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)]
This seems to be a forum for "Dan," who we should pray for. If God is Love, why is the road to his heart an unatural path? God wants us to make a deliberate act – to choose him, before any other or any thing. Living in Christ is living in the Love of God, which is transcendant, which cannot harbor hate of any kind. There is no other church than the Catholic Church that has fostered more pathways to the love of God, yet it remains a home for sinners.
"This seems to be a forum for 'Dan,' who we should pray for." Really? Publiar has spewed more longwinded garbage and lies towards me in this forum, and I've just been responding to his ignorance. Why have none of you catholic contributors said nothing against him? Because he's one of your own? Why not waste your time praying to Mary for him. Why do you catholics presume you have a hotline of prayer to the Almighty God, and yet fail to follow His precepts? I will agree that your cult remains a home for sinners. In fact for many unremorseful, deceiving, perverted ones. They brag of all the good they have done, while destroying many families and lives of young innocent little boys. They are a sick pagan church which has duped and deceived many with their false humility and pompous celebrations of nothingness. Escape their nasty cult while you still have the chance. servant of the One True God
This message is for all you catholics out there. If you think that my telling you the truth is somehow hate towards any of you, than you really don't know myself or my God whatsoever. He wants you to open your eyes to the evilness of your cult, so he might save your soul from eternal condemnation. Show me one prophet or messenger of God in the Bible who wasn't persecuted by religious hypocrites or pagan idol-worshipping people. Go ahead and attack me like circling vultures, but my message is to save your souls and not because I hate you. You'd have to love people quite a bit to put up with the slew of lies and slander that I have taken from the wicked of your cult. Are you under the impression that I enjoy this punishment? You've got to be kidding. servant of the Lord
dan is a discriminate person he is not fit to live on this planet but on an island alone
pray for him and his soul
Judging from your post, I can tell you're quite the astute and intellegent catholic. No worries, publyin' never corrects the grammar of members of his Kathlik Kult Klan. Very interesting name, though. Are you some kind of obscure Roman plant. Don't let Jim R. find out, anyone who isn't a trash-mouthed gay atheist like him, he thinks is some kind of plant of "the Church".
By the way, what planet are you from? Actually, I wouldn't mind living on "an island alone", so long as you could promise me there wouldn't be any catholic liars shipwrecking, especially lyin' publiars. Please, I would appreciate no catholics praying for me or my soul. My God doesn't listen to the prayers of pagan idolators. And wouldn't you think that when Jesus taught his disciples how to pray, He would have added his own prayers to his mother if He felt they would be of some benefit? Stop listening to manmade religions and their fake, worthless prayers to their false goddesses and false gods. Mary has absolutely no role in our salvation and she is not the one who died and was punished for our sins. Pray to God and Jesus and the Lord God will answer your prayers. servant of the Only True God
P.S. If I was stranded on a deserted island, who would be around to correct your catholic false teachings? publiar? Jim? Well good luck with that!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1005PM:
Why is it so hard for ‘Dan’ to understand that the mere fact that he claims negative assessments of him and his material must be and are “lies” – especially in light of what he has unwittingly revealed in his material here – does not demonstrate anything at all?
Short answer: because if his “lying” ‘solution’ doesn’t work then he’d have to face his many issues and then his head would explode.
And then – just to plump up his comment – he’s off to the races with another repetition of some of his favorite bits, this time about the Pope and Mary.
And it concludes with another pearly-clutching bleat, this time about my “attempt to twist everything” he says. Actually, I am trying to un-twist the carefully and deceitfully twisted material that is ‘Dan’s stock in trade. He is the “servant” of no “Truth” except his own ‘truth’ carefully and deceitfully designed to serve his own delusional system. And the only ‘victimization’ he suffers is what he has imposed upon himself by taking up that indenture to delusionality, to which God, the Bible and “Truth” are simply harnessed like mules to his wobbly wagon.
NO, publyin', your negative assessments are lies. Time you come to terms with your own delusions, YOU ARE AN INSISTENT, COMPULSIVE LIAR. PERIOD. servant of God's Truth
And by the way, is an exploded head a prerequisite to becoming a catholic.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1025PM:
Here he will mimic competence by proposing a set of questions.
As to the first question:
There is no such person or office as “the Archbishop of Wheaton” in the Catholic Church in the USA.
And – to repeat – “The Good News Bible” belongs to that class of Bible versions more aptly classified as ‘paraphrases’ rather than actual strict ‘translation’.
And – to repeat – some versions of the Bible are indeed published with a special section for “The Apocrypha”, included in a clearly-marked section separate from the actual canonical Books that are accepted by both Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1025PM:
As to the second question:
While attempting to mimic competent style, ‘Dan’ fails to provide competent substance: what is the referent for that “it’s” (in “If as you say it’s not acceptable …”)? Is he referring here to The Apocrypha (and ‘Dan’s 2-Esdras quotations)? Or to the Bible generally?
And we see yet again that ‘Dan’ has constructed for his self-serving cartoon universe a fantasized group called “true Christians” who apparently are not associated with any Catholic or Protestant polity but are instead – in their “thousands” or their “millions”, take your pick – followers of the ‘Dan’-verse Method of simply picking and choosing what you like and then claiming that what you ‘see’ is the only “true” vision of the text.
And again – in that “those horrible sins” bit – we see the fingerprints of ‘Dan’s basic self-serving scam: as long as he hasn’t (and that’s a presumption) committed any of “those horrible sins” of child sex-abuse and idolatry, then he’s pretty much beyond reproach or doubt and would like everyone to focus on them Kathliks who do participate in “those horrible sins” because ‘Dan’ is God’s very speshull and “forgiven” Deputy Dawg.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1025PM:
As to the third question:
When I say Protestants I refer to any of the major polities that consider themselves to be historically and traditionally and doctrinally Reformation-based. It is a matter of question whether any individual Bible-reader who simply sets up shop for him/herself while adhering to no major Protestant polity is to be classified as a Protestant or is rather to be considered one of that number of individuals (some with followers) who are more like independent (or perhaps rogue) Bible entrepreneurs who heap up Bible ‘knowledge’ merely according to their own preferences, excitements, desires, illusions or delusions.
As for the further stab at mimicry concerning “cross-referencing different versions”, we are immediately into the deep and dense thicket of problems associated with actual translations, further intensified by the abyssal problems associated with preferential ‘paraphrasing’ efforts (such as, for example, The Good News Bible).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1025PM:
Nor, while we’re on the subject, does such “cross-referencing” merely and inevitably produce “a better understanding”.
Some contradictions are historically insoluble, such as Matthew saying (2:1) that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great while Luke (2:1-2) says that Jesus was born during the governorship of Quirinius, who became governor after Herod’s death and whose putative first census took place almost 10 years after Herod’s death; nor – contra Luke – is there any historical evidence of any world-wide census ordered during the reign of Augustus, for which, in any case, there would be no rational requirement for persons to have to register in their ancestral towns rather than their present places of residence.
Thus when otherwise uninformed persons wade into the Biblical text secure in their presumptions that a) the Bible text is utterly clear and to be taken literally at all points and that b) they are thus easily equipped to fully and accurately fathom the text … then you see the problem.
