Busted: Claimants caught on tape scheming to bilk the Church and falsely accuse Daniel McCormack
It has long been a poorly kept secret in the neighborhoods near St. Agatha Catholic Church and within the offices at the Archdiocese of Chicago that most, if not nearly all, of the abuse accusations lodged against ex-priest Daniel McCormack are completely bogus.
For the past several years, MacCormack has been the subject of many breathless headlines in Chicago with each new ridiculous lawsuit claiming "repressed memories" of abuse. But now the secret is finally out in the open thanks to the serendipity of a jail telephone recording of a plaintiff trying to defraud the Catholic Church.
In fact, a Chicago judge has even ordered that the plaintiff repay the Church for the money it spent defending itself after the audiotape was revealed.
But that's not all. It turns out that this one case is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
The story was first reported by Michael J. O'Loughlin at America magazine.
Show me the 'free' money
In court documents, the scammer is only identified as "John J. Doe," a convicted criminal. And as O'Loughlin reports:
In June, just before Mr. Doe was released from prison, his cousin reassured him that he had been "working with the archdiocese … [A]nybody I say got touched, or didn't get touched, they believe me."
Mr. Doe replied that he needed "free money" and that he was happy to proceed with the suit as long as nobody had to "touch me for real."
By July, Mr. Doe had contacted a lawyer. He told his cousin during another phone call that he should be able to convince church authorities that he was also a victim because he had previously met some of Mr. McCormack's victims and even Mr. McCormack himself.
"Yeah boy," Mr. Doe said to his cousin. "I gotta go play that role."
Burying the lede
Unfortunately, O'Loughlin waits until the very end of his article to report the real story here:
Mr. [James C.] Geoly, [Archdiocese of Chicago] lawyer, said there are some other pending claims against Mr. McCormack that may be turn out to be false.
"We are defending cases right now and we certainly think there are some that are fraudulent," he said.
Earlier in the article, O'Loughlin had run to the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP and quotes the hysterical Barbara Dorris, who claims, without any evidence, that false charges against priests are "rare" and that "[t]his is going to make it harder for victims to come forward."
In truth, however, false claims like these will only make it harder for more false claims to come forward! As a matter of common sense and logic, if one case of fraud is uncovered, there are likely many more to be found.
TheMediaReport.com has recently contacted its sources in Chicago who have indicated that we likely have not heard the end of this story.
It was reported years ago – back in 2001, in fact – that an East Coast lawyer wrote, "I have some contacts in the prison system, having been an attorney for some time, and it has been made known to me that [accusing a Catholic priest of abuse] is a current and popular scam."
Some things never change!
Stay tuned.
[SEE ALSO:
• TheMediaReport.com : Falsely Accused Priests (tag/multiple pages of archived posts)
• Catholic Priests Falsely Accused: The Facts, The Fraud, The Stories (Amazon.com)]
[And RECOMMENDED:
• "Plea Deals or a Life Sentence in the Live Free or Die State" (TheseStoneWalls.com)]
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 205AM:
Whether he knows it or not, JR is here echoing a bit from the 1989 book Toward a Feminist Theory of the State by Catharine MacKinnon, in which that feminist professor claims that rationality and logic are merely tools invented by oppressive patriarchal types to derail the intuition that is the primary tool of the feminist mind.
That bit dove-tailed nicely with the Victimist project of undermining the rationality and evidentiary-based analysis of classical Western justice, claiming that the illogic and/or irrationality of Victimist stories should not only not be dismissed but should actually be accepted as being of a more superior type of veracity than the old fuddy-duddy male, patriarchal and oppressive approach.
As to who here doth “fool no one”, readers may judge as they will.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 19th at 205AM:
Then JR can’t pass up the opportunity to take a whack at ‘Dan’s “idiocy” about the Book of Revelation and – frankly – I don’t have a dog in that fight. Between i) a self-styled atheist with perhaps his own brand of logic and ii) a delusional fundie-derivative there’s not much prospect of serious rational analysis.
Then a bit about my ‘posing’ “as an Aristotilian logic broker”. And – had you been waittinggg forrr itttt? – “with lies for premises”. All I did was apply logic to the actual text of JR’s stuff (that stuff would constitute the “lies” apparently).
And JR tries to bring the performance home with a bit of pre-emptive epithet: he doth simply “know” that the “majority” of readers here “have so souls to save” and – larding it on with a trowel – that “that’s why they are religious”.
Following JR’s conceptual trail here, either a) no human beings have souls or else b) some human beings have souls but precisely not those who are “religious”. Readers so inclined can consider the possibilities as they may.
publiar states, "then JR can't pass up the opportunityto take a whack at 'Dan's 'idiocy' about the Book of Revelation and – frankly – I don't have a dog in that fight." Surprised? Not at all.
Well of course, you wouldn't "have a dog in that fight", because you are the dog of that fight. Possibly like the one mentioned in the Word, "unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit." It hasn't gone unnoticed that you tend to rarely correctly challenge any of my appropriate quotes from the Bible, but instead use the oppportunity to try to avoid the truth by tossing your crap at me (i.e. "delusional, whacky, self-described deputy-dawg"). This comes from your cowardice towards the truths of God, jealously of my place in God and terrible lack of knowledge in understanding His Precious Word. I'll be looking forward to more of your "vomit". servant of the Lord
P.S. Take note, You toss alot of "plop" while calling it questioning or assessing. Crap, nothing but larded crap by a different name.
The truth shall set ye free
. I didn't insult you Dan, I said you are here to save souls. Nothing wrong with that. Insulting peoples faith by calling it a cult is no way to win people over.
I do agree with you that P and myself are closer than you and P are. Here's the one big difference .between he and I. I'm moral without a God and He's immoral with one.
Jim, I'm speaking the truth about their false religion. Calling the catholic church a cult is not insulting people, it's against an ungodly belief system, a hierarchy of deceiving liars and criminals towards innocent children, which you are well aware of, who have no clue what it means to be a follower of the Almighty God. They have every attribute of a pagan idol-worshipping cult as perfectly described in God's Word. And you have a problem with me insulting a false religion and faith, yet have no problem with insulting God? Pretty ironic there Jim. The followers have to learn the truth in regards to being duped by Satan's church. Haven't you yet learned from what I've posted and is written, that Satan is the "Accuser, a deceiver and father of all liars" (taken from scripture). You don't recognize how this applies to the excusers and deniers of the cult, and the brainwashed, narrow-minded fools in this forum? Then who do you think you are fighting against? God and Jesus Christ apparently.
And Jim, Do you really believe you are moral without God? I do agree that peewee is immoral with god, only problem is it's a false god, and more like a goddess. Those who believe as such are not followers of God whatsoever. Their female saints have visions of Mary asking them to pray 1000 Hail Mary's. This is ridiculous idolatry and totally unbiblical heresy against God and True Christianity. That makes them a "cult".
Yes, Dan, I know one can have morality without religion.
Are atheists immoral? I'd bet Christians have committed more crimes than atheists. As a matter of fact if you think scaring kids with eternal pain to steer them towards God's love is moral? Look again. You don't think Budhists are immoral do you? They don't believe necessarily in a god.
How lucky for you and all Christians to be born with the correct God and a handbook to boot.
You really think I'm not a moral person Dan? Dan I know your points are your points but. To win friends and influence people one should not call names or vent anger at strangers. imho.
If you want respect you should accept them as they are. god's mercy is infinite according to those who invented him. And if he loves he needs no human megaphone.
My saying Revelation is silly. Also not an insult to youpersonally Dan. Just a rock thrownby me at lying sheep herders.
On the 19th at 1121PM we get another of those just-entre-nous shout-outs from one of the peas in the pod to the other.
‘Dan’ simply cawn’t think why JR doth “find it necessary to couple [‘Dan’] with” me. After all – emergency popcorn alert – ‘Dan’ is “not a member of any false religions”. (He’s just gone and created his own, with a bunch of Bible-themed furniture and draperies, and with himself presiding over the ongoing Tea Party therein.)
