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.]
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 311AM:
Here he tries – as so often – to evade a point by changing the subject: he – with the fundie movement generally – is trying to delegitimize Catholicism; whether he actually can do so was not my point at all, since clearly he cannot – as even he admits.
But he really isn’t concerned about the world generally; he is indentured to his FDS and it is in the service of that indenture that he must try to delegitimize Catholicism, even if only in his own mind.
He is only the servant of his FDS – and that harsh master will reduce him to the role of ranting fool all on its own and all the time.
Stupidity deserves no comment.
And now: what will ‘Dan’ do with all those Scripture pericopes indicating that his ‘call no man father’ bit doesn’t work even in the text of Scripture?
On the 4th at 357AM we see what his FDS will instruct him to do:
First, he tries to change the subject to snark: since I am using “several pericopes” then does that mean that I am as “deranged” as I accuse ‘Dan’ of being? Not at all, since my pericopes establish the point in question, while his pericopes invariably require that you first accept his cartoon presumptions in order to accept his cartoon interpretations.
Ditto!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 357AM:
Then – from the ridiculous to the sublime – ‘Dan’ tries to claim that he has “never heard one child” of any faith “call their male parent father”. Apparently, if a child says ‘Daddy’ or ‘Dad’ then that doesn’t count because the Scriptural text uses the word “father” … which, in the fundie literalist fallback position, isn’t the same thing.
Well, readers can consider the juvenility of that bit as they will. But that still leaves Paul and all the other Old and New Testament figures who – as my examples and quotations indicate – did use the term “father”.
And “abba” – not in “plain simple english” but in the Biblical languages of Aramaic and Greek – means “father” whether used by a biological child or by one who acknowledges a spiritual fatherhood … as my examples demonstrated.
Humility would never demand others to refer to them with a title, let alone one that does not fit. Grown men wearing lacy dresses, having no children and taking on the name of their Goddess, Mary, have no right to be called or looked up to as Fathers, let alone Holy Fathers. Especially when belonging to an idol-worshipping cult of hypocrites, liars, cowards, pedophiles, perverts, and creeps. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 357AM:
Once again, we see a major and substantively disqualifying aspect of the fundie project: having gotten its start a) only in the late 19th century in this country and b) having been embraced by persons often with only a patchy acquaintance with English and largely devoid of any knowledge of the actual Biblical languages then we see here a vivid example of the old saw that fundies wish others would just ‘speak plain simple English like Jesus did’. Which also means that their word-games are limited to Bible translations in English; they thus limit themselves fatally, while also conveniently reducing the number of complications that their cartoons have to account-for.
From a general lack of knowledge, ‘Dan’ has made himself willfully “ignorant” and indeed “stupid”, in the service of his indenture to his FDS. He’s not the first and he won’t be the last.
More stupidity and the I'm Not/You Are bit, not worth a response.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 405AM:
Here he will try – yet again – to claim that the I’m Not/You Are observation is actually more applicable to me than to him. Readers may judge as they will.
But he also then asserts – on the basis of nothing – that “readers do not have to judge”. I think they do have to and I think they do.
And on the basis of my failing to fulfill the requirements of his cartoon presumptions, he then – with marvelous obliviousness – tries to run the old I’m Not/You Are bit right here again: it is I who is “Scripturally ignorant” and not ‘Dan’.
Readers may judge as they will.
Again, Yes you are the Scripturally ignorant, and any readers can figure that out.
And then on the 4th at 413AM – apropos of nothing on the table at the moment – ‘Dan’ riffles through his 3×5 pile and comes up with “the confidential edict from the pope”.
He refers, one can only infer, to the 1962 Instruction from the Holy Office to bishops in regard to priests accused of having used the sacrament of penance (i.e. an instance of ‘confession’) for soliciting sex from the penitent. The Instruction codifies procedures to be used and punishments to be applied if the accusation is determined to be veracious.
It is also applicable to homosexual, pedophile, or zoophile behavior by clerics.
The document was to be kept confidential by the bishops. This makes sense since its publication would provide handy fodder for any groups (the Soviets at that time, fundies, and such) to claim that the Church had a ‘problem’ that it was trying to ‘hide’. But in no place does the document forbid bishops from reporting such alleged crimes to the local police.
They are still prosecuting cases in house whenever possible, and keeping the truth from the proper authorities. I've even pointed out cases where DA's refused to go against your corrupt cult. When that fails, we'll just grant them immunity under the protection of Vatican City. Still waiting to discuss "Don Mercedes", cowardly creep. Glad to see they included protection for animals raped by clergy. Do you take those cases to Vatican Kangaroo Court, the same one that screws over child victims, you've destroyed.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 413AM:
And the confidentiality of the trial-documents (for any ecclesiastical and canonical proceedings instituted to determine the case) would protect the penitent-accuser as well as the accused – at least until such time as a full determination had been made. This would prevent any premature conclusions from being reached in the public forum that might derange the actual investigation and judgment. (The wisdom of this caution was demonstrated by the Stampede two decades later.)
Readers are welcome to read the official English translation of the document (superseded in 2002) here
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html
And ‘Dan’ tries to wrap his performance up with more of the usual epithet. I doubt ‘Dan’ has “forgotten” the document because I seriously doubt he ever read it. No surprise there.
I read the long-winded edict the 1st time and this time, and all it sounds to me, is a corrupt cult of pedophiles and perverts, covering all legal bases, in order to protect and keep secret the crimes committed with juveniles and donkeys. Only problem is, I can't tell who are the biggest jackasses, the hierarchy, bishops and priests, or the pope with the help of his legal team, protecting and demanding utmost secrecy, for the good of their Most Unholy Cult.
