On this weeks Kitchen Table Steve and I discuss my earlier article on Civic Religion
The Kitchen Table 32 – Judgement Day
This is the song I mentioned….
The Blog of David Robertson
The Blog of David Robertson
On this weeks Kitchen Table Steve and I discuss my earlier article on Civic Religion
The Kitchen Table 32 – Judgement Day
This is the song I mentioned….
Catt is now claiming that the pursuit of DEI (ie, woke) hiring and pay policies “is one way to enact the faith of Jesus”:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1061180519372855&id=100064427511823
Peter Catt is becoming more and more of a self-parody every day.
I was thinking about this a little more. The sad thing is that Catt is more right than he knows: “progress” is like a cyclone, not just because it is inevitable but because it is often destructive.
“Progress” does seem inevitable because conservatives have conserved nothing. We really need a reactionary party to undo many of the bad decisions of recent decades.
Catt seems to have an almost childish belief that all progress is good and Godly. I found a repudiation of this view in an older article:
Marriage Debate: Progress Is Not Always as It Seems – Michael Jensen
https://www.929voice.fm/news/marriage-debate-progress-not-always-seems-michael-jensen/
“Rev Dr Peter Catt from the group Christians for Marriage Equality recently told Open House that marriage has ‘evolved’ over the last few decades to the point it was no longer exclusively a heterosexual institution.
However according to Rev Dr Michael Jensen while social norms may change God and his word remain the same.
He cites the abolition of slavery as a case in which Christian reformers confronted what was “a bad reading of the Bible” and overcame a social evil. Progress in that social justice issue, he argues, was entirely consistent with correctly applied Biblical teaching.
In a recent article in Eternity News he argues that Christians are called to be faithful “come what may”. He says “the progress of history does not always yield great results, and if we are like Christ, you will stand for purity and faithfulness, when the surrounding culture gives licence to unbridled desire”.
The accusation that Christians are either trying to hold back or swim against the tide of social progress is nothing new. We are used to being regarded as culturally different. It is something we should not worry about and in fact, being out of step with popular culture for good and godly reasons is an issue of being faithful to our calling.
Christians are generally used to office banter about their point of difference. Normally it is good-natured.
But the same sex marriage debate seems to have taken things to a new level, and when Open House asked listeners about their experiences many said they felt unable to talk about their faith openly for fear of being branded a bigot, with some saying they felt they may be disadvantaged because of their beliefs.”
It is interesting to see how Catt twists things. Protest and “speaking truth to power” is good unless it is against his church and rainbow flag. The police and authority are bad unless they are doing Catt’s bidding in arresting protesters. Christ is always on the progressive side. All his verbiage just masks hypocrisy and simplistic views.
For people without Facebook, Catt’s article on DEI is also here:
https://anglicanfocus.org.au/2025/03/11/like-the-cyclone-the-trajectory-of-our-common-life-is-far-from-straightforward-or-linear/
“Just as Cyclone Alfred doubled back on itself, in the present day the path to gender equality could be seen to be taking a few steps back. The rise of religious fundamentalism, the resurgence of puritanism (even in our own denomination), the rise of toxic masculinity and the attacks on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) in the USA, which will find supporters here, are all producing headwinds that might see the move towards gender equality stall.”
I think he really does fear Puritanism and Sydney Anglicanism if he seems them as obstacles to the DEI wokeness he wants.
“Over the past two thousand years, the unfolding Jesus project has seen a constant, if torturously slow, movement towards the breaking down of the divisions that so often divide humanity. ”
How dare he equate Christ to the bullying, divisiveness and climate of fear in the workplace generated by DEI?! All of these are utterly antithetical to what our Lord and Saviour preached.
Here is the PDF of this year’s Synod Church Book by the Brisbane Anglicans:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d0b6225d1f5490001c5c757/t/66552fa9d7d0cb311a108ab5/1716858908015/Synod%2B2024%2BYear%2BBook%2BVolume%2BI.pdf
From Catt’s Cathedral report:
“… to the populist resurgence of Donald Trump in the USA – which as former
Republican congresswoman Liz Chaney (sic) puts it, sees that country ‘sleepwalking into a
Dictatorship’ – all exemplify that shift. Several people I have had conversations with are
reading the history of the Weimar Republic searching for clues as to how history might
be prevented from repeating. Lest we forget…”
Interesting that he cites Weimar. It lends extra weight to the thought on the previous page of this discussion that he was discussing Weimar as his welcoming society.
It’s also interesting that he would quote a member of the Cheney family approvingly. “Lest we forget” indeed.
“The Anglican Church SQ is seeking to be a significant counter to the push at the national
level for a monochromatic puritanical church.
The previous and current Archbishops have
done much to promote a vision of living with, and for, what is known as Comprehensive
Anglicanism. It is a vision that is characterised by diversity, and where difference provides
the opportunity for dialogue and growth. It involves being open to the other. ”
He really does despise Puritanism/Calvinism/Sydney Anglicanism, doesn’t he? ☹
As far as I can tell, “Comprehensive Anglicanism” is the new euphemism for Progressive Christianity.
“It is now several years since we placed the rainbow welcome banner at the entrance to
the Cathedral. I have noticed two dynamics at play in response to this.
Firstly, displaying the banner has made people feel welcome; welcome enough to join
our community. It is interesting to note that those for whom the banner signalled a
welcome have not just been people who identify as LGBTQIA+. Those who do not identify
as gender- or sexuality-diverse and yet have responded to the banner include those who
wish to be a member of a community that practises inclusion, and those who have a
sense of their own marginality and so appreciate being made welcome by a community
that embraces difference. Several gender- and sexuality diverse people have commented
that the level of inclusion practised by the Cathedral community is refreshingly natural;
not forced or contrived.
Secondly, I note that the flag is still subject, from time-to-time, to acts of violence. Being
torn down, thrown into the gardens and even on occasion carried down the street before
being abandoned. There has been one attempt to incinerate it.
Cathedral staff and volunteers are also occasionally subject to expletive-ridden and
verbally violent tirades from those who object to the banner being on display. Towards
the end of 2023 and, again in early in 2024, this hatred was expressed so violently that
the police had to be called and charges for malicious damage laid.””
