Crux from The Boston Globe amps it up against the Catholic Church while crushing truth
It should be no surprise that the new web site operated by the Boston Globe – in this case Crux ("Covering all things Catholic") – has become the latest Internet forum for aging dissidents and other angry critics of the Catholic Church, with the decades-old clergy abuse story always receiving priority treatment. (A recent day on Crux, for example, featured a jaw-dropping 11 stories related to clergy abuse on its home page.)
And apparently Crux's animus against the Church is so fevered that it has resorted to publishing bogus headlines about abuse cases. Witness this headline from Crux on February 24:
From the headline, Crux leads its readers to believe that an abusive priest still has numerous victims roaming the public.
In truth, however, the headline and the actual story do not match at all. Chicago prosecutors actually dropped charges against the ex-priest Daniel McCormack because – and please note this – the accuser did not want to cooperate. There were no "new child sex abuse claims," as Crux's headline misleadingly blared.
And while Crux would likely claim that it was simply relaying a story from the Associated Press, that excuse won't fly. Illinois television station WREX posted the exact same story that Crux published but with the true and accurate headline:
In other words, truth and accuracy have now taken a back seat at the Boston Globe's Crux to reflexively flogging the Catholic Church whenever and wherever it can.
And another thing, for someone who claims to be a born again Christian, "Dan" comes across as a very condisending git. Somehow I don't think that Jesus would talk the way "Dan" does.
First off, Mark, I am not Jesus. Let me ask, "What kind of Christian are you, calling people a "condescending git"? Have you had to defend yourself from the outright false accusations of so-called catholics in this world and on this sight? Do you prefer to be coddled and told your religion of idolatry, greed and disgusting lust of young children is just fine, and keep up the good work? Check out the Bible, and you'll find that the all loving God was pretty strong when His people refused to obey and listen to His message. Think you can approach God through any other mediator, other than Jesus Christ, and your going to have a rude awakening. And believe me, it's not going to be according to anything I have to say. Other prophets have been warning the pagan religions of the world for centuries. Have you read Jeremiah 44 yet. Also, Christ wasn't here to witness how disgusting the catholic church teaching and hierarchy has become. I'm not above or judging brainwashed catholics, just warning you to open your eyes to the truth of your religion.
On the 15th at 1PM JR, performing (for lack of anything better) his office as rodeo-clown, i) tries to distract from all the material on the table while ii) somehow keeping at least a semblance of the rhetorical high-ground.
He tries to accomplish his dual goals here by – yet again – claiming that I have “ended” “all conversation”.
Because – doncha see? – Abuseniks like nothing better to have “conversation”, even if the bases of that “conversation” are outright whackery. Anything to Keep The Ball Rolling without actually having to deal with the myriad problems in their material.
And anyway, how have I “ended” “all conversation”? Presuming he doesn’t mean to say that my points have effectively negated the possibility of continuing along the lines set forth by ‘Dan’ and other Abuseniks, then anyone can put up any further “conversation” they wish.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 125PM:
In response to my reference to his substantially incoherent and mutually-contradictory multiple stories as to just how many times (if any) he was a) arrested, b) jailed, c) sent for mandatory psychiatric examination by a court – and (a) through (c) do not exhaust the list initially included in his November, 2015 comment as noted in comments on recent prior threads – ‘Dan’ will simply puff up his pinfeathers and assert that I am “nobody to question someone’s credibility or integrity”.
Anybody can legitimately question any other commenter’s credibility or integrity if there is sufficient justification from the material that such commenter’s material has provided.
And that’s precisely what I have done, demonstrating how I reached my doubts with accurately quoted references to his material (which, granted, is sort of a moveable feast of shifting claims and assertions and denials and take-backs, and take-backs of take-backs and so on and so forth).
Sorry Publiar, but I refuse to respond to your ignorance.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 125PM:
So much for his first bit.
On, then, to his second: the TMR article here referred to a Crux article and a WREX report, and the Crux article referred to an AP article and linked to a Chicago Sun Times article. The Chicago Tribune article was not proffered anywhere in all of that, but instead – as I had originally stated – was introduced as an un-supported mention by ‘Dan’ in his comment of March 13th at 548PM on this thread.
So much for ‘Dan’s reading comprehension and accuracy. And his now clearly silly victory-lap chest-thumpy epitheticals.
And from that point readers can take up with my assessment of ‘Dan’s quotation from the Chicago Tribune article in my comments above on this thread.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 125PM:
Concerning my point about “the Church’s protocols for substantiating allegations”: ‘Dan’ will simply try to whiff the problem away by going for a dictionary definition of ‘substantiate’. Nice try, but the entire point I was making was that different organizations have different criteria as to what establishes ‘substantiation’, as I then supported with the example of mere residence in the same parish or even the same geographical area.
There is nothing “obvious” here at all in this ‘substantiation’ issue. And, as I said, it remains to be seen if there even is one single and comprehensively-applied set of ‘substantiation’ criteria for all the Dioceses or other ecclesiastical jurisdictions.
‘Dan’s effort here – to simply pick stuff out of a dictionary (much the same way that he picks his favorite stuff out of Scripture and on that basis declares everything to be so clear and simple) – fails because of the organizational realities and complexities involved.
