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":
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 231PM:
I would also point out that on the BigTrial site (the article of Feb. 11th, entitled “Our Corrupt D.A.”) a former FBI agent who investigated the handling of alleged abusive priests – whose identity was confirmed by Ralph Cipriano – said in a comment (the 11th at 618PM) that in the hundred cases he had investigated in that Archdiocese he had “never seen a case where an alleged victim was passed around to” multiple alleged abusers.
This statement by the former FBI agent does not completely address the scope of Catholic clerical abuse, but it does indicate that as the Stampede now loses its aura of truthiness we begin to see statements that had for so long not come to light, or had not been allowed to come to light in the media. And those statements are not congenial to either the media or the Abusenik ‘preferred narrative’, or to ‘Dan’s ‘preferred narrative’.
The possibility, plausibility, and even the probability that there are many more such revealing statements ‘out there’ cannot be dismissed.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 231PM:
Thus this effort by ‘Dan’ to cloak his cartoon presumptions in the raiment of serious and competent academic or conceptual demonstration fails.
And his ‘victory lap’ final bits thus reveal themselves to be as groundless as the presumptions on which they have been based.
And thus also we see that reading books is only going to really help if one is capable of exercising critical thinking and is willing to do so even if such critical assessment undermines one’s preferred cartoon explanations.
I would also take this opportunity to point out that many of the Letters in the New Testament were written not as definitive and complete doctrinal statements (such as an Encyclical or even more formal declaratory statement might be) but rather were missives prompted by specific problems and issues among the communities to which they were addressed.
Thus the thinking in the missive was shaped to no small extent by the nature of the specific problems and issues which the missive was written to address.
So you can’t simply run to Scripture as if it were a handy ammo-box in order to reach in a grab a handful in order to reload your favorite blunderbuss. Which is a mistake (sometimes called the ‘Proof Text’ fallacy) embraced by certain fundamentalist schools of Biblical interpretation and that has proven to be a primary support for ‘Dan’s entire project all along.
If Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians was addressing a certain laxity in the Corinthian community, then in the Second Letter he was trying to re-balance his prior position and move it onto a higher plane or perspective. Both are in the text of Scripture, both are credible and valid, but you have to know the context of each in order to accurately keep on track with your interpretations.
If, anyway, you are trying to get an accurate comprehension of Scripture and are not simply looking for useful-looking plop to toss.
In regards to your claims, "you can't run to Scripture" and 'blunderbuss' our poor cult with 'Proof Text' fallacy. Who told you that one can't quote Scripture, especially when those quotes fit your disgusting cult perfectly, so if the shoe fits you may want to wear it. Men of this world, so-called theologians, have been attempting to put God and His Word into a little "3 x 5" box, believing that if they can add some longwinded explanation, and claim a verse has been taking out of context, then it just doesn't hold water. The major 'fallacy' I'm witnessing in this forum, exists in your churches teachings and the excuses, denials and lies from you and your cronies.
The Bible is full of short stories, parables, proverbs and one-liners. Do you know how hard it is to convince people to read the Bible, even when it's for their own good, and I profit nothing. I've several times asked readers to not take my word for it, but research a chapter, or book, or even the context of a single sentence (i.e. saying look at both chapters Rev. 17-18, Jer. 44, Is. 44 or 1 John, which would be 5 chapters). One of the wisest men in the Bible was Solomon, who wrote proverbs that were one liners, yet he wasn't smart enough to stay away from idolatrous women and cultures. Sound Familiar, idolators?
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
You'd be the last person to tell someone how they could use verses of the Bible, seeing that all you seem to do is criticize and deny the meaning of the Word and mock God and His Holy Spirit. You think you're so wise, with your in-depth analysis and speculations, when it's only the wisdom of this world, and your interpretations are nothing but more misleading and deceptive 'fallacy'. It would be best if you stayed away from any attempts to explain God's Word, since He wouldn't give His wisdom or knowledge to a mocker. servant
Not sure how long you've been laying your BS on the brainwashed, but it's getting to the point where even your full of ..it, is full of ..it. Seeing that you're off the 'rails' and since you prefer to use some excuse to claim, "you have to know the context of each in order to accurately keep on track with your interpretations", lets reverse a taste to a quote pertaining to you, that maybe didn't compute the last time I gave you this. Pericope, for the mocking, lying, misinterpreting dope -
As God says in the Scriptures, "I will destroy the wisdom of all who claim to be wise. I will confuse those who think they know so much." 20) "What happened to those wise people? What happened to those experts in the Scriptures? What happened to the ones who think they have all the answers? Didn't God show that the wisdom of this world is foolish? God was wise and decided not to let the people of this world use their wisdom to learn about him." 1 Cor 1:19-20
Proof of the foolishness of your 'wisdom of the world', would definitely be your insistent excuses, denials and lies, when it comes to defending the pedophile creeps and perverts of your cult. What kind of human being would do such a thing, at the expense of truthful victims, unless you fall into the category of a pervert or pedophile yourself. And this has been the systemic problem among the priests and bishops of your Klan for centuries. Don't think you can twist or deny Scriptural truths by claiming to be some critical thinker. You 'also point out' a quote from a former FBI agent investigating 100 abusive priests cases that he had " 'never seen a case where an alleged victim was passed around to' multiple alleged abusers." Is this a display of more of your critical thinking? I never claimed that, though I've heard it happened, and your perverts often had multiple victims. And if one 'Archdiocese' had at least 100 abusive priests, then multiply that times 2,988 ecclesiastical jurisdictions in the world, and you'll come up with the outrageous numbers of abuses we've been claiming. Now that's some 'critical thinking'. You might want to try some of that yourself sometime, Mr. Know-It-All.
Now your new excuse that they were just 'missives', so they don't carry much clout, is ridiculous. All the scholars you claim organized the Bible, thought they were important enough. You can sure come up with excuses. In fact, they seem to be the bulk of your poor 'critical thinking'. servant of the Almighty
I’ll take ‘Dan’s most recent two in chronological order.
On then to the 17th at 1254AM:
Let’s see. He opens with a lard of manipulative epithets and that’s the first paragraph.
In the second paragraph he will try to evade his Scriptural knowledge problem by quoting a pericope that would appear to both a) absolve him for his lack of knowledge and b) self-servingly assure him that in place of being knowledgeable he is “wise”. And – had you been waitinggggg forrr ittttt? – all of this is c) assured by God.