He really is a hypocrite, isn’t he? Here is a man who promotes protest and civil disobedience objecting when people protest against his rainbow flag. Also, he calls the police whom he claims he dislikes as part if the state’s power. When people speak “truth to power”, he has them locked up. Note it is verbal violence , not physical violence and people are only arrested for malicious damage (to his gay flag) not for being verbally abusive, threatening or using homophobic language, so what this “verbal violence” actually entails is unclear. Maybe they were simply rebuking cathedral staff for their promotion of unbiblical acts. All un all, Catt’s own report exposes his hypocrisy for all to see.
This is the kind of thing it is strange to read from Catt after seeing his lament over people protesting against his gay rainbow flag:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=8261032443926335&id=100000589846032
He doesn’t even try to hide the hypocrisy.
It sounds like deliberate entrapment. He knows the rainbow flag is like a red rag to a bull for Christians, so he puts it outside his cathedral provocatively then has any Christian who tries to protest – like Jesus overturning the money lenders’ tables – arrested. He is deliberately calling the police down on Bible-believing Christians so that he can be rid of them. Only his liberal, progressive Christians are kosher.
All this from a man who believes in protesting in other contexts – for the environment, asylum seekers, gays, etc! What an absolute hypocrite laid bare
.
Yeah. 🙁
Also from the PDF, “And the legitimate debate over the date
of Australia Day, which has been observed on many different dates in our history, is also
being made difficult by those who want to turn everything into a form of culture war where
difference is turned into division.”
Not like you then, Catt.
I found an article by Peter Catt’s gay friend, the psychologist and LGBT activist Stuart Edser:
https://medium.com/@DrStuartEdser/do-we-have-to-be-at-war-7684473ea65d
It is worth reading the whole thing to see how they think and argue and, if you click on his name, you can see his other contributions to the site.
This claim, in particular, jumped out at me.
“Fundamentalists
For me now, this group takes the least amount of analysis. Their position is based on a classical world view regarding knowledge and they rely on a sacred text written in the Iron Age, the Bible, for their single source of authority. For many, this is actually codified as sola scriptura, scripture alone. They will comfortably eschew other sources of authority such as science and hold with tenacious grip the traditional teachings of the Church as espoused by St Paul and the Creeds.”
By definition, Protestants hold to the five solas. Therefore, in Edser’s view, all Protestants actually fall under the pejorative label of “fundamentalists”. That is interesting because it is saying that he views the Bible as a threat to LGBT activism within the church. It is only via the liberalism he and Catt espouse that you can work around the Bible and justify same-sex relationships.
‘For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, ‘ 2 Timothy 4:3
God, to be God, must be unchanging and ever-perfect. Therefore it is a positive His doctrines have remained unchanging since the Iron Age.
Edser and Catt seek to elevate human reason to the same level as God’s word (such ludicrous folly!) because they do not like His doctrine and it condemns Edser’s lifestyle.
Edser has found in Catt an unsound teacher “in accordance with [his] own desires.”
Also regarding the same sex marriage debates, I found this old comment on another site:
“Samantha Howard
Aug 10, 2017 at 2:09 pm
Another brilliantly written article and on point!
How can we truly say we truly love the homosexuals in our communities, when when we do not tell them the truth? The so-called progressive leaders (Apostates) such as the the very Reverend Peter Catt in Brisbane are in error and are leading so many astray.
I believe, they are the ones who are instrumental in pushing same- sex marriage, today and belching “conservative Christian you are out of touch, you do not speak for me!” (Apostate leaders are you aware that some of the LGBTQI do not want you to speak for them either? The do not want same-sex marriage legalised and are very happy in their recognised civil unions?)
God’s Word does not change. My heart is breaking. How much more does it break our Heavenly Father’s heart.
Thank you Bill. Blessings abundant!
Samantha”
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/08/10/apostates-destroying-churches/
It is heartening to see there are still a handful of genuine Christians in the Brisbane Diocese who are prepared to stand up to the progressive Christians.
Very wise words from Samantha. I am glad there are still faithful Christians out there. If she is an Anglican I hope she did not face backlash for that comment.
Their latest target is penal subsitutionary atonement:
https://www.facebook.com/AProgressiveChristianVoiceAustralia
The person they are reposting argues it promotes a violent God.
Also Catt wrote a piece on the pontiff’s death:
https://anglicanfocus.org.au/2025/04/23/reflections-on-pope-francis-and-his-legacy/
He of course loves the liberal aspects of his pontificate.
For what its worth, Catholic journalist Damian Thompson has a disturbing alternative view of Francis (links are sickening – definitely not for children):
https://unherd.com/2024/04/the-scandals-haunting-pope-francis/
https://unherd.com/2022/08/the-hypocrisy-of-pope-francis/
https://unherd.com/2023/03/ten-terrible-years-of-pope-francis/
https://unherd.com/2023/09/can-the-pope-survive-the-rupnik-scandal/
I wonder where the truth lies? Thompson seems to be a balanced and fair journalist when reporting on Protestant matters.
Re: Brisbane Anglicans’ use of Rene Girard to argue against penal subsitutionary atonement…
This is a little off-topic but, Pastor, you have probably heard of tech billionaire Peter Thiel, who is bankrolling J. D. Vance. Thiel is responsible for Palantir, a company that makes a “big data” analytical tool, that is raising privacy concerns in the US and other companies, including Germany, as per this news article published today:
https://www.dw.com/en/german-police-expands-use-of-palantir-surveillance-software/a-73497117
This kind of technology raises concerns among Christians of a futurist or dispendationalist bent, as it can be seen as laying the foundation for a system of mass control and mark of the beast as per their interpretation of Revelation.
Anyway, Thiel identifies as a Christian, albeit an authoritarian right-wing one, even though he is openly gay. I was wondering how he reconciled his homosexual lifestyle with his purported Christian beliefs and, he, like the Progressive Christian Left in Brisbane, draws on the theology of Rene Girard:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
I found another Progressive Christianity blog site. This one is run by an LGBT Anglican:
https://www.thegoodnewsblog.org/2024/09/whats-next-for-anglican-church-southern.html?m=1
Greaves and Catt feature a bit. It really shows how Progressive Christianity seems to be mainly about justifying homosexual lifestyles.
