Falsely accused by Philly DA Seth Williams: Catholic teacher Bernard Shero
Philadelphia Catholic school teacher Bernard Shero, who was falsely convicted in 2013 along with the late Rev. Charles Engelhardt in a high-profile trial for child sex abuse that never occurred, is finally going to be a free man.
After being falsely accused of sex abuse by a lying drug addict named Danny Gallagher, Shero will exit prison after serving four-and-a-half years of a maximum 16-year sentence.
The news was first reported by journalist Ralph Cipriano at BigTrial.net.
An insider blows the lid off
Regular readers of this site have long known that Gallagher's claims of abuse are wildly false (see this and this for background). It is now an incontrovertible fact that the Philadelphia D.A.'s office – spearheaded by D.A. Seth Williams, who now sits in solitary confinement on multiple charges of corruption and bribery – orchestrated a malicious scheme against innocent men and the Catholic Church based on Gallagher's bogus stories.
And another fact we now know is that the Philly D.A.'s office knew all along that Gallagher's claims were preposterous, but it proceeded against innocent Catholic priests anyway.
How do we know this? Back in May, Cipriano was the first to report of a stunning 12-page affidavit written by the lead detective in the Philly D.A.'s office, Detective Joseph Walsh. In the affidavit, Walsh not only blows the lid off Gallagher's wildly false claims of abuse, but he also exposes how when he confronted Philly Assistant D.A. Mariana Sorensen – truly a major force behind the decade-plus-long witch hunt in Philadelphia – with the numerous problems with Gallagher's case, Sorensen retorted, "You're killing my case."
[***Click to read Det. Joe Walsh's affidavit (courtesy of Ralph Cipriano)***]
After conducting numerous interviews with Gallagher himself and the people closest to his case, Walsh made his decision: "I concluded that this information was a lie."
Of course, Shero's release did not come without a catch. Based in part on Detective Walsh's stunning information, Shero had appealed for a new trial. And prosecutors knew that the judge in the case was likely about to grant him one. Prosecutors also knew that a new trial would expose the fraud that they themselves had perpetrated; so they struck a deal with Shero. In order to obtain his release, Shero had to agree to plea no contest to crimes he never committed. As Cipriano has reported:
"[Philly prosecutors] struck a deal so the D.A.'s office could still pretend that Danny Gallagher was a rape victim and that Rufus Seth Williams' self-described 'historic' prosecution of the Catholic Church was legitimate.
"Even though Danny Gallagher is a fraud, Rufus Seth Williams is a criminal on his way to hell, and his prosecution of the church is a certified witch hunt that put four innocent men in jail, and one of those men, the Rev. Charles Engelhardt, died there.
"Truth may be a casualty. But Bernie Shero will soon be a free man.
"In Philadelphia, this is what passes for justice."
The Inky goes into hiding – again
Complicit in the imprisonment of innocent men has been Philadelphia's newspaper of record, the Philadelphia Inquirer. While the Inky repeatedly trumpeted the numerous bogus claims of abuse years ago, it has been stunningly silent in reporting the corruption and fraud perpetrated by the Philly D.A.'s office against not only the Catholic Church, but also against truth and justice.
After Shero was released from prison on Wednesday (8/16/17), we wrote to a bunch of editors and staffers at the Inquirer asking them if they would report Shero's release. A short time later, we saw that the Inky mustered up a measly 123-word wire story (since slightly lengthened) from the Associated Press.
Breathtaking journalism, indeed.
————————-
[ADDENDUM: Since writing this post, Ralph Cipriano has published two new posts worth checking out:
1. "Billy Doe Prosecutor: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Investigation" (8/17/17)
2. "Detective Joe Walsh Responds To ADA Blessington" (8/17/17)]
As Cipriano has reported, "Truth may be a casualty,,,,, In Philadelphia, this is what passes for justice."
Dave's article states – "the Inky… has been stunningly silent in reporting the corruption and fraud perpetrated by the Philly D.A.'s office against not only the Catholic Church, but also against truth and justice."
Injustice happens worldwide, Ralph and Dave. You guys cry when claiming an allegation of injustice or dishonesty against your church, and yet have absolutely no problem with your cult's injustices or lies against innocent victims. I'm sure there are thousands of victims of your cult of perverts, who didn't receive a fair shake or got some piddly few thousand dollar settlement to gain their silence. And publiar has been slandering me with all kinds of false accusations against children and mocking the things of God and not one catholic stands up to criticize his ignorance and garbage. We know he's a compulsive liar, but he's our catholic liar and mocker, and we love him and his slander towards non-catholics.
As I once told publiar and will repeat for you and your church; "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Gal 6:7
You may think it's not fair that innocent catholic men or priests might have to suffer for the churches malfeasance, but it's no more fair than the injustices I had to suffer from the cult's liars, both priests and lay liars (publiar included). And thousands more priests and lay members got away with their child molesting crimes, rapes, lies and slander. The innocent may pay the price for the guilty pedophiles and perverts that got away with the murder and destruction of innocence.
Again, "You'll reap what you sow." "You have plowed wickedness, you have reaped injustice, you have eaten the fruit of lies. Because you have trusted in your way, in your numerous warriors, therefore a tumult will rise among your people, and all your fortresses will be destroyed…" Hosea 10:13-14 servant of the God of Truth and Justice
You know what is evil also, Dan? The fact that you rejoice at our failings and scandals, and regret when one of the accusations is proven to be false witness.
That attitude is evil, Dan. You may fill you mouth with God's Word but your heart is far, far away from Him.
~Theo
Wicked, evil people prefer to close their minds and hearts to the truth. They prefer not to hear the truth, so they won't have to correct their wrongs, they're happier to just ignore their faults. If I expose the false teachings and perversions of your cult, and some wake up to the truth and get the hell away from the disgusting bunch of lying sick hypocrites, then you're going to tell me I was wrong. Many priests claimed they were innocent to later find they were raping any little boy they could get their disgusting hands on. I'm not buying the lies of catholic hierarchy who backed and shipped pedophiles and perverts around so they wouldn't get caught. I don't "rejoice at your failings and scandals". I'm more repulsed by them. Take your head out of the sand and face the truth. I get no pleasure out of teaching those who refuse to hear. You're not Jesus and you won't be the one to judge how "far, far away [I am] from Him". servant of the One True God, no matter what any blind catholics think of me.
So Dan you are saying when Jesus said to Peter "on you I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" He was lying or just wrong?
Mary, Are you sure Jesus was calling Peter the "Rock" on which He would build His church. There are theories Peter never came to Rome, his tomb is in Jerusalem and as I've previously stated, the Bible mentions no catholic church, no pope, no cardinals, no Mary worship or adoration, no sinless humans, no rosary and no babbling of prayers. All this aside, do you believe Peter the fisherman, follower of Christ who had no home, would morph into a pope wearing a triple crown and sitting on a throne? Look at this verse in Isaiah 44 and that should convince you that no human could ever become the "Rock". Jesus YES, human NO. I'm quoting the verse from the catholic Bible (NABRV) Isaiah 44:8-9
"Is there any God but me? There is no other Rock, I know of none! Those who fashion idols are all nothing; There precious works are of no avail. They are their witnesses: they see nothing, know nothing, and so they are put to shame." Last sentence sure describes you, peewee.
I ask you Mary to read all of Isaiah 44 and hear what God says in regards to making statues in the form of a man and worshipping or adoring those figures. Don't let deceiving fools from the church deceive you into believing that you only adore, venerate and honor, but never worship statues. They bow to the statue of Mary, when even the Apostles would not allow anyone to bow to them, even when performing miracles. The catholic church is a religion filled with false teachings and nasty liars. I've come across many evil lying hypocrites from this religion. Most of them were priests and nuns that hate the truth. Be not fooled by their lies. One compulsive liar posts in this forum often. I can smell him coming. Read the Word.