Thus then – and here we see the ineluctable violence of the pea-pod pair nicely demonstrated by ‘Dan’ – ‘Dan’ will now suddenly turn and bethump dear “Jim” with a sharp epithetical: as far as ‘Dan’ can see it’s “Jim” and myself who are two peas in a pod because “Jim” is “an atheist” and I am “a heathen liar” (since anybody who doesn’t buy ‘Dan’s masquerade is automatically a “heathen”, at least in the eyes of ‘Dan’s own little densely-delusioned religion).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1121PM:
‘Dan’ then suddenly turns back and now confides to “Jim” that ‘Dan’ finds the JR abuse chronicles to be credible because … JR doth “seem to be honest” and after serious consideration ‘Dan’ has decided that JR has “nothing to gain” from those abuse chronicles “if they are not true”.
The Brooklyn Bridge is clearly no longer for sale; ‘Dan’ has purchased it himself.
Readers may judge for themselves if the ‘Dan’ they have seen demonstrated consistently in the record here is in conceivable any way a person “enjoying” a “life” that is unimaginably suffused with “peace, love and happiness”. ‘Dan’s right: such a possibility would indeed be “unimaginable” unless one were pretty far gone around the delusional bend.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1121PM:
But – and here’s a fine example of the slyness with which this manipulative delusional system has been constructed – ‘Dan’ wasn’t “sent here” – doncha see? – to demonstrate any of that “peace, love and happiness” but instead – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttt? – has been “sent here”, rather, to “warn” about the “doom” that “awaits”.
So – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ gets to be full of peace and love and so on, but we don’t get to see any actual demonstration or evidence of that because he was “sent here” to demonstrate precisely the violence and ragey bits that are the actual engines of his rants and whackeries. Neato.
And then, marvelously, ‘Dan’ again suddenly does a 180 and bethumps “Jim” with that Parthian epithetical shot: “Poor Jim”.
But wait. It gets even better.
On the 19th at 1143PM ‘Dan’ doth declare, declaim and pronounce that he doesn’t “preach on street corners, standing on milk crates” or any such thing. No? What got him arrested and involved with the law (and psychiatry) so many times then? He accosted people in front of church or on the street en route to church and he accosted kids in schoolyards.
The lack of “milk crates” (presuming he’s telling the truth about not needing to use them) simply indicates that his delusionality is sufficiently robust so as not to require those extra props.
Lies from blatant liars like yourself. I've never accosted anyone. Remember those are your lying assessments, not the truth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1143PM:
But wait. It gets even better.
He also claims that he doesn’t do or say stuff “as if [he were] the one holding the only direct line to the Father”. No? The self-styled “servant” or “Servant” who pronounces “doom” and has a “secret” and oh-so-speshull connection to God so very speshull that to doubt ‘Dan’ is to “mock God” … yet now goes for the idea that he doesn’t have that “only direct line”? Who else does, one wonders.
Short answer: anyone who agrees with all of ‘Dan’s stuff … but only for as long as they keep agreeing with all of ‘Dan’s stuff, because – doncha see? – if you agree with all of ‘Dan’s stuff then that ipso facto proves that you too have that “direct line” … and if not, not. Neato.
And don’t forget – ‘Dan’ adds in a final commercial for himself – it takes “a discerning mind” (which only ‘Dan’ has, doncha know?) “to distinguish between the true believers and the charlatans” (a thought ‘Dan’ should rehearse out loud and often in front of his bathroom mirror).
And once again, Satan's offspring, publiar, facing defeat returns to his mocking ignorance.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1256AM:
Here, ‘Dan’ will yet again try to evade the problems with his material by trying to plaster me with more stuff he has found somewhere in certain precincts of the internet: not being pleased with the fizzle of his “evil person” link, he has now dug up some form of internet “exorcist” and – by amazing coincidence – has found a video accurately describing me as surely as his own delusional rants accurately convey the sense of his many Scriptural pericopes.
So from “evil” to some form of “the Devil” or whatever.
Who here has carried on as if he were “the master” of the interpretation of the Bible, even styling himself as if he were the oh-so-speshull “servant” with that “direct line” to God? Who has issued “warning” of “doom” – in God’s name, no less – to those who doubt and question his stuff? Who here doth engage in all forms of demonstrated “manipulation”?
You!!!
And by the way, I understand your reading comprehension problems, but think you should be able to realize who posts what on this forum. JR posted the "evil person" link and I just named you "evil personified". I don't agree though that the link has lost it's "fizzle", and the picture sure did look like you. Maybe Jim can post it again to refresh your memory.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1256AM:
The only thing to which ‘Dan’s performances here doesn’t necessarily conform is “lie”, and only because there remains a robust possibility that ‘Dan’ is so seriously delusional as to escape the taint of “compulsive liar” only by means of the insanity defense.
And his comment trails off in the final paragraph with further riffing on ‘Dan’s grossly problematic (but oh so self-serving) ‘interpretation’ of that “exorcist”s presentation.
Whatever!
Does anybody know what David Clohessy is doing these days?. The reason I ask is that can see a possible job opening for him in Hollywood?. Yeah… I am being cynical. We know he baled out of SNAP, earlier this year, shortly before a lawsuit (from a former SNAP employee). The revelations now coming out of Tinsel Town made me think of him.. and his talents. If you read some of the sensational allegations being made, it is a potential gold mine for victims. And apparently sexual abuse also exists in the music industry, according to Justin B. and Katy P. However we must not discount the worrying implications of these allegations. But couldn't help thinking that all David Clohessy has to do now…. is to say that the acronym SNAP actually always meant… "Survivors Network of those Abused by Producers."
Interesting observation Malcolm. Very perceptive.
If SNAP's what you think it is why isn't Clohessy showing up here in Hollywood?
I'll tell you why because SNAP was never about getting victims monied compensation. It was about protecting church money.
Now if a known "pro" victims group which opened it's doors to other religion's victims doesn't come to Hollywood and preach? It only tells you one thing. They don't give a rat's ass about money or helping victims get money. (PlusThe church's abuse was of children. Not young adults at work) But that's no reason why SNAP shouldn't expand. I'd love for SNAP to help Hollywood lawyers the way they nhelped us. They'd be shown the door in a tick.
They, SNAP and friends, were created,as I have always told you they were, to protect the Catholic church's rulers,
first last and always.
Publiar, Can you be more wrong? I'm not looking for one person to agree with my "stuff", as you so rudely repeat it. If I'm asking for readers to look to the Word and set yourself free from the lies of this world, how is this "self-serving"? You are so consistently manipulating in asking readers to believe your ignorant accusations against someone who actually cares for them and the fate of their souls. Why must you continually be so wicked with your accusations against me. Does your evilness bring you peace, love and happiness, because apparently it does. Never thought the devil and his workers could be so evil and deceiving and hate to see others succeed in life. You are one sad specimen of humanity. servant of Christ
I asked a simple question and you feel you have to get your pantyhose all tied up in knots.
Somehow, Jim, you're under the impression that those who claim they are christian, including catholics, are the real and true Christians in this world. That's like saying those who claim to be moral are truly the moral people in this world. Those commenting in this forum should prove to you otherwise. I can't answer to whether atheists are moral or not, but to answer your question, No, I don't believe you are the poster child of morality, IMHO. I do believe atheists can possess a form of worldly intelligence, but the fact that they're unwilling to acknowledge the God of all Creation, doesn't to me demonstrate any form of brilliance. I again wouldn't be qualified to state whether Buddhists are immoral in general, but do believe their religion to be a farse. An obese glutton leaves his young family (and 1 year old baby) to go find enlightenment? I call that a deadbeat dad. Look at all the gold, temples and idolatry connected to their beliefs, in close competition to "the Church" in that regards. I've personally known practicing Buddhists who claimed to be minimalists, while sporting designer clothing and the latest in tech gadgets.
Let's get something straight. God loves the sinner but hates the hypocrite. He wants us to be honest with Him and admit to our faults. If you believe that you are the picture of morality in this forum, then just like publiar, I think you've been terribly deceived. God does accept us unconditionally, but when we realize the sinful lives we lead, and can't deal with the troubles we've brought upon ourselves and seek His guidance and forgiveness, there will be a change in our thoughts and lives. We will not continue in our immorality and think, well God loves us so there is no need to change our lifestyle. Your disbelief and obvious hatred of God, will never be of benefit to your life or your morals.
