Really, guys? Criminals Damian Dignan (l) and Lyndon Monument (r) accuse George Cardinal Pell (c)
of touching them in a swimming pool four decades ago.
The media is having a field day reporting that Australia's Cardinal George Pell has been accused of child abuse. From the way the media is telling it, one would think that this abuse was something that happened somewhat recently, and the acts of abuse have been well established.
But here are the facts the media is burying and as we know them so far:
1. The accusations date back four decades ago, to the late 1970s.
2. The alleged "abuse" so far does not maintain any explicit sexual acts. After an investigation that went on for nearly two years, two men so far accuse Cardinal Pell of touching them "inappropriately" while splashing and playing games in a swimming pool 40 years ago.
3. One of the accusers, Lyndon Monument, is an admitted drug addict and has served almost a year in prison for violently assaulting a man and a woman over a drug debt. Monument has also accused a boyhood teacher of forcing him to perform sex acts. What an unlucky guy.
4. The other accuser, Damian Dignan, also has a criminal history for assault and drunk driving. He has also accused a female teacher of beating him during class when he was a youth. He says he lives alone, suffers from leukemia, and has "lost everything" due to alcohol abuse. In other words, this dude has nothing to lose at all.
5. Back in 2002, Cardinal Pell faced an abuse accusation dating back to 1962. The accuser was "a career criminal. He had been convicted of drug dealing and involved in illegal gambling, tax evasion and organized crime in a labor union." He also had an impressive 39 court convictions under his belt at the time. A real winner, indeed. A judge cleared Pell after an inquiry.
It is very likely – in fact, it is almost certain – that other shifty blokes will climb out of the gutter to "substantiate" the ridiculous accusations against Pell and accuse him of other salacious acts.
We're not buying any of this. We pray that justice will be served, but we doubt it. TheMediaReport.com has been observing the climate against the Catholic Church in Australia for some time now, and we have never seen anything like it. Imagine the hatred against the Church of the Boston Globe and the New York Times combined and spread out over an entire country. The climate is truly insane.
Australian law enforcement is claiming that Pell's case is being treated like any other historical offense. No, it isn't. Police do not give a rip about someone coming forward to claim someone touched them over their bathing suit 40 years ago. But this is a Catholic priest, and a high-ranking one at that. This is a big fish in the eyes of law enforcement.
Will another innocent cleric be dragged off to prison for crimes he never committed? We believe so, but we hope we're wrong.
The only thing for certain is that the haters of the Church will enjoy every moment of this.
[HT: Catholic League.]
————————————————————————–
TheMediaReport.com STORY UPDATE: We are thrilled to report that St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson has fully reinstated falsely accused priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang to active ministry. We have received a report that Rev. Jiang is celebrating Mass publicly and is presiding himself. We salute Archbishop Carlson for doing the right thing by restoring an innocent man to the full priesthood and not kowtowing to bullies. We hope other Church leaders take notice.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 135PM:
Here ‘Dan’ doth confess to “Jim” that ‘Dan’ is made “fairly sad” (not really sad, not very sad, but just “fairly sad”) by JR’s stuff. Sigh.
Then the Wig of Pastoral Sensitivity is suddenly and rudely thrown askew as ‘Dan’ descends to both the scatological and the (oddly) irreverent (God as “the sky fairy”).
‘Dan’ then appears to straighten the Wig and continues on to the end of the comment, burbling piously.
Such a performance.
How's about you just shut-up when something is of no concern of yours. I was using Jim's words to make a point of how stupid atheism sounds. Take it from a mocker of God to accuse a Christian of being "irreverent". You creeps are so quick to find the chance to judge a true Christian. Try taking a look in your own perverted backyard. Clean up the mess of your own cult, if that was possible, before attempting to find the faults of another.
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Matthew 7:5
"The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 1 Cor 2:15
How's that for being "concise"? My words backed up by Biblical truth. If you can't understand how that works and feel compelled to claim my methods as proof of my FDS, than that only proves your ignorance, apparently on continuous display. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1249AM:
In regard to the failure to respect the ‘civil rights’ of Cardinal Pell, ‘Dan’ will once again revert to what is essentially the Vishinsky-ite position: how can one be concerned for the civil rights of the accused when the accused is accused of such terrible things?
Vishinsky’s method lies at the dark core of the Stampede.
And – but of course – it requires that one presume the guilt of the accused who is accused of such terrible things. Thus one would need no evidence since one has already presumed that there are indeed genuine ‘victims’ and that the accused actually did such terrible things.
‘Dan’ should put aside his Scripture pile and do some reading in Bolshevik and Commie legal thought and praxis. He’d wind up with a pile of 3x5s far more relevant to what he is really up to.
Oh! Yeah! It's the "dark core of the Stampede". When your cult is plagued with all the signs of darkness. Catacombs, skeleton rooms, idols of every type, including idols of pagan Egypt, perverts and pedophiles destroying children's lives, deeds done in darkness where there's little provable evidence – Documentation of some of the crimes never kept or destroyed in order to hide any evidence. Denials, deceptions and lies, in order to preserve the reputation of your holier than thou cult. Hypocrites and deceivers, pointing the finger at others. Pure darkness with no light, claiming to be the light of the world. Wolves in sheep's clothing. servant
And believe me, I'm not interested in reading your "commie" or Nazi material. Is that where you've gained all your ignorance, excuses, lies and stupidity? No thanks.
It's also been terribly apparent that you prefer "Commie" and Nazi ignorance over Scripture and Biblical principles, with your sarcastic "Scripture pile" and "3×5" nonsense. Apparently you think it's funny to disrespect God, His Word and His Spirit. Good luck with that, Mocker. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1249AM:
Thus, too: what are the “several biased suppositions” made against the journalist who was taken aback and apparently non-plussed by the point being raised that those he calls ‘victims’ and ‘survivors’ have not actually been demonstrated to be so?
The point revealed precisely the Vishinsky-ite “biased suppositions” that the journalist – according to best Stampede Playbook form – had made.
What’s “fair” about the Vishinsky-ite game plan?
I'll deal with this and the rest of your ignorance after I enjoy the beautiful day.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 902AM:
Once again, we see that – at least in the Church case, if not in ‘Dan’s own cases – the mere fact of an accusation constitutes … what? Evidence? Proof?
And in a time of Stampede, anyone so inclined can make an accusation, no matter how dubious (look at Yost’s take-down of the accusations currently on offer against Cardinal Pell).
