Soon to be inmate: Disgraced Philadelphia D.A. Seth Williams
Inasmuch as Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams has been engaged in a years-long, Moby Dick-like obsession to throw innocent Catholic priests in prison, there was a sense of poetic justice when federal prosecutors indicted Williams last week on numerous charges of using his influence in exchange for opulent gifts, trips, and cash.
[**Click to read the federal indictment against Philly DA Seth Williams (pdf)**]
According to the indictment, Williams "solicited, accepted, and agreed to accept" gifts including round-trip trips to the Dominican Republic, Las Vegas, California, and Florida; Luis Vuitton clothing; a Jaguar XK8 convertible; thousands in cash, and more. And if this were not enough, Williams also stole money from his own adoptive mother.
Back in 2011, Williams orchestrated a grand jury to issue a report which made international headlines with its claims that numerous priests from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia committed sex abuse. Years later, however, we now know that Williams' grand jury report was completely bogus, and it destroyed the lives of numerous innocent men.
Msgr. William Lynn was imprisoned on the claims that he somehow "endangered the welfare of a child" whom he not only did not even know. His wrongful conviction has been overturned by appellate courts multiple times, and a judge finally ruled last Friday that Lynn was entitled to a new trial after Williams' office admittedly withheld evidence that could have exonerated Lynn.
Must-read at BigTrial.net:
Journalist Ralph Cipriano
In other words, the fix was in from the start. (By the way, this was something we observed six years ago – even before a jury was seated.)
The injustice that these men suffered was so outrageous that Cipriano's story even made the cover of Newsweek magazine.
And then there was Rev. James Brennan, who was accused of abuse from 20 years ago by Mark Bukowski, a serial criminal with a lengthy rap sheet which includes fraud and making up stories to the police. Brennan would be a free man today except for one boob on the jury in his trial who refused to acquit him, and the jury deadlocked 11-1. Last October, rather than risk facing a wrong conviction like his peers and face possible decades in jail for a crime he didn't commit, Brennan pleaded guilty to a measly second degree misdemeanor of simple assault.
In effect, Brennan's plea was an admission by Williams that Brennan was wholly innocent.
Now, as Cipiano reports, Williams himself is flat broke and needs a lawyer.
How fitting.
————————
[We would like to recommend to readers a new article by Ryan A. MacDonald over at TheseStoneWalls.com, "How SNAP Brought McCarthyism to American Catholics." Check it out.]
Don't know who owns the Philadelphia Enquirer, but will offer them some advice. Remove the existing editor and offer the job to Ralph Cipriano. Why? Well because surveys have shown that the majority of voters no longer trust the media. President Donald Trump understood this… and worked it to his advantage. So logically public trust has to be re-esablished. A good start would be to appoint an editor who has fought hard for truth and justice. Cynics will say that this is simply old- fashioned. Really?….then why does Hollywood still use truth and justice as a repeated themes in movies? My impression is that people still want truth and justice in public life.
Wow, Malcolm. You're right. We all want "truth and justice". You believe that you and your cult deserves it, but don't believe anyone else does. Hows about you all, practice what you preach.
LMFAO!
Oh yeah! All the catholic priests are absolutely innocent of any crimes, because they work out a plea bargain. I am absolutely innocent of every crime and accusation of over one hundred lying catholics, including those who have added their stupidity in this forum, and I am judged now in the court of ignorant catholic opinions, false assessments and insinuations, guilty in all aspects. This is why all of you rightfully deserve the description, lying, hypocrite catholic creeps. I'm sorry I ever came across the BS publyin' was shooting at posters, and decided to join in and defend his nonsense and stupidity, aimed at others. Your cult is a bunch of sick, lying douchebags. Yes, Jimmy Mini-pee, that definitely includes you. servant
Gee, what pissed you off, or are you naturally an angry anti-Catholic/
Mole!
You have a lot of angry issues. You are only talking throuhg emotions not using any reason.
What is behind that uncontrollable hate of yours? The point of this article is that there are many priests accused of being guilty that are innocent. That is true of priest and many others incarcerated. What is so hard to believe? Think of this: people like you judge them with their very biased mind and heart and if given the opportunity you and people like you would put people in jail out of hate not out of justice.
May the Lord heal you!
Gee a bribe taking Philly DA," everything but the dogs yappin' at her heels" (Thelma Ritter in all about Eve).your church's plots are so old they reek. All the well placed bombs go boom.
If I blow up a train and enable a child to be endangered even if I don't know them I'm still responsible.
Hey Catholic church and Tom Doyle can't you just walk away or do you need this well placed rocket to go off and "prove" your perpetrating priests were lied about. This is the set up I've talked about for years.
How oh how will the usual suspects deal with the developments in Philly?
On the 27th at 950PM ‘Dan’ will quickly try to invent a position that nobody here holds, i.e. that “all the catholic priests are absolutely innocent of any crimes”. But what else can he do?
All Stampede cases have to be examined to filter out the deranging elements of the Stampede. Which is precisely what both the Stampede and ‘Dan’-verse cartoons are designed to prevent.
And – if he does say so himself – it is really ‘Dan’ who is “absolutely innocent of every crime” he’s been accused of. Readers may consider the plausibility and credibility of that assertion.
And we notice that the number of accuser-Catholics has now been reduced from “hundreds” to “over one hundred”. The football of ‘Dan’s “truth” doth bounce indeed.
Absolutely no change in the facts from anything previous. Hundreds have called the police or threatened to, based only on my asking them to read the Bible to find the truth and letting them know they wouldn't find any truth in their false churches. I walked away from several hundreds of lying accusers, but stood there to talk to the cops 135 times. After awhile, I learned that catholics want to add their lies to ever story, so I found it best to walk away, rather than put up with the ignorance that you fools dish out. So once again, being falsely accused for what is the truth. How about you stop being such a lame jackass and find someone who is truly guilty to harrass. No, you catholics prefer to blame innocent people. Bunch of gutless, bullying, lying creeps. You wear the title well. servant of Truth
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 950PM:
But since – we have his word for it – ‘Dan’ is thus “absolutely innocent” then – but of course – his queasily repellent and consistent vitriol and whackery against Catholics and questioners is “rightfully deserved[d]”. Thus – conveniently – ‘Dan’ will keep right on doing what he can’t stop himself from doing in the first place.
That’s what nice, tight FDS will get you.
And the whole thing trails off in a typical riff.
On then to JR’s of the 28th at 107PM:
Less coherently than ‘Dan’, JR will try to evade it all by coming up with a not-quite-comprehensible riff on “a bribe-taking Philly DA” and something about Thelma Ritter.
And those two bits are somehow supposed to lead clearly to his next, epithetical bit – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – to the effect that “your church’s plots are so old they reek”. Actually, that would apply more clearly to JR’s pile of 3x5s. And as the Stampede’s chicanery now becomes more obvious, then that application will become ever more clear.
