Continuing the fight for truth and justice: Journalist Ralph Cipriano
If there were still any doubt about the criminal fraud committed against the Catholic Church in Philadelphia by D.A. Seth Williams and his publicity-seeking prosecutors, look no further than the eye-popping cover story this week in Newsweek by veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano.
Over the last few years on the blog BigTrial.net, Cipriano closely followed the trials against Catholic clergy which received widespread local and national attention.
The accuser at the center of it all, Dan Gallagher, claimed that during the 1998-1999 school year, when he was a 10-year-old altar boy in Philadelphia, he was serially raped and abused – sometimes for hours on end – by the late Fr. Charles Engelhardt, former Catholic school teacher Bernard Shero, and ex-priest Edward Avery, all of whom barely even knew each other.
The mainstream media wakes up
The $5 million man:
Accuser Danny Gallagher
Numerous times over the past several years Cipriano has written about a mountain of indisputable evidence indicating that Gallagher most certainly falsely accused the trio of Engelhardt, Shero, and Avery.
However, in his Newsweek piece, Cipriano expands the story even further. Cipriano now reveals details of a 40-page psychologist report concluding that because the "immature," "manipulative," and "hedonistic" Gallagher has admitted providing false information about his past repeatedly, there is no way to conclude "to a reasonable degree" that Gallagher has ever been abused by a priest, or by anyone in his life.
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any clear-thinking person, not to mention 12 individuals sitting on a jury, believing Gallagher's crazy and unbelievable tales. The evidence for the convicted men’s innocence is beyond overwhelming:
- Even members of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office itself did not believe Gallagher's wild claims and questioned whether they should even put Engelhardt and Shero on trial.
- Triple-accuser Gallagher has been arrested at least six times – once for possession of 56 bags of heroin – and has been in-and-out of some 23 drug re-habs.
[Check out a court summary of Gallagher's extensive arrest record] - Gallagher even explicitly told drug counselors that he had "no history of physical or sexual abuse."
- Gallagher has admitted that he lied when he said he worked as a paramedic and a "professional surfer" (yes, a professional surfer from Philadelphia);
- On three separate occasions, Gallagher told drug counselors that his older brother had been arrested for molestation. In truth, Gallagher's older brother, James Gallagher, is a recently licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and has never been arrested at all.
- An alternate juror even came forward after the trial with the dramatic charge that the guilty verdicts against Engelhardt and Shero were "insane," "incredible," and "a tragic miscarriage of justice."
- Fr. Engelhardt easily passed a polygraph test denying that he abused Danny or anyone, and the test administrator was a guy often hired by the Philly D.A.'s Office itself.
- Ex-priest Avery not only passed a polygraph test indicating that he had never abused Gallagher, but he also told authorities he never even met him before. In addition, records later revealed that Gallagher never even served as an altar boy at Mass with Avery, as Gallagher had claimed.
- Fr. Engelhardt previously waved his fifth amendment rights and voluntarily appeared before the Philadelphia grand jury, at which he asserted his innocence and testified, "I have no knowledge of who the person is. If he's sitting in this room today, I can't pick him out … I found it to be a very humbling thing to be called on the phone … when you know, there was no truth or that was something unrealistic that was happening to you."
- And as we have relayed before, Gallagher has told separate tales of abuse by the trio of men that not only defy any reasonable belief but have varied wildly over time.
Paging Rolling Stone magazine
Discredited – again
Sabrina Rubin Erdely
Cipriano reminds readers that Gallagher's bogus rape story was the subject of a splashy 2011 story in Rolling Stone magazine by Sabrina Rubin Erdely.
The crusading Erdely wrote, with no shortage of lurid detail, of how Gallagher, described only as a "sweet and gentle kid," was repeatedly raped and sodomized by the three men and forced to perform stripteases after Mass.
Does Erdely's name sound familiar? Well, she is the same Erdely who wrote an incredible, 9000-word piece in 2014 for Rolling Stone about "Jackie," a University of Virginia co-ed who claimed she was gang raped by seven men at a fraternity party. The story received huge national attention.
However, after the Washington Post did a little digging, the Jackie story was exposed as a hoax. Rolling Stone retracted the story, and defamation lawsuits are currently pending.
The question now is: Will Rolling Stone retract its bogus Gallagher story?
Many kudos to Newsweek for publishing Cipriano's piece and helping get the truth out about this egregious miscarriage of justice.
Continuing with my response to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 235AM:
And why go after the Church? I would venture: because the Church can be made to represent genuine evil, thus giving ‘Dan’ a status-role: he can struggle heroically against the (presumed, constructed, and necessary) evil and in that way maybe even be better than ‘normal’ people (whose ‘normalcy’ clearly renders them weak and ignorant of the danger of the true evil against which ‘Dan’ so heroically and truthily inveighs, albeit – we note – with such infelicitously vivid descents into a more molten juvenility than one would not expect from a prayer-matured Servant and/or Prophet-Messenger).
The Church – as is inherent in the Bass-Davis formulation – becomes that one cause upon which all can be blamed and against which anyone can achieve stature by ‘surviving’ it and even more stature by ‘exposing’ it and inveighing against it (especially if one does so wearing the self-appropriated mantle of ‘heroic truthy truth-teller and exposer’ or – even better – as directly-inspired Servant/Prophet of – why not go all the way? – God Himself.
It is a neat psychic economy.
But it is a construct, and one arising out of molten and dark needs. And one that is profoundly negative towards humanity (insofar as humanity is ‘normal’). Thus we so often see in Abuseniks, when they are riled, a vivid revelation of a molten dark attitude toward most human beings (especially those who don’t go along with their carefully-constructed and viscerally vital self-charade).
That’s what I would say in response to ‘Dan’s question.
Continuing with my response to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 235AM:
Thus we may consider with perhaps a heightened patience ‘Dan’s further excursus as to “lies” and “excuses” and a “cult” that is “rampant with …” and so on. The Church, as I said, can be made to conform to the Bass-Davis necessary-and-total evil, and ditto for all those “gutless excusers” who believe in the Church or any faith-message different from the one ‘Dan’ gets on his god-grams.
And we see nicely demonstrated ‘Dan’s presumptive conflation of his own perturbations and “the Lord’s truth” (which such truth, I would say, is not at all “the main reason” for his carrying-on).
And the mature and prayerful Servant and-so-on concludes with a charmingly spot-on bit of juvenile epithet.
And there you have it.