And when they then further insist that they have a speshull line of enlightenment directly from God and when they then further insist on top of that that one must accept their stuff or be guilty of “mocking God” … then you see the problem even more.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1238PM:
Here – again looking to mimic competence – ‘Dan’ doth prudently beg to “also point out the obvious fact that” … and what might this “obvious fact” be?
Here ‘Dan’ tries to pass off as an “obvious fact” what is actually precisely the problem-point yet to be demonstrated, i.e. that “both catholic and protestant theologists [sic] … weren’t terribly skilled” when they missed or refused to accept as canonical the stuff in “Esdras”.
This – marvelously – dovetails with ‘Dan’s own delusional scamming: anyone who doesn’t buy his stuff is ‘obviously’ not spiritually or theologically competent (and – but of course – mocks God by questioning ‘Dan’s stuff).
One might as easily say that both Catholic and Protestant theologians were quite acute and accurate in denying canonicity to the latter two Esdras texts.
But ‘Dan’ has a cunning method to his madness here: if the latter two Esdras texts are “full of brilliant wisdom” and contain “some of the greatest wisdom and knowledge of the Lord” / and yet aren’t accepted as canonical by “manmade religions” / then ‘Dan’s stuff too is sorta the very same thing.
That’s what a nice tight delusional system and a stunning lack of Biblical chops will get you.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1046PM:
Having run out of ways to repeat his preferred narrative excuses for himself (and apparently not sure whether the old ‘say nothing good at all’ saw came from ‘Dan’s “father” or God the Father) ‘Dan will – had you been waittinggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttttttt? – pass along a “prophecy” that one of his friends just came up with (or pulled off a Divine Fax Machine).
The “prophecy” starts off well enough: “We all have to deal with life”. I would advise ‘Dan’ to take its advice and start dealing with life and not indenture himself to the unreality of his cartoon-universe.
Oh, and he doesn’t like being “demeaned”. Well, when you set up claiming to be God’s speshull Deputy Dawg and then demonstrate vividly and at great length that you have neither a) the chops that would expectably flow from a Divine source nor b) the personal characteristics that would expectably flow from being immersed in so speshull and close a relationship with the Divine … then you have demeaned yourself.
And after having sat through ‘Dan’s Wig-laden performance, we are then given no respite as JR – that other veteran vaudeville hoofer – returns to the boards (the 29th at 1057PM).
For this performance JR has chosen the Wig of being one of the “grownups”. This should be entertaining, if nothing else, whether one is or isn’t one of the “diests” (sic).
But all we get is JR’s signature fallback conceit: that it’s all a Church-run conspiracy. Regular readers will recall how he has had to expand his “conspiracy” theory beyond all shape in order to explain-away so many elements of the Catholic Abuse Matter.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1057PM:
In this performance, JR now declares that both I and ‘Dan’ “are plants bigger than this jungle”. It is not – quotha – mere “unsullied chance” that I and ‘Dan’ are here.
And for what purpose might both I and ‘Dan’ been ‘planted’ here? Easy-peezy and clear as a bell: we have been ‘planted’ here in order to “talk so no one else can”. In other words, JR is trying to run the old ‘can’t get a word in’ bit.
So – yet again: it’s a written site, not a verbal conversation. Anyone can put up material.
But regular readers will recall what JR did put up and how it all came back to bite him. His problem is his material, not the fact that he can’t get his material into the mix here.
But – so much like ‘Dan’ – JR wants to see himself and to be seen as – had you been waitttinggg forrr it? – the ‘victim’ here: it’s not his own words that are the problem and it’s not his fault; it’s rather that there is a conspiracy to keep him from putting his stuff up.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1057PM:
And – for that added oomph – JR poses himself in this performance as a ‘grownup’, although a ‘grownup’ who apparently thinks that adolescent scatology is a hallmark of that status.
We are then further treated to a discourse on “The Bible” and so on that is ripe in its adolescent silliness and pretend-tough-guy posturing.
And to top it all off, JR doth instruct that we “Grow up!”.
To become like JR? I think not.
And while your at it, you may as well come to terms with more of your delusions. YOU ARE A MOCKER AND SCOFFER OF GOD, HIS HOLY SPIRIT, HIS SON and HIS CHOSEN ONES. I used capital letters because I believe you have a serious problem recognizing your problems, possibly because of ignorance or plain stupidity. servant of a Vengeful God of Wrath
After denying Romans 1:18-32 totally depicts "the Catholic Church", with its idolatry that leads to it's homosexual pedophilia and perversions, Paul explains what will come of the wicked and disobedient in Romans 2:5-13.
"By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to their works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. There is no partiality with God. All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified."
Now publiar, attempt to twist and manipulate this, with claims that it doesn't apply to "the Church" of hypocrites, or better yet that the Book of Romans doesn't belong to the canon. Despicable catholic liars, among the leaders of the catholic church, are leading souls right into the clutches of Satan, with their lies, deceit and blindfolding of their followers. Don't allow these hypocrites to deceive you at the cost of your soul. Read the Bible for yourself. They are false prophets and teachers from a more than false belief system, greedy, wicked, idolators, pedophiles and perverts, cowards and liars. "Be ye not deceived" servant of the Lord
On the 30th at 108AM ‘Dan’ tries to run a variation of the now-familiar ‘conspiracy’ excuse: are Catholics on this site not “responding” to my “ignorance” and “longwinded garbage” and “lies” about him merely because I am “one of [their] own”?
To have even a distantly-probable pretext for such an insinuation, one has to presume that my material is patently “ignorance”, especially about things Catholic such that Catholics would feel moved to object.
And also to presume that my assessments of ‘Dan’s material (and thus of ‘Dan’, since with ‘Dan’ it’s love-me-love-my-dog and disagree-with-me-and-you-mock-God) are – if not demonstrable “lies” – then patently incredible.
More "ignorance".
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s o the 30th at 108AM:
But if there is no Catholic commenting here that stands up for ‘Dan’s stuff, then perhaps it is more rational not to presume or insinuate a conspiracy or old-school-tie dynamic, but rather instead to consider the possibility that none of my assessments or Catholic doctrinal and Scriptural material are seen to be incredible or off-base.
But this, of course, would mean that ‘Dan’s own efforts to spin himself as the truthy victim and ‘Dan’s own stuff about Catholicism and the Church and Scripture are not convincing to readers.
But if he were to consider this possibility, then his head would explode.
More "ignorance".
Your lies, deceptions, catholic idolatry and ignorance and garbage would be acceptable to any brainwashed catholic, but unacceptable to any Christian, and that is where your problems lie. Literally! servant of the Truth
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 124AM:
Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates (unwittingly, of course) the switcheroo without which none of his stuff really makes sense: from the outset he presumes that he is “telling you the truth”. Once that rabbit hole has been jumped into, then it’s downhill all the way.
Thus the rest of his bit here, which rests on the foundation of that switcheroo, simply dissolves in the air.
And for that extra added benny to himself, ‘Dan’ also lards on a victim bit: he’s been ‘attacked’ by “circling vultures”. So long as he continues to masquerade his self-serving delusions as “truth”, then he’s going to be opposed by anyone who points that out.