Then back to incoherence with the bit about blowing up a train.
And that is followed by even more incoherence as JR then wobbles on to the Church and Tom Doyle and something about “can’t you just walk away” and somehow a “well-placed rocket”.
The bottom line being – somehow – that JR has been talking about “this … set up” for “years”. Which is as cartoonishly nonsensical as the cartoons he has “talked about for years”.
Excuse me low life, did I ask for your opinion? Why don't you mind your own business? You're not a victim, not a priest. What are you? It can't be human.
For those who don't know, I've been saying for years that if bad behaviour by SNAP and or the court system arises in this scandal. you can bet it was created to pop up like a cardboard dummy in a basic training exercise.A target meant to be shot at. Something to be easily shot down when needed. Placed to fail by the church itself. What better way to pretend victims are all liars by having major cases fall apart? Cases made major by who. When 99% of perps have never been brought to punishment in this sex abuse scandal. Why only in Philly? Only in one town in all America was a weak case pushed forward (if it is weak) and only one high up goes to prison. , if these cases were such a rare occurrence why in Philly? Why the only major sentence in one town. Does that seem normal to you?
Slightly taking the gloss off the good news, about the federal indictment of Seth Williams, is this…the 23 charges described in his indictment don't include the blatant corruption in prosecuting certain cases. However… maybe the federal prosecutor is a shrewd judge of public opinion. Jusk ask yourself this… what is more likely to convince people of Seth's total lack of integrity…..highlighting his stealing of $20,000 from his own adoptive mother?. Or wrongfully sending Catholic priests to prison? Human nature being what it is,…. most people put a mother's welfare before the civil rights of Catholic priests. Sadly, but realistically, there is a lot of bigotry out there.
And you don't think your cult is plagued with bigots, not only showing intolerance towards those who hold different opinions, but more than willing to add lies to cause them undeserved trouble. Sick, dishonest and cowardly bigotry.
Furthermore, the pedophiles and perverts of your cult should be locked up forever, denied any civil rights, castrated and imprisoned so as not to harm another child. True justice for creeps.
And now for more of the same.
On the 28th at 753PM ‘Dan’ will now claim that there has been “absolutely no change” in his story just because we went from “hundreds” to “over one hundred”. Memo: whenever ‘Dan’ gets going with “absolutely” or “truth”, be ready for something completely different.
And we are again confronted with the scenario that so many “have called the police or threatened to” just because – waitttt forrrr ittttttttttttt! - poor little ‘Dan’ had merely been “asking them to read the Bible”. Either that’s one whacky citizenry or ‘Dan’ is not telling the truth. Readers may weigh the possibilities and probabilities as they may.
And – from the ridiculous to the sublime – for that added oomph of seeming factuality, ‘Dan’ doth now inform us that he “stood there to talk to the cops 135 times”. Readers may … and so on.
And the whole show ends with a plaintive bleat that we Catholics “prefer to blame innocent people”. And so on from there.
This is what I've been telling you all along. The catholic church is "one whacky citizenry", and it is systemic. In Romans, chapter 1, this is precisely how God explains those who turn to idolatry. I'll quote from the NAB, so you will have no excuses. Romans 1 20-26
"As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts, for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the TRUTH of God for a LIE and revered and worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore God handed them over to degrading passions ….."
And there you have it – catholic cult (def.) – a) Idolatry, leading to Queen of Heaven worship, turning into every kind of disgusting lusts, leading to all sorts of lies to cover for their terrible sins against innocence, and before long spreading lies about everything and everyone who questions their apostate cult. b) "one whacky citizenry"
* Will be waiting for fools to make their excuses, twisting the Word, and evolving into lying snakes.
This is "factuality" and "truth", and there is no reason for me to have to lie to you or anyone else. Remember, I'm not catholic, and you creeps make up enough lies and insinuations for all of society. servant of the One True God, not yours
On then to JR’s of the 28th at 706PM:
He opens with a weak stab at juvenile sass: he hadn’t asked me for my opinion. So what? He put up a comment on an open site. “Mind your own business” … ? Is he serious? But it’s all he’s got, and he works in an epithetical, as if it could help him.
And so on to the second paragraph, where he now says that he has been “saying for years that if bad behavior by SNAP or the court system arises in this scandal” … then “it was created to pop up”.
Created by whom? Why by the Church, doncha know? So – let’s try to get this straight – the Church arranged for this Williams to be elected DA and then got him to do all the things he’s now indicted for (none of which have any bearing on the Lynn case) and then got the feds to do the indicting.
And this was done – we are to further accept – by the Church “to pretend victims are all liars by having major cases fall apart”.
Except the case didn’t fall apart.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 706PM:
And then the riff really starts to wobble off the rails:
Who made the cases “major”? Well, is he going to put forward his answer or is he just going to leave it as an insinuation so as to spare himself the embarrassment of spelling his whackery out?
Then an assertion to the effect that almost all of “perps have never brought to punishment in this sex abuse scandal”. And JR just ‘knows’ that this assertion is true … how? Perhaps, like ‘Dan’, he just knows and to question the assertion is to mock … well, who would one be mocking since unlike ‘Dan’ JR doesn’t take dictation from God?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 706PM:
And then the riff leaves the rails completely: “Why only in Philly?” And again, no answer that would outline his ‘theory’, just an insinuation. And who’s to say that the only case will have been in Philly? There may be a number of cases that will come to light, now that the Stampede’s power to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes seems to be waning noticeably.
Toppling over the cliff, the riff now really gets rolling: Who here has ever said or opined that these bad cases were “such a rare occurrence”? My position has always been that they are not rare at all and simply remain to be uncovered by better investigative reporting.
And he apparently doesn’t really think that the Doe-Gallagher case was “weak”.
Does JR seem normal to you?
On March 27, 2017 at 9:50 pm Dan claims he is “sorry he ever came across the BS publyin' was shooting at posters, and decided to join in and defend his nonsense and stupidity, aimed at others”. Dan can just walk away if he is so sorry he has confronted Publion but that’s is not in Dan’s DNA. If he had that capacity his legal issues never would have developed. He ends his post with a juicy description for not only Publion and myself, but the entire Catholic cult as well. We are “all a bunch of sick, lying douchebags”. You see, if you make Dan angry then Dan feels he is justified to use derogatory words to describe you. That’s all well and fine and he can call me any name he wishes but it illustrates, once again, that Dan, when confronted, is not the nice, calm, prophesizing angel he claims to be. When Dan is under no pressure to type a response prior to clicking the post button he will toss out an expletive. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility to believe that Dan, in the thick of things, with little time to react, will spew all sorts of juicy language to describe the “lying” Catholics who confronted him.
