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.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 1231PM:
Then a dubiously-relevant riff on “the main stream media” and so on; readers can suss it out as they may.
Then an even more dubiously-relevant (and cringe-inducing) declaration that “the police are owned by the ruling class” and such lefty, ‘60s claptrap.
But then but then: a stunningly childish whine and bleat that I “never take [his] side against SNAP”.
Which then serves merely to introduce a key element of JR’s whole approach: if his “side” is not ‘taken’ then there must be a conspiracy or some evil reason; that his “side” doesn’t create confidence in its veracity is a possibility JR cannot for a moment consider.
Then a demonstration of what is clinically called ‘projection’: it is I who have “much worked out plans”. But all I do is take the material that’s put up and consider it. It is JR who has a game-plan that he has pursued for decades now, at great cost to himself (we recall his ire over the fact that his attorney charged extra for the significant amount of work necessary to shoe-horn his early-1960s accusation into the big 2006-7 LA settlement case).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 1231PM:
He further bleats that he is being made out to be “’the villain’ here”, as if I were merely trying to create ex nihilo weaknesses and problematic elements in his material to fulfill some “plan” of mine. The weaknesses and problematic elements in his material are there because he put them there; they reside and inhere in his ‘story’ (and ‘plan’, if you wish) and are integral to its construction.
In short: JR doesn’t “have to be wrong about everything”; he simply is demonstrably unconvincing (to say the least) in so much of what he seeks to claim or assert.
But on the basis of the self-serving and self-exculpating fantasy about my material that he has constructed for himself, he has then created either the substance or appearance of deep and violent ire because he is thus being ‘victimized’. (More on that deep and violent ire below.)
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 1231PM:
And having left the rails of accuracy he then increases speed: TMR is supposed to be “against SNAP” (I won’t speak for the TMR site but I certainly have pointed out my concerns about SNAP and its operating plan) … but clearly TMR isn’t “against SNAP”, he stumbles on, because ‘Mary Grant’s “side” was taken instead of his own.
It’s not about truth with JR; it’s all about ‘sides’. And if you don’t demonstrate that you are on JR’s “side”, then you are going to be on his poo-list and he’s gonna getcha somehow somewhere sometime (which is precisely what I have noted in regard to his accusation against a teacher in whose class he was failing half a century and more ago). This is how JR is wired and apparently has been for a very very long time.
He tries to wave away his (rather catchy) characterization of my assessment of him as “nuts, juvenile, fraudulent” by merely braying that it is all just “air”. Readers may consider the record here and decide for themselves.
Then – with stupendous lack of self-awareness – he who has just brayed that he doth “wish [me] death” now bleats about my “viciousness” (i.e. my not taking his “side”) which – by amazing and convenient (to JR) coincidence – “merits death” and he “joyfully” indulges himself in a riff along those lines.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 1231PM:
And then – like a busy beaver using any twig to build his dam – he tries to spin SNAP’s failure to sue him as demonstrating that “they know [he’s] telling the truth”. But why would any organization want to waste the time and effort on so small a fry as JR and his rantings in what few places still allow him to rant?
And if his accusatory material can’t stand up to even the modest examination it has received on this site, what does he imagine would happen to his stuff under professional adversarial examination in open court? This really is either juvenile or delusional (or perhaps a sly and brassy braying knowing full well that his material will never have to be thus examined).
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 1231PM:
But wait. There’s more.
Having delivered himself of all that (and isn’t so much more than he intended?) he slyly switches gears: he’s only taking this “tact” (i.e. tack) – doncha see? – because – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – “it’s the only satisfaction I need”. Does he seem ranty and a bit off and perhaps crazy? That’s just because he’s been so ‘viciously’ victimized here because nobody has taken his “side” and his stuff is – the horror! – dispassionately examined and assessed.
That’s not how he ever wants the game played. You will be on his “side” or he will, as here, start salivating about “your entrails” and “your blood smeared over the lintel of your own house” and so on.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 1231PM:
Then he quickly switches gears again, this time into implied-victim mode: “No amount of truth or proof from me”, he sighs bleatingly, “will ever calm your hideous lies”. What truth? What proof?
And for that matter what “lies” of mine? I have pointed out problems and suggested possible or probable causes and proposed alternative (and I would say more plausible) explanations … but in JR’s mind that constitutes assertive and declarative “lies”. Anything that isn’t on his “side” is just “air” and “lies”, doncha see? And if you don’t see that, then you too are not on his “side”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 1231PM:
And he tries to bring the whole vaudeville bit home with a final victim-themed bleat: I have never made “an attempt at ‘a conversation between equals’” with JR. Readers so inclined may go back over half a decade and see that from the get-go here JR was as you see him now: you just sit there and take his ‘facts’ and call it ‘truth’ or else you are not on his “side”.
That’s not and never has been and never can be the basis for any sort of “conversation”.
And “between equals”? I cannot begin to equal JR in his own métier as described here. And in terms of rational conversation, I don’t see us “equal” there either.
On then to JR’s of the 4th at 502PM:
He lists some of the “implications” that in my assessment flow from his stuff (and I do not here accept that his statements of them are all accurate).
What he’s going for is that he’s not “mentally deficient” or “out of control” but rather he’s the heroic and truthy guy who just asks “questions” that others “would not answer” (which further presumes that he knows some ‘truth’ that others don’t … which, a reader might notice, begins to sound like ‘Dan’).
He simply cawn’t imagine that his “false flag” theory of the Church (i.e. the Church created SNAP and the torties and controlled the judges and police and media and even the ‘victims’ to only make it look like it was dealing with the abuse matter but really it wasn’t and it hasn’t ever … and only JR has seen this and knows this) is not accepted for the clear and bright and undeniable ‘truth’ that he insists it is.