I'm not a "victim" treated as badly as the little innocent children that the creeps of your cult raped, but I truly am a "victim", falsely accused by the liars of your Kathlik Kult, including yourself. I suffered from their many lies with false imprisonment and mental evaluations that were uncalled for, seeing they were based on lies. It's a blast being thrown in the tank with drunk catholics and having to stand for 4-8 hours because of hereditary arthritis and all they offer is a cement bench. The staff at the mental wards treat you like garbage, until I was able to see a doctor and be released. The food was so horrible that I wouldn't even want a lying pig like yourself to eat. Do you think I would have told you of these incidents if they weren't false accusations from liars of your cult? Then you really are stupid. Why don't you stop with your lies and slander, Hypocrite. You're one disgusting example of a catholic, unless being included with the other catholic creeps of your cult, and nothing near anything Christian.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 3-th at 124AM:
But wait. There’s more. He then lards on a compliment to himself: he clearly must “love people quite a bit” to “put up with the slew of lies …” and so on. But a) this presumes that he is bethumped by a “slew of lies” and that presumption is demonstrably dubious in the extreme.
And b) there is a perfectly plausible and far more probable explanation for what he’s doing: that through his indenture to his delusion and his insistence on getting into everyone’s face in the service of that delusion he has put himself in the sufficiently satisfying situation of i) indulging his antisocial assaultive tendencies while ii) considering himself to be merely a victim and the more he is doubted and questioned the more he a heroic, truthy, and even a ‘loving’ victim.
And the compliment leads to a further self-serving victim-y riff: is anyone under the impression that doth “enjoy this punishment?”.
He does “enjoy this punishment”. It’s this or else he has to genuinely face himself in the bathroom mirror. And then his head would explode.
Publiar adding more of his ignorance and stupidity to the lies and accusations of my mental state. It gives me joy to know that you're just piling on more coals for your destruction. Repent, you lying fool.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 457PM:
Having run through his pile of 3x5s, he now repeats one that he tried to run here not long ago: Romans 1:18-32.
But his mind isn’t really up to it, since his opening paragraph actually says here that Paul denied and did n-o-t depict the Church as such; the clause governed by that “denying” has “Paul” as its subject.
And in any case, both of ‘Dan’s pericopes here require – had you been waittttingggg forrrr ittttt? – the presumption that these very human foibles apply solely and uniquely to the Church, which clearly they do not.
Then ‘Dan’ sets to work twisting and manipulating. I claim that Paul’s lists here do not apply solely and uniquely to the Church (which ‘Dan’ further manipulates by referring to it as “’the Church’ of hypocrites”); that the failings Paul lists can and do apply to any human organization and individuals. Thus that if this is Paul in ‘prophetic’ mode, it is that ‘prophetic’ mode that demonstrates Paul’s insight into human nature, not his knowledge of the future.
Don't act so stupid, after you're denying Romans 1:18-32 depicts the hypocrites of the catholic church, and it most assuredly does, especially your hierarchy being convicted homosexual pedophiles and pervs.
And once again, they do apply to any sexually perverse humans, so they would most definitely apply to the pedophile and perverted creeps of your cult. Are you that dense that I must repeat this and other things several times and yet you're still too ignorant and stupid to comprehend it.
Paul's 'prophetic' insight would be past, present and most definitely future, if he described what becomes of the pagan idolators of the creepy catholic cult and how that would lead them to such disgusting homosexually deviant crimes against innocence, and your hierarchy fits the bill perfectly 2000 years later. Quit trying to weasel and manipulate from the truth. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 457PM:
And ‘Dan’ then further twists and manipulates by then claiming or proposing that I do not consider the Letter to the Romans to be canonical. Which is something I have never said and which actually applies to ‘Dan’s reliance on the non-canonical ‘2 Esdras’ material.
But on that basis of that latter bit of twisty deceit, ‘Dan’ can then riff on about “despicable catholic liars” and so on and on.
It is better to say “Be ye not deceived” as to what ‘Dan’s switcheroo scams try to do. His deceitful delusions will only lead one to the swamps of the ‘Dan’-verse, which is a hell all on its own.
I'm sure in no time you'll be able to know everything about hell through your own experience. Don't forget to bring plenty of your poppin' corn.
Good News Bible (GNB) w/ Apocrypha including 1 & 2 Esdras a) Correction - Imprimatur: John Francis Whealon, Archbishop of Hartford May 15, 1978 b) Imprimatur: Most Reverend Archbishop William H. Keeler, President, National Conference of Catholic Bishops March 10, 1993 – As if the publiar hasn't made enough excuses as to the Book of Esdras not being part of the canon and GNB only a paraphrase, as if that makes it void of representing God's Word or His Spiritual Wisdom. Let's sit back and enjoy the Cartoon Time Caramel Corn Snakes while he sucks on his Kathlik Kult Kool-Aid and listen as he manipulates and weasels his way out of this one. God's Word is just what it is and don't let these deceivers of your catholic cult twist and think they can change their meanings. There's nothing wrong with the teachings in the Good News Bible and in fact they can be quite informative in discerning good from evil. Snobby, Holier Than Thou phonies think they can claim they're not authorized because they prefer to keep you from knowing the truth. Just as publiar thinks that if he can accuse me of not knowing the Bible and of mental illness (i.e. FDS), then no catholics will listen to my teaching of the Lord's Word. I've been reading and studying the Bible for forty years, without the distractions of philosophy or so-called knowledge of ignorant hypocrites. Read the Lord's Word and learn His truths in order to know the truth which will set you free from the ignorant. servant w/chops
dan, how do you explain the abuse committed by Protestant pastors? Are you so blinded by your hatred of the Catholic Church that you refuse to admit that sexual abuse is also committed by ministers, rabbis and public school teachers? Interestingly, it's the Catholic Church that is singled out however for punishment. The rest of abusers pretty much get a free pass. I suppose it is because the RCC is the single voice still proclaiming moral truths that the rest of the world does not want to hear these days so it has to be smeared and shut down.
What's wrong with you catholics? I am against pedophilia or child abuse against innocent children no matter who's to blame, but it's especially heinous when practiced by the self-righteous religious hypocrites of any belief system claiming to worship God and living by His standards. It's not those who are "proclaiming moral truths" that are the righteous in the eyes of the Lord, but those who live by those "moral truths". You may not know my history with your Holier Than Thou Cult, but your hierarchy comprised the majority of false accusers having me imprisoned or sent for mental evaluations, based totally on lies. I actually believe they did that so they could point out to their dumb sheep that there goes the monster, so their brainwashed followers wouldn't look at their own pedophilia, perversions and wickedness. Creeps and lying hypocrites. Maybe you think lying isn't so bad, but God lists lies and liars as those worthy of Hell's Fire. Rev. 21:8 and Rev. 22:15. Just so happens that your cult is guilty for all the sins listed in those verses. Try reading the Bible before claiming my hatred of your pagan cult is unjustified. servant of the Just God and His Son
P.S. Your rcc has "smeared" it's own reputation and only has itself to blame. Time to shut it down. And it's Oh so genuine that your creeps ask for forgiveness and want us to look away, while they would like everyone else to receive "punishment". If that ain't hypocrisy at it's finest.
Duh! It's called sarcasm, better known as you attempt to use it as outright lying. I'm saying what manipulations and excuses will you come up with next? That Romans isn't part of the canon or that Romans 1&2 doesn't apply to "the church", as you have already attempted to claim. Must you always carry on as a disingenuous hypocrite? Your cover is blown. servant
"Dear" Stupid P, We know you "think not" that's the problem.