1) Never claimed to be an angel. That claim belongs to the 'wolves in sheep's clothing' of your church, putting on an act of false humility (angels), when in reality a group of lying perverts and pedophiles. 2) My legal issues happened because of lies and fabricated insinuations, similar to those you lying creeps continually spill. Incessant lies and liars, aren't the easiest things to defend, and hopefully you'll get the opportunity to be a target of similar garbage, like I've had to defend from those of your cult. 3) You all deservedly "shall reap what you sow". So continue with the slander and insinuations, and take it like a man, if that's even possible for lying cowards.
Then on March 28, 2017 at 7:53 pm Dan claims there has been no change in the facts. His claim is that hundreds have called the police or threatened him for simply asking them to read the Bible. Over one hundred or hundreds, eh! what's the differnce, it's just a lot of people who have had to deal with Dan and the actual numbers are just semantics. But what are the facts according to Dan? The police have been called on Dan and he has spent time in jail and in a mental hospital on several occasions. He has asked people to read the Bible but when Dan is confronted about his approach he doesn't handle the confrontation very well and this little fact is what Dan ignores. He claims he just walked away from several hundred Catholics but waited to speak to the police 135 times. These are some fantastic numbers and I would love to see the record on those 135 encounters with police. His claim is that he has been falsely accused for what is the truth. What does that truth entail though? A new number of 135 encounters with police and we are to believe that Dan just “walked away”. Dan cannot just walk away, and after 135 and his inability to walk away from this website is solidification that Dan is not being so truthful on that account. Dan wants to deliver his anti-Catholic rhetoric and prefers that all sit with hands folded while listening to his beautiful prophesy. Don’t raise your hand and ask him a question though, you will be called a lame jackass by the teacher. Dan never cursed at anyone at the Church or schoolyard. Nah, not Dan. So, once again, give Dan time and he will reveal more of the truth.
So Jimmy Mini-peewee, If your math is any better than peewee's, then maybe you can solve a pretty easy subtraction. I used to stay to talk to the police, because I knew I hadn't broken any laws. When realizing that catholics will lie to cause me trouble, I no longer hung around to defend my innocence. The math – 135 calls that brought police to the scene, minus 6 times falsely accused of misdemeanors and 3 times labeled crazy on account of your cults vicious lies and once by a so-called christian cult = 125 times that the police didn't believe the lying creeps. Did you ever give a thought to how hard it is to defend yourself when the liars accusing you are priests, nuns or corrupt cops, all dressed in their garb*? So you creeps can continue with piling on your lies and insinuations, and think you're innocent and undeserving of things I say. Soooo soooorrrryyy, as publiar would say. Go cry to your Mother Mary, Queen of Heaven. If you insist on defending what I called your hero, peewee, then I guess you must be a lame jackass also. So do you also defend the crimes of the guilty, disgusting pedophiles and perverts of your cult? If you think I would treat innocent children with the same language I've used towards the liars on this site, then I would have to add to what I just called you and realize your as dumb and ignorant as your mentor. Also, beautiful prophecy is reserved for His Chosen, and not for the deaf, dumb or blind, let alone insistent liars. And I don't recall my ever asking you to listen. served by the servant
*garb – never realized the clothing of hypocrites to be a shortened version of garbage.
Jimmy Mini-peewee, In 52 years I never got in any trouble with the law. NEVER! For the past ten years the only problem I've had is mainly from liars of your cult. Is there a lying DNA gene pervasive among catholics, because it seems strange that so many possess such dishonesty. My question to you is, "Would you act so nice, calm, and angel-like, if you were slandered and lied about, the way I have by the members of your cult and the added lies, slander and insinuations by you clones?" Your mentor, publiar is by no means a saint, yet none of you catholic groupies have any problem with his mocking or rude false accusations towards others mental state (i.e. "deranged", "Faxes from beyond", etc. etc….). You are all a bunch of biased, bigoted, hypocrites, who think that idolatry, cowardice, pedophilia, sexual immorality and compulsive lying is just fine, and we'll defend you as long as you're hierarchy or a phony contributing member of our One True Cult. DESPICABLE! servant
Dan! Why are you so afraid of the Catholic Church and its Faithful Clergy? What great shame are YOU hiding? You are so involved calling other perverts…it would seem you protest too much. You have failed in incriminating others but you have done that very well to yourself and your soul. You need prayer and healing.
May the gracious Mother of Christ help you find a cure for your soul, mind, and body. Poor soul.
Oh, yes! Everyone is off the rails, except you lying, disingenuous, hypocrite creeps.
You, judging "normal"? You who support sexual abuse of children? You who deny every victim who's ever come forward. I say that because you've never supported any victim ever. Not one. You attempting to insult me with a question about my normalcy is normal here and nowhere else. Therefore you are not normal. Your self-aggrandizement is not normal. Your pomposity isn't normal. Your questions I have answered. You deny my answers. Your disrespect of my veracity is not normal. You've got the not normal down at this hell hole.
Why is everything about power with you? You have to be seen as powerful even though you have nothing to back you up. Far less than the evidence I provided that proves my case AND my church conspiracy analysis to be true.
But you? You are a mear apologist for child abusers. And that's all you are.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1110AM:
Given the choice between insisting that a) the entire citizenry in his locale is “whacky” or that b) ‘Dan’ is notably unwell, ‘Dan’ will … i) call the entire citizenry in his locale “whacky” and then ii) expect to be considered extraordinarily well on the basis of that assertion.
But – in a nice rhetorical touch – ‘Dan’ slyly includes the scientific-sounding “systemic” to burnish his whacky claim. The only thing “systemic” here is ‘Dan’s FDS.
OK! Time to update your reading comprehension skills. Believe I said, "The catholic church is 'one whacky citizenry'." Pertaining to the compulsive liars of your cult being whackjobs, not the entire citizenry. If you have trouble understanding simple english, I'm sure your cult has a school where they can charge a ridiculous tuition for you to learn our language.
Followed up with a pericope, for the pair-of-dopes to dispute. And true to form he comes through with more mocking of the word of God (next post, "pericope at the bottom of this cereal box"). Did you find it on the bottom of your Fruit Loops this morning, little peewee?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29that 1110AM:
But wait. There’s more.
We also get a free pericope at the bottom of this cereal box. Once again and as always, before you consider the pericope you have to accept ‘Dan’s presumptions that a) Paul is demonstrably referring to the Church and only the Church and that b) ‘Dan’ just absolutely knows that what his stuff is saying is the very soul of accuracy.
And given the now-hugely demonstrated probability that ‘Dan’ is not at all well, then Paul might well be describing not an institution that barely existed in that era, but rather Paul might be describing psychologically debauched individuals such as – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘Dan’ (whose ‘issues’ may be vivid and florid but have been around in our species for a long long time).