In regard to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1007PM, I would say that the only useful bit is that revelation about all “your little catholic groupie followers”. People who get in his way by not-buying his stuff are in for an epithetical drubbing from such types as ‘Dan’.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1226PM:
The Servant now seeks to explain-away the rather gaping gap between the MT 18:6 pericope and his own version of it: prescinding from the fact that “the deepest darkest sea” is itself not in the pericope, the big rock – doncha see? – is “God’s metaphor” for – and this is ‘Dan’ now, not Matthew’s Gospel, speaking – “complete and final condemnation, devoid of grace or forgiveness”. But even to try this explanation here, ‘Dan’ has to toss in his own stuff as if it were in the pericope in order to make it come out the way he wants it to come out.
And so we see that ‘Dan’ has rather largely – not to say grossly – injected his own ‘theological’ perturbations into Matthew.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1226PM:
And – for those actually interested in Scriptural interpretation – it then becomes necessary to consider further points:
In the pericope, just before the sentence on which ‘Dan’ chooses to focus, Jesus refers to someone who “causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin”. An abuser would not “cause” a ‘victim’ to “sin”; an abuser would perpetrate a sin against the abused. So ‘Dan’s entire effort here to somehow use the pericope as the basis of his perturbed fulminations is seriously questionable at best, and fails at worst.
The “children” to whom Matthew has Jesus refer are the “children” referred to in MT 18:3, a few verses before: they are those adults who believe, who must “become like little children”.
‘Dan’s is the problem one creates for oneself when one simply thumbs through the Bible for some one particular verse or passage that seems ‘weaponiz-able’ for one’s own purposes and needs. The particular quotation ‘Dan’ has glommed-onto is actually an integral part of an entire themed passage that begins with MT 18:1 and also reflects a similarly themed passage on believers in MT 10:40.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1226PM:
And indeed, the figurative contrast between children (i.e. believers) and leaders is continued only until 18:35; in that verse, there is a shift to “brothers”, indicating that both believers and leaders are equal in their eligibility for forgiveness. (If all this discussion has any reader reaching for his/her copy of the New Testament, then I strongly support that.)
Further, in 18:14, Matthew has Jesus contrasting the Scribes and Pharisees – who seek to exclude sinners – from the abiding and all-encompassing solicitude of God for sinners and for forgiveness.
And then there is the comparison that has to be made with Mark’s emphasis on the shepherd searching for the lost sheep (MK 9:36, 10:6, 15:34).
In no way whatsoever can ‘Dan’s preferred horror-cartoon of an interpretation be squared with any of these elements.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1137AM:
We can move on by the juvenile attempt to play on the words “nuance” and “nuisance”, an effort by ‘Dan’ to dispose of my material for his own convenience.
My “complexity” – who can be surprised? – he seeks to dispose of as mere efforts to “confuse” and “trick” (and readers can at this point consult my immediately prior comments on the Gospel of Matthew revealing ‘Dan’s abyssal Scriptural chops).
And if anybody does agree with my position then – the Servant/Prophet doth prayerfully and maturely declaim – then they are “illiterate” (and ditto about my Matthew sequence and ‘Dan’s Scriptural illiteracy).
We are then – recalling my earlier answer to one of ‘Dan’s questions here today – treated to a marvelously vivid demonstration of ‘Dan’s derangement: he asserts “in my God’s opinion” … as if he had just gotten a memo (or a message through the antennae on his tin-foil hat) and then refers to himself and God as “we”.
And then “we” descend to some familiar juvenile epithet.
As to my noting that he proffers no quotes as to the “lies” he asserts I have made, he attempts to dodge the problem by claiming that there are so many that he wouldn’t know where to start.
Efforts to accurately deploy French fail, as do – I have demonstrated in the Matthew sequence – his efforts to declaim upon Scripture.
I must say, I've been around babies that don't whimper and cry as much as you. Oh, peewee and your poor, picked on church. Peewee asks a question and it must console him that he has the answer- "And why go after the church [caps deleted] ? I would venture: because the church can be made to represent genuine evil." To this I would reply, "That's close but no, your church is absolutely, positively, genuinely evil. How can I say such a thing? Well, if I must repeat again for the umteenth time: It's a false god/goddess, idol worshipping gathering of hypocrits led by a hierarchy, clergy and staff of pedophiles, child molesters, perverts, liars, thieves and criminals, who can't interpret, follow or comprehend the Bible. And again: In the Bible there is no catholic church, no pope, no rosary, no bowing down or worship of saints, no ever virgin mary (which you lie and claim you don't worship), no immaculate conception or assumption of mary, no mercy, grace or salvation from mary(which puts her equal to Christ) and she is no mediatrix. All these things are blasphemy and idolatry. Read in the Bible the first two commandments if you doubt me.
You are hilariass (my friend's humor). Finally, as to my request, you try to dispute my interpreting of scripture, and you use it to claim your "complexity", telling readers to "consult my immediately prior comments on the gospel of Matthew". Well again, I shall "dispose of as mere efforts to 'confuse' and 'trick' " readers. He claims I added "the deepest darkest sea" to the scripture verse, Matthew 18:6. I was explaining the passage in terms I thought even the simple-minded would understand. The only word I added to "the deepest darkest sea" was darkest, and to my knowledge the deepest sea is also extremely dark and void of light. So he makes the ridiculous claim that " 'Dan' has to toss in his own stuff as if it were in the pericope in order to make it come out the way he wants it to come out." And now I've "largely-not to say grossly injected" my own words to totally change the meaning of MT 18:6. Really? And you claim the Abusnik Stampede over exaggerates. Then he claims Jesus wasn't talking about "children", "in MT 18:3, they are those adults who believe, who must 'become like little children' ". So don't you get it, peewee wants to claim no harm, no foul, because the condemnation of MT 18:6 only refers to adults. How stupid when Jesus in MT 18: 2,4,5 has in order, a "child stand in front of them", says "becomes like this child" and in v.5, "And whoever welcomes in my name one such child as this welcomes me." Anyway, whether child and/or adult, the verse says "one of my little followers to sin" or "one of these little ones to lose faith in me", it still is condemnation without forgiveness. And for peewee to claim that, "An abuser would not cause a victim to sin", then explain to us why pedophile and perverted priests granted forgiveness to their victim after they did their nasty, disgusting deed. Then he adds, "(If all this discussion has any reader reaching for his/her copy of the New testament, then I strongly support that.)" Well isn't that sweet. I've been suggesting that all along and quoting scripture and all you did was mock myself, my beliefs and God, You are a phoney, lying, fraud and twister of scripture, and we're onto you.