And – but of course –only evil people would deny this ‘truth’ that JR claims to know.
And then a bit of fundie-type word play: didja know that the word “lies” is in the word “implies” … ??!!
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 502PM:
He then tries to wave-away his adolescent scatology and such by bleating that high-schoolers “speak English”. But he has to be 70 or more now and … is he trying to defend himself according to the standards of high-schoolers?
But then we get this demonstration of JR’s idea of ‘logic’: since high-schoolers speak English and I speak English, then am I not also a high-schooler … ? Readers may consider as they will.
Shifting gears, he is then reduced to tossing out suspicions and wonderings and such about me. What do I see myself as here? As I have often said, I simply look at the material that’s put up; I don’t need to “see myself as” anything. JR, of course, poses himself as the (only) truthy and heroic truth-teller in sight – bethumped, as we have often read, by evil conspiratorial types trying to make him look “mentally deficient” and “out of control”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 502PM:
He then tries to create something I haven’t said. I have consistently pointed out the problems and elements that lead to the conclusion that one must be very careful in assessing various claims and stories and assertions. JR tries to characterize that as overt indicative declarations on my part to the effect that (and he even uses quotation marks) “There were few real abusers. Many false claims”.
Those possibilities clearly and certainly exist, I have said, and must always be kept in mind when assessing what is claimed. (As must the deranging and deforming consequences of the other elements of the Stampede: little if any evidence required, the possibility of large cash payouts with little if any examination at all, and a media eager for many reasons to lap it all up.)
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 502PM:
JR then comes right out and discusses his own view of himself (and if you don’t agree with him then you are b) on the “side’ of evil and a) not on his “side”): JR doth see himself “as heroic”.
But wait. There’s more.
He clearly demonstrates that he is “heroic” “by behaving exactly as any hero is supposed to behave” (threatening murder and such?). And he further nails down his concept of being “heroic” by tossing in a double gender-bendy epithet.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 502PM:
And then he bleats that he is for all practical purposes being victimized – had you been waitttingggg forrrrrrr itttttttttttt? – just because he is “heroic and know[s] it”. We are deep down a dark and descending forest path here.
He then riffs further on along that path: he hath “fought here alone for 5 years now” and so on. While also quickly inserting a sly presumption that his ‘theory’ about SNAP is actually and undeniably “the truth about SNAP”.
But here we quickly see how the derangement works: if JR’s stuff is “truth” / and he keeps trumpeting it / then other people who don’t agree are “liars”/ and he is a “hero” for continuing to trumpet it. This is as pretty an example of an ‘economy of derangement’ as one is likely to see outside of the clinical forum.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 502PM:
Then a bleat to the effect that he is “being implicated in actions [he has] not done”. His own material ‘implicates’ him through the very implications his material raises. His ‘economy of derangement’ may necessarily prevent him from seeing that, but whose problem is that ultimately?
Then a switch to the epithetical (“sleaze ball attack by a dummy”) and we are once again in the back of the high-school cafeteria.
On the basis of which he doth puff up his pinfeathers to intone that “you should be ashamed”. (Heroes, of course, need never “be ashamed”.)
And then back to the murderous fantasies, riffed – almost caressed – with gusto.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 4th at 502PM:
But then what I would say is a false note indeed: JR has been this way for quite a long time and I very much doubt I am the first object of such murderous vitriol on JR’s part. I have not “shown” JR “a new world of hate”; it is his world and he knows it far better than I or probably better than many others here and elsewhere.
And as if all that weren’t enough, he then fantasizes about being my “death knell”. JR may indeed be many things, but the Angel of Death is far too prestigious a status for him. Perhaps a nasty little “ding dong” at the very least, but a being of such metaphysical status as the Angel of Death … as John Wayne would say: “Not hardly”.
My response to publiar's March 8th @ 3:14pm "stuff" – How could a consistently compulsive liar ever understand anything of 'truth', when he, (that would mean you), would much rather prefer the lie, than ever accept the 'truth'. Even this is the 'truth' that you'll refuse to accept.
Servant of the God of absolute 'truth'. The one you don't even know, because you're too busy bowing down and kissing the feet of your "Queen of Heaven", to look up to the Creator. She's the sweet and gentle one that all lying cowards and perverts prefer for forgiveness, over God and His Awesome Son, and not "Awe-full" as the fearful (you) prefer to think of Him. servant
Thank you for the kind words per usual.
Come out of hiding oh frightened one. I'll help you meet your maker.
When a sad little queen like you has to quote a racist like Wayne (read his Playboy interview in the '70's if you doubt me (Ha!) though this lot here are most likely racist to the bone anyway so who cares?. It only shows what a rag tag pile of Catholics meet here. Racists bigots liars. My, look who's defending heaven. The usual crooks.
You are a liar P.
Dan, is P a liar? You've said so many times. He smears the truth. He calls the truth not the truth. He has alternate facts An alternative truth.
I am not The Angel of Death. I'm your personal angel of death. I'm your Meet your Maker, maker.
Stay hidden little liar. The minute I find out who you are you're dead.
So at least 2 of the voters here in TMR land say you're a liar. You know your peers? your fellow citizens? 2 of us say you're a lying dog.
I have pretended you weren't worth killing long enough. It's dying time.
I don't threaten murder. I promise to kill you.
To the readership if there is any. I am willing to do anything to get the truth about SNAP out. I, by threatening nay promising to murder Paloma Deuchoue bag, here, am attempting to crack through your craniums. I'm fucking bored after all these years. I'm bored with this anti-human place. You aren't seeking justice here you're seeking shelter. TMR a Petrie dish for nonsense.
