Netflix's The Keepers: Agenda before honesty
The 1969 unsolved disappearance and murder of a Baltimore nun, Sister Catherine Cesnik, certainly has all the makings of a compelling whodunnit. "Who killed Sister Cathy?" the trailer asks.
However, The Keepers, a multi-part "documentary" about the case airing on Netflix, is nothing but a bleary-eyed scavenger hunt trafficking in speculation, innuendo, rumor, discredited science, and a healthy heap of anti-Catholic bigotry. Anyone looking for an honest and clear-thinking analysis of this case will not find it here.
How can anyone believe this?
Really, Jean?
Accuser Jean Wehner
For example, in 1995, a woman named Jean Wehner – whose claims play a central role in The Keepers – filed a civil lawsuit against Maskell under the name Jane Doe. What was uncovered in the course of her suit can only described as disturbing. It turns out that all of Wehner's claims of abuse surfaced through the dangerous and discredited practice of "repressed memory therapy."
It turns out that, according to court documents, Wehner has not just claimed that Rev. Maskell abused her in her life. Wehner has also claimed that she has somehow also been abused by:
- four additional priests;
- three or four religious brothers;
- three lay teachers;
- a police officer;
- a local politician;
- an uncle; and
- two nuns.
Good grief. Really, Jean?
[***Click to read the source court documents yourself (pdf)***]
(Originally accessed at the site of writer Mark Pendergrast, author of the upcoming book,
Memory Warp: How the Myth of Repressed Memory Arose and Refuses to Die)
To say Wehner's claims are wild is an understatement. Not surprisingly, these inconvenient facts from the court documents were completely omitted from The Keepers.
Indeed, contrary to the series' corrupt attempts to give validity to "repressed memory therapy," there is zero doubt that "repressed memory" is an utter fraud. As Dr. Richard J. McNally, Professor and Director of Clinical Training in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, has written (pdf):
"The notion that traumatic events can be repressed and later recovered is the most pernicious bit of folklore ever to infect psychology and psychiatry. It has provided the theoretical basis for 'recovered memory therapy' — the worst catastrophe to befall the mental health field since the lobotomy era."
That pesky DNA
As if Wehner's outlandish history were not disrupting enough, in May, two days before The Keepers first aired on Netflix, the producers of the series received some really bad news. The body of Fr. Maskell had been exhumed back in February, and police announced that DNA connected to the murder scene of Sr. Cesnik did not match that of the deceased priest. (Maskell died in 2001 denying any abuse and any connection to Sr. Cathy's murder.)
Needless to say, this piece of inconvenient news put a big damper on Netflix's story and Wehner's insane tale about Fr. Maskell somehow once showing her Sr. Cathy's corpse.
Trying to get the facts out
Following the cue of other fact-challenged screeds against the Catholic Church (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), The Keepers tries to advance the ages-old anti-Catholic bigotry of the Church as a corrupt, all-powerful institution somehow able to exert its influence across all sectors of society, including law enforcement.
To its credit, however, the Archdiocese of Baltimore has made a decent effort to punch back against the wild and bigoted claims that litter Netflix's hit piece. For example, contrary to claims in the film, the archdiocese strongly contends that it was not made aware of sex abuse allegations against Fr. Maskell until "1992, more than 20 years after the abuse occurred." Any claim that the archdiocese knew about allegations against Maskell before 1992 "is speculation and it is false."
We encourage readers to check out the archdiocese's extensive rebuttal to The Keepers.
The bottom line: Make no mistake. The Keepers is not honest and clear-thinking filmmaking. The Keepers is a bigoted and bumbling mess whose investigative depth more resembles The Keystone Cops. This is unfortunate, because Sr. Cesnik deserves much, much more.
——————–
[EDITOR'S NOTE, 7/30/17: On the same day we published our post, BigTrial.net published an excellent post by writer Mark Pendergrast, "The Dangerously Misleading Narrative Of 'The Keepers'." Check it out!]
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1059PM:
‘Dan’ faced a problem here: the quotation from Pendergrast’s book that ‘Dan’ himself had selected turns out to have demonstrated Pendergrast’s very prudent and thorough deployment of the subjunctive, which serves to undermine – rather than support – ‘Dan’s fever-visioned reliance on the quotation.
Whatever, then, is ‘Dan’ to do?
Easy-peezy: ‘Dan’ simply does a quick 180 and now decries and denounces “sleazy and deceiving statements that you use” – that “you” meaning me. As I said in a prior comment, you can’t build a cartoon on the prudent subjunctive and ‘Dan’ knows it – as he demonstrates here rather nicely.
So – doncha see? – prudence and the use of the subjunctive (recognizing the limitations of such assertions as can be made about a topic or situation) is to ‘Dan’, as it is to all cartoon-dependent manipulators, merely “words you use to promote your [had you been waitttingggg forr ittttt?] compulsive lying”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1059PM:
But wait – there’s more.
As a further vivid demonstration of ‘Dan’s methods, he then asks why Pendergrast would even mention the accusations (although heavily boundaried by the subjunctive) “if there’s no truth to them”.
Well, Pendergrast might well have mentioned the accusations – drawing firm subjunctive boundaries around them – simply to demonstrate the type of bits that the accusers have claimed. (At one point I recall that one accuser claimed Maskell was present at a gynecological examination, which rather dubious scenario then further required that the accuser accuse the gynecologist as well, which the accuser also did).
In books about the Salem Witch Trials the accusations the girls made against various ‘witches’ are repeated. Is that because the authors consider the accusations to actually have had some basic evidentiary value as proof of witchcraft?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1059PM:
Having thus completed his mimicry of sober and thoughtful analysis, ‘Dan’ then gets down to more familiar and preferred territory with his epithetical bit about “just a nasty creepy sicko” … and again one has to wonder. But for ‘Dan’ – sublimely ignorant of himself – it’s all just “Hilariass!”.
As I said before …
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1116PM:
Addressing me as “Satan” he then tries the old I’m Not/You Are bit. No surprises there.
And if ‘Dan’ was aware that there are no “child-priests” in Catholicism, then why did he use the term “adult priests” in the first place, since there can be no other type (i.e. child priests)?
He tries to extricate himself from all that by quickly trying to change the subject to “child-molesting priests”, which – further – are apparently the only kind that exist in ‘Dan’s cartoons.
In other words, word-games in the service of evasion and distraction. No surprises there either.
