WGBH host and perpetual Catholic Church basher Jim Braude
Jim Braude, the host of evening talk show Greater Boston on local public television station WGBH, rarely misses an opportunity to lambaste the Catholic Church, and he recently even used a decades-old abuse story out of Chile – yes, Chile – to bludgeon Pope Francis and the Catholic Church once again.
On his show, Braude used a high-profile story from the Associated Press to claim that Chilean Bishop Juan Barros "knowingly protected abuser priests."
Yet Braude somehow failed to inform his audience that Pope Francis himself – unlike Braude himself – intensively looked into the cover-up claims against Bishop Barros and concluded that rather than pointing towards guilt, the evidence in the case "points the other way (e.g., innocence)." A Vatican inquiry cleared Barros as well. "I cannot condemn [Bishop Barros] without evidence," Pope Francis has insisted. "I personally am convinced that he's innocent."
In addition, Braude did not let his audience know that there are many questions about the veracity of the claims of cover-up against Bishop Barros. [We highly recommend, "Francis's defense of Barros may not satisfy victims, but it's the right thing to do" by Austen Ivereigh, as well as an informative post at the Catholic League.]
The beams in Braude's own eye
Ireland's David Norris
It was only a few years ago that on the radio show Boston Public Radio (on WGBH radio) Braude welcomed a gay rights advocate from Ireland named David Norris.
Braude and his co-host, a well-known dissident "Catholic" by the name of Margery Eagan, were thrilled to have Norris on their show, as Norris was highly instrumental in having Ireland become the first nation in the world to legalize gay marriage by a popular referendum.
Yet Norris is not simply a gay rights advocate. Norris himself has a troubling history which includes advocating the legalization of men having sex with young boys. Indeed, Norris:
- once wrote a letter on behalf of a former lover accused of molestation, pleading for clemency;
- co-founded the International Gay Association, which passed two notions, one for the abolition of the age of consent and the other for an "international solidarity campaign" on behalf of the Paedophile Information Exchange;
- supported a pro-pedophile organization in the 1980s called the Paedophile Information Exchange; and
- is on the record as having said that "as a child it had been his greatest desire to be molested."
And the rich irony is that much of Norris' appearance with Braude was spent attacking the Catholic Church for being "complicit" in abuse cases decades ago. You can't make this stuff up, folks.
It should also be noted that Braude and Eagan radio show has also warmly welcomed on their radio show folk singer Peter Yarrow, one third of the popular Peter, Paul, and Mary trio, who served jail time in 1970 after pleading guilty to "taking indecent liberties" with a 14-year-old girl.
And Braude's employer (WGBH) also airs a weekly quiz show that features comedienne Paula Poundstone, who pleaded no contest in 2001 to one count of felony child abuse and a misdemeanor count of "inflicting injury upon a child."
Before Braude once again feels the need to attack the Catholic Church over dubious allegations of cover-up in faraway foreign countries from decades ago, maybe he should look within the walls of his own studio and clean up his own house first.
The pope gets cornered and makes poor statements in regards to victims of Catholic Child Abuse from pedophiles and perverts of the clergy, so what should we do as catholic defenders of our false church? Let's attack and call anyone bigots who question the cult's culpability in the cover-up and denials of abusers of innocent young children. Let's even attack the victims stating that "the central accuser in the Chile case 'claims' abuse lasting well into his adulthood", as if that would discount his being abused as a minor. Is "the Church" at all aware that their disgusting sexual assaults against young children, can lead innocent victims into a lifestyle of homosexuality.
And once again we see "the Church", now cornered, not handing the nasty creeps or the investigation over to the proper authorities, but instead sending Bishop Scicluna, because he's their top expert on child abuse (Is that from his own personal experience as an abuser?). OH! And that's going to bring about unbiased and truthful results? How much longer are we going to put up with these lies, cover-ups and deceptions? Maybe you catholics should listen to your own advice and "look within the walls of [your own church] and clean up [your] own house first". From what we've witnessed in this forum, it would take some miracle to see that happen!
once again Dan, pull your head out into the sunshine! Looks like you only read 1/2 the article, and I have "just cause" to criticize you for it! Chile is being resolved. The one man had as a career goal, as a child, to be molested. He didn't want to be a fireman, or train engineer, but a victim? Come on, Dan! This man has the audacity to go after the church?
Pax "p"c – "p"c
"Catholic" clown, are you also aware that David Norris had absolutely nothing to do with Chile, nor was he a victim of Fr. Karadima or an accuser of co-conspirator Bishop Juan Barros? Keep grasping for straws, catholics. Slander and falsely accuse anyone who opposes or exposes the sexual child abuse and their enablers, of the hierarchy of your cult.
Gotta say I love your moniker, but "Catholic" clown would seem more appropriate. "Chile is being resolved"? Are we talking the way "the Church" always "resolves" their priests sexual abuse against the innocent, with cover-ups and denials, and if that's not good enough we'll attack the victim. The article, Bill "Big-mouth Bigot" Donahue and the pope didn't slander victims enough? You find it necessary to add that one who was a minor when first molested had a "career goal" to be a victim of molestation? There were several other victims, did they all have that same "career goal". Must you catholics dig down into the very pits of Hell to dream up your slander and false accusations? With the pile of admitted to rape and sexual molestation by priestly pedophiles and pederasts, you have the "audacity" to continue to blame and berate victims. What is wrong with you creeps? servant of the Lord of Truth
Glad you like my "moniker", but your "cohort" in crime, Jim Robertson, gave it to me on the PBS thread, but you don't remember, as you have a one track mind. We won't talk about " freeloading" in this thread. Yes, thank heaven for bill Donahue!! Who else has the guts fo fight the slanderers? As far as "career goals" for "victims", perhaps they saw the "easy money" they could get, and decided to cash in. We must keep writing, as then there will be enough material on here for our hero, Publion, to comment on.
Pax Marty, your "pc" – pc
Just because Jim gave you the "moniker" wouldn't mean that you would have to embrace it. I don't read and pay attention to every comment, especially those directed to others, unless I see a good reason to respond. When it comes to God my Father, I would most defintely prefer a "one track mind", especially over a brainwashed or deceived one. Seeing that publiar, the compulsive liar, manipulator, slanderer and excuser is your "hero", and apparently "hero" to a few other deceived catholics, well that's not surprising coming from a false cult of lying hypocrites. Hail publyin', Hail Mary, Hail Jim Jones, Hail David Koresh and lest we forget, Heil Hitler.
From ‘Dan’ on the 12th at 1127PM we get a nice example of serial plop-tossing, with the various little piles stitched together into a skein that requires presumption at every step in order to hold together.
Thus the Pope “gets cornered” (rather than his simply accepting and answering a question put to him) / he “makes poor statements” (only through the filter of the ‘Dan’-verse) / “victims” (a description yet to be validated as accurate) / “pedophiles and perverts of the clergy” (ditto) / “false church” (‘Dan’ sees all “man-made religions” as false, we recall, leaving only ‘Dan’ and the wonderland-crew that burbles sweet affirmations to him from inside his bathroom mirror).