You and Dan both are "servants" of your imaginary friend: the sky demon that you worship. I say demon because according to it's magic book "he" supposedly drowned the whole of humanity and saved an incestuous family in an over populated ark. Such a loving god for us to adore. innocent babies drowned because they did not love a god enough they did not know existed. Anyone who thinks such a god a) exists and b, is worth worshiping, are very damaged people indeed. It's like worshiping the biggest mass murderer of them all.
No one asked you to be like me (as if you had the balls to be.)
Yes anyone can put up anything here but why would they? You two whores hog the discussion between you. No one can get a word in. You two take up all the room. Why? To re-hash the Reformation ? Catholicism vs. Protestantism has what to do with clerical sex abuse? Nothing, is the answer.
So why so much "talk" about what is so irrelevant to the subject at hand if not to obfuscate? You create a maze of words and thought that hides not clarifies. Why would you do that time after time; day after day, year in and year out if not to fool people or at the very least to distract people?
"he" supposedly drowned the whole of humanity and saved an incestuous family in an over populated ark. Such a loving god for us to adore. innocent babies drowned because they did not love a god enough they did not know existed. "
Jim,
If you bothered to read all of the Old Testament, you would find that God offered plenty of opportunities for repentance. The people stubbornly clung to their evil behavior.
"…the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away….blessed be the Lord"
Oh! Isn't that precious. The queen of queens calling us "whores". In two years I've spoken more against "clerical sex abuse" than you ever dreamed to. What's your problem? I know queers like to be the center of attention. No one is stopping you from speaking your peace. The problem with "the Church" is so much deeper than just their perversions and pedophilia. I've never come against your cause of seeking settlements for victims who deserved it. I want the cult to stop their deceptions and deceit and clean up their act, or face the righteous punishment that they will truly deserve. Why do you think so many are attacking me? They can't stand that I speak the truth against their hypocrisy. I'd like all to come to know the true God, and you could use Him as much as anyone. It's plain stupid to think God is this cruel Creator who goes around killing innocent children. Evilness from Hell was responsible for their deaths. You think God would hold it against little children who had no chance to decide between right or wrong? What god do you serve, the homosexual one or the trash-mouthed one. Publiar is bad enough with his mocking, but your cursing God is in no way going to benefit you or your cause. I'll leave you to your work and would appreciate you leaving me to mine.
There was a lot of material placed on the table in my comments of the 30th and 31st.
From ‘Dan’ we get (the 30th at 1022PM, 1029PM, and 1139PM) nothing but strings of I’m Not/You Are epithets, their ‘content’ supposedly buttressed by scream-caps.
But – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ only screams here to – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – emphasize how “serious a problem” I have because – once again with the I’m Not/You Are scam – I avoid and evade “recognizing [my] problems, possibly because of ignorance or plain stupidity” (see his comment of the 30th at 1029PM).
Oh, and this time ‘Dan’s self-printed business card styles him as “servant of a Vengeful God of Wrath”. But not a God, apparently, up to the task of dealing with the material presently on the table.
God or myself would never be required or demanded to answer to a compulsive liar, no matter how important he thinks his worthless material is. That hasn't yet entered your exploded head?
It’s been over a month and no more ‘news’ about the Cardinal Pell case. The Aussie police and prosecutors were supposed to have turned over a list of charges (if not also whatever evidence supports them) as early as a week after Cardinal Pell’s court appearance back in the last week of July.
On the 17th of August, however, that Aussie Royal Commission issued its final Criminal Justice Report, with 85 Recommendations it would like to see implemented throughout the land.
The full text is available via the Web; I include here only the link to an initial official press release
https://childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2017-08/report-on-criminal-justice-released
Readers so inclined can view the text of the entire Report from that same site.
The Report reflects the Royal Commission’s (hereinafter: “RC”) mandate to examine “institutional” abuse.
One might see in this a veiled attempt to evade the hardly irrational suspicion that the RC was basically going after the Church. And, indeed, the UK’s Guardian has an article reporting that the RC took the Royal Australian Navy and Army to task for abusive (physical and sexual) hazing practices … in the 1960s and 1970s, for which preventive measures instituted in the 1970s and 1980s were, the RC feels, insufficient.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/22/navy-staff-tolerated-widespread-child-sexual-abuse-of-recruits-royal-commission-says
It is noteworthy that the article reports no instance or official intention of bringing any charges or prosecuting any cases arising against any accused Aussie military personnel of that era for these “historical” abuses.
The Report is concerned, says the official release, “to provide a fairer response to victims of institutional child sexual abuse”. And thus from the get-go we are off to the races with that granddaddy of all Victimist switcheroos: the existence of genuine victims is presumed before any investigating is begun.
As with laying in an aircraft’s or ship’s course for a long journey into a navigation computer, even the smallest decimal point of error will, over the course of the journey, be amplified into a wide cone of error; and the longer the journey, the wider the cone of error.
Worse, once you have presumed – even if only in a general and abstract way – the existence of genuine victims, then it is almost inevitable that any specific allegant will insist on being granted that same presumption in a particular case or allegation. And if any specific one is granted that presumption, then all will demand it. As has happened.
The RC declares itself moved and concerned by the fact that “conviction rates” in abuse cases “are lower compared to other crimes”.
How, then, to raise (not to say ‘improve’) the conviction rates? We shall soon see when we get to its 85 Recommendations which, the RC burbles, are “likely to improve responses to child sexual abuse in all contexts”, i.e. in non-institutional criminal (and perhaps also civil-litigation) allegations.
If you raise the conviction rates – doncha see? – then you will “improve” the “responses” to the allegations.
How then to pull this off?
There’s a bit of a problem, says the RC CEO, Mr. Philip Reed: “Child sexual abuse cases are often ‘word against word’ cases with no eyewitnesses and no medical or scientific evidence”. And, of course, he continues, “complainants often take years to disclose their abuse”.
His use of words here requires some parsing to follow his tracks: He nicely uses the term “complainants” rather than the presumptive ‘victims’, but then he quickly recovers by using the verb “disclose” rather than, say, the verb ‘complain’ – which verb would match his characterization of “complainants”. And that “disclose” contains the very presumption that the (alleged) abuse actually took place (and if you’ve presumed the existence of the crime, then you must presume the existence of a perpetrator who committed the presumed crime – that’s how it goes in this sort of thing).
But his general point is well-taken: what do you do when you have cases where there is no evidence?
The solution (if you are not going to dismiss the case for lack of actual evidence) would have to be along the lines of either a) reducing the role of evidence or b) re-defining the entire concept of ‘evidence’ so as to make it easier to raise the conviction rate. Or c) both.
And the Recommendations set about doing just that.
The RC recommends that “sentencing standards” in these “historical” cases (i.e. the allegations stem from decades ago) be those in effect (in the Victimist-soaked era of) today, rather than the sentencing standards that were in effect at the time the abuse was (allegedly) committed.
Thus, of course, this Recommendation seeks to ensure that whatever “evidence” remains be viewed under the rubric of the Victimist presumptions i) that the abuse was indeed committed and ii) that the accused– since there has to be a presumptive perpetrator – most likely did it (or at least something close to it).