Oh yeah! And of course, I'm the one making "images of mortal man", like your creepy statues of popes and Mary "Queen of Heaven", and bowing down and kissing their feet, until half of their foot is gone. NO! This quote definitely fits your cult, including describing your ignorance with, "claiming to be wise, they became fools". Again, Paul is prophesying of a cult of idol-worshippers, that will become sick perverts and pedophiles, because they wouldn't worship God, but preferred worshipping false gods and goddesses. If you can't understand the correlation then you must be the "psychologically debauched individual" you're referring to. In fact your cult is plagued with lying, "psychologically debauched individuals", of which you should be proud to be in the lead of your hierarchy in that trait.
Wake up catholics and run from this false apostate cult. These liars will take you down with them, and will not be happy until they deceive millions or possibly billions, ever since their existence!
servant of the only God and Father - Matthew 23:9 Look it up and find the truth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29that 1110AM:
Because in order to sustain ‘Dan’s FDS ‘Dan’ has to immerse himself in deceit and manipulation. His “impurity” and “lusts” might be of a more psychological nature rather than overtly sexual … or the whole FDS might be precisely the consequence of ‘Dan’ trying to evade some deeper urges. Only his psychiatrist would know for sure, but psychiatry – at least when funded by scarce public resources – knows an FDS when it encounters one, and chooses to let ‘Dan’ go on – at least until ‘Dan’ does something that will allow more extended and sustained access to intervention.
Yes, and your cult prefers lies, "deceit and manipulation", in order to indulge in all sorts of "impurity" and "lusts" with innumerable adolescents, but most preferably, little boys. Sick creeps! They could probably save alot of money by turning their worthless churches into insane asylums, for pedophiles and perverts. They wouldn't have to travel anywhere to receive help, and a small investment in barred windows and they wouldn't be able to harm another child or family. servant of the One Pure God and Father
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29that 1110AM:
Thus ‘Dan’s effort to reach a victory-lap conclusion (“And there you have it”) fails, nor is it redeemed by the further efforts at mimicking competent thought and argument by tossing up a dictionary definition, which definition is itself of one of the most dubious of ‘Dan’s many dubious cartoon bits, i.e. that Catholic are idolaters because they ‘worship Mary as a divinity’ and so on.
And – with a well-grounded apprehension – he finishes it all by trying to preemptively neutralize any assessment that might demonstrate the whackness of his stuff.
You're under the impression that your garbage and ignorance is not a cartoon mimicking competent thought and argument? Told you this before, that lies, slander and insinuations are not examples of competence or argument, unless being evaluated by the deceiving and deceptive creeps of your cult. You are an absolute joke, publiar. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1144AM where he merely insists – yet again – this all his stuff is “factuality” and “truth”.
And as to his pious bleat that “there is no reason for [him] to lie”, I say again: there is every profound reason for him to lie, because if he didn’t then his FDS would collapse, ‘Dan’ would have to face his factual and real personal issues, and his head would probably explode. And he’d be out of a gig.
The scope of 'Dan's issues is wasting time responding to you lying catholic creeps. Wow! What a wonderful gig I got going. Oh! And my head hasn't come close to exploding yet, though listening to your ignorance and stupidity, could possibly push that along. Again, you're such a joke, publyin'. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 117PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to create a position nobody here has taken, in order to try to evade the actual point and create a more convenient explanation for himself: nobody here has said that “everyone is off the rails” (well, except ‘Dan’ to the extent that he claims all the citizenry in his locale are whacko).
What has been proposed is the extremely high probability that ‘Dan’ and ‘Dan’ alone is rather notably and demonstrably unwell.
But he can’t deal with that because his head would explode.
Last time I checked my head was still there. Duh! What part of the body would that be located? Is it anywhere near the brains you sit on?
Moving on then to something completely similar, we have JR’s of the 29th at 712PM:
Here JR too will try to create a more convenient position, the better to evade the frakkery of his own stuff: he asserts that I “support the sexual abuse of children”. He proffers, of course, no accurate quotation from my material for that bit, but how could he since no such quotation from my material exists because I do not take and never have taken that position?
Ah, but JR has come up with a solution for that problem, although not one he wants to spell-out (or see it spelled-out here). I’ll spell it out: This assertion of his is merely his inference, based on the fact that I’ve “never supported any victim ever”.
We’ve seen this before, and I’ve answered it before: I have never seen any demonstrably credible ‘victim’ on this site and surely JR’s own misadventures with veracity can’t be expected to support the credibility of his victim-hood. And I have explained at great length the problems that exist a) in such ‘victim’ stories as have been proffered here and b) in the general narrative template of such ‘victim’ stories.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 712PM:
And – marvelously – JR now tries to make himself a ‘victim’ yet again: he apparently didn’t notice or didn’t want to notice that my question as to JR’s being “normal” was simply a repetition of his own point as he tried to throw it. He doesn’t like when that happens.
But – in a charming demonstration of the juvenile I’m Not/You Are gambit – JR will then try to say that since I have used the term then “therefore you are not normal”. Such logic.
And that leads to riff that includes “pomposity” and the marvelously pitch-perfect bit to the effect that I don’t “respect [his] veracity” and that’s “not normal”.
And as I have pointed out many times here, JR’s “answers” simply raise more questions than they answer. It would not be normal to simply accept them as they are proffered.
Scamming a million bucks, I would say, is normal … for certain types.
Is TMR a “hell hole”? Why does JR choose to keep posting on it? It may be a “hell hole” for him, but I would remind him yet again of Harry Truman’s point: “I never gave anybody hell; I told them the truth and they thought it was hell”.
On then to JR’s of the 29th at 719PM:
Here he will try to change the subject from his material to my intentions by posing the question “Why is everything about power with [me]?”.
I just ask questions that flow from the material presented.
For a ‘power-play’ you have to consider the Victim Playbook: quickly claim the high-ground of being a ‘victim’, then from that commanding height bethump anyone who questions the story (i.e. such questioners are un-Christian, sociopathic, insensitive, un-Jesus-like, and so forth).
And for a real power-play, threaten them with violent death by shotgun.
As for the further claim that JR’s “evidence … proves [his cartoon] case and [his] church conspiracy analysis” … readers may judge as they will. That “analysis” is a nice touch, mimicking competent and objective and logical and scientific praxis and applying it to describe the cartoon stuff JR has put up.
And the concluding epithet fails at the end as it did at the beginning.
I'd say you pretty much covered it, publiar. Catholic cult questioners, as witnessed on this site, are definitely "un-Christian, sociopathic, insensitive, un-Jesus-like", and could I add, idolators, deceivers, hypocrites, liars, "and so forth". Think that just about covers most of it. Oops! Forgot disingenuous creeps! servant
On the 30th at 1247AM ‘Dan’ now takes the opportunity to proffer more stuff, which no doubt is supposed to demonstrate that he’s the victim in all this, with all the lies and slander and so on.