And this time it’s “perverted sickos” as the epithet of choice for ‘Dan’ … and again one has to wonder.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1141PM:
Always on the lookout for any comment that might enable him to mimic the sober camaraderie of those-who-see/know-it-all, ‘Dan’ tries the gambit here with ‘Glenna J. Kerker’ (in re her comment of the 321st at 1027PM).
“Glenna” – he purrs familiarly – “you may be right”.
But he immediately then tries to weasel-in a whack at the Billy-Doe case from Philadelphia, which – had you been waitttingggggggg forrrrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – is just something I use “to display fraud among victim’s cases”. As if the case doesn’t in and of itself now establish a) its own fraudulence and b) the ease with which such vividly deceitful cases can be brought in a time of Stampede and c) with the active cooperation of not only media but prosecutors.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1141PM:
He then hunkers down to something useful to himself in the deception and manipulation line: he proceeds to use “Glenna” merely as a straw-person in ‘conversation’ with whom he doth toss in more plop about how “terribly disturbing” and so on.
And those “many thousands” are not properly “cases”, but allegations and stories and claims. But you can’t keep a good cartoon going on accuracy and ‘Dan’ knows that.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1152PM:
Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates more sly fancy footwork:
First, he tries to create some space between himself and “fundamentalists”. This is going to be a tough sell, since all of ‘Dan’s Biblical and ‘theological’ chops – such as they are – are derived from “fundamentalists”. Anyone familiar with fundamentalist tracts and rants against the Church – using, but of course, ‘proof-texts’ from the Bible – can see that ‘Dan’ is heavily reliant on such an approach.
And as we so often see with ‘Dan’, once you get beyond the 3×5 bits he tosses up and actually try to explore the theological problems and consequences of the pericopes he has chosen, he’s got nothing … he’s copied down the ‘proof-texts’ but he hasn’t got a clue as to the theological and Scriptural corpus from which he has extracted them.
And to which pericopes he then appends his own (oh-so-necessary) interpretations as if the interpretations themselves were a) God’s own Word and b) crystal-clear to anyone who isn’t “ignorant and stupid” and so on and so forth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1152PM:
Second, under the manipulative and deceitful pretext of offering counsel to ‘Mark Taylor’ ‘Dan’ then works in another justification for himself: If “we” do “truly seek [God] out” (and only ‘Dan’ and those who agree with him do that) then we need not “seek vindication from anyone”.
In other words, ‘Dan’ doesn’t have to answer any questions about the theological frakkery inherent in his assorted bits and prophecies and pericopes and interpretations because – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ is already vindicated because he doth “truly seek [God] out” and so ‘Dan’s all set and it’s ‘Dan’s way or the hell-way. Neato.
Thus the economy of a nice, tight Fixed Delusional System.
‘Mark Taylor’ is well-advised to “give God a try”, but he is further well-advised that if he doesn’t find the same “God” that ‘Dan’ insists upon, then ‘Mark Taylor’ is going to quickly find himself at the non-bridle-end of ‘Dan’ amazing theology-producing horse.
Malcolm claims, "The first case in which the accused priest denied guilt, should have been contested, tooth and nail."
Your cult has figured out, after so many cases, just deny guilt and it will be difficult for anyone to prove fault. So the guilty pedophile and perverted creeps can continue to run the asylum and the Oh So Holy and Pure Catholic Cult can continue in it's deceptions and send its brainwashed followers to the pits of Hell. Sounds like a great plan, Lucifer's Lost. Stop with the witch hunt and anti-catholic bigotry nonsense and step out into the light, show your stripes and quit hiding in the darkness. servant of The Almighty One
This address to Publion and Dan. Dan, I do read the Bible, in fact I read it every night and there's nothing in it that convinces me I should leave the Catholic Church, quite the opposite in fact.
At least Publion knows where I am coming from.
Hi Mark, I respect your decision, but not quite sure how you came about that decision -
The Bible says – 1) "I AM the Lord your God… You shall have no other Gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image [statues], or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not BOW down to them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God…" Check out photos of popes bowing to Mary.
2) Call no one father, you have one Father, your father in heaven." Matthew 23:9 In fact take a look at all of Matthew 23 and see the failings of your church.
3) Read Matthew chapter 5 through 7, Christ's words, and observe more shortcomings of the church (i.e. lying, slandering and falsely accusing, not obeying His commands, repetitive prayers to a false goddess, etc. etc.)
4) Check out the first paragraph of 1 Tim 4. "The Spirit says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry [celebacy] and order them to abstain from certain foods [i.e. don't eat meat on friday, lent, kosher, etc.], which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth." 1 Tim 4:1-3
5) Rev. chapter 17 and 18 - Describing in fine detail the fall of Babylon Rome (Rev. 17:1-9) and in Rev. 18, the merchants weeping over her destruction and the loss of their incomes from the goods, perfectly describing the riches of the cult, that they sold to the Whore and Adulteress of God (the Church of Rome). Rev. 18:11-13
So if you prefer following the lies of publiar and your cult, the deceivers and manipulators of God's Word and everything that is truth, then so be it. I can't help you see, but my hope is that someday God will open your eyes to His truth. I can only plant the seed, He makes the tree to grow.
1. Catholics do NOT worship Mary. They honor her. The statues are reminders of the people they depict. And also, you seem to forget that God told Moses to make statues of cherubim and a serpent.
2. Jesus was using hyperbole when He said "Call no man father".Would you really refrain from calling the man who brought you into the world that?!
3 and 4. Sadly I can't argue with you on those two points but doesn't the Bible also say that "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) and that "There is no one who is rightous, not even one"? (Psalm 14:3)
5. Vatican City did not exist when Revelation was written so your last point couldn't be more absurd!
So stop trying to get me to leave the Catholic Church.
1. a) "Catholics do not worship Mary?" You make tons of statues of her. Name thousands of churches after her. Rosary beads. Medals. Bow to her. Lay tons of roses at her feet. Light candles to her. Have hundreds of prayers to her. One being – Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our LIFE our SWEETNESS and our HOPE. Call it whatever you like. You worship her! b) The Israelites also were idolators and many, including Moses didn't make it to the Promised Land.
2. It means no one should be called a title that is reserved only for the Heavenly Father. You can refer to your parent as your father, but not give him the title of Father, nor Rabbi, nor any other title of superiority over the Almighty God. Titles are for the world, not God's children.