I was not aware that the church has there own dictionary, with different meanings for words, other than their true meaning. I guess that's like their catechism, being much different than Biblical truth. I've learned alot from you. Not much of anything good or trustworthy. servant.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 125PM:
But on the basis of his grossly insufficient ‘thinking’ here, he has given himself a platform from which to launch into his selected bit about “at least 30 substantiated claims” again, and then on the basis of that repetition of his questionable point, to then launch further into his favorite mode, i.e. epithetical bits about my “excuses, manipulations and lies” (mirroring rather nicely his own contortions as he tried to explain-away and “excuse” his multiple and self-contradictory stories, which certainly qualify for consideration as actual “manipulations and lies”).
Oh, Are we trying your favorite "I'm not/You are" bit on us, are we. Hypocrit.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 125PM:
And he concludes the whole hash here with an avoidance of the ‘similarity of dynamics’ in both the Holocaust and the Stampede as I noted them, and instead finishes off with another epithet, this time aimed at ‘Malcolm Harris’ and – had you been waitttting for itttttttt? – the Church.
Well, almost concludes. We then get a “P.S.”, which – had you been waittttingggg for ittttt? – just happened to be another epithet. But what else, really, has he got?
You ask, "But what else, really, has he got?" Got the God-gram you must have missed.
"How they put up a front in church, and when they come out, they're the most deceitful liars that ever lived on earth." Thus saith the Lord
P.S. Have a feeling there will be more to follow, for you, Mocker.
On the 16TH at 133AM, ‘Dan’ – unwittingly, no doubt – reveals more of his insufficiencies.
In regard to my comment about his comment concerning “demons” revealing “the shallowness of his theology” he merely tosses up a pericope in which the term is mentioned.
Because for ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – if a word or term appears in Scripture, then ipso facto he has a ‘theology’.
But he doesn’t. A ‘theology’ would be a carefully considered and well-informed and somewhat comprehensive reflection on the meaning and import of the word or phrase. In major theologies this type of reflection is indeed comprehensive and intricately-developed, linking the word or phrase with others or even all others in Scripture, resulting in a carefully and long developed body of serious thought.
I must ask? Did you get your definition of "theology" from your catechism dictionary. I tend to take my theology from the Word of God. You might want to try that, and you just might learn a little something.
"For it is written, I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE INTELLEGENCE OF THE INTELLEGENT I WILL REJECT." Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made FOOLISH the wisdom of this world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through it's wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1 Corinthians 1:19-21
So you keep reading your books and add to your great knowledge of nothingness, and I'll gladly stay with Bible truth, because it simply trumps any great wisdom or theology, that you think you possess. And I've yet to hear anyone claiming that liars, mockers or excusers are considered to be the wisemen of this world. Maybe that's what your catechism dictionary defines as wise. Born Again servant of the Almighty God of Wisdom, and proud of it.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan”s of the 16th at 133AM:
Thus with ‘Dan’s bit here: he has a Scripture pericope that mentions “demon” in some form / therefore he has a ‘theology’ of “demons”.
And this grossly insufficient presumption of his is then further demonstrated when we look to see what considered and reflective thought he might present in regard to the pericope.
We get nothing of the sort.
Instead – had you been waittttingggggg forrrr itttttttt? – we merely get a misch and hash of his usual fulminations against the Church and so on, based on his favorite presumption that the Church is demonic.
But – again – this is not theology. This is merely the accumulation of one’s favorite selected pericopes congenial to one’s personal agenda, which are then weaponized to go after one’s target as if with the authority and knowledge of Scripture, with the whole resulting rant merely masquerading as ‘theology’.
And to ‘Dan’s other curiously and queasily characteristic tropes, we would have to add “creepy” in its assorted grammatical variants, and at this point perhaps readers can understand why.
Big difference between presuming a church to be "demonic", and knowing absolutely and positively sure that your church is "demonic". That's period. Have you even looked at the photos of your Capuchin Crypts [or Creeps if you prefer] or skeleton rooms of Rome. And that's just less than 1% of their creepiness.
"None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see."
Oh, that's right! That was many years ago and in the past, so will just adore and worship it as art and it's all good with the Almighty. I'm surprised they haven't come up with that excuse yet for their pedophilia. Give 'em time. They've come up with every other excuse or someone else they could blame (i.e. that demon media).
Let me add the last line of the quote from Matthew Henry.
"They have baffled their own consciences, and so walk on in darkness." Think that covers it.
We have a bunch of bits from ‘Dan’:
On the 16th at 1131AM he dodges all the problems by simply huffing and puffing (the Wig of Outraged Decency) that he doth “refuse to respond” to – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttt? – “my ignorance”.
Bottom line: he doth “refuse to respond”. But what else, really, can he do but scoop up his marbles and go home?
And on the 16th at 1201PM we are back to his word-games: the objective of ‘substantiating’ may be what the dictionary says, but different organizations or persons in different contexts will have their own criteria that they choose to claim fulfills the definition.
Thus, for example, the current brouhaha over immigration and valid identity hinges precisely upon just who is doing the ‘substantiating’ and whether the criteria they have chosen do or do not actually accomplish the goals set forth in the definition.