I thought/think I'll just march your fake logic right to it's natural outcome which is death. The death of truth. The death of your victims. So i look at who been murdering the truth the most and that's P so I play Death cometh to the ArchBishop P-rick. He deserves to die miserably. That's all I need to post from here on out.
How many victims have died thanks to the sex abuse? Enough to make any apologist for that abuse an accessory after the fact. You are all accessories to murder. That's what I mean by the "natural outcome" of your lies is death. Time to return the favor. It's Harvest time.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1104PM:
As so very often, he opens with string of epithet, just to set the tone and maybe smooth the path for whatever stuff he’s now going to be putting up.
The Bible was considered closed for new material about 1500 years ago, but let’s not quibble.
Here ‘Dan’ attempts to counter my point that he personally was not specifically mentioned as God’s servant in the Bible by pointing to – had you been waittinggggggg forrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttttt? – the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament.
Are we to presume then that this ‘Dan’ we have here is the reincarnation of the Daniel who is the subject of that Book? Or is it that if ‘Dan’ has the same first name as the name attributed to the author of that Book then … what?
On that stupefyingly witless basis he then awards himself a victory-lap riff. Readers may consider who is eligible for the Saying Some Awfully Foolish And RidiculousThings And Being A Distracting and Delusional Whackjob award.
Last sentence – Yes, this would describe YOU! You forgot to add Ignorant Liar to complete the package. Sorry publiar, there will be no awards from God given to the Foolish, Ridiculous, Distracting and Delusional Whackjobs, and let's not forget Compulsive liars, although possibly Satan, the father of all lies and liars will be willing to award you with Eternal Fire. servant
P.S. Try not to fall back on your favorite "I'm Not/You Are bits", and the rest of you're annoying trash.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1104PM:
A number of saints are mentioned in the Bible (one thinks of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and Peter and Paul for openers). Those who are not mentioned yet demonstrated the capacity to perform miracles during life or after their physical death. ‘Dan’ – unless he has been hiding more of his life-achievements from us – doesn’t qualify on that score either.
And then just more riffing along the usual familiar lines to the effect that there were no such miracles and it’s all just “charlatan” stuff (a possible category for his own performances that ‘Dan’ – but of course – cannot allow himself to consider).
And then a concluding paragraph that extends the riff, bringing in more bits we’ve seen before, dragged in by ‘Dan’ from such precincts of the web and fundie-verse as we have also seen before.
Oh, and then ‘Dan’ wraps it all up with – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttttt? – a self-consoling threat delivered on behalf of God and so on. And he signs off styling himself (or Himself) as “Daniel”.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 737AM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to merely wave away my point with more of his epitheticals (i.e. “ridiculous statement”).
‘Dan’ then demonstrates his logical chops: if he were commenting “with the direct and divinely-inspired authority of God” then – had you been waittingggggggg forrrrrrr ittttttttttttttt? – he “should never make mistakes in grammar”.
What’s his response to that? Nothing but another epithetical waving-away.
And in any case, my key point was about his claim to be speaking “with the direct and divinely-inspired authority of God” … and, slyly, that is precisely the point that he doesn’t want to deal with; if he says Yes he is and thus … and if he says No he isn’t and thus … so he’ll just try the myah-myah epithetical wave-away and figure that will resolve the abyssal problem at the basis of his entire shtick.
As with any costumed-masquerade on a stage, you’re supposed to appreciate and accept ‘Dan’s performances … but you aren’t supposed to actually look too closely. (Because it precisely is a masquerade performance and nothing more.)
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 737AM:
But his attempt to wave-away his “mistakes in grammar” also serves (intentionally or not on ‘Dan’s part) to evade a deeper and far more important issue: if ‘Dan’ does “make mistakes in grammar” then how does that relate to the (claimed) guidance of divine authority that grounds ‘Dan’s stuff?
Does the ‘guidance’ only work for general thoughts and not for specifics? If so, how general and how specific before ‘Dan’ strays beyond its guiding effects?
Or is it that the instrument/”servant” is limited by his own incapacities such that those incapacities serve to actually interfere with or derange or change the ‘guidance’?
Given the extent of the incapacities of the instrument/”servant”, this is not a minor consideration at all.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 737AM:
Then a double-whammy of whackery: first, that I am supposed to have ever claimed to be speaking with such divine authority and second, that the Church doesn’t speak with such authority (or – though it isn’t convenient to his purposes and agenda here in this comment – that any “man-made religion” speaks with such authority).
As for the first: I make no claims to any such divine authority.
As for the second: that is the role of a religion; what has actually happened is that ‘Dan’ has set himself up as his own ‘religion’ (and religious authority), claiming that only he is divinely-inspired and thus neither he nor God need any other, “man-made” religions. ‘Dan’s ‘religion’ is not “man-made” – doncha see? – because it is directly inspired by God (and, we now must add, is utterly reliable in its transmission of that ‘message’ from God because ‘Dan’ is utterly reliable as a transmitter).
It’s only ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – who doth speak with such authority (though you would “mock” him – and, but of course, God – if you were to dare look at his costume-masquerade and scripted bits too closely).
Thus he riffs further along those lines with more of his usual ranting, tossing in some Bible bits that – but of course – require the presumptions that ‘Dan’ always presumes.
Never ever have I claimed "that only [I am] divinely-inspired and thus neither he nor God need any other, 'man-made' religions". However, he surely doesn't have any need for false pagan religions and especially you and your greedy, wicked, sexually immoral, idol-worshipping one.