Also interesting is the specific page I linked. After Greaves’ apology to the LGBT community, here is what they want next from the church.
Well, according to this blog post, citing an old article from The Australian, Marcus Borg unambiguously denied the Resurrection.
https://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/04/resurrection-not-essential-more-of.html?m=1
“I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection,” he says carefully, citing another eminent scholar, American theologian Marcus Borg, co-author with Wright of The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions.
“But the view I take of them – and they know this – is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment.
“Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead…”
The fact that Jeremy Greaves, Peter Catt et al regard him as one of their gurus is therefore of utmost concern and shows just how apostate the Diocese has become.
Googling around, I just found some more illuminating quotes about Borg:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/dr-white-on-textual-criticism-recent-podcast.19363/
“I just finished a class taught by Marcus Borg today. I praise God for His faithfulness in my life. Throughout the course there were constant attacks on orthodox Christian Truth. Instead Dr. Borg proposed ideas that were clearly contrary to Scripture, yet he claimed them to be Christian none the less. I praise God that He used this class to challenge me to study deeper His great truths and cause me to worship Him.”
https://puritanboard.com/threads/review-jesus-by-marcus-borg.59701/
“Borg’s treatment of the resurrection is equally non-supernatural. He equivocates on the historicity of the event, but clearly believes that a physical resurrection is unlikely and in any case unnecessary. Accounts such as the road to Emmaus are metaphorical; those two disciples realized that Jesus could live with them as they read the Scriptures, broke bread, and had fellowship.
Borg concludes by again contrasting his emerging Christianity with the traditional or right-wing Christianity of his upbringing. He stresses that Christianity is not just personal, but political, and following Jesus means doing what it takes to alleviate oneself and others from domination systems and conventional (not God-centered) ways of thinking.
As a Reformed evangelical, I obviously disagree with Borg in many details and in his general methodology. It seems to me, though, that Borg has two major problems. First, his account of how the early church transformed the pre-Easter Jesus into the post-Easter Son of God is thoroughly unconvincing. Would mostly uneducated Jews, the most relentlessly monotheistic ethnic group in the ancient world, have called a mere teacher God if he had not claimed that for himself and done inexplicable works to prove it? If Jesus’ death were not an integral part of his mission, what committee decided that his death was indeed “for sins” and the basis of our reconciliation with God, as the New Testament uniformly presents? Did Jews of Jesus’ day believe in the supernatural in respect to their own history, and would they have “literally” or “metaphorically” read these stories? Why did the early church (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen) go to such great lengths to insist that these were not mere metaphors but actual history? Most significantly, how could there be a pre-Easter and post-Easter understanding of Jesus if there was no supernatural Easter event. What caused this sudden change in thinking? Borg’s “historical” Jesus seems to me to bear little resemblance to history or Jesus.”
That’s enough. I can’t stomach any more of his heresy. It is illuminating to see these quotes and reflect on the impact his false teachings have had on Brisbane Anglicanism by way of his disciples, the leading clergy of the diocese. 🙁
Here’s something a little lighthearted for a change to divert momentarily from the gravity of most of the discussion on this thread. This reeks of Vicar of Dibley-style Anglican foibles:
Palmwoods on the Sunshine Coast is about to commemorate its hundredth anniversary. However, in doing research for the anniversary, the parish council has discovered the church has never actually been consecrated! 😆
The bishop is going up there in a few weeks to celebrate the anniversary and finally consecrate the church at the same time.
These wicked Anglican priests have made science, progress and social justice their gods instead of the God of Jesus Christ.
A leading North American Progressive Christian, Gretta Vosper, has apparently written a book called “With or Without God: Why the Way We Live is More Important Than What We Believe”. This is probably where those Brisbane priests who don’t believe in doctrine are coming from.
Incidentally, Vosper herself self-identifies as an atheist.
Catt has actually posted an insightful piece on his (and, presumably, the Brisbane Diocese’s) approach to scripture.
He notes that a kectionary reading from Titus “was in direct contradiction” to a Synod motion which “celebrated the ministry of women”.
He argues that scripture can contain “downright unhelpful or toxic pieces” and that “Scripture or interpretations of Scripture can be modified, challenged or rejected”.
https://m.facebook.com/AProgressiveChristianVoiceAustralia/
That is where a low view of scripture and liberalism can take you, to a place where you think you know more than God. He mentions genocide and domestic violence in his text but of course we know they use their rejection of Scripture to give leeway to all kinds of vices from sodomy to bullying in the Diocese as evidenced on this very thread. 🙁
The post he made prior to that one is also interesting. He reflects on suffering in the world, and claims he feels “survivor’s guilt”, which is fine because after all, “there but for the grace of God go I”.
However, the way he states it is revealing: “…my experience of life, which is mine simply as a result of the accidents of time, place and history…”
There is no sense of God’s sovereignty over his life there, no sense that God had his life planned out while he was still in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5). Everything seems to be an accident to Catt so his God is either very distant and unengaged or lacking on omnipotence. Perhaps this notion of life as an accident comes from Catt’s background in evoloutionary biology or perhaps it comes from Borg and co and their ideas of vague, wishy-washy ideas of a non-interventionist, feeble God. Again, this is where Brisbane Anglican theology ultimately takes you.
Saw something today that may amuse you, Pastor. A young person at the shops was wearing a shirt that said:
“If you are suffering from gender confusion,
go milk a bull.”
With one pithy statement, the whole trans/gender house of cards collapses.
Further to my comment on the other page, a person who self-identifies as a Progressive Christian, Ian Wood, is indeed a lobbyist for Voluntary Assisted Dying. He is Ian Wood the national co-ordinator and spokesperson for a group calling themselves
“Christians Supporting Voluntary Assisted Dying”. 🙁
https://www.dwdv.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Submission_to_Religious_Freedom_Bill_Jan_2020_Ian-Wood.pdf
Found another discussion on Marcus Borg. He definitely rejected the literal resurrection of Christ. 🙁
https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2015/1/23/obits-make-marcus-borg-a-controversial-scholar-while-downplaying-the-controversy
“Borg himself told me in 1992: “For me, the issue is not whether Jesus rose from the dead; it’s whether anything happened to his body. Resurrection is not necessarily resuscitation. It’s more like an entry into another kind of existence … The historical Jesus is dead and gone, a figure of the past. It’s the risen and living Christ (i.e., the theological concepts) that we can know and pray to and worship.”