"The Catholic church and truth and justice" in the same sentence? How easily history can be wiped out with a wish and a hope and lying
Mr Sherro served his sentance. All your fussing is conjecture untill proven. He was released not because he was innocent but becauce he was found guilty; sentanced; and served his time. Untill more proof that your premises are true you got 123 words..
did you not read the story from the big trial? It was all made up, district attorney knew but let it come in trial anyway. regardless of what may have been done in the past with the Catholic Church. This man is innocent, 4 years life ruined
Jim, your lack of honesty is truly revealing. Shero did not serve his sentence. As every story I wrote noted, he got out of jail eleven and a half years early. He was sentenced to 8 to sixteen years, and had only served four and a half years.
Try another tact; that one ain't working.
Ralph, my "lack of honesty"? Really?
If he was paroled after four and a half years, the system considers him pretty much done punishment wise. He may be on parol but he's out of jail.
When is your take on the subject expected to go viral as the truth, Ralph? Has the church set a date yet or will this all be "revealed" at the DA's trial? Just wondering. After all so much has been in play here for so long. You and TMR and Publiar and friends. Quite the set up.
If you were a real journalist Ralphy, u would have looked long and hard at SNAP and it's massive failure to do anything for victims. You, had you looked, could have seen SNAP has produced far more failure for victims than it's ever given us success. Name even one victory produced by SNAP. It simply can't be done.SNAP has produced nothing but failure for victims. That's exactly what it was created to do. Especially if in the media SNAP is never looked at as being anything other than what it pretends to be. SNAP is a false flag. The evidence is all available. If u were a real investigative reporter. Ralph, which would be the bigger story to break yours or mine? Father Tom Doyle said it best. He said that if the knowledge of church funded secret committees got out, that the church would have an even bigger scandal than it already has.
i love the Catholic Church, unlike the haters who've responded here. One does have a point: that Bernard Shero, and Fr. Charles Englehardt, and Fr. Avery, and their Families, Friends, and beloved Parishoners, have suffered a terrible cross, which when joined to Christ's Passion, is redemptive suffering-nothing less!
I truly am saddened for real abuse by any Priest, but, there are are those falsely accused. Those who knowingly assist false accusers, as the Philadelphia DA's office did, have God to answer to! Danny Gallagher is one overtaken by evil, for whatever reasons, but I especially grieve for his Family. His Parents, obviously, did everything to raise good Catholic young Men. They've loved their troubled Boy, and been terribly deceived and abused by him! I will pray for them, and their other Son, and for Danny.
Don't judge the Church by those who don't follow her teachings, but judge by the amazing, beautiful, holy, Souls that do!
Janeen, I assume you label me as a hater of the catholic church. I hate their false teachings. I hate their idolatry. I hate their sexual immorality. I hate the harm they've done to innocent children. I hate their greed. I hate their pompous ceremonies. I do not hate brainwashed catholics who have been duped by a religion based on lies and lead by liars and deceivers. You can't turn a blind eye to the many faults of your religion and it's hierarchy, just because you think there are some positives and "amazing, beautiful, holy, Souls" attending there. I could put money on the fact that Satan worshippers probably "love" their leader and beliefs, but that doesn't negate the fact that they are following wickedness and deceit.
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15-20
"Let he [or she] who has an ear let him hear." Read the Bible often and use the beautiful brain the Lord has given you to judge between the righteous and the unrighteous. Don't let deceivers and wolves in sheep's clothing dictate to you the misinterpretations of His Word.
Absolutely evil no matter who committed. This man was falsely convicted. People on the jury heard an astounding lie, great actor! Seth Williams allows it
And another chunk of the Philly case collapses. Whatever will the Abuseniks do?
‘Dan’ (the 18th, 1043PM) will try to make his own lemonade out of these historical lemons by a) trying to change the subject b) back to – had you been waitttingggggggggg forrrrrrrrr ittttttttt? – his own narrative of “your cult’s injustices or lies against innocent victims”. He’s also “sure” about there being “thousands of victims or your cult” still out there and so forth … and readers are welcome to judge ‘Dan’s reliability as a guide in all this as they may.
Then another pericope to lend the appearance of i) divine authority and ii) intelligence.
Then another self-advertisement using ‘Dan’s favorite cartoon narrative.
Then another pericope to lend the appearance of i) divine authority and ii) intelligence.
And these pericopes just coincidently happen to describe the modus operandi of your cult. "You'll reap what you sow." You've sown wickedness, reaped injustice and will eat the fruit of all your nasty "lies". Sounds like you and your cult. Not convinced? Let's add this one; "For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." Gal 6:8 So the disgusting perverted child molesters of your cult, sowing to the lusts of their fleshly stench, shall reap corruption down to their very souls. Pay attention to the pericope stating, "the one who sows to the Spirit" and not the one who thinks he can mock the Spirit. And by the way, your accusations of Danny Gallagher being evil, a fraud or liar, kind of makes sense seeing he was raised catholic. Such a surprise that he'd become a compulsive liar, if your accusations are true. servant of the Just God
Dan: if you hate my Church, then you hate me. Period.
KenW, I hate all false religions. Period. If you're so brainwashed by your cult, that you think that means I hate you, then so be it. You wouldn't believe the crap, garbage and lies I've fielded from lying hypocrites of your church, and I still don't hate them. Feel more sorry for their blindness and ignorance, and have more fear for the direction in which they're headed. I don't get any joy out of seeing anyone headed for Hell's Fire, but in their stupidity, I believe they don't realize where they're going.
Oops! Better correct that misspelling of coincidentally before the mockin' grammar police returns.
And from far left field JR returns (the 19th at 813AM) with what even for his usual level of mentation is a doozy: “Mr. Sherro” – JR mispellingly proclaims – “served his sentence” (correction supplied).
What article did he read? Shero didn’t at all serve his sentence. Rather the DA – seeking to avoid a dangerously revelatory retrial that was going to be granted – offered Shero a deal: if you agree to sufficient facts and give up your right to further proceed to exonerate yourself then we’ll agree to a court letting you out right now.
In an ideal world, the Shero character would tell the DA to go stuff it, stay in jail while the retrial went on to expose the DA and all the Abusenik skullduggery, and then be released fully exonerated.
But Shero is not in an ideal world, he wanted out of prison as soon as he could (who wouldn’t?) and he took the deal, thereby avoiding the balance of 11-plus years of imprisonment.
As surely as ‘Dan’, that other pea in the Abusenik pod, JR has his cartoon narratives and he is not going to let any reality get in the way of them.
If this were vaudeville then the determination of these two troupers to stick with their respective shticks would be impressive; but it isn’t and they aren’t.