On the 4th Dan says… "What's wrong with you people?" So I guess it must be frustrating for the "servant" that he can't get through to us?. However Dan should reflect on the possibility that he has a blind spot of his own. Does he not understand that children in a schoolyard have a mother to look out for them?. Catholic mothers are as loving and protective as any other mother. What's more they talk to each other. Why is Dan trying to convince himself that the faith of Catholics would over-rule their parental instinct to protect their kids?. My siblings are only lukewarm Catholics, and this would describe many parents. Yet there is no drop- off in enrollments in these schools. Dare I suggest that Dan "can't get through to us" because we know more than he?. The kids are not at risk. If they were it would be reflected in the enrollments. But Dan works on the strategy of….'if you throw enough mud.. then some will always stick'. Although, in reality, some of the thrown mud has blown back on the "servant".
Not really sure what you're trying to say, Malcolm. I have no problem with parents protecting their kids. I would hope so. The very school where the corrupt, catholic cop, falsely accused me of saying "Jesus is dead" to 8-10 year olds, 6 months earlier, I had actually closed one of the gates that was mistakingly left open while the kids were in the yard. What the church doesn't understand, is that neighbors who walk the neighborhood, can be an extra pair of eyes for the protection of their kids. Not everyone is a monster, and adults with any common sense, should be able to discern between those who would cause harm to their children and those who would be the first to protect them. Most cases of child abduction around schools are done by creeps in cars, grabbing a child or coaxing them into a car. Pretty hard to run off with a child on foot, during school hours, when they're protected by an 8-20 foot fence.
In regards to you all knowing more than me, I'll be waiting for some evidence to that. Do you mean you know more about bowing to Mary, praying to Mary, greediness, lying, slandering and insinuating things that are false. Then I guess you're right. I haven't heard any catholics with any Spiritual wisdom as yet, so I could care less, what worldly knowledge you may possess more than me. As far as I'm concerned, and the Bible states, that this world's knowledge is utter ignorance. 1 Cor 1:19-21
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intellegence of the intellegent I will frustrate*." Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."
As far as mud throwing, there's been plenty thrown at me, and any I threw back was well deserved. Especially when most of the mud thrown from your side has been lies and insinuations. Adding the stupid insinuations towards my mental state, is absolutely ridiculous.
* According to this verse, it must be those claiming to be wise or "know more", who are truly frustrated. servant
On the 4th at 518PM ‘Dan’ gives us yet again a fine example of his sly manipulation: in order to accept his accusations and denunciations against the Church, one first has to accept his (unstated) presumption that there are “only a miniscule amount of fraudulent cases” (and thus, conversely, that the vast amount of allegations are veracious).
But we are seeing that the cases that come to light are all fraudulent, which certainly indicates the possibility (I would say probability) that there are still cases – perhaps more than a “miniscule” amount – that were and remain thickly laced with fraudulence.
Thus – in light of this possibility or probability – then denial of the accusations in any particular case may well have been justified. (Indeed, I would say that the Church’s or various Ordinaries’ caving to the Stampede by not more robustly defending priests might itself be the key form of “denial” in all of this.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 518PM:
But ‘Dan’s seemingly high-ground Victimist/Stampede position here – which is also catnip to fundies and anyone else with an axe to grind against the Church or Catholicism – requires the acceptance of so many presumptions that it can be said to be built on sand, i.e. the sand of those presumptions.
And we note again ‘Dan’s predilection for the term “creep” (vars: “disgusting creep” or “pedophile creep”), a term which I suspect he encountered far too frequently for his own good quite a while back.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 518PM:
But all of this enables ‘Dan’ to once again don the Wig of Forthright Truthiness: “What’s wrong with you people?” he doth puff himself up to inquire. It is a question better addressed to his bathroom mirror (at least before the séance begins, but perhaps during the séance as well).
Then, further, we see how he conflates (out of deliberate manipulation or merely ignorance of language and logical procedure) “proof” with “possibly”. But a) the terms are mutually exclusive: if something is proven, then there is no ‘possibly’ about it.
And b) I never asserted or claimed that any of the points I have raised provide “proof” of anything. None of us here have sufficient information (that can reliably be assumed by third-parties) which would ‘prove’ anything. We must deal with possibilities and probabilities and I have raised points in explication of the conclusion that there are certain possibilities and probabilities that appear quite justified, given the factual material we can muster.
It is ‘Dan’ and the Abuseniks who insist that their ‘knowledge’ must be accepted as ‘proof’.
And just about all your "perhaps", "possibilities" and "probabilities" in regards to myself, are totally wrong, but instead of accepting that, you think you can repeat these lies and insinuations, until you're satisfied that they have morphed into your truth. This is why I think you're a perfect fit for a cult based on Biblical misinterpretations, perpetuating false beliefs, and producing liars who fit their mold, pushing the agenda of their Father, Satan. Welcome to Hell.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 518PM:
Ditto as ‘Dan’ then shakes his head (and Wig) yet again to inquire about “what kind of deceived creeps” … again, a question better delivered to his bathroom mirror.
And if you don’t buy his cartoons, then he presumes that such refusal constitutes proof-positive that you are merely trying to “defend and make excuses for” the (presumed) “nasty creeps of your cult”. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.
And readers will note that this type of FDS whackery does not neutralize an individual’s capacity to strategize his slyness. While heading on the wrong track, yet the train chugs along at full speed. The engine works; but the track is wrong. Recalling Bonhoeffer’s sad and dark reflection: Once you have gotten on the wrong train, walking backwards through the cars isn’t going to help.
And as for “truth serum”, ‘Dan’ once bragged here that he refused drugs that were proffered or recommended in one (or more) of those 5150 stays. He seemed to realize – however inchoately – that if any sort of medication reduced the power of his FDS, then he would be all alone with himself and his issues.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 518PM:
And he tries to wrap up this performance by donning the Wig of Honest and Exasperated Puzzlement. For as long as he remains indentured to his FDS, then a whole lot of things are going to “puzzle” him.
Because rather than rightly follow up that sense of puzzlement with some courageous and honest self-examination, he will remain firmly and fixedly entrenched within the stifling cocoon of the delusional explanation (i.e. everyone who doubts him is ‘lying’) that constitutes his mainstay.
