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.
And on we go.
On the 14th at 1113PM ‘Dan’ doth protest that he had “answered to much of [my] stuff today”, referring to his comment of the 14th at 145AM.
Alas, and yet again, ‘Dan’ seems to be under the impression that once he has put up a come-back or some writing then that has to settle the question in his favor. He cawn’t think why – once he has put something up – that there is any further question to be asked or problem to be noted.
I have commented further on his ‘explanations’ because his ‘explanations’ or ‘answers’ still don’t cover the ground that needs to be covered and may actually raise even more questions than they were supposed to ‘answer’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:
Nor does ‘Dan’ seem to understand the idea of being “satisfied with” an explanation. To be thus “satisfied with” an explanation one would have to accept that the responding ‘answer’ or ‘explanation’ effectively and accurately dealt with the original question or problem.
But for ‘Dan’, this all seems to be a masquerade: someone comments, then ‘Dan’ puts something up, and thus ‘Dan’ has done his bit and there should be no further question or comment.
It’s as if this were all just a dance, wherein one person makes a certain step in a direction, and the other person takes a corresponding step … and that’s all there is to it. It’s a scripted masquerade for ‘Dan’ and his concept here does not in any way grasp that exchange of assertions and questions and comments is designed precisely to achieve further clarity and perhaps even resolution of the basic question or issue.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:
‘Dan’ then decides that the problem must be with – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – somebody else, namely me, in this matter.
It must “just be in [my] nature” – doncha see? – “to dispute everything of common sense, Biblical or otherwise”. And we note how ‘Dan’ slyly and manipulatively works in the presumption here that his stuff is all “common sense” – although what appears to ‘Dan’s mind as “common sense” may well be something else altogether, namely the content and demands of his own agenda.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:
Thus the ever-victimized ‘Dan’ will – with a becoming patience in the light of such exasperations – give another pericope that should clear it all up.
He quotes three different versions of the pericope – although he avoids confronting the NAB’s use of “mentioned”, which I had dealt with in a prior comment on this thread and which poses a notable problem for his position.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:
But then he makes his now-familiar mistake or conflation or switcheroo: he asks if I am “going to try and tell [him] that it’s OK to be” any of the things the pericope mentions.
Neither I nor Scripture have ever asserted that “it’s OK” to fail in regard to the ongoing human struggle between the law of the spirit and the law of the flesh. The problem – as Paul and Peter realize – is that as humans Christians are subject to original sinfulness and there are going to be failures; this is the paradox that causes Paul to call himself “miserable wretch that I am” and for Peter to tell Christ “Depart from me for I am a sinful man, O Lord”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:
Thus too then, ‘Dan’ should by now clearly see where his ‘interpretation’ of the pericope(s) is grossly off-target: it cannot be held, from considering the text, that once one has accepted the Gospel then one cannot ever fail in living out that law of the spirit; rather, even among those dedicated to the law of the spirit, there will be failures through yielding to the law of the flesh.
What the pericopes say ‘should not’ happen yet will happen – that is the paradox Paul sees and embodies in his own self.
And what does one do then? When something “improper” happens what does the sinning Christian do? What do other Christians do? What does the Christian community do?
These were the problems facing the actual Christian community and facing Paul and facing Peter.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:
‘Dan’s “understanding” of the issue at stake here is thus largely insufficient.
And that is revealed even by his own use of the subjunctive (“wouldn’t even be a hint”) – and it yields a ridiculous result, i.e. that there should not or cannot ever be sin among Christians or committed by “the true Christian”. This is a magical bit and contrary to the spirit of Paul and the Gospel.
There “shouldn’t” be but there is. And what then?
Is Paul not “a true Christian”? Is Peter not “a true Christian”?
If a Christian sins, is s/he not then “a true Christian”?
How does ‘Dan’s “understanding” deal with that?
Just about everything you post is contrary to the Gospel. Your manipulating misinterpretations are only adding to your slew of lies. Read what I posted from 1 John 3:5-10 at 1:14 am. When you come to Christ you don't automatically become perfect, but you will be working on stopping your most horrific sins. Instead as catholic priests and hierarchy, you continue in your sins and don't even repent of your worst crimes and think you can make excuses and lie to keep yourselves from the punishment you so rightly deserve. And that's not good enough, you think you can falsely accuse the innocent in order to take the spotlight off yourselves. Compulsive liars and sinners, refusing to come out into the light, still living in darkness. God can count the hairs on your head. You think He doesn't know what garbage and deceptions you're up to? servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:
Ditto that if you are a sinning Christian then clearly you are not “a true Christian” because “you have not come to know the healing power of Jesus Christ” … which once again leads us down the road that I discussed in an earlier comment on this thread, i.e. that the healing power of Christ is somehow a magical preventative of sin. Once again, this is magical, and contrary to the Gospel.