Once again, Dave Pierre is leading the charge for sanity and justice while much of the media prefers to shape the news rather than report it. Last week USA Today ran a front page story about 100 lawsuits and other demands for settlement against priests and the Archbishop on the island of Guam. These lawsuits and the stories behind them arose only when the Guam Legislature passed window legislation to extend the civil statutes of limitations. Such an effort has been rejected in most U.S. states. The door was opened to rampant fraud just as it has been throughout the last two decades when no one was being vigilant. This is not fake news. I have documented multiple incidents of such fraud in "A Weapon of Mass Destruction: Catholic Priests Falsely Accused" : https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/weapon-mass-destruction-catholic-priests-falsely-accused-macrae
It is very sad, people take Advantage for $$$
Let's see, A psychologically disturbed priest, sexually deviant, convicted felon of the sexual molestation of several John Does, is going to inform us who "is leading the charge for sanity and justice". This stuff gets more laughable by the minute. Did any of you catholic truth finders ever read the Attorney Generals Report or pay any attention to the judges final statements in regards to this child grooming predator. Guilty as charged! I wish more priests and perverts would have gotten their just due with such a sentence. This world may have been a safer place for our children. servant
The only Cartoon Time "narrative" being played here is the one of deception, denials, lies and excuses, for the pedophiles and perverts of your sick disgusting Kathlik Klan. servant of Truth
Dan, I used to be just like you. But if you take a second you will find plenty of scandals from your cultic brand of pseudo-Christianity. So if Catholicism is wrong due to scandals then SO ARE YOU. You are a hateful hypocrite. You are even ignorant, the Klan hated Catholics and was a solid Protestant organization. Fortunately I came to my senses and joined the Catholic Church. You are a servant of the Father of Lies not the truth.
Drank the Kathlik Kult Kool-Aid, did ya J-bird. You "used to be just like" me? Impossible! I could never backslide enough to become a catholic. How could someone truly saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, turn their back on God's truth, to bow down to worship a false goddess, the "Queen of Heaven". How does a cult plagued with lyin' deceivers, idolators and pedophile perverts, have members with the guts to call others ignorant or hypocrites. I belong to NO religious organizations of hypocrites. When I called your cult the Katlik Kult or Katlik Kult Klan, I was in no way comparing them to the KKK. The KKK is an obviously evil bunch, whereas the catholic church is worse, because they are what Jesus described as "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing". They deceive their followers into believing that they are the One True Church, and while duping the parents, they're raping their little boys. If you're under the impression that this isn't the work of wicked Satan, then you must be servant to the Father of Lies. Would you prefer the Mother of Lies, Queen of Heaven, Immaculate Mary, sinless, Assumed into Heaven. These are all lies, but you have the nerve to claim I'm a servant of the Father of Lies. Do you repeat your prayers like the heathen do (rosary), so you get special indulgences in purgatory. More outright lies. Try not to drown in that Kathlik Kool-Aid.
Adore, Venerate, Honor or BOW to anyone but Him and His Son, and you have broken the first and most important Commandment in the Book. You might want to think before you call another ignorant or hypocrite. You brainwashed blind catholics can't even imagine how close I am to my Father. servant of the One and Only True God
This is awesome news but let us not forget the innocent, falsely accused priest Fr. Gordon MacRae who continues to sit behind the stone walls of the New Hampshire State Prison for 23 years. If you haven't heard of his case it's time that you did http://www.thesestonewalls.org. You will be shocked to read of the lies and inconsistencies in his trial and those after the fact.
I was born & raised Catholic, attended 12 years of parochial school, and was alone many different times with various clergy and staff of those schools and my local parish. Guess what..I never once suffered sexual abuse by the clergy or staff… But I did suffer it from a couple of my male classmates in the alley behind the school. I did suffer serious sexual abuse at the age of 9, over many weeks, by two (blood) sisters, in their home, who forced me and their little brother to do “things.” Random babysittersSuffered also took know than their share of my personal space and my body..I was so young, so often abused. Two more times at college I was assaulted… Once while on a simple 10-minute walk with a “nice” guy on the paths behind the dorm overlooking the river. Several of my female friends had been sexually abused more than once from childhood. Those who abused me weren’t Catholic at all. They were secular. My point is that based on my own experiences, and these of friends from across the country and from elsewhere in the world, sexual perversions and sex crimes run rampant in all walks of life, in every financial class, in every group, by both male and female perpetrators, and has been running rampant for at least forty years.
You also said you weren't abused by catholics. If they were male classmates, wouldn't that mean they were going to catholic school with you, so they would be catholic and not secular? Also two (blood) sisters, wouldn't that mean they were catholic also?
Publiar, you could learn a lesson from this on how you question a person without falsely accusing them of things they did not say or do. Adding with your own assessments, possibilities or probabilities is not considered questioning, it would only be considered adding with lies, something you're apparently unaware of. I ought to charge you for all the things I've had to teach you, both Spiritual and worldly knowledge. Don't worry, I'm not expecting a thank you from someone like you. servant and teacher to the unlearned ignorant
Yea? So what, Tiger Lily? You abuse u lose. Just because the other people weabusive doesn'tn't let the priest or cleric off the hook.
Sorry for all the abuse you had to suffer. You must remember that priests or male staff of the church preferred male victims 80% of the time. Glad to hear there was some catholic school kids that weren't molested. You cannot compare the malfeasance of the church to the sexual abuse in general society. There is no excuse for any clergy or religious who harm or sexually abuse innocent children. They claim to be the Holy and Pure of God, and yet perform some of the worst disgusting nasty crimes against young children. This will not and can never be acceptable, among any who claim to be following the One True God. NEVER! PERIOD, or exclamation mark! Stay with the Word and God will give you strength through your trials. Take care.
10169 Trinidad Dr
'TigressLily', on the 21st, is like a breath of fresh air. In the sense that her experience rings true in this polluted atmosphere of moral panic. Her account of growing up in a Catholic community is similar to mine. Because heard no accusations of sexual deviancy by priests. But children did hear about, and experience, sexual behaviour from other kids. Thankfully none of it was serious, and we put it down to the rough and tumble of growing up, in an imperfect world. When I finally reached maturity, and learned something about people, I reflected that the nuns and priests I knew were amongs the finest individuals I had ever met. To fail to defend them now would be like a betrayal… of the people I admired most of all.
Malcolm, I'd say in regards to the catholic pedophile and perverted priests and their bishop excusers and enablers, it's more a case of a "polluted atmosphere of moral" ineptitude.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1206AM:
There is no “coincidently” (sic) about it: ‘Dan’s carefully-chosen and well-thumbed (if poorly grasped) pericopes “just … happen to describe the modus operandi of” … ‘Dan’s carefully-designed and lavishly nurtured cartoon delusions about the Church and about ‘Dan’ himself.
The pericopes can describe the human failures and shortcomings of just about any human organization and even religious organization. If you are not wearing the oh-so-necessary speshull ‘Dan’-glasses.
In fact, if you are not wearing the oh-so-necessary speshull ‘Dan’-glasses then the false-teacher and false-prophet pericopes can easily describe ‘Dan’, and quite credibly too.
And if the ultimate ground and source of ‘Dan’s slavish indenture, i.e. his Fixed Delusional Syndrome, is not for all practical purposes an idol then nothing is an idol.
And an idol deceptively and manipulatively dressed-up in the costume of God and Scripture.
More ignorance and stupidity that doesn't even warrant a response. Actually that describes just about everything you post. Mockin' liar.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1227PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will assure commenter ‘Janeen” that he doesn’t “hate brainwashed catholics”. Noooo, really – doncha see? – he just hates Catholicism (and, all religions we recall; although it was them Kathliks who called the cops on him so many times).
We can’t “turn a blind eye” to ‘Dan’s delusions, his accusations and his cartoon characterizations, and his queasily repellent personality and – ultimately – his deep-seated whackery. We can’t start the play on second or third base (or halfway to home plate from third) for ‘Dan’s convenience and the purposes of keeping his delusional show on the road.
‘Dan’ can put his money on whatever appears to him to be “fact”, but it demonstrates nothing but the fact that he should avoid Las Vegas and similar environs.
And if ‘Dan’ doesn’t realize that for all practical purposes he doth “love” his indenture to his delusions, then ‘Dan’ needs to get out more. And not to harass people with his delusions either.
And if what we have seen here on this site from ‘Dan’ is in any way characterizable as the fruitful workings of “the beautiful brain the Lord has given” … readers may judge as they will.