Or, for another example, ‘Dan’, who seems quite satisfied that his god-grams are substantiated just because he says so or even that – since he claims they are from God – they are self-substantiating. Or by the same token, that his claim to be “the Chosen” of God is substantiated by the criteria of his own assertion to that effect. And, really, what sort of substantiation is that?
What's the problem with your word games? Your church says "at least 30 substantiated cases against this priest". So like yourself, we can't trust that the church honestly knows what they're talking about. I think at least this much is "substantiated". Again, like yourself- excusers, liars, deceivers and mockers of God and just about anything that is truth.
And on the 16th at 540PM ‘Dan’ finds – lah de dah – that he simply “must ask” where I get my definition of “theology”. Perhaps, since I have given my definition of ‘theology’, it would be more enlightening if he were to give us his definition of the term. Then readers could compare (or contrast) the two and judge between them.
He then tries to claim that he doth “get [his] theology from the Word of God”. But that doesn’t really answer the question: What is his theology? (Short answer: ‘Dan’ doesn’t have a theology; he just has his handy pile of Biblical snippets that he has selected because – if looked at the way he wants them looked at – they provide some fake authority for his many eructations and fever-visions.)
What could be a bigger "fake authority" than the catechism of your cult, worshipping the "Queen of Heaven" goddess and led by someone called a pope, a title you don't even find in the Bible. Remember, the Word contains no popes, archbishops, cardinals, Mary worship or purity. No rosary (repetition of prayers), no immaculate conception or assumption of Mary, and strictly warns against the burning of incense and adoration towards the "Queen of Heaven" (Jeremiah 44). You dare call someone's true belief, fake. You phony liar.
Oh, and how could I forget, no catholic church in the Bible, either. Wake up, people.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 540PM:
The case he tries to make in his second paragraph is basically the case any slightly loopy kid can make who doesn’t want to study and has bad grades: he doesn’t need to study (or ‘read books’) – doncha see? – because God doesn’t like “the wise” so why bother?
And in any case, we aren’t discussing “the wisdom of the world” here; we’re discussing the wisdom of theology and Scripture. So there is already here a question as to whether ‘Dan’s deployment of one of his well-thumbed 3x5s is actually relevant in the first place.
We are, to repeat, getting to the bottom of a shallow and damaged barrel indeed. And it is “proud” of itself in its current condition.
Your choice: God's Infinite Wisdom or peewee's ignorance. Duhhhh!!! I'm just a "loopy kid". I'll just guess I'll go with God, 'cause peewee's worldly wisdom is just this great intellegence that my "shallow and damaged barrel" just can't contain. Gehenna would be a good place for that.
Meanwhile Dan and P bore us to death with their rehash of the Reformation.
Yawn! Wake me when they hit the Age of Reason.
Nothing of 'Dan's most very recent is beyond my prior assessments: we're down to just getting one-liners with his favorite swipes, seeking to avoid the problems with his stuff.
JR (the 17th, 1056AM) – on the other hand – will profess himself 'bored' with the Reformation rehash and wants to be waked up for the Age of Reason. We are to presume he would recognize such an era if he were plunked in the middle of it.
The hair has all fallen out of his Wig of Raped-ness – since it is now clear, as it always has been, that he was – at best, if he is to be believed – 'lewdly acted upon'. Rather than the raped Lion King of Victimhood, he is now the Chihuhua of same. Alas.
Oh, if you had only come to that conclusion long ago, so I wouldn't have had to waist my time with your nonsense. Later mocker
P.S. Why do you think I started throwing out one liners, you think?
Jim, If you see no "Reason" in my message, then there isn't much I can do for you. It probably is boring to hear a message you could care less about. Sorry about that, but I haven't found some great excitement reading what you have to contribute. And I don't say that as an insult.
Dan,It'll serve as an insult till P writes something else. :^)
Publiar sarcastically and mockingly states that " 'Dan' doesn't have a theology; he just has his handy pile of Biblical snippets that he has selected because- if looked at the way he wants them looked at- they provide some fake authority for his many eructations and fever-visions."
These are not my "eructations" or "fever-visions. They are directly from John's prophecies, given as the final word from the Lord to end the New Testament, prior to the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. His final description of the wicked, and you don't need a degree in theology.
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars– they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. Revelations 21:8
And just in case you missed it, God had John repeat it, "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood [habitual liars]. Revelations 22:15
These are God's final words, not 'Dan's whatsoever. Don't allow liars and deceivers to keep you from knowing and reading God's Word and truth. The catholic church and much of it's leadership and some dumb sheep, has or still does fit these evil descriptions perfectly. Run from them, while there is still a chance for repentance. Christ draws near. Matthew 24:1-14
As I said above, there is little new in any of ‘Dan’s recent gambits.
However, his comment of the 17th at 1152AM is – I think – worthwhile to consider.
Or rather: to consider again, since this point was raised (and several questions put forward) several threads back.
‘Dan’ notes – in another nice display of his juvenile ‘gotcha’ mode – that “there is no catholic church in the Bible”. From which platform he then issues his instruction to “Wake up, people”. So charmingly similar to another group that used that same construction with their instruction “Deutschland erwache!” – and perhaps can serve as a reminder to one and all to beware of those who come to you insisting that you “wake up”.