And while some adult down there has claimed “abuse lasting well into his adulthood” … yet this does not appear to ‘Dan’ as an indication of non-veracity, especially since this accuser might still have been “abused as a minor”. Or the accuser may simply be overplaying his shot at the piñata. Or perhaps ‘Dan’ – who cawn’t think why anybody’s credulity would be stretched to the limit by his own stuff – is simply no longer capable of distinguishing whackery from any possible reality.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1127PM:
Continuing his dirt-digging truffle hunt, ‘Dan’ then tosses up a huffy bleat about why the police weren’t called. Why didn’t the accuser call them? Or were they called and upon investigation didn’t find any credible basis for the claims? Perhaps the Church sent Bishop Scicluna all the way over there in addition to the civil police investigation.
And on the basis of all that ‘Dan’ – but of course – puffs up his pinfeathers into declamation-mode and doth bray inquiringly as to “How much longer …?” and so on.
As for “this forum”: since “this forum” doesn’t appear in ‘Dan’ trusty bathroom mirror, then “from what we’ve witnessed” from ‘
(This is the conclusion of that final sentence immediately above)
‘Dan’, we need not expect any reality-based or even rationality-friendly material from him.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 418PM:
In another nice demonstration, ‘Dan’ raises a point the relevance of which he fails to mention; that a) what he sees in his bathroom mirror and b) what is actually present in the real world might not be quite the same thing at all … this either i) doesn’t occur to him or perhaps ii) he doesn’t want it to occur to readers.
Thus his point about David Norris. Or rather his mere reference to David Norris. Norris wasn’t involved in the Chilean matter. OK … so what? Norris is a noted participant in the highly –questionable gambit wherein one can claim long-ago ‘abuse’ and dine out on the claim for quite some time, without ever having to provide demonstrable evidence.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 418PM:
This no-evidence-required element is now bearing the poisonous fruit it planted from the get-go: the short-term gambit of eschewing evidence and relying instead on emotion-grabbing descriptors (of what was not shown to have actually taken place) has proven itself in the long-term to have undermined the credibility of almost any claims at all.
This, however, is not a problem for types such as ‘Dan’. It simply dumps the game into his apparently natural bailiwick: presumption, mere assertion, vivid description (of undemonstrated presumptions), bleating or braying epitheticals, and – but of course – the ultimate recourse to the authority of ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror séances, touted as being both a) undeniably veracious and b) the very Word and Will of God.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 947AM:
Here, and once again, ‘Dan’ simply bleats his own preferred narrative, blending it with one of the hoariest and most fundamental Victimist deflection-and-evasion gambits: blaming the (presumed) victim, i.e. the old ‘if you don’t believe the story or if you ask for proof … then you are brutally and insensitively re-victimizing the story-teller all over again’.
We see it again as ‘Dan’ deploys it against Bill Donahue, but of course the question remains: if one hasn’t proven the legitimacy of the victimization-claim, then how can one ‘slander’ the ‘victim’ … ?
The ‘Dan’-verse solution, as is the classic Victimist solution, is: easy-peezy – you just presume the victim is telling the truth (otherwise you are re-victimizing the victim’ … and this argument winds up eternally circling the abyssal emptiness of the original undemonstrated claim).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 947AM:
As for the nicely acute “career goal” point: we see the point’s accuracy and validity in ‘Dan’s stuff, where his dual shtick (first, he is innocent of being an axe-grinding whackjob and instead he is God’s very Mind and Will and second, all man-made religions are doo-doo next to ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror revelations) certainly qualifies as his “career”. And we have seen various Abuseniks over time here who have also made their ‘abuse’ their career.
And did not the Stampede precisely make it possible for anyone in search of a “career goal” (and/or a cash payout) to have a whack at the piñata? And as I have said, the Stampede itself has undermined itself by the short-term tactic of evading the need for evidence.
As for the “admitted” bit, there is hardly a “pile”, and from that “pile” – to repeat a point I have made before on this site – admissions made in prosecution-proffered plea-bargains are always questionable, and not merely in Stampede type cases (such few as there have been) but generally.
Once again, no need to respond to ignorance and stupidity. I recall last month you suggesting that "Christians" should be concerned with promoting the "good in their own lives". Is this what you consider yourself doing, with all your bathroom toilet trash comments? Maybe I'm expecting too much from someone who is a brainwashed catholic and not really a Christian.
Jim Braude is using his (taxpayer funded) T.V.show to whip up more negative publicity against the Catholic Church. The pattern is familiar in all countries. The playbook calls for media attackers to ignore all civil rights, and assume guilt from the get go. They blatantly ignore an individual's right to a good reputation. The idea is to create an atmosphere like a witch-hunt. And hope that many more will join in the accusations, Godless people quickly grasp what is happening…. no evidence needed… and the payoff is a truckload of cash. The attacks upon the Chilean bishop are similar to the attacks upon Australian's Cardinal Pell. Thank God that Pope Francis has defended the Chilean bishop.
Why is it that you catholics seem more worried about the money or truckload of cash "the Church" may lose, than concern over the psychological and sexual damages you have caused innocent children? Seems "the Church" has taught you well that greed comes before and is far more important than compassion for the most vulnerable you've destroyed. When backed into a corner, then all of a sudden you choose to claim how much you care, your shame and sorrow for the victims. Your pope does it, your bishops do it, so does your news outlets and newspapers, including EWTN. They do everything to avoid the topic of Catholic Sexual Abuse, until they have no choice but to make excuses in regards to it, or it's ancient history or just plain deny it ever happened. Despicable hypocrites and disingenuous at best. Yes Malcolm, that includes Bishop Juan Barros and your wonderful Cardinal Pell. Liars and deniers.
Yes, it's a worldwide shakedown policy! There are some voices ,now that people like Weinstein are now in the "spotlight" , who are saying innocent, until proven guilty. Doubt that they mean it to apply to the Church, though!But see what he tried to do? He wanted to sell his company, then declare bankruptcy, so that no victims could sue him. However, New York government stepped in to say he couldn't do that. Maybe that's what the globe is trying to do also.
And – apparently utterly unaware of how it undermines any of his pretensions – ‘Dan’ (the 15th at 944PM) deals with the most recent material by simply waving it all away: he hath “no need to respond to ignorance and stupidity” – doncha see?
Then, perhaps realizing on some level in his mind that he’d better come up with at least a little more covering than that, he tries to conflate my “bathroom mirror” imagery with (non-existent) “bathroom toilet trash comments” … because anything he doesn’t like or can’t deal with must be “trash” – doncha see? And if it’s all just “trash”, well then it would be silly to waste time on it.
Oh, and ‘Dan’ has revoked my status as a Christian. He can do that – doncha know? – because his bathroom mirror tells him so.