3. Glad you can't argue with 3 and 4. Yes, we are all sinners and there is forgiveness if we turn from our sinful lives and follow God's Word, not dispute it to conform to our false beliefs and misinterpretations. "You're not just a reader of the Word, but a doer of the Word." James 1
5. Much of the Bible is filled with prophetic messages, proving God's knowledge of events before they come into existence, especially the Book of Daniel and Revelations. Psalm 22 predicts Jesus before He ever was on earth. When every fine detail describes the greed, idolatry and sexual immorality of your cult, then if the shoe fits you must wear it. It's absurd to think otherwise!
I can't make you leave the church. I only want all to come to know the truth and be set free from the lies. Publiar tries to convince everyone that I'm self-serving and manipulating, when really the opposite is true. I have nothing to gain. Don't want your money. Don't want you to join a church or a cult. Not on You Tube. Not looking for likes on facebook. Don't need your tweets, or any other stupidity of this world. You saved is on you, not me. Your move. Your choice. I've done and will continue to do the job I was called to do. Take Care, Mark.
On the 3rd at 243AM ‘Dan’ – had you been waitttingggggg forrrrr ittttt? – simply tries to run the old I’m Not/You Are bit again. This time, it’s not ‘Dan’ who has those different sub-selves or ‘characters’ (as I noted in comments of the 2nd at 339-340-341PM) but rather it is I who has a “persona” (that of “the lying ‘jackass’ or ‘insinuating pig’”.
But it’s all he’s got.
Well, that and then rehearsing yet again his bleats about being innocent in that oh-so-curious schoolyard fence incident.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3RD at 243AM:
Does he not enjoy bullying kids? Why then would he go after a bunch of school kids corralled conveniently behind a schoolyard fence? Why not go after free-range adults walking along the sidewalk or some such?
And the comment then fizzles on to its conclusion, larded with more epithetical riffing.
Which is then – with a marvelous deceitfulness – topped off with the pearl-clutching huff to the effect that ‘Dan’ doth “choose not to play your childish games”. Rather, ‘Dan’ plays his own childish games, which is the only level on which his self-serving indenture to his deceit and delusionality can be played out.
Publiar oinks, "Does he not enjoy bullying kids?" Now I've gone "after a bunch of school kids corralled conveniently behind a schoolyard fence." Do you catholics believe the ignorant lies and nonsense of this compulsive liar? Then your brainwashing, as followers of your pedophile and child molesting cult, is far more serious than one could imagine. I have never harmed a child, and for publiar to accuse me of such is evil and deceitful. Do you catholics have no problem with blatant liars, since you've drank the Kool-Aid from your wicked deceiving cult? These evil accusations should be stopped. Until then I just consider his stupidity as a big joke. Only fool he's fooled is himself. Lying hypocrite! servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 507PM:
‘Malcolm Harris’ had written (the 1st at 1043PM) that the Church should have defended the first case where an accused priest denied the accusations, regardless of what the Church’s insurers might have said.
I can only say that while such a course would have been the ideal, yet there were also the problems created by Victimism that were already rampant in the U.S. before the Stampede against the Church and priests had really gotten underway.
The Pendergrast article (on the BigTrial site) nicely recaps the dynamics that had been steadily efflorescing in American society for years prior the Catholic variant hit the bigtime in 2002.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 507PM:
Combining Pendergrast and my own list, I would include:
The McMartin Pre-School Day-Care Satanic Ritual Abuse cases (and others similar to them) in the early 1980s / the earlier Missing and Abducted Children movement (the presumption being that most if not all of the missing were abducted by for sexual purposes) / the genre of self-help and ‘clinical’ books based on the ‘repressed memory’ pseudo-theory and the ‘therapy’ resulting from that / the Courage to Heal book that even received direct, well-publicized and sustained support from the Clinton administration itself / the movement to harness the power of computers to ‘register’ persons and make the information – such as it was – available on the internet (updating technologically the elaborate filing-card systems of the Gestapo, the Stasi and the NKVD and its predecessor organizations).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 507PM:
And I would add the long-standing tort-attorney strategy of creating large lawsuits with many plaintiffs and charges, the objective of which was to force deep-pockets corporate defendants to figure that settlement-monies was a less expensive route than contesting each individual claim at trial. This stratagem had succeeded astronomically well in environmental-ecological and tobacco lawsuits (especially of the ‘class action’ type of lawsuit).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 507PM:
And I would add the amplification of the majority of the mainstream media, for the purposes of a) increasing reader-viewership and revenues with vivid and salacious accusations and claims presented as (presumptively) veracious or b) joining a secularist ‘progressive’ assault on the oh-so-obstructive Catholic Church and religion generally or c) both.
Under those circumstances, I can understand – if not approve – the decision to go the settlement route and try – one might say – the ‘appeasement’ approach. But that simply generated more claims, especially since the criteria of ‘evidence’ and the principle of ‘presumption of innocence’ had been effectively neutralized or even reversed.
Wow, you've got it all figured out. Your ignorance and longwinded nonsense is efflorescing all over the place. You are most definitely a legend in your own mind. I'm so impressed. LMAO
In this episode, ‘Dan’ (the 3rd, 109PM) will purr to ‘Mark Taylor’ that ‘Dan’ doth – but of course – “respect your decision” (i.e. MT’s decision “not to leave the Church”, the 3rd at 1248AM) … “but” (drum-roll and popcorn, please) ‘Dan’ demurely professes himself to be “not quite sure how you came about that decision” (sic).
This bit of chuffing thus then platforms the quick segue into – had you been waitttinggg forrrr itttttt? – a rehash of some of ‘Dan’s Greatest All-Time Hits from his 3×5 file of proof-text pericopes and eructations.
Thus, the first point about the use of statues as ‘proving’ ‘worship’ (rather than reverence and recall), as MT will point out in response).
I think I'm beginning to understand your fondness for popcorn, actually being a metaphor for your brain, accidently left the Jiffypop in the microwave too long and the bag exploded and out came all this ignorance, nonsense and lying excuses. Problem solved.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 109PM:
Then the second, “call no one father” point, and MT will note that if that were the case then one could not even call one’s male biological parent ‘father’.