But then ‘Dan’ – in his eagerness to toss as much plop as might appear relevant – gets conceptually incoherent:”few” of the cases “will ever be investigated” (screamy scare-caps omitted). Well, if one presumes the guilt of the accused merely on the basis that an accusation was made (Vishinsky again) then why would one need to rely on an ‘investigation’ at all?
The exact quote was, "FEW CASES WERE EVER INVESTIGATED". Rather than this being my conceptual incoherence, seems more accurately to be another of your manipulations or lack of comprehension.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 902AM:
And the quotation (claimed to be) from ‘Francis Sullivan” “said the number of abusers” is “shocking” and “indefensible”. But this too reflects the Vishinsky-ite core of the Stampede game plan. And although we know there are “accusers” yet we don’t know if there are “abusers”. We have accusations but that’s all.
But apparently for Sullivan (following Vishinsky) the accusation itself constitutes the evidence and proof.
And this all makes perfect and clear sense to ‘Dan’. Which is no surprise since ‘Dan’ is conducting his own agenda against the Church largely along the same Vishinsky-ite lines.
As to the remaining quotes, ‘Dan’ neglects to provide the source of these statements.
This quote from Francis Sullivan, was from the CEO, head of the Catholic Church's Truth, Justice and Healing Council. So you're telling us that the Church's Council for Truth, Justice and Healing is wrong and should be more like you and the Vatican, Catholic Council of Liars, The Unjust and Sickos. Maybe you catholics might want to get on the same page if you're going to be deceitful, but it would probably be a page from the Third Reich.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 902AM:
Cardinal Pell (himself the author and implementer of the Melbourne Response) said that he was not trying to “defend the indefensible”. But that could simply mean that he was not trying to make a case for the legitimacy of child-abuse (however that elastic term is defined). It certainly does not – as it stands here – indicate some general confession that all the scare/fever-visions of the Abuseniks and the Stampede are accurate and veracious.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 902AM:
Thus ‘Dan’s smarmy rhetorical question that concludes his comment is answered: neither I nor ‘Malcolm Harris’ is defending the concept or act of genuine child sexual abuse. Why does ‘Dan’ try to make it seem as if we are?
And the answer to that question is: because ‘Dan’ is using the Vishinsky-ite game plan, where an accusation is itself the proof of its own veracity and no further evidence is required.
You can sure come up with the excuses. You more than Malcolm, but you attempt to defend every charge and every creep of your cult. If they're a member of your clergy, it's a pretty sure bet that they're either a pedophile, pervert, excuser, enabler, compulsive liar or all of the above. Guilty as charged! Were not buying your lame excuses and dreamed-up possibilities.
What kind of BS is this – "But that could simply mean that he was not trying to make a case for the legitimacy of child abuse." Now how could anyone "make a case for the legitimacy of child abuse"? That of course would be excluding you, you lying, manipulating, hypocrite sicko.
If these accusations are proven false, the Catholic Church should sue these devious false accusers and the journalists. Then watch how fast these false accusations will disappear.
And what should be done with your church, when accusations are proven to be true, like the majority of other allegations and accusations have turned out to be. They are not "devious false accusers" or "journalists" until that fact is proven to be true. Let's wait for the courts before claiming innocence and laying down threats.
I'm not a lawyer but I watch a lot of TV. Can someone please tell me how you get an honest conviction for unwitnessed alledged wrongdoing forty years after the offens is supposed to be committed: I stand second to no one in wanting the guilty punished but I am just as passionate about clearing the innocent. Whole thing reminds me of Henry VIII using such testimony to dispatch two of his wives and look what we got from that.
I would absolutely want the same, the guilty punished and the innocent cleared, though I was never awarded the same from the catholic church of false accusers. This happened several times. They raised their hand in court and said that they promised to tell the truth so help me God, and the next words out of their mouth were lies added to the ones they already falsely accused me of. These were catholic priests, pastors, nuns, principals and a corrupt catholic cop. Shame on your church of hypocrisy. servant of the Truth
I will again take ‘Dan’s comments in the order they appear on the site.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 417PM:
He merely repeats his claim that in all of all of his own misadventures he wasn’t “’guilty’ of the accusations” – so that, he would like us to think, doesn’t put him “on the same level as a pervert from your cult”.
Which – yet again – presumes that Cardinal Pell is “a pervert” and guilty. The only way ‘Dan’ gets himself out of the corner he has painted himself into here is to insist that he wasn’t guilty. Cardinal Pell also insists he is not guilty. On that score, there’s no difference in their status here.
But clearly ‘Dan’ has been thrown off his game, because the next thing he says is that he hopes the Aussie courts “jail the creep, whether guilty or not”. But that demonstrates that ‘Dan’ and Vishinsky are surely “on the same level”; one might say they are “sisters under the skin”, to use Kipling’s phrase.
All I have to say is my hope is that your cardinal receives the same injustice that I received from your cult full of lying creeps, like yourself. Reap what you sow! Only difference is if we go by the precedence set by previous hierarchy and clergy, they deny, deny, lie and deny some more, knowing it's an uphill battle to prove guilt from 40 years ago. If they're finally cornered and there is proof, then they'll admit to it, give excuses why they are such a creep, and hope the unholy vatican will protect them. And the wheel it keeps on turning, liars keep on lying, and many victims are denied the justice they deserve. Hypocritical bunch of liars. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1215PM:
After ‘Dan’s stab at trying to extricate himself from the ‘heresy’ problem he has created for himself, his problem remains.
Heresy is opinion or doctrine at variance with the generally accepted doctrine. The only thing the Church is at variance with is ‘Dan’s take on Scripture; the Church is not at variance with Scripture itself.
Thus the Church is only ‘heretical’ according to the Church-of-‘Dan’ and the ‘Dan’-verse’s take on Scripture. And given the fact that the Church-of-‘Dan’ consists only of the one worshipper and the one ‘pope’ – ‘Dan’ as himself and ‘Dan’ as Himself – then that’s not much of a charge at all.
And the usual God’ll-getcha bit in conclusion.