May the Lord rebuke your insistent mocking, mixing "the very Mind and Will of God" and "the wonderland-crew" with your "bathroom toilet trash" sarcasm, with statements like "seances" and "doo-doo next to Dan's bathroom mirror revelations". You're going to deny that this qualifies as mocking, like you deny the "veracity" of all the pedophilia, pederasty and disgusting perversions of your cult's leaders, backed by your lies, excuses and repeated denials?
"He mocks those who mock, but gives grace to the humble." Proverbs 3:34
"Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly." (KJV)
I can't revoke your status as a Christian, after all you'd have to first possess that status before it could be revoked. I look forward to your Judgment Day, when God and His Son Jesus revokes your status as a Christian. servant of a Just God
I feel so sorry for the mediareport.com that is just a tool of propaganda for the Catholic Church's sex abuse cover-ups.
Mary Grant
Mary SNAP and TCR are flip sides of the same church coin. Ignoring the real victims needs = SNAP but happily speaking for victims with out elections of any kind for SNAP leadership. And it's opposite. Claiming that victims are liars and fraudsters and that the church is the "real victim" = TMR.
Meanwhile the damaged are ignored world wide. Oh our sex abuse makes the news. Its titalating but what the church has not done for victims world wide never makes the news. Mostly because it's done next to nothing.
And Mary you can thank SNAP in large for that. Why did SNAP never demand universal compensation for victims, ever? SNAP managed to be universal in this mess SNAP was everywhere but they never managed to speak of compensation for the harmed they pretended to represent.
You were supposedly at the initial creation of SNAP. Could you talk about that please?
Here we go again, Catholics. Don't forget to grab some of your PeeWee Popcorn and a big gulp of Kathlik-Kool-Aid. Does the pope think we're all as gullible as his brainwashed sheep? He claims he is going to open the commission he shut down in December 2017. Is it going to be as unproductive as the previous commission, that just about accomplished nothing more than smoke? Or maybe it will be as productive as the tribunal that was supposed to expose bishops that hid and shuffled child molesting priests, but never got off the ground? The pope claimed he had to shut it down, because the bishops didn't want it. Talk about the inmates, or should we say those who should be "inmates, running the insane asylum". We're onto you excusers, manipulators and deniers, and that includes you Francis, Ratzinger, JP II and all your bishop cronies. God is watching your every deceptive and manipulative move, and you only think you're fooling everyone. Keep kicking the can down the street, but you're going to find yourselves down one dead-end, and that dead-end will be eternal death. The jig is up! servant of the One and Only True God
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 627PM:
One might ask: why is it that ‘Dan’ seems more worried about “facts” that actually haven’t been demonstrated and the damage that causes to belief? (Answer: because ‘Dan’ has his shtick and it would dissolve beneath him if he didn’t accept such “facts”.)
But by accepting the “facts” ‘Dan’ can then happily mush on with his “greed” trope.
And his lack of “compassion” trope.
And his you-can-say-you-care-but-you-really-don’t trope. ‘Dan’ doth ‘know’ the Church really doesn’t care – doncha know? – because his bathroom mirror tells him so.
All of the tropes were designed for a time long past, to the extent that they were relevant even back then. But for ‘Dan’ that time must never be allowed to end (or he’d be out of a shtick and then … and so forth).
And all this thus provides the lead-in to ‘Dan’s favorite performance: puffing up his pinfeathers and declaiming epithetically against the Church and so on.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 627PM:
He mentions Cardinal Pell, about whom we are apparently supposed to join ‘Dan’ in his many presumptions. But the Cardinal Pell case – seemingly so awful and awfully close to utter revelation (to hear the prosecutors tell it last summer) has suddenly disappeared, and the evidence they were going to be quickly producing ditto.
As I have said before on prior threads, it now appears that the Cardinal was opportunistically glommed-onto by Aussie prosecutors (knowing that the Cardinal was not at all one of this Pope’s favorite folks) for tactical PR purposes of making some sort of splash.
That bit played its part in the subsequent Aussie Royal Commission Report that proposed the notably outré gambit of legally requiring Catholic clergy to break the seal of the confessional in (confessed or suspected or perhaps possible) abuse matters. Which may have been the gambit’s sole purpose from the get-go.
At any rate, the oh-so-conclusive Pell case has disappeared, as if airbrushed out of media existence (in best Soviet style). Nobody – as classic Soviet praxis would dictate – is supposed to notice that glaring fact. Which would serve ‘Dan’s own purposes well enough indeed.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1259PM:
And here ‘Dan’ simply allows himself to descend into maudlin and mawkish self-pity, delivered in a bleat-y aria from under the wiggling and waggling horned-helmet of Outraged and Victimized Integrity.
This is one of ‘Dan’s signature performances in his music-hall repertoire and he belts it out here with palpable gusto.
I do mock it. I mock it all. But it’s ‘Dan’s performance, not God’s or Scripture’s – which is the illusory presumption upon which ‘Dan’s entire shtick is based.
And now he doth piously declaim that he hath not the power to “revoke [my] status as a Christian”. And yet he had done precisely that but a few comments before. We weren’t supposed to notice that.
But – had you been waitttingggggggggg forrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttt? – he doth console himself with thoughts of my facing Judgment Day where God will do ‘Dan’s bidding and fulfill yet another of ‘Dan’s many cherished fantasies masquerading as the Mind and Will and Mouth of God.
I'm not sure if it's only your lack of understanding or once again your reading comprehension problem, when pertaining to God's Truth or His Word. You can mock all you like, mock God or mock and scoff at His servants (messengers), but you will pay the price. And apparently you think as an insistent mocker, that you should be considered as some kind of christian?
"But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy." 2 Chron. 36:16
I have no desire to answer to the rest of your ignorance, name calling and stupidity in your other posts, but would like to teach you something simple. If I put quotes around God's Words and/or at the end of the quote designate the Scripture verse (i.e. John 8:44), then that would most definitely mean that it was a Bible quote and not my words. For someone who 'thinks' they can interpret the Bible so well, it's strange that you couldn't figure that out. Hope that is of some benefit to your Biblical ignorance. servant of the Almighty
Cont. from above – Apparently you're bothered and have some great desire to be considered some kind of Christian. I'll repeat that one would first have to be a Christian in order to have his status revoked. You would think that one who enjoys mocking, lying, deceiving, denying and covering for the many pedophile and pederast perverts of your cult, would easily understand that these virtues would not qualify one as having the attributes of a Christian. If it makes you feel any better, we can consider you a good practicing catholic or a false christian, though Son of Satan would seem more appropriate. messenger of the One and Only True God
Bitch P,
God, if the greatest mass murder did exist, HE would flush you down the nearest golden camode.
