasn’t all that special, and which was entirely too long.
So, we went to view ”Angels” on a semi-big screen. At 135 minutes, it too was much too long but I was glad I did. I think.
Granted, like “Button” and “DaVinci,” “Angels” is largely a fantasy thriller although, as with “The DaVinci Code,” author Brown swore it was factual which causes one to wonder what he considers fact as opposed to fiction.
Had F. Scott Fitzgerald, author of the 1921 short story on which “Button” was based, had read the screenplay and heard any suggestions that the film was based on fact, both he and Zelda would have retched, and then would have quaffed a few more martinis.
In “DaVinci,” Brown fabricated a plot postulated on age-old and long-discounted conspiratorial slanders against the Catholic Church, such as Jesus Christ being a family guy who wed Mary Magdalen. He invented obtuse anagrams and silliness about the Priory of Sion, which dates to the 1950’s, not to the 1600’s: http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id43.html. Brown also cites the ancient Knights Templar and the relatively new Catholic organization, Opus Dei, (est. 1928), as conspiratorialists and vicious murderers.
The author brings to mind the truism that even paranoiacs have enemies. If true, Brown has tons of enemies, all somehow associated with Catholicism.
In “Angels” he ranges even farther afield from reason with some anti-matter nonsense and an attempt to vaporize the Vatican with an anti-matter experiment run amok, which may have been wishful thinking on Brown’s part.
You see, many hundreds of years back the Church was supposed to have slaughtered a bunch of Illuminati in order to suppress scientific advancement, . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)