So readers may consider and add this to publiars slew of ridiculous lies. They seem to never ever end. servant of Truth
And by the way, liars like yourself, should never think they can make any "claims to any such divine authority". I'm glad to see that you realize this, although you think you're the one who can interpret Scripture, when really all you ever do is dispute and manipulate God's Word. Readers will notice this fact in many of publiars previous interpretations and he has a few more poor interpretations coming in his next few posts. I guess he can blame Dr. Perkins for this, but of course he'll propose her work to be "relevant" seeing that she's a fellow catholic. Also, he once again displays his vast knowledge because HE READS BOOKS! Aren't we all so impressed with his brilliant analysis of everything and his misinterpretations of Scripture.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 737AM:
For those TMR readers who might be interested in the problem posed by the Johannine Letters, which would include the First Letter, I would propose (and here encapsulate) the relevant work of Scripture scholar Dr. Pheme Perkins:
There is serious ground for question as to whether the author of the Gospel of John is the same author to whom the Johannine Letters are attributed.
More specifically, there is a theological problem inherent in the First Letter: what is the “sin which leads to death” mentioned in 1 John 5: 16? Because in 1 John 2: 1-2 the Letter states that the exalted Christ is now an advocate for sinful Christians before God. And in 1 John 2: 12 the Letter states that the Letter’s author is “writing to you … whose sins have already been forgiven through his [i.e. Christ’s] name”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 737AM:
But what then could be the (or any) “sin which leads to death” (v.16)?
Which is further complicated by the fact that the Letter has also stated (1 John 3: 6, 9) that “anyone who lives in God does not sin, and anyone who sins has never seen him [i.e. God] or known him” (v.6) and that “no one who has been begotten by God sins” (v.9).
Regular readers may quickly see that these verses have created – especially for the fundie-oriented – an abyssal problem that ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ has also taken on: in Christ the sins of Christians are forgiven through Christ, and yet no genuine Christians actually can or do commit sin. And readers may further recall that ‘Dan’s ‘solution’ to this profoundly abyssal conundrum posed by the Letter is that ‘Dan’ doesn’t sin though he makes “the occasional mistakes”.
And once again, publiar states, "readers may further recall that 'Dan's 'solution' … is that 'Dan' doesn't sin though he makes 'occasional mistakes'." Never said that I don't sin, so we'll again just add this to publiars slew of lies. He's really on a roll of lying today.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 737AM:
Back then to the nature of “a sin which leads to death”.
Perkins acknowledges that “this phrase is difficult to interpret”. Her “best solution” is to identify that sin as being committed by “dissidents who have separated themselves from the Christian community” (and there were many such in the era of the Letter).
But, she continues, other Scripture scholars prefer to think that the Letter’s text would indicate that this “sin which leads to death” puts such sinners beyond the prayers of the Christian community. Certainly, 2 John 10: 11, that expelled dissidents be refused hospitality or even greeting by Christians, is relevant here.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 737AM:
I would note that this second approach still leaves unanswered the question as to the identification of this “sin which leads to death”.
‘Dan’s solution – by amazing coincidence so very convenient to his general agenda – is to merely presume that this “sin which leads to death” is something concerning ‘abuse’ and so on. (And, regular readers of this site may recall, since ‘Dan’ doesn’t do ‘abuse’ but merely makes “the occasional mistakes” then he – among perhaps so very few ‘genuine’ Christians as may exist in his schema – can get on with his agenda from the high-chair of (mostly) unassailable genuine Christian virtue.)
Readers who are interested may begin further study of the question by consulting Perkins’s analysis of the First Letter in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, chapter 68, “The Johannine Epistles”, pp.986-995. Her introductory comments and then specific review of the First Letter is found on pp. 986-993.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 737AM:
And then ‘Dan’ – in yet another bravura display of his lack of logical chops – tries this bit: since so many Christians have died then … what? According to ‘Dan’, the fact that Christians have physically died somehow proves that Christians have committed that “sin which leads to death”.
Here he mistakes mere physical death for the spiritual “sin which leads to death”. Or – if not a mistake – ‘Dan’ is simply thrown back to deliberately playing fundie-type word-games yet again.
And he riffs on along those lines in the usual ranty way.
Once more using his ignorance and stupidity, publiar tries to claim that I'm mistaking physical death from spiritual death, with his own "display of lack of logical chops" with a stupid statement preceded by "According to 'Dan'. Strange how he thinks he can claim my "lack of logical chops" or "mistakes" for statements I've never said and he dreams up, so he can lay blame on me. So strange how Satan and his hordes slyly accuse others for words they never said. There seems to be no limit to their lies and deceptions. servant of the One True God, who hates liars
And once again, Matthew chapter 18:1-6, Jesus calls a 'little child' to himself with the words, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." He ends the thought with the 'little child' still in front of Him with, "If anyone causes one of these 'little ones' – those who believe in me – to stumble, it would better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
Now the excuser, liar and denier, publiar, wishes to misinterpret these passages in order to excuse the pedophilia and pederasty of his cult leaders, and make claim that Jesus wasn't condemning those who cause great physical and mental harm to His precious 'little ones'. Like I previously stated, there seems to be no limit to the lies and deceptions of Satan and those who blindly follow in his path. This is one of the sins which leads to eternal spiritual death and a sin so heinous that Christians shouldn't even pray for those who commit it. Another could be the reverence, honor, adoration, but don't say worship of a false goddess and not the worship of the One True God and His Son who died for our sins. Strange how your cult apparently is guilty of both of these sins. Any of you hypocrites ever question that fact?
Why waste our time and yours, so why don't you just come clean and admit that you're an Accuser, like your father the devil, and save us all alot of energy disputing your ignorance and nonsense.