I've pointed out several Scriptures that your church fails to follow, and you're going to tell us that the cult "is not at variance with Scripture itself". Is there any chance of your ever being truthful, you compulsive liar. Any catholic, other than the publiar, prove me wrong. Your cult is terribly greedy (none richer), makes statues, bows down to statues, lies like a rug about their pedophilia and perversions with little boys, babbles prayer (rosary) to a false goddess, Mary, and is plagued with sick, wicked leaders, dressed all up in sheep's clothing. Look up Isaiah 44:9-20 about idolatry – Read Matthew chapter 5-7 to find all the words said by Christ and all the places in which the church fails – also Matthew 23 – Romans 1 – 2 Peter 2 – Jude – Rev 21:8 Don't allow a lying, blind, stupid, fool, as described in Isaiah 44 deprive you of the truth. Publiar is deceiving and blinding you with horrible lies and wants to send you down the wicked path that he has chosen. Evil people aren't satisfied until they bring many down with them. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1245 where he once again seems to think that when he puts up material on an open site then it’s nobody’s business except for those he wants to address. That – he apparently has to be reminded yet again – is not how it works when commenting on open sites.
And ‘Dan’ takes it upon himself to declare himself (or Himself) “a true Christian”. Readers may consider that as they will.
Then a couple of pericopes larded on for frosting. But while the pericope from 1 Cor 2:15 is no doubt one of ‘Dan’s very very favorites, it only works here as he wants to use it if it has already been established that ‘Dan’ is indeed a “spiritual person” in the Pauline sense (or perhaps any sense) … and that has not been established at all. Indeed, rather quite the contrary appears to be far more accurate.
And thus my FDS theory remains quite plausible – and becomes more so as ‘Dan’ doth go on and on.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 126PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will evade the Vishinsky problem by more mere word-play: he gloms onto my phrase “the dark core of the Stampede” and merely riffs on about “signs of darkness”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 131PM:
‘Dan’ doth proclaim himself (or Himself) uninterested in “reading [my] commie or Nazi material”. Well, since he is so deep into commie (and – yes – Nazi) legal praxis, he might as well get a wider and deeper knowledge about just what it is he is doing. It’s not ‘my’ commie or Nazi legal praxis; it’s ‘Dan’s commie and Nazi legal praxis.
Does he think he thought up his modus operandi all on his own? Well, Stalin and Vishinsky and Goebbels and Hitler beat him to it by decades.
He should surely read more and spend less time in confab with the denizens that appear to him in his bathroom mirror.
More I'm Not/ You Are bit ending with more mocking? You seem awful obsessed with bathrooms. Do you spend alot of time with your head in the toilet?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 137PM:
He then tries further evasion with the silly bit about my ‘preferring’ Soviet and Nazi stuff “over Scripture and Biblical principles”. It’s ‘Dan’ who is up to his elbows in Vishinsky – whether he realizes it or not.
And it’s ‘Dan’ who has demonstrated that beyond the pericope quotes in his pile of 3x5s he isn’t really reliably up to speed on “Scripture and Biblical principles” at all.
He only knows his own cartoons about Scripture.
More falsehoods from the liar.
Apparently his enjoyment of “the beautiful day” (the 11th at 140PM) didn’t do him much good at all.
On the 11th at 707PM he seems not to have noticed that I did quote his scream-capped statement accurately in my comment of the 11th at 1118AM. Nor has he answered my question as to why have investigations at all if one has already gone the Vishinsky-ite route and presumed guilt.
You can answer your own questions since you know so much about "Commies" and Nazis!!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 726PM:
Here ‘Dan’ again evades the responsibility of providing accurate references for his claims. Merely asserting that the quote is from Francis Sullivan isn’t enough; where is the reference that establishes that ‘Dan’ hasn’t made it up?
And, still, even if Francis Sullivan said it, then what Sullivan says is still – as I originally stated – indicative of the Vishinsky-ite approach, which Sullivan too deploys in his statement.
Then a silly attempt to somehow put the Nazi bit to some epithetical use.
Isn't Vishinsky spelled with a y for the second letter, Mr. Know-It-All.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 736PM:
Here he simply and yet again tries to evade and wave-away the plausible options as being merely “excuses”. How is the option I proposed not plausible? ‘Dan’ doesn’t care or think to explain; I doubt he could do so anyway.
And who is this “we” who are “not buying” and so on? ‘Dan’ and the séance crew from his bathroom mirror?
But readers are apparently supposed to accept that the guilt of the Catholic clergy in any case of accusation is “a pretty sure bet” – doncha see? – because all Catholic clergy are either … and so on and so forth.
In other words, this is the old ‘everybody knows anyway so why quibble about evidence and proof in any specific case?’ bit. That’s the level ‘Dan’s mind works on.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1019PM:
Here, in the matter of what Cardinal Pell had said about not trying to “defend the indefensible”, ‘Dan’ tries to somehow pull some plop to toss.
But his mind isn’t up to it: the point would be this: did some questioner ask the Cardinal a question such as ‘Cardinal, are you trying to defend child sex abuse here?’. To which the Cardinal would have quite accurately responded that he was not trying to “defend the indefensible”. i.e. the Cardinal here would be asserting that child sex abuse is “indefensible”.
‘Dan’ cannot grasp that (why would he since it isn’t convenient for his scheduled cartoon?) and thus tries to make a general conceptual point about child sex abuse being impossible to defend – which, come to think of it, is precisely what Cardinal Pell said.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1019PM:
To really establish what Cardinal Pell was on about here, we would need an accurate transcript of the interview, especially the statements or questions put to him to which his statement about the “indefensible” is the response.
But ‘Dan’s mind doesn’t work that way (why should it since it might well screw up his cartoons?). In the ‘Dan’-verse a plop-tossy presumption beats a study of the actual text any day.
And more display of ignorance, mocking, excuses and stupidity, from the Catholic Saint of Compulsive Liars.
In response to July 12 @ 2:08pm, You Tube "Cardinal Pell February 29 Session 1" and you can listen to the interview yourself. After 17:00 minutes it gets going and card pell makes sure he says twice how sexual abuse "has been a problem across society, unfortunately in the church for centuries". Excuses regarding it happening "across society" I've heard from others here, as if that makes it OK that it took place in the church claiming to be the One True Holy Catholic Church. DESPICABLE EXCUSES!!
Question – "Of those inquiries which have done so there appears to be a consistency in their findings in respect of the response of the catholic church to allegations and that consistency seems to be in relation to those in more senior positions not taking the action that a reasonable person thought should be taken in respect to those allegations."
Cardinal Pell – "As an initial clarification and that is 'I'm not here to defend the indefensible' – The church has made enormous mistakes and uh is working to remedy those but the church in many places, certainly in Australia has mucked things up, has made let people down and 'I'm not here to defend the indefensible'."