Read the Bible catholics and if MT 18 doesn't convince you that I'm right about your church, look at Jeremiah 44 – God's curse against worshipping the "Queen of Heaven" before the catholic church ever existed. Matthew 23- Romans 1- Jude- Revelations !7,18. I'm not pulling things out of context and have nothing to gain from you finding out God's truth. Read the Word often and God will expose for you the true liar and manipulator.
p- Are you having a reading comprehension problem, because there's some pretty good grammar schools I can suggest to help you with those problems. After claiming I wouldn't know where to start, I referred you to my post exposing and debunking your childish "lies", listing 4 of them numbered 1,2,3 on January 28 @ 11:22 pm. If you want the exact quotes where you made those false accusations, look them up yourself. You repeated them enough times and think your so "complex" and deny being a nuisance, so it will give you a nice project to keep you busy. Maybe you'll have less time to lie and criticize the innocent and make more poor excuses for your church of perverts and pedophiles, which would definitely be a win-win for many of us, most especially me. Dan, His servant back atcha.
How hard it must be for you both to have "the one true religion".
Hey Jim, I agree that there can only be one real truth. I'm sure you can agree that God's truth, which I don't label as religion, wouldn't be left in the hands of a hierarchy which consists of perverts and those who enable, make excuses for and offer asylum to. Then there's God, His Son given as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin and His Word, a concise handbook for overcoming and surviving the difficulties and wickedness of humankind. The prize, eternal life, happiness, peace and love. So my guess is you have a better option. Despising, denying and hating the Creator who gave you life. Actually, I've already tried that option, which led to a place of utter unhappiness, deep darkness and despondency. I was experiencing a literal hell on earth and when I literally reached the end of my rope, an awesome power reached down and pulled me from the darkness. Without saying a single word, He told me to go out and tell others of an Awesome Creator, His Precious Son who is the Word made flesh and His magnificent love for mankind, for those who believe. The choice was mine and no one will convince me that I made the wrong one, especially if you could have been there to experience my darkness. May anyone with an ear, hear what God is freely offering this day.
P.S. You do understand that "killing two birds with one stone" was not meant literally. And I find there is no need to read other books once you've found and understood "The Greatest Story Ever Told". I prefer to spend my free time rollerblading, hiking and sharing my life and love with others.
Why must you discount all victims who post here? What's in it for you?
I tell you the truth about these committees and who founded them. You don't believe me fine. I don't give a flying fuck what you think about anything. Apologist!
2000 out of 11000 victims compensated.
if you look real hard you can see victims over there through all the smoke.
Waiting for the smoke blowers to stop. All smoke all the time. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. I wish the Jesus boys would shut up for a while but for them this is the smoking room.
Who would read either of you 2? Nasty meets the Mystic for the boredom of us all. Spectacular!
Where did I say there must be one true religion? All religion's the bunk. Pie in the sky when you die and fear and judgement (of others) while you live. Some of us grow up.
The bible!!!! Who cares? How about a little less love for mankind by imaginary true gods and a little more action in mankind's favor by mankind?
Jesus wanted you to act like him not worship him and he said love your neighbor and judge not. So lets clam up about the lord shall we? Act like Quakers act. Button up so we can hear said diety. Who you're so fond of……………………………………………………………………..
So what would that make you and p- dumb and dumber? If you noticed, I don't consider God's truth to be a religion. I believe you have a serious problem with blaming God for what religious hypocrites did to hurt you. You're pushing away the very Creator that could solve all your problems. You ask that we button up so you can hear the diety. Why would you want to hear from a diety that you think is only myth and you despise. Maybe time you grow up or at least wake up. You say, "Who would read either of you 2?" Apparently you have, but as far as I'm concerned you can ignore and skip over my posts and you won't hurt my feelings. In regards to dumber, I refuse to stand by and watch him mock, pollute, twist, misinterpret and confuse the Word and God's truth in hope that others won't read and/or understand what the Word truly says. I have tried to stop commenting more than twice but got frustrated with the lies and excuses and was sucked back in by all the ignorance. God two weeks ago told me to give up on the hopeless, but continue to try and reach the lost. Really, for at least the last month or so, I've been speaking through the both of you, but not really to either one of you. My hope is my message would fall on the ears of those interested in hearing the Truth. Sorry, but I don't claim being any smarter than either of you, but I'm smart enough to know who does hold all the wisdom in this world. I won't mention Him or His Son's name because I think the Truth offends both of you. Dan, servant of You Know Who
What has truth got to do with an unprovable god? (It's a rhetorical question please no answer necessary.)
We are about to embark on another voyage into the Dan-verse.
Before doing so, I would like to say that my purpose in doing so at this point is to explore the curious mix of elements that constitutes that phenomenon. It has perhaps by now dawned on some readers that we are dealing with something rather fixed, and I am not seeking here to change anything that exists in that condition, nor – as always – do I seek to engage on the level of mentation we have seen reveal itself with increasing intensity.
But especially with Scripture and theology now in the mix, and given that many readers may not often trawl those precincts of the Web where such types as ‘Dan’ roam free-range, then I think it would be worthwhile to pursue matters as they develop in the comments.
Readers are reminded that the comments in play at this point exist either on the ‘newer’ or the ‘older’ comments pages of this thread. I am going to keep all my new comments on the ‘newer’ thread.
On the 31st at 1256AM ‘Dan’ – having reverted to his pastoral Servant/Prophet persona and style (and/or Wig) – will proffer some bits to JR.
I would note only two points:
First, ‘Dan’ describes precisely the type of personal crisis that provides a gravid breeding-ground for precisely the type of ‘solution – simultaneously psychological and religious/theological – that the Bass-Davis formulation applies, although the Bass-Davis formulation focuses specifically on a particular psychological experience, that of incest (real or imagined).
That is to say: the individual will be driven to a point of interior desperation, to escape from which the individual will suddenly glom-onto some personally congenial ‘total solution’. For some this takes the form of an identification with Napoleon or other historical or cultural authority figure of great status; for the Bass-Davis types it is the status of ‘victim’ (or ‘survivor’); and for ‘Dan’ – as I have said – it is a queasily totalizing identification with (some version of) God.
Continuing with my thoughts on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 1256AM:
Second, I would note the very useful revelation that in order to maximize the identification while retaining control over it so that no complications confuse what is basically a cartoon-simple dynamic, the individual avoids any complications that would arise from gaining insight or information from any other source than the individual’s own excitations and perturbations.
Thus in the “P.S.”, ‘Dan’ cheeribly reports that he finds that “there is no need to read other books”. Instead, he will preserve the ‘magic’ of his total-identification with ‘God’ by simply taking possession of the Bible in his own mind and allowing no other sources of Biblical knowledge or insight to interfere with what he – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘needs’ to find in the Bible as he selectively wanders through it.
