The other shoe drops: SNAP president Barbara Blaine makes a hasty exit
***BREAKING: Saturday, February 4, 2017, 2:35pm EDT***
Barbara Blaine, the founder and national president of the troubled and contentious group SNAP, has just resigned.
An email announcing the resignation was sent to members of SNAP earlier today (Sat., 2/4/17) (screenshot (jpg)) followed by a separate email with a statement by Blaine (screenshot (pdf)). It was then reported in the Chicago Tribune and other outlets.
Blaine's announcement continues a tumultuous past few months for SNAP:
- Just a couple weeks ago, SNAP's former director of development, Gretchen Hammond, dropped a bombshell lawsuit on SNAP, asserting that SNAP "exploits" victims and "routinely accepts financial kickbacks" from Church-suing contingency lawyers in the form of "donations";
- Last week, after Hammond's lawsuit alleging serious malpractice at SNAP received substantial national media attention, SNAP national director David Clohessy announced his embarrassing resignation.
- And in August, after Rev. Joseph Jiang sued SNAP after the group falsely accused him of being a pedophile, a federal judge ruled that SNAP maliciously defamed him "negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth" and ordered that SNAP must "pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees";
Now SNAP's own founder has deserted the organization with an announcement hidden on a Saturday morning.
This is a developing story …
ALSO: TheMediaReport.com is investigating a tip that SNAP was sued again last Monday (1/30/17). An accused priest in Michigan lodged the suit. Developing …
————-
Here are a couple of Blaine's "greatest hits":
And on the 9th at 1226AM ‘Dan’, having done some quick rummaging in his 3×5 pericope file, tosses in a bit from Matthew 13 (which, slyly, he has taken from the GNB, the version ‘Mark Taylor’ originally used).
The pericope could as easily be applied to ‘Dan’, whose “ears are stopped up and … eyes covered” in order to evade the truth about himself and who has – in a fundamental evasion of that actual truth – created a church for himself that masquerades as being the Speshull (if “secret”) true church of God.
What would Paul think of for all practical purposes ‘impersonating God’, do you suppose?
What ‘Dan’ really doth “sincerely hope” is that he can lure or seduce some into accepting not God’s “light” but rather the ‘light’ of ‘Dan’s Speshull-ness. Thus the baloney sandwiched between the Scriptural bread slices in his material.
Do you have to insist on being a douche-bag jerk? You said in an earlier post that Mark was right to state the version he was using. Then I do that, because you have trouble finding it for yourself, and now I'm "slyly" taking "from the GNB." I've been quoting from all kinds of versions, including the GNB, because I have no problem with any of them, just your lousy, twisted interpretations, that you think are correct. You're such a feminine, little twit. Is that why you say "Speshull" like a little girl.
Not at all surprising, followed up by more mockery, and now he thinks I'm even "impersonating god", I guess somewhat like he impersonates Satan. And Oh! Are we again using the old "I'M Not/You Are bit". Later, douche-bag, lying, mocking, dweeb troll.
I was born, baptized and was an altar boy in the catholic church until 15 years old. After some mild rebellion and leaving the church for 8 years, went back at my mom's request. That lasted 2 weeks, until I volunteered to clean the rectory for some ungrateful Msgr. In my search of some 30 years, between womanizing and partying, I attended baptist, pentecostal, presbyterian, scientology, church of christ, jehovah witness and several other christian churches. I never stayed in any very long because of the hypocrisy I would witness. I still have discussions with members of many of these religions, including mormans, and yet have only been slandered and falsely accused, mainly by the catholic church and a couple times by an assemblies of god cult. After lying about me, the pastor, his assistant and their wives were all fired for embezzlement. I'm not with any church, by my choice because they are all filled with the greedy, liars, hypocrites, thieves and perverts, hiding and protected under the guise of being holy, godly people. Deceiving others, while being themselves deceived.
Gallagher?
If God's Word has been kept "secret" and His chosen unrecognizable, then it's only hidden from those who refuse to see or hear.
And he said, "Go, and say to this people: "Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." Isaiah 6:9,10
‘Dan’ (the 9th at 312PM) once again provides – unwittingly, of course – another fine example of his cartoon thinking: after indulging himself in some epithets in regard to my statement that we have had no proof, ‘Dan’ huffs about all the proof he has provided: “I have many times stated claims”, he says … in other words, to ‘Dan’s mind his mere stating-of-claims somehow is to be taken as proof.
And on the basis of that bit – and a whopper it is – he will then go on with his usual exhortation that readers not be bamboozled. At least not by the Church; they can instead accept bamboozlement by ‘Dan’.
I've listed guilty, admitted pedophiles of your cult by name. Quit playing your little word games. They only add to your stupidity and ignorance.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 403PM:
Nicely, he accurately quotes some of the main points I had made in recent comments on this thread in regard to what might well be – I have said – the dynamics underlying his gig.
So much for his first paragraph.
In his second he presumes that I “must think” that I “must insist” that he is “some lone ranger”. Well, I think I have to mention it since that’s pretty much how he’s described himself: the chief cook and bottlewasher of a church-of-one, set against the many fancied problems with all other churches and organized religions. And perhaps “lone ranger” is a tad too generous; something that better captures ‘dysfunctional’ would probably get closer to it.
But do I – as he then asserts – think that “that’s some kind of proof that [he’s] wrong”? No, I don’t. His claims are unsupported and his scriptural interpretations are clearly off the mark, as I have explicated at length here … but those points are contained in his material itself; the background of his being “some lone ranger” only winds up providing more depth and context to the unsupported assertions and the inadequacies (to say the least) in his interpretation of the pericopes he has chosen.
"Inadequacies in [my] interpretation", because they don't line up with your twisting of Scripture or your ignoring parts that condemn you and your fellow pedophiles.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 403PM:
Then he tries to create something I “must think” in order to provide some convenient escape: I “think” – the tea leaves claim – that since I “belong to a major religion that that somehow means [I’m] right”. Again, no I don’t. I think there are substantial if not also profound problems with ‘Dan’s unsupported assertions and rants and with his Scriptural interpretations, and it is those problems that govern my assessment of his material. I have never at any time or in any way said or implied that because I “belong to a major religion” then I must be right simply because of that, while ‘Dan’ must be wrong simply because he has his own church (as it were).
It’s the problems with his material … a point that he continuously seeks to avoid and evade.