Found some time to waste, to deal with your ignorance. Are you still struggling with your reading comprehension skills? The Scripture verse 1 Cor 1:19-20, was not quoted for myself to claim how 'wise' or 'knowledgeable' I am, but more to display how stupid and foolish, those of this world, who think they are wise are. To show how smart you aren't, you didn't even realize it pertained to you. Good News, your lobotomy was a success.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1254AM:
One then proceeds to the text of 1 Corinthians 1 (I am using the King James Version).
In v.19 Paul asks “hath God not made foolish the wisdom of this world?” (italics mine). But here in this sequence of comments we are discussing knowledge of Scripture and its interpretation and thus precisely not the wisdom “of this world”. So ‘Dan’s bit (‘interpretation’, if you wish) fails here.
Once more, ‘Dan’ has merely rummaged through the ammo box for what looks like a useful pericope but without actually paying attention to the text itself.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1254AM:
Further, ‘Dan’ has ignored the immediately following verses. In vv.22-23 Paul says that “the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom but we [Christians] preach Christ crucified”.
So a) “wisdom” is not at all what Paul is going for in the first place, and b) the core of Christianity is the ‘preaching’ in regard to “Christ crucified”. Readers who have followed ‘Dan’s comments may quickly note that rarely does ‘Dan’ get into “Christ crucified”; ‘Dan’ is too busy rummaging in the ammo box for stuff to toss in support of his own personal fever-visions (adopted, as I have said before, for personal purposes that are best left to himself).
Why should I be teaching "Christ crucified", when you've yet to be able to swallow baby food. "Although by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to reteach you the basic principles of God's word. You need milk not solid food! Everyone who lives on milk is still an infant, inexperienced in the message of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained their sensibilities to distinguish good from evil." Hebrews 5:12-14
Speaking of your disability in distinguishing good from evil, you can't even figure out the difference between repentance and the "unrepentant". You seem to think Second Corinthians nullifies what Paul said in First Corinthians, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's very possible that Paul and those of Corinth, found the sinner to truly be repentant and remorseful, willing to change and worthy of forgiveness. The horrific sins of your pedophile and perverted clergy, coupled with their obvious unrepentance, seeing that they were multiple, repeat offenders and shuffled all around to continue in their disgusting sins, would not qualify for forgiveness, anymore than a blatant liar who insists on making excuses for them. You're comparing apples with truly rotten, mildewed oranges. Maybe you're smart enough to figure out what kind of fruits you and your cronies are. Maybe not. They're surely not the fruits of the Spirit. servant of God's truth
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1254AM:
So it comes as no surprise that – having based his position on his iffy reading of the text – ‘Dan’ then devotes his third paragraph to simply larding on his usual stuff: characterizing (without actually quoting any of my points) my material as “excuses, denials and lies” and “defending [had you been waitingggg forrrr ittttttt?] the pedophile creeps and perverts of your cult”.
And then the bit about “truthful victims”, without of course giving any examples – simply another convenient assertion derived from ‘Dan’s tea-leaves.
And somehow – although it is not demonstrated – ‘Dan’ then would like to presume that he has somehow established that my being a “critical thinker” is neutralized by the fact that … well, by something.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1254AM:
I had made reference to the FBI agent’s comment in a free-standing comment of mine (the 16th at 1152AM) that I specifically identified as being of some relevance although I did not at any point assert that it was specific to any particular point that ‘Dan’ had made.
But when ‘Dan’ doesn’t have much, then almost anything will do if he can twist it to his convenience and his purposes.
And he then demonstrates his own failures as a critical thinker: concerning ‘victims’ being passed around, he has not claimed it … he has only “heard” it. And in this he joins the Australian Royal Commission.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1254AM:
He then tosses in a point that requires a great deal of presumption indeed: that pedophilia and perversion “has been the systemic problem among the priests and bishops of your Klan for centuries”. Sin – I would say – has been the systemic problem with humanity since the Fall in the Garden; but that it is a problem unique to the Church is something else altogether and that it is a problem that is “systemic” simply adds more complexity that requires demonstration.
And then he takes the FBI agent’s reference to those 100 cases he had investigated, and twists it into the presumption that “one ‘Archdiocese’” actually “had” 100 abusive priests, which is not what the agent said at all and which is twisted here merely for ‘Dan’s purposes and convenience.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1254AM:
From which pile of sand ‘Dan’ then demonstrates his arithmetical and statistical chops by some multiplication (or, if you wish, ‘extrapolation’). To wit: 100 priests times “the 2,988 ecclesiastical jurisdictions in the world”, from which he achieves – so to speak – “outrageous numbers of abuses”(the actual number, perhaps beyond his arithmetical capacities, would be 298,800).
But this is precisely the ‘math’ of the Stampede: take a given number of undemonstrated allegations, multiply them by some factual number, and – shazaaaam! – you get a big number (but not a factual one). And the Game can continue from there. Just as – ‘Dan’ doth pronounce – “we’ve been claiming”.
Which simply means that the numbers that that “we” have been claiming have been invalidly and manipulatively derived and cannot be trusted.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1254AM:
And thus he tries to bring it all home with a whopper that transcends the marvelous and proceeds to the sublime: on the basis of his presentation so far, he proudly bruits his “’critical thinking’”. Yup, that’s about the level of his “critical thinking” alright. Yes indeedy. And we have it from ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1254AM:
And finally, he addresses my point that the New Testament Letters (or “missives”) were often sent to address various specific problems in various Christian communities: here ‘Dan’ will seek to dispose of the problems that this poses by merely claiming that this point is a “new excuse”.
The fact of their being such has been rather well known in Scriptural scholarship for quite a long time and is demonstrated even on this thread by the notable differences between Paul’s stance in his First and Second Letters.
Nor did I ever say or imply that the Letters therefore “don’t carry much clout”. They carry a great deal of “clout” so long as one knows what one is doing; they do not, however, easily lend themselves to being made mere bits of ammo and plop that ‘Dan’ can stuff into his personal cartoon in order to give it the aura of Divine authority.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1254AM:
And I would also add that it was not just “scholars” over the centuries but the Church itself in the 4th century that considered the Letters worthy of being included in the Biblical canon (a selection formalized by the Council of Laodicea in 360, further confirmed by Pope Damasus in 382).
But for ‘Dan’s cartoon, any inconvenient points and actualities are merely “excuses” for – had you been waittttinggggg forrrrrr ittttttt? – not going along with ‘Dan’s preferred point of view.