The “healing power of Christ” – not to put too fine a point on it – is meant to ‘heal’ the rift caused by sin that is committed. It is not some magical backwoods elixir that prevents sin.
Thus then ‘Dan’s attempt to channel God and declare that “you are … absolutely unforgiven by God or Christ” is mere and ridiculous posturing, with ‘Dan’ posing once again as the Possessor and Sole Reader of the Divine Tea Leaves.
Your sarcastic mocking of a Christian or his God, is not only "ridiculous" but also evil. When will you stop with your ignorance and stupidity? It's definitely not as cute as you think it is.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 129AM:
Paul’s use of the term “idolator” (sic) here is a warning that there is more to this pericope than might meet the eye. An idolater would be a pagan. And pagans have – Paul holds – no “inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God”.
But what of Christians? Are we to assume that there will be utterly no sin among Christians? That there cannot be any sin among Christians? That conclusion cannot be drawn, in light of Paul’s and Peter’s own experiences and in light of the fact that the “healing power” of Christ is a healing and restorative power, not a magical total-preventative power.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 129AM:
The pagans are not pagans because they demonstrate such vices; they live lives utterly given over to such vices because they are pagans. Every human is subject to the paradoxical struggle and every human being – even Christians – may fail in that struggle between the law of the spirit and the law of the flesh.
Sins do not make one pagan; paganism makes one pagan, subjecting one to the powers of the law of the flesh with no assistance from the healing power and grace of God.
What it means to be catholic (def) – "Sins do not make one pagan; paganism makes one pagan, subjecting one to the powers of the law of the flesh with no assistance from the healing power and grace of God".
You can go to Mary, "Queen of Heaven" for your healing power, grace and mercy, as if a dead human being waiting for her Judgment Day can be of any help. Let's see, maybe if we pray to saints who represent other false gods and goddesses we can increase our chances. Who cares what the Almighty God says in regards to Jesus being the only mediator ("I Am the way, and the truth and the life"). We're the catholic church and we have absolutely no need to listen to the Creator who made us. We are the greatest pagan religion of idolators to ever walk the earth, but that's our little secret. Our idols are refined and we certainly have way more statues than the Easter Island pagans. We do though have a fondness for Easter eggs, but don't say we worship the fertility gods. And please, don't ever say we worship statues , because we only honor, venerate, adore, kiss their feet and bow down to them. We never worship them because we are not pagan idol worshippers, any more than we are pedophiles, greedy, cowards or liars. And you can trust everything we say, because all our brainwashed followers know that we are the One True Holy catholic church and never ever lie. servant of the One True God
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 129AM:
And we also see that “empty arguments” bit, which for ‘Dan’s purposes is always taken to mean that once ‘Dan’ has declared what his “common sense” and speshull info from the séance tells him, then there can be no further discussion or question; such further discussion or question would be merely “empty arguments”.
Readers can consider the matter here and decide where are to be seen the “empty arguments’ in all of this.
My " 'empty arguments' bit" as you again so rudely put it was a direct quote from the Bible. It just so happens that you seem to be the epitome of "empty arguments". I'll let you weasel your way out of what John says in regard to sin. And by the way, I never said anyone would have to be perfect, and your cult demonstrates most definitely the opposite of perfection.
"You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:5-10
I'd say that just about destroys your "empty arguments" in regard to sin and compulsive sinners. What is your agenda that you feel this great need to deceive others. Still abiding by the lies of your father, the devil, and wish to deceive as you have been deceived? servant of the One True God
There is relevant information having bearing on the Cardinal Pell case, in an Australian blog called www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au and then go to 'mediawatchdog', issue 369. Although it refers to particular cases in the U.K., there are some intriguing parallels. A retired judge conducted a review into the police handling of complaints against prominent persons, including a former Prime Minister Edward Heath. The findings of this review were generally critical of the U.K. police, in particular for their using the word "victim", when the appropriate word was "complainant". In regard to our local complainants I think that their enthusiasm will quickly decline when they realize they will be cross-examined in the witness box. Also in the U.K. many of the complainants were found to have criminal records… now does that sound familiar?