So let’s see what we’ve got here: Dan used to “stay to talk to the police” (his actions prompted 135 “calls” to 911 and possibly involved 135 separate incidents)/ because he just knew he “hadn’t broken any laws” / but then he stopped doing that when it appeared that “catholics will lie to cause [him] trouble (alternative: he stopped hanging around for the police when it became clear he had broken laws and would be arrested).
Out of this, which resulted in a mere 6 arrests and 5150s, there were thus 125 times that the police did not take action (the problem here isn’t ‘Dan’s math; it’s his credibility with the 135 and 125 bits) .
Terribly impudent for a compulsive liar, deceiver, manipulator and slanderer, to question someone who's unafraid of being truthful, of having problems with their credibility. An obvious ploy in order to keep the brainwashed from questioning his credibility. We are definitely witnessing an obviously disingenuous hypocrite, willing to accuse an opponent of the outlandish, in order to pursue his own warped agenda. Truly a liar, proud of his lies.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1247AM:
Then another stab at trying to paint himself not only as a victim but as justified in all his vitriolic ranting: who could possibly maintain one’s prophetic composure – doncha see? – when made the subject of so many complaints that – but of course – were lies, all lies … ?
And it is apparently hard to defend oneself from religious personnel dressed in religious garb.
And the rest of the comment trails off with more of the usual rant stuff, topped off by the genuinely silly effort at word-play between “garb” and “garbage”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 158PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will spin more story and readers may consider the credibility as they will.
For his first 52 years ‘Dan’ never had “trouble with the law” but in the past ten years it’s just that he’s had this “problem” with “liars of your cult” (he cawnt’ think why, and, indeed, finds it all so very “strange”).
Then he tries yet again to run the bit that he’s just tried to run in his prior comment; how could he possibly “act so nice, calm, and angel-like” in the face of such bethumping? ‘Dan’ is a ranter with an FDS; there is no way he is ever going to “act so nice, calm, and angel-like” unless he’s medicated; and if this was indeed a sudden onset 10 years ago then “genes” would have to yield explanatory precedence to something significant in the psychiatric line.
He finds my thoughts on his mental state to be “rude” and – but of course – “false” and – but of course – “mocking”. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.
‘Dan’ is a “servant” of nothing but his own FDS. And if God were to come down from heaven and tell ‘Dan’ so then ‘Dan’ would call God a liar. ‘Dan’ would have to, otherwise he’d have to face his serious issues and his head would explode.
Fairly obvious, that you and the other lying members of your cult, think you can twist the Lord's Word, interpret the meaning to suit your wicked lusts, and slander His chosen without consequence. Boy are you deceivers in for one rude awakening. servant
The most recent crop is ‘Dan’ trying to put up some zippy ‘comebacks’. But even those reveal him.
On the 30th at 1025PM ‘Dan’ apparently thinks he’s evaded the problem by insisting that it wasn’t all the citizens in his locale who were whacky. Noooooo … it’s just that “The catholic church is ‘one whacky citizenry’” – and that – doncha see? – makes him OK. It’s not “the entire citizenry”; it’s just the entire Catholic church. The difference appears quite clear to his mind; the consequences of that difference clearly not so much.
The other possibility – we recall – was that ‘Dan’ is a chronically non-veracious case, necessitated by his abyssal indenture to his FDS.
And were his reading comprehension not deranged by his indenture to his FDS, he would realize that grammatically “this cereal box” referred to his story bits and not to the pericope. But then again, if you mock ‘Dan’s own stuff, then you mock God … that’s where a nice, tight FDS will take you.
Time to work a bit more on those reading comp skills. I clearly stated that the "compulsive liars of your cult [are] whackjobs, not the entire citizenry". If you believe it's more systemic than that, I'm not surprised, seeing how many I've run into. You think you might require surgery, to remove that foot from your mouth.
Catch you later. Too beautiful a day to ruin reading your nonsense and ignorance.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1055PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will stoutly insist that statues equate to idolatry (and thus the effluvia of his FDS are right and very clever). And does the statue of Lincoln in the Memorial in Washington equate to an idolatry of that President? Do the many statues of Civil War veterans in the town squares of so many towns and villages (in the older parts of the country, anyway) indicate an idolatrous worship of those who fought in the Civil War? Does the bronzed Bull of Wall Street equate to an idolatrous bull-worship repeating the animistic pagan religions of yore?
‘Dan’s FDS has – of necessity – drunk deeply from the fundie fever-swamp. He left ‘Kool-Aid’ behind long ago.
And if “you can’t understand” the clear logic of ‘Dan’s whackery, why … “then you must be the ‘psychologically debauched individual”. If you don’t want a tasty breakfast of the stuff in ‘Dan’s cereal box, doused liberally with fetid and frothy fundie swamp-water … then it’s clear to ‘Dan’ that you must be crazy. It’s so very very clear to him. He cawn’t imagine why the world doesn’t see that. And instead calls the police.
Statues of Lincoln and Civil War veterans, would definitely qualify as those of idolatry, if citizens bowed down and worshipped them, rubbing and kissing the feet until the toes were completely missing, as your idolators do. As far as the bronze Bull of Wall Street goes, I bet you catholics are jealous, that you didn't come up with such a symbol of your greediness. It would compliment the dogs and pig statues in Vatican City. LYING PAGAN IDOLATORS. I left the Kool-Aid behind, and you creeps drank the whole cup.
"Thou shalt NOT make unto thee ANY graven image, or ANY likeness of ANYTHING that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." KJB
"You MUST NOT make for yourself an IDOL of any kind or image of ANYTHING in the heavens or on the earth orin the sea." Exodus 20:4
"You shall NOT make for yourself an IDOL or a LIKENESS of ANYTHING in the heavens above or on earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;" Exodus 20:4 NAB
No comprende ingles? publyin'? Same question for your next 3:48pm post.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1055PM:
The concluding pericope offers a nicely revelatory example of ‘Dan’s ignorant and fundie-like abuse of Scripture.
The term ‘father’ had, in Matthew’s time, recently come into Jewish usage. The rabbi (tr: ‘my great one’) Saul ben Batnith – who lived about 60-80AD – was the first Jewish sage to be called “Abba” (tr: ‘father’). Matthew’s comment about not calling anyone ‘father’ was part of that writer’s effort to distinguish nascent Christianity from Judaism.
In verse 34 of that 23rd chapter Matthew offers his own preferred alternatives: “prophets and wise-men and scribes”. Although for one reason or another, those titles-of-address never caught on.
Was any of this not in one of ‘Dan’s secret Faxes?
"And call NO man your father upon the EARTH: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 KJV Are your priests or your holy father not on earth? Are they aliens? Where did you learn or find all these ignorant arguments, thinking you've found the answer that disputes what the Word plainly states? Is this philosophy, because if it is, it stinks horribly. All it proves is something evil has invaded your empty mind, and found it's home, multiplying into nothing but long-winded nonsense and stupidity.