At least he's aware that the church made "enormous mistakes" and fill in the blank, " _ucked things up". Maybe you excusers ought to wake up to your cult's sad reality, that you've made an "enormous" mess of Biblical principles and God's Commandments, and quit thinking you can smooth things over with your repetitive lies, possibilities and deception, and try putting a stop to all your deceit. I don't believe compulsive liars would be capable of such a feat.
I listened to five minutes from 17:00 to 22:00 minutes and have heard enough to make me sick. Don't care to hear anymore. I'm not the one who takes things out of context or tries to manipulate and misinterpret God's Word in order to suit their corrupt agenda. Think you're missing Cartoon Time or is it past your bedtime, little peewee.
Question – Cardinal, Why you think it is that the catholic church has operated in such a similar way across many different countries in the world?
Cardinal Pell – Um unfortunately um original sin is alive and well. The tendency to do evil in the catholic church, too. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse. And uh for good or for evil the church follows the patterns of the society in which it lives.
Bible says – "I do not ask you to take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world." John 17:15-16
So tell me how a Cardinal can say there's a "tendency to do evil in the catholic church" and "for good or for evil the church follows the patterns of the society in which it lives." So in other words, the church is most definitely of the world and they belong to the world and they follow the patterns of the world. So they will have no protection from the evil one, and it's apparent by their disgusting evil deeds that this is true.
You're supposed to be "the light of the world", not join in and go along with the darkness and evil of the society in which you live. And this is why, with many other reasons I have previously pointed out, that your church is not a Christian church founded on the principles of Christ or Peter. No, far from it. It is a disgusting religion plagued with liars, pedophiles, perverts, idolators, unbelievers, and greedy hypocrites, who think they can pull the wool over God's eyes. Boy, you unrepentant, lying sinners are in for a rude awakening. Catholics, escape this wicked cult before it drags you down with them. servant of the One and Only True God
I lived in a hostel with a couple of guys that had been tampered with and this is what happens they fall off the rails and turn to alcohol and drugs. Even after a payout their life is still crap
Again, I’ll go down the list as they appear on the site.
On the 12th at 315AM ‘Dan’ tosses up a bit the meaning of which is grammatically somewhat unclear, i.e. does that “other” in the first sentence’s final clause refer to accusations against the Church or is it a more general “other”?.
I’ll go with the idea that the “other” refers to other allegations of sexual abuse.
But then that leaves ‘Dan’ with a serious problem: he has asserted, claimed and declared that “the majority” of sexual abuse claims against the church have “turned out to be true”.
And that whopper most certainly requires evidence and explication, because as far as extant material goes, that isn’t the case at all. The majority – indeed the vast majority – of the Catholic sexual-abuse cases haven’t been examined individually at all, so they have precisely not “turned out to be true”. And surely the ones we here have been able to examine haven’t “turned out to be true”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 315AM:
But this is a key element in the Stampede cartoon, and ‘Dan’ here reveals his utter dependence on it (for his own cartoons).
Ditto, then, with his next claim, i.e. that “they are not ‘devious false accusers’ [or – curiously – “journalists”] until the fact is proven to be true”.
In other words, having just made his first claim that is grossly contrary to any known fact, immediately thereafter in his second claim he piously bleats that we should wait until a court decides before coming to a conclusion.
And this bleat comes from ‘Dan’ whose very own stock in trade is to make all manner of assertions without any explication whatsoever.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 315AM:
Nor, for that matter, am I coming to any definitive conclusions about allegators past or present. I am – and the Yost article to which I linked is – simply pointing out the problems with the allegations that have been made.
Anybody can apply their mind to allegations (and everybody should) even while awaiting the results of the judicial process.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 315AM:
And I would also point out that the Aussie police have not yet actually revealed the specific charges they bring against Cardinal Pell. They were quick enough to tell the media that they are filing charges, but have since been playing coy about the actual charges that they bring against him.
This smacks of a sly media game, a sort of media-amplified Dance of the Seven Veils with the Aussie police playing the part of Little Egypt: their objective is not to get everything up and out there as quickly and fully as possible; rather, they are drawing the performance out, playing the public like an audience at a burlesque show.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 315AM:
I suspect also that they are continuing a sly gambit initially run by the recently- concluded Royal Commission: while the Commission was in session, it ran a request to the public asking anyone with allegations to come forward. There were few if any resulting responses.
Here, the police will hope that all this publicity (further fueled by the recently published book that Yost has examined) might elicit further enterprising individuals to come forward with more allegations, which might then quickly and quietly be added to the (still unrevealed) list of charges before the July 26th initial court session.
In other words, this whole Pell matter may well be a fishing expedition conducted by the Aussie police under the guise of this drawn-out Seven-Veils performance.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 437PM:
Here we get another fine example of ‘Dan’ deceptive whackery: he now piously bleats that he “would absolutely want the same, the guilty punished and the innocent cleared”.
But on the 11th at 417PM ‘Dan’ said “I will hope the courts of Australia will show simular injustice and jail the creep, whether guilty or not” (sic).
It all depends on what Wig he has chosen for a particular performance.
And he then uses this opportunity to toss in yet another commercial for himself and how he was victimized by “the catholic church of false accusers” – we can take ‘Dan’s word for it.
Readers may judge as they will.
Let me see if I can clarify my position as to why these two comments seem to conflict with each other. I'm not piously bleating, and any just and honest person should want to see justice served, "the guilty punished and the innocent cleared". And believe me when I say that this would include justice for everyone, including catholic hierarchy and priests.
Where the problem lies, is in many cases where guilty suspects go to court, place their hand on the bible, swear to tell the truth so help me God, and then lie through their teeth and deny their transgressions. I've personally witnessed this travesty happen with those who falsely accused myself and also investigating cases of guilty priests from your church. I personally don't believe dishonest liars should receive any justice, for freeing them would not be just, and I have witnessed much corruption in our judicial system.
This is why I wait in anticipation for the one true judge, God Almighty and His Son Jesus Christ. I shall be totally vindicated of every false accusation from your church of lying hypocrites, and won't need any plea of insanity, as you so rudely claim. Then the guilty will receive their just punishment and all the innocent cleared throughout all eternity. The same fair justice will be awarded to those of the catholic church, and I have absolutely no problem with that.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 426PM:
Faced with the conundrum – of his own making – that both he and Cardinal Pell were accused and maintain their innocence, ‘Dan’ simply evades the illogic of his stuff and bleats “All I have to say is …”.