Like you avoid and evade verses that don't fit with your deceiving agenda.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 403PM:
And even after that bit, he quickly (and no doubt unwittingly) demonstrates his deficiencies in that regard yet again: in regard to the “facts” that he imagines justify his various rants, he merely asserts that “there’s no need for us to establish these facts; they are already proven by the known perverted actions of your cult”.
But this is precisely the Stampede gambit: having made and endlessly repeated allegations and then having drawn and endlessly repeated conclusions that are not supported by those allegations, the Stampede then claims that since all those allegations are now common knowledge, then there is no need to establish them as actual facts nor to justify the vast conclusions based on those allegations.
That’s been the game from the get-go.
Like you have "drawn and endlessly repeated conclusions that are not supported by [the false] allegations" against myself (i.e. harangued, accosted, harassed children), when those accusations are far from the truth. Then you question why I consider you a lying, mocking, creepy troll.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 403PM:
And then – but of course – ‘Dan’ will try to bring it all home with – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – a scriptural pericope. Once again, the scriptural quotation is accurate, but the baloney squeezed on top of it is merely the familiar ‘Dan’-stuff.
From which – but of course – ‘Dan’ thus awards himself a fancied victory lap by indulging in another version of his favorite God’ll-getcha bit.
And on the 9th at 132PM JR will – for lack of anything better – try to run the old Christian-charity bit. Which is another gambit from the Stampede Playbook: make allegations and draw conclusions to your heart’s content, and if you are opposed, then just bleat that you’re not being treated with Christian charity.
And hope that readers will be distracted by that bleat, and not notice your evasion of the issue at hand.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 525PM:
We get some ‘history’ from ‘Dan’ and it’s up to each reader whether to credit it or not.
Whether he didn’t stay in any of those many many churches and religions because he “found … hypocrisy” or whether he displayed such characteristics that all of those congregations found him uncongenial and perhaps disturbing … is for each reader to consider.
Adding further food for thought, he reports that while he still has “discussions” with many members of those religions, yet … he has “only been slandered and falsely accused” – and, in a nice touch, “mainly by the catholic church”. Apparently we are to infer that through no fault of his own he just always seems to encounter slander and false accusations wherever he goes.
And not just the rejection at the hands of unbelievers, but “slander” and “false accusations”. Accusations of what? – one must ask.
Then – as if it would somehow burnish or support the credibility of his story here – he says that the pastor, assistant pastor “and their wives” (so … not Catholic then?) “were all fired for embezzlement”. Again, each reader must consider this story as s/he may.
That ‘Dan’ belongs to no church seems quite plausible and even probable; that it can all be chalked up to nothing but “slander” and “false accusations” … not so much.
Yes, I was falsely accused and slandered "mainly by the catholic church", you being a perfect example of the blatant liars that run rampant among members of your cult. And believe me and scripture already pointed out to you, that's just one form of the many sins that make you creeps worthy of Hell's fire. Come Judgment Day, God will show you no mercy.
On the 9th at 1102PM ‘Dan’ doth declaim, proclaim, confide and assure ‘Mark Taylor’ that ‘Dan’s recent ‘apology’ was “a sincere apology”.
What might we think?
That ‘Dan’ actually thinks that his production was indeed a demonstration of “sincere apology”? Which speaks to nothing so much as his derangement.
Or that ‘Dan’ knows well that his production was an extended sarcastic put-down, larded with smarm and other gooey bits. Which speaks to nothing so much as his manipulative and self-serving dishonesty.
Whatever, coming from the professional creep of "manipulative and self-serving dishonesty." Or could I be wrong, that you actually serve all the pedophile creeps, perverts, liars, greedy, idol-worshippers and fellow trolls of your apostate cult.
And now to matters Scriptural.
On the 9th at 1156PM ‘Dan’ trumpets himself onto stage (always an indication that he hopes the epithetical trumpeting will distract-from and compensate-for the material he’s about to toss up; it’s a now-familiar Abusenik gambit).
The NAB I have says “with his father’s wife”. So, for that matter, does the King James (“his father’s wife”). In later comments in this sequence I will address the matter of the various versions and translations of the Bible; for now, it need only be noted that “step-mother” adds an extra layer of interpretation – although not one that nullifies the NAB or KJV.
Nor, for that matter, does any of ‘Dan’s bit here nullify my original point: that the sexual immorality to which Paul refers is rather specific and has nothing to do with pedophilia or bank robbery or anything else.
The rant on pedophilia and so forth is ‘Dan’s baloney, which he squashes into his Scriptural sandwich.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1156PM:
In v.3 the NAB has Paul saying that he has already “pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed”. (italics mine) And ‘Dan’s “condemned” thus gratuitously adds a twist that is not present in Paul’s “pronounced judgment on”(the KJV has Paul saying that he has “judged already” the man). As I have been saying, with ‘Dan’s take on Scripture you get as much if not more of ‘Dan’ as you do of the Scripture itself.
Even more meatily and vividly, ‘Dan’ demonstrates the manipulative selectivity he exercises to further his personal agenda and obsessions and agitations when he quotes Paul’s comment in v.9, but then utterly ignores or misses the import of Paul’s modification (in v.10) of the position he had previously taken as stated in v.9.
And – to repeat – if Paul says in v.10 that he is “not at all referring to the immoral of this world” – and he does – then where does that leave all of ‘Dan’s rants about ‘pedophile priests’ and so on and so forth? Paul says he is not speaking of “the immoral of this world” and ‘Dan’s rants against the Church and so on clearly deal with alleged actions committed in “this world”.
As so often, ‘Dan’s mentation is not only a bouncing ball that needs to be carefully and closely tracked, but his mentation bounces like a football, so you really have to track it closely as it goes here and there and everywhere.
I went to Catholic Online and that was the version they called NAB. Not my fault. And "pronounced judgment" and "condemned" are pretty close to the same meaning. And you conveniently ignore v.5 "you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh". Again ignoring v.9 "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people". When paul wrote he was "not at all referring to the immoral of the world or the greedy and robbers or idolators", he's talking of those outside of your church, providing your church was the true church of God. You can try to twist your truth with your poor definition of "brother", but if you think a Christian is supposed to associate with fellow believers who are sexually immoral, greedy, an idolator, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, than I would say that your cult of "pedophile creeps" and so on and so forth, would be a perfect fit for a lying excuser, slanderer and deceiver like yourself. You should be glad to be among your own kind and you all deserve each other. Any catholics with eyes that can see or ears that can hear, should be able to recognize that your church and publyin' are preaching and teaching an absolutely false gospel and you should remove yourself from this wicked cult. servant of the Almighty
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1156PM:
And in his bit about v.11, he completely misses the point contained in the verse he has selected: Paul warns about those Corinthians who sidled up to Christianity for social or other reasons but didn’t actually formally embrace it – what we might call in our era ‘fellow travelers’ (it was a problem among the Corinthians of Paul’s day). The term “brother” in the context of the Corinth of Paul’s day meant a person who does not formally accept membership and Baptism in the Christian community but rather hangs around the edges, while still indulging all the old ways. Don’t dignify them by socializing and especially dining with them, says Paul.