I'm thankful to the catholic church for organizing and assembling the Bible, It's a shame they have a problem reading, interpreting and following the Word. I presume that was why they burned people at the stake and destroyed Bibles, afraid that the public would expose their lack understanding or living the Word. Funny how nothing's changed, and they continue to persecute true Christians, while they have the audacity to think that they're living the truth and are the persecuted of the world. Hypocrisy at its finest. servant of the Lord
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1114AM:
Here he again tries to play word-games, for lack of anything better.
I had said “You can’t run to Scripture” and this has given ‘Dan’ the pretext to harrumph a Who-Says bit, and a twisty one at that: “Who told you that one can’t quote Scripture”, he doth demand.
I had said that one can’t quote Scripture by merely treating the Bible as an ammo-box, containing ammunition to be selected for one’s personal eructations and purposes. Was that too colloquial? I will specify then: one can do it, of course, but not without reducing Scripture and God’s Word to being merely instruments and tools to further one’s own agenda. Which, of course, is a vital element of ‘Dan’s entire gig and M.O., though one that has been used by many others before him (thus earning the sobriquet Proof-Text Fallacy).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1114AM:
Thus, for example, in the instant case: when the complexity of the difference between Paul’s stance in the First and Second Letter is made clear, the ‘Proof-Text’ mentality will simply dodge the problem by focusing merely on the preferred pericope in the First Letter) and ignoring the problematic (for the Proof-Text) stance in the Second Letter. As if the first stance could be considered ultimate and valid without any reference at all to the second stance.
This is mere cutting-and-pasting, and for a manipulative and selective agenda, with no regard for the complexity and integrity of the whole. This is the Bible as a turkey, with its various pieces to be carved up and distributed according to the whims and purposes of the (Proof-Texty) carver.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1114AM:
And ‘Dan’ marvelously demonstrates my point exactly by immediately adding his own cartoon bit that his selected bits “fit your disgusting cult perfectly, so if the shoe fits …” and so on.
Readers may consider whether ‘Dan’s selected pericopes and his oh-so-selective interpretations create so perfect and precise and unique a fit in actuality or merely in his own fever-vision fantasies.
He then tries to evade the weaknesses of his interpretative bits and pieces by denouncing “long-winded explanation”. Surely the Stampede was well-served by a mentality that sought catchy, quickie, vivid bits of scare-visions rather than any careful “long-winded explanations”.
As for his dismissal to the effect that just because “a verse is taken out of context, then it just doesn’t hold water” (a statement I never made), I would say: a) a verse taken out of context may indeed lose validity in light of what has been selectively omitted.
And b) just how does ‘Dan’ deal with the difference between Paul’s stances in First and Second Corinthians? How much “water” does his preferred interpretation of the First Letter’s stance “hold”, when considered in light of the equally Scripturally valid and authoritative stance taken in the Second Letter? How does ‘Dan’s Proof-Texting handle that complexity?
I hope you're not confusing your garbage, with any "careful 'long-winded explanations" of theologians. First off, you're far from any theologian, although they're not infallible, any more than your cult claims of it's popes. Secondly, you would know if I was referring to you, that would be "long-winded ignorance and nonsense", and there is nothing theological in that. You might want to stick to your worldly wisdom, although I've yet to hear anything terribly wise from you in that either. The Bible principles are for Christians who follow the Word, not for mocking, hypocritical liars and deceivers. We'd appreciate your realizing this fact. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1114AM:
Curiously, ‘Dan’ then suddenly changes gears and subject, now in the second paragraph, where his train of thought starts jumping all over the place. First a sentence about the many types of literary forms in the Bible and then in the next sentence a wail about how “hard it is to convince people to read the Bible”. His point is not clear, but his purpose seems to be to change the subject to something more self-servingly congenial.
And – but of course – when ‘Dan’ doth exhort “readers not to take my word for it, but research” the Bible or some pericope … we all have seen what happens if all that leads to something ‘Dan’s cartoon can’t handle. In the ‘Dan’-verse, ‘Dan’s bits are already and always right, and you are exhorted to read, study and research only if you are going to wind up agreeing with his stuff. Otherwise you are mocking God and so on and so forth.
And then – after a truly vivid digression into this or that Book and “5 chapters” – we get from beyond the left field flagpole a bit on Solomon, which appears to be of relevance only as a bit of plop for ‘Dan’ to toss at “idolators” (and we all know where that bit is going).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1114AM:
The third paragraph is just a pericope from the file, apparently of relevance in ‘Dan’s mind since he sees himself (or Himself) as the one doing the “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training”.
Which brings us to the fourth paragraph where ‘Dan’ bleats that “all [I] seem to do is criticize and deny the meaning of the Word and mock God and His Holy Spirit”. I do nothing of the sort: I criticize ‘Dan’s stuff, but I don’t “deny the meaning of the Word”; I only point out the problems with ‘Dan’s take on that meaning.
And I don’t “mock God and His Holy Spirit”; I only mock the cartoonish bits in ‘Dan’s presentation – which are hell and gone from “God and His Holy Spirit”.
If in the process I ‘mislead’ people from ‘Dan’s cartoons, then I’d call it a good day’s work.
I just don't have the time to waste, dealing with your ignorance, and breaking down the nonsense, sentence by sentence, like yourself. Are 'sobriquet's what they used for your lobotomy, as an agent to frazzle your brain cells?
Math was my favorite subject and I took Calculus and Trig all through college. Guess we'll chalk that up as just another of your poor assessments. Doesn't take a genius to know, you just add 2 zeros to the other factor when multiplying by 100. Surprised you could figure that out. Speaking of zeros, I have an easy addition for you – 6+6+6= publyin', servant of Satan.
I'd suggest you might want to try an in-depth study on sin, forgiveness and true repentance. No, I'm not referring to the catholic version, of sin like the devil, go confess your sins to a priest in a black dress, who loves hearing porn stories, and then leave believing your cleansed, to go back out into the world and sin like the dickens. And then repeat the process. I'm talking true sorrow for your mistakes, an honest confession to God, cleansing by the blood of Christ and a sincere effort to change with the help of the Lord. Then and only then, will God possibly give you the wisdom and understanding to intrerpret His Word. Until then, the Bible and Christ will only be a Rock to make you stumble, and fall flat on your face.