At least it means we know exactly what his followers in the Progressive Christian movement believe. They seem to be intent on undermining both the doctrines (the resurrection) and morals (as per the post above on assisted dying) of orthodoxy. The insidious part is that they call themselves Christians when their undermining of all of these key elements of Christianity – along with their fruits – reveals them to be an anti-Christian movement. They are humanists with some spiritual dressing.
Furthermore Borg taught that
https://submergingchurch.com/2018/02/06/younger-christians-reading-marcus-borg-what-did-he-believe/
“To think that the central meaning of Easter [resurrection] depends upon something spectacular happening to Jesus’ corpse misses the point of the Easter message and risks trivializing the story. To link Easter primarily to our hope for an afterlife, as if our post-death existence depends upon God having transformed the corpse of Jesus, is to reduce the story to a politically-domesticated yearning for our survival beyond death.”
🙁 🙁
Again, it is clear from this that it id the very antithesis of Christianity, that is, a form of anti-christ religion, that he and his followers have been promulgating.
Borg also explicitly denied the incarnate divinity of Christ:
https://marcusjborg.org/posts-by-marcus/a-letter-about-jesus/
“Jesus of Nazareth was completely human. He did not have a divine component that made him different in kind from the rest of us. That’s what it means to say he was “true man,” “fully human.” He didn’t have a divine supercharger.”
Again it proves Progressive Christians are not Christians at all. They are a trojan horse movement undermining doctrinal truths and morality from within the church in order to make humanist beliefs about homosexuality, etc, acceptable. Clearly it is succeeding in the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane with the number of high profile ministers who subscribe to this movement. It also shows that these ministers were never Christians in the first place given the way in which they have so wholeheartedly embraced these new doctrines that fundamentally subvert all Christian norms of belief and behaviour.
These Brisbane ministers are not naive. They know exactly what they have signed up for and what the leaders of the Westar Institute and Jesus Seminar were setting out to do and they have wholeheartedly embraced this movement.
As of too reiterate my point, Catt quotes Borg again in his latest post.
https://m.facebook.com/AProgressiveChristianVoiceAustralia/
If the Bible is merely the product of those who wrote it and reflects their views then what can we say of God? If Catt comes to his conclusions that a god exists independently of the text, is it just a subjective experience Catt has had? How can he know he is correct? How does he identify this deity with the God of Jesus of Nazareth? If Jesus was just a man from a prescientific age, as Borg suggests, why do we think his views on God are the correct ones? Who is to say an ancient Norse shaman, a Celtic druid or a Greek oracle did not have a clearer insight into the nature of god or the gods? Why pick the views of this fallible man, Jesus? Isn’t that just western bias? Catt and co are obviously prepared to move away from Jesus’ teachings with their modern rational, scientific insights, so how can they say Jesus was right about anything at all?
Again, take away the notion the Bible is God’s Word and the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.
I am beginning to understand more and more clearly why Martin Luther so strongly condemned human reason, with all of its faulty, sinful logic, when man with his puffed-up pride tries to elevate it above Scripture. Once I woukd have been on the side of those who crituque the words of Luther here but, now with age and perhaps just the tiny beginnings of wisdom and maturity, I am beginning to understand Luther’s insights:
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/83743/what-did-martin-luther-really-mean-by-saying-reason-is-the-devil-s-greatest-who
I just had a look at APCVA’s most recent posts to see what they are endorsing now.
https://m.facebook.com/AProgressiveChristianVoiceAustralia/
In their latest post they call for “A pathway to permanency for all people seeking asylum”.
All?! What about people with serious criminal records, terrorist links or those who are not genuine refugees? Even if we accept that the vast majority of claims are legitimate, this proposal seems unfeasible.
“Work rights while claims are processed.” As per the above, how can we let people work before we assess they are of good character? What about training times and costs to business if they end up being deported?
Some of my own ancestors were refugees so I have the deepest empathy for legitimate asylum seekers but these demands from Catt and co. seem far too simplistic.
In another post a bit further down, APCVA of course endorses the lesbian, Cherry Vann, as the new Archbishop of Wales. 🙁
Everything mainstream Christian morality opposes, Peter Catt endorses in his massive vanity project. He seems to revel in being a contrarian and, judging from his recent posts on Aboriginal welfare, etc, has done so since his youth. What a shame he didn’t have the humility to listen to his elders when he was young about Aboriginal welfare rorting.
His ego extends to his desire to put his own reasoning and intellect on a pedestal above God.
It is just a tragedy that he and other left-wing extremists of his ilk have gained so much power in the Diocese and driven orthodox Anglicans away, or worse, seduced them with their false teachings.
There is not a single reference to Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Anglican Church Southern Queensland’s website, their Anglican Focus news site, the Cathedral website or any APCVA-affiliated site. He is persona non grata to them for holding the wrong theological and political views, I guess.
I also found this, relating back to the Christchurch attacks some years ago. I don’t have a strong opinion either way on the validity of this comment. I just thought it was interesting. Is he using the attacks as an excuse to critique white straight males? That is one way to interpret this. I wonder what they think now that an allegedly non-straight man whom authorities have claimed was in a relationship with a transitioning male-to-female transgender has performed an assassination in the USA? At any rate, to say, “They don’t actually have the cultural literacy skills” is a sweeping generalisation.
“DR GREG JENKS, ANGLICAN DEAN, GRAFTON: Grafton is a small but very traditional country town. It’s very much a homogenous, Anglo culture. It’s unusual to see a person at the shopping centre who’s not Anglo. If the town is very homogenous, then you’re not used to seeing anybody other than somebody who looks like yourself, and if that is being fed somewhere along the line by some nasty website that’s blaming the Muslims or the Afghans or whoever for our problems, then you can sort of see . They don’t actually have the cultural literacy skills to actually navigate that cesspool that they’ve kind of, or whirlpool that they’ve got themselves caught up in.”
https://www.journeyman.tv/film_documents/7574/transcript/
No doubt they’ll be crowing in Bris over the new choice of Archbishop of Canterbury. She sounds like the perfect choice for them-pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, etc. I guess the ball’s in GAFCON’s court now. How could it ever come to this? It is the speed of the fall that amazes me. A very, very dark day for Christianity.
