Facts vs. The Boston Globe: Globe editor Brian McGrory (l) and staffer Matt Rocheleau (r)
The Boston Globe will do anything to keep an old story alive, even if it means repeatedly misleading its readers.
Once again, this year's newly released annual audit report by United States bishops about abuse in the Catholic Church amplifies the rampancy of false accusations, unprovable allegations against dead priests, dubious decades-old claims, and the determination of Church-suing tort lawyers and their allies to drain the Church's coffers.
Yet in an article by staffer Matt Rocheleau, the Boston Globe continues to try to convince the public that abuse is somehow still a current problem in the Catholic Church.
Just the facts
Taken straight from the data in this year's audit report, we again provide you the simple facts about the Catholic Church abuse story that you will never, ever see in the Boston Globe and which once again only underscore that the abuse story is a Globe obsession borne of animus for an institution which it so abhors:
- a whopping 95% of all abuse accusations last year allege incidents from 1989 or earlier (28 or more years ago);
- 47% of all identified priests who were accused in 2016 were already long deceased (and conveniently no longer around to defend themselves);
- over 82% of all identified priests who were accused in 2016 were either already deceased, already removed from ministry, already laicized, or simply missing; and
- only a mere 15% of all allegations last year were even deemed "substantiated," while nearly two thirds of the accusations were deemed either "unsubstantiated," "unable to be proven," or still under review.
So we will say it again: The story of abuse in the Catholic Church is less "news" and more of an attempt to extend a story line that croaked many years ago.
And the only real reason why lawsuits and accusations are still flying against the Catholic Church is that a number of states have enacted "window legislation" which enables anonymous accusers to make decades-old allegations against now-deceased priests. In the case of this past year, window legislation in Minnesota – home of the notorious Church-suing lawyer Jeff Anderson – enabled various accusers and flimflammers to step forward claiming abuse from many decades ago.
False accusations, the untold story
There is an important and notable fact in this year's report. 25 current minors came forward in 2016 alleging that a current priest abused them. Many of the cases are still under investigation, but of the 13 allegations in which a determination was made, only 2 were found to be "substantiated," and 11 were found to be completely bogus.
Chew on that for a moment … 85% of these contemporaneous accusations in which a determination was made were found to be outright fraudulent.
If the contemporaneous accusations are such frauds, can you imagine what the fraud percentage is of those claiming a priest touched them 30, 40, 50 years ago? Also keep in mind that 73% of the cases brought to the attention of dioceses last year were brought by a Church-suing lawyer.
This is the story that the Globe and the left-wing media need to report. False accusations against Catholic priests are rampant. But the Globe does not report this part of the story because it does not fit the bogus Spotlight movie story line.
Once again, we repeat that the Boston Globe's reporting has absolutely nothing to do with the "protection of children" or the tragic abuse of kids. It has everything to do with bludgeoning the Catholic Church for what it stands for and earning kudos from others – such as those in Hollywood – who also detest the Church.
————————————-
[Addendum (6/6/17): We would like to respond to some readers who are unclear on what the report defines as an "unsubstantiated" allegation. Here it is, straight fron the report itself (emphasis added): "'Unsubstantiated' describes an allegation for which enough evidence exists to prove that the abuse did not occur" (p. 21 of the pdf / p. 10 of the report).
In other words, "unsubstantiated" claims are indeed bogus.]
————————————-
See also:
1. Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church by David F. Pierre, Jr. (Amazon.com)
2. 'Spotlight' Exposed: The definitive 'Spotlight' review.
3. 'Nothing to See Here!': Investigation Finds 15 Mass. Educators Each Year Suspended For Sex Abuse, Boston Globe In Hiding (Nov. 2015)
4. FIVE FAST FACTS About the Catholic Church Abuse Narrative
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:
As usual, he tries right off to manipulate reader response beforehand with another over-the-top histrionic bit of epithet. I think there’s a connection: the more accurate the assessment, the more histrionic the epithet trying to reject the assessment.
And he then simply waves it all away because – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ doesn’t fit my or Bloom’s “definition of a fundie”.
And how or why does he not “fit the definition”? “Because neither of those opinions describe [’Dan’] whatsoever”. In other words, ‘Dan’ is not-A because – waittt forrrr itttttttt – ‘Dan’ says he is not-A.
This is the quality of mentation we are dealing with here. But it works nicely enough to keep a Fixed Delusional Syndrome working.
You wouldn't know an accurate assessment if it came up and bit you in the ass. And you follow that with another ignorant assessment referring to my mental state. You make a donkey look smart.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:
Then ‘Dan’ will tick off some points.
In regard to his (a) point:
Alas, while the Letters and Gospels were being written Peter was in Rome. Can ‘Dan’ provide an actual date when, in his schema, the fundie ‘primitive Christian community’ became the Catholic Church? By the end of the first century there had already been three successors to Peter: Linus, Anacletus, and Clement (and Evaristus began his pontificate in 99AD). By the time of Constantine there had already been 32 successors to Peter (Miltiades was the 33rd, holding office during Constantine’s reign and he presided over the Lateran Council of 313AD).
And before that Council there was an apostolic council (described in Acts 15) sometime around 50AD, and there were at least nine councils before Constantine’s reign.
And – yet again – who does ‘Dan’ think actually selected the writings that would become what Christians now know as the New Testament?
You can lay out your apostolic succession excuse until your blue in the face. There is no pope or papacy in the Bible. Surely no apostles were idol-worshippers like your leaders. They surely would never burn incense or bow down to Mary, your "Queen of Heaven." If you knew your Bible, you would know that no Christians, Apostles or Angels would allow anyone to bow to them. Face the truth. You are a compulsive liar and fit perfectly in a church led by many liars and deceivers. Talk all you like about your ancestry or traditions, and like yourself they don't mean squat. servant of the One True God
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:
In regard to his (b) point:
Moving beyond the silly try at epithet with the Judas-kiss bit, what do we get? Nothing that establishes the wrongness of the point about fundies’ relying on their own personal experiences (and readings of the Bible). Instead, just a pile of ‘Dan’s usual epithetical whackeries about Mary and “phony ecstasy” and so on and so forth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:
In regard to his subsequent paragraph’s questions: No, no, no, and no. I made the points I made to demonstrate the type of fundie actuality we are dealing with here. ‘Dan’ just happens to be a nicely vivid example, since – like a magpie – he has collected a whole bunch of fundie stuff into one convenient pile in order to further his FDS.
You are hilariass! You accuse me of being like a magpie and in the same paragraph you chatter off "No, no, no and no." You are a joke. You long-winded chatter-box.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:
Then he lards on a pericope, Mt 24:15. But this pericope – at the beginning of what is known as the Eschatalogical Discourse – describes the destruction of Jerusalem at the parousia, the Coming of the Messiah, especially as envisioned in the 9th, 11th, and 12th chapters of Daniel. The only way it could have relevance here is if you are a fundie looking for some fun and vivid destruction-of-the-Temple bits to spackle up your epitheticals against the Church.