And in the usual “P.S.” he adds in the God’ll getcha bit. He can remain profoundly thankful that God accepts insanity pleas.
Doubting me is not a problem. Lying about me is. That's all you seem to continually do. I don't agree that God accepts insanity pleas, but if he would accept ignorance and stupidity, you'd be a shoe-in.
On the 6th at 148AM ‘Dan’ will buckle down to the text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and declares that he “shall use your CCC 971, to prove you to be most definitely and undeniably wrong”.
Well, that’s quite a project. Let’s see how he does.
His first paragraph does nothing but quote that Number 971. Nowhere do we see Mary declared to be ‘divine’ or a ‘goddess’.
He does quote the statement that “the Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship”. And he is right that “essential” is a valid substitute for “intrinsic”. But what can be concluded from that? Surely not that Mary is divine and worshipped as a goddess.
Indeed, the Church uses not “worship” but the far lesser term “devotion”: the “devotion” to Mary is “intrinsic to Christian worship” but that “devotion” is clearly distinct from “worship”; that “devotion” is an essential part of the Church’s worship, but that “devotion” does not itself constitute “worship”. Otherwise, the Church could have saved ink and simply said that ‘the worship of Mary is intrinsic to Christian worship’ and leave it at that. But the text doesn’t … because while one is ‘devoted’ to Mary, one does not ‘worship’ her as a divinity and/or goddess.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 148AM:
The rest of the quotes in that first paragraph – as I said – further expand upon Marian devotion, but do not in any way establish a claim that Mary is divine or worshipped as a goddess.
Maybe he’ll have better luck in the second paragraph:
Nope. In the second ‘Dan’ just opines according to schedule about how he’ll take Jesus rather than Mary. That’s merely ‘Dan’s opinion and approach and so what?
He then doth declaim – using the faux-papal Wig and Sedia Gestatoria – that “Mary is no mediatrix, intercessor or “Helper”. And ‘Dan’ doth ‘know’ that … how? Yet again, this is merely ‘Dan’s opinion and approach and so what?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 148AM:
And ‘Dan’ has now apparently invented a term (Helper) which he also encloses in full-quote marks (“Helper”) as if it were a statement that I made – which I did not make. In any case, Mary would help people who need help; which is not at all the same as her helping a Jesus who purportedly “needs a ‘Helper’”. Jesus needs no help; people need help approaching the Throne and Mary is there to help those people. (Of course, those who receive direct faxes through their bathroom mirror séances perhaps would not, under those circumstances, see themselves as needing any of Mary’s help – although some sort of “help” they most certainly would need from somewhere.)
And – let’s face it even if ‘Dan’ doesn’t dare to do so – ‘Dan’ isn’t really dependent on any actual Jesus either; ‘Dan’ is beholden and indentured to the promptings of his FDS, which for the purposes of his cartoon he imagines to manifest in the shape of Jesus in the bathroom mirror.
CCC 969 "Blessed Virgin Mary is invoked in the Church under the TITLES of Advocate, 'Helper', Benefactress, and Mediatrix." Nothing but more lies from liars. No proof of these titles, anywhere in God's Word. Made up fantasies from deceivers with wild, false imaginations. servant of Truth
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 148AM:
So, then, to the third paragraph and still nothing “definitely and undeniably” proven.
Here we have a pericope from the First Letter to Timothy, the Pauline authorship of which – along with the Second Letter to Timothy and the Letter to Titus – is held to be questionable but nonetheless authoritative.
The actual pericope is itself a quotation from some traditional formula. And Moses is referred to by Paul as an “intermediary” in Galatians 3: 19-20. But beyond all that, was the Church’s awareness over time that Christians sought the comfort and aid of the more approachable maternal human Mary rather than the distant, foreboding and powerful Byzantine Christos Pantocrator of the early centuries (the suffering and human Christ does not enter the record as a popular devotion until the Middle Ages in the north of Europe.
And while Paul rather palpably encountered “a great light from heaven” on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-4, 22: 6-7, and 26: 12-14) and heard the voice asking “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?”, and thus might quite vividly sense the presence and actuality of Christ with no help from anywhere else at all, most Christians are not thus favored by so direct an encounter with Jesus. Hence the need for some assistance in making a request of the Throne.
Of course, those who encounter God or Christ in their bathroom mirror or in special Faxes might, like Paul, not see any need for further assistance either. But we’ve been over that already.
First covenant of Moses as "intermediary"? "Now however, Jesus has received a far superior ministry, just as the covenant He mediates is superior and is founded on better promises. For if the first covenant had been without fault, no place would have been sought for a second." Heb 8:6-7
"Therefore Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, now that He has died to redeem them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." Heb 9:15
"You have come to God the judge of all men, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." Heb 12:24
Are you now going to claim Hebrews to be "questionable"? "But beyond all that, was the Church's awareness over time that Christians sought the comfort and aid of the more approachable maternal Mary…rather than [Christ]". Really? Apparently, as the church often does, they bend to false traditions rather than God's Holy inspired Word. If catholics and false christians feel it best to turn to Mary's comfort and more approachable maternal side, then that's fine and dandy, but don't expect the Creator to view this as anything less than false goddess worship, especially choosing her over God's choice of His son as the only mediator. Mary's blood was not shed for our sins. Look to her or any other of your thousands of false saints and false christs, and there will be no chance of forgiveness. God will not listen to any of your pleas for mercy or grace, and you will suffer your just deserts.
I'm not sure what your agenda and motives are, but if you prefer a false gospel, and a false christ or savior, you may want to keep your false beliefs to yourself, rather than polluting God's Word, while claiming to be the correct interpreter of Scripture. You are an absolute con and whackjob, promoting heresies and false teachings in direct violation of Biblical truths, splattered with vicious lies and insinuations, in order to further your deep, dark deceptions, in hopes someone might accept your apostate cult as God's True Church. The lines between your ignorance, stupidity and nonsense, have become so blurred that it's hard to tell any difference.