It absolutely amazes me that after I defended and believed your stories, you feel it necessary to attack me with the blatant lies of publiar, insinuating that I was "scaring kids with eternal pain to steer them towards God's love…" And like I asked publiar, were you there to witness these actions? You believe a compulsive liar who witnessed nothing, over the truth from one whom you don't care to hear the truth. I HAVE NEVER IN ANY WAY SCARED ONE SINGLE CHILD WITH ETERNAL PAIN TO STEER THEM TOWARDS GOD'S LOVE. To say so is ridiculous, but I do think I've scared some of the babies in this forum, and have yet to hear anything more than their insistent crying and complaining about how mean I am to their phony, corrupt religion. Do you even have a clue how many babies and children they have scared and brainwashed with beliefs that will earn them Hell's Fire? Wake up Jim! Figure out who the deceivers and creeps are who are responsible for much of the evil in this world, and quit thinking they are any example of Christians of any type. I think you blame God for all their nastiness and wickedness. You would be dead wrong to think he's responsible. I think your desire for their dirty money has clouded your thinking.
And I was not born with the "correct God". I was born, lived and believed in the catholic god and was a false god, goddess and saint worshipper for the majority of my younger years (23). In my search for several years and increase in maturity, I started making my own decisions and turned my back on all the false religions I had experienced. Another of publiars many lies, no church ever kicked me out. I left when I realized that none of them were truly following God or the few things He asks of true believers. Maybe you could learn something from this, but changing and following Him is not easy. All the hounds of Hell will come after you, as I have explained the lies and liars that have attacked me, and you have also witnessed here.
"Wide and easy the road that leads to destruction and many follow it's wicked paths. Narrow and difficult the way to Him and few will ever find it."
I’ll go down the list of recent comments by the pea-pod pair in the order they appear on the site; although some of them are so clearly content-less one-liner attempts at mere come-back that they don’t require comment or refutation.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 140AM:
Here – a) faced with the fact that the terms ‘Catholic’ and or ‘Church’ don’t appear in the Biblical texts and b) faced with my submission that ‘Dan’ (following the old fundie trail) has to impose a layer of his own ‘interpretation’ in order to shoehorn Biblical texts into his agenda – ‘Dan’ will here and now … merely insist yet again that for all practical purposes his imposed layer is part of the Scriptural text itself.
And how does he deal with the glaring and lethal (to his agenda) problem that those two terms don’t appear anywhere in the texts and pericopes? Easy-peezy: Catholicism and the Church are indeed in there but … they are just “not mentioned by name”. To the rational human eye and mind they’re invisible – doncha see? – but easily visible to ‘Dan’ with his ‘knowledge’ and ‘wisdom’ and speshull direct-line and with those speshull spiritual x-ray glasses and the deputy-dawg badge he found at the bottom of this and that cereal box.
"catholicism" and "the church" aren't mentioned in Biblical texts because they hadn't even yet existed, lending credence to the obvious fact that Peter was never your first pope. To peewee intellect this would mean they were "invisible". Having been often accused of misinterpreting and manipulating Bible verse, we'll see how poorly I handle that slur. Peewee ends with more larded on mocking – "The Lord…sent word to them again and again by His messengers…, but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed at the prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, until there was no remedy." 1 Chron. 36:15-16 Notice how peewee "continually mocks" in the last paragraph and consistently daily. He thinks now if he omits God then it's not mocking. STUPID IDIOT
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 140AM:
He then tries – as if he hasn’t ever tried before – to slip by readers some of his prior claims from his 3×5 pile, especially the howler about “the Catechism” and Church “teaching and worship of Mary”.
So I point out yet again: the Catechism and Church teaching precisely do not say that Mary is a divinity and precisely do assert her humanity. And again, the relevant text in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is to be found Part I, Article 9, Paragraph 6 (entitled “Mary – Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church”), Sections 963 to 975.
There is a difference between ‘reverence’ and ‘worship’, a difference that is fatal to the ‘Dan’/fundie scare-visions, which is why they strive mightily to ignore it and distract from it.
But ‘Dan’ is a delusional with a self-serving agenda and if he doesn’t have his spew then he’s got nothing.
Continuing with my Bible lesson for the seriously dense and unlearned. The Word says,
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans (heathens), for they think they will be heard because of their many repetitions." Matt. 6:7 Hail Mary, Hail Mary, Hail Mary, etc. etc. etc. But were the catholic church and we follow our catechism and don't obey the Bible.
"And call NO man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." But were "the Church" and make our own rules. Our popes are Christ on earth, and our priests are little Christs, so we can call them Holy Father and Father, because we don't need to follow God's Rules. We'll even make our underlings bow down to us and kiss our gold rings, but don't ever say it's worship.
More Biblical sound teaching – Matt. 23:9 (cont. from above) In other words no human should have Titles assigned to them. But lets not forget that "the church" doesn't have to follow Bible truth, because we've made our own book ("the catechism") which supersedes God's Word. This allows us to give Titles to humans, Mary "Queen of Heaven", absolutely defying the Creators Book. Why stop there; Mother of God, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church, Mother of the Dead, Mother of the Damned, Mother of Compulsive Liars, etc.etc.etc.), and God doesn't care or know!
Isaiah 44:9-20 , states in fine detail that there should be no making of statues, praying or bowing down to them. It's OK, we're the catholic church with our own book and we name churches after our "Queen" and make statues of her in every race and color, because we don't worship her, we only "reverence", "adore", "honor" and "venerate" her. And with that we're able to pray and bow down to her, because we make our own rules. Who does the Almighty God thinks he is telling us we can't do something? TIP for catholics – Find the synonym for "reverence, adore, honor and venerate" and you'll see WORSHIP under every definition. Extra research read Jeremiah chapter 44 – Worship of a false goddess named the "Queen of Heaven", and how God condemned the idolators who burned incense to their false goddess.
Rev. 17:4-9 – Describes in fine detail Babylon (which "the Church" claims is Rome), this idolatrous greedy cult, dressed in purple and scarlet red, decked with riches of gold, precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup (gold chalice) in her hand filled with abominations and filthiness of her fornication (child molestaion by pedophiles, pederasts and perverts). Catholics, are you going to allow "the Church" and publiar tell you that this is not the description of your cult? Well since He claims I now own the Brooklyn Bridge, I'm more than oblidged to hire him as my hypocrite lying troll to live down in the slimy pit, muck and the mire. You'll finally have the home of your dreams, LIAR.
Catholics, if your not satisfied that Rev.17 is the description of your church, then look at the next chapter, the destruction of Babylon Rome, Rev.18:7 and 9, "Here I sit, a queen [as in "Queen of Heaven"]". "The kings of the earth who took part in HER IMMORALITY and LUST will cry and weep for the city when they see the smoke from the flames that consume HER." 10) "How terrible! How awful! This great and mighty city Babylon!" Do you catholics know a greater and more powerful entity than the Vatican in Rome. Oh yeah! San Francisco, little Sodom and Gomorrah, so close to Rome's perversions and perverts that they named their city after Rome, the city of seven hills (refer to Rev.17:9).
Cont. from above – Still not convinced catholics? Rev. 18:11-14 The merchants of the earth also shall weep and mourn over HER; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all kinds of rare woods, and all kinds of objects made of ivory and expensive woods, of bronze, iron, and marble, and cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, and frankincense, wine and oil, fine flour and wheat, cattle and sheep, horses and chariots, slaves, and even human lives. And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee… 17) And the merchants, ship captains, sailors and passengers and all others who earn their living on the sea, stood a long way off, and cried out as they saw the smoke from the flames that consumed HER: "There never has been another city like this great city!"
If your still not convinced that this describes Vatican City and all it's wealth, then I'm beginning to understand how they have blindfolded and brainwashed you and have full control over your mind. Have you never seen St. Peter Basilica, Vatican city, during one of their pompous ceremonies. "The church" drowns themselves in most all of the riches mentioned above. Why allow a hypocrite compulsive liar convince you that I'm some crazed lunatic who knows nothing, while he falsely accuses, slanders and lies, sporting all the attributes of his father, Satan. Read the Bible yourself and then you can decide who is the manipulating and deceiving liar of this forum.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1000AM:
Here he tries to have something to say while evading the point I made, and thus tries to assert that I am “the dog of that fight”. Meaning – as best can be inferred – that if ‘Dan’s and JR’s stuff weren’t questioned, then all the problems ‘Dan’ and JR are having here would simply go away (and they could go on happily playing in their respective sandboxes until the sand runs out).
But wait. There’s more.
Consulting his pile, ‘Dan’ finds that there is a ‘dog’ reference in the Bible. So of course he’s going to try to shoehorn that into the mix here, so as to spackle up his stuff with the appearance of Scriptural authority.