The pericope is strongly tied to Antiochus having erected an altar to Zeus Olympus in 167BC (whom Antiochus had connected with ba’al samem, the Syrian divinity, as related in 1 Maccabees 54).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:
These imprecations were lodged against a Seleucid king who dedicated the Temple to utterly foreign (to Jewish religion) deities. The fundie game here is silently presume that the Catholic Church has done the same, i.e. defamed Christianity by importing foreign and false gods. Thus all the weird bits from ‘Dan’ about Mary being a pagan goddess and so on and so forth.
But Mary is a primary person in the Gospels and is in no way foreign to the life and ministry of Christ. Nor is she ‘worshipped’ as a ‘goddess’ and all the other whackeries ‘Dan’ – taking his convenient cue from the fundies – tries to shoehorn into his fever-vision about the Church being a foreign and pagan imposition upon genuine Christianity.
PAGAN "Queen of Heaven". Spin it any way you like, still pagan idolatry.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 104AM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to normalize his self-reference as “chosen” (var. “Chosen”) by claiming merely that “if you are a true believer, then you are among the ‘chosen’”.
This would – on first glance – seem a truism (i.e. if you are a true believer in Christianity, then you are chosen by God to be a true believer in Christianity). But if that’s all it is, then anyone who truly believes is one of the “chosen” and thus ‘Dan’ is just one (odd) flower in a rather large field of flowers, since everyone who is a “true believer” is chosen by God.
But this is ‘Dan’ and you must always be ready for a manipulative trick or two. Here, the trick relates to this question of definition: what constitutes a “true believer”? And this is where the fundies and ‘Dan’ pull their trick: if you don’t believe as they do, then – tah-dahhhhhhhhhhhh! – you are not at all a “true believer”.
So then, the ‘Dan’ bit is: if you are a true believer, then you are chosen and thus ‘Dan’ is chosen, but if you don’t believe as ‘Dan’ does, then you aren’t a true believer anyway and ‘Dan’ is so you get left out as a pagan, myah myah.
Neat and sly, but ridiculous.
You're "chosen", if and only if, God chooses you, not because you claim to be a true believer. You'll have to try to do a better job understanding God's Word. However, you may just be deaf, dumb and blind to the truth, so maybe trying to get it will just be a waste of time. If you want to learn God's Truth, you may want to start by stopping your ignorant mocking. Apparently, from what we've seen, you're too stupid to understand that. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 122Pm where he now tosses in a pericope from the Second Letter of Peter (the first pope, one might recall):
Here – in his typically fundie and ever-abiding quest for bits to shoehorn into his fever-visions – ‘Dan’ is apparently trying for an epithetical run at the Church.
What escapes ‘Dan’ and the fundies is that what the first Pope says here could as easily be applied to themselves.
Including the “ignorant and unstable” part, I would surely have to say.
No, no, no, and no. Definitely applies to you and your cult.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 330AM:
The “Church” as the fundies (a late 19th-century development) would know it did not exist in the first century, but the essential structure of Apostolic Authority was in place.
For that matter, if Peter wasn’t the first Pope then who would ‘Dan’ say was the first Pope? He can answer that along with my question put to him above as to when he thinks the ‘primitive Christian community’ became the Catholic Church.
If the basis of the office of Pope was the Apostolic Authority, then that existed with Peter himself, so just what is it that ‘Dan’ thinks has been ‘proven’?
Then some silly word-play on rock and Rock, just to lard on some impression that ‘Dan’ does indeed know squat.
Rock that will make you stumble. Rock that makes you fall flat on your face. Maybe then you won't be so easily able to mock the Almighty and His Power, with your teeth down your throat. servant
Hopefully you're getting a clue that I don't particularly care for liars, deceivers or mockers, or in your case, all of the above.
Really tired of your garbage and nonsense, so I deal with the rest of it at some other time.
I noticed you had a couple of very dumb questions for me to answer, and remembered in the past your crying because I didn't answer your questions. Possibly because they were just as dumb as these two.
Question 1) There has never and will never be a Christian Pope, not first nor last. Why? Because there is no pope or papacy in the Bible. Just one of thousands of falsehoods perpetuated by your false cult. June 13th @ 8:07pm, if you need more details.
Question 2) I really could care less when your catholic church started. All I know is it's beginnings have nothing at all to do with the 'primitive Christian community' for the very fact that it's teachings are far from those of Christ, the Apostles and their teachings. And that is why your church is a heretical, blasphemous, apostate, pagan cult of liars and idolators, putting on a pompous performance of unholiness and false humility called the mass and eucharistic celebration. Grab your popcorn. Cartoon Time is almost over. servant of One + Only God
P.S. Now aren't you glad I answered your questions. Now we don't have to hear you cry.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 249AM:
And before anything else, we note that this rather extended comment is not at all ‘Dan’s usual production, in style or form. Is this lifted from some fundie book or article?
Anyhoo, the first paragraph gives a nicely vivid example of the sly fundie confusion about ‘prophecy’, i.e. that it is both a) an insight into the theological realities of the human existence and yet also b) a fortune-teller’s picture-perfect predictions about the specific shape of future events that are easily clear to those ‘in the know’.
When you take this sly confusion about prophecy and combine it with the classic fundie idea that Scripture is instantly and accurately and totally understandable to anybody who opens the Bible … then you see how so much whackery got started.
When every line of the 'pericope' defines your cult, book-ended by your own bishops (USCCB) statements referring to Rome, well it wouldn't take a genious to figure that this does describe your klan. These things are spiritually discerned, something you fail to understand or just aren't qualified to perceive. Never heard of the True God granting wisdom to liars or mockers.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 249AM:
Then in the next paragraph of the comment, ‘Dan’ quotes Catholic commentary on some usual fundie bits and epitheticals … as if the commentary was thus admitting that the usual fundie bits and epitheticals were accurate.
And we then get more of the usual proffering from ‘Dan’s pile of favorite pericopes along the same lines.
And this bunch concludes with another fine demonstration of ‘Dan’ and fundie whackery: the “seven heads” referred to in Revelation 17:9 are – doncha see? – really a clue to the seven hills of the ancient city of Rome. To what passes for the fundie and ‘Dan’ mind, this is heavy and conclusive stuff.
Readers so inclined may prepare popcorn and consider as they will.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 249AM:
And then a fake-papal exhortation from ‘Dan’ as he tries to bring the performance home, addressed to “Catholics” (urbe et orbe, one might say).
But it’s just a bunch of his usual epithets.
And then a “P.S.”: ‘Dan’ has a problem, i.e. that my “vocabulary” – apparently – might make me appear as if I am “smart” (whereas ‘Dan’s stuff … ) but my vocabulary is just “stupid” is all, so that proves that I am not as smart as I think.
As usual, ‘Dan’ is being sly and duplicitous here. His real problem is that he doesn’t really know much, relying merely on a bunch of fundie cue-cards and his own need to rant and his own delight in queasy epithet, and he’s worried that it’s beginning to show.
It’s not really about my “stupid vocabulary” at all.
What's so "stupid" about the use of your Thesaurus, is the fact that your snobby vocabulary is emanating from the mouth of one who isn't smart enough to realize that compulsive lying and mocking of our Creator does not define traits of a person of much intelligence. Just plain dumb.
Well, on to the next bunch from ‘Dan’.