That's real cute, coming from the deceiver of a cult, who's previous pope was a member of the Third Reich, and had the coincidental nazi name of RAT-zinger. Was not aware that the First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire. Oh, how easily the pieces begin to fit together. Mocker
p, I thought you could figure out what post my P.S. was referring to, but I forgot that I have to hold you by the hand and show you exactly what I was talking about, so I brought it up to your sarcastic post.
P.S. And by the way, "WAKE UP, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Biblical writing from Paul's letter to the Ephesians 5:14 Not Mein Kampf, deceiver.
Do you understand the relevance now? "WAKE UP" is a Biblical phrase, and you're the deceiver that others would want to beware of.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 17th at 1152AM:
The question that really needs to be asked is: would there be a Bible as we know it without the Church?
In 200AD the first attempt to codify the books to be included in what we now call the New Testament was proposed in the Muratorian Canon.
In 367AD, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, proposed a canonical list much as we recognize it today.
In 382AD, in the Council of Rome, Pope Damasus took the Athanasian listing and sought to have it become a universally accepted listing of the New Testament.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 17th at 1152AM:
In 397AD the Council of Carthage accepted the Athanasian listing and forwarded the list to Pope Innocent for his approval, building on the prior North African Council of Hippo in 393AD, which set up the listing of Old and New Testament Books that we have today.
In 405AD Pope Innocent, in a letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, listed the contents of the Old and New Testament as the canonically accepted books.
And in 787AD the Ecumenical Council of Nicea II adopted the canon of the Council of Carthage for both the Latin West and Greek/Byzantine Churches of the East. Some Churches (the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, Syrians, Syro-Malankars, Chaldeans, and Malabars) were still not signed-on, which finally took place at the Council of Florence in 1442AD – more than a millennium after Athanasius first proposed his list.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 17th at 1152AM:
Thus, we can see from the historical record that without the Church there would not be the Bible as it is today. (And where would ‘Dan’ be then? In an even worse position than he is in now.)
This is the problem that has plagued Protestantism and certainly the anti-Catholic elements of fundamentalism since the Reformation: it was the Church that set the contents of the Bible that they wished to claim as the replacement source of theological authority in-place-of and against the Church.
Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 17th at 1152AM:
Some of them have tried to solve this profound problem for themselves by asserting that there was a “primitive Christian community” before the Church ‘took it over’ or some such, and that “primitive Christian community” was the genuine Christian community.
When would that era have been? If it was before the 300s then there was no Bible as we know it, especially the New Testament. If it was after the 300s then there were the Popes and Bishops and Councils that defined the canon of the Bible.
And do we imagine that in such “primitive Christian community” times – whenever they are supposed to have been – those Christians would have called the ‘readings’ at their gatherings ‘Bible readings’?
True Christians aren't those who assembled the the writings of the Apostles and prophets into book form. Christians are those who read the prophetic words of God, live by them and put them into practice. All your little history lesson proves, is what I previously stated and you disputed, that the catholic church, popes, temples, statue idolatry and catechism didn't get it's start until the 300s. Your cult didn't write the Bible, doesn't follow the Bible or live the Word, and still does not. Why do you think Christians were burned at the stake and boiled in oil by your cult, for making, owning or reading the Book. servant of the Word
P.S. And by the way, "WAKE UP, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Biblical writing from Paul's letter to the Ephesians 5:14 Not Mein Kampf, deceiver.
On the 17th at 1041PM ‘Dan’ will demonstrate further a) the impermeability of his personal cartoon(s) and b) the consequent evasiveness (not quite truthy at all) deployed in an effort to avoid the consequences of (a).
I had said that he didn’t have a “theology” and that instead he merely had “his handy pile of Biblical snippets that he has selected because – if looked at the way he wants them looked at – they provide some fake authority for his many eructations and fever-visions”.
He seeks to counter my statement by – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – i) merely tossing up more Biblical snippets from the pile and ii) simply repeating his assertion that his stuff is “the final word of the Lord” (which, by amazing coincidence, is the only way he wants them to be looked-at).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1041PM:
Thus in the second paragraph he misconceives (deliberately or otherwise) the point at issue. I don’t doubt the general accuracy of his quotations from Scripture. My point is that a) their relevance to the Church is highly questionable and b) they seem rather clearly to be connected not by any theological position but rather merely by his “eructations and fever-visions” that drive him to focus so utterly (and not quite relevantly) on the Church as the intended object of the Biblical writers.
Since – as I have already established in my most recent comments above (to which as of this writing ‘Dan’ has not responded) – it was the Church that determined the canonical corpus and contents of what we now have as the Bible, and especially the New Testament, then what would it imply if the Church had included writings that – if ‘Dan’s position is to be accepted as credible – utterly and certainly damned the Church as the usurper (or what-have-you) of Biblical truth and wisdom?
And would the dogmas of the former Soviet Union and Communism, or the dogmas of what might generally be termed ‘secularism’, not be eligible for such imprecations as we find in the texts he quotes?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1041PM:
Thus his sly, self-serving and self-exculpatory assertion in that paragraph to the effect that “you don’t need a degree in theology” to see that the Church is precisely “the wicked” referred to in the pericopes he quotes … actually demonstrates the opposite, i.e. one certainly does need some serious thinking and learning about the Bible if one is going to start trying to apply it to contemporary events or even if one is simply trying to comprehend accurately what the Biblical writers (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) were trying to convey.