We've run out of suppositions, possibilities, excuses and outright guesses, so now we're going to grasp at straws? There is no "relevant information" or "intriguing parallels" to the Pell case. Raped and molested children often lead messed up lives, and from what I've witnessed many "victims" turn to homosexuality. Did you even pay any attention to the comment by Victor Parker on July 13 @ 10:11am? Obviously not! Why not let the courts decide, and if you're cult doesn't succeed in lying and deceiving, then you can cry foul. Laughable, if it wasn't so sad!
Dan, on the 17th, says that we should stop defending Cardinal Pell…. and just let the courts decide. A perfectly good suggestion… in normal circumstances. But there is nothing normal going on here. The mainstream media appears determined to convict this man in the 'court of public opinion'. Meaning that even before any trial begins the public will have been persuaded that he is guilty. And juries are drawn from the general public. So they are deliberately trying to prejudice the jury against him. This is a denial of his civil rights, because western justice provides that we are all innocent until proven guilty. For reasons of long-standing bigotry they have presumed the guilt of this man, and want the rest of us to believe likewise. It is quite sad that the most effective means of mass communication ever devised is sitting in my living room…. it is called a T.V. set. And it is now being used for the blatant manipulation of public opinion.
And Malcolm and the church is determined to smear the reputation of witnesses in the court of public opinion. Meaning before any trial begins, the public will be persuaded to think that Cardinal Pell is innocent. So strange that a cult I've experienced to be plagued with lying bigots, goes around accusing others of bigotry. Your church denied my civil rights, with blatant lies to prove me guilty. Your church would be so qualified to recognize blatant manipulation, seeing that second to lying, manipulation is one of their finest qualities, both Biblically and legally. Like I've said before, seems like your church is reaping what it sows, and deserves every conviction against it. And of course, the church in many cases has gotten away with piddley settlements with confidentiality clauses. A win-win situation for the church's reputation. servant
Not all of ‘Dan’s most recent load of comments need comment; some of them – as so often – do quite a nice job of revealing what we’re dealing with without any further elucidation at all.
As for the ones that are at all useful, I’ll take them in the order they appear on the site, not in strict chronological order.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 159PM:
The problem facing him was this: if the Church or any individual Christian is not actually perfect (i.e. without committing any sin) in all respects, then can the Church or the individual legitimately be truly of Christ?
This is – as I have said – the profound reality with which Paul and Peter wrestled: how do Christian faith and human sinfulness exist in each human and in the institutions comprised of those humans? We are into very heavy and serious theological territory indeed.
‘Dan’s solution is to distract from the profound theological challenges limned by Paul (and so many others over the subsequent millennia) and merely go for the epithetical.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 159PM:
Thus he characterizes the Church as “plagued” with “liars, pedophiles” and so on. Whether the Church is actually plagued by them within or rather is plagued by accusations of same … quickly arises as the follow-on question.
We continue to hear the insistent demands of ‘Dan’s cartoon (in the service of his own agenda and delusional system, borrowing heavy from fundie stuff) with his deployment of “absolutely” (“then it’s absolutely apparent”), which then immediately leads to his deploying – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttt? – his usual I’m Not/You Are bit (here, in regard to “abyssal ignorance of Scripture”).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 159PM:
Paul called himself “miserable wretch” well after he met Christ and are we to imagine that Peter committed no further sins ever (he had called himself “a sinful man”) after accepting the Great Commission?
Even ‘Dan’ seems to realize on some level that this bit of his goes over the top. So he tries to recover with some good old ‘minimalizing’: well, did Peter and Paul “make other mistakes”? To which he quickly – and yet again – deploys “absolutely”, and with an exclamation point (“Absolutely yes!”).
So then … Peter and Paul did “make other mistakes” (evading the term ‘sin’ here).
And then quickly ‘Dan’ gets back to his undemonstrated base point: but they weren’t – and ‘Dan’ quickly recites his preferred cartoon laundry list. How does ‘Dan’ know what sins Peter and Paul might have committed in their later, post-meeting-Christ lives … ? Again, if you don’t buy ‘Dan’s and the fundies’ claim to possess the Divine Tea Leaves, then this is all just so much self-serving imagining.
There’s a method in ‘Dan’s madness here, and it will come up a bit further on in this sequence of comments where I will deal with it at length.