And it also slyly assumes that such “sentencing standards” also hew to the Victimist-deranged concept of “evidence” that is now regnant today: one recalls the old ‘Believe the children!’ mantra of the McMartin Pre-School Day-Care Satanic Ritual Child Abuse cases, and the assorted other bits of Victimist dogma, i.e. to not-believe the ‘victim’ is to ‘re-victimize’ the ‘victim; to insist on rational evidence is to patriarchally oppress the ‘victim’ (this bit is radical feminism’s contribution); feelings and stories of one’s ‘personal truth’ are even more important than any rationally-demonstrable truth (ditto); ‘repressed memories’ and ‘recovered memories’ are photograph-level evidence supporting the claim and the story; abusers always lie and ‘victims’ never do; and in any case, to not-find against an accused will have a ‘chilling effect’ on future ‘victim reports’ and will ‘send the wrong message’ to ‘victims’ and abusers alike. And so on.
This “sentencing standard” Recommendation then adroitly tacks in such a way as to avoid hitting the rocks of Western law’s Ex Post Facto principle: while the accused is to be judged on “evidence” as that term is known today (which greatly improves the chance of a conviction and thus upping the “conviction rates”) yet the maximum sentence applicable can be no greater than whatever the maximum sentence was back in the “historical” era when the alleged abuse took place.
Thus you greatly improve the “conviction rates” while you don’t run afoul of the Ex Post Facto principle by retroactively imposing a greater sentence than the one in effect at the time of commission. Neato.
Readers so inclined can continue their examination of either the official press release or the text of the Report itself.
But I also point out that one of the Recommendations mentioned even in the press release (under the heading “Failure to report and the religious confessional”) is that priests be required to report any confessions of child-abuse made by penitents during the Sacrament of Penance.
I’m not sure even the Third Reich went that far (although I’m sure Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and Goring would dearly have wished to). The Soviets, of course, didn’t even bother themselves with such problems since they knew they were going to abolish religion anyway.
Observing (from a great distance, admittedly) the RC in the context of current Australian politics, it seems that the current regime (in the most neutral sense of the term) enjoys only a razor-thin margin of political support and greatly needs to attract further political support.
Jumping on the abuse bandwagon in order to steer it toward their own purposes might appear to them to be the very thing necessary to improve their position, garnering the support and approbation of many interests.
Given that civil-litigation in Australia is not the Wild-West show it is in the U.S. where the torties can jump in and create massive lawsuits and garner sky’s-the-limit amounts of money, often without trial, I don’t see a good old-fashioned Stampede along American lines taking place in Australia any time soon.
But the abuse bandwagon is currently one of the best vehicles on offer for the political types, and the Church one of the most acceptable targets. Thus Cardinal Pell becomes so attractive a target, especially to the Victoria police (who, if one reads the Report’s full text, come in for the lion’s share of ‘suggestions’ from the RC).
Whether the Victoria police and prosecutors will be able to redeem themselves in the eyes of the RC by bagging so prestigious a trophy remains to be seen.
Why would Cardinal Pell be considered "so prestigious a trophy" when he's only just another perverted pedophile creep from your cult of pedophiles and perverts? His title shouldn't grant him any more prestige than any other low-life from your cult. servant of the Just God, hoping to see justice served
P.S. Did so enjoy your longwinded discussion of nothingness on the subject.
What an idiot you are. Your church hid pedophiles and allowed them to harm again and you're the victim. You are THE most IMMORAL piles of dung on the planet in your category.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 748PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will engage in a familiar bit of distraction: to evade his rather obvious ploy for ‘victim’-status he quickly tries to move the subject to – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – all “the little innocent children” and so on.
But having played the “children” card, he feels confident that he can again go back to his ploy: he really is a victim – doncha see? – of being “falsely accused” and so on. Readers may judge his claim as they will.
And he even feels so good about the ploy (buttressed by the card) that he will lard on more bits about his trials, tribulations and misadventures: “false imprisonment” and “mental evaluations that were uncalled for” … and readers can really judge that latter bit as they will.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 748PM:
He was also “thrown in the tank with drunk cathoilcs” (apparently in the Bay Area they only lock up drunk Catholics or else only Catholics get drunk – although I would have imagined that the Bay Area decriminalized public-drunkenness quite a few decades ago). And he had “hereditary arthritis” and had to sit on a “cement bench” because that’s all “they offer” … Jonah was thrown overboard to sleep with da fishes and ‘Dan’ wails about jails not offering a more comfy place to sit down. Such a prophet.
And “garbage” – one of his favorite epitheticals – appears again, although this time ‘Dan’ claims not that he had to read “garbage” but that he was “treated like garbage” by mental health staff. One would imagine that the Bay Area of all places would have robust mental health services. But then, maybe robust mental assessment is not what ‘Dan’ really wants or likes.
Allow me to educate you. Jonah was sent to "sleep with da fishes" because he refused to obey the Lord when asked to be sent to warn the evil and the sinners of Nineveh.
I was sent by the Lord my God to warn the wicked and the sinners of "the church" and other religions to change their ways, before the punishment of God rained down upon them. I obeyed and did the work the Lord asked of me, but the stubborn, deceitful, deviant, perverted, hypocritical liars of the catholic church have refused to listen, and instead have slandered and falsely accused His servant and caused him to suffer unjust punishments.
This has fulfilled what Jesus predicted the righteous would suffer at the hands of the wicked in Matthew 5:10-12
"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and celebrate, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you." Matthew 5:10-12
It must give you great solace, publiar, to know that your added lies and slander are what confirm my being a prophet chosen and sent by the Lord. For all the catholic vultures that have attacked me, be sure that my message was to help you and not destroy you and to hopefully free you from the lies and deception of your wicked cult.
Please consider not to respond to this post, so I will have no reason to have to try to help any of you from here on out. Jim, the floor is all yours and you can return to getting all the attention from this deceiving cult, to your hearts desire. You won't have to be bothered anymore in your conscience by the Biblical quotes that so annoy your soul. You're on your own and will receive no assistance from the Lord God in fighting your worthless cause against this viciously cruel, wicked pagan cult of unremorseful pedophiles and lying perverts. servant of the Lord and Only God, and everything that is Right and True
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 748PM:
And then he tries to somehow turn these story-bits into ‘evidence’: do we think he would go to the trouble of telling all of this if the grounds for his tribulations “weren’t false accusations from the liars of your cult?”.
Yes, I think he would. Precisely because the grounds were not false and he needs to come up with some excuse not only to convince us but even more to help him evade the reality of what he did to get himself incarcerated and examined (six times).
And he tops off the whole performance here with more epithetical riffing.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 815PM:
Here ‘Dan’ merely insists yet again that (as far as he can see) Romans 1:18-32 “most assuredly” “depicts the hypocrites of the catholic church”.
He then inverts the logical process: since Paul’s comments “do apply to any sexually perverse humans” then “they would most definitely apply to” the Church and so on. But if that is so, i.e. that Paul has said something that would “apply to any sexually perverse humans”, then it wouldn’t really be “prophecy” in the magical ‘Dan’/fundie sense in the first place.
And Paul would merely be making a comment about “any sexually perverse humans” and wouldn’t be specifically going after the Church.
Although, as I pointed out when this pericope was first put up some threads back, Paul here is trying to demonstrate to the Christian community in Rome that pagans, having rejected the Gospel, thereby wind up giving themselves over to all manner of aimless pleasures because only the Gospel can provide the structure and matrix that enables humans to work against such aimless pleasuring.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 815PM:
But what we are seeing here is simply the core operating code of ‘Dan’s entire delusional system: only “sexual perversion” is unforgivable; ‘Dan’ doesn’t do that sort of thing; Catholics who called the police on him are sunk in that sort of thing; so let’s not think about ‘Dan’s queasy and repellent problems and instead let’s all agree that he is heroic, truthy and prophetic for going after Catholicism, the Church and Catholics.