Anglo-Catholic idolatry and liberal syncretism in Brisbane this week as Catt talks about venerating relics, including those of the Islamic Sufi mystic, Rumi:
https://m.facebook.com/AProgressiveChristianVoiceAustralia/
Two things I have read today rebuke the Brisbane Anglicans.
From today’s readings, we have 2Timothy4:3.
“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. ”
From Martin Luther:
“… we see that the godless and blind world is so steeped in its nature, its mischief, and its disgraceful vices that it rejects any criticism and reproof of its vanity, its religious fervor, good works, its wisdom, its self-elected spirituality, its sham holiness, and idolatry as error, falsehood, lies, and deceit, as something by which it only increases the wrath of God and strays ever farther from the truth.”
The rejection of sound doctrine and its replacement with a great number of liberal and Progressive Christian teachers who promote the wisdom, self-elected spirituality, sham holiness and idolatry of the world to justify their sinful desires is exactly what has been described through all the pages of this forum thread.
I just saw the news about the schism!
https://protestia.com/2025/10/17/church-of-england-breaks-in-two-loses-40-million-members-after-conservative-majority-announce-major-split/
Well, that’s it then. GAFCON is now the Anglican Communion, continuing the work of the Reformation and witnessing Christ’s Gospel to the ends of the earth- while liberal Canterbury, Brisbane and their ilk fade into nothingness. The Progressive Christians will soon be irrelevant and forgotten.
Rejects divine Providence/Godly protection in favour of fortune/good luck/ “many firces outside our control”.
https://m.facebook.com/AProgressiveChristianVoiceAustralia/
I wonder what Catt, Deborah Bird, Jeanette Jamieson-Foard, Ray Barraclough, Greg Jenks, etc, and all the other Progressive Christians really feel now they are relegated to being part of the increasingly irrelevant rump church, left behind while the global majority go with GAFCON?
Just read this from Calvin’s Institutes, which would be anathema to Catt.
“But when once the light of Divine Providence has illumined the believer’s soul, he is relieved and set free, not only from the extreme fear and anxiety which formerly oppressed him, but from all care. For as he justly shudders at the idea of chance, so he can confidently commit himself to God. This, I say, is his comfort, that his heavenly Father so embraces all things under his power—so governs them at will by his nod—so regulates them by his wisdom, that nothing takes place save according to his appointment; that received into his favour, and entrusted to the care of his angels neither fire, nor water, nor sword, can do him harm, except in so far as God their master is pleased to permit.”
Yes these Progressive priests you’ve listed don’t just interpret the Bible in a liberal or broad way, they reject huge chunks of it outright. Then they exalt human reason above Divine revelation and the conclusions they come too are often the exact opposite of what Christianity teaches, in this case a Deistic view of what befalls us in life rather than a Godly-ordained plan dictated by Divine Sovereignty.
I saw this on a page about World War One.
https://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com/2015/02/15/the-great-and-holy-war-philip-jenkins/
“Famous scholars like Adolf von Harnack backed the war: Although we might describe Lutheran leaders hypernationalist views as reactionary, they actually grow out of the the workings of liberal theologies that dominated German Protestant thought at this time, in the Kulturprotestantismus associated with von Harnack. Since the Enlightenment, German Protestantism had rejected unquestioning reliance on such traditional sources of religious authority as the Bible and early church tradition: incisive German scholarship presented the Bible as a strictly human artifact, rooted in the interests of successive historical societies. German theology was dominated by the liberal tradition of Friedrich Schleiermacher, who taught that the church’s creeds and historic doctrines had to be subordinate to the inner experience of God as understood by the individual believer, through the knowledge of Christ.
For liberal Protestants, the God presented in the Bible was only one limited perception of the deity, who became better understood through the progressive workings of history. The church likewise existed in history and had to be adapted and modernized for successive generations and cultures. <b{Such an approach is liberal in its openness to changing ideas and standards, but the lack of any external absolutes allows the church to be swept along with contemporary political obsessions. In the German case, liberal Protestantism allowed itself to identify wholly with the emerging Wilhelmine Reich and came close to state worship, if not war worship.”
Swap out the Wilhelmine Reich’s reactionary policies and its militarism for current trendy woke leftist ideology and you have an exact description of the Brisbane Anglicans. History repeats itself and the lessons are never learned.
Thanks for letting people have this discussion, Pastor. I’ve had some horrendous experiences in the Anglican Church since moving to Brisbane. I grew up in an evangelical Anglican parish interstate and nothing prepared me for what I would experience up here. I thought I would be a loyal Anglican for life but I felt I had to move to another denomination to escape the behaviour of the priests and mistreatment of parishioners. They definitely don’t care about parishioners’ welfare. I also fled because of their liberalism. Their ethics were completely at odds with how my parents raised me.
This is what the leading Anglican Church Souther Queensland theologian, Greg Jenks, has to say about Jesus.
‘For millions of Christians the primary and quintessential way that Jesus impacts their experience of the divine presence is his presumed divinity as an incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. To see (know) Jesus is to see/know God. John 14:9 comes to mind: “… to see me is to see the Father.”
This idea is implicit in one of my favourite descriptions of Jesus: “the human face of God”.
To express it more discursively perhaps, millions of people throughout the last 2,000 years including hundreds of millions of people alive on the planet right now, are devoted to Jesus as a divine figure. They worship him, they seek to serve him, they anticipate his direct involvement in the smallest details of their everyday lives, they experience their own lives as being in a relationship with Jesus, and they understand the future of the world — as well as their own destiny at and after death — to be in his hands.
This “Jesus” – if indeed it is Jesus with whom they are engaged – is not the historical figure of first century Palestine but a divine saviour fashioned in the religious experience and the theological imagination of the early Christian movement. Many NT scholars would refer to this figure as the “Christ of faith”, although Luke Timothy Johnson might prefer to argue that this is the “real Jesus”. Marcus Borg famously speaks of “Jesus before Easter” and “Jesus after Easter”, and I wish to take my lead from that distinction.’
Taken from https://gregoryjenks.com/2014/10/02/jesus-and-the-divine-presence/?amp=1
That discussion on their Christology is very revealing.