Meanwhile the comment trails off in more of his familiar epithetical riffing.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 803PM:
Completely evading the point I had raised in my comment of the 15th at 956AM (i.e. that in ‘Dan’s case it was he who was the “guilty suspect” of his scenario), he merely repeats the essence of his cartoon formulation: “When the [already presumed guilty] liars walk away and [‘Dan’] is sentenced” … then that clearly – in ‘Dan’s cartoon mentation – means that such a sentence may be “justice” but – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttttt? – it’s “not God’s justice”.
We have to enter into ‘Dan’s cartoon mentation – put on his speshull glasses and drink his Kool-Aid – to make sense of his assertion here: ‘Dan’ must be presumed innocent and falsely-accused … and if you just accept that, then the rest of his cartoon falls into place neatly.
Thus – doncha see? – if a court finds ‘Dan’ guilty, then it’s “not God’s justice”. We can take ‘Dan’s word for it.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 803PM:
And he quickly moves into distraction-mode by talking about “some of the pedophile creeps with several victims” … of which type of offender there have been very few definitively established to be such.
But for the purposes of ‘Dan’s agenda, any accused who died before being able to make a defense must be presumed guilty and any accusations rejected by reason of Statute of Limitations stricture must be presumed veracious. ‘Dan’s entire cartoon here is built on the sand of gratuitous and self-serving presumptions.
And he concludes with the familiar God’ll-getcha all bit.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 833PM:
Here ‘Dan’ goes for the idea that there wasn’t necessarily “a conspiracy” among the Catholics and staffers and police and courts. Instead, it’s just that they were all individually and naturally “liars” (and there was only “on corrupt catholic cop” anyway).
And was there only one judge who sent ‘Dan’ for evaluation six times?
And was ‘Dan’ haled before the courts five more times for the same instance of offense?
And what of those “hundreds” he mentioned who in opposing him have incurred placement on his delusional plop-list …? Are we to accept that all of them, too, were simply individually and naturally “liars”?
Or it more probable that rather than this massive panoply of “liars” we are dealing here in this variant version of ‘Dan’s story with only one “liar”, and a “compulsive” one at that?
On then to a more meaty theological consideration:
On the 16th at 414PM – in regard to my series of comments of the 15th at 959AM, 1002AM and 1003AM, among others of the past week – ‘Dan’ merely waves away his substantive theological incoherences with an assertion: my “theory is absolutely false”.
And how – if at all – will he back up that whopper?
He does so by deploying his theological presumption that the grace of Christ and of God is such that “we can overcome all things”. Thus – and as I had previously characterized his position here – that such grace is somehow a totally-preventative elixir that prevents human sin.
Thus – it also would have to follow – that once one is baptized and accepts the Gospel, then one is given the ability (through the aforementioned grace) to utterly avoid sin in one’s post-baptismal life.
Thus that “true Christians” do not sin. (Although perhaps – as ‘Dan’ has tried to dodge the consequences of that – they might “make other mistakes”.) And if a Christian sins, then that individual is no longer a “true Christian”. (But if such a Christian merely doth “make other mistakes” then … what?)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 414PM:
This – as I have said – is nothing short of magical. God’s grace builds on human nature, but does not – indeed cannot – so utterly transform human nature as to completely and permanently nullify the effects of original sinfulness.
For God to do so would be for God to override the gift of being human, damaged as that gift has been by the failure of Adam and Eve. We become mere puppets and pawns, figurines on some divine train-table to be toyed-with as desired by the guy who built the set and wears the engineer’s cap.
And clearly Paul cannot be lassoed into this cartoon conception of ‘Dan’s (and a lot of fundies) since even as he was writing Romans he could claim he was (still) a “miserable wretch” who does not do the good he wishes to do and does do the evil he wishes to avoid.
Thus, while “all things are possible with God” in a conceptual sense, yet for God to provide such a magical elixir is clearly contrary to Paul’s conception and experience, and further is clearly contrary to God’s respect for the moral freedom and responsibility with which human beings are endowed.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 414PM:
Where the Qumran Essenes reverted to some magical evil spirits working within humans, ‘Dan’ will revert to some magical conception of grace which prevents people from committing sin after they have accepted the Gospel.
This is worse than a cartoon. This is a fundamental perversion of God’s Plan for Creation.
And of God’s Plan for Salvation: if one ceases to be a “true Christian” once one commits any sin (or ‘makes mistakes’) … then what? One is permanently lost to the Gospel?
Or does one declare oneself never to have sinned (although perhaps one has ‘made some mistakes’)?