Neato.
But that requires a whole lot of presumptions ,‘the Church is perverse’ and ‘Catholicism is idolatrous’ being his two biggies. Readers may consider the accuracy and validity of these two presumptions as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 715PM:
‘Dan’s problem here was that he had made a statement (about the “Archbishop of Wheaton”) that was patently not accurate.
He apparently has actually gone back and more carefully read the relevant material and now issues a “Correction”. How nice.
There is a Good News Bible for Catholics (which includes the Apocrypha) called ‘Today’s English Version, Second Edition’, sometimes abbreviated to TEV-2. Thus the texts of the Apocrypha as they appear in that edition are free of doctrinal error for Catholics, but still remain non-canonical and still remain – not to put too fine a point on it – apocryphal.
For personal and private study, Catholics can use either the TEV-2 or any version of the Good News Bible given an Imprimatur by an Ordinary or episcopal conference.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 715PM:
That being said, we are still thrown back to the abiding and abyssal problem with all the ‘Dan’-verse Scriptural material: while the text itself remains free of doctrinal error, the interpretations or applications of the text enjoy no such guarantee; the Imprimatur applies to the text, not to anybody’s particular interpretations or applications of the text.
And with all of the ‘Dan’ Scriptural stuff, it is always the interpretation and application that ‘Dan’ comes up with (and insists must be accepted as God’s own interpretation) that is the problem and will necessarily remain the problem (since if ‘Dan’ had to give up his cartoonish interpretations and applications of the text then his whole show would collapse and his head would explode).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 715PM:
And with that being said, it remains true that the Esdras material (as opposed to the material that appears in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah) is not canonical. The Imprimatur does not raise the Apocrypha to canonicity or canonical status. Except in the deceptive and simplistic cartoon universe ‘Dan’ has created for himself.
And it remains true that such ‘paraphrase’ or ‘dynamic translation’ versions are not advisable as the sole or primary Bible text for Catholics (or anyone seeking a solid comprehension). I quote from the Catholic Answers site, in its Bible Translations Guide: “The disadvantage of a dynamic translation is that there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations … run a greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it” (in order to make the text more easily readable).
Thus ‘Dan’s silly attempt here to use the Imprimatur as a solves-all solution to all of his Biblical claims and assertions fails.
And while there may be “nothing wrong with the teachings of the Good News Bible” that isn’t at all the point and never has been. The point is that there is everything wrong with ‘Dan’s attempts to interpret the text of the Good News Bible or any other version of the Bible. And he remains without “chops” on the subject.
ej, really? babies had to drown bevcause they didn't repent the sins they hadn't committed??
Jim, their parents were to blame. They did not care about the fate of their children or they would have repented. Unfortunately evil has consequences and the innocent are often the recipients. But the innocent are with God. The earth isn't our final home.
Danny u played yourself, "queen of queens"? "queer"? Wow! you don't get to use those words EVER!
WHY? Because you haven't payed the price of those words i.e. ostracism; abondonment by family; humilation, beatings, murders imprisonment, job loss and or jail time for simply being who you are.
Go away Dan.
Where have you been Jim. I've suffered and paid the price for every one of those examples you mentioned, except murder obviously, just for being a Christian. Only difference was my suffering was undeserved, based on the lies of holy hypocrites, terribly different from suffering that comes from blatant disobedience against God and natural law. Sorry queenie.
And Dan I don't have a soul and neither has anyone here including you. How do I know this? Because you have zero proof that "souls' exist.
The Bible quotes don't bother me anymore than a quote from Alice in Wonderland or Moby Dick would bother me. All fiction and fancy.
Stick on Satan's side with publiar and you'll learn all you need to know about fantasies and Alice in Wonderland.
And dan, Reparations to people injured as children by sexual abuse is never a "worthless cause" Odd that you would say that. Very odd.
I've had no problem with "Reparations to people injured as children by sexual abuse". Try not to put words in my mouth. I think your cause, whatever that may be is "worthless against this viciously cruel, wicked pagan cult of unremorseful pedophiles and lying perverts". Your message is so convoluted and confusing that it's hard to understand where your coming from, unless talking of your disdain and unbelief in the God of the Universe. That comes through loud and clear. I bet the people of Sodom and Gomorrah felt similar thoughts about the existence of God. I bet their horrible destruction was quick to change their minds.
Funny about "obeying the Lord". The Lord remains silent, lips that don't exist can not speak, yet you and yours are the ones saying "He" demands obedience. So if "He's" quiet then the only one's demanding the obedience are other mere mortals. Always.
So we, if we obeyed, would only be obeying our fellow man. Since he (you) are the ones demanding all the obedience and you demand it in the name of something you've no proof even is.
So you and your imaginary ruler of me and all the rest of the universe can take a hike back to fantsyland. Bye.
If it's far away from you two, I will be happy to remain in God's "fantsyland". I thought queens and queers would like living in fancyland, problem is it will be no paradise when you arrive. BYE.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1258AM:
Here we get another nicely vivid demonstration of where a nice Fixed Delusional mentality will get you: ‘Dan’ pins his position on the fact that he is “against pedophilia or child abuse” and so on (the “against innocent children” here is merely a rhetorical addition larded on for that extra manipulative emotional oomph).
So ‘Dan’ is “against pedophilia or child abuse”. Fine and dandy. Who isn’t?
But having tried to establish his position on that basis, he just cawn’t help himself and lets the other cat out of the bag: he’s also against these idolatrous Catholics who happen to be associated with “the self righteous religious hypocrites of any belief system claiming to worship God and live by His standards”.
In the same way that ‘Dan’s pod-mate JR tried to lump all of his favorite bugbears into one big convenient package, ‘Dan’ also tries it: pedophilia and child abuse are combined with (take your pick) all religions or the Catholic religion (they’re the ones that called the police on him) into one big convenient ball, glued together by cartoon claims of idolatry and hypocrisy.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1258AM:
Let’s face it: if you don’t do things the way ‘Dan’ wants them done, then you aren’t doing them the way God wants them done. And since you don’t have séances with the divine in your bathroom mirror, then you’d best do it ‘Dan’s way or it’s the hellway for you. God’ll getcha, and ‘Dan’ doth enjoy that prospect ever so much.
And – again – I submit that readers may judge as they will whether any justification for ‘Dan’s needing “mental evaluation” can must only be “based totally on lies”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 229AM:
Studiously evading the fact that compared to the grit of actual Biblical prophets ‘Dan’s whiney bleat about having to sit on a hard bench merely reveals him as a histrionic and self-dramatizing wussy, ‘Dan’ will use the Jonah reference to discourse upon why ‘Dan’ “was sent by the Lord” (or, actually, by whatever he thinks he sees in his bathroom mirror that tells him what he wants to hear).
‘Dan’ – doncha see? – is on a “mission from Gahd”, sorta like Jake and Elwood, although queasy-crazy instead of fun-crazy. But where Jake and Elwood are trying to save an orphanage, ‘Dan’ is just going to warm people away from “’the church’ and other religions”. His bathroom mirror tells him to do so.