But v.11 is too juicy for ‘Dan’ to pass up since – as we see in another familiar gambit of his – he can avail himself of Paul’s listing of evils and then it’s just a matter of coming up with how such a listing applies to the Church, which is – as always – ‘Dan’s scheduled target. That such a listing could apply to just about any aggregation of human beings at any time in human history is something ‘Dan’s cartoon doesn’t need you to be thinking about.
This is absolutely a false description of "brother" and verse 12 proves that unlike publyin' making excuses, lying for and enabling pedophiles, Paul says we are to judge our own, "Is it not your business to judge those within?" Why would catholics depend on a blatant liar to interpret scripture for you and try to convince you that what I read and tell you from the word is wrong? I have absolutely no self-serving agenda and gain nothing by asking you to read the Bible in order to save your soul. A hierarchy of greedy deceivers, perverts, pedophiles, idolators, excusers, enablers and liars, could care less about your soul, and are only interested in blinding your eyes to the truth and satisfying all of their lusts. Hypocrites!!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1156PM:
‘Dan’ then walks us further along his garden path: he tries to make use of the Pauline example of the grown man sleeping with his father’s mother to … launch into speculation: what do you think he would feel about priests and so on?
Well, since such an alleged crime would surely qualify under the rubric of “the immoral of this world”, then … that’s going to be an interesting speculation since Paul – as he says in v.10 – was “not at all referring to the immoral of this world”.
These are the complexities of Scriptural interpretation, especially when you are trying to shoehorn them into your own cartoon preferences and obsessions. I make no claim to have utterly resolved such complexity here, but I do point out that one must always beware those who come claiming to have reduced such complexity to pristine simplicity (and even more, demanding that such simplistic ranting be taken as coming right from God).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1156PM:
And things aren’t made less complex as Paul goes on in v.13. For, are the priests of ‘Dan’s fever-vision cartoon “inside” the Christian community (whom the community can and must judge) or are they “outsiders” (whose judgment will be handled by God)?
For ‘Dan’s cartoons this problem is easily solved: according to his hermeneutical principle that any chance to toss some plop has to be taken and will be valid, then they are both: thus they are ‘inside’ and must be judged by the Christian community but then they are also ‘outside’ and God’ll get’em. Easy peezy.
And in regard to any allegedly abusive priest, one must a) determine that the alleged act took place and then b) determine that any priest demonstrated to be abusive is also “unrepentant”. Dan’s solution for that: he simply and slyly presumes both their guilt and their un-repentance. Easy peezy. And baloney.
And there’s a P.S. with more of the usual epithetical bits, book-ending his effort in this comment to somehow cover the gross problems with his material by larding on the epitheticals.
On the 10th at 1217AM ‘Dan’ is reduced merely to self-indulgently stringing a whole bunch of epithetical bits with nothing else; here we get the mustard without even the slice of baloney that would try to pass itself off as thought.
And ‘Dan’ is “sick of it”, meaning sick of being questioned and having his stuff examined. Not, of course, as “sick” as would be if he tried to face his own issues and – it becomes increasingly clear – his lack of any genuine Scriptural chops.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1240AM:
He opens with a catchy epithet – always an indication … as I have said before.
He now doth declare, pronounce, and proclaim that he “has no trouble with any” versions of the Bible; they’re all the same to him because – doncha see? – as long as they can provide some plop to be masqueraded as God’s Word then they’re all just handy piles of plop, ripe for ‘Dan’s cartoon.
The first point to be made is to distinguish between the actual translation of the text that any particular version of the Bible adopts, and then, second, to further distinguish between the actual text and whatever commentary a particular translator will append to the text in further explication.
The translations should go back to the original languages in which the text was written; this is not always possible and one must then work from the earliest translations. Thus, for example, St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in the 4th century (the version is called the Vulgate, or ‘commonly used’ version).
He relied upon an even earlier collection of Latin translations of the Scriptures, and upon the Septuagint version of the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) made by a committee of 70 Jewish scholars who had translated from the Hebrew into Greek, and upon his own translations from the Hebrew Tanakh; while also revising the Old Latin translations and even translating from the Aramaic.
You get a sense of how complex a reality the Bible represents. And the interpretative challenge.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1240AM:
Some translations seek to translate exactly the earliest available texts. Some seek not so much to translate exactly, but rather to provide a readable and accessible style. The King James Version, dating only from the 17th century, is a version that combines the best scholarship of the era with the best of English style of its era. The mid-20th century Jerusalem Bible translation doesn’t quite reach the stylistic grandness of the KJV, but seeks to update the translation in light of the progress made in Scripture studies and also provide an English style more accessible to 20th century readers.
Some translations seek to convey the sense of the text but in even more accessible style and usage and by use of paraphrasing. Thus the Good News Bible and the Living Bible, among anywhere from 50 to several hundred versions available in English these days.
Obviously, once you are into paraphrasing, then the particular version’s editor(s) will play a role in what the text of that version is going to say.
And all of this has to be factored into one’s take on the text of this or that version.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1240AM:
Then there is a second category, Bible versions with a particular editor’s commentary. This layers another level of complexity into the mix: you have the particular translation upon which the editor chose to rely, and then you get that editor’s or those editors’ commentary, explicating what they think is the point of the text. Study Bibles are included here (the Geneva Study Bible dates from the 16th century), as are commentaries such as Calvin’s, Henry’s, Darby’s, Strong’s and many others, some of which reach many hefty volumes.
Readers may recall that Thomas Jefferson made his own version of the New Testament, eliminating the miracles and retaining only the ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ elements, entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.
Needless to say, both the translation and – if applicable – the commentary are all much dependent upon the translator(s) or editor(s) and their point of view and the theological-religious tradition which they espouse.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1240AM:
Since almost nobody is (or perhaps can be) sufficiently versed in all of the elements relevant to the Bible (ancient languages, archeology, geography, the many facets of the history of this or that era in which a text was composed, Biblical theology and the issues given attention down through the centuries by various points of view – to name but a few ) then the wise reader will seek out some reliable translation and commentary.