He even tries to take Jesus away from Orthodox, mainstream believers by arguing we worship a theological construct instead of the historically-grounded figure – ie, an imaginary person divorced from the Incarnation’s historical reality.
Furthermore, Jenks is saying the “his presumed divinity as an incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity” is “not the historical figure of first century Palestine”. The “divine saviour fashioned in the religious experience and the theological imagination of the early Christian movement” is ahistorical to him. Jenks therefore explicitly denies that Christ is God incarnate and the Second Person of the Trinity.
It is very good to see clearly where Jenks and the Progressive Christianity cohort of Bishop Jeremy Greaves, Peter Catt, Jeanette Jamieson-Foard, Tiffany Sparks, Deborah Bird, Ray Barraclough and co really stand. This statement is the clearest testimony to what the Brisbane Progressive Christians believe – and don’t believe – about Jesus.
This, coupled with the previous statement about the Resurrection, shows that any reasonable person could not consider them Christians. They might self-identify as Progressive “Christians” but they do not fulfil the most basic requirements of the faith. It is all very sad and in a sense I pity them knowing where their souls are headed but then I think of all the people these false teachers have led astray.
Yes, they are trying to take Christ away from Christians! Just when you think they can’t sink any lower into the moral abyss he writes that.
I’ve not met Jenks but this appalling attempt to undermine Christ reflects the arrogance I’ve witnessed first hand in Aspinall and Catt.
By the way the A. B. C. has a puff piece this morning on one of Anglican Church Southern Queensland’s female priests.
“Ms Mitchell says Rev Harley’s appointment has seen more conservative churchgoers choose to leave the parish.
But she says the parish has since become more diverse and welcoming to people with disability and LGBTQI+ people.”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-23/motorbike-riding-anglican-priest-pauline-harley-toowoomba/106015442
Hence it is the usual pattern of driving orthodox believers away in favour of a more woke or liberal demographic in the congregation.
What a disgusting thing for Jenks to write. It just shows the mentality of these people.
I know it has been discussed on here before but, particularly in the earliest posts of this thread, people were asking if the APCVA Progressive Christians were pacifists or believers in Just War Theory. Their latest Facebook post again confirms they adhere to Just War Theory.
https://www.facebook.com/100064427511823/posts/pfbid02QhER9u93uJjMwsTtTik62VpHeqt8cXAMGPfUo6khLqR9BihiREVoWjSLYTDwegEvl/
Thoughts on some of their older posts:
Looking for the law “that is written into, and can be discerned by observing, the natural order” by itself isn’t enough, I would have thought. Hitler argued from nature to justify his actions. Taking nature at face value doesn’t allow for the fact it was affected by the fall.
https://www.facebook.com/100064427511823/posts/pfbid0Z9hHN4uxoVSF4TkUjuHh8o8uxRFbTHAqgpCPJrAP1PQ1UTeKW4Bsr9R4oKLVrwP4l/
This piece on AI was apparently a sermon Catt preached at the Cathedral. While he says nothing controversial, it is what he doesn’t say that is telling. There is no reference to God or Jesus at all in it.
https://www.facebook.com/100064427511823/posts/pfbid02n6x6CzqTdDnYA8z77uAHBv4Y4vGkYQfviBnWEy5FW1zQN5eXpXM8CFQfvDjR8ZDLl/
Latest sermon. Calls the dove (Holy Spirit) present at Christ’s baptism “her”.
With his discussion of Jesus’ “glimpse” of heaven at his baptism, he seems to hint at the heresy of Adoptionism since he is saying Christ becomes illumined not that He was intrinsically born of one Spirit with the Father. I’ll let the theologians on here decide if what he says is wrong.
At any rate, true to form, Catt doesn’t outright say Adoptionism or anything else is his view. Plausible deniability perhaps?
https://www.facebook.com/100064427511823/posts/pfbid0QRWTEsv51QPkaoZxkh58sHcxW2G7rz9CnEhzNhKrziDb7n4iwXXPsBHzqVePvkUAl/
He talks of authoritarianism as a concern but would he be as concerned if it was the authoritarian hard left or wokeists muzzling freedom of speech? No, I didn’t think so.
Yes, Catt’s religion isn’t remotely what you’d call Christian.
Also, “by your fruits you will know them” and what are his fruits? 1. Making lots of protests for left wing causes but hypocritically setting the police onto conservative protesters. 2. Promoting and encouraging sodomy in the church. 3. Attacking and undermining the Bible.
I’ve been reading some of the Epstein Files. Absolutely sickening. Some of the voices calling for the legalisation of homosexuality and lowering the age of consent in the US were involved. It makes me wonder about the homo apologists in Brisbane.
My elderly mother says she’ll never forget the day I came home from the Brisbane CBD and told her the gay rainbow flag was flying outside the cathedral. 🙁
They have spat in tye face of generations of faithful believers by doing this and betrayed their office and the trust of Jesus Christ Himself by rejecting His morality.
Catt has a swipe at GAFCON:
“In fact, in our own Communion the appointment of a highly qualified person, who just happens to be a woman, as Archbishop of Canterbury has caused some to work towards the splitting of the Church.
Such actions will eventually be found to be a futile because
Girls are coming out of the woods.”
https://anglicanfocus.org.au/2026/03/09/girls-are-coming-out-of-the-woods/
So he is trying to paint it as being all down to the AB of C’s gender. What a way to twist things and try to reduce your opponent’s concerns down to just one issue in order to undermine them!
I had to laugh at this:
“… the noble intentions of institutions such as the Fabian Society… Those early examples were genuine attempts to address societal issues through evidence-based research. Many of the more recent manifestations have more been “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, set up by powerful industries or interest groups to further ideological agenda…”
https://anglicanfocus.org.au/2026/02/26/caution-and-care-when-using-scriptures-and-other-authoritative-texts/
He wants us to believe the Fabian Society was noble and non-ideological at its outset!