As I have said before, his stuff provides a double opportunity: i) to see how whackery works in a particular individual, especially individuals who aren’t overburdened in the thinking department, and ii) to see what fundie ‘theology’ tries to do with and to the Church.
It’s not often one gets to examine such a phenomenon from a combined psychological and theological perspective.
Let’s to it, then.
On the 13th at 750PM we get a nice example of the circularity of ‘Dan’s ‘thinking’: I am “ignorant and stupid”/ because I am “far from ‘decent’ and ‘loving’ “/ because I am “a compulsive liar and slanderer”.
What we have here is nothing but a string of epithets, grammatically linked by a causal conjunctive (“because”), as if to mimic some logical progression. But this is, actually, what passes for logic in the ‘Dan’-verse, fatally hobbled as it is by the need to preserve the essential elements of his Fixed Delusional Syndrome.
To which we can then add clinical projection: ‘Dan’ nicely describes himself with the accusation that “it is now the truth because you said it”. This is precisely the dynamic that governs all of his stories, claims, assertions and accusations. (And if you cawn’t see that, then you are “ignorant and stupid”/ because you are “far from ‘decent’ and ‘loving’” / because you are “a compulsive liar and slanderer” – it’s all so logical, doncha see?).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 750PM:
As we shall see below, considering the quality of ‘Dan’s theological and religious chops, one wonders if any of those school-kids couldn’t have refuted his “beautiful prophecy” by the fence that day, if ‘Dan’ hadn’t been shooed away.
So the comment of mine to which ‘Dan’ is responding here turns out to have prompted “a perfect example” of his whackery.
And if there’s one thing to be said for ‘Dan’s stuff, it so very very often does provide “a perfect example”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 754PM where we merely get a childish ‘come-back’, larded with scatology and an epithet.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 807PM:
Now we are getting into the theological and religious-history material.
And in response to the questions I posed as to just when ‘Dan’ would claim that the ‘primitive Christian community’ morphed into the Catholic Church we get … merely a wave-away evasion: ‘Dan’ couldn’t care less and “you can lay out your apostolic succession excuse until your blue in the face” (sic).
Actual facts and demonstrated realities and serious thinking about substantive issues are not things that ‘Dan’ will allow to interfere with the ranty tossing of his ploppy bits. Indeed, they probably don’t gain much traction in his mind in the first place.
“If you knew the Bible” he bleats.
If one ‘knew’ the Bible like ‘Dan’ ‘knows’ the Bible … readers can fill in the conclusion as they may.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 813PM:
More scatology.
And I did say he functioned as a “magpie” – which characterization he has done nothing to refute, by concept or by example.
My four-part succession of “no” responses was a clear and concise response to the four questioning characterizations of my thoughts that he had tossed up. To each of them, I responded ‘no’.
Not in the sense of ‘No, ‘Dan’ is not a magpie’ but rather in the sense that the response to the accuracy of each of his bits is ‘no’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 813PM:
But ‘Dan’s mind is neither attuned-to nor governed-by following thoughts logically. He is a plop-tosser by nature and he is bound by his self-serving indenture to his FDS.
Beyond that, in the ‘Dan’-verse, there is no there there.
And he closes with an epithet. For the purposes of preserving the FDS of the ‘Dan’-verse, I have to be something akin to a “long-winded chatter-box” because otherwise ‘Dan’ would have to face up to the difficult questions posed to his fundie ploppy bits, and to deal with those would require undermining the phantasmagoria that sustain his FDS.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 817PM:
Here he will simply evasively wave-away the problem of Mary being in no way foreign to the Gospels and to Christianity by repeating his tightly-embraced ploppy bits. That’s all he’s got here.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 826PM:
We now get a demonstration of ‘Dan’s theological chops: one is “chosen” if and only if God chooses you, and not merely “because you claim to be a true believer”.
Well, since God doesn’t provide a special certificate or badge of ‘chosenness’, then how does one establish one’s claim to be a “true believer”? And surely ‘Dan’s only claim to the status of “true believer” is ‘Dan’s own assertion and insistence that he is indeed a (or the only) “true believer”.
We see here yet again the problem of fundie (and Protestant) theology: ultimately, one simply has to decide and declare oneself as being a “true believer”. This is where the early Reformers’ effort to eliminate the Church leads to: anybody who claims to be a “true believer” is a “true believer” merely because the individual says so.
The individualistic core of the Protestant approach opens the door to people simply deputizing themselves as “true believers” (thus turning the Bible into a cereal box with a plastic badge to be had at the bottom for anyone enterprising enough to go digging around in the box).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 826PM:
From the outset, various Protestant polities have tried to find a way around this abyss.
Thus many claimed that while anyone might be a “true believer”, yet this or that Protestant polity or congregation could judge as to whether one – “true believer” though s/he may be – would be granted “fellowship” in that particular polity or congregation. And if the polity or congregation didn’t agree with any particular person’s ‘true belief’, then that person could be refused fellowship or ‘dis-fellowshipped’.
In that way i) the core Protestant assertion of the right of every individual to his/her ‘true belief’ could be preserved, while yet ii) some amount of doctrinal uniformity could be preserved among the polity or the congregation.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 826PM:
‘Dan’, of course, has shrewdly refused to accept the use or validity of any membership whatsoever in a religious polity, somehow instinctively realizing that he wouldn’t be accepted or long tolerated in any of them.
That’s due more to his personal issues than his theology, but then again, it’s his personal issues and not any unique theology that drives the ‘Dan’-verse; all of his ‘theological’ assertions, accusations and claims are pretty much familiar and standard fundie fare.
And he tries to wrap up his bit with more epithet.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 828PM:
Here, in response to my point about what Peter says in his Second Letter, ‘Dan’ tries to quote my quadruple ‘no’; but whereas I had used the quadruple ‘no’ in order to respond to four points, ‘Dan’ here is more accurately seen with his hands over his eyes, shaking his head, and simply bawling “No, no, no, and no”.
‘Dan’ has his fixed delusions, and ain’t nobody gonna interfere with ‘em.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1240AM:
‘Dan’ has “noticed” that I had asked him a couple of questions, but they were so “dumb” – doncha see?
My questions were: i) which successor to Peter (or would it be Peter himself) does ‘Dan’ say was the first Pope in the baaaaad fundie sense of the office and ii) when does ‘Dan’ say that the ‘primitive Christian community’ morphed into the Catholic Church?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1240AM:
Dan’s solution – as it were – to the first question demonstrates fundie wordplay: since the term “Pope” does not appear in the Bible then there can be no such office as that of Christian Pope.
But Peter was acknowledged as leader of the Church from the outset after the Ascension (Christ called him the Rock upon whom He would build His church; Matthew 16:18). So – not to put too fine a point on it – Peter’s role and authority are “in the Bible”. Whether Peter was called Pope by Christ, that “church” continued on under the Apostolic Authority of Peter and when Peter died, then that Apostolic Authority was passed on to his successor. And so on to the present day.
Whether the term Pope or Chief-Cook-and-Bottlewasher came to be applied to the office that was invested with the Apostolic Authority originally assigned by Christ, it is the Apostolic Authority that defines the office and that is rather clearly grounded in Matthew.