Which bit is then ‘reinforced’ by ‘Dan’s blithely shallow instruction to read the entirety of Matthew’s 23rd chapter because then – doncha see? – you’ll see, sure as shootin’, everything that’s as clear as crystal to ‘Dan’ and will be as clear as crystal to you too. All ya hafta do is read it and see what comes to your mind … unless you’re diabolically ignorant and stupid, of course.
Which blithely shallow bit is then repeated – now that ‘Dan’ comes to think of it – in the third point with a recommended reading of the 5th through the 7th chapters of Matthew too … and ditto. ‘Dan’ doesn’t get into specifics; he’s too busy or it’s all too clear (to him, anyway) or he really doesn’t do well with specifics … his specifics seem to dissolve like ice cream on an August afternoon as soon as you hold them up to the light.
Everyone buckle your seatbelts, publiar, AKA Mr. Know-It-All, is about to give one of his exhaustingly, longwinded speeches to dispute God's Word, for we all know that his boring explanations trump God's wisdom anyday. You think your terrible answers and sarcasm, larded with your snobby vocabulary, will convince the brainwashed that you really know what you're talking about. You are an absolute joke, more sad than funny. servant or "Servant", if that's what you prefer.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 109PM:
For his fourth point ‘Dan’ has selected from his pile the 3×5 containing the fourth chapter of the First Letter of Timothy.
In 1 Tim 1:6-7 the text had referred to “some people” whom the author characterizes as “wanting to be teachers of the law”. This is a specifically Jewish-tinged phrase, leading to the conclusion that the Letter is referring to Jewish Christians as the presumable target audience of the Letter.
The entirety of verse 7 here, by the by, is interesting, if one thinks of ‘Dan’: “wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 109PM:
Getting on to “the first paragraph” of the fourth chapter (that would be verses 1 through 5 if you are familiar with Biblical referencing):
First, the attempt to use the phrase “in later times” is not accurate. The KJV has “in the latter times” and the NAB has it as “in the last times”. Both the KJV and the NAB are accurately and faithfully conveying the sense of ‘the end times’, much as the funeral service prayer in the 1928 Anglican Book of Common Prayer – drawing upon the KJV – refers to Christ and “the latter day”.
The full quotation of that phrasing from the 1928 Book is: “I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth”.
We are in "in the latter times" or "in the last times" or "the end times", whatever you prefer, Mr. Word Manipulator. Especially when we see the light shining in on all the darkness in this world, and especially exposing the disturbing wickedness of those who claim holiness and purity. The verses of 1 Tim 4:1-3; Explains in detail "deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences", perfectly describing you and your cult of hypocritical liars with no conscience when it comes to evil, followed by those who make rules "forbid[ding] marriage and require abstinence from foods God created". Describes your cult 'To a T', and your going to throw at us this longwinded explanation, plaqued with excuses of how it doesn't pertain to your cult? Are you a flaming imbecile, or just too stupid to realize your ignorance, and so believe in your own nonsense? Servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 109PM:
So the Letter here is making a clear reference not to any and all vague future “later times” but rather to that very specific Judeo-Christian anticipation of ‘the end times’ or ‘the last day’, i.e. when Christ will return in his glory to the earth.
Of course, it becomes immediately clear that the use of the mistranslated “later times” serves the ‘Dan’ and fundie agenda far more conveniently: any and all historical events since the Resurrection can conveniently be targeted, on the authority of the mistranslation. (Which, as we see quickly, is precisely what ‘Dan’ does here, trying to apply this pericope to the Church and Catholicism.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 109PM:
This also reminds us that in that era, it was thought that ‘the end times’ and “the latter day” would arrive very quickly and soon.
On which basis some early Christians were moved to see no need for continuing quotidian life but rather for an imperative need for faithful and genuine Christians to withdraw from the quotidian in order to focus completely on prayerful preparation for that imminent “latter day”.
And Anthony of Egypt added another twist when, reflecting on Christ’s exhortation in Matthew 19:21 (if you would be perfect, go sell what you have and give to the poor), he decided that the best – if not also the only – way to live out the Gospel was to give all one’s possessions away and retire to the desert to live a life of prayer and abstinence and contemplation. Especially after Christianity was permitted to practice openly by the Emperor Constantine and it seemed to the ‘Desert Fathers’ of Egypt that for Christianity to be accepted and for it to even work with the government of the day constituted a violation of Christ’s distinction between what is Caesar’s and what is God’s.
Thus there would be celibacy for such intense practitioners of Christianity since one wouldn’t be around long enough to raise a family anyway.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 109PM:
But Jewish tradition also had developed hundreds of specialized requirements and restrictions that served to define its believers through their actions and practices and conformity to those hundreds of regulations.
While simultaneously accepting – by the era of Late Antiquity – that the Messiah wouldn’t be coming any time soon and God’s People had to get on with their quotidian lives, though shaped by faithful obedience to all those regulations.
And this Letter – among the others collectively known as the Pastoral Letters – reflects that sensibility as well: without denying the eventual Parousia or Second Coming of Christ, it ‘pastorally’ seeks to shape the lives of Christians who would apparently be around long enough to have to live and conduct their lives in the quotidian stretch of human history.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 109PM:
And to do so the Letter hearkens back to a Genesis sensibility: all that God has created is good, so you should raise good Christian families, and not imitate the Essenes (a Jewish sub-group of the era who sought a less quotidian and more intensely spiritually focused communal life, including celibacy for some) nor the more dominant Pharisees and Sadducees and their concern for the myriad requirements of ‘the (Jewish) Law’.
We see here in this pericope then the efforts of a Christianity – somewhat later than Paul’s own era – that is beginning to accept the non-immediacy of the full Second Coming, thus seeking to create a route or road through life that will simultaneously a) accept the quotidian while b) endowing the quotidian with the grace-full-ness of God’s Creation and relying on Christ’s grace (rather than the Jewish Law) while also carrying on with the business – or ‘ministry’, you might want to say – of living.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 109PM:
But in no case can one credibly assert as an interpretation of this pericope that it somehow captures or limns with crystalline clarity a deliberate or Scriptural indictment of the Church.
Let alone that – as ‘Dan’ with self-serving manipulativeness would have us infer – he is numbered among those who “receive with thanksgiving” God’s creations and among those “who believe and who know the truth”.
‘Dan’ knows nothing but his own preferred and cartoonish narrative, already “branded” with the slave’s indenture to his own Fixed Delusional system.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 109PM:
And for his fifth point – but of course – the predictable if not also obligatory romp through the ‘Revelations’ section of his pericope pile.