Since ‘Dan’ feeds off nothing but his delusions and the molten mess deep inside himself, then the ‘dog’ pericope can rather nicely describe him.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1000AM:
Onto which bit he then lards further that I “rarely correctly challenge any of [his] appropriate quotes from the Bible”. His quotes fail in his conceptual attempt to apply and impose his interpretations on them, not in his actual typing out of the quotes. Just as his bit attempting to impose an alleged divinity on Mary is an utterly inaccurate reading of the text of the Catechism.
The only way my material is ‘incorrect’ is that it obstructs ‘Dan’s manipulative and delusional agenda that he is seeking to impose on the texts and on the readers (under pain of some God’ll-getcha “doom” and of “mocking God” and so on and so forth).
Which is also the agenda that insists on passing-itself-off as “the truths of God”, when really it is merely the poisonous fruit of ‘Dan’s delusion-poisoned mental tree.
Oh, and there’s a P.S. in which he simply tries – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttttt? – to run his old I’m Not/You Are bit again.
On then to JR’s of the 21st at 1202AM:
Here, JR tries to shoehorn his epitheticals from both sides: a) he doth agree with ‘Dan’ that JR and myself are more similar than ‘Dan’ and myself (readers may consider that bit as they will), but then b) he quickly asserts that … he and I aren’t really that similar at all.
Now that may seem a rather grossly illogical and manipulative rhetorical bit of hornswoggle from JR and who can be surprised?
But wait. The kicker that constitutes the method in his madness here now quickly follows: he’s come up with some aphoristic cutesy-bit from somewhere and he’s put up the preceding bits just to provide some sort of platform for it.
Readers may consider and judge as they will regarding how “moral” JR is. I am “immoral”, of course, because I have exposed JR’s stuff for what it is and in JR’s little world if you get in his way then you are, of course, ipso facto “immoral” (and thus – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttt? – you victimize him with such ‘immorality’).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1039AM where we get another just-entre-nous bit between the pod-mates in which ‘Dan’ reveals the speshull secret knowledge that he – ‘Dan’ – is “speaking the truth about their false religion”. Yah.
And thus the comment proceeds to regurgitate more of ‘Dan’s usual spew points.
But wait. There’s more.
On the 22nd at 124AM ‘Dan’ now claims that he is “not looking for one person to agree with [his] ‘stuff’”. No? Pronouncing “doom” and insisting that to question ‘Dan’ is to “mock God” and all that? Insisting that even though he can’t back up his scare-visions with actual words from the Bible texts he claims are crystal-clear yet he must be taken as “speaking the truth”?
All he’s “asking” – doncha see? – is that readers “look to the Word” … as long as it’s ‘Dan’s take on the Word and nothing else, of course.
He then tries another run with his I’m Not/You Are gambit, saying that it is I who am “consistently manipulating” and – emergency popcorn alert – that ‘Dan’, the poor decent thing, is merely “someone who actually cares for [readers] and for the fate of their souls”.
‘Dan’ cares for nothing but his own self-serving delusional agenda. The integrity of Scripture, the demands of rationality and coherence and logic and evidence, even the sovereign majesty of God mean nothing to him except as props and pieces in his assorted delusional scenarios, his bleats and brays and threats and whimpers.
‘Malcolm Harris’ (the 21st at 819PM) raises an interesting possibility. I recall some years ago discovering that SNAP had re-purposed itself as an organization dedicated now to stamping out oppression and victimization of all sorts all around the world … which told me that the Stampede must be slowing down noticeably (which it was doing and has done).
It will indeed be interesting to see how all this recent Hollywood brouhaha plays out. Most interesting of all will be to observe whether the torties decide that there’s gold in them thar’ hills and go for a Stampede against the deep-pockets of the many Hollywood defendants, both individuals and studios and all the ancillary organizations in the industry.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Malcolm Harris’s of the 21st at 819PM:
I don’t think that’s going to happen, certainly not at the level of organizational sophistication the torties deployed against the Church.
Hollywood is part of the tight web of ‘Families’ (as in old-time Mob Families): torties, politicians, celebrities and the whole Hollywood system, media and PR flak types, assorted interest groups and ‘advocates’. And for one Family (the torties, say) to go after one of the other Families (the celebrities and the Hollywood system, say), and maybe wind up accidentally dragging in the other Families too … that seems greatly unwise.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Malcolm Harris’s of the 21st at 819PM:
But then again: the Victimist script – especially when it comes to women and sexual abuse – is so strong that it may develop a life of its own. It is, after all, a huge opportunity for various advocates and interest groups, but such a dynamic may spiral so intensely that none of the Families can control it once it gets away from them.
But Mr. Clohessy has many problems of his own at this point and whether SNAP wants to try to rejuvenate itself by riding the back of so dangerous a tiger is yet to be determined. Perhaps – though – Bishop-Accountablity might want to expand its scope and start up a list of accused celebrities and all the rest of its organizational shtick.
Whenever JR offers a compliment (e.g. “very perceptive”) to a non-Abusenik you know you’re watching a web being spun.
Thus we have JR’s of the 22nd at 539PM:
The scam here is this: by proclaiming MH’s comment (the 21st at 819PM) to be “very perceptive”, JR can now piggy-back his own whacko ‘theory’ onto MH’s comment, as if MH ‘very perceptively’ sussed out something not only a) in the Hollywood-Clohessy observation but also – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – b) in JR’s whacko TCC (Total Church Conspiracy) ‘theory’.
Thus then JR – wearing the Wig of Total Knowledge (sorta like ‘Dan’s only without the divinely-authorized thingamajig on top) – will “tell” us (because – doncha see? – JR just ‘knows’ this stuff and you doubt him only at the peril of mocking God; oops, nope, wrong pea in the pod; you mock him only at the risk of mocking JR – which to JR is the ultimate sin for which a shotgun is the only just response).
Continuing with my comment on JR”s of the 22nd at 539PM:
Thus SNAP was “never about getting victims monied compensation” – doncha see?.
Rather, it was all about “protecting church money”. Well, except for that 4 billion or so, including the million JR collected – minus attorney’s fees; the horror! – for his various versions of his story. And why quibble over mere numbers; a million here, a few billion there – what’s the diff?
Then the fourth paragraph of the comment opens with a non-grammatical non-sentence; which with JR is always a sign and signal that he’s up to something and his mind is having trouble keeping things straight.
And the rest of that paragraph trails off in a riffy muzz of disconnected bits that again simply signals that JR really isn’t in control of his material or even his thoughts on the matter. But he’s a plop-tosser and he’s tossing so he’s happy.
And then – apropos of utterly nothing that has gone before it in the comment – JR simply tosses up, yet again, his usual and scheduled ‘conclusion’. Tah-dahhhhhh.
And there we have JR, “first last and always”.
I'm not done, Jim, but the computer gave that error and gobbled my last post. Had enough of dealing with the nonsense for right now, but might add the rest later.
Got that Error 403 again, and assume God just doesn't want me wasting my time trying to help those who don't really think they need help or just might be beyond His help. I give up!
It would appear that we have a sequence of comments from ‘Dan’ (the 23rd at 1239PM, 103PM and 122PM) that are commenting on some of JR’s recent stuff.
That dogfight can go on as it may.
But there are a couple of interesting points to note that reveal more of the operational bits comprising ‘Dan’s self-deluding system.
First, in the 1239PM comment, we note ‘Dan’s declaring that in this world there are a) “those who claim they are christian” and then there are b) “the real and true Christians in this world” (meaning – had you been waitttinggg forrrr ittttt? – ‘Dan’ and maybe some others).
Thus ‘Dan’ can easily evade and dismiss objections from any merely masquerading “christians” because he is – doncha see? – one of the “real and true Christians”. (And that status – doncha see? – enables him to clearly distinguish category (a) from category (b) … which primarily consists of himself and maybe some others who – of course – have proven their genuine Christian creds by agreeing with him.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1239PM:
Second, there is one of ‘Dan’s favorite accusations, i.e. “hypocrite”. God – doncha see? – “loves the sinner but hates the hypocrite”. A rational mind might quickly ask: doesn’t “hypocrite” fall – at least to some large extent – under the larger category of “sinner”?
But – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ is using this “hypocrite” bit for a very speshull ‘Dan’-purpose: being a heroic and truthy prophet – as his bathroom mirror hath revealed unto him – then he is thus the veritable scourge of hypocrites – especially if he can come up with ways of making his preferred targets look like they are hypocrites (thus we get his ludicrous bits about Catholics worshipping Mary as a god and the Eucharistic Host as being some sort of pagan disc or sun worship).
‘Dan’, meanwhile, is not a hypocrite because he only truthfully and heroically insists upon the “truth” that has been revealed unto him in those bathroom-mirror séances and so on.
And here we have another fine display of peewee's mocking and his obsession with toilets.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1239PM:
This dynamic is also at work in ‘Dan’ curious and odd epithetical about “cowardice”; how – after all – does that work conceptually?
There is an answer to that question, and the manner of it is on this wise: ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – is not a ranting, delusional loon with a record as long as your arm for accosting people. Noooooo. Rather he – among very very few others – is a heroic and truthy proclaimer of God’s Will and Word (and “doom”), while anyone who isn’t out there ranting and accosting is just a tepid and probably hypocritical pretend-Christian.
In this schematic, prudence and careful consideration are just other words for “cowardice” (making ‘Dan’, obviously, the very soul of courageous and truthy genuine Christianity – as his bathroom mirror hath revealed unto him).
In all this we hear an echo of the old 1960s psychiatric jiu-jitsu of such types as Szasz and Foucault to the effect that it is really the crazy who are sane and the sane who are crazy and therefore the crazy are always oppressed by the sane. The ‘Dan’-verse variant is: it is really the crazy who are genuine and heroic and truthy Christians and the sane and normal Christians who are really only cowardly and fake Christians.
Oh! Did I make a mistake in describing you? An extremely immature "cowardass", and let's not forget whackjob.
publiar, You call blatant lying and insistent slandering of another "prudence and careful consideration"? You're really a class-ass. Oh. I'm sorry. Did I mean class-act. NO! I meant lack of class-ass. servant of the Lord, and don't you forget it.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1239PM:
And we also get this bit about ‘Dan’ actually proclaiming that “God does accept us unconditionally”. Very nice. However, then, any sinner is also going to have to jump through the condition-hoops that ‘Dan’ – for the purposes of his own delusional agenda – has set up.
God’s salvific net – doncha see? – is woven far too loosely for ‘Dan’s taste and purposes, allowing too many fish into the salvation-boat; ‘Dan’ uses a speshull net more suited to his purposes and agenda, while insisting that it’s still God’s net.
Ya don’t think so? Ooooooh – God’ll getcha for that!
I'm perfectly satisfied with the size of God's net. Sorry that it won't be big enough for consistently compulsive liars and perverts from "the false Church". Don't forget, "Narrow is the way to heaven and few will ever find it." His words, not mine, deceiving hypocrite.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 103PM:
With a sublime and useful clarity, ‘Dan’ demonstrates a dynamic I have always held to be operative in the Stampede mentality, i.e. the old ‘You believe my story and don’t question it and I’ll believe your story and won’t question it’ bit.
Thus, after all ‘Dan’s going to the trouble to ‘defend’ and ‘believe’ JR’s “stories”, here JR goes and backs out on the deal by going after ‘Dan’s “stories”. The horror! A stunning violation of the Code of the Pod.
Anyway – ‘Dan’ further and yet again lards on – “nobody was there to witness those actions” (i.e. that got him into trouble) and who cares what “a compulsive liar who witnessed nothing” thinks … ? Yet clearly there were a number of people who witnessed “those actions” (or were victims of “those actions”) and the legal system found their ‘witness’ to be credible. And ‘Dan’s own contortions in trying to spin his self-exculpatory claims on this site are something we have all seen and – if you wish – ‘witnessed’.
And how in any way whatsoever does ‘Dan’ actually know and how can he credibly claim that he has “never in any way scared one single child”, either with or without mentioning “eternal pain”? Readers here may realize how queasily unpleasant ‘Dan’ can be merely on the internet; is that queasy aspect going to be less when experienced in his physical presence and on the hoof? And by a child?
I'm not asking anyone to "believe my story and don't question it". All I ask is that readers don't accept the lies of a blatant liar in regards to my personal story. Regarding God's true story, I would hope many would read the Word, question it's truth as God allows and someday come to believe in Him and His generous gift of salvation through His Son.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 122PM:
He here claims that he “was not born with ‘the correct God’”, but instead spent his first 23 years in Catholicism … and then he found “the correct God” – doncha see? – when he “turned [his] back on all false religions” … all of which, apparently, he “had experienced”.
There are many possibilities contained in this bit and who knows how and why it happened (assuming the story here is generally accurate).
But surely one possibility is this: by that age ‘Dan’ (who may well have been one of those ‘does not work well with others’ types, as the old Catholic report cards used to say) realized that he wasn’t working well with any congregants of any religion and then … his bathroom mirror offered him a seductive alternative.
And it was religious Kowabunga time from then on. His Bible-board was waxed and tossed into the fundie surf (which, of course, is always up) and he has never looked back (or any more closely at himself in that already-crowded bathroom mirror).
It's obviously apparent that little peewee received many of those "old catholic report cards" stating he "doesn't work well with other(sic) types". Don't try to lay your clinical projection crap on me. How do you know I didn't work well with any congregants? OH! That's right, you were also there at all the churches I attended and are able to assess how well I got along with others, just like your lying assessments in regards to how I treat children. This is why, among many other reasons, you are an ignorant lying stupid fool. I even made friends with some of the parishioners of your cult, while "the church" hierarchy and corrupt cop was falsely accusing me. Just shows how much you know, you deceiving hypocrite creep.
And more seductive toilet conversations there, peewee "Kowabunga". And you still don't know why I consider you an immature little crybaby? Grow up!!
In his most recent crop, ‘Dan’ has been reduced to simply regurgitating, yet again, from his 3×5 pericope pile, larding it all thickly with his own ‘take’, which he sneaks in as if it were part of the Scriptural content itself.
We proceed.
On the 24th at 1003PM ‘Dan’ manages to get two howlers into one sentence, that being the first sentence of the comment.
First – and apparently with a sense of triumph – ‘Dan’ points out that the terms ‘Catholicism’ and ‘the Church’ “aren’t mentioned in the Bible because they hadn’t even yet existed”. Well then – and as I had been saying – the terms don’t appear in the Bible (certainly not in the Old Testament, although one has to consider with some care the use of Greek terms like ‘koinonia’ and ‘ekklesia’, inter alia, in the New Testament).
So if the terms don’t appear in the Bible because – as ‘Dan’ says – those entities (i.e. Catholicism and the Church) didn’t at the time exist, then how does ‘Dan’ make such assertions about Catholicism and the Church as he so often does? To assert that it all flows from the fact that ‘Dan’ declares this or that pericope to be “prophecy” doesn’t solve his imposed-take problem, since ‘Dan’ is making rather large presumptions and assumptions from what is essentially … not to put too fine a point on it – nothing but his own preferences.
In his most recent crop, ‘Dan’ has been reduced to simply regurgitating, yet again, from his 3×5 pericope pile, larding it all thickly with his own ‘take’, which he sneaks in as if it were part of the Scriptural content itself.
We proceed.
On the 24th at 1003PM ‘Dan’ manages to get two howlers into one sentence, that being the first sentence of the comment.
First – and apparently with a sense of triumph – ‘Dan’ points out that the terms ‘Catholicism’ and ‘the Church’ “aren’t mentioned in the Bible because they hadn’t even yet existed”. Well then – and as I had been saying – the terms don’t appear in the Bible (certainly not in the Old Testament, although one has to consider with some care the use of Greek terms like ‘koinonia’ and ‘ekklesia’, inter alia, in the New Testament).
So if the terms don’t appear in the Bible because – as ‘Dan’ says – those entities (i.e. Catholicism and the Church) didn’t at the time exist, then how does ‘Dan’ make such assertions about Catholicism and the Church as he so often does? To assert that it all flows from the fact that ‘Dan’ declares this or that pericope to be “prophecy” doesn’t solve his imposed-take problem, since ‘Dan’ is making rather large presumptions and assumptions from what is essentially … not to put too fine a point on it – nothing but his own preferences.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1003PM:
And it is equally possible – and actually even probable – that the OT references are to then-current or then-recently historical pagan kingdoms and practices that would have been well known to the Israelites and/or Jews of the era in which a particular OT Book was first developed.