And that is followed – for this performance, anyway – by yet another variation on ‘Dan’ favorite story about how he was unjustly accused and “lied” about so many times by so many people and the “injustice” of it all. And he wishes “injustice” on Cardinal Pell. ‘Dan’s a really “spiritual’ kinda guy.
And then we get “deny, deny, lie and deny some more” from the likes of ‘Dan’, whose track record in that department is now on record on this site for all to see.
I also believe I have every right to show some anger, after all the punishments I've suffered at the hands of liars from your church. Like I said before, I don't know how Christ was able to turn the other cheek, but I also know I have a long way to go before ever coming close to His awesome strength and forgiveness. I'm perfectly aware of my own human weaknesses.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 507PM:
‘Dan’ has “pointed out several Scriptures” (sic) – indeed he has bombarded us with pericopes – but he then evaded and now continues to evade the primary problem with his approach: he interprets those passages as referring to the Church, which – as I have demonstrated on those occasions – doesn’t work at all the way he wants them to, mostly because he has confused a) his own interpretations (based on his own whacky issues and agitations) with b) the sense of the Scripture itself.
His (necessary for his delusionally disordered agenda) conflation of his i) own interpretation with ii) the Mind and Will of God as revealed in the Bible results in the queasy ranting we have always seen from him, using the pericopes as weapons with which to try to bethump Catholicism and the Church and Catholics.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 507PM:
To which – having to repeat now what I have already said in prior comments on this thread as well as others – I also note that ‘Dan’s cartoon necessarily must conflate x) the moral failures of pagans that are ingrained in their Christ-less lifestyles and beliefs with y) the sins and moral failures of individual believing Christians and the failures to which any human institution is subject in this world.
By skipping around from (x) to (y) and back again, as dictated by his plop-tossy cartoons and agenda, ‘Dan’ tries to keep his ball rolling.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 507PM:
‘Dan’ himself (or Himself), of course, evades his own human infirmities and such fundamental complexities and paradoxes since he evades and avoids any membership in any such human institution (including any religious polity) and instead appoints himself (or Himself) as speshull envoy of God who reports directly to whatever simulacrum of God appears to ‘Dan’s rickety mind and imagination.
We recall St. Paul, who said of himself “For the good that I would do I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do” (Romans 7:19, the King James Version).
Nice quote, but to understand Paul's segment (Romans 7:13-25) on sin and death, you'd have to look at verses before and after that paragraph.
Before – "For when we were in the flesh, our sinful passions, awakened by the law, worked in our members to bear fruit for death." Romans 7:5
After – "For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those who live accosding to the spirit with the things of the spirit. The concern of the flesh is death, but the concern of the spirit is life and peace. For the concern of the flesh is hostility toward God; it does not submit to the law of God, nor can it; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Romans 8:5-8
And let's not leave out how Paul says you can overcome the evil things of the flesh in line 25 of Romans 7. "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with my mind, serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin."
Now the question is, When did your hierarchy and priests commit the sins of the flesh (pedophilia and sexual abuse of minors)? Was it before or after they came to know the healing power of Jesus Christ, that saves us from our sinful selves. It was definitely after. After they wore the robes of piety, prostrated themselves on the floor, even swore to an oath of celibacy and preached to others, warning them about the sins of the flesh. Take notice that Paul in Romans 7:25 never included Virgin Mary or Saints as necessary intercessors in overcoming the sins of the flesh. He mentions only "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ."
spelling correction – according
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 511PM:
Faced with the fact that it is his own de facto use of Soviet and Nazi legal praxis and thought that has been demonstrated, ‘Dan’ merely tries to hide behind the accusation of I’m Not/You Are – although just how that works here in his favor is anybody’s guess.
But he tries an epithet at the end to gussy the thing up.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 514PM:
Faced with the conundrum he has created for himself by deploying Soviet legal thought (i.e. why have trials at all if one has already presumed the guilt of the accused?) ‘Dan’ merely – and so very characteristically and as so very often – evades the problem by telling me I can “answer [my] own questions”.
‘Dan’ is correct in his of the 12th at 518PM that I have misspelled the name. The proper spelling is ‘Vyshinsky’ not ‘Vishinsky’. Readers are invited to make the necessary corrections.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 522PM:
Faced with the points I raised in my comments on the afternoon of the 12th at 141, 207, and 208 ‘Dan’ will … evade them all by merely waving them away as “ignorance, mocking, excuses and stupidity” and then works in his usual “Compulsive Liars” bit.
Which of the points in those three comments was somehow indicative of ‘compulsive lies’?
As I said in the comment at 141PM, ‘Dan’ “doesn’t care to think or explain; I doubt he could do so anyway”.
Which is now demonstrated to indeed be the case.
"I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, I spread out the earth by myself. I bring to nought the omens of babblers, make fools of diviners, Turn back the wise and make their knowledge foolish. I confirm the words of my servant, carry out the plan my messengers announce." Isaiah 44: 24-26 (NAB)
"I AM the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish; That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers." Isaiah 44: 24-26 (KJV)
No need for me to add any commentary to that. "If only they have eyes to see, and ears to hear, that they might come to Me and I would heal them."
On the 13th at 103AM and 207AM we get – most uncharacteristically – an extended effort by ‘Dan’ to back up assertions he has made.
As we will see, his effort is – most characteristically – rather skewed. Even when he looks at or listens to something, he can only allow himself to see and hear what he wants to.
Beginning, then, with his comment of the 13th at 103AM:
Cardinal Pell is quotes as noting that sex-abuse “has been a problem across society, unfortunately in the church for centuries”.
‘Dan’ labels this as “excuses”. But the statement is factual: sex-abuse has no doubt been around as long as human beings have been around. And as I have often said here, no institution comprised of human beings can be perfectly free of it or of any of the many failures to which human being is heir.
‘Dan’ then – no doubt following the dictates of his delusions – asserts that “others here” (i.e. on this site) have made statements “as if that makes it OK” (i.e. that sex abuse – in the Church or anywhere else – is OK). I cannot recall any commenter here who has ever asserted or implied that sex-abuse is “OK”. ‘Dan’s assertion here is not accurate at all.
BT
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 103AM:
We then – in that same paragraph – see once again ‘Dan’s basic game-plan: if the Church is “the One True Holy Catholic Church” then … it must be perfect in all respects or else it is not “the One True Holy Catholic Church”. And if it is not perfect, then it is not “the One True Holy Catholic Church”.