And he volunteers even more ignorance with claims that Matthew, spiritually inspired, "offers his own preferred alternatives: 'prophets and wise-men and scribes'." He falsely claims this, "Although for one reason or another, titles-of-address never caught on". Maybe according to your own catholic interpretations, considering you wouldn't find any "prophets and wise-men" among the liars of your hierarchy.
Publiar conveniently passes over the previous verse 33, describing what I've rightfully called him. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" Then, misinterpreting what Matthew was expressing, verse 34 states that God will send "prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and others you will flog in your synagogues and persecute in town after town." I've been beaten by catholic lying thugs and persecuted from town to town. Obviously, I have yet to be killed, only because I was able to outrun the cowardly thugs that beat me. You deny I'm a prophet (teacher), sent by the Lord, but should you continue in your unrepentance and vicious lies, you will suffer from all the Bible quotes and prophetic messages I've sent you. You can bank on that. If only your ignorant, lying accusations as to my FDS were true, you may stand some chance. From the stupidity and nonsense I've witnessed, I'd say your chances of waking up are somewhere between slim and none. servant, totally protected from your lies
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1112PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to bolster his argument with a point that precisely has not been demonstrated: the “innumerable” that he uses here actually means that X cannot be ‘numbered’ … but whether that inability to be enumerated lies on the ‘infinite’ end of the scale or closer to zero remains to be established.
Further, his accusation is undermined by his own term here because – as I have always pointed out here – we actually haven’t determined the ‘numbers’, and given the dust raised deliberately by the Stampede and Victimist agitprop it is possible that we may now never be able to get a good fix on whatever number that may be.
And this is precisely the predictable result of the Stampede’s effort to go the tortie route: avoid court trials and testing of the accusations and just go for the cash settlement without a trial.
But ‘Dan’ can’t get “pedophiles and perverts” out of his head. Perhaps because of the rhetorical value; perhaps because of … something else.
Oh! Yeah! Take it from the mouth of the deceiver, "innumerable" could possibly mean "closer to zero". Do you think people are honestly that brainwashed, when so many catholic perverts and pedophiles have been exposed, and several even admitted to their crimes against children. Despite all the secret payoffs and settlements, totally in your cults favor, still many have come to light. The church can always come clean and open all files to the public. Don't tell us they don't exist, although they've probably done everything to destroy much of the proof. Your excuses and arguments are progressively getting weaker and weaker. Don't even try to suggest the title of "pedophiles and perverts", so perfectly fitting in describing your apostate cult, could somehow be put on me. Your one lyin', disingenuous, hypocrite creep, but I guess you're well aware of that by now. servant of God
P.S. Have we conveniently over-looked my offer to discuss "Don Mercedes", creep.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1120PM:
Here he simply tries the old I’m Not/You Are bit, trying to spin it that it is my material and not his that is “mimicking competent thought and argument”. Readers may judge as they will.
And while ‘Dan’ has indeed on many occasions merely asserted that all of the charges against him were “lies, slander and insinuations” … yet he has not only never established that claim (so vital to the integrity and veracity and coherence of his programme here) but he has instead voluminously proffered material that would indicate quite the opposite.
And he tries to wrap up this steaming pile of his with a cutesy epithetical ribbon and bow.
Don't feel Iike "wasting time responding" to the rest of your ignorance and stupidity.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1128PM:
Once again, ‘Dan’ will don a Wig for this performance, this time the Wig of Exasperated Integrity and Truthiness: he simply cawn’t think why he “is wasting time responding”.
He isn’t “wasting time”. He is a) carrying on in such a way as to strengthen his own indenture to his FDS and thus keep his head from exploding and b) carrying on in such a way as to provide busy readers with a nicely vivid and convenient compendium of the stuff comprising the fundie and Stampede fever-swamps.
Very useful. For both himself and the readership.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1144PM:
I had used a quick collection of characterizations that JR has used in his assorted epithetical come-backs against those who question his material.
Here ‘Dan’ doth declare and proclaim (from that faux-papal chair he has set up in front of his bathroom mirror) that the list I compiled “pretty much covered” what is, but of course, ‘Dan’s own preferred epithetical fever-visions.
This establishes nothing but the fact that JR and ‘Dan’ are pretty much two peas from the same pod.
If they are pleased with that fact, well … who can be surprised?
And I think many readers knew that already anyway.
What have we now?
On the 1st at 643PM we see ‘Dan’ donning one of his favorite Wigs, that of He Who’s Unafraid Of Being Truthful.
Having presumed that bit, ‘Dan’ can then launch into a typical riff about how anything that doesn’t fit his preferred narrative and characterization of himself must be the problem. Because – of course – ‘Dan’ and his actions can’t possibly be the problem.
As to who is “truly a liar, proud of his lies” and – even more revealingly – “a compulsive liar”… readers may judge as they will. ‘Dan’s indenture to his FDS is the core of his compulsion.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 654PM:
I had put up a comment (the 31st at 241PM) in response to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 158PM. Here ‘Dan’ simply tosses up his stock comeback about “twist[ing] the Lord’s Word” and so on, although there was no Scriptural pericope in his original comment of the 30th at 158PM nor in my response of the 31st at 241PM.
At this point we see ‘Dan’ presuming that anything he writes is “the Lord’s Word”.
And the bit concludes with the usual threat about God’ll getcha.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1155PM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to deal with the Lincoln and Civil War statue problem by claiming that Catholics make statues and then have “bowed down and worshipped them”. This is just another bit from the fundie fever-swamp; Catholics do not worship statues of the saints or Mary; were a statue to be damaged or broken, no Catholic would imagine that therefore the saint represented by the statue would be somehow thus immediately damaged or broken. No ‘divinity’ or entity resides in the statue.
He then tries to wave-away the Bull of Wall Street by changing the subject, trying to work in something about “greediness” – which was not the point at issue.
Are there “dog and pig statues in Vatican City? Is he referring to any Catholic statues or merely to ancient Roman productions antedating the Church? Is he referring, indeed, to the ancient Roman statues of Romulus and Remus being suckled by a she-wolf? Does he even realize he difference?
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church there are two columns from a normal Bible of the 10 commandments – First column Exodus 20:2-17 Second column Deuteronomy 5:6-21 The Third Column is labeled – A Traditional Catechetical Formula – This list totally leaves out Exodus 20:4-6, ignoring the bowing, making idols of anything and the punishment that follows. Is your cult that cowardly, yet realizing they've broken that commandment, as to ignore and remove it from their teaching? They think God doesn't see their stupid little tricks and won't notice their omission?