And for what reason would Christ have given Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” for the forgiving or retaining of sins?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 414PM:
We see here the neat dove-tailing synergy of both the fundies’ and ‘Dan’s game-plans:
For the fundies, everything boils down to one’s own individual tete-a-tete with God. There is no actual Christian community working its way through the moral terrain of human history; there is merely an assemblage of those who proclaim themselves to be (magically) “true Christians” (thus without sin, because they let God’s grace work its magic in them) and then there are those who are no longer “true Christians” (because they have sinned) and then beyond that the pagans.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 414PM:
And for ‘Dan’, his own clearly problematic self and life are instantly placed beyond any human judgment, to be sheathed in the mask of God’s speshull direct power, directly downloading the Divine Mind and Will that – by amazing coincidence – totally supports the ‘Dan’-verse in all its pomps and works, its claims and accusations and predictions and ‘prophecies’ and imprecations and threats.
And in both cases, it becomes merely a blame-game: one declares oneself to be a “true Christian”, one denounces others as not being “true Christians” or as being pagans, and one can proceed merrily on larding onto the world and other people both proclamations of one’s own sterling gracefull-ness and denunciations of others’ lumpish and evil failures.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 444PM:
Here ‘Dan’ is on about there being “a big problem when you add words to the Bible”.
He gives no examples, and no surprise there.
The reason for the lack of examples may well be that there has been on ‘adding words to the Bible’. Rather, what he is on about is – once again – his fundie ranting based on the idea that if something ‘isn’t in the Bible’ then it’s not Christian.
We’ve been over this before. Religions use typewriters and indoor plumbing now and those aren’t ‘in the Bible’. Where does one draw the line such that the parameter of what is ‘in the Bible’ and what ‘isn’t in the Bible’ has any sensible relevance at all?
And – as always – we behold the bemusing reality of persons who think the Church isn’t ‘biblical’ drawing for their ‘proofs’ on a Bible that exists solely because the Church compiled the canon of the Bible.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 350PM:
Here – confronted by a series of questions I posed on the 15th at 900PM that support the point that the “magical” conception of grace is contrary to the Gospel – ‘Dan’ – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttttttt? – evades the questions and instead issues a blanket epithetical denunciation, i.e. that “just about everything [I] post is contrary to the Gospel”. In other words, this is just another running of ‘Dan’s familiar I’m Not/You Are ‘comeback’.
I’ll deal in a moment with ‘Dan’s bit about 1 John 3:5-10 when I comment on his of the 16th at 114AM.
‘Dan’ has his cartoons, increasingly revealed as cartoons as we examine his claims and assertions. He’s not going to let anything interfere with that system of cartoons, lest his head explode.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1150AM:
Having been confronted with my point (previously explicated on this thread) about ‘paganism’ and ‘sin’ not being synonymous, ‘Dan’ merely evades the point and pulls from his 3×5 pile more bits with which he is more familiar and upon which he relies for the sum of his ‘Biblical’ arguments.
Thus – and yet yet again – his ranting about the role of Mary and the saints and so on. All of which points have been dealt with in prior comments on this site and have been demonstrated to be seriously faulty.
Buttressed by such ridiculous exaggerations as Catholics having “absolutely no need to listen to the Creator who made us”. But ‘Dan’ – as I said – has his cartoons and he’s not coming out of that cartoonish bubble for any reason, and – really – he can’t and still keep his head from exploding.
‘Dan’ requires a cartoon vision of the Church and Catholicism in order to keep his cartoons going and he merely repeats whatever cartoon bit seems most applicable to him whenever his stuff runs – as it inevitably does – into problems.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:
Once again we see demonstrated here an essential element of ‘Dan’s cartoon take on Scripture and the Church: he conflates his “arguments” with the mere quotation of pericopes.
This is merely ‘Dan’s adaptation for his own purposes of the old fundie gambit of the ‘proof text’, i.e. whatever the question may be, there is in the Bible this or that quotable pericope that in and of itself – and without any further explication required or questioning permitted – utterly ‘answers’ the question.
Curiously, the old fundie ‘proof text’ bit resembles the Victimist dogma about ‘victim stories’: once the story/accusation is told, then it cannot be questioned and must be presumed veracious and final.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:
Thus ‘Dan’ seems to think that if he merely tosses up his chosen pericope, then that constitutes an ‘answer’. His own vision of how that pericope is to be interpreted and applied to the present situation or question is merely presumed to be the one and only interpretation. Given ‘Dan’s assorted mentation whackeries, it is this ‘interpretation’ problem of his that constitutes an even more lethal danger to Scriptural understanding than the whacky ‘proof text’ concept itself.