But this is utter balderdash. Even St. Paul acknowledged his sinfulness, as I noted in my comment of the 13th at 1117AM, quoting Paul from Romans 7:19. Is Paul thus not the Apostle and Saint? Did not Peter , in Luke 5:8, say to Christ “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord”? And yet Christ gave Peter the Great Commission and the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”.
‘Dan’s bit here may or may not be “despicable”, but it surely demonstrates his abyssal ignorance of Scripture.
If you think a church which calls and considers themselves the One Holy True Church of God, is going to be plagued with liars, pedophiles, perverts, the greedy and idolators, then it's absolutely apparent that you're the one with an abyssal ignorance of Scripture. You can't take what Peter said when first encountering Christ, or what Paul explained in regard to sin and insinuate that they were still terrible sinners after meeting Christ. Did they make other mistakes? Absolutely yes! Were they compulsive liars, pedophiles or idolators after coming to know Christ? Absolutely not! Don't even try to project your ignorance of Scripture on someone who's trying to help others to know the truth about God. That's the very reason why liars from your cult accused me, so others would think they represented the good and truthful of society. Deceivers and slandering hypocrites, of which you're well aware, seeing that you mirror the same deceptions, slander and lies. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 103AM:
Thus, then, Cardinal Pell’s statement that the Church has “made enormous mistakes” is certainly not Scripturally or theologically unsound, nor does such a statement undermine the legitimacy of the Church, any more than Paul’s admission in Romans undermines the legitimacy of Paul or the Pauline corpus nor any more than Peter’s admission undermines the legitimacy of Peter and his role as assigned by Christ.
Just what those “enormous mistakes” were, Cardinal Pell does not say. Certainly – looking at the accusations that Yost has reviewed from the recently published Australian book and upon which, it appears, the Aussie police are going to rely for such charges as they bring – any rational person would be hard-pressed to come up with a course of action that could ‘satisfy’ the allegation and at the same time duly respect truth, honesty, and rationality. In the face of allegations such as we have seen in Yost’s review, just what “action” might a “reasonable person” think “should be taken in respect to those allegations”?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 103AM:
It is in this context, then, that Cardinal Pell makes his comment that he is “not here to defend the indefensible”. Which, as I have previously noted in comments on this thread, is a perfectly logical statement to the effect that he is not “here” to defend something as “indefensible” as child sexual abuse.
‘Dan’s comment on this bit (in the paragraph beginning “At least”) waves a clear warning flag almost immediately: ‘Dan’ resorts to scatology (albeit here it is implied) at the outset. And having started down that plop-tossy road, ‘Dan’ riffs happily on.
But he instantly and slyly and manipulatively expands his ‘interpretation’ far beyond what Cardinal Pell says: suddenly it’s not about what Cardinal Pell is talking about, but instead has morphed into ‘Dan’ favorite bugbear, i.e. the “enormous mistakes” (such as they may be) in regard to the allegations suddenly morphs into “an ‘enormous’ mess of Biblical principles and God’s Commandments”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 103AM:
We have often seen instances of ‘Dan’s Scriptural assertions where a reader might perhaps think: well, I’m no Scripture scholar so how can I know if ‘Dan’ is misinterpreting or manipulating the passage?
Well, here is a ‘text’ – Cardinal Pell’s statement – and we now have ‘Dan’s ‘interpretation’ of that text, and I think it is clear as day how ‘Dan’ has taken the genuine sense and meaning of the text and manipulated it for his own purposes.
Upon which manipulation ‘Dan’ then lards his usual epithetical “repetitive lies, possibilities and deception” and his “compulsive liars” bit as well.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 103AM:
‘Dan’ then admits that he didn’t listen to more than five minutes of the interview (because – doncha see? – it doth “make [him] sick”). Or perhaps he figured he had enough bits for his plop-tossing.
And then – after what we have now seen of his ‘interpretation’ method – he doth puff up his pinfeathers and declaim that he is not “the one who takes thing out of context or tries to manipulate and misinterpret God’s Word in order to suit their corrupt agenda”.
But as we have just seen, that is exactly and precisely what he always does and what he has done here, even with the few bits from the Cardinal Pell interview that he has deigned to review.
On then to ‘Dan’ second comment on the Pell interview, that of the 13th at 207AM:
I would first note that the question posed by the interviewer is insufficiently formulated: as it is put, one might well speak about the Church’s mistakes in dealing with the allegations rather than in dealing with (presumptively guilty) priests.
But Cardinal Pell chooses to speak with a presumption of the sins and offenses of some priests, and that is his right and that’s what the text provides so we have to go with the text.
And in that context, Cardinal Pell refers to “original sin” – which afflicts all human beings (including Peter and Paul, we recall). His statement that “the tendency to do evil [is] in the Catholic Church, too” (I assume Cardinal Pell would have capitalized that proper name if he were writing it down) is theologically sound and rings as true for the Church as for any human institution.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 207AM:
As I have said in a prior comment above, the ‘Dan’ game here would be to insist that if the Church is truly God’s Church than it must be perfect and without sin. But they don’t call it “original sin” for nothing; it is a sinfulness or tendency to sin that is with all humans from their ‘origin’ (just as both Paul and Peter recognized in themselves).
‘Dan’ here inserts a pericope from the Last Supper Discourses in John’s Gospel, the sense of which insertion is apparently that those who believe in Christ “do not belong to the world any more than [Christ belongs] to the world”. But surely Jesus does not here imply that the Twelve are divine; they remain human beings and human beings are beset with original sin (or original sinfulness).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 207AM:
‘Dan’ – who has so often ranted against the Catholic teaching that Mary was conceived without original sin – apparently presumes that to be given God’s Word implies or requires being and living without sin (perhaps he distinguishes between original and actual sin, or perhaps he does not).
This calls to mind nothing so much as the old saw that Catholics go to church because they know they are sinners and Protestants go to church because they are sure they are not. (A post-Vatican 2 twist on that old saw refers to smarmy postconciliar Catholic hootenanny-type hymns that basically pray ‘O Lord, hear my prayer and make me even nicer and groovier than I already am’.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 207AM:
What ‘Dan’ is going for here is this: since Jesus in John’s Gospel says that the Twelve “are not of this world”, then how can Cardinal Pell opine that “the Church follows the patterns of the society in which it lives” … unless this doth prove that the Church doth “belong to the world” and not to Christ and the Gospel.
A neat little construction, but a cartoon construction nonetheless.