If you call a good day's work, lying, deceiving, misleading, misinterpreting, excusing and denying, then I must say, you've done a good day's work, every time you post your garbage. Maybe you should try doing the opposite. And why mock God, so you can just deny it? Do you get some cheap thrill out of lying and deceiving others? servant of God, the only Father
As I informed you before, you might want to start your study on sin, by reading 1 John chapters 1-5. You'll know you're through when you get to the last verse, "My children, keep yourselves from the worship of idols." 1 John 5:21 John doesn't mention anything to do with idols in 1 John, but thought it important enough to end with that sentence.
I know. I can hear your excuses, denials and misinterpretations already. Duh!! We don't worship idols. Oh no!! You just make them, bow down to them, burn candles to them and kiss their feet, until there toes are gone. But worship them? Never!! We honor them, adore them, pay homage to them, venerate them, Hail them and hyperdulia them, but don't ever say we worship them. Hypocritical Idolators!!
Well, among other things there was on the table here a question as to how ‘Dan’ would deal with the difference between Paul’s stance in the First and the Second Letter to the Corinthians. We have three comments from ‘Dan’ now. And what do we get?
On the 18th at 1032PM we get more evasion, this time by claiming that when he referred to “long-winded explanations” he wasn’t referring to me but to “theologians” and I am “far from any theologian”. Word play and nothing more.
Followed by epithetical riffs, which conclude the comment.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 810PM:
Here we get the pearl-clutchy evasion that he “just [doesn’t] have the time to waste, dealing with [my] ignorance and breaking down the nonsense, sentence by sentence”. In other words, ‘Dan’ has no answer to the difference in Paul’s stance between the First and Second Letters. And an epithetical bit about my use of the term “sobriquet”.
Which bit is then followed in the second paragraph by ‘Dan’s claims about his schooling and all of his math courses – and in college even. I guess we’ll just chalk that up to another of ‘Dan’s bits and readers can judge it as they may.
The relevant point is that when he had the chance, ‘Dan’ didn’t “just add 2 zeros to the other factor when multiplying by 100”. You’d think somebody whose “favorite subject” was “math” would have done the math just for the sheer enjoyment of it. But we’re dealing here with somebody who hopes to get by simply with making stuff up to cover his incapacities, though only after they’ve been revealed by his own words.
And then there’s more distracting epithet.
Sorry publyin', but I leave important things to spend my time on, and working out a longer multiplication "just for the sheer enjoyment of it" wouldn't be appealing to me. I learned that shortcut in grammar school. Is that why you give your "long-winded ignorance" as answers to our questions, for your own personal "enjoyment". Well, I must say, that you're the only one who enjoys your run-on nonsense and your stupid words, not common to the English vocabulary. Correct that. I think mini-me Malcolm likes all your lyin' garbage too. Maybe some brainwashed catholics, might buy your ignorance, also. Out of 1.1 billion, odds are you may find a few. To me, you're more of an incapacitated joke. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 810PM:
On to the next paragraph:
Here ‘Dan’s puffs up his pinfeathers to “suggest” that I would do an “in-depth study on sin, forgiveness and true repentance”. Evasively irrelevant, since the key question on the table is how ‘Dan’s Scriptural chops would handle the difference between Paul’s stance in the First and Second Letters.
And if there is any indication – let alone evidence – of any such fruits of whatever “in-depth study on sin, forgiveness and true repentance” that ‘Dan’ has undertaken in his theological samplings, it is not on display in any material we have seen so far.
But this distracting evasive riff – unsurprisingly – continues for the rest of the paragraph, larded with the usual epitheticals.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 810PM:
On then to his final paragraph:
Nothing but more epitheticals.
As to just who doth “get some cheap thrill out of lying and deceiving others” … readers may judge as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 833PM:
And here we simply get more from ‘Dan’s 3×5 pile of Scripture, this time trying to evade the question of Paul’s different stances in the First and Second Letters by heading down the “worship of idols” path yet again.
And his second paragraph continues the riff, as he no doubt would like readers to forget Paul and jump into the ‘idolatry’ puddle with him.
I would leave him there, desperately trying to rekindle interest in his personal cartoon swamp, flailing around in his epithets and exclamation points.
Glad to hear you think 'idolatry' belongs in a 'puddle'. Problem is that you and your cronies seem to like muddy puddles, bowing down to idols, lying and molesting little boys.
More from ‘Dan’, now the 19th at 1100PM:
Once again, ‘Dan’ demonstrates one of his few well-practiced skills, i.e. making evasive excuses for himself (or Himself) after-the-fact.
In regard to the fact that while Paul preaches neither signs nor wisdom but rather “Christ crucified” yet ‘Dan’s Faxes From The Beyond reflect little if any such emphasis … ‘Dan’ simply evades by bleating “Why should I be teaching ‘Christ crucified’, when you’ve yet to be able to swallow baby food”.
And in addition to this being an evasive excuse, it also reveals that ‘Dan’ considers his own stuff to be the “baby food”. But really … “baby food”? … as in un-complex and nutritious and easy to swallow and digest … ? These are ‘Dan’s assorted rants and fever-visions we are talking about here, carefully and manipulatively sculpted cartoons designed to further ‘Dan’s assorted whackeries.
But apparently we can’t even begin to digest “Christ crucified” unless we’ve first reliably demonstrated our digestive capacities by swallowing ‘Dan’s plop-tossy hash.
Readers can consider their menu options as they may.
Is it humanly possible, for someone to be so dense and stupid, that he would accuse another of mental incapacities, when his own elevator doesn't reach the top floor. You, p, are quite an interesting study, seeing that your elevator is apparently out of service and unknown whether it was ever in any working condition.
My teaching of how one recognizes himself to be a sinner, is truly remorseful, turns from sin, is willing to change, seeks repentance and forgiveness, all demonstrate the preaching of "Christ crucified". Who do you think aids in making you realize you're a sinner, forgives you of your sins and cleanses you of sin. Like I questioned, do you still think it's pedophile and perverted priests wearing dresses, interested in hearing porn, that grant you forgiveness, or do you think it's Queen Mary, Mother of Mercy? No, it's the only one capable of forgiving sin and having mercy, God the Father through Jesus Christ ("Christ crucified").
You've been drinkin' your cult's Kool-Aid for so long, that I think you're not even able to digest milk, let alone solid food. I know infants that could interpret the Bible better than you. At least if they weren't able to read it, they wouldn't be able to make such the mess of it that you have. Do you really think God would share His great wisdom with idolators, mockers and blatant liars. You haven't a clue, on how well He sees through your BS. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1100PM:
And immediately thereafter, ‘Dan’ doth indeed insinuate himself (or Himself) as being that “someone” necessary to “reteach you the basic principles of God’s word” (small ‘w’ here, since concepts fuzzily fade in and out in ‘Dan’s brain-visions).