“Would they walk back their demonising of peaceful protesters… Would they be more judicious in their use of the police? ”
https://anglicanfocus.org.au/2026/02/20/as-people-who-seek-to-build-and-enhance-community-i-think-the-church-has-role-in-seeking-to-have-our-political-representatives-reflect-on-their-role/
Other people on here have talked about how Catt himself has called the police on people who have protested nonviolently against the Cathedral’s rainbow flag, etc. What a blatant hypocrite. He is not even trying to hide it. These people are ensconced in power and rotting tye Anglican Church from the inside out.
I just discovered Catt and a few other Cathedral types did a podcast with Jayne Ozanne once too:
https://anotherplacetoparty.net/unashamedly-gay-unashamedly-christian/
I just discovered Catt and a few other Cathedral types did a podcast with Jayne Ozanne once too:
https://anotherplacetoparty.net/unashamedly-gay-unashamedly-christian/
Also:
“People who understand themselves to be transexual, asexual, non-binary, bisexual, gay or lesbian… are simply honoring the fact that they are part of the beautiful crying forth of the ideas of God…”
https://anotherplacetoparty.net/950/
Pure evil, calling good evil and evil good. I found something else that confirmed Catt’s true character but I won’t go into it now. It is too political but it confirmed everything I thought about him and his hypocrisy.
Apologies for my mangled post yesterday. The “something else” I was referring to was that I discovered Catt was working closely with a political activist from an unsavoury family I happen to know. As he is working with this person from the scam lobbyist industry, it tells me all I need to know about him.
Yep there is a big difference between
1. the OT prophets calling out for justice for the poor and marginalised and Christians helpibg the poor
and
2. today’s SJWs and loony leftist Anglicans with their remarkably unChristian ideology and support of the grievance industry. Catt is one of those more intent on flattering his own ego more than anything else. No one believes for a minute he really cares about the poor. His comments on persecution in the workplace reflect that. He sides firmly with bourgeoisie progressive liberal leftists on every social issue.
The big question is how did it get to this? How was it that not one bishop along the way curtailed Catt and Aspinall’s rise to power before they became entrenched. Catt has clearly never had remotely orthodox Christian views. People must have complained about him from the outset as he has too big an ego to hide his opinions. Why was nothing ever done back in the 1980s and 1990s?
Now after their long march through the institutions these people are in power and promote likeminded individuals. with the result that you have to be a heterodox Christian with very strange far left political views to be promoted in the diocese these days and you’d better not take the Bible too seriously or literally or have gone to the wrong college!
It is strange to think the Anglican Church was once considered the church of the Establishment. Now it is populated by fringe thinkers with a palpable hatred of mainstream Christianity.
This is old but at the time of the S. S. M. debates someone left a good comment about Catt on the blog of the Australian Family Association’s Bill Muehlenberg.
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/08/10/apostates-destroying-churches/
Everyone knows what he is like. 🙁
Interesting story on the news:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-23/anglican-church-apologises-to-sexual-abuse-victim-beth-heinrich/106483594
“[Archbishop Greaves] is the first that appears to believe me, that I haven’t been treated properly by previous archbishops and previous church supporters,” Ms Heinrich said.”
(Emphases added.)
Sounds like she still isn’t fully convinced she is believed. “Previous archbishops” would include Aspinall presumably.
Should add thus quote from her:
“More than 70 years on from her abuse, she spoke of the pain of trying to seek the assistance and redress through senior church officials, only to be disbelieved or pushed aside.
“When they deny you something, it’s like you’re being abused again,” she said.”
Since Greaves has publicly admitted she is genuine this really stands as an indictment of those “senior church officials” it seems to me. It is interesting that for all of their liberalism and loudly pronounced woke, feminist attitudes they still took this position and protected their own. The hypocrisy is appalling.
She must be a brave and persistent woman to fight against these vile clergy and their goon lawyers for so long.
All of this covering up and protection of the powerful is not much different than the Epstein case. There is corruption, abuse, silencing and bullying by those in power throughout the upper echelons of society while they use their woke leftist masks to pretend that they are on the side of the poor and marginalised. They are a bunch of hypocritical pharisees.
Slowly everything done in the darkness is being revealed to the light.
I started looking at Musk’s new AI-generated Grokipaedia versus the woke human-edited Wikipedia. The results are startlingly different.. For instance in rerms of the topic of this discussion, here are the pages on Archbishop Aspinall as a test case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Aspinall
https://grokipedia.com/page/phillip_aspinall
This is old but it’s a very good letter if you folks haven’t read it yet.
https://theothercheek.com.au/gafcon/
A group of p*rn stars went to the Cathedral.
To repent? No to film a documentary series.
“The reason for the group’s unexpected visit to the Anglican church was to attend a baptism, an occasion Stan Australia confirmed to news.com.au was being filmed for its new eight-part docudrama Turned On: Dirty Sexy Money.”
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/why-these-highprofile-sex-workers-were-at-brisbane-church/news-story/8fc366d176f84bfb9667ca4475fb71de
So when the Progressive Christians in Brisbane talk about being “welcoming to everyone” we know now it isn’t just code for being tolerant of LGBT people. It also means letting sex workers film a reality tv show in the church…
Catt and co must be trojan horses trolling the church. They are doing everything they can to mock and subvert traditional Christian beliefs. They are undermining us from the inside.
“The documentary makers contacted the Dean because they had somebody wanting to reconnect with her faith,” a St Johns Cathedral spokesperson told news.com.au. “She wanted to reconnect to her baptism and he facilitated that as he would anyone…”
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/why-these-highprofile-sex-workers-were-at-brisbane-church/news-story/8fc366d176f84bfb9667ca4475fb71de
Yes, just a regular visitor so he didn’t notice the film crew following her and her friends around…
I agree that they are just trolling us at this point. I wonder how “welcoming” they’d be if a Calvinist pastor visited the Cathedral and issued a call to repentance? Somehow I think their “welcoming” approach would evaporate strangely quickly in those circumstances.
This is beyond obscene. Presumably this television series will be uncritically promoting their “liberated” lifestyle.
God is indeed slow to anger with his house being used as a backdrop for this along with everything else that has been promoted at the Cathedral in the last two decades.
People one hundred years from now won’t believe what was going on at the Cathedral in these days. Arrogant, narcissistic, sick clergy promoting evil.
‘The liberal church teaches a doctrine of tolerance, yet at the same time is particularly intolerant of Biblical doctrine.’
Yes bullies who hide behind a facade of tolerance.