Apparently, when you have nothing else, you fall back on your usual mockery of God, your repetitive, compulsive lies as to my "issues", or your insinuations as to my mental state, FDS. Your ignorance, stupidity and nonsense is on full display, you mocking, lying creep.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 148AM:
Better luck moving on? We get in the fourth paragraph a reference to the rosary as being “the epitome of the whole Gospel”. ‘Dan’ merely doth declare and denounce and rant this to be “utter blasphemy!” – which a) does nothing to establish the alleged divinity of Mary and b) can surely qualify as such an epitome when we take the various sets of Mysteries around which the rosary is formulated into account: all the major elements of the Christian Message are there.
As to how by any stretch ‘Dan’s assertion that the Gospels “don’t show [Mary] in a very good light” can be taken as anything but ranting whackery is anybody’s guess. Does the Annunciation by the Archangel and her overshadowing by the Holy Spirit ring any bells? (Not to ‘Dan’, who is frequently visited by those apparitions in his bathroom mirror.)
On then to the fifth paragraph, where ‘Dan’ tries to evade the colossal problem for his cartoon (i.e. that nowhere does the Catechism use the term “worship” – which would be vital to his project here) by merely claiming that the Church has simply not-used the word “worship” but for all practical purposes does worship Mary. Thus that the absence of evidence is itself evidence of a cover-up … and does that sound familiar?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 148AM:
And on and on. But at the end, there is nothing that here that establishes that Mary is “falsely worshipped as Divine Goddess” by Catholics.
Nor was Mary “crowned Mother of God”; she was – back to the Annunciation again – rather specifically Chosen by God to be the Mother of Christ (Who is God). The Church merely acknowledges that stupendous and utterly extraordinary factual reality.
Nor – for that matter – is there any logical connection whatsoever between Mary the human specially Chosen by God to be the Mother of Christ and Mary therefore being “the Creator”.
Thus ‘Dan’s pearl-clutching screech of “Blasphemy!” (scream-caps omitted) does nothing but reveal him in all his fundie whackness.
And he has achieved nothing of what he claimed he was going to do at the outset of his comment here.
In order for ‘Dan’s bit in the comment of the 6th at 159AM to hold water, we would – had you been waitingggg forrrr itttttttt? – have to assume his presumption that Mary is “a false goddess”. And that’s clearly not the case.
The Presidents place a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Is there any “worship” involved in that act of respect and honor?
People place flowers on the graves of loved ones or other deceased. Is there any “worship” involved in that act of respect and honor and devotion?
And ‘Dan’ concludes with more epithet. He is desperately trying to establish my (and Catholics’) “childish, stupid” acts that will demonstrate “your full blown ignorance”. He actually pulls the lanyard while standing in front of the muzzle and damages only himself. It’s actually rather a Keystone Cops type of theological and religious argumentation.
On the 6th at 210AM ‘Dan’ huffs that “humility would never demand others refer to them with a title”. Yet it is only ‘Dan’ who styles himself (or Himself) with that congeries of honorifics he (or He) so often deploys here.
And who else is ‘demanding’ to be referred to “with a title”?
As for the “fathers” bit, we have been over that before – and we recall that ‘Dan’ chose not to address the numerous Scriptural references that undermine his cartoon in this regard.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 224AM:
Here he claims that the Church is “still prosecuting cases in house whenever possible, and keeping the truth from proper authorities”.
First, the Instruction dates from 1962 and – as I said – was superseded in 2002.
Second, not even the 1962 Instruction prohibited bishops from contacting the police. And current practice is to inform the police of an allegation even before instituting formal Church investigations.
‘Dan’ needs to update his 3×5 pile. Although factuality was never a criterion for any bit to be included in the pile.
Then a juvenile word-play on animals and Kangaroo Courts.
‘Dan’ has – in a marvelous irony – found himself in quite a bit of legal trouble for what he has done to children.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 234AM:
Here he claims to have “read the long-winded edict” before and again. Readers may consider the reliability of that claim as they will.
Complex and thorough writing seems to put him off, if not also confound and confuse him. Those Faxes From The Beyond must be written in very very simple sentences indeed.
And more juvenile wordplay on animals and so forth.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 352AM:
Here ‘Dan’ makes more additions to his schoolyard story: he was – doncha see? – merely closing a gate that had “mistakingly” been left open. Yet he had been saying things (he claimed before that he was “delivering a beautiful prophecy”) and that’s the part he now leaves out. This time around, he was just doing his civic duty and was then sorely bethumped and set-upon by … and so on and so forth.
But he then quickly moves on to an irrelevant riff on child-abductions from schoolyards and so on and so forth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 352AM:
And then he moves on to the bit about “you all knowing more than me”. He huffily dons the Wig of Science and doth declaim that he will “be waiting for some evidence to that”. Clearly he is not clear on the concept of evidence, and doesn’t know it when he sees it.
Anyway, he continues, he “could care less” about “worldly knowledge”. Myah-myah to everybody then.
I would say we haven’t even seen any Scriptural knowledge from him, and that’s supposed to be his specially chosen métier.
Then more from his pericope pile that are to be shoe-horned into the purpose of making him seem the possessor of the only real knowledge, i.e. what his indenture to his FDS tells him in the bathroom mirror.
And then – yet again – that if he has demonstrated a rather vivid and disconcerting tendency to throw mud, well … that’s just because people throw mud at him (by – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – not buying his stuff).
Alas – what’s a self-declared prophet to do when people don’t buy his stuff and instead think he’s rather a bit off?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 417AM:
He doth merely declare and assert that all the various bits about himself and his mental infelicities “are totally wrong”. We have his word for that. Does he expect this bit to work here?
They’re all “lies and insinuations”. No, they’re pretty solid inductions from the material he’s presented.
Apparently he’s under the impression that if those points are repeated often enough, then people will – out of a certain conceptual laxity or laziness – come to accept them. I would say that his own material will move people in that direction, sooner or later, and with greater or lesser degrees of reluctance.