On then to the second howler in the first sentence, wherein ‘Dan’ then tries to ‘logically’ conclude from that first bit of frakkery “the obvious fact that Peter was never your first pope”. How he gets from the first whackery to this second whackery is not clear.
The Gospel texts clearly state that Peter was declared the “rock” upon which Jesus would build His church (often referred to as the Apostolic or Great Commission) and was assigned the power of the keys (to bind or loose sins). When Peter died what happened to the Apostolic Commission and the power of the keys given to Peter by Christ? It was held that the responsibility and authority Christ vested in Peter had to be passed to whomever succeeded Peter and took over Peter’s role.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1003PM:
That is the theological and Scriptural core of the role of what came to be known as the Pope or the papal Office.
If – as is ‘Dan’s only alternative here – the Great Commission and the power of the keys was a ‘one off’ that Christ only gave to Peter personally and that expired when Peter died, then ‘Dan’ is stuck with the scenario in which Christ apparently gave Peter the Great Commission and the power of the keys for no good reason whatsoever except maybe a personal compliment, and the Gospel writers had merely gone to the trouble of recording this bromance-y little episode for the heck of it.
As usual, ‘Dan’s chops extend only as far as the fundie whackery which he has borrowed; the deeper implications of theology and the Gospel texts themselves are utterly beyond him.
With a blithely marvelous ignorance, then, considering the howlers he has just put up, ‘Dan’ will (the 24th at 1102PM) impart yet more – emergency popcorn alert – “Biblical sound teaching”.
If the words of Jesus are to be taken literally in Matt. 23:9, then Jesus has formally forbidden a child calling his/her biological male parent “father”. Does ‘Dan’ hold with that? It’s “in the Bible”.
What we see here is a fine little example of the complications of taking a saying literally without careful consideration. Careful consideration here would clearly indicate that Jesus didn’t mean to forbid the calling of the male biological parent ‘father’, and so … what does the Scriptural thinker do at that point?
Ditto, with “teachers”. What to call those adults in grade-school and high-school?
On the basis of that fundie foolishness which ‘Dan’ has adopted for his own purposes (i.e. constituting his own little church-of-one) ‘Dan’ then riffs on further for the rest of that paragraph.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1102PM:
Digging further into his pile, ‘Dan’ then introduces Isaiah 44: 9-20. Here, Isaiah states the point in verse 6: The Lord says “there is no God but me”. Thus – starting in verse 9 – the passage goes on about “idols”. And – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttt? – we are thus right back with ‘Dan’s utterly baseless bit about Catholicism raising up “idols” (Mary and so forth). We’ve been all over this dreck of ‘Dan’s before.
And on the basis of that baseless bit of his, ‘Dan’ riffs on further, regurgitating his usual old ranting stuff yet again.
He’s going to rely on a thesaurus, which is hardly a precise instrument. But it suits his agenda and he’s happy with it. Word-game, word-play and nothing more.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1138PM:
And now for ‘Dan’ wading into the Book of Revelation yet again.
The passage deals with Babylon – a historical realm well known to the Jews living in the era of the Roman imperium when the Book was composed. Clearly the author of this passage wished to draw a connection between Babylon of the past and the Rome of the present, because in verse 9 (“Here is a clue for one who has wisdom”, it begins) the text connects the Whore of Babylon to the “seven hills”, which clearly refers to the Roman capital with its still-extant seven hills.
So far so Scriptural.
But it has always been a favorite fantasy of fundies to quickly jump from Imperial Rome to the Vatican Rome of a much later era. It provides a nice rhetorical pizzazz: the Great Whore of Babylon is tied to (Imperial) Rome which – and here’s the baseless jump – is tied to Catholic or Vatican Rome.
But that last bit, that baseless jump, is not in the text. It’s only in the fever-visions of the fundies and ‘Dan’.
And ‘Dan’ then goes on to lard on the usual fever-visions.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1138PM:
And on the baseless basis of all that, ‘Dan’ will then address himself with a stentorian bray to “Catholics”, basing his authoritative bray on the whackery we have just seen regarding Revelation 17.
The rest of it deals with material ascribed in the text to the Whore of Bablyon. (And – on top of all the rest of his witless and repellent frakkery – does ‘Dan’ here insist on ascribing to Mary “immorality” and “lust” … ??? )
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1208AM:
And more of the same, all yet again based on the baseless ‘Dan’-fundie conflation of Babylon with Catholic Rome rather than with Imperial Rome.
At the conclusion of which, having set himself up in the first paragraph by asking “Still not convinced catholics?”, iin the second paragraph ‘Dan’ almost embarrassingly bleats “if your [sic] still not convinced …”.
The only convincing aspect of his entire performance in this sequence is that he has witlessly embraced the abysmally dubious fundie whackery and has built his own delusional agenda upon it. That much is irrefutably convincing.
In another fine display of repetitive publiar manipulation, deception and utter ignorance, the deceiving liar extraordinaire thinks he can throw in a couple of greek words('koinonia' and 'ekklesia'), as if to infer that these words refer to "catholicism" and "the church". On the contrary, "The Greek word ekklesia has been translated by such words as 'assembly', 'church', congregation'. In none of the occurences does it refer to a material building but always to created beings." Gilmour, W. - Publiar just refuses to realize that church in the Bible never refers to "the catholic church" or any religions with their manmade temples of idolatry. Church refers to the gathering of believers, and could never mean the assemblage of hypocrites, perverts and blatant compulsive liars.
Although "the Church" thinks of itself as Christian, nothing could be further from the truth. Christianity started with Christ and the Apostles, and catholicism has no part or claim to true, righteous or pure Christianity. Peter was never considered or spoken of as a pope, and that's why vatican, catholicism, "the church", cardinal, Mary worship, and all the rest of false catholic terms not mentioned in the Word. They absolutely had no existence during Biblical times. Read Matthew 23 and see how most all of the chapter refers to the hypocritical teachings of your cult. Plain as day, I stated that Matt. 23:9 was referring to not ascribing to anyone "Titles", of which your church gives "Titles" to everyone in the hierarchy. You think you're clever with your immature manipulations. Of course He wasn't against calling your male parent "father" or saying "teachers". To insinuate that is pure ignorance.
He then carries on to insist that it's "baseless" to claim that catholics worship Mary. When you make statues of a human being, pray to that statue, and bow down to the same, you are an idolator according to many verses of the Bible. Come at me with all your denials and manipulations and they are "baseless". When you must use the words "honor, reverence, adore and venerate" in your teachings, that only adds to the fact that it truly is worship. You don't even need to look it up in a "thesaurus". The deceiver later tries to claim that I ascribed "to Mary 'immorality' and 'lust'. Must you insist on being stupid? Rev.17:1-9 is the description of your church in every fine detail. Your cult is the "Whore of Babylon", and Mary hardly mentioned in the Bible, is not the same antichrist goddess that the catholic cult invented to worship.
In regards to your claim that the prophecy of Rev.17 and 18 refers to "Imperial Rome" and not "Vatican Rome", lets see if there's much difference. Imperial Rome crucified their enemies fed them to the lions. Catholic Vatican Rome only tied them to a stake and burned them to death or boiled enemies in hot oil. How religious of them. Let's see. Pagan Rome had hierarchy, cowards, orgies, pedophilia, perverts, drunkards, greediness and charlatans. The pagan clone called catholicism has all the above traits and your favorite, compulsive liars. Your cult is todays "Great Whore of Babylon". Stop the denials, LIAR.
On the 25th at 105PM ‘Dan’ will try to wave away my ‘does not work well with others’ point by running his old I’m Not/You Are gambit, merely declaring that “it’s obviously apparent” that it was I who received such notations on my report card.
Whenever ‘Dan’ declares that something is crystal clear and “obviously apparent” to him, one must consider oneself forewarned and should reach for popcorn forthwith.
He has been from an early age unable to retain membership in any religious congregation; he considers himself surrounded by “liars” (as being the only reason for his lengthy court record); he has finally set up for all practical purposes his own religion-of-one; and his arrests have all stemmed from his fear-inducing confrontations of people (especially Catholics – both adults and children) that are by his own report the result of – to put it far too gently – the assorted confrontations he created.
What’s interesting here is how such types cawn’t think how their ‘issues’ (to put it far too gently) are visible to others and how their efforts to ‘control the narrative’ they prefer fail to keep those ‘issues’ invisible to others. But that’s what a nice tight delusional system will get you.