So, then, the “basic principles of God’s word” equate to ‘Dan’s plop-tossy bits, and the “Christ crucified” stuff is only for advanced-learners, i.e. those who have already swallowed ‘Dan’s stuff. Which, to say the very least, is not what Paul was saying at all; for Paul, “Christ crucified” – and not anybody’s preferred fever-vision rants – is the core and basis of Christianity.
Thus we see revealed what might with no doubt too much generosity be termed ‘Dan’s ‘theology’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1100PM:
But – had you been waitingggg forrrr ittttt? – ‘Dan’ starts to lose control of the conceptual bull he himself (or Himself) has loosed here: if you can only handle (‘Dan’s) “milk” then you are “still an infant” (and had thus better grow up and get to work on “Christ crucified” like any Pauline Christian adult). Clearly, ‘Dan’ hasn’t thought his plop through.
But I can only agree: the faster anyone can get beyond ‘Dan’s plop-loaded menu and get to work with Paul then so much the better.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1100PM:
Thus to his next paragraph where he works in – slyly and manipulatively – an epithet regarding my “disability in distinguishing good from evil” since – trying to run this creaky gambit of his again – I also can’t distinguish between “repentance” and the “unrepentant” (easily distinguishable if you have had a swig of the Old Scriptural brewed or fermented from ‘Dan’s tea-leaves).
For ‘Dan’ the easy-peasy equation is ‘Dan’ good/not-‘Dan’ evil. Wheeeeee.
At no point have I ever said or implied that Paul’s stance in Second Corinthians “nullifies what Paul said in First Corinthians” – this is simply ‘Dan’ concocting a more convenient straw-man position in order to better evade the real complexity between the stances of the First and Second Letters.
Rather, my position is that there does indeed exist a very clear difference and I asked how ‘Dan’s Scriptural interpretation guidebook would handle that difference. And that is precisely the problem and question he consistently seeks to avoid and evade.
Because complexity and complication and nuance are a stumbling block to cartoons. And ‘Dan’s plop-tossy stuff is fundamentally cartoon-thinking.
More of your childish stupidity, not worth a response. Grow up, peewee.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1100PM:
And – but of course – he then necessarily must toss in (yet again) the presumption that the (alleged and presumed) “horrific sins of your pedophile and perverted clergy” must be “unrepentant” (because otherwise, ‘Dan’ would be out of a gig and out of business and his head would heat up that much closer to exploding).
As to who does and who doesn’t “qualify for forgiveness”, reasonable folk can have varying opinions, but I wouldn’t class ‘Dan’s assorted whackeries as a viable option in that regard.
And the comment fades out with a riff on fruits of various types according to ‘Dan’s cartoon classifications.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1111PM:
Here ‘Dan’ has to somehow deal with the fact that it was indeed the Church that actually selected the Books that comprise the accepted canon of the Bible.
It’s taken him a while (this point has been on the table for quite some time, going back many threads here) but he’s come up with his solution: he is “thankful to the catholic church” … but (had you been waitinggggg forrrr itttttttttttttttttttt?) allows as how it is truly “a shame” that the Church hasn’t chosen to follow ‘Dan’s chops in interpreting it all.
So there it is. ‘Dan’ is a theological and Scriptural force of world-historical proportions, standing taller than even Luther and the Reformers in the awesome insights he reveals.
How the psychiatric staffs missed that – even after six tries – is equally stunning.
Wow, Mr. Know-It-All, you must have put on your "thinking cap". "So there it is. 'Dan's is a theological and Scriptural force of world-historical proportions, standing taller than even Luther and the Reformers in the awesome insights he reveals." I so appreciate the compliment, but I must confess that if I should display any wisdom, then it is God my Father who deserves the glory, for I'm only His willing servant. My boast is in He and His Son.
I surely do not share the mistaken beliefs of Luther as to Mary's ever-virginity, immaculately conceived, mediatrix or sinless. These statements are not Biblical. They are idolatrous and they are antichrist. If that leaves me "standing taller" than Luther, then so be it. Am also not in agreement with any religions, with their man-made teachings and idol-worshipping temples. Seems like that's where all the hypocrites and liars gather. servant of the Almighty
P.S. Keep insinuating that I'm crazy. They said the same of Christ and all His true followers. Thanks for the compliment.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1111PM:
I would say that what the Church feared all along – and certainly once Luther opened the floodgates (and quickly lost control of the ensuing flood) – was that theoretically it was now possible for any whackjob who felt so inclined to now claim that he and he alone possessed the One Key (or, if you wish, the One Ring) of interpretation that would bind all others and bring all to itself.
To repeat a previous analogy I have used: once the Conductor was done away with, then any instrument and player could re-interpret the score, claiming a special illumination concerning – or even from – the Composer.
Was the result cacophony or a ‘rich and diverse and pluriform multiplicity’? Readers may consider as they will.
But if we consider ‘Dan’s performances and productions here, then the Church’s fears were clearly justified.
Whackery “at its finest” is what we get from ‘Dan’.
If there are any 're-interpret'ations, they are those coming from you and your cult. If the Church could learn the fear of God, maybe then they wouldn't fear me. What is it that they're afraid of – losing there filthy money or their pervert and pedophilia ring.
At this juncture I would also point out that ‘Dan’,while a vivid example, is still only an instance of a Problem that immediately confronted the Reformation: if there was to be no Church magisterium to authoritiatively guide Scriptural interpretation, then how keep all the team pulling the great wagon of Christianity?
The Reformation solution – such as it was – ultimately took this form: a) the Bible is the ultimate source of all authority; b) the Bible is clear and simple to interpret in its explanations and instructions; and c) any individual has the right (and therefore, presumptively, the capacity) to read the thing for itself and decide what “God” is saying or telling him/her.
Readers so inclined can pursue the broad and interesting history of this gambit as they wish. Suffice it here to say that there was a profound if abyssal truth to the old saw about one irritated Protestant believer who wished that people would speak King James English just like Jesus did.
Actually, King James English would be one of my least favorite languages, even though I heard Jesus spoke it with a Brooklyn accent. Your nonsense is annoying, peewee.