Not surprisingly, ‘Dan’ professes himself utterly indifferent to such complexities. But – as I said – for ‘Dan’s purposes ‘the Bible’ is merely a plop-pile from which he can extract this and that juicy bit that enables him to spin his webs of epithetical ‘interpretation’.
He likes them all (or doesn’t pay attention to them all, really); he just doesn’t like my interpretations. Nor – apparently – does he need to pay much attention; he has both the Faxes From The Beyond and that ever-ready committee that passes the ‘truth’ on to him in his bathroom-mirror séances.
Readers can read ‘Dan’s stuff and mine and decide what they think.
Oh, and he reely reely doesn’t like that I’m Not/You Are bit. I would imagine this is so because he doesn’t like my having noted that it’s one of his favorite – and juvenile – gambits. Oh well.
And the performance concludes with a nicely-revelatory string of epithets. From God’s own “servant”.
I am absolutely, totally amazed, that you think you can parade your so-called knowledge and what you think to be some great intellegence, and yet you are not smart enough to realize that it's wrong to lie or intentionally deceive others. And even worse, you think it's cute to mock God, His Holy Spirit, His Word and His chosen, Utter ignorance and foolishness.
Came across a Matthew Henry Commentary on this verse that somewhat fit your cult perfectly.
"Let there eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see, and make their loins tremble continually." Psalm 69:23
"Their sin was, that they would not see, but shut their eyes against the light, loving darkness rather; their punishment was, that they should not see, but should be given up to their own LUSTS which hardened them. Those who reject God's great salvation proffered to them, may justly fear that his indignation will be poured out upon them." Matthew Henry
Or not.
Jim, The only question I would ask is, "Are you willing to stake your life, on your being right?"
Absolutely.
My question is : Dan why are you willing to stake your only life and everything you do in it on myth, fantasy and a faith written by people who thought the world was flat and only 5000 years old?
Look If you've never been to China, you might know people who have and returned with photos, currency, presents, Donald Trump hats with made in China labels, saying Made in China on them. So that your belief that China exists, even though you haven't been there, is logically assumable. That can never be said of heaven or hell.
So with no empirical proof of either of those two places why would you stake your entire view of the world and others on, well really, zip?
Somebody or something has frightened you into this philosophy of yours. That thing or those people are the problem that you need to educate yourself away from. Religion only serves the status quo. i.e. that you are poor and that they are rich because you believe the nonsense they've handed you as being "the only truth". You've been had.
Just check out this link and what it illuminates.
https://www.facebook.com/WFLAtheism/photos/a.272658686141957.63954.272308546176971/1412914248783056/?type=3&theater
Before it's necessary to have to hear more of your ignorance and misinterpretations, check out Christ's words in regards to the "world". John 17 NAB, chosen version just for you, Mr. Manipulator.
v. 6) I revealed your name to those whom you gave me OUT of the 'world'.
v. 9) I pray for them. I do not pray for the 'world' but for the ones you have given me, because they are yours.
v. 11) And now I will no longer be in the 'world', but they are in the 'world'
v. 14) I gave them your word, and the 'world' hated them, because they do NOT belong to the 'world' any more than I belong to the 'world'.
v. 16) They do NOT belong to the 'world' any more than I belong to the 'world'.
v. 25) Righteous Father, the 'world' also does NOT know you, but I know you, and they know that you sent me.
v. 26) I made known to them your name and I will make it known, that the love with which you loved me may be in them.
Knowing these facts, simply shows that 'pedophile priests', perverts, idolators, greedy, liars, etc., etc., truly are 'the immoral of this world', but God's children don't belong to 'this world', any more than Jesus does (v. 16). You creeps claim to be christians, but you are no 'brothers' to any true Christians, evidenced by your dirty deeds and actions, and you belong to 'this world'. Don't listen to those of a false gospel, masquerading as holy or supposedly 'brothers' in Christ. Bible says even Satan can come as an "Angel of Light". Refer to publyin's Feb, 10 @ 2:45pm – third paragraph. "Don't let them fool ya, or even try to school ya, we've got a mind of our own, so go to hell if what your thinkin' is not right. Love would never leave us alone. Are you in the darkness you must come out to light." Bob Marley Read your Bible and use the beautiful mind that God gave you. He will not disappoint!!! servant of God in Christ
Now should there come a day of true repentance and remorse for sins committed, possibly the Creator would have mercy and there could come forgiveness for our sins and mistakes, through Jesus Christ the Lord. However, if those sins are so heinous and harmful to God's little ones, followed with deceitfulness, excuses, lies, denial and secrecy, then there will be no forgiveness from the Lord God. Why do we make so difficult, the solutions that God made so simple. Listen and follow His advice or go your own way. He's not one to force anyone to change. His hope is that you'd want to change, and improve your life. This is real love, His love for us.
Continuing with my comment on Dan’s of the 11th at 1229AM:
‘Dan’ then claims that I am trying to “twist the definition of ‘brother’”, but then goes off even that set of rails with his bit about deriding the idea that “a Christian is supposed to associate with fellow believers who are” sinful: because i) I had said that the ‘brothers’ were specifically not Christians but only a species of ‘fellow travelers’ and ii) if Christians were to avoid associating with sinners (which, in his delusion, is precisely what ‘Dan’ has done by retreating into the ‘Dan-verse church) then – to borrow the gist of Peter’s observation to Jesus – who can “stand” and how can any Christians ever come together? For all are sinners. (Or has ‘Dan’ declared himself (or Himself) to be free of that great burden and stain?)
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1251AM:
If we filter out ‘Dan’s assorted epitheticals and get to the nub of it here we wind up with this:
Paul says in v.12 that “Is it not your business to judge those within?”. That “your” refers to the Christian community to whom Paul has addressed the Letter.
It is thus not for ‘Dan’ to be doing the judging since he has removed himself (or Himself) from it (unless we count membership in the ‘Dan’-verse church as Christian in any credible sense).
Second, if ‘judging’ is to be done then it has to the exercise of actual and genuine judgment and not the Stampede simulacrum, which serves the purposes of both the Abuseniks and ‘Dan’s anti-Church and anti-religion rants. So ‘Dan’ has dealt himself (or Himself) out of the process already.
On to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1251AM:
Aside from the epitheticals, ‘Dan’ then bleats that he doth “have absolutely no self-serving agenda and gain nothing from asking you to read the Bible in order to save your soul”.