Where, yet again, he tries to run the conflation of the Imperial Rome of the era in which that Book was written with the Christian and Catholic Rome of a later era.
This type of ‘prophecy’ is as suspect as the type of ‘prophecy’ whereby ‘Dan’ and others like him can come up with anything they want and declare themselves to be ‘having a prophecy’ and are thus ‘prophets’.
We are into a scenario where the inmates out on the sun-porch are stitching together their own Napoleon hats, and then declaring themselves servants (if not also avatars) of their favorite Mr. Big.
Prophecy for the Lord's Chosen, ending with a word for Satan's Lost -
"He lets me know He is there by taking care of my life. He sees me when I am sad and down, showing me that He's there with a glow of light and letting me know that His Spirit will be with me until eternity. When I think my life is over and life is nothing and I have nothoing to look forward to. His Spirit is there showing me to calm my life down, saying, 'Why do you think I Am here?' When someone gives me a hard time, always coming against me and bad mouthing me, His Spirit will show me how to just laugh it off. They haven't a clue what I have in store for them, when they reach the end of their lives. The people of the world forget that I created everything in this world. I make the decision, whether they end up in heaven or in hell."
You're one sad sack, publiar. Instead of seeing these messages as they are, a blessing from the Lord or a warning to change your lifestyle before it's too late, you'd rather believe they're of my own making. Can't wait until the Lord reveals Himself to you, "in [these] last times", and lets you know what a dumbass you really are. He kept sending you warnings and His word, and all you did was despise and ignore it. Sorry, but then I will truly get the last laugh, and it shall be an enjoyable one. Servant of the Lord of Prophecy and of Life, too bad you're too ignorant to recognize Him or His Word.
P.S. Hope some catholic or reader out there can recognize the beauty of the Lord's Word and message. If not, let me know and I'll quit wasting my time and energy. Publiar, maybe the prophecy can slip through the boards of your sun-porch and smack you in the head, and wake your dumb, lying ass up. Enjoy your Cartoon Fantasies, Mr. Big Imbicile.
Oh! And don't forget your Jiffypop and Kool-Aid. Your mommy reminded me, peewee.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1242AM:
Did ‘Dan’ not choose to go and harangue “a bunch of school kids corralled conveniently behind a schoolyard fence”?
He slyly tries to avoid that gaping reality by a) mere epithet (“ignorant lies and nonsense of this compulsive liar”) and then by b) uttering the distracting epithetical implication that readers are subjects of “brainwashing” by being “followers of your pedophile and child molesting cult”.
Which is – he darkly intones – “far more serious than one could imagine”. (Cue the ominous music and lighting.)
And now, realizing that few besides the brainwashed are buying into all your nonsense and ignorance, so you revert to your good old standby of blatant lies and character assassination. You're a disgusting, lying creep, that needs silencing.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1242AM:
And then – even more slyly and deceptively – he heads for the high-ground, declaiming another of his favorite (and distracting) arias: he hath “never harmed a child”.
Notice how he tries to change the subject from what I had put on the table (i.e. his going after that bunch of school kids) to an utterly different point, (i.e. that he has never “harmed” a child in the sense he would doubtless prefer us to take it, that of sexual abuse).
Be that as it may – or may not – be, I would point out that there are many ways to “harm” children, and performing a rant in front of them along the lines of the usual horse-produced eructations we have seen here is surely not something helpful to their forming a concept of a healthy and mature adulthood.
‘Dan’s bit here is based on the grossly erroneous presumption that if you do not sexually abuse a child then you cannot ever ‘harm’ them. Thus his own whackeries – to the extent that he can even consider them to be what they indeed are – don’t qualify him as being among those who ‘harm’ children.
Neat. And sly. But not so. Who here would want their children or grandchildren subjected – and in person – to the type of performances and to the performer we have seen here?
You're so stupid, in your own mind you think I was referring to "sexual abuse". I've never harmed a child in any way, "accosting, ranting, haranguing, harassing, violently, sexually violent or asexually abusive". These are your lies and character assassinations that better describe all the malfeasance of your disturbing cult. Bunch of sick, lying perverts and pedos. Servant
Correction – sexually abusive, not the typo 'asexually abusive'.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 109AM:
His problem here is that I have provided a list of historically-factual elements and dynamics that have contributed to the Stampede (comments of the 3rd at 143, 144, 145, and 146PM).
Whatever is ‘Dan’ to do?
Easy-peezy: just wave it all away as “ignorance and long-winded nonsense”.
Followed – as so often when he’s got nothing else – with the presumption that I am “most definitely a legend in [my] own mind”. This from the self-declared divinely and speshally appointed and authorized “servant” or “Servant” of this and that various form of “God” and “truth” and “Truth” and so on and so forth.
And then (had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttttttttttt?) – as the immature and unripe molten core suddenly but predictably breaks through – he’s just gonna Laugh His “A” Off. Thus the prophetic “servant”, “Servant”, and Deputy Dawg of Fruit Loops and Scripture, from his perch atop his marvelous theology-producing horse.
And now,"when he's got nothing else", he's back to mocking God, the Truth and wisdom of our Creator, and those who follow His Path. You are one deceiving, worthless slandering, mocking creep, publiar. Bet you're proud of your nastiness, Satan's Chosen One.
As so very often, not all of ‘Dan’s comments require anything further, since they display his queasily molten core rather well all by themselves.
On the 5th at 1241PM, though, we see once again ‘Dan’s sly and quick conflation of his own stuff and “God’s Word”. No examples are given of where I do “dispute God’s Word” but that cannot be surprising.
Were ‘Dan’ to try to find such an example in my material, he would have to deal with the fact that I dispute ‘Dan’s word(s) but not God’s; but that would require his dealing with the fact that there is a difference (and of no small degree) between God’s Word and ‘Dan’s word(s), and if he actually had to consider that reality his head would explode.
And do I have a vocabulary that extends beyond the cartoonish and even includes words familiar to anyone who studies Scripture? ‘Dan’s resolution of that reality is easy-peezy: it’s “snobby”.
And he tries to bring the performance home with his usual epithetical stuff.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 110PM:
The problem ‘Dan’ faced here was not inconsequential: the glaring difference between a) the concept of “the latter day” or “the last times” (i.e. that period of actual history when Christ will have returned to the earth in the flesh) and b) the far more (conveniently) vague fundie/’Dan’ formulation of “in later times”.