But now he says that a) he does not hold that “anyone would have to be perfect”. Well, then, Christian and Catholic sinners are “not perfect”. So in what way, then, b) does any instance of Christian or Catholic sin constitute the type of fatal (to belief and standing as a Christian) offense that ‘Dan’s cartoons continually harp on?
How does he get from (a) to (b) here?
This is a lethal incoherence in his position.
Nor does the cutesy epithetical wordplay on “perfect” do anything substantial here.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:
‘Dan’ then deploys today’s ‘proof text’, from 1 John 3: 5-10.
This is a problematic text no matter how you look at it. Verse 6 encapsulates the problem: “No one who remains in him [i.e. Christ] sins, and no one who sins has seen him or known him”.
If you look at this text not simply as a one-off ‘proof text’ but instead try to incorporate it rationally into the corpus of Christian belief and praxis, then there are going to be problems: because if one “sins”, then one cannot have “seen and “known” Christ (although the text does not specifically say that if one sins then one does not ‘remain’ in Christ).
Yet – as even ‘Dan’ has now admitted – nobody’s perfect and so even Christians will sin (or “make some mistakes”, as ‘Dan’ tried to finesse the point in a recent prior comment).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:
So outright a contradiction to human experience and belief requires much closer and careful examination of the pericope and the text.
One possible relevant point is to consider what is the definition of ‘sin’ that the author is using here.
Verse 4 appears to give us a solid lead: “sin is lawlessness”. Sin is thus a flouting of the law (the law of the spirit, to use Paul’s terminology, perhaps). In that sense sin is “lawlessness” since – at least for the moment that the sin is committed – one refuses to accept the authority of the law of the spirit.
Thus for the moment that one commits the sin, one is essentially “lawless” and – for that moment, at least – “belongs to the devil” (verse 8).
That certainly makes sense in a way that also comports with the reality of original sinfulness and the ‘nobody’s perfect’ formulation that even ‘Dan’ now claims to accept.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:
One might also consider the possibility that it is the pagans, who have not seen or known Christ or accept the Gospel, who are truly ‘lawless’.
This would require that the author of 1 John considers the most serious sin to be that of being ‘lawless’ in the sense of the pagans, who do not accept Christ and the Gospel in any way at all.
Thus that the author of 1 John is primarily concerned here with distinguishing believing Christians from pagans. In that early Christian era, then, the greatest ‘sin’ would be the “lawlessness” that besets the pagans, who do not accept the Gospel, as opposed to the Christians, who do accept the Gospel.
Otherwise, we do wind up here with a position that not even ‘Dan’ accepts: i.e. that once you have accepted the Gospel and are “begotten of God” (through the Spirit-prompted acceptance of the Gospel) then one “cannot sin”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:
Unless, of course, that “cannot” is taken not in the sense of being ‘unable’ to sin but rather in the sense of ‘should not’ or ‘must not’ sin.
But even here then, one is back to Paul in Romans and the great paradox of being a believing Christian who yet participates in the Fall of Adam and is thereby afflicted with original sinfulness, the tendency to yield to the law of the flesh against the law of the spirit.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:
Or, considering verse 9, another possibility is that if one is “begotten by God” then one “cannot sin” because the only true sin (at least for the purposes of the author of 1 John) is to reject the Gospel and Christ. Such that he is saying, in effect, that as long as you accept Christ and the Gospel then, really, nothing you do can constitute the “sin” of living without accepting Christ and the Gospel and the law of the spirit.
This might be the stance that then informs verse 10: here the author seems greatly concerned to distinguish clearly and obviously and definitively between “the children of God” and the “children of the devil” (i.e. the pagans and non-Christians).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:
We see here then how complicated it is to achieve an understanding of and specific pericope in such a way that it comports with known human experience and the rest of the Bible and the New Testament especially.
The fundie approach sidesteps this vast and genuine challenge posed by Scripture and its many possible pericopes by merely taking this or that ‘proof text’ pericope, applying it simplistically to some particular fundie excitation, and leaving it at that, with the fundie expounder of the pericope content in his little bit of plop-tossing and claiming that it’s the inspired (and only acceptable) indication of the Word of God.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:
Thus ‘Dan’s selection and deployment of this pericope from 1 John actually demonstrates how faulty and grossly insufficient ‘Dan’s own approach to Scripture actually is. And all that has been ‘destroyed’ now is ‘Dan’s deceptive if not also deceitful but also delusional masquerade as being a Scriptural interpreter par excellence and extraordinaire.