All ‘Dan;’ does here is to wave all that away and hide in word-games and wordplay. As do the fundies.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1240AM:
Dan’s solution – as it were – to the second question is also a mere childish wave-away: ‘Dan’ “really couldn’t care less”.
But was there then no ‘primitive Christian community’ preceding the Church? If that’s ‘Dan’s position, then no Christian community or polity has ever existed following the Ascension.
Which leaves us with just a) the Bible and then b) the ‘Dan’-verse.
And the Bible upon which the ‘Dan’-verse relies was itself compiled by the Church.
And “the Bible” is actually nothing but a code-phrase for whatever ‘Dan’ claims to see in it.
A fine rabbit-hole this is.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1240AM:
But, really, all this is simply too much thinking for ‘Dan’, who quickly bleats “All I know is …” and that’s about the only accurately revelatory bit he has provided so far: ‘Dan’ knows squat, except for his pile of 3×5 ploppy-bits, several of which he quickly proceeds to toss up yet again.
And in another vivid demonstration of what we’re dealing with here, ‘Dan’ doth declare that he has “answered your questions”.
With ‘answers’ like these, the ‘Dan’-verse will continue its subterranean existence as a rabbit-hole, furnishing itself with various fundie ‘theological’ bits but – in the final analysis – leaving even the fundies far behind in the service of ‘Dan’s own FDS.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 729AM:
Here ‘Dan’ simply myah-myahs yet again by repeating his own take – as if repetition somehow establishes the accuracy of his stuff.
He seems to mistake his approach for “genious”.
Also, we get a nice demonstration of another of his evasive and self-deceptive manipulations of language: his stuff has to be “spiritually discerned” – doncha see? If one were merely to rely upon actual knowledge of the material, then one wouldn’t ‘see’ and ‘know’ as ‘Dan’ does.
The method in the madness here is to neutralize ‘Dan’s actual lack of knowledge by moving the game to a new level that cannot be examined or assessed. But ‘spiritual’ is grossly misused here; the intangible level where ‘Dan’s mind operates involves ignorance and delusion, not the “spiritual”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 743AM:
Here he tries yet again to evade his knowledge problem by continuing to harp upon my alleged “vocabulary”, this time by asserting that I use a “Thesaurus”. I don’t use them, because I find that they are largely insufficient since they merely approximate alternative words, ignoring vital differences in connotations.
And – in another sly twist – ‘Dan’ tries to establish that I am not “smart enough” (and ‘Dan’, of course, is) to avoid – had you been waitttinggg forrrr itttttt? – “compulsive lying and mocking of our Creator”.
As I have often said, ‘Dan’s only hope is that God accepts insanity pleas, because ‘Dan’s gross and flagrant abuse of knowledge and things spiritual is otherwise a sustained and abyssal example of compulsive lying and constitutes a mockery of things spiritual and conceptual.
And for that matter, the term “compulsive lying” is rather a bridge too far for ‘Dan’s demonstrated capacities; as we saw with another Abusenik here once upon a time, it is far more likely that he has merely taken a diagnostic observation made about his own habits and tries now to use it as a weapon against others. Thus just another instance of ‘Dan’s old I’m Not/You Are tactic.
BT
Little piggy publiar oinks, "Dan's only hope is that God accepts insanity pleas [now isn't that cute], because 'Dan's gross and flagrant abuse of knowledge and things spiritual is otherwise a sustained and abyssal example of compulsive lying and constitutes a mockery of things spiritual and conceptual."
Got a pericope for the pair-of-dopes (that would be for the liar and the mocker) -
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intellegence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
What does Mr. Know-It-All have to respond to that? Can't wait until God crushes your self-righteous stupidity and ignorance, that you think is knowledge. You're a lyin', mocking creep, who doesn't have the smarts to know when to shut his mouth. I'm sure God will be more than happy to shut it for you. You are totally ignorant of Biblical prophecy and your so-called knowledge will be worthless when you stand before God. Maybe your imagined, sinless, ever-virgin "Queen of Heaven" can meet you at the gates, but rest assured they won't be Heaven's Gate. I can smell the smoke already. servant of the One and Only God Almighty
I state how you falsely accuse a rival and "then repeat that lie ad nauseum as if it's the truth because you said it". So rather than stopping your lying, you'd rather add to it by questioning whether "any those school-kids couldn't have refuted [my] 'beautiful prophecy' by the fence that day". I'm sure you would be able to find a few whom you could coach to lie for you and grow up to be a professional, compulsive, catholic liar like yourself. Like I've said previously, "You are one fine example of a perfect lying catholic hypocrite and your cult must be awful proud of your ignorance, little peewee." Have you ever researched the psychological traits of a compulsive liar and deceiver. You would be the perfect case study. As far as the rest of your repetitive garbage today, it just ain't worth any of my time.
Aside from being a terrible liar, do you ever realize how often you fall back on the I'm Not/You Are bit", while accusing others of that tactic. You're one ridiculous, lying mocker. servant
It has been interesting following this "discussion". Dan, you are obviously very hurt. I am sorry for that and for whatever happened to you. But, you will never be free or in peace until you forgive. Forgiveness is not about the abusers, it is about yourself. Let go and let God, and get on with your life. Here is a document to help you come to forgiveness.
Prejudice and bigotry is also not Christian. Such behavior is a result of anger, and the anger a result of not forgiving.
Jesus said that if we do not forgive that He will not forgive us. Thus, unforgiveness jeapardizes our soul.
Dan, for your own sake let go. Rest in the arms of our Lord and let him take care of it. It only hurts yourself, not the Church, to be so angry, prejudiced, and unforgiving.
Our Spiritual Warfare Prayer team will be praying for you from now on.
God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary
In response to the material I put up, what do we get from ‘Dan’?
On the 15th at 517PM just another repetition of his usual stuff, “lying” and epithet and all.
And – beyond that: well, declares ‘Dan’ with some slang-y posturing, “it just ain’t worth any of [his] time”.
My, he’s the sly one, ain’t he though? You don’t have to put up much of a question that would require both knowledge and thought before ‘Dan’ suddenly realizes his “time” is wayyyyyy too valuable to be wasting just now.
And as for his bit on the 15th at 808PM:
It is not I who doth “fall back” so “often … on the I’m Not/You Are bit”. It’s ‘Dan’ who does it; I just point it out when he does. And he doesn’t much like to be reminded.
You let me know when someone asks "a question that would require both knowledge and thought", and I'll be more than glad to answer it. If you're speaking in regards to responding to your ignorance and lies, or that I'm required to answer to the false teachings of your church or the ridiculous beginnings of your apostate cult, sorry, but you'll have to consult one of your apologists to have the answers you'd like to hear.
Catholics, ask yourselves. Is your church hierarchy living by any means similar to that of Jesus, Peter (your 1st pope??), John, Paul or any of the rest of the Apostles. Do you picture Christ's true followers wearing triple crowns and fancy dresses, sitting on red velvety gold thrones, parading with statues of mary smothered in roses, dwelling in elaborate temples, or allowing people to bow to them, stroke them and kiss their feet, etc.etc. This type of worship was given to pagan kings and queens, Roman Caesars and pharisees. Look at your church and it's pagan traditions, ceremony and pomp in all honesty, and you will see, Babylon Rome, pharisees and the worship of kings (popes) and worst of all the worship of mary, "Queen of Heaven". I'm sorry, but in all honesty you have been brainwashed by an evil, greedy, idolatrous, lying group of pedophile and perverted hypocrites. They do not follow or obey Biblical principles and are far from living anything of truth. They will receive a just punishment.