As to his “self-serving agenda”, I have noted and examined enough examples in comments for readers to judge as they will. And ‘Dan’ continues to expand the list of examples just about every time he puts up a comment.
As for his sly evasion in regard to what ‘Dan’ is “asking” of everyone: if ‘Dan’ were merely exhorting people to read the Bible then that would be nice. But the record of ‘Dan’s comments here demonstrate voluminously and vividly and clearly that he is “asking” for much much more than simply reading the Bible.
He is pursuing his own personal agenda which – for its purposes – requires accepting his assertions, accusations, claims and allegations about Catholicism and Catholics and then about all religions under the Christian aegis (omitting non-Christian religions, I imagine, merely because he is even more ignorant of them and hasn’t been put off by the congregants and thus haven’t earned a place on his hit list.)
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 104AM:
Here, aside from the pearl-clutchy opening, the only interesting bit is that ‘Dan’ refers to himself (or Himself) as God’s “chosen” (“His chosen”), thus placing ‘Dan’ right up there with “God” and “His Holy Spirit” and “His word”.
And from the 10th at 320PM we get ‘Dan’ having gone and rummaged through the Matthew Henry commentary on Scripture (that was one of the many Commentaries I had said were available).
And from this rummaging, ‘Dan’ comes up with something from Henry that fits in perfectly with his personal agenda .
Nicely, it could also apply as easily to ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself). Although his “lusts” are not (as far as we know) those of the flesh strictly speaking, but rather psychological and emotional: ‘Dan’ is going to get back at everyone who was ever put off or disturbed by his behavior and words, and he has drafted God and the Holy Spirit and the Bible into the job as well.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 903PM:
Here ‘Dan’ has rummaged through his pericope pile and changed now to the 17th chapter of John’s Gospel, verses 1-26.
Of what relevance they might have to the present issues is anybody’s guess.
Of what relevance they are to ‘Dan’s usual cartoon he clearly demonstrates: somehow the content of these verses “simply show that” … and off he goes.
And we get the usual epithets to spice it all up.
Apparently ‘Dan’ also feels that Bob Marley’s work is relevant, at least to his cartoon.
And as always, when ‘Dan’ doth exhort to “read your Bible” that actually means – in ‘Dan’-speak – to read the Bible and accept ‘Dan’s rants, or else you will not have read the Bible at all. So he would have us believe.
From ‘Dan’s most recent crop I will deal only with those that put forth some material that might be of use, and not those that are simply a string of epithetical eructation.
On the 10th at 1119PM ‘Dan’ says he has “listed guilty, admitted pedophiles” of Catholicism “by name”.
He has proffered only a few names, and not all of those “admitted” to being “pedophiles”.
But to get from those few names – to the extent that “pedophiles” even applies accurately – to the entire Church or the entire priesthood … will require far more evidence than ‘Dan’ has ever mustered, and I would say that ‘Dan’s had already demonstrated in comments on this site that he isn’t actually clear on the concept of actual ‘evidence’ in the first place. But then: how can he? If he had to rely on a) actual evidence that is b) sufficient to ground his scare-vision conclusions and assertions, then he’d be out of a gig in no time.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1124PM:
Once again, the old I’m Not/You Are bit: here, that I consider his interpretations inadequate merely because “they don’t line up with [my] twisting of Scripture”.
And – for lack of anything better – he now goes so far as to assert that I too am a “pedophile” (“your fellow pedophiles”). Charming.
Readers can consider as they may.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1145PM:
Here he simply repeats his assertion that he “was falsely accused and slandered” and “mainly by the catholic church”.
Neatly, he doesn’t care to mention just what it was of which he was accused and in regard to which he was slandered. It is hardly beyond the realm of probability that such complaints as were lodged by various persons had to do with something along the lines of sanity and a disturbing way of conducting himself. And then there were the police, the judge(s) and the psychiatric stays.
But one must also ask: if he found all sorts of problems in all the religions and/or congregations which he tried, then how was it that he was “falsely accused and slandered … mainly by the catholic church”? Were all six of his reported run-ins with police and courts and psychiatry based on accusations from Catholics?
And the whole performance concludes with more epithets and that God’ll getcha bit.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1229AM:
Readers who go to the site Catholic Online will discover that the site uses the New Jerusalem Bible translation, and the NJB is not therefore “the version they called NAB”. So much for ‘Dan’s attention to detail – but then, he’s a plop-tosser, not a student of Scripture.
The NJB, however, does use the terms “step-mother” for v.1 and “condemned” in v.3, which a) differs from the NAB version and b) demonstrates the complexities of Biblical translating.
But at any rate, the NJB translation then makes clear (each translation can have advantages) in its translation of v. 5 that the Christian community should turn out such a one, so that even if his natural life thereby be destroyed by his sinful actions, yet his soul can perhaps be saved (specifically, the NJB has “hand over such a man to Satan to be destroyed as far as his natural life is concerned, so that on the day of the Lord his spirit may be saved” – italics mine).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1229AM:
Should one imagine here that Paul means that even a repentant person should be turned out, on the basis of that consort with his mother/stepmother? To engage in this type of question is to face the question of purity-vs-sinfulness that every variant of Judeo-Christianity has had to face.
But as Paul said even of himself: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7: 24). And he himself was forgiven by God for his persecution (which had fatal consequences for Stephen – as related in Acts 6). So it seems implausible that Paul – in light of his own experience of being forgiven by God – would then insist on no-forgiveness for others.
And indeed Paul later writes again to the Christian community in Corinth: he refers to God as “the Father of compassion and the God of all encouragement” (2 Cor 1:3; NAB) and further, referring to “anyone who has caused pain” that “you should forgive and encourage him lest he be overwhelmed with excessive pain” (2 Cor 2:7; NAB), even going so far as to refer to the “ministry of reconciliation” given to us from God through Christ, and that in reconciling Himself to the world through Christ God “was not counting their trespasses against them” and that God “was entrusting to us the message of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5: 18-19; NAB).
So Paul’s emphasis shifts from the First to the Second Letter.
Thus the very real complexities presented by Scripture. Hardly to be resolved by ‘Dan’s so very focused and simplistic plop-tossing, especially his queasy gloating about hell-fire and God’s-gonna-getcha.
Continuing with my comment on Dan’s of the 11th at 1229AM:
Noting thus that ‘Dan’ conveniently ignores the rest of Paul’s statement in v.5 (i.e. “so that on the Day of the Lord his spirit may be saved”), we proceed.