Indeed, he has created for himself a classic ‘religion of one’, as he says in the second sentence of the comment. One might well wonder the millennia-long combined resources and efforts of Scripture scholars and a hierarchy might not provide a broader and deeper comprehension of Scripture than could flow from the mind of any single individual. But ‘Dan’ has neatly sidestepped that very real issue by imaging himself as having a direct bonding with the mind and will of God, which neatly complements the direct bonding on the level of person (i.e. he speaks of himself and God as “we”).
On, then, to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 525AM:
He believes he has found a useful epithetical hook: I introduced a set of thoughts by proposing the question to which those thoughts would respond: “And why go after the Church?”. This is standard form for conducting a public analysis. But ‘Dan’ doesn’t bother reading any such types of material, and so he is left to his own devices, which push him – congenially, no doubt – toward his epithetical characterization of my question as merely a “whimper and cry” or some sort of whining.
My question was not a plaintive one; it simply set the focus for the comments that followed.
Readers will also note that the Wig of Mature Servant-ing has been cast aside, and we are treated to more epithet (“Peewee”). The persona of the Mature and Prayer-filled Servant has a hard time staying firmly and reliably fixed, plopped as it is on top of so molten and perturbed a personal core.
Continuing with my thoughts on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 525AM:
The best ‘Dan’ can do in regard to my point about the Church being made the vitally-necessary ‘genuine evil’ against which such a shaky personality must organize itself is to come up with his own formulation, which – if you look at it – merely demonstrates the accuracy of my point: for ‘Dan’ it’s not that he sees or needs-to-see the Church as such a genuine evil but rather – of course – that the Church most definitely and surely and certainly is such an evil and about that there can be no doubt by any rational person (among the ranks of whom, of course, ‘Dan’ conveniently numbers himself or himself-and-God).
We also see ‘Dan’ relying on the familiar old bit about there being no Church in the Bible. This bit echoes the profound problem the Reformation almost instantaneously created for itself from the get-go: ‘the Bible’ as we know it today was put together by the early Church, which authoritatively selected those writings that would be included in the canon of Scripture, and rejecting many other writings.
If there weren’t the Church, there would be no ‘Bible’ as we have it today. Instead, various groups or individuals would have simply picked and chose among the many writings purporting to have the status of God’s inspired Word, and the identity of Christianity and Christians would never have achieved the stability which even now it possesses, and the vertebracy of the Catholic Church retains even as many other polities, both liberal and fundamentalist, continuously fragment and fractalize.
Continuing with my thoughts on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 525AM:
Towards the end of the first paragraph of his comment, readers can see for themselves where a radically (and radically under-informed) approach as the one ‘Dan’ has embraced leads: he winds up with the (or any?) Church as somehow setting itself up as an object of worship and thus violating the relevant Commandment. This approach leads to an orchestra of one … without much of a melody.
But what few notes ‘Dan’ has, he will continually honk at the world with his theological kazoo.
We see also his continuing (and vitally necessary) conflation of a) the text of the Bible with b) his own interpretations. Which simply reflects on a conceptual level his vitally-necessary personal conflation of himself and God. About that conflation, certainly, there can be no “doubt” and in this instance, surely, ‘Dan’ is a reliable exemplar, though not a guide.
Continuing with my thoughts on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 525AM:
The Servant opens his second paragraph with a mildly-scatological epithet, which – queasily – he quickly and evasively ascribes not to so spiritual a being as himself, but rather to a “friend’s humor”. Whatever its provenance, he chose to print it here in his comment.
He then tries to address the problems with his interpretation of MT 18:6 (the millstone verse): he only added “darkest” to the original text “the deepest sea”. But he did add it. And that’s the problem. One doesn’t use Scriptural texts like play-dough, adding and twisting and subtracting to get the shape one personally wants to see.
And he further then tries to draw his preferred theological substance of the text that he has – however minutely – altered to his own tastes and purposes.
He claims I said “Jesus wasn’t talking about children”. Jesus wasn’t. He was using “children” as an image of what (adult) believers had to seek to become: docile and willing to be taught. Or does ‘Dan’ imagine – as his ‘thought’ here would seem to imply, that Jesus actually meant that physical adults had to physically regress to the age and form of their childhood selves? This is what ‘Dan’s type of approach brings you to, and in short order.
Continuing with my thoughts on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 525AM:
Nor has he at all managed to successfully ground his own ‘theological’ conclusion that somehow Jesus has proposed or pronounced “condemnation without forgiveness”. From where in the text can that conclusion be rationally asserted? A person can suffer a grisly physical death, but does that in any way sufficiently ground and justify a metaphysical assertion that God denies mercy and imposes “condemnation without forgiveness”? ‘Dan’ can’t get his preferred conclusion out of this pericope; he may claim he got it in one of his god-grams, but then we’re into the realm of spectral evidence, and spectral evidence coming from an already shaky source indeed.
He attempts to wave-away the serious problem posed by the fact that an abuser doesn’t cause a victim to sin by … what? Coming up with some phantasm scenario in which abusive priests “granted forgiveness to their victim” after the perpetration of the abuse.
The interior logic of the pericope, coupled with the Christian theology of sin, clearly rules out any possibility whatsoever that one who was forcibly abused could thereby sin.
And the phantasm scenario seems to spring from ‘Dan’s desperate need to come up with something to avoid the problems with his interpretation here. If he seriously believes his phantasm has some legitimate relevance to the problem of his interpretation of the passage here, then he can explain it more fully. At this point, it seems merely a crack-dream, and a rather convenient and self-serving one at that.
Continuing with my thoughts on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 525AM:
He then – yet again – demonstrates his conflation of the actual text of the Bible with his own perturbations: I do indeed heartily recommend reading the actual text of the Bible (and I would also recommend some competent Biblical commentaries as well) – but I most certainly don’t imagine that a reading of the text of the Bible is going to ineluctably lead a rational person to ‘Dan’s asserted interpretations.
‘Dan’s quoting of Scripture throughout his comments here has drawn my attention for two reasons:
First, his fondness for Woes and denunciations are irrelevant in a situation where we don’t know if the accused individual has actually committed the act that might make the Woes relevant.
Second, his theological interpretations – shoe-horned into his reading of the Scriptural text – are unsupportable in any rationally informed way at all.
And the paragraph concludes – once again through the wonders of clinical projection – with ‘Dan’s (no doubt unwitting) self-description.
Continuing with my thoughts on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 525AM:
And the final paragraph of his comment contains – in a charmingly apt similarity to one of JR’s recent signature gambits – his pious declamation that he has “nothing to gain from you finding out God’s truth”.
Well, that is so very true on so many levels.
He will gain nothing at all from people reading Scripture and “finding out God’s truth”. Indeed, and recalling the Parable of the Shepherd and the Lost Sheep (an element from Mark I had mentioned that he chose not to address here), people may very well discover that “God’s truth” and ‘Dan’s various bits are not at all the same thing.