And the only “Hell” we have been introduced to here is the one in which ‘Dan’ and his FDS dwell.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 427AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try on the Wig of Evidentiary Integrity: he’s got no problem with being ‘doubted’ – doncha see? – but it’s just that he doesn’t like being ‘lied’ about.
But if you don’t go along with ‘Dan’s stuff, and consider far more convincing alternatives, then you – along with the ever-expanding list of others who have done the same – are merely lying about him out of “ignorance and stupidity” … doncha see that?
It’s all very clear to ‘Dan’.
That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.
The rest of your ignorance and stupidity was not worth responding to.
On March 30, 2017 at 12:09 am Dan reveals more about himself. He admits that he is no angel. This admission need not have been made but Dan, in an effort to toss more mud at the Catholic church by making a claim that no Catholic has made, tries to excuse his behavior by labeling his targets of the very thing he claims to be. Ironically Dan places himself on equal footing with those he insists are a group of lying perverts and pedophiles. But it’s all right for Dan not to be an angel despite being appointed by God to be his prophetic servant because Dan just knows so much about the Catholic Church and it being a cult. Dan could fill a book with what he doesn’t know and his attempt to take apart the Catholic Churches teaching on the role of Mary on April 6, 2017 at 1:48 am is evidence of how much he doesn’t know. To Dan, it doesn’t matter what the teaching says because he knows it’s all just lies. So, since the Church is made up of “sheep in wolves clothing” and are a “bunch of liars” then Dan will excuse himself for not being an Angel and all of Dan’s lies are perfectly fine as well. Follow Dan’s exchanges throughout this website and you will see a pattern where Dan will label anyone who challenges him a douchbag, (March 27, 2017 at 9:50 pm ) lame jackass, (March 30, 2017 at 12:47 am ) “twisting, greasy, sleazy, oily, irrelevant, obnoxious, pretentious, little nurd dweeb weasel” (November 24, 2015 at 9:27 pm ) while none of those who are challenging Dan have ever used derogatory terms in their exchange and you can easily come to the conclusion that Dan has been the aggressor and the liar in all of his legal issues.
Human beings are not angels. Go take a look at your false idols of angels in your churches, and you will see that they have wings. Humans do not have wings. And that's just plain stupid to claim that I'm "on equal footing" with "lying perverts and pedophiles." What's really ironic, is you're crying about being called names, and yet you display as much ignorance and stupidity as your mentor, publiar.
First off, the quote was "sick, lying douchebags". You state, "none of those who are challenging Dan have ever used derogatory terms in their exchange." Are you serious? I've been called deranged, FDS (fixed delusional system), and all types of other insults about my mental state. The slew of lies from both of you, including harrassing, accosting, threatening and haranguing children. Add to that you're new, stupid insinuation, that I'm out there with a bullhorn, when even the signs weren't brought out until thugs they threatened, beat or screamed obscenities in my face. On top of that, mocking myself, my beliefs and my God, Savior and Holy Spirit, with terms like "speshull deputy dog of God, Faxes from Beyond" and the blasphemy that I'm the third person of the Trinity, in "my bathroom mirror." Todays comparing "God's Word" to some stupidity about a "Ouiji board".
You think that his and your compulsive lies and what I just quoted is not derogatory. Why don't you lying creeps get yourself a life, and quit putting the blame on innocent people, all because you think things are plausible, possible or probable. They're just outright lies, coming from the cult of Satan, father of all lies and liars. When you stop assuming falsehoods, than I'll stop the name calling. Until then, every derogatory word was fitting for compulsive liars. That's something you may find hard to understand, being a blatant liar, it's called telling the truth. You guys are a bunch of biased, bigoted, lying creeps. Get used to it.
I don't have the time to waste on the rest of your ignorance tonite. I'll give some thought to whether I'll bother to respond to you tomorrow. servant of the Almighty
Whatever is ‘Dan’ to do? So many of the chunks he has gleaned from the Dummy’s Guide To Fundie Bible Bits Against Kathliks don’t seem to be working they way the cartoon wants them to.
On the 7th at 323AM he quotes from Number 969 of the Catechism … but neglecting all the parts that don’t fit his cartoon:
First, the text of 969 explains that Mary’s role in Christianity is based “in the order of grace” (i.e. spiritually and Providentially, and not biologically) upon “the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross”. Her position thus is precisely based upon her actions as the human being she was (and remains) and thus precisely not upon any divinity she is alleged to possess.
Second, the Catechism’s title of “Helper” occurs after the text’s statement that “by her manifold intercession [she] continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation”. Thus – to repeat from one of my comments yesterday – she is ‘helping’ humans; she is not ‘helping’ Jesus (Who is divine and doesn’t – so to speak – need the help).
Now I've been accused of having "gleaned from the Dummy's Guide to Fundie Bible Bits Against Kathliks…" I was quoting, as the publiar noted, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not aware that it's considered the "Dummy's Guide to Fundie Bible Bits Against Kathliks", but I must say that sounds appropriate. So whenever we see anyone use "Dummy Guide" for short, we'll understand they're talking about the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I guess the fact that much of the teaching is based on catholic tradition, superseding Biblical teaching and thought, would lead many to consider the CCC a "Dummy Guide", seeing that there's at least one Dummy that thinks it's Biblical truth. I wouldn't want to embarass or expose who, so I'll just use his nickname, peewee. I also love the insistence as to his not mocking God, but plain as day, now he's even mocking the Bible and God's Inspired Word. "None so blind, as those who refuse to see."
His claim as to "Humans feel more at ease in the presence of the maternal", may be true for a momma's boy, or priests that wear lacy dresses and like being called Mary. I'm sure God has no problem with catholics changing the meaning of His Word, so grown perverts will feel more at ease, because their sweet false goddess won't be so apt to judge them harshly for being pedophiles and excusing creeps. Hypocritical, deceiving dummies. The rest of his posts, April 7, is just more jibberish he's gleaned from the Dummy Guide (CCC), so there's not much point in my responding to the same, repeated stupidity and ignorance.