And are we to believe that only Catholics rejected his cartoons and all the other “religions” went along with his shtick? Or was it just that the Catholics called the police while none of the others did? This far down the rabbit hole, who knows?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 229AM:
Thus humanity is left with i) atheism or ii) paganism or iii) the ‘Dan’-made ‘religion’, consisting of whatever Bible version you pick and a bathroom mirror to inform your interpretative reading of it.
But if one picks (iii) then it will have to be a ‘religion’ presided over by ‘Dan’. Otherwise he will take his little pail and shovel and make his piles and dig holes in his own sandbox. Which is pretty much what he’s already done.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 229AM:
Thus and yet again ‘Dan’ retreats to that grand-daddy of all proof-texts that provides endless hours and years of consolation to the sufficiently creative and deceptive unhinged, Matthew 5:10-12.
The kicker – as I have said before when he has clutched his pearls and declaimed this trope – is that one has to be “persecuted because of righteousness” and one has to be ‘persecuted’ and so on “because of Me” (i.e. Christ).
‘Dan’ has been so often taken in and incarcerated by the police for his own behaviors – not for propagating Christ’s Gospel. ‘Dan’ propagates nothing but his own self-serving delusions and he is the “servant” only of his own purposes, which are those of sustaining his Fixed Delusional system.
So the various messes ‘Dan’ has gotten himself into are not the result of preaching the Gospel but merely of throwing his delusional bits at people (including – let’s face it – innocent and helpless children in a schoolyard).
And those messes are merely the ineluctable fulfillment of his acting-out his delusions against the public, the causes and consequences of which could have been ‘prophesied’ by any competent clinician.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 229AM:
Thus too then we see yet again the sly economy of the delusional system: the more its causes and consequences are exposed, the further proof merely that the offender is being ‘persecuted’ and ‘persecuted’ “because of righteousness”. This is a perpetual-motion machine, a conceptual Rube Goldberg dynamic and mechanism that can go on and on.
Larded and frosted here with another deceptive bit: ‘Dan’ has only ever sought to “help you and not destroy you” (you “vultures”, actually), he pearl-clutchingly bleats with the Wig of Goody-Two-Shoes flapping on his head.
But in this performance the substance of that mimicry cannot prevail over the actual hostility that floods through ‘Dan’ like a poisoned under-ground spring.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 229AM:
Which hostility, blended queasily with an unripe vengefulness is then immediately revealed when he declares in his final paragraph that he hopes he gets no response to this comment of his, so that he “will have no reason to try to help any of you from here on out”. A genuine prophet would display a genuine and Scripturally-informed maturity that is willing to suffer all in order to continue faithfully to declare God’s message.
But ‘Dan’ – as I said – is no genuine prophet; he is merely the servant of his own delusions; the audience isn’t responding to his vaudeville shtick; so he will – so he implies – shut down his show. He’ll take his pail and shovel and go find someplace else to play on his own.
He won’t do any such thing, of course. His delusions are such that he can’t simply sit home alone with them and enjoy them while privately communing with his bathroom mirror. He has to go out and toss his unripe vitriol everywhere he thinks he can get away with it; otherwise he wouldn’t seem to be a ‘prophet’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 229AM:
And, lastly, we see once again the vital switcheroo so necessary to preserving his delusions: he slyly slides in the bit that it is his “Biblical quotes” that “so annoy [my] soul”.
Not in the least. As I have often said, it is not the Biblical quotations; it is his whackjob interpretations of those “Biblical quotes” that do “annoy” my mind.
Like particularly aggressive horse-flies, it is ‘Dan’s interpretations that have to be swatted. Atheists and pagans merely ignore the Bible; ‘Dan’ abuses the Bible – and claims that his abuse must be taken as God’s will while he’s doing it.
Sorry publiar, I have absolutely no desire to answer to your insistent mocking, lying, ignorance, stupidity and nonsense. Anyone who thinks those are desirable catholic qualities, needs to "Wake up sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Eph 5:14
"Jim, the floor is all yours and you can return to getting all the attention from this deceiving cult, to your heart's desire. You won't have to be bothered anymore in your conscience by the Biblical quotes that so annoy your soul."
Reading comprehension giving you a problem again, peewee? This statement was clear as day, proposed to Jim. Even Jim understood it was directed to him. For being such a man of supposed knowledge, you shur r dum. servant
P.S. I do understand how you made this mistake, seeing how "Biblical quotes [sure] annoy your soul". Probably not as much as you annoy God and His servants.
ej says:
"If you bothered to read all of the Old Testament, you would find that God offered plenty of opportunities for repentance. The people stubbornly clung to their evil behavior."
"…the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away….blessed be the Lord"
If only all catholics could understand how well ej's statement applies to your wicked cult.
Dan, I am a Catholic. I belong to the Church that Christ, not some mere mortal, founded. That it is filled with sinners does not make it an evil cult. Despite the grievous sins of its clegy and laity, it is still standing after 2000 years and its teachings have not changed, even thought there are some in high places of the Church that are attempting to change them. But Jesus said that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it…"
While there are people within the Church that have committed grave evils there are also people within the Church who have embraced the call to holiness that Christ extends to everyone. It is ridiculous to paint and condemn the Church with the broad brush that you do. One doesn't have to look far to find hypocrites in any church or faith. Take care that you do not harm your soul in harboring such extreme hatred for the Catholic Church.
Jim, Jim, Jim, Judging from how eloquently spoken you tend to be, one could understand why you would consider yourself the poster child as the "moral authority". What makes me laugh hysterically is how atheists or heathens think they can totally berate or mock their Creator and despise His written Word, and yet they'll quote His Word in order to judge one of His true Christians. Thankfully neither you or publyin' would ever qualify to judge anyones moral decency or status with the Almighty, unless through some miracle of repentance your sinful lives turned a complete 180 degrees. Turning the other cheek, does not mean that Christians can't stand up for themselves and fight against pure wickedness and filth, especially when directed towards their Father in Heaven, His Son their Savior or their beliefs. I am not your judge, but we all shall surely stand before the Almighty and be judged for every careless word to come from our lips. servant to the One and Only God
P.S. I know publiar, I said I was through, but just picking up the loose ends of comments I hadn't seen. Wouldn't surprise me if you add some more lies or snide remarks that I can't overlook.Try to restrain from being such an ignorant lying fool and I can be done with all of you.
I guess "judge not" got kicked to the curb by Servant.
No surprise there. Christianity is nothing if not paradoxical. Kill!; and yet Don't Kill! etc. I'm not afraid of what so clearly is not there. Your giving authority to one book as being the word of God is absurd. It's the Word of Abe or Irving. Yet you ascribe truth for all in that? You diestsdemand worship.While your God remains stum.
"The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is not subject to anyone's judgement." 1 Cor 2:14-15
You deny His Word and think that man wrote this wisdom? Are you serious? I guess it's true that you and publiar consider the Word to be foolishness and you just can never understand it, because then you would have to face your sinfulness and that's a place where neither prefer to go. Sad because the alternative shall be eternally horrible. Easier just to deny and not believe that the God who created everything even exists? I felt true compassion for you Jim, because of the molestation you suffered as a teen. Sorry you prefer to destroy those feelings with your hatred of the Only One who could truly help your life.