In all seriousness though, I'm beginning to understand your gambit and agenda. Anyone who challenges your catholic 'truth', even though it's absolutely false, must be brought to submission, or else we'll work on destroying you in every way possible. This means we will destroy, with any lies at our disposal, your mental and spiritual attributes, until you give up and possibly retreat. You may or may not be aware, that I gave up on you changing your wicked ways a long time ago. I refuse to allow you to convince catholics, who may be questioning their beliefs, that someone preaching Bible truths is wrong, solely based on the lies you've labeled me with. You're a deceiving, lying creep, and any catholic should be ashamed to believe your vicious slander.
Catholics, As publiar states, "The Reformation…ultimately took this form: a) the Bible is the ultimate source of all authority" This is absolutely true, and any religion who thinks they can tell you different, would most definitely be a false religion. If they went solely by biblical truth, they wouldn't be able to sell you all their trinkets, statues, rosary beads, scapulars, books, DVD'S, CD'S. Add to that your tithes, donations, offerings and gifts, and enjoying a tax free status, and you can understand why they would like to silence me. It is a big business, run by a bunch of lying, perverted, pedophile creeps, laughing behind your backs at the stupidity of giving to this evil cult. "b) the Bible is clear and simple to interpret in it's explanations and instructions" Absolutely true, with God's spiritual guidance and help, the Bible can be easily understood, using the beautiful brain God gave you, and not allowing wicked liars to convince you that they and their church can tell you it's meaning. Especially when that church is lead by cowards, unfaithful, dirty-minded, idol-worshippers, the sexually immoral, murderers and those who lie and love to tell lies. They will be thrown into that lake of fire and burning sulfur. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. Revelations 21:8 and 22:15
Line c), I do not agree with. You do not decide for yourself what God is saying. The Bible says, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding." Proverbs 3:5
I ask all catholics. Are you willing to take the chance of following them into eternal destruction? They will enjoy taking you down into the pit with them. Be not fooled. They are definitely not God's true church. Read the Bible and find out for yourselves. servant of Truth
I did not evade your question about Paul at all. I answered again in the second paragraph on Feb. 19 @ 11:00 pm. I was under the impression that you like to read, even though you have quite a problem comprehending Scriptural principles and their interpretations. Why do you think I suggested you do an "in-depth study on sin, forgiveness and true repentance", and also 1 John chapters 1 through 5, for John's in-depth explanation on sin and it's avoidance. I thought maybe you could figure it out for yourself, but I was wrong. Forgot that I have to hold your hand and teach baby steps, for you when it comes to the Word and it's understanding. Like I said before, you may have to fork out some kind of tuition. You make me laugh!!
I’ll deal with ‘Dan’s most recent crop chronologically, rather than in the order they appear on the site.
On the 20th at 544PM we get yet another nifty example of how ‘Dan’ tries to make excuses for himself, even to the point of incoherence.
Here – having on the 18th at 810PM gone on about his math chops and how simple it is to merely add two zeroes – ‘Dan’ now claims, as if to make excuses for his failure to do so in the first place, that he has more “important things to spend [his] time on, and working out longer multiplication ‘just for the sheer enjoyment of it’ wouldn’t be appealing to [him]”. But he had already said that it was merely a matter of adding two zeroes, and thus there was no “working out of a longer multiplication” that was necessary.
And then some riffing on “ignorance” (as being someone else’s, but – of course – not his own).
And an epithet to top the whole thing off.
Your 'incoherence' and 'ignorance' is turning out to be a "longer multiplication" than any math equation. You must get "sheer enjoyment", seeing your ignorance multiplying by exponential figures.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 559PM:
Here he now claims that he “did not evade [my] question about Paul at all. And he directs readers to the second paragraph of his comment of the 19th at 1100PM.
The text of that paragraph is:
“Speaking of your disability in distinguishing good from evil, you can't even figure out the difference between repentance and the "unrepentant". You seem to think Second Corinthians nullifies what Paul said in First Corinthians, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's very possible that Paul and those of Corinth, found the sinner to truly be repentant and remorseful, willing to change and worthy of forgiveness. The horrific sins of your pedophile and perverted clergy, coupled with their obvious unrepentance, seeing that they were multiple, repeat offenders and shuffled all around to continue in their disgusting sins, would not qualify for forgiveness, anymore than a blatant liar who insists on making excuses for them. You're comparing apples with truly rotten, mildewed oranges. Maybe you're smart enough to figure out what kind of fruits you and your cronies are. Maybe not. They're surely not the fruits of the Spirit. servant of God's truth”
I have pointed out that I had never said anything about Paul’s stance in the Second Letter ‘nullifying’ his stance in the First. That was merely ‘Dan’s effort to create a more convenient straw-man for himself.
Thanks for reposting that, in case a reader missed it when I posted it. It really did bear repeating, and you must have agreed. Dumb as a Fruitcake.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 559PM:
He apparently considers it an ‘answer’ to propose that while Paul and the Corinthians “found the sinner to be truly repentant and remorseful” and so on yet this cannot apply to priests because – and here ‘Dan’ conveniently inserts an assertion for which there is no proof – this clearly could not apply to “the horrific sins of your pedophile and perverted clergy” and so on and so forth.
And then compounds that whopper by asserting in effect that their “obvious unrepentance” doth prove their “unrepentance”. And back to the hall of mirrors we go.
There were very few “multiple, repeat offenders” even in the allegations (demonstrated by the tally in the first John Jay Report); and certainly such few as there were or may have been do not in the least justify ‘Dan’s cartoon fever vision of “your pedophile and perverted clergy”, as if all the Catholic clergy were included in that set.
Your such an idiot! They were obviously unrepentant because they continued in their nasty, sinful, creepy molesting of juvenial boys, aided and abetted by enabling, deceiving and excusing creeps like yourself. Quit playing, your 'playing dumb' games. You're not terribly good at it, even though you're convinced you are. We've got your number, 666.
And I'm willing to bet you know how to spell juvenile, from all your convictions, perverter of truth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 559PM:
And then ‘Dan’ tosses up another excuse for himself: he didn’t bother to explain exactly what he saw as being of relevance in the first five chapters of the First Letter of John – which, of course, is the entire First Letter of John. But that’s not because he is too lazy or incompetent to do such explication of his own chosen example – nooo, nothing like that; it’s just because he “thought [I] could figure it out for [myself]” and he – through purest innocence, doncha see? – was “wrong”.