And, of course, this reality is even more urgent when one decides to wade around in the Book of Revelation, which is where certain types so often wind up, as if drawn by a magnet.
"The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one." 1 Cor 2:15
Let alone, by a deceiving, manipulating, mocking liar. Those pericopes nail you and your church perfectly, just like you both continue to nail Christ to the cross on a regular basis. Why do you think you must have your trophies of Him crucified and bloodied right above your blood stained altars. servant of the Almighty
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1041PM:
Thus – to repeat – I don’t deny the accuracy of the quotations; I do very much question whether ‘Dan’s take on them is either comprehensive and accurate or – even more – the one and only, sure and certain interpretation of what the Biblical writers intended (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to convey.
And thus ‘Dan’ here – like so many others unleashed by the Reformation impulse – winds up becoming one of those who, as 2 Timothy 4:3 puts it, heap up teachers according to their own lusts (although, admittedly, ‘Dan’s ‘teacher’ here is actually himself (or Himself), operating – as he would insist we believe – under the direct and certain knowledge of God, imparted to him as “the Chosen” by some sort of clear and direct participation in the Word, Will, and Thought of God).
And – in a nicely vivid demonstration of the guy in a robe walking the streets brandishing a ‘The End Is Near’ sign – ‘Dan’ will then declaim that “Christ draws near”. And as so often with such types, the robe-guy’s presumption is that Christ will just happen to agree with everything the robe-guy imagines.
Perhaps we might append to the bottom of ‘Dan’s “Christ draws near” sign the addendum: ‘He just tweeted me; He always does’.
Readers may consider it all as they will.
Your hilariass- You finally quote something from the Word and it doesn't apply or describe me, whatsoever. You even realized it yourself, saying, "although, admittedly, 'Dan's 'teacher' here is actually himself (or Himself)". Now how well that verse applys to your cult, they "heap up teachers according to their own lusts". Your heap of teachers- The church fathers, apologists, theologians, philosophers, Mary and thousands of saints, teaching "according to their own lusts". And that last part just totally speaks for itself.
You might want to do some work on your 'theology'. It's not very "carefully considered" or "well-informed", nor is it at all a very "comprehensive" or "intricately-developed" use of Scripture unless you were seeking one of your mirrored "reflections" of your cult. servant
Your Bullsxxt is getting so deep it's coming up over my waders. From my recollection it's your Klan that wears the dresses ("robes").
"But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments." Matthew 23:5 Read Matthew chapter 23, catholics.
When grown men take on the name of Mary, insist on you calling them fathers, when they have no children and wear dresses, would it be a surprise to anyone that they become perverts and pedophiles. You may want to take a good look in your own backyard, p, it's become overgrown with weeds. servant Dan
We continue with our interesting study of a certain type of mind.
On the 18th at 620PM ’Dan’ seeks to distract (and might one say “deceive”?) by avoiding the Bible-Church problem and instead doing something far more congenial: declaiming upon “true Christians” (among whom, we had better nor forget, he holds himself as a prime example).
He then makes another historical howler, combined here with his misreading of the historical implications of my point: there was indeed a Church before the 300s, going back to the Muratorian Canon and beyond. When Peter died in 67AD his successor was chosen, Linus, and the line continues on from there.
Who called the Council of Carthage? And whence the Bishops who attended and decided matters? Who called the First Council of Jerusalem, mentioned in both Acts 15 and Galatians 2? And are we to imagine, cartoonishly, that the entire Church structure simply suddenly appeared with First Nicea?
Continuing with my comment on Dan’s of the 18th at 620PM:
There was no Bible as we know it today until the Church defined the Biblical canon. Nobody said the Church ‘wrote’ the Bible, which is another deceptive distracting change of subject by ‘Dan’ here.
But we see again how ‘Dan’ has to try to have his cake and eat it too (as has been the problem facing all Protestants since the Reformation): he wants to stand four-square on ‘the Bible’ (or at least his vision of it) while denying the profoundly vital role of the Church in forming the list of Books we now know as the Bible. If the Church hadn’t determined the canon of the Bible, then ‘Dan’ wouldn’t have a Bible (in whatever version he prefers) in the first place.
And the rest of the paragraph simply platforms more of ‘Dan’s usual epitheticals.
And his “P.S.” quoting Ephesians doesn’t in any way distract from the historical instance to which I referred – and, I think it is clear, hardly irrelevantly.
On the 18th at 832PM ‘Dan’ will deploy what is clearly one of his carefully selected self-exculpatory pericopes, to the effect that “the spiritual person” (of whom ‘Dan’ – we had better remember – considers himself a prime example) “is himself to be judged by no one”. Which, in the Dan-verse, means that none of his material can be assessed or questioned. Neato.
Which bit then lubricates his further but familiar epithetical excursus in his second paragraph.
But on the 18th at 853PM the “spiritual” and “Chosen” and “servant” and so forth, starts deploying the adolescent scatology so characteristic of Abuseniks when they’re at a loss for anything more substantial to put up.
And those bits serve merely as frosting to lard onto the usual epithetical cake that he has baked for himself.