This discovery may come as no surprise to most readers but it is gall and wormwood to ‘Dan’ – who is rather heavily invested in the conflation of himself and God, his ‘truth’ and “God’s truth”, and so on.
"Parable of the Shepherd and the Lost Sheep (an element from Mark I had mentioned that he chose not to address here)" I chose not to address the parable a) If I address every sentence you write, then my comments would become as drawn out and nausious as you. b) It's the story of my life. I wouldn't avoid addressing it, just that I'd discuss it with someone who had Biblical acumen, which certainly wouldn't be you. c) Anyone interested in it's meaning would want to refer to "God-gram" Luke's version.
IN THE SAME WAY, I TELL YOU THAT THERE WILL BE MORE JOY IN HEAVEN OVER ONE SINNER WHO REPENTS THAN OVER 99 RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE WHO DON'T NEED TO REPENT. LUKE 15:7 Deep for those who have an ear to hear.
p says, "people may very well discover that "God's truth" and 'Dan's various bits are not the same thing." Really? That's why I've used Bible quotes to enforce the things I say, only to have you mock away (Didn't realize I was a poet). I'll let readers decide if there's any truth to that accusation. May I close with you are full of "gall and wormwood" and also full of …xxit. Dan, servant of the Lord
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 508PM:
Moving past the attempt at epithet with which The Servant doth open the service here, we see that he then drives the final nail into his credibility by attempting to dismiss my characterizations of his misadventures with the children in the schoolyard and the staff and the police and the judge and the conviction and the enforced stays in mental institutions.
Given the discrepancies and gaps in time in the posting of comments, we might charitably presume that he would not yet have seen my comments of the 31st at 428PM (on the ‘older comments’ page here), in which I reproduce in full his November 2015 comment on this site. And my comment immediately following it (the 31st at 429PM) where I point out the very elements in his description of his experiences which he now denies ever happened.
Or we might presume that he had indeed read my comment of the 31st at 428PM and yet still chose to claim that I was ‘lying’ and so on and so forth.
Leaving us in any case – I would say – with only two possible explanations: he is either a loon or a liar.
Maybe now he will make less time to go on about lies and lying in order to make the time to sufficiently explain it all.
You began as being annoying, have proceeded to become a nuisance and now have progressed to totally getting on my nerves. Is your mentation out of whack, again. Have you visited your quack psych lately or are you off your meds (or is that crack your on). You began your comments today on 2/1 @ 4:51am stating, "I am going to keep all my new comments on the 'newer' thread." Ten minutes later @ 5:01am you've apparently forgotten what planet your on and start telling readers to refer to the 'older comments'. Bad enough, but now you want to refer back to "November 2015", or was under the impression that I wouldn't call you on it or thought I wouldn't be able to find it, since you imagine thinking I'm the loon, looney bird.
On 11/23 @ 12;19pm I stated, "I'm speaking from experience because Catholic clergy and laity have laid upon me terrible accusations that were completely false. [1] They lied and claimed I wanted to kill them. [2] Said I trespassed when I didn't. [3] Threatened me and then put that charge on me. [4] Four thug cowards, of the church of my youth, jumped me from behind because I had a beautiful, prophetic message to the school children. Two weeks later reported this to the vacationing principle [sic], and she said the thugs were accusing me of saying dirty things to the children." I numbered them with your baby building blocks so you might understand. All these were separate false accusations and lies. It's possible that no.[3] happened with [4], because the catholic thugs did threaten me and could have tried to put the charge on me, but as I've said already there was no charge in this incident. So since there was no charge, there was no misdemeanor, so no conviction and so there was no judge. How do I know this to be true, so help me God? Because I was there, and you weren't! When my family found out the next day, my sister called the msgr. of the church, because she couldn't believe what they falsely claimed and asked the msgr. if I had said the nasty things they were claiming to the children. He told her he had witnessed the incident and 'Dan' said nothing bad to the children. I'm almost sure you'll be a big enough asshole to claim that to be hearsay. So once again, my story has never changed. Only habitual liars get caught with their foot in their mouth, possibly for you, both feet. Mocker liar.
P.S. Noticed you enjoy referring to movies and cartoons often, so thought I'd suggest you check out "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", or is it your biography.
I went back to look at your 1/31 @ 4:29, which you are right, I hadn't seen and which you "charitably presume[d]", your most gracious one. Saw you've now added more lies cause you apparently weren't content with the several you've already thrown at me. In this incident there was no charges, so there was no restitution, so no guilty plea, so no fine. So in other words there was no "glaring incoherence and self-contradiction", except for the incoherent liar, proud to keep packing on the lies. You make your deceiving cult proud.
Quoting you, "the Servant of God and Truth" Dan, Thank You
Also, glad to see you "stand by all my/[your] material in this matter". So you mean you stand by all your lies. I'm sooo proud of you. I'd like to see how someone stands with both feet in their mouth, or have they proceeded out the back end. Had to hold my tongue on that one. Servant
You are a loon and a liar, P. Heaven forfend you treat anyone kindly. Smokey the P.
On the 31st at 1156PM JR will try to have it both ways: i) get in a one-liner while ii) avoiding having to actually see it assessed.
I would make two points:
First: in the matter of God and the Meta (tr. ‘beyond’ or ‘above’) realm, the concepts of evidence and proof as they exist in the non-Meta realm (i.e. the actual historical realm of human activity) are not applicable. This difference has morphed over time to the contemporary (and not sufficient) opposition of ‘science’ and ‘religion’.
‘Science’ – as most admirably demonstrated in the classic principles of the Scientific Method – seeks to a) determine the laws and dynamics through which physical phenomena operate and then b) construct theories that apply those laws and dynamics to physical phenomena through a rigorous testing-method relying on i) demonstrable evidence, ii) clear and rational conclusions drawn-from and justified by such evidence, and iii) peer review by other scientists competent to assess any individual scientist’s conclusions.
Continuing with my comment on JR”s of the 31st at 1156PM:
As so-called ‘soft’ sciences – i.e. those dealing not with physical phenomena but rather with social and cultural and psychological phenomena – developed, they too sought the status of ‘science’, but there remained a problem for them: much of the material they sought to examine was not open to actual Scientific-Method process since the material and phenomena that were the focus of ‘soft science’ were not physical and tangible nor clearly available to the perception of other analyzers or reviewers.
Thus ‘soft science’ types began to substitute their own presumptions and predilections for any observable and factual and objective material when they ‘studied’ this or that issue or problem.