In v. 9 (of this NJB version) Paul says “In my letter I wrote to you that you should have nothing to do with people living immoral lives”. As ‘Dan’ conveniently, for his purposes, points out.
But then he again, and conveniently for his purposes, ignores v.10: “I was not including everybody in this world who was sexually immoral, or everybody who is greedy, or dishonest or worships false gods – that would mean you would have to cut yourselves off completely from the world”. Much – it might occur to readers – as ‘Dan’ has done in retreating to the ‘Dan’-verse and creating a church-of-one that conducts séances with his bathroom mirror.
Continuing with my comment on Dan’s of the 11th at 1229AM:
And then ‘Dan’ slyly adds a bit more specifically convenient to his cartoon: “providing your church was the true church of God”. This seems necessary for the continuance of ‘Dan’s cartoon, because otherwise it appears that Paul is indeed writing to what he considers to be “the true church of God”.
But on what authority or evidence does ‘Dan’s cartoon rest, insofar as it holds that the Catholic Church is not “the true church of God” … ? How does he get from a) Paul and the Christian community of Corinth being “true” to b) the assurance that the Catholic Church is not “the true church of God”?
And how then get from (b) – assuming that he could demonstrate it – to c) the church-of-Dan-in-the-bathroom-mirror being “the true church of God”?
I have no desire to answer all of your repetitive, long-winded nonsense and stupidity, but I will respond to this ignorant question once more, hopefully for the last time. "But on what authority or evidence does" Dan claim (cartoon stupidity omitted), "b)….that the Catholic Church is not 'the true church of God'?" Very simple and you still won't understand. Maybe too far above your mental capacity. God's 'authority' and 'evidenced' by His Word. Follow me so far?
God's true church could never be plagued with a hierarchy of cowardly, unfaithful or dirty-minded "pedophiles and perverts" (sexually immoral, unrepentant sinners), dogs, murderers, idol-worshippers or anyone who lies and loves to tell lies (blatant liars). You can refer to Rev. 21:8 and Rev. 22:15, if your not blind. You can add greedy to that list of your cults lusts, and you'd have the trifecta, or should I say all of the above. To research your cults idolatry and God's description of idolators, refer to Isaiah 44:9-18, paying special attention to verse 18 – "Those who worship idols are stupid and blind." – also Baruch 6, aka, Letter of Jeremiah. Your cults liars and yourself, refer to John 8:44. I leave the rest of the research to you, Mr. Think-You-Know-It-All.
"And how then get from (b) – assuming that he could demonstrate it – to c) the church-of-Dan (mocking omitted) being 'the true church of God'?" First off, it's not the church of Dan, but the true church of God and Jesus Christ His Son. Secondly, His church would never allow the unrepentant sinners of my second paragraph to remain as members of His church, let alone hide them, make excuses for them, lie for them or enable them to continue in their disgusting, perverted ways. Maybe you need to take a good look at the first book of John and learn you something about sinners and God's children. And thank you by the way for placing me right up there with "God" and "His Holy Spirit" and "His word", but I'm fine with just servant and even the least of His chosen. Thanks anyway, Lyin' mocker. servant
Hey Jim, Is there really anything I can say or any proof to why I believe, other than things in creation I've already pointed out to you, that would be convincing to you, an atheist? I do feel sorry for you and your unbelief. Rather than "Somebody or something has frightened [me]", I'd say there's a much better chance that that has happened to you. Like maybe a Marianist teacher perhaps, or false religions claiming to be Godly, when truly, very far from anything holy or close to Godly. When it comes to "Religion", you've yet to notice that I'm far from the "status quo". As I went through my search in life, either avoiding God or looking for answers, I experienced a living hell on this earth. That was proof enough for me, to never think of wanting to end up in a real hell, as I've heard it described. I'm waiting for some atheist or scientist, to prove to me that God doesn't exist. I've seen enough evil and wickedness on this earth, some in this forum, to convince me that there is a Hell, Satan and his deceiving demons, which also helps cement the fact in my mind that there must be a God with all His promises. I have so many more reasons to believe in Him, and not at all ashamed to admit it. I'm far from some dumb, brainwashed sheep or blind follower of nothingness. I'm absolutely sure that you are wrong, and believe "you've been had". My wish is that you would stop equating the true God, with all the false, evil, idolatrous, apostate religions of the world.
Hi Dan, I'm in Ireland. I'm not upset and you are entitled to think whatever you want to. I wish you nothing but the best.
Dan's fantasies are just as "valid" and "truthful' as your fantasies are P 4 Brains.
You'll have to point out to me, the flashes of brilliance you've displayed on this forum. Are you under the impression that your nasty comments, towards the Creator, that you owe your life to, is some sort of wisdom? There will come a day when God will prove to you His existence, and my hope is that it won't be on the day you stand before Him. Still haven't figured out that I don't care for you comparing me with peewee. That sure ain't very brilliant.
For All deluded religious.https ://www.facebook.com/WFLAtheism/photos/a.272658686141957.63954.272308546176971/1415095931898221/?type=3&theater
And on then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 129AM:
I had pointed out a number of questions raised by his material; they are ‘repetitive’ because he merely keeps repeating his stuff without furthering the exchange by making some sort of answer to them (except by claiming that his prior repeated assertions are themselves answers). Clearly ‘Dan’ is not clear on the concept; but how can he allow himself to be since then he would have to answer questions that his cartoon material is incapable of answering?
Here he harrumphs that he simply hath “no desire to answer all of” my questions (epithetical characterizations omitted). And well he might not have such a desire, since cartoons aren’t really kept going by analysis and close examination.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 129AM:
But wait, there’s more.
There is actually one of my questions that he’d be happy to address: on what authority or evidence does ‘Dan claim that the Catholic Church is not the true church of God?
This is not surprising. Whereas most of my questions would require his dealing with material uncongenial to his cartoon(s), this question here gives him another chance to simply toss up all the stuff from his 3×5 pile that he’s put up before here.
And, but of course, he tries to manipulate readers into a conclusion before he’s even presented his stuff: his answer is “very simple” and so very clear yet “you still won’t understand” (plus an epithetical bit on limited “mental capacity” … he really should use that bathroom mirror less for séances and more for self-examination.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 129AM:
So here we go to follow the bouncing and somewhat deflated and misshapen ball.
First, he points out that “God’s ‘authority’ [is] evidenced by His Word”. Yes, although we have seen now a) how difficult and complex is the study of the Bible and b) how limited cartoons are in achieving comprehension from such a study.