I would like to end with a question, "If priests would prefer the maternal, then why didn't they sleep with their mother, instead of raping innocent little boys?" If you could have convinced them to sleep with their dead, maternal "Queen of Heaven" statues, then none of this mess would have come upon your apostate cult. servant of the Just God and His Only Mediator
P.S. In your last post today, April 7 @ 1:22pm, you must have been referring to me being sly as a fox and wise as an owl. Thanks for the compliment, Porky. Oink, Oink, back at cha!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 323AM:
Why would humans need her intercession and ‘help’? First, because a) life is so challenging and complex. This profound existential human problem is evaded by those who solve it for themselves by essential engaging in the idolatry of Bibliolatry, i.e. the erection of the Bible into – not to put too fine a point on it – an idol.
You simply have to open it (in an English version, of course) and – presto! – you have your ‘answer’. You need know nothing at all about the complicated evolution of the Biblical texts over millennia, the English translation of which stands at the very end of a long and complicated line of the texts’ historical existence. The Bible for such types becomes, in effect, a compendium of one’s preferred cartoons.
And anybody so inclined can thus declare himself a ‘prophet’ or a ‘servant’ or what-have-you.
I understand the accusations of catholic idol-worshippers, claiming that anyone leaning on the Word of God is "engaging in the idolatry of Bibliolatry, i.e. the erection of the Bible into – not to put too fine a point on it – an idol." Take it from lying idolators to point the finger at one of God's true followers.
I never made a Bible, like catholics have made all sorts of statues and icons to idolize. I don't bow down to Bibles, pray to Bibles, kiss the Bible, burn incense and light candles to Bibles, or stroke the Bible. I bow down and worship at the feet of my Creator, and find my eternal salvation through His Son, Jesus, the one and only way to the Father. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 4:6
Are you willing to dispute Christ's own words and continue with your ignorance, that there's some other way or that God needs false gods or goddesses, in order to bring His chosen to Him? Catholics have created such a multitude of false christs and crooked paths to God the Father, confusing lost sheep with their long-winded, false explanations and misinterpretations, that Bible ignorant followers will buy their nonsense, and follow like sheep being led to slaughter. You false teachers should be ashamed of your lies and ignorance. You will pay for your false messages and heresies. servant of Christ
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 323AM:
Second, because in her role Mary demonstrates the vital role of maternity in human life and existence, as was intended by God when He Created humans in His Image. Humans simply feel more at ease in the presence of the maternal.
Very long before those paintings of Jesus as a ‘brother’ became popular, there was Jesus as the awesome and awe-full Pantocrator, the Risen God-and-Man. A sinner would no more feel utterly at ease approaching the Throne of such a God than a dreck-smudged peasant would feel utterly at ease entering unbidden the Throne-Room of the Emperor in Byzantium or Rome looking for a favor or some consolation.
The Jesus-as-Shepherd pictures have their place, but they do contain the off-putting implication that humans should be like sheep; the Jesus-with-children pictures are nice, but contain the unhelpful implication that humans need not struggle through to maturity and greater authenticity with the help and guidance of God’s grace and can instead remain comfortably childish for their entire lives.
Mary, however, demonstrates the potential inherent in a human life that has accepted God’s grace and Providential plan, come – as they say – hell or high-water.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 323AM:
And thus ‘Dan’s far-too-easy fall-back to “God’s word” reflects the simplistic fundie effort to evade the Bible’s challenges by turning it into a bulkier and heavier form of Ouija board.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 252AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will simply look up “intermediary” in his Dummy Guide and toss up a bunch of pericopes.
And does he bother to explain them? Nope. He probably could no more provide an explication of his selected pericopes than that cow could proffer an appreciation of a work of art in the Louvre.
And – as so very often – he creates something I didn’t say in order to smooth the path of his cartoons: I said of the so-called Pastoral Letters (i.e. First and Second Timothy and Titus) that their authorship was questioned by a number of scholars, but that they were still held to be “authoritative”.
Thus there is no basis for implying that I would find the Letter to the Hebrews “questionable”. It is in the canon of the Bible, after all.
It's plain english, that even a pair-of-dopes could understand. Wasn't aware you were in need of an explanation. Guess you're dumber than a pair-of-dopes, but I bet you can oink louder than that cow at the Louvre.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 252AM:
What then would be the point relevant to the matters at hand which these pericopes might support?
That Jesus brought a new “covenant”? Who here has ever doubted or questioned that?
That He is “the mediator of a new covenant”? Who here has ever doubted or questioned that? But Mary is not held to be equally “the mediator of a new covenant”; rather, Mary is the mediator (Mediatrix, in the ancient Latin) between humans and that ultimate and sole “[M]ediator of a new covenant”.
Mary’s role is both human and ancillary and subordinate to Christ’s.
And the third pericope simply repeats that “mediator of a new covenant” point discussed in the prior paragraphs immediately above here.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 252AM:
Moving to the next paragraph, and beyond the already-treated “questionable” nature of Hebrews, ‘Dan’ posits the mere assertion that the Church’s awareness of the believers’ need for a friend-at-Court to be “false traditions rather than God’s Holy Inspired Word”.
That’s a ‘Dan’ opinion, supported no doubt by his Dummy Guide, but readers may judge whether the Church was – under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit – wrong to infer both from below (believers seemed greatly and constructively to need it) and from above (Mary’s role – from the Annunciation onwards – demonstrated the extraordinary favor of God and the extraordinary potential of a human life aligned to God’s grace and Providence) that Mary was destined by God’s Will and Providence to continue to play a profound and vital role in the life of Christians and of the Church.
As to who are and aren’t “false Christians”, readers may consider the Church and then consider ‘Dan’ with his Dummy Guide and bathroom mirror and self-declared “secret” and speshull role … and decide as they will.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 252AM:
And then – sublimely – ‘Dan’ doth inform us that we are not to “expect the Creator to think” … whatever ‘Dan’ claims to secretly and speshully know about what God thinks and doesn’t think.