And on the 18th at 1132PM (larded with a bit more scatology) he will get himself out from under the ‘teachers according to their own lusts’ pericope by – had you been waittttingggg forrrrr ittttt? – simply declaring that “it doesn’t apply to or describe” him. Perhaps if we modified the pericope to read “according to their own whackeries” or “lunacies” it would appear more clearly relevant.
Readers may consider the accuracy and worth of his self-exculpatory declaration here as they will.
But it is equally obvious that the greatest “deceiver” here is ‘Dan’, who has so perfervidly and comprehensively deceived himself (or Himself).
Even to the point of insisting that any assessment or questioning of his cartoons is itself ‘deception’.
And then tries the old I’m Not/You Are gambit by insisting that the pericope applies only to the Church. (And he does go on about “Mary”, as always.)
What “speaks for itself” here is ‘Dan’s abyssal whackness. And since it “speaks for itself”, of course, then he needn’t really explicate it. Cartoons are to be enjoyed, not explicated.
And the whole preceding bit then lubricates his final epithetical paragraph.
I think you would make a great "cartoon" character. A persnickety nerd that has to use big words in order to impress himself. I think many would like to see it, but doubt anyone would want to listen to it.
Hey Publyin', Why not just modify the whole Bible to your liking. You already have, with your poor interpretations and twisted manipulation of the Word, to fit your sick agenda. And your'e quick to say someone's using the "I'm Not/You Are gambit, when you use it more often than anyone. You've been lying and deceiving in just about every way, and yet you think you can lay that on me. I would hope other catholics aren't as stupid. servant of Truth
Yeh, I know the apostrophe is in the wrong place in you're.
We needn’t be detained by ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 146PM, except to notice that he answers none of the problems pointed out in his position, and instead tries to distract with assorted epithetical bits.
On then to the 19th at 1111PM:
He opens with a name-calling epithet and nothing new there.
He then tries to deceptively raise a point that is not relevant to anything I’ve been discussing: “why not just modify the whole Bible to your liking?”, he asks.
First, I’ve never discussed ‘modifying’ the Bible, neither as my own thought nor as an accurate characterization of the Church’s compilation of the canonical Books we know today as ‘the Bible’.
In fact, I’ll go as far as to say that ‘Dan’ hasn’t actually ‘modified’ the Bible either. But he has selectively reduced it to a pastiche of snippets that are very much indeed “to [his] liking”.
Certain troubled people will do some whacky origami and fashion a Napoleon hat for themselves out of old newspapers. ‘Dan’ hasn’t quite done that; instead he’s fashioned a pope-hat for himself out of torn-out Bible snippets and the paste of his own problems.
God will be very very mad, he would like us to think, if anyone points out the paper-and-paste job he’s wearing.
As far as the "name calling", I haven't said anything that isn't true, unlike yourself.
P wrongfully says, "He then tries to deceptively raise a point that is not relevant to anything I've been discussing: "why not just modify the whole Bible to your liking?", he asks.
p again mistakingly says, "First, I've never discussed 'modifying' the Bible". Apparently he's forgotten, since it was so long ago, that on March 19th @ 12:05pm, he wants to change the Bible quote, 2 Timothy 4:3- they heap up 'teachers according to their own lusts'. These are his very own words: "Perhaps if we 'MODIFIED' the pericope to read 'according to their own whackeries' or 'lunacies' it would appear more clearly relevant." Now who is deceptive and deceiving?
And as far as my "fashion[ing] a pope-hat for himself"- Yeh, like I'd really want to be a pope, when they are more deceiving than you and have the same simular problems with twisting the Word and manipulating it to their liking (i.e. And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Matthew 23:9) Oh, but we're the catholic church and we'll not only call our pope, Father, but HOLY FATHER. And our catechism and apologists will give excuses as to why we don't have to obey God's Word. We're special, and God has a special place waiting just for you deceivers. Wake up, catholics, while there's still a chance to change and run from this lying cult. servant 'Dan'
P.S. Talk about "lunacies" and whack jobs, you'll find them all hiding in their temples and skeleton rooms. Read about your religion in Matthew 23 and Revelations 17:1-9. Don't allow anyone to tell you how wrong I am. Read the Bible for yourself. Then tell me I'm wrong.
To Dan, you recommended a book to Publion called "Catholicisim for Dummies". That sounded pretty rude to me. No less rude than "Condesending git". Well I have that book and it convinced me that God wants me to stay Catholic. And I do read the Bible including the whole book of Jaramiah. I am sorry that you have had to contend with bad people in the Catholic Church but that never happened to me, and even if it did, it would never convince me that it is not God's Church. Also, no-one here defends child abuse, you break the 9th commandment every time you say that we do.
In short, don't try to make me leave the Catholic Church. It's never going to happen.
No on can make you leave your church. That would be between yourself and God. If reading the Bible doesn't convince you, then nothing I say will.
We continue with the study of a certain type of mind.
‘Dan’ excuses himself for his “name-calling” by simply declaring that everything he says is “true”, whereas anything he doesn’t want to hear is not “true”. And this is certainly a gambit readers might consider for what it reveals about the mind we are dealing with here.
He then simply picks out some of my points and merely proclaims them to be in error (“wrongfully” and “mistakingly”) (sic). This in his mind constitutes refutation, as – in much the same way – tossing around his favorite Biblical snippets constitutes ‘theology’ and even the Thought and Will of God.