Especially if – like ‘Dan’ – one is simply going to toss up one’s preferred cartoons and call them not only i) interpretations but also ii) the only possible interpretations as ‘evidenced’ by the fact that iii) one has received these interpretations in special and secret communications from God since one is God’s “chosen”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 129AM:
Then, in a nutshell, we get the same cartoon bits from the 3×5 pile all over again:
First, that “God’s true church could never be plagued by” any human frailty or weakness whatsoever.
Second, that the Church is thus “plagued” – and by a passel of “cowardly, unfaithful or dirty-minded ‘pedophiles and perverts’” who are also (we can take ‘Dan’s cartoon authority for this) “unrepentant sinners”. Nor – I say yet again – has ‘Dan’ established that Catholic clergy abuse has been demonstrated to have reached the proportions of an epidemic or ‘plague’ (which is the SNAP scare-vision as well).
Then this baloney is sandwiched in among the folds of several pericopes from the Book of Revelation and from some of the Major and Minor Prophets and John’s Gospel, plus a cutesy bit on “trifecta” as ‘Dan’ – warming to his favorite task – tosses in more stuff.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 129AM:
And to repeat once again: the fact that ‘Dan’s cartoon insists that the woes and indictments of the pericopes seem to match the Church is ascribable even more plausibly to the fact that ‘Dan’ has selected the pericopes to fit into his cartoon, not that the pericopes were future-telling into a far distant future.
And the indictments and woes can easily be applied to just about any human enterprise. Because humanity is a fundamentally imperfect creation due to the effects of the Fall in the Garden of Eden.
(Well, except perhaps for ‘Dan’, whose frailties and notable infelicities – according to ‘Dan’ – are merely a problem of perception, induced by the many “lies” and much “slander” from those who have actually encountered him on the hoof or – as here – have looked closely at his proffered cartoon material.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 129AM:
Then in the final paragraph ‘Dan’ winds up veering into one of the questions I had posed after all: ‘Dan’s church is actually not ‘Dan’s church at all, but simply “the true church of God and Jesus Christ His Son”. He has that, apparently, on the authority of the séances in his bathroom mirror; he surely hasn’t established that by any material he has tossed up here.
And then he tries to build – yet again – on his grossly unsupported (and theologically and humanly jaw-dropping) presumption that any alleged offending priests are “unrepentant”. On the authority of what tea-leaves, human or divine, does ‘Dan’ justify this presumption?
And on what authority – especially in light of the Pauline assertions of God’s mercifulness that I have quoted in comments immediately above – does ‘Dan’ then presume to insist that God’s “church would never allow” such (alleged) offending sinners “to remain as members of His church” … ?
God’s alleged intolerance of such sinners as are necessary for ‘Dan’s cartoon remains merely ‘Dan’s assertion, though so very necessary for his cartoon.
And once again we are reminded of one of Peter’s comments to Jesus : “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man”(Luke 5:8) and from Psalm 130, v. 3: “If you, Lord, should mark iniquities, who, O Lord, could stand?”
Maybe ‘Dan’ needs to take a good look in the bathroom mirror before he begins the next séance.
Handling your garbage in one post. Not sure about anyone else, but your weak attempt to put yourself out there as some brilliant academic, surely is unimpressive to anyone with an ounce of common sense. You think because you throw out words like pericope, when verse, passage or scripture would do, this makes you some great, knowledgeable authority on interpreting scripture? Your wrong. It just makes you sound like some nerdy dweeb twit.
Add to that your repetitive ignorance of calling anyone who challenges you, in some cartoon is utterly stupid. If we're in some cartoon, that would make your nonsense, insistent lying, cult and occult activity, rate as a horror story. You're comparing Peter or Paul's humility and true sorrow for the sins they committed with the unrepentant creeps of your cult. Are you kidding or just that stupid? Why do I say unrepentant? Because as they were shipped around and continued in their perversions, aided by excusers, liars, enablers, and secretly protected by the church, bishops, popes and deceivers like yourself, they were allowed to carry on with their disgusting ways, and the living are most likely still getting away with their sick perversions and pedophilia.
And continuing with your ignorantly, childish mocking, and under some impression that we're supposed to treat you with respect. You will reap what you sow. Lyin' mocker.
And on the 13th at 537AM JR tries to run – epithetically, of course – his old bit that one set of “fantasies” is just as “valid” and “truthful” an another.
Which – so very nicely – recalls his own assertions once upon a time here that his personal ‘truth’ about the actuality of his ‘abuse’ is just as truthy as any objective truth about his ‘abuse’.
And then on the 13th at 728AM – as so often – JR will merely toss up some internet link, this time to a Facebook entry, about “atheism”. Readers may consider as they will.
Hey Jim, Have a good one. Must be nice to travel as much as you do. Never gotten farther than Hawaii, Canada, Mexico and cruised the Caribbean. Must say though that I find California and all its nature and splendor to be a pretty cool place to call home. Safe travels.
Thanks Dan I really haven't traveled in several years. My birthday was inauguration day. I'm in complete shock about fascism and this mad new world. Europe is in shock about Trump.
Well, what will ‘Dan’ try next in order to keep his cartoon in play?
On the 13th at 713PM, from somewhere beyond the left-field flagpole, he tosses in something about “flashes of brilliance” on my part. I have made claim to no such flashes of brilliance. I’ve just been asking questions and pointing out the questions raised by his material.
He then claims I have made “nasty comments towards the Creator” … no quotation of mine proffered in evidence, of course, since there isn’t one.
But that bit simply leads up to another variant on ‘Dan’s God’ll-getcha-for-that bit.
I may be wrong but I think Dan was not referencing you when saying "flashes of brilliance". Your narcissism sums up your stupidity and culpability.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1010AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will now deal with the material in my several recent comments by huffing that he will be “handling [my] garbage in one post”. This should be interesting, but then … it is ‘Dan’ after all.
Once again with the bit about my “putting [myself] out there as some brilliant academic”. Apparently, even a basic Scriptural presentation qualifies as the work of an academic in ‘Dan’s mind. Perhaps since his bathroom mirror assured him he doesn’t have to read books.
And he doesn’t like my using the term “pericope”. Have the Faxes From The Beyond never used the term?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1010AM:
Have we gotten to his response to the points I raised in my recent comments? Not yet.
He doesn’t like his stuff being characterized as “cartoon”, and he tosses in epithets to do so.
He claims I write “nonsense” and “insistent lying” – but, of course, no examples are proffered.