And, looking at all of this in the context of the Stampede as well as of ‘Dan’s cartoon rants against Catholicism and the Church, we see again that ‘Dan’ takes each allegation or ‘story’ as being presumptively true (so long as it comports with the purposes of his agenda) and simply tosses up his ‘interpretation’ as if it were the only possible take on the story, thus claiming that anyone who doubts or questions is some version of an ‘un-believer’ and such.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1208PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to evade the many problematic bits about the Aussie accusations against Cardinal Pell by bleating (with the Wig of Sweet Reasonable Weariness now perched atop his head) that “we’ve run out of suppositions, possibilities, excuses and outright guesses”.
This is rich, coming from a genuine font of fever-visions, accusations, denunciations, proclamations, and the vast panoply of non-credible bits that he has put up here over time.
Anything further at this point, he doth declare, is nothing but trying to “grasp at straws”.
This is rich, coming from a genuine font of fever-visions, suppositions, presumptions, claims, and the vast panoply of non-credible bits that he has put up here over time.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1208PM:
As for “intriguing parallels” … why, they just don’t exist and thus ‘Dan’ doth blithely wave them away.
Nor is there any “relevant information”, he doth declare.
Except – that is – for the old Victimist dogma bit to the effect that “raped and molested children often lead messed up lives”. Well, is anyone who leads a “messed up” life therefore clearly a victim of childhood rape and molestation? Does his assertion work in reverse?
Because this was the great switcheroo of Victimism decades ago when this all started: rather than prove the rape or molestation, simply claim that since you have the ‘evidence’ of the “messed up” life, then you must also have the rape or molestation that caused it. Because – the unspoken middle presumption – only rape or molestation cause “messed up” lives and thus if you have the sure consequence, then you must also have the sure and only cause.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1208PM:
Which ridiculous and illogical whopper is then followed by another: that “’victims’” “turn to homosexuality” as a consequence.
‘Dan’, doncha see, has “witnessed” this. How can that possibly be true? Was he there inside the mind of any person who had ‘turned’ homosexual?
No, he’s simply – in best Victimist fashion – taken the story somebody proffered as being utterly veracious and accurate. All ‘Dan’ has “witnessed” is somebody telling this type of story, if he’s even done that.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1208PM:
Why not just “let the courts decide”, he bleats – as if butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth.
Well, we’ve seen what happened when “courts” decided in ‘Dan’s cases: it’s possibly justice … “but it’s not God’s justice”. But since the Pell and all Catholic abuse cases are ‘Dan’s preferred bugbear, then he’s perfectly happy letting the courts decide (but he’s ready with his “lying and deceiving … cult” bit, just in case).
Given the effects of Victimism and the Stampede on the courts in the US – although, thankfully, that seems to be changing – then I wouldn’t be so quick to presume even “justice”, given the distortions and derangements introduced by Victimism on the theory and praxis of Western law.
And this Aussie case – in the police-investigation phase that it’s in now – doesn’t seem on the level at all.
But I am happy to let the Aussie courts reveal themselves and we’ll see what happens.
In the meantime, any rational person should give careful thought to the material already released.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 1250AM:
Now here we have ‘Dan’ – as if he were Goody-Two-Shoes – bleating about attempts to “smear” reputations.
‘Dan’s entire shtick here is one long smear on Catholics and Catholicism, and the further insistence that such smearing is both veracious and the very Word of God.
Nor does an analysis of the stories accusers tell constitute a “smear”. The accusers tell their stories, and the stories are then assessed. Do the stories have notable problematic elements? Pointing out those elements is no “smear”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 1250AM:
‘Dan’ then works in – had you been waitttinggggg forrr ittttttttttt? – yet another advertisement for his now-familiar preferred cartoon as to his own legal misadventures (it was all only due to “blatant lies” by Catholic accusers, doncha see?).
Readers may judge this performance as they will.
And on the basis of that bit, he can riff on further along those lines.
And – scrounging around in his pile – ‘Dan’ then comes up with the bit of confidentiality clauses. As Federal Judge Schiltz – having presided over such cases or arbitrations – said, the confidentiality clauses were in many instances demanded by the accusers’ tort attorneys.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 1250AM:
And then – marvelously – he tries to paint the Church as trying to ‘persuade’ “the public … to think that Cardinal Pell is innocent” (whereas ‘Dan’ is trying to get everyone to presume that Cardinal Pell is guilty … but that’s OK in the logic of the ‘Dan’-verse).