Hell I'd like for you to get you to your judgement day as soon as possible. Think about suicide won't you P? as a favor to truth and justice. You may have heard of those virtues when you were a child. I know you have no idea what those words mean what with your sociopathy but think about it no longer any need to feign superiority to your betters. Which truth tellers and justice seekers are. Your betters. We aren't snobs about it. We just tell the truth for truth's sake which does make us your betters automatically. You aren't interest in truth you're interested in spin and cover up. I don't think you'll get a throne in heaven for that. Unless of course it's the golden one I described earlier.
Blah blah! It's about time you got back on here!
murderer not murder.
You know radio hosts invite people to speak not visa-versa is the radio host a pedophile? The President of the United States is one.. Both Poundstone and Yarrow had served their punishment for their crimes. How many guilty Catholic priests and prelates have done that?
Lets see punished for crimes committed weighed against not punished for crimes committed. I'll put up with the penetant who has paid for his/her crimes. What I don't put up with is no justice at all for those victimized by priests. And so far that's the situation we are in. So be as viscious as you can TMR it really shows that Christian love we've heard about in word and song. You had at least one priest in NAMBLA who spoke at their meetings and you didn't fire him till his victims came forward. Years later.
Thank goodness for the Irish and their tossing off the blinders of religion. It's a wonderful land and a grand people, an educated people. Educated enough to love their neighbor as themselves. It's a wonderful thing to have done. I'm very proud of the Irish and proud to be Irish. And P can pogue mahon (spelling be damned.)
Where's Jim Robertson?
Notice how Mary Grant, just like always, never manages to answer my questions.
I am a victim after all.
She never had a problem speaking FOR me as L.A. SNAP head.
She alway had a problem speaking TO me. Because I was a "problem". I asked too many questions. (I loathed from the jump the lame way we were being used by SNAP first to bring in others and then to be a zombie part of the SNAP control once they were in. i.e. this is the best of all possible victims groups because we are the only victims group.) The church is exactly the same way. Just like its creation: SNAP. Neither like questions.
Mary Grant, I do not believe you were ever a conscious member of this fraud. I know you were used and abused by SNAP. So much so that you quit and according to some, your own friends, had a meltdown. Why? What was that about? Mary who did you think you were working for? Why won't you answer any of my questions? Why do you appear here? You think you can control the very people who employed you TMR is just another branch of Tommy Doyle's false flag op.? Didn't you ever notice SNAP was unlike any other institution save for one? The church. Mary did you ever feel like there was something "Off" with the group? How happy were you? How unhappy were you? If SNAP is spotless and not what I claim it to be, why can't you answer any questions? Remember when Roger Mahony declared the church open and transparent and we all knew it wasn't. Why can't you be open and transparent now if SNAP is what it claims/ed to be? You wanted it then. I want it from you now.
Mary Grant remember the day after SNAP's big demo when I had handcuffed myself to Roger's throne? Who called you and told you to call me? Who called you and told you to call me and to tie up my phone line for hours. That was unnatural and my intuition tells me you didn't want to do that but you did it. Who convinced you I was wrong and needed to be kept away from the press? How long did it take them to convince you? Mary you told me I had really harmed victims by my act.ions I finally told you I would gladly talk with anyone harmed or hurt by my actions. And Mary all I ever got was joy and praise for what i'd done from every victim I have ever met but for three victims, you and David Clohessy and Barbra Blaine.
Why do you think there was such a huge gap between what you said about how victims felt about my actions and what every victim I have ever met has said to me?
On the 24th at 1259PM – lacking much of anything else – ‘Dan’ simply tries to claim I have a “lack of understanding” or a “reading comprehension problem” because – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – I don’t realize that between ‘Dan’s stuff and God’s Mind and Word there is no space or difference at all whatsoever pointperiodinfinitytotally … and so on.
As I said: I am mocking neither God nor “His servants (messengers)”; I am mocking ‘Dan’s whackeries, and between ‘Dan’s whackeries and the Mind and Word of God there is a great difference indeed.
And here is ‘Dan’ who, having arrogated unto himself the status of speshully-Deputized Mouth of God, then declaims as to whether anyone else is not “christian”. Go figure.
And he tops it all off with yet another threat on behalf of God.
I, the Lord's "servant" and most definitely His "messenger", have struggled to teach the stubborn and hard-headed repentance, using God's precious Words, and you consider this "crazy" or "Dan's whackeries"? You claim you are "mocking neither God nor "His servants (messengers)", and then in your childish ignorance "arrogate" that I'm self-appointed "the status of speshully-Deputized Mouth of God". You deny that this is "mocking"? Once again, "What exactly is your problem? We'll just add this to the rest of your ridiculous denials, you deceiving lying catholic mocker. servant of the God of Righteous Vengeance and Just Wrath
oooh! I left out a couple of quotation marks, Mr. Know-It-All, so you can point them out and "arrogate" some form of worldly intelligence, that only you and no one else possesses. You are a Joke, peewee.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1259PM:
And then – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttttttttttt? – having tossed up his usual stuff as noted immediately above, he then tosses in a pericope (which, but of course, slyly requires one to presume that ‘Dan’ is one of “God’s messengers”).
And then– had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttttttttttt? – he merely has to evade any actual substantive points. Thus doth he sniff persnickitously that he hath “no desire” and so on because – doncha see? – it’s all “ignorance” and “stupidity”. (This ‘Dan’ doth know, because his bathroom mirror tells him so.)
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 115PM:
Feeling the need to put more stuff up, without actually having to address anything on the table, ‘Dan’ here tries to invent something about which he might declaim, i.e. that I “apparently” have “some great desire to be considered some kind of Christian”.
Actually, my point was merely that ‘Dan’ doesn’t have the authority (even from his bathroom mirror) to be declaiming as to who is and who isn’t a Christian. His sly effort here to change the subject doesn’t work.
Although he then quickly tries to recover the plop he has tossed by tossing more of the same plop, i.e. that “one would first have to be Christian in order to have his status revoked” – which, of course, simply puts it all back to square one where ‘Dan’ is declaiming as to who is and who isn’t a Christian. What else could he do? He’s only got a set number of cartoons and they’re all he’s got.
And the comment trails off with his further riffing along those lines.
Once again, "What exactly is your problem?" YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN! The Word says, "You shall know them by their fruits." Acting like an ignorant fruitcake doesn't qualify you as being a "Christian". As I stated, once again plain as day, "that one who enjoys mocking, lying, deceiving, denying and covering for the many pedophile and pederast perverts of your cult, would easily understand that these virtues would not qualify one as having the attributes of a 'Christian'." I didn't even include your denial of your cult's obvious idolatry of your "Queen of Heaven" or the fact that your a lyin' Accuser like your father the Devil, but for all these reasons you cannot be considered to be, nor are you a "Christian". As a "Christian" I am qualified to call a spade a spade, especially when that accusation is based on the truth. Ignoring the facts by calling my observations "plop", "cartoons", "stuff" or your repetitive childish "bathroom mirror" stupidity, in no way negates the true fact that "YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN!". PERIOD! servant
P.S. If you had anything intelligent to discuss "on the table", then I would "address" that, but as long as you insist on labeling me as "crazy" and all your other accusations, then I have no reason to address or answer to your ignorance and stupidity. You understand that yet?