I think this passage from J. Gresham Machen’s Christian and Liberalism anticipates many of the problems you are experiencing in Brisbane now.
“Very different is this Christian conception of brotherhood from the liberal doctrine of the “brotherhood of man.” The modern liberal doctrine is that all men everywhere, no matter what their race or creed, are brothers. There is a sense in which this doctrine can be accepted by the Christian. The relation in which all men stand to one another is analogous in some important respects to the relation of brotherhood. All men have the same Creator and the same nature. The Christian man can accept all that the modern liberal means by the brotherhood of man. But the Christian knows also of a relationship far more intimate than that general relationship of man to man and it is for this more intimate relationship that he reserves the term “brother.” The true brotherhood, according to Christian teaching, is the brotherhood of the redeemed.
There is nothing narrow about such teaching; for the Christian brotherhood is open without distinction to all; and the Christian man seeks to bring all men in. Christian service, it is true, is not limited to the household of faith; all men, whether Christians or not, are our neighbors if they be in need. But if we really love our fellowmen we shall never be content with binding up their wounds or pouring on oil and wine or rendering them any such lesser service. We shall indeed do such things for them. But the main business of our lives will be to bring them to the Savior of their souls.
It is upon this brotherhood of twice-born sinners, this brotherhood of the redeemed, that the Christian founds the hope of society. He finds no solid hope in the improvement of earthly conditions, or the molding of human institutions under the influence of the Golden Rule. These things indeed are to be welcomed. They may so palliate the symptoms of sin that there may be time to apply the true remedy; they may serve to produce conditions upon the earth favorable to the propagation of the gospel message; they are even valuable for their own sake. But in themselves their value, to the Christian, is certainly small. A solid building cannot be constructed when all the materials are faulty; a blessed society cannot be formed out of men who are still under the curse of sin. Human institutions are really to be molded, not by Christian principles accepted by the unsaved, but by Christian men; the true transformation of society will come by the influence of those who have themselves been redeemed.
Thus Christianity differs from liberalism in the way in which the transformation of society is conceived. But according to Christian belief, as well as according to liberalism, there is really to be a transformation of society; it is not true that the Christian evangelist is interested in the salvation of individuals without being interested in the salvation of the race. And even before the salvation of all society has been achieved, there is already a society of those who have been saved. That society is the Church. The Church is the highest Christian answer to the social needs of man.
And the Church invisible, the true company of the redeemed, finds expression in the companies of Christians who constitute the visible Church today. But what is the trouble with the visible Church? What is the reason for its obvious weakness? There are perhaps many causes of weakness. But one cause is perfectly plain–the Church of today has been unfaithful to her Lord by admitting great companies of non-Christian persons, not only into her membership, but into her teaching agencies. It is indeed inevitable that some persons who are not truly Christian shall find their way into the visible Church; fallible men cannot discern the heart, and many a profession of faith which seems to be genuine may really be false. But it is not this kind of error to which we now refer. What is now meant is not the admission of individuals whose confessions of faith may not be sincere, but the admission of great companies of persons who have never made any really adequate confession of faith at all and whose entire attitude toward the gospel is the very reverse of the Christian attitude. Such persons, moreover, have been admitted not merely to the membership, but to the ministry of the Church, and to an increasing extent have been allowed to dominate its councils and determine its teaching. The greatest menace to the Christian Church today comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within; it comes from the presence within the Church of a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core.”
hey im from the kilcoy area. i saw your discussions of the church and they tally with what i know. it went in a very loony liberal direction under the influence of jeanette jamieson and the late margaret pearson. they have a funny relationship with the catholics too. on tye one hand they signed an accord with them, on tye other hand they still have some disagreements despite being anglocatholics themselves. anyway i thought you might like to read this. they are having a fundraiser for their suposedly historic stain glass windows at woodford although its not really historic at all since the earliest church building was built as late as 1886. they need some perspective. anyway despite being a wealthy parish they have their hand put for donations. material things matter more than people and good teachings at some churches. https://www.sentinelnews.com.au/latest-news/woodford-rallies-to-save-stained-glass-history
Yes that parish was in a mess from certain ethical violations to say nothing of the lurch towards progressive Christianity under that priest. How is it today? Is it much better there? I know they still have a woman priest so they won’t be that doctrinally orthodox but I hope things are somewhat back on track. Bible literacy and a passion for Christ are needed in these lukewarm parishes that lurch all over the place doctrinally, to say nothing of better ethics. It was sad to hear allegations of bullying like in a country church congregation.
I read the article and it left me scratching my head too about what is “historical” about their stain glass windows. There are memorial plaques for some locals and… ? The church building isn’t old. Even that earliest building they mentioned would only have been 140 years old this year. What a pity they don’t commit that money to helping the needy and witnessing to the unchurched instead.
My contacts up there tell me Rev Jilleen Chambers is trying to hold the parish together but they have smaller numbers now due to age and the lurch to liberalism under J. Jamieson. Go woke, go broke.
Rev Jamieson has been extensively documented on here. I encountered her at another church. All I’ll say is she was imperious and condescending in manner and set up cliques. As commented on here she was welcoming to everyone like gays but not to Calvinists.Kilcoy is still AngloCatholic (they have masses instead of Lord’s Supper or Eucharist) and liberal as evident by having a woman priest. Jilleen is liberal but things are toned down a lot from Jamieson’s day.
I just looked at your link. Yes, the article doesn’t explain what is historically significant about the stained glass windows other than to say they are moderately old and linked to some of the memorial plaques in tye church.
I am a bit torn about this. Normally I’d say a church needs to be a good steward of its artistic and cultural heritage. From what has been discussed in this thread there are significant cultural and doctrinal issues at the Parish of Kilcoy caused by the people you mentioned that they need to resolve before asking for handouts for projects like this.
I wonder what all the feminist female priests in the diocese think of the s*x workers filming at the cathedral?
Pro-Anzac Day, pro-Welcome to Country. Calls Aboriginal pastor and ex-soldier a “prophetic” figure.
https://www.facebook.com/100064427511823/posts/pfbid0oic364jg3jcS6S5kq9B2S88SrdFDqHGZUyxytGo1xaXwJTPjv274KCQsC7b2JHJxl/