And ‘Dan’s point about Jesus being the only mediator because He shed His blood is obviated by the points I raised in a prior comment in this sequence: Jesus is the only Mediator of the New Covenant; Mary is a Mediator not of that Covenant but between humans and that Mediator of the New Covenant.
‘Dan”s organizational chart of Heaven needs some work in the accuracy department.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 252AM:
But all of his foregoing stuff now provides a platform (of sand) for ‘Dan’ to deliver himself (or Himself) of his scheduled diatribe, once again casting himself (or Himself) in the role of the Truthy and Gutsy Proclaimer of God’s Word and so on and so forth.
I like the Keystone Cops better: they did all those whacky things, but they didn’t deliver whacky lectures; they let their actions speak for themselves, as ‘Dan’s so often have.
And ‘telling any difference’ between things is something ‘Dan’ is clearly not good at; at least not in reality, although he is master of that inner swamp-hell wherein he and his FDS and his Dummy Guide and his bathroom mirror and its denizens do dwell.
And where in any of this do I “mock God”. ‘Dan’ is becoming a laugh-riot, but – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘Dan’ is not God. Or did we miss something “in the Bible” on that score?
On the 7th at 308AM ‘Dan’ – and perhaps wisely – doth sniff huffily that he doth see no value in “responding to” any of the other points on the table.
I disagree. There is great value for a number of readers who otherwise might never encounter ‘Dan’s particular type of life-form on the hoof, in the wild, in its natural conceptual habitat. He is the closest thing to the old “Wild Kingdom” show that one might encounter.
Imagine yourself leaving Mass on a Sunday morning and outside of the Church there is Dan standing alone with signs in one hand and possibly a bullhorn in the other. The bullhorn is a common tool of the fundie streetpreacher used to shout over any objections to their presence. Most parishioners will head for their car and avoid any confrontation with the obnoxious “protester”. Others may try to confront the annoyance in hopes of getting him to leave while others may try to engage him on his anti-Catholic rhetoric. Anyone who has encountered the streetpreacher fundie knows that the first course of action is the best option and to ignore the spectacle and head for home. We get a glimpse of how an exchange would go with Dan on April 7, 2017 at 2:52 am.
Dan speaks for the Creator and any opinion that Dan holds ie, that devotion to Mary as anything less than false goddess worship, is equivalent with the mind of God. What Dan thinks and what Dan knows are miles apart. When you show Dan that Catholics do not worship Mary in the way that Dan accuses Catholics of worshiping Mary he will ignore what is right in front of him and accuse you of lying despite evidence to the contrary. These accusations will certainly be filled with derogatory terms. The difference to an exchange with Dan on the internet and Dan in person is that Dan cannot shout you down on the internet. In person, Dan can tell the police anything he wants because, despite all the witnesses to contradict Dan’s story, Dan doesn’t have his words in writing for the police to see so Dan can accuse all the witnesses of lying despite the 6 incarcerations and numerous mental evaluations or the wild number of 135 police visits. Dan tries that same tactic on this website but his words are right up where he left them for all to see, read and evaluate. This has been done and the obviouse conclusion is that Dan is no victim.
God says you shouldn't even make statues, let alone bow down to them, pray to them, kiss their feet, burn incense and light candles to them, or stroke them. They are dead, and since you catholics do all of the above, makes you idolators who worship dead and false gods and goddesses. Make all the excuses you like and it still changes nothing. You make and worship death. Come out of the darkness and into God's marvelous light, or live with your lies and sin. servant
Once heard of an old Greek saying…. "Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad". The latest revelation about disgraced D.A.Seth Williams is this … he revealed his true colors nine years ago, even before he was elected. A judge in an Election Court found Seth had lodged a false statement about his financial dealings. The judge ruled that Williams be struck off the ballot. But incredibly this was a overturned by a subsequent appeal and Williams contested, and won the election for D.A, Speaking as a former auditor I am amazed that so many people are blind to evidence of a person's true character. Reckon that some judges are activists…perhaps they were thinking along the lines of helping the African-American cause?. Yeah right… today we have groups like "Black Lives Matter" demonstrating outside Seth's office… demanding he resign?. I am reminded of another old saying…."The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
I’ll go down the most recent batch in the order they appear on the site.
On the 8th at 1239AM ‘Dan’ once again deploys his grossly over-expansive definition of “idols” in his reference to statues of angels in Catholic churches. An “idol” is worshipped as a god; statues of angels – like statues of Mary and the saints and even Jesus – are not worshipped as gods. Rather, they are meant to remind us of the existence and presence of heavenly (though not necessarily divine) beings.
To repeat: for a statue to be properly an “idol” the statue itself would have to be worshipped as a god. Otherwise, it is just a statue. That makes a hash of ‘Dan’s Dummy-Guide cartoon, but that cartoon was a hash to begin with.
Nor does the fact that angels have wings (and thus demonstrate that angels are not human) automatically and necessarily imply that angels are gods. They are non-physical or spiritual entities, but they too are creatures and are not themselves gods.
Nor, from an ontological point of view, is ‘Jimmy Mitchell’ wrong to point out that in claiming to be human ‘Dan’ has put himself on the same level as “lying perverts and pedophiles”. ‘Dan’s is a human; all other sinful humans are humans.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1239AM:
On then to the second paragraph where ‘Dan’ has scheduled himself for a victim-turn in this performance and thus would have us equate “sick, lying douchebags” (not the worst example of his queasily repellent juvenile epithets, but it will do) with the various characterizations of his assorted mental infelicities. That won’t work since clearly “douchebags” cannot be based in any literal reality and “lying” and “sick” remain to be demonstrated; at this point, they remain just another ‘Dan’-toss onto the screen.
As for his having an FDS, that is not an epithet. That is intended to be an accurate description of his infelicities, and has been explicated at great length from ‘Dan’s own material. If he wishes to demonstrate how any reader here is a “douchebag” with the same level of analysis, he is welcome to give it a try.