Maybe one day I can get your depostion taken.
Mary Grant
My deposition? Mary Grant's deposition? (English: it's a language meant to communicate.)
On the 21st at 1043PM we see a nice example of what I would call a ‘drive-by’ comment: no substance, slyly manipulative, and yet designed to take a whack at something anyway.
Thus a) the fake Wig of Sympathy because the writer doth “feel so sorry” (aimed at TMR) b) but TMR is then immediately described as “just a tool of propaganda for the Catholic Church’s sex abuse cover-ups” (that’s the whack). And c) – demonstrated by its absence – is any explanation or demonstration or explication.
But then, the idea may well be that the reader is merely supposed to presume or believe or go-along-with (b) and leave it at that.
On then to JR’s of the 25th at 848PM where we get a rehash of his usual talking points.
SNAP wasn’t a democracy? Why should it have been? And yet JR got himself mixed up with it anyway and then suddenly complained when things didn’t go his way (i.e. that he would be given some sort of platform for his stuff).
And as I have pointed out, if SNAP was in cahoots with the torties – at least from that early ’88 meeting between Blaine and Anderson – then why would a dedicated front organization take any risks? The torties bought SNAP and its leadership and they didn’t want any surprises or loose cannons screwing up the plan.
Then he tries to work in his bit about TMR “claiming that victims are liars and fraudsters” – my point has always been that we really don’t know, but that there are more than enough questions to be raised from dubious cases we have been able to examine at length (JR’s among them).
Continuing with my comment on JR”s of the 25th at 848PM:
Thus too the bit about “the damaged are ignored world-wide”. We don’t know a) how many genuinely “damaged” there are, nor b) how and in what way they are damaged and I rather clearly recall once here in the way-back noting that ‘victims’ didn’t want to be and couldn’t be expected to accept any therapy paid for by the Church. Which left just cash, by amazing coincidence, and beyond that the question of genuine victimization remains even more undemonstrated – and by this point un-demonstrable – than it was decades ago.
As for the three to four billion dollars paid out without examination, one would have to be pretty well off-the-level to claim that the Church has “done next to nothing”. And if SNAP has done next to nothing, that’s simply because it re-invented itself as a cats-paw for the torties 30 years ago and never looked back. Which – with the exception of JR – doesn’t seem to have upset many of the remunerated allegants.
And what in any rational universe does “universal compensation” mean anyway? it’s a functionally meaningless – if slyly catchy – phrase but nothing more.
On then to JR’s of the 25th at 854PM and 906PM:
Here he simply tosses up his old “sociopathy” bit – and I still say that JR,who has demonstrated zip in terms of psychological knowledge, picked up this diagnostic term from … the off-side of the clinical desk once upon a time and then decided to toss it at anyone who didn’t go along with him, as if he were reliably knowledgeable in matters psychological.
And then works in an advertisement for himself: he is one of my “betters” – doncha know? – because he is one of the “truth tellers and justice seekers” in this world. You can take his knowledgeable word for it.
On then to JR’s of the 25th at 923PM:
Here – if one can suss anything out from the confused grammar of the first sentence – JR simply tries to somehow connect “Poundstone and Yarrow” with “Catholic priests and prelates”, about whom – had you been waitttinggggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttt? – JR conveniently smoothes his path by presuming and declaring that they are “guilty”.
As I have said, it was precisely because of the tortie stratagem of going for cash payouts through settlements (which doesn’t seem to have received much opposition from those who got checks) that the fact-finding capacities of the criminal justice system were rarely applied in any of these cases.
But JR’s shtick – having banked his own check – has been to suddenly declaim about ‘justice’ and how little of it there was. Readers with even a modicum of legal chops can consider the assorted versions (not to also say variants) of his own story and consider how well his performances in support of them would have fared in open court under adversarial examination.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 25th at 923PM:
Digging further into his well-worn file, JR then comes up with the bit about a priest and NAMBLA.
One priest – out of how many in the world? – is (inaccurately here) claimed to be a NAMBLA member and JR will try – like an industrious beaver – to use that twig to build his dam. Readers may consult – for openers – the Wiki entry on ‘Paul Shanley’ and are welcome to delve further as deeply as they may.
It remains of interest that in reaffirming his conviction in 2010 the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had to construct the following rationale: even though there is no scientific basis for ‘repressed memories’ (the basis of the accusations against him) confirmed by scientific testing, yet ‘dissociative amnesia’ (the formal clinical term for ‘repressed memories’) still seemed possible (thought the Court).
Yet if one tries even the modest route of further consulting Wiki for its entry on ‘dissociative amnesia’ one finds that its theory of causation remains – in polite academic terms – “controversial”.
And it is further stated that as a cause “possible malingering must also be taken into account”. The term ‘malingering’ is polite-speak for faking it.
Moving beyond the charmless twaddle of JR’s of the 25th at 934PM we proceed to JR’s of the 26th at 756PM:
Here he will go on about ‘Mary Grant’ (while – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttt? – tossing in a self-advertisement for the presumption of his genuine victimhood).
If drive-by commenter ‘Mary Grant’ here on this site is the same person as the official from SNAP whom JR has in his sights, and if she always “had a problem” with JR … readers are welcome to consider just why that might have been. Naturally, to hear JR tell it, she was unable to cope with his heroic truthiness. That is certainly one possibility – among many others indeed.
And the rest of the bit here is simply a combination of a) JR striking the pose of the Unanswered Truthy Guy and b) larding on his usual bits about SNAP being a front for the Church (along – we recall – with the torties, the courts, the police, the media and anybody else JR has it in for at the moment).
And as for the pre- performance comment of the 26th at 824PM, we are left with nothing but JR’s spinning of whatever – if anything – happened whenever it did – if it did – (and, but of course, whatever it was or may have been, JR was victimized by it).
Readers are welcome to suss it out or not as they may.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 755AM:
Here (and I noted this in my most recent comments on the immediately prior thread here) he tries to turn himself into the victim of my alleged “problem”.
But he then tries on that basis to try playing offense by declaiming and declaring (scream caps omitted) that I be “not a Christian!”. So to recap his recent bits on the matter: first he claimed it, then he claimed he didn’t have the authority to claim it (but that it was true anyway), and now here he doth puff up his pinfeathers to declaim and declare it in scream-caps and with an exclamation point. Go figure.
Readers who can suss out the accuracy of his further epithetical declaration (i.e. that I am “an ignorant fruitcake”) are welcome to share their illumination here.
As to what ‘Dan’s “fruits” might be – especially in regard to his claimed status as God’s oh-so-speshull Deputy and such … readers, I would say, have more than enough to form a conclusion.