The world's kings live in temples, not God, Christ or His followers (Acts 7:48). Don't let the deceiving liars fool you. They care not for your souls. Only for your money, your worship of false gods and goddesses, including themselves, and for the fleshy lusts of sexually abusing your children. They are a sick, cunning brood of lying snakes. Be not fooled. servant of the Lord
peewee, Make sure you quote it correctly, "your lying". I've told you, you shall reap what you sow. Keep on lying and adding more lying nonsense, because you have nothing else, and you shall get back what you truly deserve. You think that if you rant and falsely accuse with a sophisticated vocabulary, then it's not ranting. You may think so, in your little, childish, persnickety world, void of any common sense. servant
For the rest of you, you need to stop this banter. That, too, is not Christian behavior. St. Paul instructs us to cease unproductive argumentation (Titus 3:2, 9). What is going on here is the very defintion of "unproductive."
Bro. Mary, Thank you for your effort and I would hope it had some kind of good intention. You're accusing me of prejudice and bigotry, but fail to realize your own predjudice and bigotry by judging me and my unforgiveness, and yet later devote a very small paragraph to other's banter in this forum, those who just happen to be your fellow catholic cohorts and hypocrites.
Would like to inform you of a few things you just may be unaware of. I've been falsely accused by your fellow priests, nuns, a catholic cop and beaten from behind by 4 thugs of your holier than thou catholic cult. On their multiple lies, had to go to court to listen to the bunch of them swear to God to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, and turn around and add to their horrible lies with more lies. Why don't you invest your time criticizing and teaching the hypocritical, unforgiving clergy of your cult about forgiveness. I wasn't aware that the holier than thou are free to accuse the innocent and show no remorse for their lies, but to the contrary, add more false accusations to their slander and wickedness. Though innocent of all their false charges, I still had to pay the price by staying under disgusting conditions and horrible food, 6 times in mental facilities, 6 overnite stays in jail with stinking, violent drunks, 7 full days in jail for contempt because I refused to admit to obscenities I never said, 20 days of Sheriff's Work Program (SWP) and 10 more days of SWP from the accusations of a lying cop. Been falsely accused of screaming obscenities at little children, shaking and climbing over school gates, threatening adults, when the reverse was true and telling little ones that "Jesus is dead". Your cult is chock full of wicked, cruel and unforgiving creeps, and I believe your time would be better spent working on your own kind. Thank You.
Believe me, I could have sought my own revenge, but haven't harmed a single hair on any of the liars. Haven't harmed any of your temples, broken any windows, knocked over any of your precious idols or sprayed graffiti on your schools or churches. I live in such a place of peace and forgiveness, with my God and Savior, that you catholics can't seem to understand. I will not sit back and let creeps on this forum add to the lies I have already suffered for, questioning my sanity and mocking me, my God, Jesus Christ or His Holy Spirit. Apparently you're unwilling to judge or accuse their ignorance, seeing that they're your own kind.
I have a reading for you, Psalm 101, that may help you understand where I stand among many enemies and lying hypocrites. Are you aware that as a true Christian we will be hated by the world. Have you ever heard of, "Be ye angry, but do not sin."
"Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the LORD. Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?" Jer. 23:28-29
If you are unwilling to stand against the mocking of God and believe I'm the bad guy in all this, than so be it. I can forgive, but that doesn't mean my work against darkness, wickedness and false teachings of greedy, idolatrous, sexually immoral and lying cults can be pushed aside. I'm so blessed with forgiveness that the banter on this forum doesn't even anger me. In fact it's somewhat entertaining and at times even comical. I look forward to hear what kind of lies and slander I'll come up against next. I've been persecuted, lied about, insulted and slandered in just about every way, and believe me when I say that I feel blessed (Matt 5:10,11). This is truly forgiveness that's beyond comprehension, and only attainable through my God and Savior. servant of a loving, forgiving and awesome God and proud to be called His friend
P.S. Sorry, but not interested in the teachings of Padre Pio, a phony who burned acid in his palms to claim a stigmata. Who wasn't aware that Christ was nailed through the wrists. Punish and viciously whip yourselves until you bleed. I'm terribly not impressed and doubt that God is either. Show me where flagellation is Biblical, or was it for sexual gratification while molesting little boys?
Let it go Dan. Forgive and remove from your heart the hatred and bigotry that is as obvious and demonstratively objective as the Moon in the sky. But, I know I am wasting my breath. I will pray for your healing. Goodbye.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1050PM:
It opens – manipulatively and as usual – with an epithet.
He quotes my assessment of his activities … but does not refute it.
Instead, he has rummaged in his pericope-pile and come up with one: slyly – though we’ve seen it before – it’s a pericope chosen by ‘Dan’ to neutralize his lack of “intellegence” by implying that even knowledge of Scripture – if it isn’t knowledge that supports the ‘Dan’-verse – is merely “wisdom of this world” and not – of course – the type of unquestionable God-infused ‘knowledge’ that ‘Dan’ claims to possess in such abundance. ‘Dan’, then, doesn’t have to actually know anything; he has God’s own knowledge and therefore to question ‘Dan’s stuff is to question God. And so on.
Your "assessment" is just more piling on of lies. How do I refute "things that are untrue". When I have, you just come back with more lies, slander and ignorance. Your misinterpretation of Scripture, far from qualifies as any "knowledge of Scripture". It shows a total lack of Spiritual wisdom, and yet you're not totally to blame. As I've previously informed you, the Almighty God, Creator of everything that is good, is not about to pour out His wisdom on a compulsive liar and one who thinks it's cute and clever to mock Him, His Son, His Holy Spirit or any of His servants. You're walking a thin line of blasphemy against the Creator and His Creation, and yet believe with your so-called knowledge to be wiser than He. Good luck, Mr. Legend in your Own Mind. servant of the God of Anger + Just Revenge
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1050PM:
Awarding himself a somewhat-premature victory lap, ‘Dan’ then bleats about what answer I could possibly make to the pericope.
I would answer that – in addition to what I have just written in the immediately previous comment above – ‘Dan’ (slyly) mistakes his delusions for ‘knowledge’, and even for ‘knowledge’ specially infused by God.
The basic purpose of his whole bit here is to i) neutralize his actual lack of Scriptural knowledge while ii) raising his own delusive rants and plop-tossing to the level of a higher level of ‘knowledge’ iii) that is insulated from question by masquerading as the unquestionable authority of God.
Oh, and he tosses in another God’ll-getcha threat about God shutting my mouth (‘Dan’ is “sure” of it); and on that basis ‘Dan’ indulges himself in a little riff about smelling hell-smoke.