We proceed then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 131AM:
‘Dan’ apparently has something in his pile about the two Greek terms and so he has glommed onto them for his riffing.
‘Dan’ is upset by my mentioning those Greek terms; but they are necessary to the point at hand since – as I said – their presence and their definition requires that “one has to use some care” in assessing their presence and meaning in the texts.
To give himself something to rant and riff about, ‘Dan’ here has to claim that I am trying to imply (he wrongly uses the term “infer” here) that I am using the words as some sort of evidence or proof; but as I had said, the presence of the terms in the text require “some care” … and that’s all I said.
Nor did I ever get into the question of any specific or actual ‘church’ building; but ‘Dan’ apparently has that bit on one of his copied 3x5s and so he tosses it up.
But surely the terms refer to something more than merely “created beings”. They refer to “created beings” who have become believers in Christ and Christianity.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 131AM:
‘Dan’ then plows right on, declaring that “’church’ in the Bible never refers to “the catholic church”. Well, since in the New Testament the Greek terms ‘koinonia’ and ‘ekklesia’ cannot refer to “the catholic church” since the Church (as we know the term today) didn’t exist, then when did the New Testament ‘koinonia’ or ‘ekklesia’ suddenly stop being the community of Christ and suddenly became – not to put too fine a point on it – Catholic … ?
Was it during Peter’s lifetime? Was it when Christ’s Great Commission and power of the keys that were given to Peter were decided to have been passed on to the successor of Peter after Peter’s death and thus Peter’s successor was chosen …? Was it when ‘episkopoi’ were appointed to oversee the various Christian communities or ‘churches’? Or when those ‘episkopoi’ succeeded to the authority of the various Apostles who had dispersed and founded those communities or churches?
The fundies and ‘Dan’ don’t know and don’t much care to think about it. They have their cartoon fever-visions and that’s all they need to keep themselves and their shtick going.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 131AM:
And in the second paragraph, having distracted and evaded to his satisfaction, ‘Dan’ gets down to merely making more of his usual pronouncements, based on … nothing but his own agenda and so on.
Once again, he tries to deploy the fundie spin that there is nothing about “the Catholic Church” in any form in the New Testament. Well, there was no ‘church’ of any sort when Jesus was alive – so the fundie reliance on the Gospel texts is irrelevant; it was only after the death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus that His ‘church’ came into being, based on that Great Commission given to Peter in the Gospels.
One might go so far as to say that the full meaning of Jesus’ giving Peter the Great Commission did not dawn on the Apostles/Disciples until after He had Ascended – at which point they realized that with Christ now physically gone from this world they somehow, under the guidance of Peter, were now Christ’s ‘structure’, constituting the vessel that would continue His presence in the world.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 131AM:
And – in regard to the “Titles” point – did not Christ Himself give Peter the title of “Rock upon whom [He] would build [His] church” … ?
As to the logical problem with the fundie ‘calling no man father’ bit: ‘Dan’ merely waves it away by bleating that “of course He wasn’t against calling you male parent father”. “Of course”? Where does ‘Dan’ or any fundie get the basis and authority for that “of course” … ?
What we have here is merely another nicely vivid instance of the fundies and ‘Dan’ treating Scripture as their personal play-dough, to be bent or twisted into whatever shape they prefer.
Which is worse than any “pure ignorance”. It is deliberate and deceitful and evasive manipulation in the service of their own agenda.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 212AM:
Once again, ‘Dan’ tries to put a base under his “baseless” bits about Mary.
But – had you been waitttingggg forrrrr ittttttt? – to do so ‘Dan’ and the fundies have to create some bit that isn’t true.
Catholics do not “pray to” any “statue”; they pray to the person whom the statue represents. If that were not so, then any “statue” would be considered the actual incarnation and vessel (and thus “idol”) of that person – but there are innumerable statues in existence in Catholicism; they cannot all be the “idol”, if the ‘Dan’-fundie bit were to be taken as accurate.
And the statues – excluding those representing Christ – represent only human beings, and those human beings are seen as intercessors, now being in Heaven in the direct presence of God the Father and Christ. So that even in their present state (i.e. being in the direct presence of Christ and God the Father in Heaven) those saints represented by statues remain human.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 212AM:
As for the ‘thesaurus’ point: a thesaurus is merely a handy collection of possible alternative words. But the alternatives – especially in so specific a language as English – are not always merely precise synonyms.
Thus (using , for example, Roget’s Super Thesaurus, 2nd edition) the possible alternative terms for “worship” include “homage”, “reverence”, “devotion”, “veneration”, “honoring”, “admiration” as well as “idolization” and even “genuflection”.
But to anyone with some knowledge of English, these possible alternative terms do not at all mean the same thing. We can reverence the statue of Lincoln at the Memorial as a way of honoring and admiring what that President accomplished or stood-for without treating that statue as an “idol” and without “idolizing” that statue; honor guards might even salute (as happens at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) without treating the Tomb or the Unknown’s remains as an “idol”. So too with Borglum’s massive presidential heads carved into Mount Rushmore.
As it is with the Bible, so it is with the thesaurus: you have to know what you’re doing before you start declaiming about it.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 212AM:
As for Mary: is ‘Dan’ or is ‘Dan’ not equating her with the Biblical “Great Whore of Babylon”?
He will try to evade and wave-away that bit of his by claiming that “it’s just plain stupid”. Well, yes it is – that was my point.
As for the ‘Dan’-fundie effort to equate Imperial and Vatican Rome, he will try to evade the complications of his assertions by simply trying to insist that there’s not “much difference”. That’s his preference, but it’s not “in the Bible”. It’s only in ‘Dan’s manipulative personal delusional fever-visions.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 212AM:
And then we are treated once again to JR and ‘Dan’ having a catty little just-entre-nous exchange about my being “evil”. But what else have they got, really?
And larded on more ignorance and immaturity, Lyyyyiinnnnggg Hyyyyppooocccccrrrriiittttt!!
Dan here's your favorite P pic.
I ask the readership to contrast and compare Pliar's posts to see if he resembles the 12 warning signs that he is, in fact, evil.
http://www.smartlystuff.com/index.php/2017/11/06/12-warning-signs-dealing-evil-person/
Jim, We may have a problem? Of the twelve characteristics, publiar wouldn't qualify for number 9. Fair-weather friends. He'd have to first have some friends in order to be a fair-weather friend. Oh! We're alright. He only has to qualify for more than two of the characteristics to be considered evil, and p is definitely well qualified for the other eleven.
Yes. P has a real bent for evil. Nature or nuture? Bad genes ill raised.
publiar, It was utterly stupid ignorance to make the claim that "Dan (who may well have been one of those 'does not work well with others' types, as the old Catholic report cards used to say)", and from that stupidity ascertain that I "wasn't working well with any congregants of any religion and then … ", your even more creepy, "his bathroom mirror offered him a seductive alternative." Just because you have fantasies of imagining seeing pedophile and perverted priests committing their filth in the reflection of your toilet bowl, don't lay your creepy projections onto me. I've worked for 38 years and got along well with my fellow employees, and never had any problems with the parishioners I attended church with. I did have a problem with the false teachings of those churches and left when they could not answer my questioning those false teachings. I never attended catholic school or saw those comments on any of my several straight A report cards. So stick your stupid assumptions where the sun don't shine. They're as ignorant as your accusations against me for things I never said to adults and children. You're a cowardly lying deceiving manipulating creep, who thinks you can lay those accusations on me, hoping they become the lies your cronies will believe to be true. BLATANT CATHOLIC LYING CREEP. Tired of your lies, SON OF SATAN.
publiar oinks, "But surely the terms refer to something more than merely 'created beings'. They refer to 'created beings' who have become believers in Christ and Christianity."
I'm fine with that second sentence, which would exclude liars like yourself, disgusting sickos in your hierarchy, and any other catholics who feel obligated to deny and excuse the rampant pedophilia, pederasty, sexual immorality, greed, idolatry, liars and unbelievers of your cult. Pro-Mary worshippers, anti-Christ and anti-Christian. Time to accept the truth. servant
The dog (publiar) returning with more of his vomit asks, "then when did the New Testament 'koinonia' or 'ekklesia' suddenly stop being the community of Christ and suddenly became – not to put too fine a point on it – Catholic … ?" Going back to my previous comment, "the community of Christ" has always remained the community of Christ and NEVER "suddenly became" … Catholic. True Christians who follow and live God's Word, as opposed to heathens who get more joy from bowing and worshipping their goddess, the "Queen of Heaven", will NEVER be joined or evenly yoked together. NEVER!! servant of the Truth
P.S. Catholics are not Christians, and Christians are not catholics. Got that yet?