From UCCSB – (NAB) – Exodus 20: 3) "You shall not have other gods beside me. 4) You shall not make for yourself an idol or likeness of ANYTHING in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; 5) you shall NOT BOW DOWN BEFORE THEM or serve them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their ancestors' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; 6) but showing love down to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Quit denying your bowing down and worshipping Mary. There are pictures and I've watched services of the last 5 popes, bowing down before her statue, kissing or placing their hand on her feet. The only "fundie fever-swamp" we're witnessing is the one your drowning in. And "the dog and pig statues in the Vatican", are the same ones Peter prophesied about in 2 Peter 2:22 regarding your cult and it's filthiness, "A dog returns to it's vomit," and "A pig that is washed goes back to wallow in the mud." Maybe that's the same "fundie fever-swamp" you're drowning in, Porky. servant of the Almighty
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1155PM:
On the basis of his ‘twisting’ of both historical reality and Catholic theological praxis, however, ‘Dan’ then takes the opportunity his ignorance or deceit has created for him in order to spew out a few more pericopes (from an assortment of Bible versions).
But the problem with the 20th chapter of Exodus – as ‘Dan’ tries to weaponize it here – is that the Decalogue is a warning that Israel can have only one God; but Catholic statues are not worshipped, as I pointed out, and thus no Catholic statue is an “idol”.
The problem, therefore, is not that I don’t understand English; it is that ‘Dan’ either doesn’t understand or willfully misapplies the Scriptural text to suit his own agenda.
Can you be that stupid? You've called your "Queen of Heaven" by the same name as the idol of Israel, burn incense to her and make cakes in the form of the moon, but we don't worship her and she isn't our idol. We put her on pedestals and carry her around on our shoulders, crown her in gold, but never do we worship or idolize her. Are you really that ignorant? Man, the nonsense is pouring from your lying mouth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1155PM:
And then we see ‘Dan’s abiding and manipulative slyness nicely demonstrated: ‘Dan’ tries to evade the content of my post of the 31st at 348PM – in regard to not calling anyone ‘father’ – by simply going for the idea that the same type of gambit applies there.
But the 31st/348PM content indicated that Matthew was far more plausibly trying to distinguish Christianity from Judaism and the then-current styling of Saul ben Batnith as ‘father’, which is a historical actuality.
Against that, the fundie fever-swamp approach requires the presumption that Matthew was actually talking about the Church. Such oh-so-selective and self-serving literalizing – which also requires the fantasizing presumption that Matthew was predicting the future – is a typical fundie gambit.
And so we see that ‘Dan’ is doubly deep in exercising such chicanery against the integrity of the Bible text: not only serving the general fundie purpose of trying to delegitimize Catholicism, but also serving the specific ‘Dan’-verse purpose of supporting ‘Dan’s own personal agenda, i.e. supporting his FDS.
It is impossible for me to delegitimize catholicism, any more than your cult has with it's false teachings combined with it's disgusting crimes against innocent children. Add your misinterpretations, excuses, lies, ignorance and stupidity, and I'd have to say you've done more damage than I could ever have done. servant of the One True God and Father
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1242AM:
‘Dan’ opens by merely repeating his manipulative literalism in regard to the calling-father bit. And he riffs on from there.
Then in the second paragraph, ‘Dan’ merely asserts that I “falsely claim[s]” that Matthew’s titles-of-address never caught on. That is a) precisely what I did claim and b) that fact is historically accurate (i.e. Catholics don’t refer to priests as “prophets” or “wise-men” or “scribes”).
And conceptually, children (Catholic and Protestant and otherwise) call their male parent ‘father’. That doesn’t appear to trip the fundie wire. So clearly there is more to be considered here.
The fatherhood of God is reflected in the usage that children everywhere employ.
Joseph told his brothers that God had “made me a father to Pharaoh” (Genesis 45:8). Job declared that he was “a father to the poor” (Job 29:16). Of His servant Eliakim, God said that He would make him “father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah” (Isaiah 22:20-21). As Elijah was taken up into heaven (Mary’s was not the first “assumption”) his servant Elisha called out “My father, my father!” (2 Kings 2:12). And later Elisha himself is called a father by the King of Israel (2 Kings 6:21).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1242AM:
Clearly none of these men were actual biological fathers to those who called them father.
Ditto when in the New Testament Stephen refers to “our father Abraham” (Acts 7:2) and Paul refers to “our father Isaac” (Romans 9:10).
Nor is it plausible that Jesus (in Matthew 23) is speaking literally, since He also forbids calling any man “teacher” and yet in Mathew 28:19-20 He commissions teachers (“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations … teaching them …”. And Paul even refers to himself as a teacher (1 Timothy 2:7 and 2 Timothy 1:11) and declares that “teachers” have been appointed in the Church (1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1242AM:
And then Paul refers to Timothy as his “child” (I Corinthians 4:17) – leaving no doubt as to the relationship of Paul as Timothy’s spiritual father; and Paul refers to Timothy as his “son” (1 Timothy 1:18 and 2 Timothy 2:1) and Paul similarly refers to Titus and Onesimus.
And Paul even makes a more direct reference to the spiritual fatherhood (applicable thus to priests) in 1 Corinthians 4: 14-15 when he says to that community that he “became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel”. In various places Peter and John made the same connections.
Thank you for your several pericopes. Does this mean now that you're deranged as you've accused me. Don't tell me you're going to start getting Faxes from Beyond, or maybe tweets from Trumpster Dumpster or Bleeps from Beelzebub?
I have never heard one child, (catholic and protestant and otherwise), call their male parent father. This is the same programmed response catholic priests gave me, when I questioned them on this same verse. Where do you all learn these excuses for not obeying the Lord's Word. The Word says in plain and simple english -
"And call NO man your father upon the EARTH: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Jesus was saying to give NO title to anyone. Humble yourselves. "The greatest among you shall be your servant." Mattew 23:11 And you call me deranged or FDS, because I've said I was His servant. They have their sheep calling them titles of "Father" and "Holy Father", and you think this shows the humility Christ was referring to? v.6) "They love the places of honor at banquets, the chief seats in the synagogues, 7) the greetings in the marketplaces, and the title of 'Rabbi' by which they are addressed." Goes on to say you are not to be called 'Rabbi' or 'Father'. You think you're wise enough to know better than Jesus, hypocrite liar?
If I have to listen to anymore of your ignorant excuses or poor interpretations, I think my head will explode. Will be looking forward to more of your stupidity.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1242AM:
So all that ‘Dan’s eructations and rants here prove is that he isn’t really up to speed on the Bible at all; he only has his carefully (and eagerly) selected pile of 3x5s, from which he picks various pieces to toss at the screen.
You have to put on blinders the size of a plow-horse’s to go along with ‘Dan’s Bible stuff.
And he wraps the whole steaming pile up with an extended version of his usual epithetical and threatening rant.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 105AM:
When we factor in all the conceptually demonstrated elements of the Stampede, and the results of cases we have been able to examine (including the priest – Avery – in the Billy Doe/Gallagher case in Philadelphia who pled guilty simply because he (and quite possibly any counsel he consulted) realized that no fair trial was possible and Avery “didn’t want to die in prison”) it becomes very clear that under the circumstances of Stampede a guilty plea in a criminal trial is no more reliable an indicator of actual guilt than is a settlement reached by the time-tested tortie strategies in a civil case.