On then to JR’s of the 7th at 732PM:
Here JR has accurately noted that my “But Wait. There’s more.” bit comes from those late-night extended TV commercials.
What’s he got, then? Why he’s going to deploy the old I’m Not/You Are bit, for lack of anything else.
Thus, that my use of that TV-ad lingo means that I am selling the same type of late-night hokum. And he happily – and self-servingly – riffs on along that line, stuffing in as many of his usual bits as he can.
But readers may consider who is selling the hokum here, which was my point in using the ad’s phrasing in the first place.
And in the process he stuffs in his usual self-advertisement as being the heroic truthy solitary voice for “Justice” and “Truth”. Readers may consider it all as they will.
My wish is that all you lying catholic apologists would stop denying your worship of Mary, "Queen of your Heaven". Can you never come clean and be honestly truthful. The largest percentage of your churches are named after her, second comes churches named for saints and lastly and very few named after Jesus Christ. You break the 1st and 2nd Commandment, putting her before God and Christ, bowing to her statues, kissing her feet and burning incense to your false goddess. Most all of your parades have gold-crowned Mary statues raised on platforms covered in roses. Oh, you have Jesus statues in your temples, bludgeoned and bloodied, or on your popes Satanic crooked crosses or as a child that you think is too young to judge your nasty sins. I've seen parades to abortion clinics led by large satin embroidered banners of Mary in all her glory, as participants babbled her rosary, as if we need to see your public displays of idolatry. Your images and visions of Mary standing on a black moon should tell you that this is the worship of darkness. Your horrible prayers of Hail Holy Queen, Hail Mary and all the rest of your idol babble towards her sinlessness, ever-virgin and assumption lies and false claims. It's one thing to think we're that stupid not to realize that all this is worship, but do you really believe that the All-Knowing and All-Seeing God doesn't notice your idolatry? Don't allow your deceiving sick leaders to pull the wool over your eyes. They laugh behind your back as they overindulge in their gluttonous lusts. Lying hypocrites destined for Hell.
Actually I was using, not "trying to use the pericope [John 8:44] epithetically" to describe you. However, if it makes you feel better that you're among good company with other catholic liars, then so be it. This must console you. Catholic readers can judge as they may, as the liar is willing to throw other catholics under the bus. My guess is that compulsive liars enjoy the company of other like minded liars.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 113AM:
Here ‘Dan’ wants to take issue with my observation (the 8th at 314PM) that JR’s claim to special knowledge or knowledge known only to himself, making him a heroic u truthy u oh-so-speshull kinda guy) starts to sound very much like a variant of ‘Dan’s general pose.
Well, what has ‘Dan’ to say about that?
First – and had you been waitttinggggg forrr itttttttttttt? – merely epithet (“compulsive liar”) with no demonstration of just how the epithet applies here. But this is ‘Dan’s game: if he is faced with a “compulsive liar” / then his own assertions can have no effect (on such a compulsively lying person) / and so ‘Dan’ need not engage any of the points / and he can thus waddle ceremoniously on.
Second, the foregoing bit thus grounds – to ‘Dan’s satisfaction anyway – a victory-lap riff in which he doth lovingly caress himself and his self-claimed role, while taking some of his usual potshots (especially at the “Queen of Heaven”, a role which – as I have said before – ‘Dan’ clearly envisions for himself).
And that’s all, folks (as the cartoonist once put it).
Publiar oinks, "Dan" takes "his usual potshots (especially at the "Queen of Heaven", a role which – as I have said before – 'Dan' clearly envisions for himself)". Next post he's criticizing JR, as he has done many times, of using "gender-bendy epithet". So you felt that it's fine to lay a "gender-bendy epithet" on me. You are one queer accusing creep that probably is molesting little boys, which explains why you're so quick to defend and make excuses for the disgusting perverted pedophile creeps of your cult, seeing that you're one of them.
On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1246AM:
From each of the usual Abuseniks we are conveniently provided now with rather nicely revealing summaries of their shticks and modus operandi. We have just seen ‘Dan’s. Now we have a nicely extended bit from JR.
First, he’s – as ever – mad that I don’t use my name. I’m “frightened” – doncha see? – (and, following his ‘reasoning’ here, since he has already revealed himself as an aspiring and sworn killer, why would that possibly be?).
Second, he sees utterly no problem with fuming such threats and – far worse – reveling in his chosen status as a killer (masquerading as a heroic and truthy avenger or some such).
Third, gender-bendy epithet.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1246AM:
Fourth, a harrumphy bit of posed ‘church-lady’-type outrage: how dare I “quote a racist like Wayne”.
I had quoted a script line that seemed quite apropos (“seemed the thing to do at the time”, to quote another Wayne-character comment). JR – most very uncharacteristically – has come up with an actual documentary reference, a Playboy article (the May 1971 issue to be specific) on Wayne’s personal views and none of that has anything to do with my use of the script lines he delivered.
Although it would certainly be an interesting conceptual exercise if one were to read the text of the 1971 interview and consider it from the point of view of how things have played out in the ensuing 47 years.
And one might recall that Wayne’s character in, say, “Fort Apache” was remarkably respectful of the Indians and opposed to Fonda’s regimental colonel; and Wayne’s character in “She Wore A Yellow Ribbon” had the status of old friend (and drinking buddy) with Indian chiefs; and his character in “The Searchers” was a profound study in the effects of hate and revenge on a human being.
And then – marvelously – JR can’t help undermining his ‘scholarly’ performance by opining that the readers of TMR “are most likely racist to the bone anyway”. JR just sorta ‘knows’ this – doncha see? – cuz … well, he just sorta ‘knows’ a lotta stuff. And is heroic and truthy for telling everybody. And is victimized for being thought a nasty whackjob and such. It’s what he does.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1246AM:
Then just a quicky one-liner bit of epithet: I am “a liar”. Though, as ever, no demonstration or explication. That’s not what JR does.