Continuing with my comment on JR”s of the 31st at 1156PM:
The issue of Darwinism (discussed at great length here on this site quite some time ago) gave one of the most significant examples of such a dynamic, since from the beginning Darwin’s theory gave rise to purely scientific objections that his presumptions as to a) the actual dynamics and causes of ‘random selection’ being sufficient to account for the a) broad diversity of life forms b) in so short a time as four billion or so years simply couldn’t be possible.
Recent developments in computerized calculations in the past two decades have simply reinforced this problem for Darwinism. As has the Information Problem: i.e. that it is not even first and fundamentally a problem of the evolution of physical matter itself but rather an even more intractable problem of the information that guides the claimed random-evolutionary process: just as computer programs guide the operation of a computer, so the codes that guide the information that orders the development of physical matter would seem ineluctably to lead to the question: Who (or What) created the codes that guide the so-called random evolutionary process in the first place?
And to try to claim that the code itself developed through some random-evolutionary process of its own simply pushes the prime question all the way back to a hypothesized random-evolutionary dynamic that only appears to be a code but that does require a precision – over stunning quantities of time and possibility – that leaves the window of Darwinism’s ‘randomness over a mere four-billion years’ in the dust. Readers may consult Stephen C. Meyer’s two recent books: Signature in the Cell (2009) and Darwin’s Doubt (2013). They will also note that all of Meyer’s objections are scientific objections and not based in theology or religion.
Continuing with my comment on JR”s of the 31st at 1156PM:
In the past decades – almost half a century now – of ‘advocacy science’ this highly dubious and fraught dynamic of ‘good’ (increasingly meaning ‘popularly accepted’) intentions as being sufficient for ‘science’ was erected into a Virtuous Plan: if you were examining something with ‘good’ intentions and in a ‘good cause’, then you were on the side of light and knowledge, even if your work was based as much (if not more) on ‘good’ intentions and your own preferred presumptions as it was as on any actual hard, observable factual evidence. And that leads us, among many other places, to the use of ‘science’ to bolster assorted ‘good’ initiatives in contemporary culture and society.
So then when we come to the issue of an “unprovable God” we are essentially encountering the effort to apply the processes of the scientific this-worldly to the theological other-worldly. And this is – to use an image I used before in this matter – the equivalent of using sonar(useful only to detect submarines) to detect aircraft and then declaring that since no aircraft appear on your sonar scan then there are no aircraft around or perhaps even that aircraft don’t exist.
Continuing with my comment on JR”s of the 31st at 1156PM:
My second point: it is marvelously ironic that the Abuseniks would try to deploy the “unprovable God” bit against the Church or any believers or belief-system, when their own cases are – as we have seen here – so utterly bereft of hard evidence such that the Abuseniks – when finally pressed – simply demand that they be ‘believed’ regardless of the lack of evidence or proof (and that anyone who doesn’t simply ‘believe’ them is a sociopath and un-Christian and so on and so forth).
You should get a TV program on the catholic channel EWTN, as a scientist/apologist, full of apologies and excuses. You'd fit in just right with all the other run on, big mouthed liars. Scratch that. If I had to see, let alone listen to the garbage. I'd have to throw a brick through my TV screen. You are absolutely hilariass! I don't believe they have a comedy act yet?
I'm going to make this God vs. science debate very easy for everybody. Take a stroll through the meadow, along the Merced river and gaze up through the valley towards Half Dome in Yosemite Natl. Park. El Capitan and Yosemite Falls on the left and numerous spires and peaks on your right. Now stop and close your eyes and breathe in all the spectacular smells and listen to the river as it flows and splashes over the rocks, down through the rapids. Now open your eyes and take another look for say 5 minutes. If you don't recognize that a Great Creator fashioned this relatively small place, considering the size of earth, it's planets and the universe, your most definitely spiritually blind and very likely physically blind. God didn't make you with ears and you either have a bad allergy or your nose is running, away. You may have been born a cave fish that God knew didn't require eyes because it's pitch black or ears 'cause there was no need to hear. One place on earth and we didn't even mention the miracles of animals, birds, fishes and humans, babies or grown let alone the visions we can ponder through the eyes of Hubble. If something happens as a big bang, as is the theory, that would speak to me of an explosion. I have never seen any explosion create anything more than chaos. Isn't it wonderful that God lets us have our choice. I choose to believe.
‘Dan’ was left with some serious matters on his plate. What has he done about them?
On the 1st at 603PM he huffs and puffs about my “getting on [his] nerves”, whomps up some epithets, and then tries to avoid the matters by coming up with inaccuracies. I said I would keep my own new comments on the ‘new comments’ thread and I have done so; I merely referred back to an old-thread comment in the process.
But there’s a method to the madness in his effort here: on the basis of my saying I would keep my new comments on the new-comments thread, he seeks to absolve himself of responsibility for explaining (however that might possibly be done) his November 2015 comments. Larding further epithet like frosting onto his rather un-baked cake here, he then riffs on the grammatical variants of “loon” while also congratulating himself that he did remember the November 2015 comment. Fine and dandy – we have established that he can retrieve and recall that 2015 comment. I have indeed ‘called him on it’. And now what has he to say for himself in regard to it?
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 1st at 603PM:
He repeats (some of) his comment of November 23rd, 2015 and adds some numbering. The numbering is simply added to his assorted asserted claims trying to spin what things he actually said and did. About these efforts of his to spin away his action and words, readers may judge as they will. Was he simply and out of the blue subjected to “lies” and so on for no reason whatsoever? Or is he trying to spin away an incident he himself brought on by some sort of questionable actions and statements – in his telling, that he was merely engaged in bringing about some “beautiful” Sermonette to children?
But he then stops short in his self-quotation, precisely at the spot where in his original comment of November 2015 he talks about his being “thrown in jail 6 times and in mental institutions 6 more times” and his having “paid restitution for accusations” and was – but of course – “forced to plead guilty”.
And instead, this time around, he introduces some bits about a relative calling the Monsignor and so on and so forth, all of which – by the most amazing coincidence – backs up his spin although the new material is itself something for which we only have ‘Dan’ as a reliable source. And would a family not know that one of its members had so often been involved with arrest and psychiatric observation?
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 1st at 603PM:
As I pointed out in a recent comment on this thread, one cannot be “thrown in jail” unless one is arrested; one cannot be sent for psychiatric evaluation except by the order of a judge; one cannot pay a fine unless one is convicted of some statute for which paying a fine is (at least part of) the statutory penalty. And the misadventures with jail and mental institutions have happened “6 times” .