And Federal judge Schiltz – quoted here long ago – opined that more than half of the settlement cases he had seen involved secrecy demanded by the torties/plaintiffs.
Nor did even the long-touted LA Times release of its “cache” of Church files actually produce any notable “smoking guns” in terms of this hoary “secrecy” charge that ‘Dan’ once again tries to make.
Readers may judge as they will whether it is ‘Dan’ who is “one lyin’, disingenuous hypocrite creep”, and a Scripturally ignorant one as well.
You seem to be falling back on the I'm Not/You Are bit, that you accuse others of doing. Readers do not have to judge. You are "one lyin', disingenuous hypocrite creep", and a Scripturally ignorant one as well. Thank you for the opportunity to repeat your 'Title'. servant
On the 2nd Dan raised once again an accusation which puzzles me. Can't recall his precise words but basically he was saying that the Church should come clean and release all files (on the subject of alleged sex abuse). But he then went on to suggest that these files would probably already be destroyed anyway. Well in some cases all files were actually released. But when the torties (and media allies) didn't find any smoking gun, they quickly suggested that the evidence (files) had been withheld or destroyed. Can you believe it? Any policeman would get a conviction in every case?. E.g.."Your Honor… the defendant did have the stolen goods, but when I seached his house, he had already disposed of them, so that clearly proves his guilt'" Gee….like something out of Alice in Wonderland?
Malcolm, Are you sipping down that Katholic Kool-Aid again, or has the Mad Hatter, publiar, invited you for tea with the Door Mouse, Jimmy Mini-pee. If the catholic cult really was the One True Church of the Almighty God, then they would humble themselves before the Lord, admit their guilt, expose ALL their secret files and make right with every victim or child they've ever harmed. Not wait to see if they're prosecuted or caught, deny and lie like the Devil, lean on the statute of limitations, or hope the disgusting creep will die before there's a chance the cult might have to give up some of it's riches. What's wrong with you people? You think you can lean on a miniscule amount of fraudulent cases, as proof that the true amount of veracious cases is possibly 'closer to zero'. What kind of deceived creeps would defend and make excuses for the nasty creeps of your cult. The same ones who shuffled the creeps from diocese to diocese, so they could continue doing their disgusting perversions against innocent children. You might want to try some truth serum, instead of sippin' the tea and Kool-Aid. You creeps and creepy excusers puzzle me. servant of the One True God
P.S. Are you catholics unaware that God knows all truth, and will repay all as we deserve. You can either pay Him now or you will truly pay Him later. Waiting for your Judgment Day.
And by the way, don't act so stupid, as if we've forgotten the confidential edict from the pope, to the bishops to keep everything secret, all for the good of your apostate cult. Quit your lies and excuses, or does this just come as second nature to a compulsive liar? servant of Truth
On the 4th at 255AM ‘Dan’ – either having forgotten or willfully ignoring prior exchanges on this topic of Mary-as-Goddess – goes back to the Catechism of the Catholic Church again. Fine place to go.
But – yet again – he does so not to go to the direct explanation (reference to which I made here just recently) but rather to something about the page layout. Apparently, also, the Catechism doesn’t take his own cartoons into account (as if we are to be shocked by that omission).
Once again: the direct explications of Catholic doctrine are in Numbers 963-975. On the immediately prior thread, responding to a ‘Dan’ comment of the 28th (March) at 1124AM, I went over all this on the 29th at 217PM and 218PM. Mary is human, though united closely to Jesus by virtue of being His (completely human) Mother, and she is the primary human intercessor at the heavenly court.
What we get here now from ‘Dan’ is merely a repetition from his 3×5 pile.
His other references merely presume what ‘Dan’s cartoon insists: that Mary is a “god” and thus ‘Dan’ can quote even Catholic documents that make reference to Exodus. But for Exodus to work in the case of Mary, she would have to be considered a goddess or divine, and she most clearly is not considered to be so by the Church.
I shall use your CCC 971, to prove you to be most definitely and undeniably wrong. "The churches devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic [essential] to Christian WORSHIP." The church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs." "Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an 'epitome of the whole gospel,' express this devotion to the Virgin Mary."
Don't know about you catholics, but I'm going to the Savior who died for me, "to whose protection the [true] faithful fly in all their dangers and needs." He is the only mediator. Mary is no mediatrix, intercessor or "Helper", as you have been misled and lied to. You think Jesus, God's only begotten Son needs a "Helper"? Boy, you catholics need help!
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5
"The rosary, an 'epitome of the whole Gospel' " This is utter blasphemy! Repeated prayers to Mary, in absolute violation of the Bible, "epitomizes the whole Gospel"? This is a horrible deception. The Gospels are the stories of Christ our Savior and HIS teachings, and mention little of Mary, and a few times, don't show her in a very good light. Read the Bible and stop this ignorance and nonsense.
We'll use terms like 'Honor', 'Venerate', 'Adore', "the church rightly honors the Blessed Virgin with special devotion" "Immaculate Virgin", just don't say we worship her.
More absolute, unbiblical, outright lies – Mary sinless (Romans 3:23 "all have sinned"), Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Mary ever-virgin, Rosary. All fabricated falsehoods by a lying, deceiving cult, of which publiar, is a card carrying member.
All the above is proof that Mary is falsely worshipped as Divine Goddess, and the title of "Queen of Heaven" and "Holy Mother of God" further proves the Idolatry. How can a human being be crowned "Mother of God". This would make Mary the Creator. BLASPHEMY!!!
Oh, and ‘Dan’ tries to wrap it all up and bring it home by introducing as evidence of his cartoon thought here his own observation of “the last 5 popes”. ‘Dan’ could no more proffer worthwhile insight into what he has “watched” then a cow could deliver fruitful insights from having been walked through the Louvre repeatedly over the course of years.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 303AM:
Mary may be “queen” but she remains in origin a ‘commoner’, i.e. human. She is no goddess.
And again with the Host in the shape of pagan moon-cakes as in Astarte worship. The Host, again, has to do with Jesus and not with Mary.
At which point a reader might be prompted to ask of ‘Dan’ his own question: “Are you really that ignorant?”. But ‘Dan’ – while quite probably being “that ignorant” generally – also has to nurture his indenture to his FDS.
Thus he has nothing that he can do except keep repeating his collection of 3x5s regardless of how inaccurate and/or inapplicable they are demonstrated to be.
At least, even a cow isn't dumb enough to bow down and worship a false goddess. And I believe even you with all your ignorance, would be capable of seeing pictures or watching TV with popes, including Francis, bowing down to Virgin Mary, smothered in dozens of roses. For you to make such a childish, stupid statement, shows your full blown ignorance.