Then a shout-out to his pea-pod mate ‘Dan’ and we get yet again one of those catty just-entre-nous bits for which these two are known here. In addition to sharing oh-so-speshull knowledge and the status that goes with it, they both do catty rather well; you’d think they practiced it often in front of the bathroom mirror.
And in that same bit, JR doth riff on “truth”, doing his stand-up mimicry of philosophical converse – as best he can manage it, anyway.
And then – responding to some deep urge that is surely an integral and long-standing element of the basic JR – he goes on to riff about his fondly-caressed murderous imaginings.
What high-school teacher would ever have wanted somebody like this in a class?
And the rest of his comment trails off in a way that readers may consider for themselves.
I‘ll be going over ‘Dan’s recent crop in the order they appear on the site.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 851AM:
The term “manmade religions” (sic) is ‘Dan’s from a comment on this site on Feb. 8, 2017 at 1151AM.
The full sentence is: “My call is to expose the hypocrisies of such, in hopes that their followers will awaken and leave the deceiving works of Satan, obviously present in all manmade religions”.
Clearly, ‘Dan’ has ruled out all ‘religions’ (since all involve the foundational presence of some key persons) and God clearly isn’t going to be in need of “false pagan religions” (which would be pretty much any “manmade religions” … unless ‘Dan’ would care to name a few of the religions that he does consider to be acceptable).
He then quickly moves on to his more enjoyable and familiar task of larding on epitheticals.
Must of overlooked this one. Haven't we gone over this several times already? I do appreciate you quoting the "full sentence" : "My call is to expose the hypocriies of such, in hopes that their followers will awaken and leave the deceiving works of Satan, obviously present in all manmade religions". You make my work easier by bringing more attention to my cause. Thanx.
Hopefully for the last time, I believe from my experience and research that 'all' organized manmade religions are false based on the fact that they do not follow God's Word and instead base their beliefs on their traditions and false teachings. Sorry to open your eyes to this, but I've found no religion to be as deceiving and false as that of the catholic church, and Revelations chapter 17 and 18 depicts "the Church" in fine detail, of which I've heard your many denials. So dispute this and deny it all you like, but it does not change the fact that these two chapters depict your false cult perfectly in revelation to John, from an angel of God.
Strange how you can't accept the prophetic Word of the Almighty, but have no problem believing the false visions of charlatans, even if they're from young children. I wonder if some of your lying phony priests or bishops wrote the words of the Fatima visions. Sure has helped sell alot of Mary statues and rosary beads. They surely don't sound like the writings of peasant children. And all the pictures of the three kids look like they're pretty angry about something, most likely the con and deception. servant of the Truth
I wasn't aware that the three children were illiterate at the time of the secrets. This gives even more opportunity for this to be a fraud perpetrated by "the Church (cult)" bishops or priests, along with Lucia, a girl known to have a big imagination and prone to dreaming up stories.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 917AM:
Trying to whistle his way beyond the fact that it is he, and not me, who makes claims to divine authority, ‘Dan’ – with a notable slyness – simply tries to turn the point into an epithetical with his riff on my not being worthy of claiming divine authority.
He then tries to preclude any discussion of his most recent pericopes – and thus preclude any necessity for discussing any of his own pericopes – by painting my interpretations as “poor”, although he has never actually demonstrated the Scriptural chops to explicate just how they are supposed to be “poor”.
Readers by now will have read my discussion of the 9th at 1135-36-37-41 AM, concerning ‘Dan’s most recent pericope choice. He puts these pericopes up, but he doesn’t seem to be capable of discussing them, even in the context of the Biblical Book or Letter from which they are taken.
And as readers may have already noticed, none of this most recent bunch of ‘Dan’s comments even tries to come to grips with the actual problems posed by the First Letter of John.
‘Dan’ has pericopes like Imelda Marcos had shoes: there’s a big bunch of them in his closet, but he just seem to like to look at them and that’s all.
Oh, and ‘Dan’s both amused and miffed that I am one who “READS BOOKS!” (scream-caps and exclamation retained). ‘Dan’ doesn’t need to do that; he has his bathroom mirror and his own agenda.
You're not interested in discussing Scripture verses, you're only interested in twisting, manipulating and changing the meaning of the verse to suit your liking, in order to explain, or should I say make excuses as to why your cult won't accept or follow God or Christ's teachings. For some reason you and other catholic apologists think you've got all the answers, but in the end you've only fooled yourselves and made fools out of yourselves. Maybe you can fool a boatload of brainwashed catholic sheep, who are willing to buy into all your lies, but the results will be that they only became partakers of your greedy, deceiving cult of lying, hypocritical, sexually immoral creeps, of which you are one fine example. Catholics come to your senses and flee from this deceiving unbiblical idolatrous cult. They will be more than willing to pull you down with them. Like I've said, misery loves company. servant of the Lord
P.S. The only other reason that I could find for you wanting me to discuss Scripture, is in hopes that I'll make some small grammatical error, and you can get your big charge out of correcting it and writing (sic), so you can flaunt your intelligence. YOU ARE SIC!!
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 926AM:
Readers will first recall that “occasional mistakes” is ‘Dan’s own term, introduced a while back on this site, while he was evading the question as to whether he did or did not commit sin. (Regular readers may recall that ‘Dan’ had gotten himself into a trough with his assertion that genuine Christians don’t sin, although they do make “occasional mistakes”.)