‘Dan’s solution – following the usual fundie ‘solution’ – is to merely declare that “we are in” those “latter times” or “in the last times” already … doncha see?
This ‘solution’, however, faces its own problem, i.e. that Jesus has not yet returned in the flesh to “stand upon the earth”. (Unless, perhaps, we are then to imagine that ‘Dan’s stalking the planet is a sufficient substitute.)
But if upon even the simplest examination ‘Dan’s stuff doesn’t work out, then it can only be because of “long-winded” ‘word manipulation’ – doncha see?
The show and the cartoon must go on. And ‘Dan’ will deploy as much epithet and empty assertion as necessary to keep it all going.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 454PM:
Here (had you been waitttinggggggggggg forrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttt?) we get – in full quotes as if it were actually a Scriptural pericope or from some other authoritative text – a “prophecy”, conveniently arrived via the Divine Fax in the bathroom or dropped as if on cue courtesy of ‘Dan’s amazing theology-producing horse. Thus the first paragraph.
On then to the second paragraph where ‘Dan’ – now operating from his own queasily molten core and no longer channeling the ‘divine’ niceness – lards on his usual ranty bits masquerading as a discourse on the (already whackulent) “prophecy”.
Thus we get epithet (“sad sack”) followed by a self-advertisement (‘Dan’s stuff is “a blessing from the Lord”) followed by a threat (to “change [my] lifestyle before it’s too late”) reinforced by an even more overt threat (God’s gonna “reveal Himself to [me]” followed by another self-advertisement (‘Dan’ and his stuff were “the warnings and His word”) followed by a silly myah-myah assurance that ‘Dan’ will “truly get the last laugh” … (in the meantime we shall have to make do with the many laughs that ‘Dan’s stuff provides – but think of all those laughs as a blessing from God ).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 454PM:
And having eructated to his satisfaction, he then appends a “P.S.” where he tries to work his way back from the queasily molten-core of ‘Dan’ to something that can more easily pass for his channeling the ‘divine’ niceness.
As I recently said, ‘Dan’ is one of the few vaudevillians who actually changes Wigs on-stage in mid-performance. But then, he thinks we can’t see it as he does it.
And – in a pearly-clutchy final self-compliment – ‘Dan’ then resigns himself to “wasting [his] time and energy”. Well, that’s a point I’ve made before: he’s better advised not to waste his time and energy masquerading as (fill in the blank) and simply dealing with what’s actually there in the bathroom mirror.
But then his head would explode.
We proceed then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 512PM where – had you been waitttingg forrrr itttttt? – he comes up with some variant of a yo-mama cut. Such are the ‘energies’ poor ‘Dan’ must waste here, while failing to get the respect he is utterly sure he deserves.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 120PM:
Here he assures one and all that he has never “harmed a child in any way”. We can take his word for it.
Rather – we are to believe – his misadventures all stem merely from the fact that he just happens to have been surrounded and bethumped by “lies and character assassinations” from a “bunch of sick, lying perverts and pedos”.
Imagine. He who is the “Servant” and has the fruit-loops badge to prove it.
"You protect me from the evilness in this world. You will bring their darkness out of the closet. They are proud of how they sin against innocent people. Your righteousness is shameful to them. You see how they keep lying to the world and profiting off other people and Yourself. They put their arms around people, holding them back from the truth. But you see how they praise themselves. You're the Lord, we should be humble and give Him praise instead."
I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school all the way through high school. There were many wonderful priest and nuns who were my teachers. However, the admissions about the sexual abuse of children and the coverups within the church, that have been going on for decades, is nothing short of devastating, but yet somehow completely enlightening to me and many fellow catholics. It is not the Catholic religion that is at fault here, it is the hypocrisy of its leadership. Yes, I bright light is shining into the darkest shadows of the Catholic hierarchy and there is no turning back. There is no doubt in my mind that Sr. Cathy Cesnick's murder was ordered by Maskell and covered up by many in authority.. That innocent woman's life was brutally cut short and our dear Lord has heard the prayers of the victims, and yes, the time has come for the world to know the atrocities that have been committed and hidden for decades and longer. Praise God and thank God. He is a loving God, but His wrath will be mighty. Woe to those who protect the guilty.
Welcome Bridget, It's refreshing to hear from a catholic with some common sense. Although you may disagree with me, but I believe the religion's teaching is at fault. You can't separate the hierarchy, those in a leadership role, from its belief system. You can't say that the head is rotten, but the body remains intact and well. The hierarchy is responsible for the teachings and the Catechism. Please read Romans 1:18-28. It explains in detail what becomes of the unrighteous and what caused the unrighteousness in those "who suppress the truth". "Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images [statues or artwork, etc.] resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity… because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie…" "God gave them up to dishonorable passions" of sexual immorality, women with passions for each other, and "men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not be done." How much more depraved or perverted can one be than a grown man having sexual contact with innocent children or young boys. They have no right to be called Fathers or Holy Fathers.
I believe as a catholic you'll claim that we acknowledge God. Problem is that God in your religion is replaced with the honor that should be given to Him and His Son, and instead transferred to Mary, their Queen of Heaven. In prayers she becomes your "Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope." Mary of the Bible would never allow herself to be called such things, and Luke 1:46-55 proves her genuine humility and adoration for God and His Son alone. Line 46,47 "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior 49 …. holy is His name. 50 And His mercy has done great things for me…"
Read and study His Word, if you desire to know the truth. "You shall know the truth and it shall set you free." John 8:32 Hope some of this is of help. Take Care.
Looking at ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1246AM we can see with a nice clarity just how ‘Dan’s delusional economy works: his entire bit – again wrapped in full quotation marks as if it were an actual Scriptural pericope – is merely the ‘spiritual’ version of ‘Myah myah, I’m not listening’ or ‘Myah myah, I can’t hear you’ as he mentally holds his hands over his ears and shakes his head.
When his cartoon universe is confronted, he simply repeats and repeats the cartoon.
Here, let me repeat and repeat this Scriptural pericope for you, because it's apparently difficult for anything of God's Word to enter that peewee brain.
"This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.' In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has grown callous; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.' " Matthew 13:13-15 You need more proof?
He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' " Isaiah 6:9 What's that? Still don't get it? Still not convinced?
"Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear." Jeremiah 5:21 Wow, You make claims that one shouldn't take the Bible literally, and yet God has you pegged as being foolish and senseless, deaf, dumb and blind.
Now I have to wonder? They say jackasses can hear well, because they have big ears. And even if the ears are failing you, maybe your pig's snout would at least be able to sense or smell, what you've been having a problem with seeing or hearing. Well, I guess not, because you refuse to accept prophecy, so good luck to ya. You're gonna need it. servant of the Prophetic God
And by the way, you only came back with a short paragraph. If quoting Scriptural pericopes and prophecies, will keep your longwinded ignorance and nonsense at bay, then I may just have to answer with the like more often. Sure beats having to respond to all your garbage. servant
I found the series and Jean Whener compelling. And she makes it clear that she was not in therapy when she reconnected to those memories. There is a mechanism called dissociation that helps people comparmentalize horrific and threatening material so as not to be connected to it. I believe it's a gift from God and a marvelous display of resiliency in the human person. You should read up on it. Jean Whener was not having represssd memory therapy, sir! I am a committed Catholic and will stand up for my faith up and down, but we must never stand up for abusers and throw credible abuse survivors under the bus. I think your doing that here.
On the 7th at 124PM ‘Dan’ will again take whatever opportunity he can to try out his Mature And Spiritual Wig on somebody new (while, of course, using that new person to piggy-back his usual stuff).
Thus he counsels ‘Bridget’, who on the 7th at 252AM says that “there is no doubt in [her] mind” that Sr. Cesnik’s death “was ordered” by Maskell and covered up by many in authority”.
The “was ordered” bit apparently is here to compensate for the inconvenient fact that Maskell’s DNA does not match the DNA found on the body.
The ‘solution’ to that problem is, apparently, that there was a double conspiracy: to commit the murder and then to cover it up.
‘Bridget’ is certainly entitled to her opinion but I certainly don’t see any grounds for there being “no doubt” in any rational mind.
And since there was another murder of a young woman “in very similar fashion” in the same area only a few days later then there is an entirely rational possibility that the same person who killed Sr. Cesnik also killed that young woman. Thus we quite possibly have a serial killer involved here.
(Although some might then try to keep the ball rolling by imagining that either Maskell “ordered” the killing of the other young woman as a distracting cover, or that the other young woman was also abused by Maskell and he “ordered” that killing too. You see how these things can go.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 124PM:
‘Dan’ opens smarmily with a “Welcome” and then that airy and sober “it’s refreshing to hear” bit. (And would ‘Bridget’ like one lump or two with her tea?)
But ‘Dan’ is not only going to use ‘Bridget’ as a pretext for another recitation of his usual stuff; he is also going to go ‘Bridget’ one better and state his belief that “the religion’s teaching is at fault”.
Thus we get ‘Dan’s theological-organizational ‘theory’ here: one cannot “separate the hierarchy … from its belief system”.
Since that is quickly followed by a bit built upon the old saw about ‘fish rotting at the head’, one wonders if he’s come up with his ‘theory’ merely in order to fit the old saw that he had hanging around in his 3×5 pile.
That question could be answered by the quality of thought underlying his ‘theory’ here. What do we then get in that regard?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 124PM:
We get the assertion that “the hierarchy is responsible for the teachings and the Catechism”. And did the “hierarchy” not get the “teachings” from the Gospel and the Holy Spirit? And if not, then when – exactly – did the Christian community suddenly cease to be the Christian community and become “the Church”? ‘Dan’ has never answered this question.
He then lards in a pericope, Romans 1:18-28, from his pile.
Paul wrote the Letter to the Romans to introduce himself to the Christians at Rome, which he was planning to visit on his way to Spain. It is Paul’s most comprehensive theological Letter.
In the first chapter at verses 16-17 he clearly seeks to distinguish the Christians from both the pagan Greeks and the Jews. Paul’s message is that only the Gospel is the source of salvation, and it discloses God’s uprightness (against the failed approaches of the pagan Greeks and the Jews); bad things happen to the lives of people who are without the Gospel.
Try to follow this. I'll say it slow so you might finally get it through your dense skull. The Christian community has never "ceased to be the Christian community and become 'the Church'." "The Church" is precisely a totally different entity from the "Christian community". This is why it is false, pagan, idolatrous, dishonest, sexually immoral and greedy. It constructed huge temples, worshipped false gods and goddesses and it's teachings are absolutely contrary to the gospels of Christ.
I've given several examples previously denied by the master manipulator and deceiver, publiar, who claims I've never done so so once again; Not supposed to title anyone Father, let alone Holy Father, honor given to God alone. According to the gospels, you're not to repeat your prayers as heathens do, find no other way to God but through Christ the gate and you're not to desire the accoutrements and praise afforded to kings, just a few of the failures of your cult in regards to the gospels. Your phony church has not one thing to do with Christ's teachings, God's salvation or adherence to the gospels. Sorry to drop the bomb on your swollen cranium. You are not Christians, whatsoever. We got that straight for the last time? Servant of the One True God, the one you apparently know nothing about!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 124PM:
Then, approaching his theme from the negative, Paul begins in verse 18 an extended limning of what happens to people without the Gospel, including both their own lives and actions and then the wrath of God that those actions evokes.
The key ‘Dan’/fundie switcheroo here is to take what Paul says about the pagan Greeks and Jews and – through their now-familiar proof-text cartoonery – simply claim that it also applies to the Church. That’s their hidden presumption, based on that cartoon approach to Scripture.
That’s the hidden presumption that they hurriedly rush you by, in order to wow you with the vivid imagery of what happens to those without the Gospel (i.e. in Paul’s actual text, what happens to the pagan Greeks and the Jews).
That’s the scam here.
Paul's message is to Jews and Gentiles and even to pagan liars who don't think it's imperative to follow God and His gospel. The only cartoon and scam is being promoted by the one who thinks this message doesn't apply to him or his idol worshipping, pagan cult. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 124PM:
And – reflecting his own lack of Scriptural chops (which in the fundie universe where ‘Dan’ has pitched his tent for his own purposes is actually a liberating convenience) – ‘Dan’s bit about Paul’s reference to images (“exchanged the glory of the immortal god for images”) fails: Paul’s reference is a clear allusion to Psalm 106, verse 20: “They exchanged their glory for the image of a grass-eating bullock”, referring to the golden calf of the thirty-second chapter of Exodus where the Jews worshipped the golden calf, where the Jews embraced an idol rather than embracing Yahweh’s teaching.