He continues – as indeed his cartoon requires – that the (allegedly guilty) priests are “unrepentant” (and “creeps” as well) but still can’t explain just how he allegedly knows that they are all “unrepentant”.
And he repeats the “shipped around” bit, although we have seen even on this site that there were few instances of that. Not even the LA Times could come up with much in that regard and they had an entire cache of documents at their disposal.
And – marvelously revelatory – ‘Dan’ brings it all home with that concluding bit: since I am (he doth declaim) ‘ignorant’ and “childish” and “mocking” then he need not treat me “with respect” (I’d be happy with some substantive responses, since ‘Dan’s respect is not something I value highly).
And on that basis … that’s all, folks.
Seeing that your 'ignorant' and 'childish' and 'mocking', wouldn't expect you to 'value' anything 'highly', except maybe your own immature stupidity. When you display something substantive, maybe you'll receive something similar in return. And he further demonstrates his childish, mocking, ignorance with, 'Faxes From The Beyond' and 'that's all folks'. Don't we wish that was all. Must we continue to hear you squeal like a pig, Porky? servant
If this continues, I will be reqesting a substantial tuition for teaching you Bible doctrine & theology.
First, the world's and then the Biblical definition of repentance. Second, the reason your hierarchy is considered "unrepentant".
Repent – def. Merriam-Webster – verb. 1) to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life. 2a) to feel regret or contrition b) to change one's mind
Repentance – def. – Dictionary.com 1) remorse or contrition for one's past actions or sins
c.1300, from Old French repentance "penitence" – Repentance goes beyond feeling to express distinct purposes of turning from sin to righteousness; the Bible word most often translated repentance means a change of mental and spiritual attitude toward sin.
The meaning of the Greek words in the Bible to denote repentance – 1) change of mind, such as to produce regret or even remorse on account of sin, but not necessarily a change of heart 2) change one's mind and purpose, as a result of after knowledge 3) true repentance – a change of mind and purpose and life, to which remission of sin is promised.
Now I don't know how you can change your mind, without a change of heart, but this is my reasoning behind calling priests "unrepentant". First off, all I saw from any of your hierarchy and excusers, is these phony one liners, claiming to feel sorry for the victims, and then followed immediately with excuses, denials, lies and a complete lack of compassion and empathy for the children's lives your perverts destroyed. If one repents, one would be sorry and remorseful for the terrible things they had done, and would be starting the process of changing their ways.
If your church was the church of God, they would have handed the perverts over to Satan, as Paul suggested, and booted them from the cult. They would not have hidden them, made excuses and lied for them or "shipped [them] around" to other children's facilities which enabled "them to continue in their disgusting perverted ways". Got that!?! And that's why they are definitely "unrepentant", not only by God's definition but by man's and the world's definition, also. servant of the One True God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 231PM:
My recent point about ‘Dan’s demonstrated lack of academic or even book-reading chops has driven him – as we see – to violate the Fax From Beyond instruction (once reported to us here by the “servant”) to the effect that he needn’t be reading books.
Thus now the poor busy and harried thing huffs that as one who is competently “teaching … Bible doctrine and theology” he should perhaps “requesting a substantial tuition” for his efforts.
Well, let’s see what we get from this self-declared paragon of critical and informed conceptual analysis.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 231PM:
He is going to deal with my point as to how at all he doth know that alleged abusive priests are “unrepentant”.
Nicely, he will actually begin by focusing on the definition of the key term “repentance”. And he does so with a decent enough reference to Merriam-Webster and the online Dictionary.com and even gives a précis of the historical and Scriptural usage of the term. He’s been reading.
That takes us to seventh paragraph, where he will now take up the task of explaining the key point: how he knows that alleged abusive priests are “unrepentant”.
Somehow, he wants to distinguish between “change of mind” and “change of heart”. This doesn’t seem to be a very promising tack, since he is still going to have to explain how he knows a “heart” was or was not changed rather than a “mind” – which is not progressing his explanation forward, but rather simply moving it sideways.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 231PM:
Thus already having left the rails, he proceeds to proffer his ‘evidence’: he “saw” – doncha see? – a bunch of “phony one-liners” delivered by “any of your hierarchy and excusers”.
The second point is that to ‘Dan’ anybody who points out material uncongenial to his cartoon is an “excuser”. So that’s a trick-definition that he has just slyly introduced.
The first point is that he has simply kicked the can down the road here: we are now faced with the question of how he knew that they were “phony” statements. And that they were followed by material he claims are merely “excuses, denials, lies and a complete lack of compassion and empathy”.
This bit is – at the very very best – a presumption made by ‘Dan’ for which he proffers no evidence. So on top of i) a trick-definition we now get ii) an unsubstantiated presumption, which – moreover – is introduced as if it were a demonstrated fact … which it is not.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 231PM:
Thus he winds up his effort in the paragraph with the conclusion that one wouldn’t be tossing out such material if one were “sorry and remorseful” (“for all the terrible things they had done”, doncha see?).
But this leaves his conclusion and explanation now hanging on the undemonstrated (and vast) presumption that “all the terrible things they had done” were indeed – not to put too fine a point on it – “done” … and so we are no closer to a substantive explanation for ‘Dan’s original tea-leaf reading than we were at the beginning of his effort here.
His explanation is built on nothing more than the sand of his own presumptions. It’s a hall of mirrors. And thus we remain here in the middle of a carnival midway. And a manipulative carnival, at that.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 231PM:
But wait. There’s more.
On the basis of that abyssally specious seventh paragraph, ‘Dan’ in the eighth and final paragraph will now try to bring it all home with … Scripture.
And here ‘Dan’ will try to run his First Corinthians bit (from a prior comment on this thread), while ignoring yet again the fact that Paul had apparently changed his stance significantly in Second Corinthians (a point which I had raised on this thread and which ‘Dan’ huffed that he didn’t care to answer; understandably so since Paul in the Second Letter not only isn’t of any help to ‘Dan’s cartoon but actually contradicts it).
And what might ‘handing’ them “over to Satan” actually have meant in the context of the Church in the Stampede Matter? A number of priests – four hundred at least – were laicized (although none to my knowledge were excommunicated), with or without a canonical trial. As for ‘Dan’s presumption that they were “perverts”, that simply takes us down the garden path back to more of ‘Dan’s presumptions.
We might consider that the Church blended the stances of Paul’s First and Second Letter in this, although whether that tactical blending gave sufficient respect to due process and trial remains to be seen. But surely the Church did take ‘First Letter’ action.