Why is it that you feel the need to back up any catholics that post in this forum. They take their shots at me and I set them straight and you think you're obligated to play some catholic comic-con cartoon character to fly to their rescue. If they have a problem with what I've returned, why not let them take some more shots at me. They could probably do a better job responding rather than your nonsense and garbage. servant
On the 21st at 511PM ‘Dan’ doth assure commenter ‘Ken W’ that ‘Dan’ doth “hate all false religions”.
As far as can be gleaned from his material here, that would include all religions, or at least all those of Christian derivation. Would ‘Dan’ care to name any religions, especially of Christian derivation, that are, in his opinion, n-o-t “false”? That should be interesting.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 857PM:
Here ‘Dan’ – no doubt unintentionally – reveals just how far gone around the bend he has gone when it comes to plop-tossing under cover of (mimicking) rational mentation: He tells ‘Tigress Lily’ that she “also said you weren’t abused by Catholics” (from which mis-reading of her comment he can then conveniently launch into his usual type of stuff).
But ‘Tigress Lily’ had actually said (the 21st at 1051AM) “I never once suffered sexual abuse by the clergy or staff” (italics mine).
Thus “if they were male classmates” – it apparently has to be pointed out to ‘Dan’ – then they weren’t “the clergy or staff”. Ditto the other persons she mentions.
Once again we see a fine display of publiar's mental acuity, while he attempts to accuse others of those deficiences. I understand your reading comprehension problem, but plain as day 'Tigress Lily' stated, "Those who abused me weren't Catholic at all. They were secular." I know it was a long paragraph for you to understand, but for you to criticize me when you're absolutely wrong again is laughable. You better work on your reading comprehension there, Mr. Know-It-All. You sure have a talent for making yourself look stupid. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 857PM:
On the basis, then, of that howler, ‘Dan’ plows on by lecturing me on “how you question a person” … in response to which I would insist that the first step in questioning a person is to make sure you have an accurate conception of what they have said or written. Which ‘Dan’ precisely has not done in regard to the ‘Tigress Lily’comment.
He then tries to fill-out his mimicry by further discoursing on how “adding your own assessments, possibilities or probabilities is not questioning”. No, such “adding” isn’t the questioning-step and nobody – certainly not I – ever said it was.
But once you question, then you have to assess the (accurately-quoted) statement for internal coherence and correspondence to known facts. But this is precisely what ‘Dan’ ever seeks to prevent and preclude in regard to his own cartoons (whether stories about his misadventures or his Scriptural assertions).
Instead, he merely wants people to accept not only a) his stuff but also b) his preferred interpretation of his stuff. Thus that coherence/correspondence assessment step causes ‘Dan’ to recoil like a vampire from holy-water.
Publiar oinks, apparently at himself based on my previous comment, "I would insist that the first step in questioning a person is to make sure you have an accurate conception of what they have said or written." Maybe you should take your own advice and then keep your big mouth shut so you won't get your foot stuck in it. Now be a good little peewee and drink your Kathlik Kool-Aid and eat your popcorn while we get a "howler" out of the next set of Cartoon Time ignorance you'll be posting. You're such a joke!
Let me see if I can clear this up for you. As I've stated so many times and your material has proven, your "assessments, possibilities and probabilities" are nothing of the sort. They have been total lies against me and absolutely unfair, mean-spirited and understandable coming from one of many catholic compulsive liars. Still doesn't make it right. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 857PM:
Readers familiar with ‘Dan’s stuff here can judge as they will whether his ‘teaching’ of “both Spiritual and worldly knowledge” is worth the price of admission, even as he has now proclaimed himself to be not only “servant” (of whatever it is that appears to him in his bathroom mirror séances) but also “teacher to the unlearned ignorant” (which is probably a task best performed in his bathroom mirror).
By the way, I haven't been charging for my teaching or advice, but just like God's free offer, the ignorant think that if it hasn't a monetary value than they don't want to accept it. Shame on you. Not my problem. The Church (and I don't know why you think it's capitalized), will gladly charge you alot of money for all their stupid idols, literature and trinkets, and get away with paying no taxes. You can explain to God how you wasted all your money in order to lose your soul. I'm sure he'll look at that like you were one of his "wise servants". Hope I'll be able look upon your lying guilty face come Judgment Day. servant of the Almighty
When I start my school for the unlearned ignorant, you'll be the first student, but that would be a good reason for no other students or teachers to show up. I'll line the walls and ceiling of the toilet with mirrors for you and you can impress yourself with your longwinded ignorance and stupidity for the rest of your days, Mr. Legend In Your Own Mind. servant and teacher of the severely unlearned ignorant
On the 22nd at 1134PM ‘Dan’ will use the ‘J’ comment (of the 22nd at 249PM) to clutch his pearls u declare that “J-bird” must have been drinking “the Kathlik Kult Kool-Aid”; this from the prime and sole purveyor of the ‘Dan’-verse Cult-of-One Kool-Aid.
He then declaims that he could “never backslide enough to become a catholic”. Was ‘Dan’ not a Catholic to begin with, according to his self-narrative? Or at least according to one version of it?
But this bit then provides the pretext for rehearsing yet again all of his favorite bits about worship and idolaters and lies and so on and so forth.
And we note that ‘Dan’ has evaded the question as to what religion – if any – he considers to be true and not false.
This isn’t surprising because really ‘Dan’ has evaded any and all religions and has simply created the delusional alternative of a ‘Dan’-church, with himself as i) pope, authorized – but of course – by “the One and Only True God” (so he can denounce and pronounce) and ii) sole adherent (so he can’t be voted out by congregants who seem uniformly to find his physical presence and behaviors quite disturbing).
Moving beyond ‘Dan’s merely waving-away his problematic bits with the pronouncement of “more ignorance and stupidity” (the 24th at 1245AM) we come to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1253AM:
Here he tries to evade his problematic bits by changing the subject and donning the Wig of Victimhood: why it is that I do bethump him by my “need to back up any catholics that post in this forum”.
I don’t “back up” anybody; I do question so very much of ‘Dan’s material because it has numerous problematic aspects and elements.
At the bottom of which problematic aspects and elements is the fact that he – by operation of his deliberate and carefully-designed deceitful systematic twisting of Scripture – pretty much makes himself the classic example of a “false teacher” and “false prophet” and “deceiver” and so on, such that his material has to be assessed and exposed for the whacky ranting that it actually is.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1253AM:
His sense of being victimized in all of this apparently stems from his presumption that – had you been waittingggg forrr itttttttt? – when he puts up stuff then that is merely to “set them [i.e. readers] straight”. Which is a fallacious presumption indeed.
He also whines about my even commenting on stuff he addresses to other commenters. It is the right of a commenter to ignore material and many may choose to do so when ‘Dan’ wants to “set them straight”.
But I don’t like to let whackery pass unremarked and it’s an open forum. And so much of his stuff is so nicely indicative of a lot of whackery that’s out there on the Web and the opportunity ‘Dan’ thus provides (unintentionally, of course) is really too good to pass up.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 110AM:
Here ‘Dan’ wants to deal with my comment (the 23rd at 348PM) in regard to the ‘Tigress Lily’ comment (the 21st at 1051AM).
My point had been that the ‘Tigress Lily’ comment had specifically pointed out that she had never been abused by “clergy or staff”.
‘Dan’ had tried to salvage some of his cartoonery from that inconvenient assertion by pointing out that her “male classmates” (at her parochial school) abused her and thus “Catholics” (cap supplied) abused her, which is about as much as he could do to tie-in Catholics and the Church and abuse.