And the rest of his paragraph in the comment simply riffs along in his usual way with his usual stuff and bits.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 755AM:
But wait. There’s more.
In his postscript he slyly tries to nail it all down by declaring that since I do not have “anything intelligent to discuss” and since I won’t buy the stuff he’s trying to peddle (either about his oh-so-speshull status or his various claims and his attempted use of various pericopes) then – had you been waitttingggggg forrrr ittttttttttt? – he primly sniffs that he doth “have no reason to address” any of the serious problems with his stuff that I have noted.
Actually, I had used the subjunctive (“crazy though he may be”) in my comment of the February 23rd at 212PM. But the grammatical moods of verbs aren’t something his bathroom mirror told him he needs to know and – but of course – noting that subjunctive would spoil his own agenda here … so for ‘Dan’ his own ignorance is invisible because – for the purposes of his cartoons – it is irrelevant.
And – perhaps realizing that his whole performance here sounds kinda ‘whiney’ and myah-myah, he instantly dons another Wig for the line he has chosen to go out on: in effect, he brays (in the accents of rough masculinity) ‘Ya got that?’. Oooh la-la, he is much man indeed, this ‘Dan’.
Thus his performance concludes as he struts importantly and decisively off the stage, trying hard not to trip over his accessories and props.
So I point out your attributes that would disqualify you as being any sort of "Christian", and how do you respond to that? You repeat your repetitive childish mockery of God and His servant (i.e. "God's oh-so-special Deputy") and add more ignorance and stupidity to your accusations. Now follow that up with your denials that you mock God or His servant, because apparently you couldn't recognize anything Spiritual, for it is impossible for Satan's followers to understand the things of the Spirit. They can hiss and spit at the Lord's chosen and dispute and manipulate the Word of God, but comprehending it's power, they shall never understand.
I'm Mr. Know-It-All and "I had used the subjunctive" and I know the "grammatical moods of verbs" and Dan knows nothing unless his "bathroom mirror told him". Have you yet to understand what a mocking, lying, pompous, self-righteous jackass you make yourself out to be. You are a Joke and once again, YOU ARE FAR FROM BEING ANYTHING CHRISTIAN! (scream caps included) servant of the Lord
P.S. I have no authority to condemn you, but "Christians" are allowed to call them as we see them. We're here to expose the wicked, in all their deceivingly nasty wickedness, especially when they're under the impression and purport to be Godly or "Christian".
In regard to the comment by commenter ‘Mary’ to JR (the 28th at 757PM) I would only say that there appears to be a world of SNAP-related events unbeknownst to the readership here to which ‘Mary’ makes subtle reference in her “deposition” comment.
One might reasonably imagine that the various elements of JR’s proffered ‘history’ in recent comments on this thread are not necessarily the whole – or any actual part of – the true story.
I sympathize with her implied wish about the deposition, but it doesn’t seem to me – from everything I’ve seen over the years here of JR’s modus operandi – that telling the truth in legal (or any other) settings is high on his to-do list.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 422PM:
Here ‘Dan’ doth puff up his pinfeathers most mightfully indeed. But to what purpose? Merely to insist upon his own favorite and most personal fantasy, i.e. that he be “the Lord’s ‘servant’ and most definitely His ‘messenger’”.
So there it is. As always. This is the core of the phantasmagoric construct upon which all the rest of ‘Dan’s stuff is based.
Once that hugely dubious bit is in place, then ‘Dan’ can happily proceed with the rest of his performance with all of its usual memes and tropes and assorted bits.
Let’s get beyond the “mocking” baloney and cut to the chase: ‘Dan’s arrogation unto himself of the status of “God’s servant” and “God’s messenger” in any but the most general and common sense of the terms in Christian usage (i.e. anyone baptized might be considered to be “God’s servant” and “God’s messenger”) is something bordering on blasphemy and is surely included in the Greek term ‘hubris’.
And he tries to bring it all home with – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – another threat on behalf of God.
You might want to look up in the Bible the 500-plus times the word "servant" was used to find that it is no title of pride. You're a manipulating disingenuous creep to even insinuate that it's "something bordering on blasphemy", when your cult and hierarchy is one fine display of blasphemers, idolaters and lying phonies. No one self-appoints themselves as "God's servant", and surely God who does the choosing knows who are truthfully His chosen ones. You catholics have quite the nerve accusing others, when you think you can appoint saints, when many of them are just charlatans and some are even pedophile protectors and enablers (i.e. st. jp II, st.padre pio, st. francis, and all the other fools who self-flagellated). Show me where beating yourself is a Biblical practice. Your saints and those you put on pedestals are nothing but fakes and frauds, just like your entire belief system. I have called myself "servant" as proof of my humility, when truly Christ is my friend (John 15:15) and He has chosen me to spread His Word. Apparently you have a problem with that? I don't really care what you think, as it pertains to my relationship with God my Father! servant and friend of the Lord
And you as a deceptive catholic liar, excuser, phony and accuser of the brethren, have quite the nerve labeling me "phantasmagoric", seeing that you have no clue of what qualifies one to be a saint, chosen or a servant of the Almighty.
And the only "mocking 'balogney' " is the garbage and trash that has barfed from your filthy mouth.
publiar, It's fairly obvious your attempts at criticizing my grammar today, with the over-dramatized accusation that I may be "greatly impaired in [my] grasp of grammar and usage", even when that omission wasn't even a grammatical error. No matter how hard you try to demean an opponent, in order to try to promote and display your intelligence, your mocking and compulsive lying shows one fine display of your true ignorance and stupidity.
It's also very obvious that you never correct or demean your catholic cronies and groupies, who have at times displayed terrible grammar and very poor spelling. Do you not believe this to be extremely hypocritical? I think you're as proud of acting like a hypocrite as you are of being a blatant liar. You have much to be proud of, too bad it's of nothing good. servant
You still say I'm lying about my abuse.
I say: Fuck you! Prove it.
You defend SNAP and Mary Grant as both being saner and more truthful than me.
I say: Fuck you! Prove it.
You see I can prove everyone of my claims about SNAP and Tom Doyle. What can you prove?
The main stream media is owned by 5 companies. Who would their class interest align with, the richest church in America or the victims of that church?
The police are owned by the ruling class. Mary Grant's complaint against her abuser "disappeared" as if by magic from LAPD files. Miracle of miracles. Was that the Lord's doing? Satan's? Or some paid off cop's?
You NEVER take my side against SNAP. Why? I know why, to agree with me about SNAP would be to blow your obviously much worked out plans. I have to be wrong about everything in order to make me "the villan" here. For this I wish you death.
Yet being against SNAP's behavior is what TMR is in large part supposed to be about. Oh yes, you'll just repeat that I am nuts, juvenile, fraudulent. That's all you've got and it's air. Fantasy. Wil O' the Wisp. It's your invention. I wish SNAP would sue me for defamation and/or libel. I have the proof of what I say. They won't sue me beause they know I'm telling the truth.