And more riffing, then, on the usual stuff about how it’s all “lies” (put together by a large number of people (some of them in official legal capacities) – online and in actual circumstances – who have been exposed to his stories and various claims and have concluded otherwise all on their own).
And yet again we are left wondering: if the “signs weren’t brought out until thugs threatened” him, then what was he doing that – if his story is to be believed – caused so many people to call the police? His self-serving excuse here merely draws even more attention to his actions even without any “signs”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1239AM:
And again the sly conflation of ‘Dan’s stuff with God’s, and so on and so forth. To take issue with ‘Dan’s stuff is not to take issue with God’s, and ‘Dan’ – to repeat – is not so closely equated with God that to mock ‘Dan’ is to mock ‘God’. Or did we miss something “in the Bible” that establishes ‘Dan’s concurrent divinity?
And the only thing approaching “blasphemy” here is ‘Dan’s claim that to mock him is to mock God, thus equating himself – again – with God. (He is familiar by now – I trust – with the Transitive Principle in logic.)
Nor did I compare the Bible to a Ouija board”. I characterized ‘Dan’s and many fundies’ use of the Bible as reducing the Bible to nothing more than a Ouija board. There is a difference there that is visible even in plain simple English.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1239AM:
And then – in another fine and pitch-perfect demonstration of clinical projection – ‘Dan’s tries to make others here out to be “compulsive liars” when it is actually he himself (or He Himself) who is the compulsive purveyor of manipulative untruths, in the service of that FDS that is his only true and real master.
As is evidenced by his immediately-following claim that he is just one of the “innocent people”; yet he has a police, court and psychiatric file longer and larger than most human beings (the police called “135” times).
He finds all that “hard to understand”, no doubt. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.
And then he tries to lay a smokescreen to get off the stage: clutching his pearls he doth declare that he doesn’t “have the time to waste on the rest of your ignorance tonight”. He doesn’t dare face the rest of the points made.
On then to Dan’s of the 7th at 1121PM:
Here he tries the juvenile gambit of conflating the Dummy’s Guide to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not even cutesy; but revealing, as so very often.
And the rest of that paragraph riffs on his initial juvenile bit.
Then he tries to tackle the profound existential fact that humans have a deep attraction-to and need-for the maternal. That would only be true – he essays the juvenile ‘comeback’ – for a “momma’s boy, or priests that wear lacy dresses and like being called Mary”. We are dealing not only with an untutored mind and manipulatively deceitful character, but also with an unripe and immature capacity to approach the realities of human beings. (Small wonder, then, that he finds his own constructed cartoon-world more congenial.)
But there’s also a sly method to the madness here: all of this riffing along these lines gives him the opportunity to evade the problems in his material raised in my April 7th posts: “The rest of [my] posts, April 7, is just more gibberish” so “there’s not much point” in ‘Dan’s responding. As I said, an FDS creates a fundamental derangement, but it doesn’t neutralize the surface skills of an unripe, sly, and deceitful mind and character.
Continuing with my comment on Dan’s of the 7th at 1121PM:
Having slyly evaded the task of dealing with the uncongenial points I raised, ‘Dan’ can then allow himself back onto center stage to “end with a question” (the Wig of Honest Questioning perched atop his head).
That “question” – posed in full quotation marks – is so repellently unripe that it need not be repeated and readers can look at it for themselves.
First, it is all human beings that are attracted to the “maternal”, not “priests”. ‘Dan’ still hasn’t come to grips with that profound human existential reality.
Second, very few priests have been accused of “raping little boys” – although ‘Dan’ is, as always, quite taken with the thought. That act would appear to be a major conceptual attraction for him.
And the riff proceeds from the queasily repellent to the utterly disturbing – both logically and conceptually – with the bit about “sleeping with statues” and so on.
Would one, simply on hearing stuff like this from somebody standing not far away, be moved to dial 911?
And as for his “P.S.”, he clearly attempts to impose on my comment a meaning more congenial to his cartoon, but that wasn’t there in the text itself (and does that sound familiar?): writing that comment, I was thinking more of a hyena, and a rabid one if such afflicted creatures exist.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 141PM:
Here ‘Dan’ claims to “understand” something, which can reliably be taken by readers as a warning that he is about to leap off the rails.
Yes, he’s quickly off with the now-unsupportable “catholic idol-worshippers”.
Yes, he can see how Catholic “lying idolators” would try to “point the finger” of idolatry at – had you been waitinggggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – “one of God’s true followers”. This is where a nice, tight FDS will take you.
That being said, ‘Dan’s then merely asserts that he has “never made a Bible … to idolize”. Nobody ever suggested ‘Dan’ made the Bible (whether he has reduced the Bible to a pile of 3x5s with pericopes that he thinks are supportive of his cartoons or made a paste-board Bible consisting of nothing but such quotes … is another question altogether).
But that gives him a chance to riff on, although ‘kissing the Bible’ is something far more often seen by public servants or witnesses at court trials. Most of the rest of the stuff his afflicted mind throws up here are also not done by Catholics. But why would ‘Dan’ let reality interfere when he is on a ‘Dan’-roll?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 141PM:
The relevance of the pericope from John is dubious here, unless one wants to buy ‘Dan’s necessary presumption that Catholic worship the Bible now.
And unless one wants to buy Dan’s equally necessary presumption that ‘Dan’s dreck is somehow a pretty good approximation of what Jesus was speaking about. But then, ‘Dan’ has just recently declared himself “one of God’s true followers” … no doubt he was assured of that during a séance with the committee in the bathroom mirror.
The further bits in the rant – about “false christs” and so on, simply carry things further into the whackness.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1146PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ tries to excuse himself for not explaining his selected pericopes by merely saying that they were in “plain english” and it’s not his fault if he assumed that anyone could see the (meaning his) point. But as I noted in my comment of April 7th at 118PM, the pericopes themselves – while being written in plain English – do not at all support the cartoon stuff that ‘Dan’ apparently sees in them.
But ‘Dan’s not really about understanding the Bible; he’s all about making excuses for himself.