But what of relevance can be made of this gambit of his here? That the school somehow ‘taught’ abuse though the “clergy and staff” never practiced it? That only in Catholic schools do boys abuse girls? That abuse of schoolgirls by schoolboys is a specifically Catholic problem?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 110AM:
And then he introduces a quote from ‘Tigress Lily’ that states that those who abused her “weren’t Catholic at all”.
Since Catholic schools have not limited themselves to only Catholic students for quite a while (since after Vatican 2, surely) then we have the statement from ‘Tigress Lily’ (quoted by ‘Dan’ himself) and the fact that the boys might not even have been Catholic to begin-with.
But even if the boys at the school were indeed Catholic and her quoted statement was made only in regard to subsequent abusers that she listed, then my first point from my comment of 1155AM applies.
Thus … just whose material on this point is “laughable” and “absolutely wrong” and makes its proponent “look stupid”?
‘Dan’ does far more victimizing of himself then anyone here could ever manage.
Publiar's August 24th comments in a nutshell for the nutcase. First couple of comments larded with his favorite I'm not/You Are bits. Asks again what religion I think is true not false, when he already knows the answer. Why? Well because he's Mr. Know-It-All. Why do you even ask questions, when you always think you have all the answers? And once again demonstrating his own wackiness, the whackjob spends his last two comments making more excuses for his ignorance and stupidity. I just asked 'Tigress Lily' the questions and if anything would think she would know the answers, not you. Like I said, must you feel obligated to "back up" and even answer for all catholics? He ends with another question, "Thus … just whose material on this point is 'laughable' and 'absolutely wrong' and makes its proponent 'look stupid'?" That would be you of course. Funny how you have trouble coming up with the answer to your obviously most stupid questions. And this is why you're BS is nothing but a joke. Laughable! servant
P.S. Also the reason why most of your ignorance and stupidity isn't worth wasting my time.
Oh! Better correct 'you're' to your before the grammar police pull up. Laughable.
Publiar, Very telling how you prefer to avoid and skip over any discussion of an obviously guilty and convicted creep from your cult. And this is far from being the first time.
Well, I had put up quite a bit of substantive material yesterday (the morning of the 24th, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156) – including another reference to ‘Dan’s revealing to us just what religion – especially Christian-derived – is n-o-t “false”.
And what do we get?
On the 25th at 423AM – cutting right through the usual deceptive and epithetical ‘Dan’ stuff and getting to the bottom line – we get, yet again, an evasion: it “isn’t worth wasting my time”, ‘Dan’ doth declare, on my “ignorance and stupidity”.
But there is a sly bit before that concluding race for the wings: As to my asking again “what religion [‘Dan’ thinks] is true not false” ‘Dan’ inaccurately and deceitfully doth declare that I “already know[s] the answer”. No I don’t and ‘Dan’ has never answered the question.
I've told you and you know, your religion and all manmade religions are all FALSE. Got it, all of them. Protestant, presbyterian, catholic, buddhist, hindu, orthodox, episcopal, Jews without Christ, Jews with Christ, mormons, jehovah witnesses, atheists and whatever ones I missed you can add to the list. They're all led by those who are wrong, greedy, self-righteous, idolatrous, pedophiles, perverts, adulterers, cowards, unbelievers, liars, at times compulsive liars, cheaters, back-stabbers, wicked, deceivers, unrepentant, unremorseful, unforgiven, degenerate, flatterers of their own kind and defenders of evil. I'm sure you can relate to many of those fine qualities, and it just so happens that your hierarchy commits these sins, especially sexually immoral ones against innocent little boys in such greater volumn than the others. Does that answer your question, you lying mocking jackass.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 440AM:
Here, he attempts to resurrect a bit he had tossed up earlier on this thread (the 22nd at 936AM) which apparently didn’t achieve what he had hoped the first time around, so he’ll try it again now – since he’s kind of hard up at the moment for something to help him extricate himself.
His earlier comment was a vivid bit of plop-tossing at commenter ‘Father Gordon J. MacRae’ who had posted a comment on the 19th at 251PM.
Rather than address the gravamen of the MacRae comment, ‘Dan’ nicely and vividly demonstrates his plop-tossy predilections by merely attacking the commenter rather than assessing the comment.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 440AM:
All we know for certain is that Fr. MacRae was indeed “convicted”. From what we have seen of Stampede court-convictions – as especially demonstrated in Philadelphia and in the legal contortions displayed by higher state courts in New Hampshire as they turned back MacRae’s appeals – there is more than enough to indicate the questionability of the conviction.
Thus – to whatever extent ‘Dan’ has consulted the actual legal history of the MacRae case and has not simply indulged in more of ‘Dan’s tea-leaf reading – the characterizations of “psychologically disturbed” and “sexually deviant” are also open to quite rational question.
And didn’t ‘Dan’ recently on this very thread bleat that he couldn’t trust – among other entities – the courts? (And thus that he could only rely – clutching the sacred pearls – on God and so on.)
I read the actual legal history of the MacRae case and stand by everything I said to describe the convicted felon, and some of those descriptions the church even admitted to. And you claim you never make excuses for the pedophile creeps of your cult and have the audacity to state, "there is more than enough to indicate the questionability of the conviction". You are one sick excusing and enabling creep of even convicted pedophile felons and it wouldn't surprise me if you were one yourself. You lying, deceiving, mocking jackass. servant of Truth
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 440AM:
I will – for purposes of demonstration – formulate a bit using the ‘Dan’ template that he used against Fr. MacRae:
Let’s see: a self-styled special servant of God with “secret” knowledge imparted directly to him by God and who claims a “spiritual” knowledge of the Bible that has never been credibly demonstrated, who has a record of six court appearances and six court-mandated psychiatric stays, who has evinced by act and word a tendency to choose children as well as adults as the targets of his ranting, and who has demonstrated notably queasy and repellent personality characteristics suggesting strongly an unripe, immature, hostile, verbally violent and under-developed personality, and who certainly has demonstrated some of the classic hallmarks of a Fixed Delusional Syndrome as evidenced by voluminous written submissions here, is going to inform us that commenter MacRae is “psychologically disturbed” and “sexually deviant” and cannot be trusted – whereas he, ‘Dan’, is to be considered a paragon of credibility, veracity, accuracy, and trustworthiness in all of his assertions, stories, accusations and claims about priests, the Church, Catholicism, Catholics, Biblical interpretation, religion and matters-divine generally. Had the courts or psychiatrists had the room in jail or a secure psychiatric facility then this world may have been a safer place for our children and for decent mature adults generally.
And you're under the impression that you're one of the "decent mature adults". You are one rotten excuse of a human being, mocker of all things Spiritually true and the most immature, compulsive liar I've ever conversed with, you disingenuous insignificant peewee.
Every problem I had with your catholic cult was based on lies, slander and false accusations. I have never ranted against a single child. You have been the most disgusting catholic liar I have ever run across. To attempt to compare me with one of the sick pedophile creeps of your cult, as if I was worse, has to be one of the most evil, vindictive and deceitful things you've spouted yet. You're a disgusting catholic pig, lying, wicked, deceiving, mocking, creepy, jackass, filthy douchebag. The cult must be proud of your ignorance and stupidity, cast upon others. servant of the God of Wrath and Vengeance upon Wicked Snakes
P.S. Stick that verbal violence where the sun don't shine.
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it." Matthew 7:13-14
Go on Mr. Know-It-All. Explain to the duped and deceived sheep of your cult how 1.2 billion followers are going to be among the few who find everlasting life. Let's see how you twist and manipulate that pericope, son of Satan.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1230AM:
He cannot name any religion that is n-o-t false because – in a curious circumlocution – “all manmade religions are false” (scream-caps omitted).
Thus, apparently, only his own ‘Dan’-made religion is not “false”.