So somehow ‘Dan’ has been arrested (“thrown in jail”) and sent by a judge for psychiatric observation “6 times”.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 1st at 603PM:
He then tries the familiar Abusenik dodge: I can’t talk about this because I wasn’t there and he was so he doth “know”. And he preemptively – and thus very slyly – tries, and with obligatory epithet, of course, to neutralize the reality that everything he now tries to introduce about his sister and the Monsignor is “hearsay” (and he uses the proper legal term, nicely enough).
As I have said before on this site, when confronted with a story one can and should consider it as a movie director might: take the story you are proffered as a ‘script’ and then imagine how the scene would unfold.
In this case then: imagine a school-yard of a Catholic school, at recess or at some point when children were in the yard, and then try to imagine ‘Dan’s story-script (marvelous instance of beautiful working of God’s grace in the world as his Servant delivers whatever to the children); staffers come out and try to move him along and away from the children).
But then, of course, the already-existing problem of why any normal adult with no business there would suddenly start speaking at any length to any school-children in a school-yard becomes unavoidable: did the staffers (characterized by ‘Dan’ as “thugs”) engage in “lies” and so forth or did ‘Dan’ behave in the way we have seen him carry on here (where we are safely behind the many distances and walls of the Web and the words of comments) … ?
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 1st at 603PM:
And he concludes with a reference to a film that – once again through the wonders of clinical projection – refers to “the cuckoo’s nest”.
However readers may parse the whole thing, we are dealing here with someone who by his own admission has a history of multiple arrests and psychiatric commitments for observation. Readers may further take into account their assessment of The Servant’s extensive self-revelations (unintentional more often than not) as evidenced in his various submissions here.
On the 1st at 632PM ‘Dan’ will now claim that the particular instance of the schoolyard we have been looking-at here did not result in arrest and charges. So then – if we grant that bit – then it becomes one of how many other instances, beyond those of his misadventures resulting in the six arrests and the six commitments for psychiatric observation? And indeed, he seems rather familiar (if not also proud of) these “instances”, evidenced by his ho-hum comment “in this instance there were no charges”. If not the liar, the loon then? (Short answer: No, the Servant of the God-grams!).
But it remains to be answered, whether ‘Dan’s characterizations of the staffers, faced with what is for him clearly a habitual type of dubious behavior (and with children), are accurately characterizable as “thugs” for trying to get him to move away from the children.
But this is a noteworthy if not at all unique psychic economy: ‘Dan’ is neither loon nor criminal but rather Servant/Prophet; and those who consider him a loon or a criminal (or a liar) are thus ‘mockers’ not of ‘Dan’ but of God Himself. Neato. Given the contemporary lack of historical knowledge, Napoleon would have been – for reasons that were perhaps obvious even to ‘Dan’ – a less suitable and effective figure for his needs and purposes.
peewee, Somehow my reply ended up in the "older comments"– 2/2 @ 11:33am. Maybe God wants you to hone your research skills.?!?
Ignoring ‘Dan’s juvenile gambit of the 1st at 644Pm we come to the interesting bit of the 1st at 709PM:
Since he hasn’t really got much depth in his ‘knowledge’ (the god-grams are apparently short directives and tactical instructions but there doesn’t seem to have been any extensive educational course accompanying them) then the only Wig he can wear for my Darwinism comments (to which, it must be presumed, he refers here) is that of juvenile epithet and snark.
Which is curious coming from one who gets all the god-grams; one would have imagined that anyone as interested in the Bible as ‘Dan’, and as informed as he is by the god-grams, would be a bit more curious about the possibility of Darwinism’s profound insufficiencies as science.
But, of course, ‘Dan’s purportedly religious and theological needs and purposes are actually primarily psychological (not to say psychiatric) and so the whole topic escapes him.
As is evidenced by the fact that his god-grams provided him nothing more than juvenile epithet for a comment.
I'm more concerned about your "profound insufficiences". I wrote a 50 page book report in 8th grade titled "The Theory of Evolution and Mankind" and I'm way past the ignorance of Darwin and his theories and find no need to extrapolate on theories or myths. Once you find the wisdom of the Almighty everything else pales in comparison. I'll yield to the professor, snarky. Hopefully for the last time if you'll desist messing with me, servant Dan
Smoke, smoke everywhere.
OMNG Will u 2 shut up? I remember, long ago, the issue was not "GOD"; but Billy Doe and Newsweek. I remember cuz there's a picture referring to that subject at the top of this page. What happened? Smokey the Bear and Jesus Jr. have driven off the cliff. RIP
Well, jr. (junior), You got your wish. On 2/2 @ 11:33 am (8:33 am here in beautiful Califonia, God's country), I posted my last comment to this forum, unless I get a "God-gram" that I'd like to annoy you two with. You didn't think I had the right to defend myself from all the lies thrown at me. I'm glad to see that athiests show as much compassion for others, as do ignorant mockers of The Creator. I'm more than glad to see you gossiping, backbiting old nags riding off into the sunset together. Now you can go back to the slander, libel and tears regarding the pedophilia, perverts and greed of your wicked cult. Jim, maybe p. can help you come home to your catholic faith-less. Later mockers, half-baked friutcakes.
Dan, servant to the One True God
P.S. Somehow my last comment ended up in the "older comments" section- 2/2 @ 11:33am
Dan I haven't attacked you as a person. I just know smoke when I see it. TMR is burning. Dan you can believe what you want but linking me to P is just base silliness. I have attacked your imaginary sky friend but if "he" is god. He'll get over it. I think the attacks P's made on you are unforgiveable given his identity remains in hiding. California is beautiful I just drove from Mexico to L.A. along the ocean. I love my state and I hope you have a very good time while you are here. Welcome! Enjoy.
Sorry about that Jim, but attacking God to a true christian, sometimes seems worse than attacking them personally. Guess some of my linking you with p was in retaliation for your linking me with p more than a few times (i.e.- tweedle dee and tweedle dum or p and Jesus jr.). I'm still working and often failing on that "turn the other cheek" stuff, and linking lying p to anything human would probably be "silliness". Take Care.
On the 2nd at 1119AM JR will try to wish-away all the material presently on the table as “smoke”.
He supports that by donning the Wig of Competence to remind us that the thread originally began on the topic of “Billy Doe and Newsweek”. He doesn’t like when things get off-message, or – more specifically – his message, as contained in his well-worn set of 3x5s with his assorted talking-points, factoids and so on.
He may not remember – or at least hopes no readers remember – that at one point a while back he had himself initiated a number of assertions about the unassailable validity of the Darwinian hypotheses, trying to frame the whole issue as merely one of Science vs. Religion. When I put up a more specific seven or eight point précis of Meyer’s scientific objections to Darwin and waited for an answer, JR decamped yet again from the site and was not heard from for some time, and then tried to lubricate his come-back with the utterly irrelevant distraction to the effect that he was descended from a Pope, a Saint/King, other royalty or aristocracy,, and some bishops, archbishops and/or other hierarchs. All of whom – by amazing coincidence – were long dead and unable to corroborate his claims.