We continue with the study of a certain type of mind.
‘Dan’ excuses himself for his “name-calling” by simply declaring that everything he says is “true”, whereas – but of course – anything he doesn’t want to hear is not “true”. And this is certainly a gambit readers might consider for what it reveals about the mind we are dealing with here.
He then simply picks out some of my points and merely proclaims them to be in error (“wrongfully” and “mistakingly”) (sic). This in his mind constitutes refutation, as – in much the same way – tossing around his favorite Biblical snippets constitutes ‘theology’ and even the Thought and Will of God.
The profound whackness here is: whatever ‘Dan’ wants to be real is what God wants to be real, and whatever ‘Dan’ doesn’t want to be real is what God does not want to be real.
Because ‘Dan’ and God are as close to being the same as you can get. Got it?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1PM:
He then resorts to word-play: I had suggested the modification of the pericope only for the purposes of the exchange that was then underway, in order to make it even more clear what ‘Dan’ was up to in the context of that particular exchange. I didn’t suggest that his more or less accurate Bible quotation needed to be permanently and universally ‘modified’ in all the Biblical translations in existence and for all future time.
More specifically, my point was that in ‘Dan’ we see operative not so much “lusts” and not so much merely “desires”, but rather the elements that seem to be driving him are closer to mental infelicities. (Although, without getting too deep into things-clinical here, it appears that some deeper level of sexual predilection fuels those infelicities that then have manifested in the form we have seen here.)
All I can say to you is, you have alot of nerve insinuating anyone has mental problems. In regards to your last sentence, you have truly reached a new low, that I refuse to respond to.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1PM:
But word-play is all he’s got if he has to defend his assorted plop-tossing.
Of course, he wasn’t supposed to have to defend his stuff at all in the first place. If things had gone according to his cartoon-script, everyone would simply yield and submit to the marvelous and authoritative truthiness of his unassailable and undeniable and unquestionable revelations from the Dan-verse (although masquerading – as becomes increasingly clear with every effort of his – as the true and only Scriptural interpretation).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1PM:
‘Dan’ is the pope of his own little religion, as he has made abundantly – if unintentionally – clear. And he does like to pronounce, proclaim, declaim, denounce and otherwise carry-on; as JR is so irritated by anyone else who might appear more competently a spokesman for the Victimry, ‘Dan’ is really really irritated by any rival to his self-imagined pope-hood.
Nicely he has created for himself his personal version of the fundamental Protestant Problem: where the fundamental Protestant Problem is How to base oneself on the Bible as opposed to the Church, when the Church herself created (through selection) the Bible as it is known, ‘Dan’ wants to be some version of a pope while trying to saw off the head (figuratively speaking, at least) of that particular ‘rival’ over in Rome.
This is a little soap-opera that can go on for many seasons, and probably has.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1PM:
And then, but of course, a retreat to the core cartoon: that there is absolutely and utterly no space between the text of the Bible and ‘Dan’s personally-preferred take on that text; thus a perfect and complete identity or union between ‘Dan’ and the Thought, Word and Will of God.
That may seem quite an abyss for any human to leap in a single bound, but that’s the nice thing about any cartoon-universe: you can do stuff like that simple as pie.
And as a personal and personally-consoling cartoon it could provide a lifetime of a sort of satisfaction … if he didn’t insist on going around insisting that other people enter his cartoon-universe and call it reality.
But in its way I suppose it does serve to pass the time.
And then there’s the now-familiar “P.S.” and readers can consider it all as they will.
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Proverbs 9:10 You continue to mock with no fear of the consequences?
From ‘Dan’ we get a string of short bits.
On the 21st at 1057 he piously bleats that a decision to “leave your church” would be “between yourself and God”. Of course, since between “yourself and God” you also have ‘Dan’, self-declared Mouth and Mind of the Divine, then you had better pay attention to ‘Dan’s stuff.
But then ‘Dan’s stuff is merely – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttttt? – what you will get if you start “reading the Bible” (and, conversely, if you don’t ‘get it’ the way ‘Dan’ gets it then you have clearly read the Bible wrongly and perhaps worse).
We encounter here the psychic-economy equivalent of interlocking defensive lines, designed to support each other in defending the core cartoon presumption, i.e. that there is no space whatsoever between what ‘Dan’ wants and what God wants.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1114PM:
I don’t “have a lot of nerve”; nor am I “insinuating”. I am simply going with the material ‘Dan’ has provided, including – of course – his numerous claims and then denials as to his own misadventures with mental institutions and so forth, and his demonstrated position that between God and himself (or Himself) there exists no space wherein might arise differences of interpretation or failures of knowledge or any of the other possibilities that his own material has raised consistently.
Nor am I interested really in psychologically assessing ‘Dan’, except insofar as his material and his claims, accusations, allegations, and assertions about the Bible, the Church, and everything and everyone else are somehow relevant to his condition.