So if – as ‘Dan’ implies here – he does “sin”, then what becomes of his claim to be a “genuine Christian”?
I believe I said something in the order of true Christians don't continue in their sins, especially repeating and denying, as catholic hierarchy has, the most disgusting sins of pedophilia, pederasty and homosexual immorality against innocent young boys. If you are under the opinion that this isn't "sin that leads to death", then you must apparently be one of them. Keep believing you can interpret Matthew 18:1-6 to your liking and we'll let God decide your just punishment. Even the majority of secular society believes those claiming to be Godly, who perform these despicable sexual crimes against innocent children, should be prosecuted and put away for eternity. Why do you think only 23% of those professing to be catholic attend your pompous Sunday celebrations of the worship of the sun and moon. With all your 'brains' you can't figure out that the sunburst monstrance houses the depiction of the sun (host) held up by the moon. In gold, but the same shape as the black moon that your Guadalupe "Queen of Heaven" stands on. What's wrong, publiar, you have your head so deep in the toilet that you're unable to recognize that? Strange how you have no problem mocking God, His Word and His followers. This must console you.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 944AM:
Opening as so often with a thick lard of epitheticals, ‘Dan’ tries to weasel around his conflation of physical and spiritual death.
Readers will not that he proffers utterly nothing except another thick larding of epitheticals.
On the 7th at 737AM he said “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.”
Clearly, the question in his second sentence – introduced by that “Then why” – draws a connection between the spiritual “sin leading to death” in the first sentence and the “catacombs” and other loci of physical death in the second sentence.
Which leads to the more basic question: Does ‘Dan’ even understand what he writes in comments? I’d say he doesn’t.
You sin the "sins that lead to death", you may as well worship death, because these sins will lead to your eternal death. If you think building cathedrals made of skeleton bones is proof of sanity or some Godly form of worship, well then that would explain your blindness to all the repetitive disgusting sins and lack of understanding or obeying the Heavenly Father. You don't realize how your cult worships following pagan sun beliefs, with obelisks and reproduction black statues of Etruscan gods in their vatican museums? I've seen catholic monstrances with the host (sun) and luna (moon) encased in a glass pyramid. How much more obvious could you idolaters be? Wake-up catholics to your pagan belief system.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1018AM:
Here – apropos of nothing relevant to the present issues – ‘Dan’ merely tosses up yet again his pericope from Matthew (which, regular readers will recall, was rather comprehensively dealt with a few months back).
Yet even here – and again – ‘Dan’ fails to understand the text he himself has selected: “unless you become like little children” (italics mine); that “like” instantly indicates that Jesus’s subject is not “little children” at all, but rather adults becoming “like little children”.
But ‘Dan’s agenda and entire shtick requires him to ignore the text for his own purposes.
Having thus already derailed himself and his comprehension of the Biblical text, ‘Dan’ can then seek to distract readers once again, trying to bring them back to one of his favorite epithetical bits, as he does in the entire second paragraph.
And then – further altering things to his own purposes – ‘Dan’ now says that there is not a single “sin that leads to death” but actually maybe a bunch of them: “pedophilia”, “ pederasty” , “and another could be ‘reverence, honor adoration … of a false goddess’”). All of which, by amazing coincidence, are ‘Dan’s favorite and oh-so-familiar Catholic bugbears.
I don't think I'm the one "ignor[ing] the text" if I'm the one explaining it's meaning. The fact that catholics think that they as lying immoral idolatrous sinners think they can better explain the meaning, is beyond me and laughable.
And yes, idolatry of your "Queen of Heaven", easily can be considered "sin that leads to death", when it breaks the first Commandment and also the most important commandment of Jesus, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." So keep bowing to Mary, burning incense and claiming she's the one with the Immaculate Heart, and keep trying to convince everyone that this is not worship and we'll let God set you straight someday. Sometimes I feel so stupid trying to explain this to the deaf, dumb and blind. My hope is that some Catholic in this forum has ears to hear and escapes from the deceptions of this wicked lying cult, or I'd imagine I'm just wasting my time. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1032AM:
Here he is hoping that he might have by now tossed up enough of his chaff to inveigle readers with the Wig of Honest Exasperation (plopped precariously over the Wig of Epithet): why oh why oh why “waste” everyone’s time, when I could just admit that I am a son of “the devil” … ?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1144AM:
Here, apparently hoping to cover all his foregoing evasions with something more solid than mere denials and epithets, ‘Dan’ tries to get back on to (what he considers to be) solid ground by yet again going over his 3x5s on the alleged Catholic “worship” of Mary (who, again, beat him out for the title of “Queen of Heaven”, which clearly is something ‘Dan’ may never really get over).
And thus on and on, concluding with the presumptuous declaration “destined for Hell”.
As long as you keep denying your cults idolatry, I will keep exposing it in hopes that some catholics may wake-up to reality. And it was necessary to repeat your queer little gender-bendy ignorance? You are such an immature accusing coward. One fine example of a catholic.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1036AM:
Here he merely quibbles that he was not “trying to use” a pericope epithetically; nooooooooo, he bleats, he really was using it epithetically.
Readers may correct such files as they may be keeping.
And he concludes – yet again – with the melodramatic hand to forehead while bleat-fully intoning “liars”, “compulsive liars”, and “like minded [sic] liars”. No doubt while staggering to the wings under the weight of it all.
Ending with more of your theatre drama ignorance and nonsense, donning the Wig of childish stupidity. Grow up, hypocrite.
I’ll go over the crop from ‘Dan’ as they appear on the site and not chronologically.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 256AM:
Admitting that he “must of” gone and “overlooked this one” (i.e. his “all manmade religions” assertion) he slyly tries to evade the problem he has created for himself by bleating as to whether we haven’t “gone over this several times already?”.