Never claimed to possess an "unquestionable authority of God". However I will not be questioned by a mocker of God, a blatant liar or a "Queen of Heaven", idol-worshipping creep. You may try to make some effort at questioning another without slandering and that may be more productive and others may want to have a more civil conversation with you. Until then, as I've told you, "You shall reap what you sow". Continue lying and falsely accusing and you will get absolutely no respect from me. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 517PM:
Here he doth “state” – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttt? – that I do “falsely accuse” him – although he has never provided any evidence that would support his claim of any false accusation against him. (As I have said, his many mere denials and further assertions of “lies, lies” don’t at all make the grade as evidentiary.)
Nor does he accurately characterize himself as my “rival”. He is – as I have said a number of times – an ‘example’, and a useful one for readers to observe how minds such as his operate, in both the psychological and the theological realms.
What do you want as 'evidence', little peewee, a note from my mommy? I've told you straight out and listed several times just a few of your lies. You don't accept or believe me because you think everyone one is a liar like yourself. Is this just a trait common to many catholics, seeing that you've been brainwashed with so many anti-Biblical lies. Then I guess I could understand your persistent ignorance, and yet there's no excuse.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 121PM:
The first paragraph, once one cuts through the muzzy larding of words, basically goes for the idea that ‘Dan’ has yet to be confronted with any “question that would require both knowledge and thought”.
We are apparently supposed to forget the questions posed to him for which his only ‘responses’ have been evasion, mere denial, or the mere tossing-up of more pericopes that – slyly – can only serve his purposes if they are looked at under the many presumptions that his fever-visions require.
Having skated by that rather abyssal problem with is ‘responses’ and ‘answers’, ‘Dan’ then proceeds in the second paragraph to deliver yet another faux-papal declamation to “Catholics”, drawing in yet another assemblage of his various ploppy 3x5s, wherein he works in “pagan” and “temples” and Mary-as-goddess in order to bolster his presentation.
"Reap what you sow."
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 121PM:
And in that bubbly stew we also see the typical fundie Scriptural tactic of simultaneously a) insisting that the Bible (compiled, we recall, by the Church herself) is only to be understood literally while also b) insisting that anybody can then lard onto the literal whatever fever-visions they claim to see in the ‘prophetic’ dimension of the text.
Thus “Babylon” is equated with “Rome”, and that “Rome” is a) not to be taken in the actual historical sense of the Roman Empire – decadent in its morals and persecuting the then-nascent Christian community – but rather b) in the grossly anti-historical sense of a Catholic “Rome” that would not exist as such for centuries yet to come.
If you subscribe to the fundie game-plan, you can play games like this with a theoretically “literal” text. And the game can then go on and on and on, providing oodles of fun and feverish excitement to those so inclined.
Are you dense or what. I quoted to you directly from the USCCB Bible on the internet, the footnote describing the Whore that sits on the Beast – Revelations " *(17:1-6) Babylon, the symbolic name of Rome, is graphically described as 'the great harlot'." And just by coincidence, the catholic church and the papal mass, fits every description of that pagan harlot. Don't play your little games with me. catholic cult = pagan Babylon Rome. They possess all the trappings of a dictatorship, with Roman emperors claiming to be holy, harmless, loving sheep. Deceiving others and being themselves deceived.
"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap."
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 121PM:
And at this point I think it worthwhile and relevant to point out the historical dimension of the New Testament: nobody back then expected that the Second Coming of Christ would take as long as it has (and still counting). This is a bit curious, since even Jesus – assigning to Peter the role of the foundation Rock of the Church – appeared to realize that He would need to establish some organized form of a church since He wouldn’t be returning in the Parousia in the near-term.
Thus both instituted and thrown – as it were – into the deep end of the pool of human History and events, comprised of humans every bit as imperfect as Peter himself, the Church began the trek through History, guided by the Spirit but still comprised of humans with all the weaknesses as well as strengths which our species has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate.
I'll educate you on what the Lord says in regards to the Second Coming of Christ.
"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9
Let this be a warning. You never know when that day may come. All your worldly knowledge and historical facts won't carry much weight when you stand before Him. He is aware though of your lies and slander, and he'll show to you His evidence. servant of Justice
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 121PM:
The fundie game is to emphasize the weaknesses while themselves refraining from any of the awe-full challenges of maintaining a human organization. Which is a game-plan very amenable to ‘Dan’s own purposes: railing at the world and human weakness while himself claiming the unassailable and unquestionable authority of God’s own Will.
One might well ask if it is not so sly and duplicitous a game-plan that might warrant a “just punishment”.
We are well-advised indeed not to be “fooled” by such chicanery.
You seem pretty troubled today with my having the "unquestionable authority of God". I will say that you as a mocker, liar and deceiver would most definitely have no authority from God. I guess He really is the loving God He claims to be. I would have removed your tongue a long time ago. You should give more thought before mocking Him and lying against His servant. Just my humble opinion.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 355PM:
Once again ‘Dan’ is on about my “vocabulary”, slyly evading – as I have said before – that it is not the particular terms or words I use, but rather the ideas and historical actualities upon which my points and questions are based that are the point at issue. It is the ideas and historical actualities and the thought applied to them, and not this or that bit of “vocabulary”, that ‘Dan’ seeks always to avoid and evade.
Your "ideas and historical actualities" along with your annoying "vocabulary" carry little weight with the God who made you. It only witnesses to your being a snobby, self-righteous nerd.
On then to the ‘Bro’ (hereinafter: BJPIM) comment of the 18th at 228PM:
Having already proposed (the 18th at 214PM) to ‘Dan’ that ‘Dan’ must “embrace forgiveness”, for which consummation BJPIM’s “Spiritual Warfare Prayer Team” will pray, BJPIM then adds – a few minutes later – that “this banter” doth “need to stop”.
In the first place I would differ as to the characterization of the exchanges here as “banter”. Substantive issues have been raised, historical and theological points have been demonstrated, and the exchanges – as I have said several times – offer the readership a rare opportunity to see how the fundie approach operates in regard to Catholicism and the Church (especially when deployed by someone with ‘Dan’s particular personal issues and predispositions).
And more evidence from the "snobby, self-righteous nerd".
Continuing with my comment on the BJPIM comment of the 18th at 228PM:
In the second place I would say that the BJPIM approach is one more pastorally than conceptually oriented.
I am concerned to use the material produced in these exchanges as a conceptual opportunity for the enlightenment of the readership (many of whom might be themselves Catholics); thus my method involves conceptual examination and assessment. BJPIM’s approach would appear to focus on ‘Dan’s personal spiritual development or change, and thus involves a personal reaching-out for engagement and also involves prayer.
The two approaches are valid (more on this point below) but they have different aims.
Once again, compulsive lying does not qualify as "conceptual examination and assessment". Nor does your brainwashing qualify as "enlightenment for the readership". Just shows added proof of your being a "snobby, self-righteous nerd". Like I told Bro. Mary, I find much of your material pretty comical and larded with way too much pride. servant
Continuing with my comment on the BJPIM comment of the 18th at 228PM:
I would also note that in an effort to ease the path to engagement, BJPIM commiserates with ‘Dan’s claims – presumptively, it would seem, accepting them as valid.
But it has been demonstrated over the long course of the exchanges here that ‘Dan’s claims of victimization (to say nothing of his theological and religious claims, assertions, and accusations) are far more probably not-credible. Thus to try to begin the path to engagement by accepting them as accurate is already to undermine the effort, whether in the psychological or the conceptual realm.