You're not your and "diestsdemand"
And schtum not stum.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 425PM:
The only noteworthy bits here are:
First, ‘Dan’ doth declare himself to be “one of His true Christians”. Nicely, that “His” might refer to God or, in a more creative interpretation, it might refer to ‘Dan’ himself, i.e. that ‘Dan’ is his own Christian, practicing his own Christianity – which is delivered to him through the bathroom mirror and the divine fax machine.
Similarly, ‘Dan’ doth declare and pronounce as to who does and does not “qualify” to “judge anyone’s moral decency or status with the Almighty” – that bit of tea-leaf reading, apparently, is reserved to ‘Dan’, who tosses the leaves like a salad when he’s in the mood. Only ‘Dan’ gets to say who does and does not enjoy a good “status with the Almighty” – doncha know? – because his bathroom mirror tells him so.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 425PM:
Second, ‘Dan’ has slyly taken an easy evasion for his implied threat (the 3rd at 229AM) that he hoped he would get no responses to that comment so that he “will have no reason to have to try to help any of you [Catholic “vultures”] from here on out”.
I had pointed out (the 4th at 228PM) that “He won’t do any such thing, of course”.
So – in another fine example of ‘Dan’s always-convenient misreadings – I had not said that he “was through”. I had said just the opposite: that he would have to keep on with his stuff because otherwise he couldn’t keep up his delusional status as ‘prophet’.
Any reader who can suss out the sense of the bit about “just picking up the loose end of comments [‘Dan’] hadn’t seen” is welcome to share it here.
What shouldn’t “surprise” him is that his material was inevitably going to have to be corrected due to his lack of chops.
And then – marvelously – he concludes his “P.S.” by wishing that he “can be done with all of you”. Again, this is histrionic and deceptive: ‘Dan’ needs to spew his plop (that’s how he amassed his police and psychiatric record to begin with).
I prefer God answer you, even though you still won't get it. 1 Cor 2:14-15 (KJV)
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."
So you can look that up in any Bible version you prefer, and you will find that it says the same thing in different words, with little, if any, change of meaning. You still won't understand or correctly interpret the meaning, because as the Scripture says, it is "foolishness unto him, neither can [you] know them, because they are spiritually discerned". It is virtually impossible for a blatant, compulsive liar to know or understand spiritual discernment, when you'd rather prefer to mock the Creator and His Precious Word. You even add more lies in claiming you're not mocking Him. Never met such a lying hypocrite. servant
On the 5th at 1001PM ‘Dan’ will continue to deploy his presumptive delusions to see if he can extricate himself.
This time around, he (perhaps wisely) won’t be saying too much himself, but instead – alas rather unwisely – will claim that “God” doth “answer” me. Thus the pericope.
But the only way this pericope would work for ‘Dan’s delusional system is if one presumed that ‘Dan’ is that “he that is spiritual” who gets to “judgeth all things” and – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – also “is judged by no man”.
Thus the delusional system is served and preserved because ‘Dan’ is simultaneously confirmed (if we presume the presumption that he wants us to presume) as both a) being the “spiritual” man and b) being beyond the judgment of any “natural man”. Neato.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1001PM.
But it is equally (if not more) possible that ‘Dan’ is actually that “natural man” sunk in his own preoccupations and purposes, and receives not “the things of the Spirit of God” but instead merely his own delusions, costumed for his purposes as those “things of the Spirit of God”.
But it’s actually worse than that. A purely “natural man” would live without giving God or His Scripture a thought. ‘Dan’ – however – has chosen to actually costume himself in “the things of the Spirit of God”, manipulating them for his own purposes.
"We realize that law is NOT enacted for the RIGHTEOUS, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for killers of father and mother, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and LIARS and PERJURERS [liars in court], and anyone else who is averse to sound teaching [hypocrites]." 1 Timothy 1:9-10
"Better a thief than an inveterate LIARS, yet both will suffer disgrace; A LIAR'S way leads to dishonor, his shame remains ever with him." Sirach 20:24-25 UCCSB (NAB)
"Don't disappoint any of your worshipers, but disappoint all DECEITFUL LIARS." Psalm 25:3 "LIARS accuse me of crimes I know nothing about." Psalm 35:11 "My enemies are LIARS! So let them be trapped by their boastful LIES." Psalm 59:12 "Your laws can be trusted! Protect me from cruel LIARS." Psalm 119:86
Catholics: These are just a few verses from the Bible in regards to deceitful liars. So do you believe a compulsive deceitful habitual liar (publyin'), perpetuate consistent lies in regards to my mental state being delusional, because I represent a strong belief in God's Word? Do you accept and believe God's Word, or would you rather accept manipulations and deceitful misinterpretations of a fellow catholic hypocrite? Haven't you been lied to enough with the coverups and disgusting perversions and pedophilia of the church hierarchy? These sins should never even be mentioned among God's true followers. Your church has been fooling and deceiving you with all their excuses and lies.
How dare publiar accuse me of some ulterior motives or scam, when all I've asked is that you look at the Lord's Word and decide who is telling the truth. I have no religion for you to join, but would like all to become true children of God, not fooled by the wolves in sheep's clothing. They only love their greed and filthy lusts, and will lie through their teeth to make you believe that they are the truth-tellers. Lying hypocrites from Hell, demons wishing to drag millions down into the depths with them. Be not fooled by the wicked, especially liars and mockers of the One True God! servant of God
So many words used here and so little common sense.
Arguing about imaginary "friends" is fine for 4 year olds but we are all adults here.
This propaganda site is here to never have a decent, adult problem solving conversation. It's here to tell Catholics that they, the church, are the real victims. Other wise we'd be solving problems like grown ups do. instead we have TMR and Catholic league etc. like cheerleaders at a football game. More accurately a wrestlng match where the winners are decided back stage before the show and all the rest is choreography and performance.
We are supposed to imagine that P and Dan are fghting each other in their "Who's got the Real God" Apach Tango. They dance aroud and around as if choreographed.
We are to take them seriously because they talk about "God". Because after all "God" is the most serious subject in the Universe.
And all the while there is nothing there.
Jim, I waited five days for you to respond with some "adult problem solving conversation", and this is what we get. I'm not sure who is more deceived, the followers of the catholic cult or the gay atheists who think they have some intellegence to add to the conversation?
What exactly bothers you more, Jim? The fact that the Creator will take into account your homosexual immorality or the fact that you mock and criticize Him as much as ignorant publiar? Sodom and Gomorrah isn't convincing enough of God's punishment on the homosexual culture of those towns? We saw in our own time the punishment of AIDS on the homosexually immoral, mostly men who were involved in orgies with multiple men in bath houses. God held back His punishment, that those left may turn back from their sin and be forgiven for their unnatural lusts. You still think you are bigger or know more than the one who created you?
"Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the LORD, and He will have compassion on him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:7-9
God holds His hand out to you Jim, he knows your past and your present, and is willing to forgive in order to give you a much brighter future. If you wish instead to deny Him and His generous offer, then that shall be your own decision. He is unwilling to force Himself on anyone. Don't ever think you know more about His Creation than He does, because you shall be sorely mistaken. You're just not as big or wise as you think you are, and you surely have not in any way acted as the adult in this conversation.
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good." Psalm 53:1 I don't think you're a fool Jim, but don't ever think yourself to be wiser than the Creator. You will be made to look like a fool.