Cardinal Pell defends his innocence, and the accusers’ stories we have been able to examine don’t at all seem reliable and credible, and on top of that the actions of the police so far don’t seem on the level either.
The real example of “win-win” here is ‘Dan’s basic cartoon gambit: what he wants is the only thing that he will accept; anything he doesn’t want he will evade or avoid or dismiss, with his usual panoply of claims, assertions, denunciations, accusations and so on and so forth.
I have "absolutely" no desire to answer to all your ignorance, stupidity and nonsense. I will touch on those facts that seem not to penetrate your thick scull, or could it be that your head has exploded? 1) For you to stupidly continue to accuse me of having a "preferred cartoon as to [my] own legal misadventures", is ridiculous and childish, and further cements the fact of your being a compulsive liar and justifies your defending a church plagued with liars and sickos. 2) No sentence against me was "justice" or truth and I will receive "God's justice", and can't wait until you get yours! 3) God gave us moral freedom; That freedom did not include becoming pedophiles and pederasts, destroying the lives of innocent children, repeating that crime over and over again, and then being transferred by a hierarchy of enablers and excusers who virtually had no moral compass. What kind of creeps would do such a thing? What kind of perversions were they indulging? THIS IS A SYSTEMIC SICKNESS PREVALENT IN YOUR CULT. 4) Honestly I hate and will continue to criticize "Catholicism", their false teachings, their horrible, disgusting sins and the sexual crimes against children performed by any false cults, schools, boy scout leaders or day cares, etc., etc. For a church claiming to be the One Holy Catholic Church of God, to commit such crimes, is despicable and worthy of Hell's Fire. Once again, I do not hate catholics but have little use for compulsive liars, like yourself. There's a reason why God listed them among these sinners, worthy of Hell. "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolators, and all liars, their portion will be the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8 You never questioned how you and your cult seem to possess all those qualities? I wonder if the lying snake can weasel his way out of these facts? servant of The One True God
You're really a class act, publiar. You refuse to accept my honesty in regards to my being falsely accused by liars similar to yourself, including hierarchy. And yet you ask us to accept Cardinal Pell defend[ing] his innocence, which is definitely questionable, when your cult is plagued with liars, including hierarchy and yourself. The accusers stories I've listened to and watched seemed very reliable and credible. And you insist on adding that the "actions of the police so far don't seem on the level either", and yet you refuse to accept that I had issues with a lying, corrupt catholic cop and officers who only listened to the liars of your cult, priests, nuns, principals, etc., just like yourself. You are such a disingenuous, lying hypocrite. You may also want to stop your "I'm Not/You Are bit" with "win-win", when you're more the loser-loser situation.
Well, my most recent series of comments put a lot of serious and substantive material on the table: the question of the paradox of grace and sin (the 18th, 1108-1110AM); the logical incoherences of ‘Dan’s own misadventure stories (the 18th, 1111 and 1115AM); the legal problems inherent in Victimst law (the 18th, 1111 and 1114AM); the profound issues raised in Scriptural interpretation and theology by the question of the nature of God’s grace and how it works in regard to human nature (the 18th, 1116 thru 1118AM); the dynamics of the fundie use of proof-texts in Scripture (the 18th, 1121-1122, 1130-1131AM); the problems raised by the ‘in the Bible/not in the Bible’ hermeneutic (the 18th, 1123AM); the distinction between ‘paganism’ and ‘sin’ in the dynamics of Christian belief (the 18th, 1125AM); the specific problems with ‘Dan’s use of the proof-text approach (the 18th, 1131AM); and then an extended consideration of ‘Dan’s selected pericope, 1 John 3:5-10 (the 18th, 1132-1134, 1139-1142AM); and the problems created by ‘Dan’s deployment of Victimist dogma (the 18th, 1223-1226, 1230-1231PM).
All of which matters inhered in ‘Dan’s own comments to begin with.
And what does the self-styled Servant, Mind and Will of God and God’s Truth have to say about all this?
With popcorn popped and to the strains of imposing flourish from a kazoo band, we turn to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 1117PM, where we read … “I have ‘absolutely’ no desire to answer your ignorance, stupidity and nonsense”. (Also that my “scull” is “thick”.)
I would submit that a rather significant indicator of the extent of ‘Dan’s derangement is the fact that in light of all the ‘divine’ knowledge and wisdom he has claimed to possess through the speshull favor of God, yet ‘Dan’ is not in any way embarrassed to put up the bits I have just quoted in the above paragraph.