Believers in Christ and the Gospel may no longer – in John’s terminology – “belong to the world” but they remain in the world and in the sense that they are human beings they remain of the human world.
Thus believers no longer “belong to the world” but they do remain human, and humans are born with a tendency to sin, and thus the “world” that humans generate is tainted by human sin.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 207AM:
Thus again in the comment’s final paragraph, ‘Dan’ attempts to continue running his theological conceptual switcheroo: the Church – divinely commissioned but comprised of humans, we recall – is “supposed to be ‘the light of the world’” / but if any taint of human sin affects it, then it isn’t and can’t be the Church of Christ.
But this construction necessarily requires that we presume that Christ expected belief in the Gospel to elevate human nature to … something beyond human nature.
But that doesn’t work when we consider that when giving Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” Christ said “whose sins you forgive they are forgiven them and whose sins you retain are retained” (John 20:23, supporting – as I have previously pointed out – Matthew 16:19 and 18:18).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 207AM:
So again, we see how the old saw about Protestants going to church because they believe they are not sinners can lead to this type of fundie stuff so congenial to the ‘Dan’-verse agenda.
And on that basis – theologically incoherent as it is – ‘Dan’ can happily riff on in the usual way, ending – but of course – with another variant of his usual God’ll-getcha bit.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 114PM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries another now-familiar evasion tactic:
Following my comment of the 13th at 1124AM, ‘Dan’ merely tosses up some pericopes that refer to God’s power and glory, with which no believer would take issue.
The problem – but of course – is that we are not talking about God’s power and glory here; we are talking about ‘Dan’s whackery – which is not at all the same thing.
Having tossed up the pericopes, ‘Dan’ then tries to further evade by then declaring that there is “no need for [him] to add any commentary to that”.
True enough in regard to the power and glory of God. But merely another evasion in regard to ‘Dan’s stuff.
I answered to much of your stuff today before yours was even posted on July 14 @ 1:45am. Is there anything I can ever explain to you that you would be satisfied with, or is it just in your nature to dispute everything of common sense, Biblical or otherwise? I'll give this to you once again and maybe this time you might understand the verse, as it applies to any gathering of believers and the lives they should be living.
"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people." Eph 5:3 (NIV)
And the versions you seem to prefer -
"But fornication, and all uncleaness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints" Eph 5:3 (KJV)
"Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones" Eph 5:3 (NAB)
Now to my understanding these three verses from different Bibles seem fairly easy to interpret what is being said. Are you going to try and tell me that it's okay to be a pedophile or pervert, greedy or covet what doesn't belong to you, just as long as you don't talk about it or let it "be mentioned among you". No, for any true Christians there wouldn't even be a hint of these sins, otherwise you are in no way a true Christian. You have not come to know the healing power of Jesus Christ, you have not been forgiven and you have been duped by deceivers of a false gospel. Many religions think that you are now saved and can go on committing the horrible sins of the flesh, because you've been forgiven. This is an outright lie from Hell. You're still living in your sins of the past, and are absolutely unforgiven by God or Christ. Add lies and deception when questioned by others and you've only multiplied your guilt and condemnation before the Lord. True Christians come clean to the Almighty and would not only be honest with Him, but also to the courts. To not be truthful and think you've gotten away with something, would only mean that you've deceived yourselves. servant
And while were on the subject why not finish it off – Eph 5:5-14
"Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolator, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty arguments, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the disobedient. So do not be associated with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light, for light produces every kind of goodness and righteousness and truth. Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light. Therefore, it says: "Awake, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will give you light.' "
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 222AM:
Caught in a clear contradiction – as I pointed out in my comment of the 13th at 1113AM – ‘Dan’ will now seek to “clarify [his] position” about “why these two comments seem to conflict with each other” (italics mine).
His solution – doncha see? – is to presume “many cases” concerning “guilty suspects”. This – but of course – is a manipulative cartoon construction from the get-go: how would one know, until after the trial (if even then), that the “suspects” were indeed “guilty” … ? ‘Dan’ here is merely constructing a hypothetical, and a general one at that.
His game-plan (such as it is) is quickly revealed when he immediately launches into his favorite aria about his own legal misadventures.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 222AM:
And as if that gambit weren’t cheesy enough, his construction then falls into incoherence: in ‘Dan’s cases, it was ‘Dan’ who was the “suspect”. (And I leave it to readers to judge whether he was a “guilty suspect”.) ‘Dan’ might actually be seen here as having revealed more about his guilt than he intended. Ah, the truth will out eventually.
Readers may judge the reliability of what ‘Dan’ has “personally witnessed” as they will.
And we see as well the convenient flip-floppery about the integrity of “our judicial system”: does he consider it tainted by “much corruption” or does he insist we wait for the (presumably reliable) courts to decide?
Well, that depends on what’s most congenial to his plop-tossing at the moment: when they decide against him then they’re tainted with much corruption; when they decide against Catholic clerics, then they are the instruments of God’s justice.
When guilty liars walk away and I'm sentenced for their false accusations, that's corruption. When they decide against catholic clerics, that are pedophiles, perverts and lying creeps, that's justice, but not God's justice. For some of the pedophile creeps with several victims, they should have never seen daylight. Many of the creeps got off Scot-free from Statute of Limitations or died before being prosecuted. You think that's just, you excusing, enabling lying creep. God's final judgment will truly be just, and you'll all get what you really deserve. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 222AM:
But wait – it gets even better:
For that reason (i.e. all that “much corruption” in the courts) then ‘Dan’ doth declare and proclaim that – come to think of it – he doth “wait in anticipation for the one true judge” and so on and so forth.
Well, if that be true, then why listen to him rant on about the Pell matter?
But of course, the inevitable ‘Dan’-verse switcheroo is this: in the matter of ‘Dan’s own legal misdeeds and misadventures, nobody can truly judge him except God at the Last Day; in the matter of allegations against Catholic clerics, ‘Dan’ is happy to join the pig-pile and do his own judging here and now.
I'm not happy to join yours or any other pig-pile.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 234AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try another evasion tactic, one that pop psychology and Victimist psychology call ‘minimizing’: he doth “just show some anger”, is all – doncha see? And he has “every right” to do so – doncha also see? – because – had you been waitttttinggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – he himself has been so many times so unjustly bethumped by that unholy conspiracy of Catholics, the police and the courts.