And, one would have to add, the ‘Dan’-made “religion” is apparently also free of all of the failings to which human flesh and humanity’s crooked timber is heir. And on top of that, since the ‘Dan’-made religion has a congregation of one, then ‘Dan’ too – as both boss and congregation – is free of those failings. Is ‘Dan’ then not human? Now there is food for thought.
Of course his bit here also presumes that Catholicism can be credibly characterized as “manmade”. And that the ‘Dan’-made ‘religion’ is not “manmade”. Readers may consider it all as they will.
In one fine display of clinical projection, the deceiving longwinded queen of ignorance and nonsense, accuses me of circumlocution, as he continues to blow oxygen depriving smoke from his bottomless chimney.
Keep trying to convince everyone that I'm a "congregation of one", if that gives you some sense of superiority, knowing your among 1.2 billion idolators heading for destruction if they don't excape your disgusting cult. There are thousands, if not millions of true Christians that are the real believers in this world, and not following greedy religions of hypocrisy. Are we perfect, NO, but we are the forgiven, because we haven't committed the innumerable, unforgiveable, horrible sins against innocent children, as your wicked bunch has. And that's just some of the terrible repetitive unrepented sins of the cult's hierarchy. servant of the Lord
I left escape for you to correct so you can show your brilliance in correcting others (sic).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1245AM:
Here ‘Dan’ informs us that he has indeed “read the actual legal history of the MacRae case”. I may not be the only reader here who is recalls that once upon a time here, in a discussion of Darwinism, ‘Dan’ insisted that he was quite well-versed in the many aspects and convolutions of the Darwinist Question since – now that he gave it some thought – he recalled that he had written a 50-page paper on the subject … in grade school.
Readers may judge ‘Dan’s assurances as to his achievements as they will.
And if ‘Dan’ has indeed read the extant legal material in the still-ongoing MacRae matter and can yet still question my “audacity” in stating that “there is more than enough to indicate the questionability of the conviction” … then ‘Dan’s legal reading comprehension is on a par with his Biblical comprehension.
And – but of course – he concludes with an epithetical riff. As if that coarse ploppery could improve the credibility of his claims and assertions.
I understand Darwinism, but never claimed to be the Mr. Know-It-All on the subject. It was after all many years ago and I've found something much more fulfilling than listening to the world's fairy tales and fantasies. I'll leave those matters to the ignorant to discuss and ponder.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 105AM:
Here ‘Dan’ would have us yet again accept that his only problem is that he has – through the most sustained run of bad luck – encountered an incredible amount of “lies, slander and false accusations”, especially from Catholics.
He apparently doesn’t like his own plop-tossing template being used on him. But he does nothing to counter it, and is reduced to just larding his comment with a breathy epithetical riff of name-calling.
He’s not a particularly nasty type of unripe?
And his “P.S.” doesn’t demonstrate verbal violence?
And for the umpteenth time the oinking publiar insists that I wasn't lied about, slandered and falsely accused by catholic liars like himself. Of course we all know he channeled his brain to be on scene so that he, the All-Knowing-One knows better than myself how everything went down. Why must you think that everyone must be the compulsive liar that you have displayed of yourself in this forum. There are obviously plenty of gullible catholics that are willing to buy into yours and your cult's ignorance and stupidity. Unbelievable!
Can't you figure out that my response to you was just from being totally fed up with your repetitive lying, false assessments and ignorance. Yeah, I plop-tossed at all the lying plop you consistently toss at those you're unable to brainwash with catholic nonsense and excuses, and drag down into Satan's lair. We're my words Christ-like? Far from it, but don't forget that I'm not the Christ and never claimed to be. There is only one Christ, and no substitutes, little Christs or intercessors as your cult claims. This is outright blasphemy and idolatry against God and His Word. servant of the Almighty
How is one supposed to "counter" the slander against them, when all it creates is an opportunity for you to lard on more lies and false accusations? You don't accept or believe anything I tell you, and would rather falsely assess who I am and my beliefs in order to dispute and demean what I have to say, in hopes that brainwashed catholics will look to your Biblical misinterpretations and what you falsely think is wisdom and worldly knowledge.
"The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit." Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)
"The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way. But what makes a person foolish is dishonesty." Proverbs 14:8
The Word literally speaks for itself and doesn't need my commentary. Anyone who tries to tell you that the Bible can't be taking literally, is attempting to fool you with misinterpretations, deceit and dishonesty (lies from liars). servant of the One True God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 322AM:
Here we get – had you been waittttingggggggggggg forrrrrrrr itttttttttttttttt? – a pericope. This one is about “the narrow gate” and so on.
Is it possible that ‘Dan’ is actually trying to make the case that since the “gate” that “leads to life” is “narrow”, and yet there are 1.2 billion Catholics, then it won’t be possible for all of them to fit through that “narrow gate” … ?
What … all at once? Just their souls or also their bodies? What are the physical dimensions of the gate? Perhaps he might then see if a traffic-flow study from LA freeways or Manhattan streets can be dragged in to add a patina of ‘science’ to the question.
This is the ludicrous direction in which ‘Dan’s witless literalism quickly takes the matter.
"Long ago when I was creating this world and its people, no one was there to oppose what I did. But now the people in this world constantly sin against me, even though I have given them plenty of food and a Law that leads to wisdom. I saw that my world was ruined, and that the evil plans of people were destroying it. I was angry enough to wipe out everyone, yet I decided to save a FEW, like ONE grape in a bunch or ONE tree out of a forest. The rest will die! But I will keep my few chosen ones safe, because I have worked hard to show them how to live right." 2 Esdras 9:18-21
Publyin' will not understand this quote from God's Word, but I hope someone reading the Bible and trusting the Lord can draw some wisdom and urgency from all of it's knowledge. "You shall know the truth and it shall set you free." My hope is that all would listen and come to know the priceless gifts the Lord God is freely offering to His chosen ones.
Your questions are ridiculously stupid and immature and show your lack of Biblical knowledge or wisdom in interpreting the Lord's Word. Maybe this is why you think you're cute when mocking God, His Holy Spirit and His true followers. Your day when He will open your eyes to His Truth is coming, and I'm afraid it's not going to be pretty. servant of the Great One
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1240PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ will try his hand at mimicry of psychological chops by declaring that he hath discovered “one fine display of clinical projection” in some of my material. This should be good; let’s see what we get.
He opens with a string of epithets (“deceiving longwinded queen of ignorance and nonsense” and then the chimney-smoke bit) just to sorta get you into the mood – or, rather, into his mood. This is hardly surprising since if you are not in ‘Dan’s mood then you probably aren’t going to be able to make sense of his stuff.
On, then, to his stuff.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1240PM:
But then … there is no stuff. He’s off onto a ‘Dan’-is-victimized bleat about his being characterized as a “congregation of one”. But rather than either a) demonstrate how this is “clinical projection” on my part or b) demonstrate at least that he is not a “congregation of one” in his ‘Dan’-verse religious stuff, he instead slyly and quickly lard in something about my noting his being a “congregation of one” is somehow an indication that I am seeking “some sense of superiority” (i.e. – apparently – by noting that he is a “congregation of one”).
And then that bit platforms a riff yet again on the “1.2 billion idolators” (i.e. Catholics).
Then he claims that “there are thousands, if not millions, of “true Christians that are real believers”. And are we to imagine that they are all part of the ‘Dan’-verse ‘religion’? And just how does one define and distinguish “true” and “real” in this cartoon bit? (Short answer: they are “true” and “real” Christians if they agree with ‘Dan’s stuff and don’t either question it or point out its whackeries.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1240PM:
And from a statistical-reliability point of view, the spread between a theorized “thousands” and a theorized “millions” merely emphasizes the cartoonery at work here in ‘Dan’s bit.