No p, you absolutely do "have a lot of nerve". As you so kindly state, my "misadventures" were all based on false accusations by your church of lying hypocrites, those very simular to yourself. By that fact, it wouldn't matter what consequences I had to suffer, from the forked tongues of your priests, nuns and co-conspirators. As you have, you can continue to mock the Lord God, His written and prophetic word, and justify in your conscience that you're only mocking my "material", and that's fine. "That must console you." You stand as the perfect example of one of the many deceiving hypocrites that are destroying your church from within. So we'll let you continue having fun in your imaginative, immature "cartoon" playground, while you assume everyone else, excluding of course, you and your church, has some form of mental deficiency. This must console all of you. His in Christ
Once again, on the 22nd at 1240AM, we see the core problem: if you don’t “fear” Dan, then you don’t “fear the Lord” and you indeed “mock” God when you find problems with ‘Dan’s material.
And the whole bit then buttressed with that queasy threatening bit about “no fear of the consequences”. In other words, if you question ‘Dan’ then – as Maude used to say in the old TV show – “God’ll getcha for that”.
On the 23rd at 951AM ‘Dan’ will merely insist that I really “do have a lot of nerve”.
His basis for that – at least in his mind – leads us to another twisty turn: now he refers to his “misadventures” (with the mental health system, we recall) as “all based on false accusations” … establishing, for today’s performance, anyway, that they really did take place.
So for those keeping a notebook or graph-chart of ‘Dan’s Yes’s and No’s (and a zig-zaggy chart it would be), things have now zagged to the Yes end of the spectrum. For today’s performance.
And this no doubt unintentionally revealing ‘incoherence’ (to “kindly state” it) thus platforms more stuff designed to build the image of the Suffering Servant trope so frequently seen in Scripture. Neato.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 951AM:
And the record here will show that I have never ‘mocked’ “God’s Word” or “the Lord God”. Rather I have been reduced to somewhat bemused amusement by the stuff ‘Dan’ has put up trying to masquerade as God’s Will and Word and Thought.
And to have exposed that masquerade does – come to think of it – console me.
Nor have I – as ‘Dan’ so conveniently tries to create something I didn’t at all write – claimed that “everyone else … has some form of mental deficiency”. I have simply pointed out that ‘Dan’s own claims or reports of his (court-required) misadventures with the mental health system are certainly supported by his various performances here.
"bemused amusement"?
Isn't that like "redundant redundancy"?
What a pompous shmuck you are! If there was a god, he'd spit in your eye.
I never denied that the lies that sent me to jail or mental hospitals happened. Remember, I was the one who informed you of such. Hopefully for the last time: When I had the beautiful prophesy by the schoolyard, there was no conviction, no jail time, no plea bargain and no judge, because there were no legal charges against me. In all the incidents, these were citizens arrests based on false accusations, because officers would explain that no laws were broken. All mental hospital stays were 1 to 4 days, no medications or counseling. Doctors understood that I did not have mental illnesses, and some even questioned why I was sent to them in the first place. I'm sure you'll find some way to dispute what I've just given you, because as we know, you were there to witness exactly what really happened, and you are the "truthy" one.
How can you claim you don't mock "God's word" or "the Lord God", then turn around in your next sentence with your "bemused amusement by the stuff 'Dan' has put up trying to masquerade as God's will and word and thought". More than half of what I quoted was God's or Christ's word taken directly from the Bible. So keep believing, that when you mock things I quote, your not mocking God, and so you can be amused and consoled. Let me give you a prophesy the Lord gave me towards two catholics who mocked me simular to what you have.
"You have mocked My servant, you have mocked Me. You will longer ride this bus. You will go out into the weeds and the thicket."- thus saith the Lord. So keep believing you can mock God's chosen and you shall suffer no consequences. This too must amuse and console you. servant of the Almighty God
I already see you'll be jumping all over that one. I was placed in psyche wards in regular hospitals, not "mental institutions" or "mental hospitals".
And for the umteenth time, it wouldn't really matter, because they were all based on absolute lies ,by lying religious hypocrites. That's period.
For those keeping a Notebook on the Playbook for ‘Dan’s material, the 24th at 1259PM provides some interesting twists:
Faced – yet again – with the problem of explaining-away a) his misadventures with both the legal and mental-health systems and b) the ‘issues’ that those misadventures would surely seem to indicate while c) not seeming to contradict any prior ‘truths’ he has told about (a) and (b) – as if that ship hadn’t already sailed – he opens with a sly and shrewd gambit: he “never denied that the lies that sent [him] to jail or mental hospitals happened”.
Readers who have been following the zigs and zags of Dan’s ‘truth-telling’ can judge that denial for what it’s worth as they graph it on their chart.
All he’s saying here is merely that the precipitating incident(s) – which, of course, was all based on “lies” and lies and more lies – did happen. Which was not really in question in the first place, unless one were to try to follow his zigs and zags over the entire course of his comments on this site.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1259PM:
Although in the process, he sort of gets all tangled up with being “sent … to jail or mental hospitals”, and readers can record that bit on their zig-zag chart as well. “Oh what webs we weave …”
And then, again, we see the depth of his derangement with his comment about having “the beautiful prophesy” (using the wrong form of the term here) “by the schoolyard”. Which bit at this point requires no further comment.
Whether that incident was one of the “six” that he originally claimed got him jail and court-ordered psychiatric stays or whether it constitutes a seventh incident … can remain in the cloud that ‘Dan’s various efforts at ‘truth’ have thrown over it.
You claim my "bits" require no further comment, and yet you insist at commenting more and more. You should look close at your own zig-zag B.S.