‘Dan’ solves that problem – as do the fundies – by merely insisting that Catholics too ‘worship’ their statues and paintings and so forth, up to and including Mary as a ‘goddess’. If that were the case, then a parish janitor who accidentally knocked over a statue of Mary and broke it would actually have ‘broken’ Mary – who resides in the statue as the ‘god’ resided in the golden bullock. The golden bullock was the god itself. That’s where this ‘Dan’/fundie bit leads.
Your ignorance and lack of Scriptural knowledge is terribly obvious. Romans 1:22,23, states clear as day – "While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man [or woman] or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes." Romans 1:22,23 (NAB) Very similar to Exodus 20:3-5 – "You shall not have other gods beside me. You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of ANYTHING in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them." I even quoted from your UCCSB (NAB) so you can't claim I'm choosing a bad version as an excuse for your manipulation of the meanings. So you can't make for yourselves any idols or likenesses of golden calves, "jackasses", man, woman or virgins, birds or "sleazy snakes". Are you just that dumb or do you just think you're fooling someone by playing dumb?
The golden bullock could not have been honored, adored, bowed to, venerated or worshipped anymore than you catholics do to Mary. For you to claim otherwise is just more of your ignorance and stupidity. Servant of One Smart God, apparently the one you're unaware of.
Think that's enough ignorance and stupidity for me to deal with today.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 124PM:
But this cartoonery thus enables ‘Dan’ to riff on further in his usual way with his usual stuff, convenient to his agenda.
Nor does any of ‘Dan’ Scriptural riffing here in any way establish his original assertion to the effect that the hierarchy is the source of the teaching. Which can hardly be surprising.
In his second paragraph ‘Dan’ apparently forgets whether – for this performance anyway – he is or is not a Catholic, referring to “we” as he addresses ‘Bridget’ on the matter of whether Catholics “acknowledge God”.
But his purpose here is to lard on more of his stuff about Mary, whom – he would like to think – replaces God as the recipient of “the honor that should be given” to God and Christ. Catholics don’t “honor” God – doncha see? – they only “honor” (for which ‘Dan’ s cartoons often use ‘worship’ as a synonym) Mary.
Not sure what cartoons are distracting peewee from admitting the truth, possibly Looney Tunes. The voice of manipulations, lies, excuses and misinterpretations attempts to accuse me of an agenda, apparently the one he's imagined in his Alice in Wonderland silly putty brain.
The catholic hierarchy is the source of it's false teachings. They promote the rules and lies contrary to Bible truths. They parade and insist on their pomp and circumstance church services, lourdes and fatima worship ceremonies, extravagant pope visits and inauguration celebrations of every bishop, cardinal and pope. They parade in their pompous costumes, crowned like kings, demanding titles of Father and Holy Father, displaying their self-righteousness and false humility. All the while concealing the truth of their sick perversions, greed, idolatry, pedophilia and disgusting lies. They sit on their pompous thrones, while the dumb sheep that contribute to wealth of the cult are forced to sit on cold wooden benches. There, does that establish to your liking my "original assertion to the effect that the hierarchy is [most definitely] the source of the [false] teaching". Let me know, because I have plenty more proof that they are of a false gospel, not Scriptural or Christian. servant of the Almighty One True God
P.S. Rest assured, I neither claim, nor ever would want to be a catholic. Won't bow to anyone, but God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 124PM:
And on his authority as Possessor and Reader of the Divine Tea-Leaves ‘Dan’ then tells us what “Mary of the Bible” would and would not accept.
As I have mentioned in prior comments on this thread, we see – certainly beginning with the Pastoral Letters – the beginnings of the Christian realization that the Second Coming in its fullness would not be happening any time soon and that therefore Christians would need to conduct their lives and their faith over the long haul.
A faith to be sustained over the long haul of human history – with all the sinfulness and weakness to which “the crooked timber of humanity” is heir – is not going to be able to function in the same way as a faith that expects everything to work out its own way right quick and with no more heavy lifting and with no further complexities.
Thus the fizzy cartoons of ‘Dan’ and the fundies can sustain little and actually fuel a clear molten un-ripeness that we see so vividly exemplified by ‘Dan’.
Your cult's hierarchy seem to be perfectionists and have the market cornered when it comes to "sinfulness and weakness". By "the crooked timber of humanity", are you referring to the popes satanic crooked crosier or the satanic upside-down cross displayed on some of their thrones and fish head hats. When all else fails, the deceiver and perverter of all truth must finish with more mocking, this time leaving God's name from your childish slurs thinking that way I can't say he's mocking God. Dumb enough not yet to realize that when you mock His followers or servants, then you're mocking Him. Here's the pericope for pair-a-dope. Don't forget to dispute it.
"But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy." 2 Chronicles 36:16
Oh! Did I here whimpering how I never give examples? "Possessor and Reader of the Divine Tea-Leaves 'Dan' " and "you reely have a speshull gift". Do you "reely" have some speech inpediment or lisp, or is this how pedophiles talk after too much oral sex with minors. Sicko!
I would also add this:
Scripture is in a profound way similar to the ‘air’ that pilots know or the ‘water’ that submarine captains know: contrary to what laypersons might think, ‘air’ up there is not a simple void or a uniform medium. Rather it is a churning, ever-changing matter of layers that are dynamic and dynamically interactive, whether at high altitude or low. Ditto with ‘water’ which has layering and which layers – depending on density and composition and pressure and temperature and other factors – make different demands upon the submarine and its operation.
The same holds true for Scripture: you can’t just go ‘up’ or ‘down’ into it with nothing but your own personal experience and expect to operate adequately. And this is even more so if you declaim and demand that others should follow your lead because you reely have a speshull gift and you know what you are doing and what you are talking about.
I have my own "personal experience" with the Holy Spirit, and the teachings and wisdom of God the Father, Jesus Christ and all the prophets. And what is this rich, vast wealth of knowledge you possess, the teachings of pedophiles and perverts, Nazi wisdom you love to quote, and movies and Cartoon Time, where it seems you picked up the bulk of your knowledge. Grab your popcorn and Kool-Aid, peewee, I think I hear mommy calling you.
‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1201AM is notable only for its length. Otherwise it is just another compendium collected from his 3×5 pile, all of which is then used to platform some further epithetical riffing in its final paragraph.