P, Your viciousness merits death. I said it before and I'l say it again. Killing you would be one of the greatest things I could ever do. Pray to that phoney god of yours I never get your name. Because if I did I'd tear you to pieces. Joyfully.
I'm taking this tact because its the only satisfaction I need. After of years of posting facts here and being called a liar by no one but you. Ah But then the rest are all amateurs and you, you are the professional. Your tune never varies.. From now on I think all I'll do is threaten to butcher you. When a poisonous viper attacks you You have a right to kill it. So let it be done to you.
I want you dead. I want your blood smeared over the lintel of your own house as a warning to all other pieces of shit.
I want your entrails tied around your cabin in a big pink bow.
I want you dead.
I would gladly walk into the Vatican with your miserable head on a pike saying: "I'm returning your fool" and then I'd ask: " Anyone else want to join him?"
No amount of truth or proof from me will ever calm your hideous lies. I want you dead. I justly want you dead.
Never once has there been an attempt at " a conversation between equals" from you. You need to be executed. You are an open cess pit. You are a tyrant and you need to die as soon as possible. Basta! I want you morte.
The rest of you? Please have a lovely day.
Implications about me from P.: He might be lying. He probably lied about a good teacher to blackmail a grade and later a settlement. He talks like a high schooler in the lunchroom. He changes his story. He curses, (Classy, good people don't curse). SNAP didn't like him because he's mentally deficient, out of control (Not because I asked questions they would not answer) (and certainly not because I found out the church created false flag that they were/are.) Oh no It's becuse I'm damaged he implies. The word implies contains the word lies by the way.
Do high schoolers speak English? P speaks English therefor P's words are what a high school student/a child would say. Therefor P speaks like a child in the lunchroom. (Granted it's a Catholic lunchroom.)
P had to be a teacher who else could be so viscious? So demeaning. A frustrated not-so-bright teacher. He goes on and on with their boring rants.
If he doesn't see himself as heroic defending the Catholic church against thieves what does he see himself as? A paid employee doing the job he's paid to do? To weave a web of lying implications ?
"There were few real abusers. Many false claims." Where's his proof? He's got zip.
I see myself as heroic by behaving exactly as any hero is supposed to behave and that's wrong according to Princess Tiny Dick. It's wrong to be heroic and to know it according to PTD.
If he really thinks the church is being defrauded and he alone is defending it here through TMR isn't he playing a hero? So he can do it "humbly" but if I do it knowing this is being heroic. I'm nuts.
I've fought here alone for 5 years now trying to get the truth about SNAP out. Heros tell the truth right up to liars faces. Always. But P doesn't do that, he continuously implies that I am not telling the truth. He mocks from his hidy hole with implication…
I am being implicated in actions I have not done; in words I have not said and in crimes I have not committed.
This is the best defense your church has to offer? This sleaze ball attack by a dummy?
You should be ashamed.
Oh and I still want to wring this fucker's neck. I want to write about that great getting up morning every time I post. Maybe the rack could be brought back to finish this shit hole off.
God, I hate you. I hate you enough to kill you. I have never felt this way before in my life about any human being or animal. I didn't even want my abuser dead. But you have shown me a whole new world of hate.
Consider me your death knell. Ding Dong! Ding Dong!
I ring for thee.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1020PM:
Here his scam is to describe his own preferred epitheticals about me as being factually my “attributes”. And further that these “attributes would [note the subjunctive mood] disqualify [me] as being any sort of ‘Christian’” – if he doth say so himself, of course.
And then just more riffing on his usual delusion that to mock ‘Dan’ is to mock God.
As I have said, ‘Dan’ qualifies as God’s “servant” only in the most basic sense that any baptized person (or, perhaps for fundies) any self-declared believer is a God’s “servant”. Beyond that most basic and general theological sense of the term “servant” then ‘Dan’ is more specifically described in terms of the delusional and the deceptive. Nor does the term “servant” of itself include any sense of competence in the “servant” gig.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1020PM:
But wait. There’s more.
He then puts up a comment which, in the absence of quotation marks, grammatically indicates that ‘Dan’ doth declare himself to be Mr. Know-It-All, which both i) indicates the utter failure of ‘Dan’s no-quotes-necessary ‘option’ to accurately convey information and ii) provides to the psychologically-aware a pitch-perfect example of what is known colloquially as a “Freudian slip”.
And – marvelously oblivious to his own sublimely witless and self-undermining performance – he then tries to build on it, puffing up his pinfeathers to riff on with more epitheticals, concluding brassily with scream-caps and exclamation point, once again shifting to the declarative-indicative to once again presume the authority to declare who is and isn’t a Christian.
But wait. There’s more.
Immediately thereafter, in the “P.S.” he goes schizzy again and doth demurely declare that he hath “no authority to condemn” me (i.e. for not being a Christian, which he had just declared in scream-caps that I was not).
By now readers may have come to the conclusion or at least suspicion that the erratically bouncing-ball is not only in ‘Dan’s material but in his very mentation.
On then to Dan’s of the 4th at 150AM:
Here – as so often with fundies and those who follow their procedures – ‘Dan’ will try to dress up his whackeries with the mask of scholarly knowledge: there are “500-plus times the word ‘servant’” is used in the Bible.
And so what? What is the relevance to ‘Dan’ and the matters on the table? As I have said, a whole lot of people can be a “servant” in a general or generic sort of way. But for the many who were designated “servants” in the Bible there is a demonstrated capacity for that ‘service’ as the relevant Scriptural text demonstrates or as the inspired Biblical author would authoritatively declare, whereas for ‘Dan’ we simply have his own bleats and brays about himself plus the myriad performances we now have on record here on this site.
Readers may consider as they will.
Continuing with my comment on Dan’s of the 4th at 150AM:
But wait. There’s more.
Apparently aware of precisely that problem, ‘Dan’ then doth declare that “no one self-appoints themselves [sic] as ‘God’s servant’”. But those “servants” in the Bible, to repeat what I just said, are demonstrated or declared to be such in the Biblical text itself.
That’s not the case with ‘Dan’ who – have we missed something? – is not thus specifically mentioned and demonstrated as such in any Biblical text. There is no Biblical text or author who declares that ‘Dan’ is God’s servant. Rather, all we have is ‘Dan’s own bleats and brays, coming rather long after the text of the Bible was completed.
Or perhaps he has worked some indubitable and extraordinary miracles – as have those declared by the Church to be saints – that he has thus far failed to share with us? (But wait! ‘Dan’ has a solution for that: they’re all “just charlatans” and – had you been waittttttttinggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? –“pedophile protectors” and so on.)
And the riff goes on in that same whiney and ridiculous, myah-myah way.