Of course, one might claim that there is a third realm, the pastoral – one might say, which has as its object not the validity of the material but rather the ‘conversion’ (perhaps not the best term here) of the individual. Thus that BJPIM is working on ‘Dan’s ‘soul’ here, rather than on his ‘mind’ or ‘psyche’.
That might be, and BJPIM is welcome to continue such efforts.
But I think that – given what we have seen of ‘Dan’ here – this is more akin to spraying water on an electrical or magnesium fire: the water is only going to make things worse.
And I would presume you think you're "credible". LOL at the liar.
Continuing with my comment on the BJPIM comment of the 18th at 228PM:
In the third place, then, I would question the relevance here of the pericope from the Letter to Titus. The “unproductive argumentation” to which BJPIM refers applies to intra-Christian communal bickering and arguments.
But what we have in the ‘Dan’ material is something else entirely: it is – through its reliance on essentially fundamentalist arguments, assertions, accusations and claims – an attack on the very nature and role and legitimacy of the Church and of Catholicism (and, in light of BJPIM’s own screen moniker, of Mary as well).
And I don’t think it need be pointed out how Paul would deal with such fundamental attacks.
If your cult displayed any signs of "legitimacy" then there would be little to attack. As it stands as a greedy, idol-worshipping, sexually perverted, cowardly bunch of liars, well these poor qualities alone would lead any true Christian to expose in hopes that some remnant of catholics would awaken and run quickly away from it's destruction. God and Christ will destroy your pagan, false cult, and all those who turn their back on God, in order to worship their false gods and goddesses. That is a promise and not a threat. servant to the Almighty
And by the way, Paul was a fundamentalist, and surely was no catholic. Or are you trying to claim Paul's teachings as your own. I think you better take a good look again at Romans chapter one, because he surely spoke against idolators, pedophiles and perverts. Maybe you should take a course on understanding simple english, Mr. Big Vocabulary.
Continuing with my comment on the BJPIM comment of the 18th at 228PM:
Thus to approach the ‘Dan’ material as merely another instance of intra-community bickering is to rather seriously misunderstand the nature of the fundamentalist stance and to greatly underestimate its incompatibility with the Church and with Catholicism itself.
One might then claim that reclaiming ‘Dan’s soul is worth bartering away the legitimacy of the Church and of Catholicism, but that would not be my approach at all.
There is no legitimacy to barter away, so it boggles my mind that you waste your time defending it and it's perverted creeps. You should get a life.
Marvelously, ‘Dan’ then quickly demonstrates the dangers inherent in what I have just described.
On the 18th at 1135PM ‘Dan’ moves quickly to capitalize on the opening that BJPIM has provided: as BJPIM lowers his shield in order to invite a pastoral opening, ‘Dan’ immediately moves in to deliver his usual whacks and slashes: BJPIM should consider not ‘Dan’s “prejudice and bigotry” but rather BJPIM’s (and Catholicism’s) own “prejudice and bigotry”.
And then follows that up by reciting yet again his preferred take on his assorted misadventures. There is no recreation ‘Dan’ enjoys more than retelling his preferred take on his assorted misadventures.
And that whole riff goes on for the rest of the comment.
I wanted to make sure that Bro. Mary was aware of all the false accusations and lies of your fellow creeps, publiar. Time to slither back down your hole, you slimy, little worm.
Also, I would like it to be known, that I would prefer that no catholic pray for me. I don't believe the True God listens to the prayers of idolators, perverts or liars. Thanks anyway.
There are a couple in ‘Dan’s most recent crop that don’t really need any explication since they are nicely revelatory of ‘Dan’s mind and character all on their own.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1148PM:
He begins with an (accusatory and epithetical) assertion: “Your ‘assessment’ is just more piling on of lies”.
Now right there, in standard conceptual exchange, one would move directly to provide examples and explication of the assertion one has just made.
But that’s not how ‘Dan’ operates. Instead, having tossed out an assertion, he quickly moves on to a problem of his own: how does he “refute things that are untrue”? He then whines that whenever he does (i.e. “refute ‘things that are untrue’”) I simply “come back with more lies” and so on.
In other words, ‘Dan’ is trying to run the idea here that a) he has indeed effectively done the refuting but even then b) I keep repeating my “lies” and so on.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1148PM:
Sly, and yet a vivid example of the toxic misch of deceit and self-ignorance that drives such mentation as ‘Dan’ can muster.
First, he hasn’t done any refuting at all; he’s simply i) repeated his own stuff and then ii) epithetically waved away the points I had made. But ‘comeback’ is not refutation. ‘Dan’ clearly doesn’t grasp the difference, and perhaps cannot allow himself to do so.
Second – and as so often with those afflicted types who cannot allow themselves to grasp or see the dynamics of clinical projection – ‘Dan’ consistently accuses others of what he himself so often does: he merely repeats his own stuff and doesn’t actually engage the material (that he can’t handle anyway in the first place).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1148PM:
But we also hear an echo of fundie (and much Protestant) thinking: if you have a theological or religious ‘testimony’ or ‘prophecy’ then nobody can ask you for proof or evidence because such things are merely between you and God and what human, then, can say it ain’t so?
This is problematic enough in the religious/theological forum. It becomes even more problematic and toxic if introduced into any other arena of discourse (legal, historical, scientific, for example).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1148PM:
Then another accusatory assertion, i.e. my “misinterpretation of Scripture”. Again, in proper conceptual exchange, ‘Dan’ should immediately proffer his examples and explication of that assertion. But – of course – he does nothing of the sort.
Instead, sly presuming the veracity of the (undemonstrated) assertion he has just made, he quickly moves to a conclusion larded with epithet: my “misinterpretation” “shows a total lack of spiritual wisdom”.
And we also notice the deceitful slyness in this bit here: the point he had originally made was on Scriptural chops, but suddenly he switches to “spiritual wisdom”. Readers of this thread will recall that ‘Dan’ has been demonstrating that gambit, i.e. trying to sidestep his lack of actual Scriptural chops by introducing the concept of “spiritual wisdom”, which would be above and beyond any merely ‘worldly knowledge’.
‘Dan’ – doncha see? – just has oodles and oodles of “spiritual wisdom”. Those who don’t buy his stuff have a “total lack” of it, of course. Neat and sly and deceptive and so very deceitful.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1148PM:
He then claims that he hath indeed and verily “informed” one and all about “the Almighty God” and so on. Further channeling (or masquerading-as) Divine Authority, ‘Dan’ huffs that God surely wouldn’t be “about to pour out His wisdom on a compulsive liar” … and – the marvels of clinical projection yet again – ‘Dan’ might want to look into the bathroom mirror and give that pronouncement some serious reflection.
But this bit of his here serves to banish – in his own mind, anyway, and for his own purposes – any possibility that objections to ‘Dan’s various bits might be accurate.
And he tries to wrap it all up with more threat about “walking a thin line” and so forth, which I would again suggest as excellent material upon which to reflect while he is staring into his bathroom mirror.