Then a manipulative dollop of false humility: ‘Dan’ – alas – has not yet the “awesome strength and forgiveness” of Christ (He Who turned the other cheek to His – but of course – unjust accusers). But rest assured that ‘Dan’ is working on it, you betcha. ‘Dan’ has to because he confronts a world so full of unjust accusers of himself, doncha see?
Rather than look into his bathroom mirror and see Christ, ‘Dan’ is better advised to see ‘Dan’ as he is.
But if that were to happen, ‘Dan’s head would of course explode.
Time to grow up, little peewee. How does one so pompous in displaying his worldly wisdom and vocabulary, act like such a baby at other times.
There doesn't even have to be a conspiracy. All it took was lying clergy, nuns, school faculty and one corrupt catholic cop, and who do you think the courts are going to believe. Why don't you stop with your stupid nonsense and get yourself a life. You're not cute with your ignorant sarcasm. Just verification of your foolishness. Your cult is plagued with liars, like yourself. servant of a Just God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:
Here ‘Dan’ has to confront Paul’s own admission of sinfulness, which I had noted in my comment of the 13th at 1117AM.
He tosses up a chunk of Scripture, but if you read it, it doesn’t at all work the way ‘Dan’ wants it to.
Cutting right to the chase, Paul says – as ‘Dan’ quotes but apparently doesn’t comprehend – “Therefore, I myself, with my mind serve the law of God but, with my flesh, the law of sin”.
For what then does Paul give thanks when he says in verse 25 “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our lord” … ? Has Jesus somehow made Paul more than a human being?
Especially when Paul then immediately says – as is quoted above – “Therefore … “. Thus the only thing Paul can be giving thanks to God for is that although with his flesh he is subject to the law of sin, yet with his spirit he remains committed to the law of God.
Which captures with pristine clarity the ultimate moral paradox of being a Christian: one’s spirit can be committed to the law of God and yet one is still capable of transgressions according to “the law of sin”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:
Ovid said as much in his Metamorphoses: “I perceive what is better and approve of it, but I pursue what is worse” (7:19).
The Qumran Essenes tries to solve this paradox by claiming that God had put two spirits in each human being, one good and the other evil, which would struggle against each other in each human until the end of time (Rule of the Congregation, 3:15 to 4:26).
But Paul says otherwise: he lays the cause of this paradoxical split not upon spirits, but upon humans themselves. (Thus, we might say, Paul isn’t buying the idea of humans as the mere playthings and ‘victims’ of evil spirits.)
Thus can Paul cry out “Miserable wretch that I am!” in verse 24.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:
But then Paul immediately follows that exclamation with a question: “Who will deliver me from this mortal body?”. Obviously, the only complete ‘deliverance’ would be physical death, since only removal from the human and earthly plane will stop this struggle within him.
But clearly Paul isn’t wishing for physical death – certainly not immediate death. Rather, he gives thanks to God for having, through Christ, provided the grace to continue the struggle (and precisely not to utterly overcome and win this struggle in this life).
Your theory is absolutely false. Through Christ we can overcome all things. With God nothing is impossible. When you're too consumed with your sinless false goddess, you're blinded to the truth of God and the saving power of His Son, so you remain in the darkness, not knowing where you're going. Unforgiven and stuck in a false gospel. Say ten Hail Marys and remain in your ignorance. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:
Thus when ‘Dan’ attempts to claim that “Paul says you can overcome the evil things of the flesh in line [verse] 25 of Romans 7” that is not accurate if it is intended to mean that one can perfectly and utterly (‘totally’ as contemporary usage might have it) overcome sin in this life. After all, Paul has just exclaimed himself – he, the author of Romans – as being yet still a “miserable wretch” for doing the evil he does not wish to do.
And while one can dedicate oneself – as Romans 8 will expand upon this – to the law of the spirit, the “concern” of which law is “life and peace”, yet that does not at all establish any sort of guarantee that one will perfectly and utterly embody that law in one’s earthly life. There is no perfect embodiment of the law of the spirit in this life, and its “concern” can from time to time be overridden by the law of the flesh.
Apparently you're "overridden by the law of the flesh", and trapped in the lies of your father.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:
Thus we see here the abyssal problem with the ‘Dan’-verse formulation: one can be dedicated to the law of the spirit and yet still yield from time to time to the law of the flesh.
Nor is one’s dedication any sort of a guarantee that one is perfectly and utterly raised above the interior fray between those two laws or principles (Paul uses the Greek term nomos) within one’s own self.
Nor does one’s being a sinful “miserable wretch” constitute an utter loss or abandonment of one’s dedication to the law of the spirit. (Why else – as I have said above – did Christ assure Peter that “whose sins you forgive” and so on … ?)
And we witness more delusion.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:
And with all that having been said, then ‘Dan’s concluding paragraph’s “question” – based as it is on his hugely problematic if not also cartoon conception of Paul’s thought in Romans – is overridden: Paul’s theology here has left much room for human Christians to fail despite their fundamental dedication to the law of the spirit.
And ‘Dan’ then also slyly and manipulatively slides in the presumption that “your hierarchy” (all of it?) and “priests” (all of them?) did indeed “commit the sins of the flesh” as allegated.
Many, if not all, priests and hierarchy,and the rest a bunch of excusers, enablers and liars.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:
And then we see yet again the same ‘Dan’-verse Scriptural incomprehension as ‘Dan’ goes on about “the healing power of Jesus Christ”: that healing power does not constitute a guarantee that one would never again do anything that would require spiritual healing; rather, it constitutes a promise of forgiveness and “healing” to Christians who transgress and seek forgiveness and grace to take up the interior human struggle again.
Christ’s and Paul’s “healing power” is not some sort of magic that instantly and utterly elevates humans above the struggles between spirit and flesh. It is – as it says – a “healing” power, not a cartoonish perfection-power that instantly and completely turns the Christian into some sort of cartoon super-being, human in appearance only, but actually existing above the struggles of the interior life.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 145AM:
And almost as an after-thought ‘Dan’ adds another familiar fundie bit: that Paul in Romans here does not mention the intercessory role of Mary and the Saints.
Nor does Paul here deny them that role.
Have you ever heard that there's a big problem when you add to the words of the bible.
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev. 22:18-19
So keep on adding and subtracting from His Word, and we'll see if you can fare any better than Pharoah. Good luck with that. They have no intercessory role whatsoever, but I can understand why catholic, lying hypocrites hope so, because they're in such bad shape from the evil sins they've committed, and are in need of all the help they can muster. servant