Ditto in regard to ‘Dan’s concluding stab at authority and authenticity by self-declaring that “truly Christ is [his] friend”. And lots of teenage girls thought young Sinatra or young Elvis or one of the Beatles was their personal friend. So what? That was their “phantasmagoric” self-indulgence or self-consolation. Then they grew up, most of them.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1256AM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to build his case on his own inaccurate presumption that he didn’t make any actual grammatical mistakes in his failure to use quotation-marks … because, readers may recall from his recent comments on either this thread or the thread immediately prior, there are two ways to quote Scripture grammatically: one that uses quotes (imposed by the Catholic hierarchy, ‘Dan’ declares) and one that doesn’t use quotes (which is ‘Dan’s way of quoting).
I am simply trying to “demean” him – doncha see? – and thus he is victimized, because I pointed out mistakes which ‘Dan’ now declares he didn’t even make in the first place.
And as for the “compulsive lying” and “blatant liar” bits – readers may consider just where those epithets should accurately be applied.
Anyway, ‘Dan’ then also says that Catholic commenters here “have at times displayed terrible grammar and very poor spelling”. Perhaps we missed some howlers that don’t seem to be in the record here.
But more to the point, most commenters here – whatever their grammatical errors, large or small – don’t claim to be commenting with the direct and divinely-inspired authority of God.
It would be some "indubitable and extraordinary miracle" if someone could put a stop to your ignorance, stupidity, mocking and lying nonsense.
You're claiming that in a Bible that was completed several hundreds of years ago, there should be proof of "specifically mentioned and demonstrated" by "Biblical text or author" the fact "that 'Dan' is God's servant". Do you prefer my last name too, or is the book of Daniel sufficient proof for you? You've said some awfully foolish and ridiculous things, but this one surely demonstrates how deep in your pig slop you're willing to go. And you call me the distracting and delusional whackjob?
And show me where in the Bible your declared catholic saints and especially corrupt popes are mentioned by name. Like I've said, "You won't find catholic, popes, cardinals, rosary or Mary adoration, reverence, honor, or what is most definitely goddess idol worship in the Word." And what are the "extraordinary miracles" of these so-called charlatan snakes? Oh, I'm sorry, I guess they're so-called saints. Some brainwashed sheep claimed they bowed down or kissed the feet of their statue (idolatry) and were cured of acne or hemorrhoids? Could it possibly be that pope jp II, along with card rat-zinger achieved or will achieve sainthood for protecting and enabling bishops and priests to molest, sodomize and rape little boys? We're they just perverts themselves and the corrupt cult considers all these perversions "miracles", especially the fact that they think they got away with their crimes, secretly settled or slipped through the cracks claiming Statute of Limitations?
Maybe beating yourself with a cat of nine tails, seeing false visions of the "Queen of Heaven" or faking a stigmata by stabbing yourself in the hands or pouring acid so you can claim you're like Jesus, qualifies as "indubitable and extraordinary miracles"? What a gathering of frauds and liars, you included publiar. Can't wait until all you phonies stand before the All-Knowing God! His just revenge and wrath will be sweet! The Lord's servant and messenger, Daniel
publiar oinks, "But more to the point, most commenters here – whatever their grammatical errors, large or small – don't claim to be commenting with the direct and divinely-inspired authority of God." What a ridiculous statement. Since I "claim to to be commenting with the direct and divinely-inspired authority of God", then I should never make mistakes in grammar, says the Grammar Bully. One sided, hypocritical fraud!
Likewise, since the catholic hierarchy, and I'm including popes down to the meager dregs (publiars), think they claim to teach and speak with the "divinely-inspired authority of God", should be held even more accountable for every lie, deceit and enabling of every pedophile, pederast and pervert among their ranks. There will be no forgiveness for the disgusting repetitive evilness of these nasty perverts and creeps, and the harm they've caused to innocent children.
Jeremiah prophesied speaking to those who burned incense to Baal (idolaters), "For your gods are as many as your cities … Therefore do not pray for these people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not listen when they call to Me because of their disaster." JER 11:14
There is sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray for that. 1 John 5:16
Now publiar will claim that the perverts of his cult have not committed this sin leading to death. Then why are there catholic catacombs, skeleton rooms and catholic boneyards where the creeps can worship death. They even worship the death of Christ in their temples, mutilated, bloodied and nailed to the cross. No problem. They'll just adore, pray, bow to and worship their idols of Mary, their Queen, Mother of Mercy, their life, sweetness and hope. Damned idolaters.
"But wait there's more" is what cheap TV comercials say. That's P all over. a cheap commercial selling a laundery product a whitener of besmearched reputations. The Church's besmearched reputation. Rinso Whitener. Say a thing's clean long enough and poof it is clean. P thinks like a cheap commercial. I.E. the public will buy anything if you pitch it to them long enough. ( That's certainly worked for religion over the eons ) Most of American commercials offer magical solutions mostly to nonexistant problems. The church is being sold here. As a new improved product. "We never or rarely touched a kid." "Those who claim they were touched? Not true. Money seekers willing to defraud. The MSM hates the Catholic church." Those are the lies being sold on Station TMR. by a lying P-itchman.
And what's he advertising for? Justice? Truth ? No. Here Catholic readers let's share a fantasy world where claiments are liars and priests rarely acted out. That's the cheap ass product being sold here. And you clowns buy it.
On then to JR’s of the 4th at 1231PM:
As so often, when JR allows himself to roll out an extended collection of his various bits, we get to see a sizable chunk of his repertoire conveniently arrayed for his usual purposes. That’s the value of these things when he puts them up.
Going down the list:
I have pointed out the many many problems with JR’s claims, assertions and so forth, and explicated them at length, noting as well that in just about every instance any further material he then introduces about the matter simply creates even more questions than it purports to answer.
His “prove it” claim – larded with back-table epithet – is a fine demonstration of the trump-card that Victimism always has up its sleeve: is the allegation/claim/accusation not true? – then “prove it”. In defense, one is faced with the impossible task of proving-a-negative and that throws the game into the ‘feeling’ forum wherein the Victimist Playbook simply screams or whimpers on cue to look appealing, belief-worthy, victimized, and truthy.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 1231PM:
He then claims that I “defend” SNAP. Regular readers may consult my years-long record of comments here to see how ridiculous that assertion is. As the record shows on this thread, my first comment (in regard to the first ‘Mary Grant’ comment) can hardly be characterized as supportive of SNAP; my second comment (in regard to the second ‘Mary Grant’ comment) simply opined on the outcome of any hypothetical deposition of JR, based – I repeat – on what we have seen of his presentations on this site.
He then slyly tries to weasel-in the presumption that I or readers “see” that he “can prove every one of [his] claims”, which is precisely n-o-t what I have demonstrated over the long and short haul here: very few, if any, of JR’s assorted claims/accusations/assertions can be or have been ‘proven’.
Have I “proven nothing”? I haven’t asserted anything that required proof. I have simply pointed out the very many problematic elements in the voluminous material from he who claims to “prove every one of [his] claims” and assertions and accusations and theories and so on.