And sure enough, ‘Dan’ then nails the cartoon switcheroo down specifically: he refers to all those thousand (or millions) as “we”.
Then – no doubt unintentionally – he goes on to demonstrate his cartoonish theological chops: apparently as long as you “haven’t committed the innumerable, unforgiveable, horrible sins against innocent children” they you can be as not-“perfect” as you may be, because – had you been waitttingggg forrrrr itttttt? – “we are the forgiven”, i.e. so long as you don’t abuse children (or do a lot of those other things Catholics do – such as calling the police on ‘Dan’) then you can be and are forgiven everything else you might be or do.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1240PM:
Which cartoon also presumes that ‘Dan’ just absolutely and totally knows what is and isn’t “unforgiveable” in God’s mind. That bathroom mirror of his and the Divine Fax set up beside it must really be the locus of some remarkable and remarkably convenient goings-on.
And this nicely illuminates the compensatory and evasive nature of ‘Dan’s essential delusional construction: even if he may be all the things he may well be, it’s all OK because he doesn’t abuse children and worship idols like Catholics do.
Catholics and Catholicism are absolutely essential to ‘Dan’s deceptive and self-deceptive project: if he didn’t have his cartoons of Catholics and Catholicism, then people – and ‘Dan’ himself – would have to look at all the things he really does and says and is. And then his head would explode.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1250PM:
‘Dan’s problem here was how to extricate himself from his prior claim about his grade-school 50-page paper on Darwinism. So he claims to “understand” it (readers may consider the reliability of that claim) but now – in a sly switcheroo to evasively change the subject – he’s “found something much more fulfilling” to do, i.e. constructing and ranting his cartoons about the Church and Catholics and so on.
And – as I have often said – he admits that he finds his current cartoonery “much more fulfilling”. I don’t think his delusional cartoonery is most accurately described as “fulfilling” in any substantive sense. Indulging the cartoonery no doubt makes him feel better, but that feeling is acquired at the price of his connection to reality, human and/or divine.
Which switcheroo (from reality to delusional cartoonery) he seems on some level to realize, since he also takes care to characterize anything not congenial or convenient to his cartoonery as being merely “the world’s fairy tales and fantasies”. Thus a fine example here of the delusional mind at work.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 112PM:
Here ‘Dan simply repeats – “and for the umpteenth time” – his mere denial that he “wasn’t lied about, slandered and falsely accused” (by, we recall, them Kathliks).
His denial is in his mind an utterly decisive ‘response’ that should and must preclude any further examination of his claims. It isn’t at all. When you look at how he goes off the rails merely in writing on a website, you can quickly imagine how he handles opposition in person (and thus so many have called the police on him).
As to who may be a “compulsive liar” in all this, readers may judge as they will.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 112PM:
And in an actual fine example of (no doubt unintentional) actual clinical projection, he quickly blurts out (clutching his pearls) “Unbelievable!”. How very true.
In his second paragraph, he then tries to re-establish his desired stance on the high-ground by now claiming that “Yeah” he did do a lot of plop-tossing … but – doncha see? – that was only because he was confronted by so much “lying plop” (i.e. questioning of his many claims and assertions).
And – in a further effort to somehow re-establish his creds and stance as being God’s speshull and spiritual Deputy Dawg – he even goes so far now as to admit that his “words” weren’t “Christ-like”, i.e. that one wouldn’t sense in reading his stuff that one was reading the fruits of a mature and spiritually ripened mind and personality.
But – doncha see? – that’s just because he’s had to deal not only with so much “catholic nonsense and excuses” but also with – tah-dahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! – “outright blasphemy and idolatry against God and His Word”. (Because – doncha see? – when you question ‘Dan’s stuff then you blaspheme “against God and His Word” because ‘Dan’s stuff and God’s are pretty much one and the same.)
One more time, lying about me is not questioning or assessing anything. It is lying coming from a compulsive liar. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
And NO! Calling your pope Christ's representative on earth, or priests little Christs, or believing God needs an intercessor, let alone your favorite one being Mary, "Queen of Heaven", this is "outright blasphemy and idolatry". Absolutely having nothing to do with your poor questioning or false assessments of me. Why must you attempt to twist everything to your liking, even if it makes no sense? servant of Truth
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 145PM:
Having perhaps realized in some nook or cranny of his mind where at least a shred of vestigial capacity to recognize reality yet remains that his performance here may not have been entirely as convincing as he would prefer, ‘Dan’ has now – had you been waitttinggggggggg forrrrrrr itttttt? – come up with a quotation from his Favorites pile.
His selection is from an apocryphal text accepted as canonical by neither Catholics nor Protestants.
There were originally four books associated with the prophet Ezra or Esdras. The first two were accepted as canonical and became what we now call the Book of Ezra and the Book of Nehemiah, considered as canonical by both Catholics and Protestants. The third and fourth were not accepted and became known as First and Second Esdras, both classified as apocryphal.
You will not find First and/or Second Esdras in the canonical lists of the King James Version or the New American Bible; they – along with other apocryphal texts – do appear in a separate sections of Bible translations that include “The Apocrypha”.
1 – Why is there an imprimatur from the Archbishop of Wheaton in the front of my Good News Bible, if the Apocrypha in that book is not acceptable canon of your church?
2 – If as you say it's not acceptable teachings of a cult of idolators, pedophiles, perverts, liars and hypocrites, does that mean it wouldn't be acceptable teachings of true Christians who don't subscribe to those horrible sins
3 – And when you're speaking of Protestants, are we talking about those who think the only acceptable version of the Word is the King James Bible. I'm in absolute disagreement with that assumption, because I believe there is great Spiritual knowledge to be gleaned from cross-referencing different versions to really get an idea what is truth. Similar is true when you compare the different gospels versions with different authors take on what transpired. Just gives you a better understanding of what truly took place.
May I also point out the obvious fact that both catholic and protestant theologists or the knowledgeable weren't terribly skilled in identifying some of the greatest wisdom and knowledge of the Lord. Esdras is full of brilliant wisdom that just might not be recognizable to those lacking Scriptural wisdom and unable to discern Spiritual things. It's no wonder that they continue in their disgusting sinful ways. servant of the Lord
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 145PM:
So on what basis does ‘Dan’ tout this quotation as being “this quote from God’s Word”?
At any rate, you have to have ‘Dan’s speshull glasses on to see in the quotation what ‘Dan’ wants you to see.
He concludes – tunelessly – by trying to nail down what even he apparently suspects his own stuff has not demonstrably done: a concluding epithetical riff about how my “questions are ridiculously stupid and immature”.
He likes to toss epithets and seems to think that they are capable of standing alone as both full rebuttals and full explications. That presumption enables him to indulge his parasitical I’m Not/You Are bit.
Then a final God’ll-getcha bit, which is apparently ‘Dan’s favorite wet-dream that sustains him against the slings and arrows of outrageous and uncongenial and inconvenient reality. He can do that – doncha see? – because he is one of God’s “true followers”; ‘Dan’ knows that because his bathroom mirror tells him so.
In case my 3×5 from 8/26 @ 1:45pm wasn't convincing enough, let me give you another 3×5.
God replied, "… Whoever has something that is rare is happier than someone who has something that is plentiful. That's how it is with the final judgment I have planned. I will celebrate over the people who have faithfully worshipped me and told others about me. I won't be sad about the crowds of people who will die. They are like fog, and they will disappear as quickly as smoke or a flame that blazes up, and then goes out." 2 Esdras 7;59-61
Once again, the Bible literally speaks for itself, especially when God or Christ is speaking. Don't allow deceivers or liars try to manipulate the Word and convince you otherwise.