But ‘Dan’ really isn’t much for explaining his cartoons or even the Scripture he has selected to costume them with. He hopes his cartoon visions alone will stampede people into simply presuming that the Scripture pericopes back him up.
He is right to “laugh”; he’s got precious little else.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 652PM:
He opens with a stab at epithet, which then morphs into the old I’m Not/You Are bit yet again.
He finds me “an interesting study”. There is little if any material ‘Dan’ has proffered on this site that indicates his capacity for “study”. But then: when you’ve got the Faxes From Beyond, you don’t really need to study.
He then rather grandiosely refers to “my teaching”, as if he were a Nobel prize winner or a guru. And shouldn’t that be the Bible’s “teaching” rather than his own? Actually, not; most of ‘Dan’s stuff is his fever visions, and the pericopes are simply manipulative and deceptive and deceitful window-dressing and costuming.
But there’s a method to his madness here: it turns out he is trying to make it sound as if he were preaching “Christ crucified” all along. He just didn’t mention it as such, doncha see?
And the final paragraph tries to use a “Kool-Aid” metaphor to somehow paper over his metaphorical confusions with “milk” and baby-food and so forth.
And – marvelously – he brings “infants” into the show. Does he “know infants” then? A lot of them? Hangs around them a lot, does he? And do they really “interpret the Bible”? “Pedophile and perverted” indeed.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 656PM:
Concerning my pointing out that the “nullifies” bit was his own, and not my statement, ‘Dan’ will simply clutch-the-pearls and huff that the point “is not worth response”. Not any response he could make, anyway.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 755PM:
About the only worthwhile thing to note in his first paragraph is that he got so carried away with his performance that he lost track of the grammar: the last sentence of the paragraph should read “in Him and His Son”.
Nor – come to think of it – does he seem to imagine that he is not on a level with Luther and the Reformers. That’s some mirror he has installed in his bathroom. Mirror, mirror on the wall … who’s the most “chosen” of them all? And the mirror responds … and so on.
And ‘Dan’ has a reason for his imagining, as we see in the next paragraph: Luther entertained all those “mistaken beliefs” about Mary, doncha see? ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror apparently has preserved ‘Dan’ from Luther’s mistakes about Mary.
And then – from the ridiculous to the sublime – ‘Dan’ doth allow as how he be not “in agreement with any religions”. This, as I have noted before, is a sly gambit in self-preservation (and to keep his head from exploding): ‘Dan’ has preempted the probable disapproval and discomfort that most religious congregants (or perhaps anyone else) would feel in his presence by declaring himself beyond all of them anyway. He and God are like “me and my shadow”, as the old song has it. No others need apply.
But then – from the sublime to the sublimely ridiculous – ‘Dan’ doth deliver himself (or Himself) of a low growl: “Keep on insinuating that I’m crazy”, saith he. Really, how much “insinuating” is any longer necessary?
And he concludes – yet again – with a bit any trained clinician would recognize: they said Jesus was crazy too.
Yes, they did. But Jesus was Jesus and ‘Dan’ is … just ‘Dan’.
That would be "Chosen" 'Dan', you Mockin' Fool.
What have we got in ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1128PM?
Not surprisingly, the English of the KJV is “one of [his] least favorite languages”. Perhaps the multisyllabic words and the compound-complex sentences are a bit too much for him.
The “nonsense” in my reference to Jesus speaking such English was in the type of Bible reader who simply presumes that anything with which he is comfortable and familiar must be the genuine article; thus that ‘Dan’s preference for his own ‘interpretations’ is most surely the genuine Word and Will of God.
Of course, even such readers as the one who remarked upon Jesus speaking English did not, by and large, consider themselves the oh-so-speshull “chosen” of God … that bit is reserved for ‘Dan’ and similarly afflicted (or manipulative) types.
I have absolutely no problem understanding the KJV, because I had several other versions to cross-reference, to help with some of the strange word usage. I don't recommend it for those who know American english and it's idioms, for the fact of all the differences. It's best for people interested in learning about the Lord, to read something easy for them to understand. You're the perfect example of an nerdy idiot, who thinks his "multisyllabic words and compound-complex sentences" make him smarter than others, when all you actually display is utter ignorance, when it comes to common sense and interpreting simple sentence structure, Biblical and otherwise. Complex sequences of lies seem to flow from your forked tongue, like water off a ducks back.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1138PM:
But wait! ‘Dan’ is now going to address one and all “in all seriousness”. What might this entail?
Why … it’s just another run at one of his favorite (and few available) gambits: the old I’m Not/You Are bit. It’s not ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – who refuses to accept “challenges” to his material and so on. Noooo, it’s me. Readers may judge as they will.
And apparently I am working to “destroy, with any lies at [my] disposal, [‘Dan’s] mental and spiritual attributes”. How in any conceivable way can I or any commenter “destroy” another commenter’s “mental and spiritual attributes”?
What ‘Dan’ is really going on about here is something else: he doesn’t like the façade of his own “mental and spiritual attributes” exposed for the fake front it is, masking his actual “mental and spiritual attributes” – which I have also pointed out from his very own material.
He doesn’t like that at all one bit.
You are the most disingenuous, hypocritical, deceiving, manipulative, slandering, lying snakes I have ever run across in my life. You've made snide comments about my mental state, have mocked God, His Word, His Holy Spirit, His prophetic word and just about every quote I've taken from the Bible. And then questioning like a brainless fool, How can anyone 'destroy' another's "mental and spiritual attributes?" You're too dumb to know what your doing? I didn't even mention your false accusations, in regards to my moral character.
I'd like to bring every catholic's attention to publiar creep's post, Feb. 22 @ 3:12am. This is way past just being cute or childish. It is known fact that your cult is full of idol-worshipping, pedophile perverts and liars, and those are only the ones who have been exposed so far. They have been so deceiving in coming clean to their parishioners and the public, and liars like publyin' and all your hierarchy are responsible for this deception. And yet the creep has the audacity to insinuate that I'm "Pedophile and perverted", because I compared his brilliance in quoting Scripture to that of an infant. How dare you nauseatingly blame Jim, because he mistakingly called his child molestation by a Marianist teacher, "rape". You are the most wicked, evil, hypocritical, lying snake I've ever conversed with. Catholics must be proud to have fellow parishoners like yourself. Now I am definitely not surprised, running into all the lying clergy and blatant hypocrites of your disgusting cult. "God'll getcha whether you listen to 'Dan' or not." He's fine tuning His sights on all you sickos and looking forward to destroying your deceiving selves. The Lake of Fire is waiting outside of your false temples and Babylon Rome. Interested in watching you swim for your life, mocking creep. servant.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1138PM:
We are then informed that he “gave up” “changing” me … good, then, I say, because perhaps he (or He) can focus such “mental and spiritual” capacities as he (or He) does have on examining himself (or Himself) and his (or His) material.