"Pure [publiar] ignorance" claims that "worse than any [of his] 'pure ignorance' ", My treatment of Scripture "is deliberate and deceitful and evasive manipulation in the service of [my] own agenda." So the COMPULSIVE CATHOLIC LIAR who deliberately deceives, manipulates, make excuses for the pedophiles and perverts of his cult, and twists the meaning of Bible verse to defend a false gospel, is going to accuse me of such. You are such a lying deceiver, a perfect clone of your father, Satan.
You can make all the dumb claims you want, how "catholics do not 'pray to' any 'statue'; they pray to the person whom the statue represents." When you "pray" or "bow" to any statue, or claim as you do that catholics "pray to the person whom the statue represents", and that person is not God or Christ, you have committed the horrible sin of idolatry. Spin it any way you please, catholics are blatant idolators who worship, bow and pray to "innumerable statues", said in your own words, and even to their corrupt popes. You are idol-worshippers. Quit making all your excuses! Soon you'll have a "Huuugge" statue of Trump and bow down and worship Him. Trump, publiar and Satan. What a fine team of LIARS!
Going from bad to worse, or dumb to dumber, publiar states that "the possible alternative terms for 'worship' include 'homage', 'reverence', 'devotion', 'veneration', 'honoring', 'admiration' as well as 'idolization' and even 'genuflection'."
So all the terms in which the catholic church and publiar endearingly refer to their goddess Mary, "Queen of Heaven", are synonyms for the word "worship", and yet you, your hierarchy and the catechism claim it's not "worship". Do you believe all your people are that gullible? So idolize, bow and genuflect all you like, but know this for sure, you are manipulating, denying and deceiving God, Jesus Christ and His Word. God will not take your idolatry lightly. It is the first and second of His Commandments. How ignorant must you be?
The catholic cult, the catholic "Queen of Heaven" and you, publiar, are all members of the Biblical "Great Whore of Babylon", and to deny that, "it's just plain stupid". And yes, you are pagan Babylon "Vatican Rome" and much worse than "Imperial" Rome, because your disgusting filth, greed and idolatry are done under the guise and appearance of being from Almighty God. Despicable, deceiving, lying hypocrites, destined to Hell's Fire, and written "in the Bible".
My only manipulative personal delusional fever-visions would be of you making it to Heaven. From what I've witnessed, you don't have a chance in Hell.
I continue with the most recent crop ‘Dan’ put up since it really does nicely encapsulate so much of what we have seen strewn about in ‘Dan’s material. Think of it as a handy course summary in the world of the ‘Dan’-verse.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1016PM:
We see that ‘Dan’s first impulse is to start with epithets; he seems to think that if he has called something a name then he has disposed of it or answered it or rebutted it.
Then he lets his imagination run free (to put it far too gently) with epitheticals, so that when he blends whatever terms come to his mind we wind up with visions in toilet bowls.
Then the old I’m Not/You Are bit as he says “don’t lay your creepy projections on me”, which gambit actually constitutes the gravamen of his entire shtick here.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1016PM:
Then, however, he has to start coming up with some story to cover my ‘doesn’t work well with others’ point. So he claims that for 38 years he has “never had any problems with the parishioners I attended church with”.
And yet previously on this thread he has a) claimed that by the age of 23 he had come to the conclusion that religions weren’t authentic (or some such) and b) there remains those Catholics (“liars”, he has called them, often in scream-caps and even with exclamation points) whom he accosted and who called the police and which resulted in that arrest record as long as your arm.
Has he for 38 years or more gotten along well with parishioners or congregants of religions that he had already concluded were false or inauthentic? And what was he doing for the past 38 years attending services that he had already concluded were false or inauthentic?
And you have the nerve to make insistent repetitive claims that I'm the "delusional" one? I believe it's time to work on your research "chops"and reading comprehension problems. Where did I ever state that by "the age of 23 [I] had come to the conclusion that religions weren't authentic", even "(or some such)"? Please, don't even try to find that, because your brain might explode from finally trying to use it. You can't even understand a simple sentence. You accused me that 'Dan' "does not work well with others", remember like you would see written on all your catholic school report cards. So I answered your nonsense with, "I've worked for 38 years and got along with my fellow employees, and never had any problems with the parishioners I attended church with." "Fellow employees" "I've worked" for 38 years with, should have tipped you off that those were work years not church years. DUH! I never came to the conclusion that all churches were false until I experienced all the hypocrisy and hypocrites and that was in my forties, not at 23. And yes, I also experienced many catholic "liars" like yourself, priests and corrupt catholic cops, who either falsely accused me or agreed with the "liars" of your cult, never listening to the truth and my side of the story. So you might someday stop being such a lying catholic asshole, but you're not the 1st and apparently not the last, you "delusional hypocrite". servant
And may I add, I've witnessed more "hypocrites" and "liars" from your false cult in my 50's and this half of my 60's than I have for the first 50 years of my life, you of course being the top of the manure heap.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1016PM:
And if the “false teachings” of all those churches (not just Catholic parishes, apparently) were the bits that ‘Dan’ has spewed here then no wonder they could not make any “answer”: you can’t “answer” a full-blown delusional system; rationality does not work on what is already an irrational delusional system.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1027PM:
Here we see that ‘Dan’ merely tosses off an assertion that is based in nothing more than his own delusions and fever-visioned agenda: ‘Dan’ presumes to rule out whomever he chooses from membership in Christianity and as being believers in Christ. That’s his agenda, and the only authority for it is whatever his delusional system tells him he has.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1045PM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries yet again to evade the question I posed: when did the “early Christian community” suddenly morph into what we call Catholicism?
Apparently he is going to try this bit: there was an early Christian community – he calls it “the community of Christ” – and then somehow Catholicism started up separately from that.
When? Before the death of Paul and Peter? After their death? When Linus was chosen to succeed Peter after Peter’s death in 67AD? Was Catholicism ‘invented’ while Paul and Peter were still alive?
And these “true Christians”, apparently, have never had a communal religious base since ‘Dan’ has found all major Christian religions to be faulty (perhaps because he can’t get along with any of their congregants). Who were some of these “true Christians”? How do we trace this group through time and human history? How does ‘Dan’ establish as historical actuality what appears to be nothing more than a phantasm that he has constructed for the self-justifying convenience of his own self-serving delusions?
It's getting harder for us to separate your immature "Cartoon Time ignorance" from your so-called Bible knowledge, or should I say false catechism knowledge? Yes, definitely the latter. Now is "Linus" from your extensive cartoon knowledge, or from false claims of the catholic succession of popes? Your cult and all it's idol-worshipping temples never got a start until after 300 AD with your first catholic, false christian emperor Constantine. Case closed, until you add all your lies and ignorance. If you did start with Peter as you claim, then your cult wouldn't be so filled with corrupt idolators, unbelieving unbiblical liars and pedophile perverts. servant of the One True God, and not yours
There, I answered your questions, and one more time, catholics can never be "true Christians" until they get the Hell away from "the Church" and escape the fires of Hell, come to know and accept the truth and be set free from all the lies.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1123PM:
As for all the problematic points in ‘Dan’s delusional assertions that Catholics “worship” Mary and statutes and so forth, ‘Dan’ merely waves those problems away as “dumb claims”. All he has is name-calling.
Upon what authority does he dismiss them as “dumb claims” and that reverencing is “the horrible sin of idolatry”? Merely the authority of his own self-serving delusions. He has nothing else.
He then – rather too slyly – that I said “in my own words” that there are “innumerable statues”. What he – deceptively – evades is my actual point: if there are “innumerable statues” then they can’t all be idols, especially if they are statues of the same being.
But they can all be representations of a person, which is something else altogether.
And then – weirdly, but who can be surprised? – he drags Trump into the mix; once again, where rationality fails (as it so often must in ‘Dan’s delusional world) then making a play for raw emotion – however irrelevant – is the way to go.
From the "authority" of God! Whenever you show reverence, adoration, veneration, honor, etc. to anyone or anything other than God and Jesus Christ, you have committed idolatry to the highest degree. Make all the excuses and vomit all the catechism ignorance you want, catholics are goddess worshipping idolaters.