And he has now re-monnikered himself as “servant” of God’s “Anger” and “Just Revenge”. Again, he should take that bit to the bathroom mirror as well.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1202AM:
Having just presumed to speak for God, and threatened-with-God those who in objecting to ‘Dan’s stuff do verily “mock” God and Jesus and so forth, ‘Dan’ now – with a sublimely blithe disregard for coherence and consistency – doth declaim that he “never claimed to possess an ‘unquestionable authority of God’”. (‘Dan’ – doncha see? – isn’t Angry and Vengeful; God is and ‘Dan’s just passing it along.)
On what basis, then, does he equate my treatment of his own stuff with “mocking” God? Why would God be mad at me merely for raising objections to ‘Dan’s stuff?
And his accusatory assertion that I am “slandering” him is – yet yet again – an assertion that not only remains undemonstrated but actually flies in the face of all the material that ‘Dan’ himself has revealed.
And the whole bit is larded thickly with assorted bits of epithet. That might work – or at least be worth a few chuckles and guffaws – around the tables in the back of the high-school cafeteria, but not here.
publiar oinks, "On what basis, then, does he equate my treatment of his own stuff with 'mocking' God? Why would God be mad at me merely for raising objections to 'Dan's stuff?"
"The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them AGAIN and AGAIN by His MESSENGERS, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place; but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed [mocked] at His prophets, until the WRATH of the LORD arose against His people, until there was no remedy." 2 Chronicles 36:16
"Remember, Lord, how your SERVANT has been MOCKED, how I bear in my heart the insults of many [catholic] people." Psalm 89:50
Now don't forget to lay out your multitude of excuses. You are such a manipulating, deceiving, slimy worm and you will be crushed just as simply as a person steps on a nematode. You lie consistently and say prove it, slander and question where are the examples, mock God and His chosen and cry, I don't mock God, I just mock 'deputy dawg' with the 'Fax from Beyond'. Your ignorant and stupid, childish "stuff" is proof and it shall be a witness against you when you stand before the Almighty. You are a scoffer and compulsive liar and you're headed for Hell's fire. Catholics should be ashamed to have you as one of their apologists, but after all they excuse and justify pedophilia, so I'm not terribly surprised that they would back one of Satan's chosen snakes. servant of the Just and True God
P.S. Maybe you can say 10 Hail Marys and she can hide you under her dress. If not there are plenty of scarlet red and purple bishops dresses for you to seek shelter from the Lord's wrath.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1211AM:
Here – as if the subject had never been considered here before – ‘Dan’ bleats and whines “what do you want as evidence?”. That’s a substantive question, and – so very revealingly – ‘Dan’ quickly tries to move beyond the grenade out of which he himself has just pulled the pin by instantly descending into the adolescent about “a note from mommy”. (As if ‘Dan’ doesn’t consider his own material to be backed up by his secret ‘notes from Beyond’ …)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1211AM:
First, I note again that “evidence” is not comprised of mere assertions and claims, no matter how vividly and epithetically crafted. But really, that’s all ‘Dan’s got. Well, that and then epithetically screaming when your own assertions are a) demonstrated to reveal what you don’t want revealed and that b) you most certainly don’t want to think about.
Of course, we see here an echo of fundie religious praxis: you can get up and give your ‘testimony’ that comes from “the Spirit” and who in the assemblage can say it ain’t so?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1211AM:
But I take this opportunity to share also another interesting and relevant historical bit.
“We are faced with a conspiracy, with a group of people who intended to mount a coup against the state … a fairly complex conspiracy linking the conspirator with foreign fascist powers. How can one ask for formal proof under such circumstances?”
The speaker of these lines was going for this idea: when the accusation is of such magnitude, how can one possibly ask for evidence?
Regular readers of this site might recognize this idea: it is the same one that lubricated the Stampede: when the conspiratorial awfulness and alleged consequences to the ‘victims’ described in the accusations are so huge, how can one be so obtuse, insensitive, and obstructively contrarian as to ask for proof?
The speaker was Andrey Vishinsky, Stalin’s chief prosecutor at the Moscow show trials in 1937, which was when he made the remarks I have quoted.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1211AM:
And ‘Dan’ also introduces a new deceptive gambit as well here: I don’t believe ‘Dan’s stuff because – waitttttttt forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttttttttt – I think everyone is a liar like myself.
I don’t believe ‘Dan’s stuff because it doesn’t comport with any known facts or rational probabilities, whether in the matter of his own legal and psychiatric misadventures, or in the matter of the Church and Catholicism, or in the matter of the Scripture that he claims supports his stuff.
I don’t believe ‘Dan’ because he is – fundamentally and literally, one might say – unbelievable.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1244AM:
Here the reader is nicely warned beforehand by means of ‘Dan’s strong opening with epithet: stuff is coming that isn’t strong enough to stand on its own.
‘Dan’ considers ‘evidence’ to be whatever bits the Divinely Chosen Magpie has beaked up on the internet.
But the “Rome” bit is one I addressed in a prior comment on this thread: it is merely the silly and juvenile wordplay (i.e. that “Rome” in Revelations is the Catholic Church “Rome” of today) that passes for deep “spiritual wisdom” in the ‘Dan’-verse and for ‘prophecy’ in the fundie-verse.
And if you drink enough of the ‘Dan’/fundie Kool-Aid and wear their special see-through glasses, then you too will quickly see that “just by coincidence” … everything about the Rome in Revelations is also exactly and precisely true about the Catholic Rome. See? It’s both scientific and historical and shows reel reel theological chops!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1244AM:
And just what does the “USCCB Bible on the internet” say? Once again, it says nothing that demonstrates the accuracy of ‘Dan’s fever-vision claims. To ‘see’ the accuracy of those claims (and accusations and assertions) you have to have the Secret ‘Dan’/Fundie Magic Decoder Ring on.
And then – oh so very slyly – ‘Dan’ works in again his signature I’m Not/You Are bit: it’s I who is playing “little games” (word games, one presumes) and not ‘Dan’ and the fundies. Readers may judge as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 101AM:
Here ‘Dan’ doth insist that he will “educate” one and all as to what “the Lord says in regards to the Second Coming of Christ”. Then a pericope from 2 Peter.
Question: it has been, in earth time, 2000 years now. And no parousia yet.
The pericope ‘Dan’ proffers has to do with God’s slow patient working in the human soul throughout (the remainder of) human history. But it says utterly nothing about the actual Second Coming of Christ, when Christ will physically come again, breaking into human history in the fullness of His power and glory.
So much for ‘Dan’s educating or – for that matter – for ‘Dan’s Scriptural education.
“Let this be a warning”, as ‘Dan’ might say: ‘Dan’ knows squat about what he would presume to “educate” one and all.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 101AM:
And while we’re on the subject of his lack of Scriptural chops, just how does ‘Dan’ deal with Matthew 16:18-19, wherein Jesus calls Peter the “rock” upon which He will build His church, then giving Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” … ?
In a previous comment on this thread ‘Dan’ had nicely demonstrated both his own and fundie incapacities by merely resorting to juvenile word-play: Peter is – according to the peanut gallery – the “rock” upon which nonbelievers (and, of course, Catholics) would stumble.
But a stumbling-rock is skandalon, and Peter in this passage is called a kepa, which simply means ‘rock’.
So Peter’s role and authority is – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘in the Bible’.