We were apparently to believe that his ancestry gambit was not “smoke” but rather was merely a heart-warming instance of JR “sharing”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1135PM:
With sublime confidence, he will “make this God vs. science debate very easy for everybody”.
That should be very interesting. And how will he do that?
Why simply by telling us about his own method for doing so: look around in Yosemite or some other place of great natural beauty and – tah dahhhh! – if you don’t then choose to believe in God then – the Wig of Omniscience – “your [sic] most definitely spiritually blind and very likely physically blind”.
Ooooh, gee, that was simple! Just like a cartoon. You wouldn’t even need to be admitted to the 33rd degree level of Servant-hood with its 007 warrant to harangue anyone you felt like and its top-secret god-gram security clearance.
So ‘Dan’ will simplify it all for everyone: just do what he did and “choose to believe”. It might work for someone who goes to a national park. For persons who have seen war’s effects or the effects of disease (physical or mental) or any of the other complexities that pose profound challenges to belief one would need a significantly more substantial form of persuasion.
But substance, especially in the face of complexity and brokenness , is not really ‘Dan’s thing; he developed his own belief system precisely to reduce the existential shocks of life to a more manageably congenial cartoon. Confronted with a graveyard, ‘Dan’ will not only whistle his way by it, but claim that anyone who doesn’t or can’t do the same is somehow failing to see how “very easy” it all is.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1133AM (which, as he points out, is on the ‘older comments’ page of this thread):
He opens with an impression he has, about my being able to “talk and lie the hair off a chinchilla”.
That seems a rather irrelevant bit, but there’s a plan he’s working on here, and the manner of it is on this wise: he’s laying the groundwork for his exit from the stage as he heads for the side-curtains.
Readers may consider as they will his claim that however his actions and words were characterized that led to the six arrests and the six confinements in a mental hospital, such characterizations were all “false accusations and lies”. Readers may consider the incoherences in his story and the general revelations provided by his material here.
A pericope from Romans to lubricate the whole bit, nicely having to do with ‘sharing the sufferings’ of Christ.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1133AM:
Then – unsurprisingly – a omewhat histrionic – if not also Wiggy – claim that I have merely ‘added to his sufferings’. Questioning and analysis will do that to Abuseniks and also to persons who have a cartoon in which they are very very heavily invested.
And suddenly ‘Dan’ and/or God delivers a bit of scatological epithet – something Paul, for all his insight into life and his closeness to God, never did.
Perhaps (like other Abuseniks here), ‘Dan’ proffered his favorite ‘suffering’ story figuring that nobody would have the temerity to question it and the game could go on from there on that basis.
And his bits that conflate “Biblical truth” with his own well-honed perturbations.
And the Wig of Servant-hood manages to stay plopped-on for his delivery his parting benediction.
Thus endeth the reading, the lesson, and the service.
But ooops! ‘Dan’ is back on the 2nd at 612PM.
Had he forgotten to mention that he has “posted [his] last comment to this forum”? (Unless, of course, he is directed otherwise by the divine tinfoil. Which only goes to raise the further question: did he not receive instructions by god-gram to depart this site in the first place?)
But there is a new useful bit: was he not justified in ‘defending himself’ from all the “lies” thrown at him?
If he is referring to what he calls the “lies” thrown his way by the staffers at the school, he neglects to realize that had he not started the incident by his actions/words directed at the kids in the schoolyard, then the misadventure wouldn’t have happened in the first place (perhaps true of the other five or six misadventures as well).
If he is referring to the questions and issues raised on this site in regard to his comments, then he had every right to put up whatever he chose, which he did. I found that material to raise even more questions and that’s as may be. Are readers here merely supposed to provide Abuseniks with a ready and appreciative audience?
And we are treated again to another final benediction, although this time apparently ‘Dan’ neglects to even try to plop the Wig of Servant-hood on his head: bye-bye, “mockers and half-baked fruitcakes”.
At least half of that final benediction is brought to us by the wonders of clinical projection.
'God-gram' for all you mockers in Cuckooville, Mrs. Gobbledygook speaks nothing but nonsense language, and 'Dan' has had enough. "New Living Translation" for the dead.
"GOD BLESSES YOU WHEN PEOPLE MOCK YOU AND PERSECUTE YOU AND LIE ABOUT YOU AND SAY ALL SORTS OF EVIL THINGS AGAINST YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE MY FOLLOWERS." MATTHEW Chapter 5: v.11
By the way p, I responded to your comment on 1/1 @ 5:00am in regards to my failure to address the Parable of the Lost Sheep in Mark.
p- Oh yeah, by the way, tossed you a bone 2/2 @ 6:12pm. "Later mockers, half-baked friutcakes". Should be fruitcakes. Decided to take it back and "THROW IT TO THE [OTHER] DOGS". Like how I threw that "God-gram" in for you from Matthew 15:26.
"FOR IT'S NOT RIGHT TO TAKE THE CHILDREN'S FOOD AND THROW IT TO THE DOGS." I can't agree with you more "my" Lord, and anyone elses God.
Well, we see now how much ‘Dan’s assertions and assurances are to be relied upon: he returns to the stage again on the 2nd at 957PM.
After an opening gambit of juvenile myah-myah snark, he informs us that he had written “a 50 page book report in 8th grade” on the theory of evolution and so – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – he is “way past ignorance of Darwin and his theories”. An assertion – rather dubious on its face, devoid of any possibility of verification, nor of any significant relevance even if it were verifiable – which is best met with a simply soothing clinical ‘Ovvvvvvvvv coursssssssssse’.
And then – but of course – ‘Dan’ would have us accept that since he is thus and thereby and therefore so well and sufficiently informed on Darwin and Evolution, then he doesn’t really have to demonstrate that knowledge here by competently addressing the scientific objections that were raised.
Conversing with you made me feel like I was back in 8th grade. Scratch that…!!! more like preschool.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 957PM:
Thus, in a curious symmetry, his ‘logic’ is remarkably similar to the core Abusenik gambit: Victims don’t lie / I am a Victim / therefore I don’t lie / therefore you must accept what I say because I am a Victim.
And anyway and after all – ‘Dan’ reminds us – once you’ve glommed onto (your own personal version of) God’s wisdom, then you really don’t need anything else.
Readers may consider that bit of wisdom as they will.
He wants me to stop “messing with” him. Alas, he is commenting here, he has made some extraordinary assertions and claims, and he will be commented-upon if any commenter sees fit to do so.
Jackass!!!