Dan, I'm one of the 100,000 former Evangelical Protestants who become Catholic every year. We become Catholic because 1) we've done the reading, and 2) we're in pursuit of the Truth – where ever that may lead.
Anyone can fling out-of-context Bible verses around to make a point. I suggest – if you really want to know the fullness of the Christian expression – that you do what a famous 19th century Anglican named John Henry Newman did – become "deep in history."
And as he said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
Happy trails, Dan.
Tell me Pat, am I to be impressed with the fact that you've jumped out of the frying pan and straight into the fire? That this change you've made to catholicism is a positive one, a religion plagued with idolatry, sexual immorality, cowards, deceit and liars?
Several times when quoting Bible verses, I've asked that readers look at the whole chapter and even several times asked that you read the Bible for yourself, not listening to what you've been brainwashed as to the meaning, but letting God's Spirit and wisdom guide you to His Truth. I far from fling out-of-context Bible verses, but there are times when that's the most concise way of expressing what the Lord is saying. I'm already being accused of hogging this forum, and only want the lost to know God's Truths in as few words as possible.
Jesus preached faith, hope and love, and was not impressed with the history or traditions of men. What it boils down to is who would you rather follow, the teachings of man or those of God? Happy trails to you, Pat, I hope they're not leading you down the wrong path.
Again your accusations as to my mental capabilities and your insistent mocking would only lead me to say something harsh, and I think I'll take my father's advice, that if you have nothing good to say, then say nothing at all. I will let His Word, that I know you will dispute, do the talking for me. This is my friends prophecy she received today. Take it or leave it, but it would be wise not to lie about it. This is the Word of the Lord -
"We all have to deal with life. Sometimes He gives us troubles and suffering. Sometimes it's our own fault. The Lord wants us to love, but we would rather go against the Lord's Word and hate for an eternity. The Lord wants us to have faith, but we always find fault in His faith. The Lord wants us to have hope, but we think the world is smarter than the Word of the Lord. The Lord wants us to be patient with each other, but we don't let the Lord's Word settle it. We use our own mouth and tongue and we end up lashing out with words of hurt, that are demeaning to a person. The Lord wants our lives to be in His Word, but we don't want to accept the Word of the Lord. So who is at fault, it surely isn't the Lord. Well just take one guess."
Could the diests shut up and let the grownups talk for awhile?
or are we to pretend the conversation here is one of unsullied chance.
Dan and Publiar areplants bigger than this jungle i e the real world could produce naturally,All by itself. No the God boys are just duking it out and at such great length on any and every subject TMR "reports". They talk so no one else can. This is Like Radio Not so free Catholic Pederasty! You sad fucks. No body believe anything about this site and the 2 jerks ranting on. Smoke do get in yer eyes.
And morons, The Bible is just a fkin' book like all the other books u haven't read.
There's no God no Heaven no Hell You've no proof for anything you want the rest of us to believe to be true.
U got faith and that's all you've got. A Disney esque wish. That you expect the rest of the world to share along with you.
Grow up! We're here. We suffer and die> So what?
Jim, Not sure what I've done to you to deserve this treatment. I appreciate that I'm getting it from all sides, and yet I'm being accused of being joined to both of them. The Word even says how the world will hate you if you're His. Guess this confirms that what I already know.
And nobody has stopped you from stating your garbage whenever you feel led to. Can't say I've really missed your atheist trash mouth. Feel sorry for your disdain for the one who created you and gave you the freedom to be your nasty self. servant of the Creator, who also made you
Correction – Should be, Guess this confirms what I already know. Beware everyone of the grammar police (publiar), unless you're catholic, because he'll never correct your errors or typos. I think he believes all catholics are infallible, especially himself.
You consider yourself a grownup and are telling us to grow up? Many immature children aren't half as foul-mouthed as you. What gives you the audacity to slander or deny the Creator?
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad." 2 Cor 5:10
I've yet to read a version where Jim or catholics will be exempt. Best to all of you.
It sucks but rteally: so what?
Gee Dan, I didn't realize that the god who created everything, including words, gave a flying fuck about cursing? Or does only "He" get to curse?
I guess your punk god gave me the "audacity" ,the bras,s to say he aint there since "he's' the big puppet master in the sky. I have the audacity to deny the "Creator" because, according to you, I am "His" creation. "He" "made" me ,and i deny "him". Hence it must be "his will" that i know "he" doesn't exist.
If the world hates you because you are "His" then can one assume all people the "world" hates are "His" kinda guys? Hitler must have been totally "His" according to your "logic" since the world hates Adolph so.
"Nasty self". Where's that turn the other cheek shit? You are supposed to be doing? Neith you nor P-Joyboy here have never turned the other cheek, ever.
So we have bad Christians debating "truth" without ever following the tenants of their faiths.
And that's the moral high ground? More like a lack of moral depression which I think both of you really are, depressed, clinically. Why else the nasty P or the hyper Protestant Dan? I see no love from either of you yet you both to feign to worship the "God 'O Love" "himself".
Correcting the "neve" above should read ever and "Neith" above should have an r on it's end.
Dave Pierre, Why don't you have the ability for us to correct, post posting?
Dan, I want to let you know that God has Loved you from all eternity.
He knows everything about you and your whole life. He sees it all in a single moment and he Loves you more than you can possibly imagine. He is with you right now
And he knows what you are struggling with. Now the true church, the one established by Jesus Christ is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. There is only one true church but one may ask there are so many churches out there which is the right one. I am a Catholic and the Catholic faith teaches that we worship God alone, we pray to the saints to ask their prayers because they are in heaven for example St Paul and St Peter or St John. They are the friends of God and we ask them to pray for us just as we may pray for others in this life but we know that God alone is to be worshiped for He Is. Now there are so many beautiful things in the Gospels, something that comes to mind is when Jesus said, by this they will know that you are my disciples that you love one another as I have loved you. I hope and pray for you that you join the Catholic church. God came not to call the just but sinners to repentance. God Loves you.
Re
Javi, Thank you for your first few sentences, telling me things I already know, but It's always nice for all of us to hear. I wish you could have stopped there. Everyone thinks their church is the one true church. The Bible doesn't even have the word catholic, pope, Mary worship, Mary sinless, immaculate or assumed or repetitive prayer(rosary) in it's teachings. How can one claim to be the One Holy True Church when the main tenets of it's beliefs aren't even mentioned by Christ or any other time in the Bible? In word your church claims only to worship God, but in action you worship idols of all kinds. Do you think the Creator of the universe is somehow fooled or blind to your idolatry? I surely don't need joining a pagan cult in order to be forgiven. I'm forgiven by God himself and no man. I hope he loves you enough to open your eyes to the false teachings of your religion. Hopefully He loves you.
On the 28th at 455Pm ‘Dan’ will evade his ‘Word of God’ problem created by the 2 Esdras quotation by simply doubling-down and putting up another bit from 2 Esdras.
If you read the quotation it seems hard to distinguish the material from a lot of ‘Dan’s other stuff, which may well be one of the reasons that neither Protestants nor Catholics consider the two Esdras texts as canonical: their content is too whacky and queasily violent and unripe to be considered God’s Word.
The stuff would only be “convincing” to a mind similarly attuned. Thus ‘Dan’s attraction to it.
And – marvelously – ‘Dan’ once again refers to the Esdras material as “the Bible literally speaks for itself”. The Esdras texts are apocrypha, they are not actually “the Bible”. But ‘Dan’ is in the plop-tossing cartoon business, not really the Bible business; to such a mind, facts that get in the way of the plop-tossing are merely speed-bumps to be zoomed-over during the joy-ride.
Once again, nothing worth wasting my time.