But if ‘Dan’ did that his head would explode so I won’t be postponing my next meal while that highly improbable project is undertaken and successfully completed.
And “the chosen” then iinforms us that he (or He) doth “refuse to allow” me to “convince catholics” that ‘Dan’s “preaching Bible truths” is “wrong”, “solely based on the lies [I’ve] labeled [him] with”.
‘Dan’ clearly imagines himself (or Himself) to possess such authority as to “refuse to allow” such an outcome, although the outcome is based solidly not on “lies” but rather on ‘Dan’s own material and statements.
But ‘Dan’s game has preemptively tried to account for that possibility: anything that punctures the cartoon (about the Bible and/or about ‘Dan’ himself is just “lies”. Thus the ever-expanding list of those who have told “lies” about him such that he now has (by his own count) a police and psychiatric record longer than just about every clergyman on the planet.
I must say that if the rest of your clergy lie like one's have against me, then maybe those who have "supposedly" been falsely accused, are just basically "reaping what they've sowed". I'm sorry, but after dealing with you and all the lying creeps of your cult, I fail to feel compassion for any of you lying idolators. If there is any cartoon playing, it must be the "Looney Toons" one starring the disgusting, lying pigs of your cult, you included. servant
I can and have lived with my "ever-expanding list of those who have told 'lies'," including your slander, so long as my record doesn't show "pedophilia", like "just about every clergyman on the planet." Hypocritical, perverted Liars. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1138PM:
And while we’re on the subject: while Paul and the Corinthians might have judged whether an erring member of that community was or was not repentant, based on direct encounter with that member, ‘Dan’ has built his cartoon merely on media reports – which themselves have been demonstrated to be far too unreliable to serve as the grounds for such assertions and conclusions as ‘Dan’ wishes to draw for his ‘interpretations’.
So as to just who here is “a deceiving lying creep” given to “vicious slander”, readers may judge as they will.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1138PM:
On then to his next paragraph where ‘Dan’ will puff up his faux-papal pinfeathers and address himself to all “Catholics” (the uncharacteristic capitalization being either a mere accident of the word-processing system or ‘Dan’s sly effort to pander to the readership).
I had pointed out (in my comment of the 20th at 550PM) three elements, and ‘Dan’ takes them up in order.
The first one is that “the Bible is the ultimate source of all authority”.
But the profound theological and ecclesial problem here is that the Reformation was thus forced to erect as “ultimate authority” a highly complex and difficult piece of literary and conceptual compilation. Wading into Scriptural interpretation with nothing but one’s preferred version of the Bible (itself no small problem) and one’s pre-conceived presumptions and personal excitations … is hardly going to be sufficient basis for going straight for all-encompassing interpretations of any but the most general and anodyne nature.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1138PM:
My second point was that the Reformers then also had to presume and declare that “the Bible is clear and simple to interpret in its explanations and instructions”.
But that’s not true, as we have seen even so modestly demonstrated in regard to the difference in Paul’s stance between the First and Second Letters to the Corinthians.
What, for further example, can be done with the Lucan ‘infancy narratives’, when we know that Augustus never ordered a general census of the Empire, but that the local governor Quirinius ordered a census of Judea (in what Christian dating would call the year 7 A.D.); and further that it would be grossly improbable – and to the highly practical and efficient Romans, grossly impractical and inefficient and even impossible – to require that all taxable heads of household not only had to register, but even had to take their families and clans and make a trek back to his birthplace to register … ? The Roman administrative requirement could have been far more efficiently and practically achieved by ordering each head-of-household to register in his present place of residence, and thereby the Romans could get on with their taxing of Judeans.
And what did your ignorant little walk back in history, have anything to do with anything we are discussing. I'll agree with you, "The Bible is no place for amateurs." You may want to follow your own advice, although it's obvious you have no clue what your talking about. LOL
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1138PM:
The Bible is no place for amateurs, when you get right down to it. Which is perhaps why the pre-Reformation Church was so wary of turning just-anybody loose with it.
And ‘Dan’ here merely repeats the Reformation’s necessary second point, needed to somehow make that “ultimate source of authority” reliable and accessible: just-anybody can indeed wade into the Bible interpretation gig, because “God’s spiritual guidance and help” will render the Bible “easily understood”.
(‘Dan’s specific phrasing here, referring to “using the beautiful brain God gave you”, is – surely – an even more vivid and ironical demonstration of the profound problems with the Reformation approach.)
What could be more vivid or ironic, than the fact that the opposite is true for you and your fellow creeps. Not "using the beautiful brain God gave you", but delving into the dark recesses of the mind, nourishing your evil ways and wickedness with an onslaught of lies, greediness and sexual, disgusting lusts and perversions. Hypocrites! servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1138PM:
My third point was that “any individual has the right (and therefore, presumptively, the capacity) to read the thing for itself and decide what “God” is saying or telling him/her”.
Here, ‘Dan’ slyly doth “disagree”. And why? Because he (or He) does not in any way at all whatsoever “decide for” himself (or Himself) “what God is saying”.
Rather – as usual – ‘Dan’ doth “trust in the Lord”, although that doesn’t at all rule out that ‘Dan’ has indeed most surely decided for himself (or Himself) what any pericope means.
But there is absolutely no way of determining if what ‘Dan’ gets from the Faxes and the séances in the bathroom mirror is i) actually God speaking or ii) just ‘Dan’ telling himself that the voices he hears in his head are not from God and but rather are just ‘Dan’s own fevered predilections.
He’s “chosen” – doncha see? – so whatever he says is pretty much what God says. Easy-peezy.
Anyone who would refer to God's Bible and Word, stating, "any individual has the right to READ THE THING FOR ITSELF and decide what "God" is saying…", coupled with his repetitive mocking of God and His Word, couldn't consider himself to be any kind of Christian. Mr. Amateur, you should definitely stay away from any meaningful discussion of the Word. That would be PERIOD. servant of God's precious Word
And as we've come to expect, more mocking of God and His Holy Spirit. Boy, you must be really proud of your reepetitive ignorance.