Why, yes we have. And each time ‘Dan’ has evaded the problem. He’s actually very good at that; long practice, no doubt.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 256AM:
And will he also again evade giving us the names of such religions as he does think are not “manmade”?
Yes and no. He intones and declares – “hopefully for the last time” quoth the Wig of Learned Exasperation – that – had you been waitttinggggggggggg forrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttttt? – he doth “believe” that in light of the great load of his “experience and research” he hath concluded and herewith declares “that ‘all’ organized manmade religions are false”.
That would be any and all religious polities that might quickly realize he’s pretty far gone around the bend and would either show him the door or make him sit in the ‘speshull’ section.
They don’t follow the strictures of ‘Dan’ bathroom mirror, doncha see? What more proof – he would have us believe – does one need?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 256AM:
Then, rummaging in his Closet of Imelda, he comes out with an extended reference, the Book of Revelation, Chapters 17 and 18. For readers not up on their Book-of-Revelation material, that includes the elaboration on the “seventh bowl” and the nature and fall of Babylon, including a woman astride a scarlet beast, the apocalyptic prediction of the divine punishment of Babylon, and the subsequent rejoicing in Heaven.
All of which – jumping ahead a bit – ‘Dan’ will use to presumptively claim and assert the validity of all his stuff.
No doubt, since the term “bathroom mirror” does not appear anywhere in Scripture, ‘Dan’ will insist that therefore his agenda-driven applications of the pericope are unassailable.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 256AM:
But he’s really got it in for “the catholic church” – doncha know? – but that’s only because of all his study and research and not because they were the ones who called the police and got him lugged and psychiatrically confined … six times.
And to wrap up this episode he will opine how “strange” it is that we can’t accept ‘Dan’s agenda-driven and feverish elaborations on those Chapters as if they were “the prophetic Word of the Almighty” (but instead consider them just more whackjob eructations from ‘Dan’ and his bathroom mirror séances).
Then more of what he doth “wonder” and readers may wonder at it all as they may.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 334AM:
Oh, and he’s got another juicy bit: The three children at Fatima were “illiterate” so … what? Did Mary hand out a handbook at Fatima? A syllabus?
Moving along, then, to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1233AM:
Here – and had you been waittinggggggggg forrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttt? – ‘Dan’ doth bleatfully huff that I am “not interested in discussing Scripture verses” … and readers can consult the record here for the number of pericopes and “Scripture verses” I have addressed at length and in detail, most recently in the matter of the problems posed by the First Letter of John.
But what ‘Dan’ really means is that I am not willing to accept ‘Dan’ whackulent (var. whackulous) efforts to shoehorn Scripture into his agenda because he is “only interested in twisting, manipulating and changing the meaning of the verse to suit [his] liking” … (I couldn’t have said it better myself and ‘Dan’ here provides a stellar example of clinical projection in the service of deception and self-exculpation).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 334AM:
But wait. There’s more. In his “P.S.” he tries to reduce it all to some fantasied ‘hope’ he has that all I wait for him to do is to “make some small grammatical error”.
Readers can consult the record here for the number of points and problems that I have noted, for which ‘Dan’ has provided not a scintilla of any relevant response. As with Imelda’s shoes, you don’t examine ‘Dan’s various bits … you’re simply supposed to admire them.
So, really, who is “sic” (scream-caps and multiple exclamation points omitted)?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 101AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to finesse his true-Christians-don’t-sin bit, but his ‘solution’ is even whackier than his original bit. He doth claim that “true Christians don’t continue in their sins” … which, if it were true, would leave us and Saint Paul in somewhat of a bind. Paul – we recall – famously cried out in Romans 7:19 “for the good that I would I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do”. (KJV)
Again, ‘Dan’s shtick and game here is a shrewd conflation of the theological and the psychological to serve ‘Dan’s own purposes: whatever one may be (sinful and/or crazy) before ‘accepting Christ’ (or some such formulation) yet once you have declared yourself as having ‘accepted Christ’ then you are a) no longer sinful and b) (by implication) either i) also no longer crazy or else ii) being crazy doesn’t really matter any longer.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 101AM:
But wait. There’s more.
‘Dan’ then immediately paddles away from that whirlpool he’s created for himself and lustily gets down to more familiar and enjoyable business: bleating that a) if you don’t believe (in accordance with ‘Dan’s agenda) that “pedophilia” etc. are “sin that leads to death” then b) “you must apparently be one of them”.
First, we have utterly no Scriptural or theological evidentiary basis for ‘Dan’s preferred definition of “the sin that leads to death”.
Second, the old if-you-don’t-agree-then-you-must-be-one-of-them is one of the hoariest of stampede-enabling logical fallacies on the books. And clearly a significant element of ‘Dan’s ‘logic’.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 101AM:
And then he throws up the Matthew 18:1-6 pericope again, despite never having effectively dealt with the fact that Jesus’s phrase “like little children” effectively makes the focus the adult-believers and not children.
This is the point I made on this thread on the 12th at 148PM: “Yet even here – and again – ‘Dan’ fails to understand the text he himself has selected: ‘unless you become like little children’ (italics mine); that ‘like’ instantly indicates that Jesus’s subject is not ‘little children’ at all, but rather adults becoming ‘like little children’”.
This, ‘Dan’ honks here, is ‘interpreting’ the pericope “to your liking”, although the grammar of the pericope is as indisputably clear as day and actually and clearly makes ‘Dan’s self-serving shoe-horning a deranged and deceptively manipulative reading. As so very very often.
And he quickly unloads a load of epithetical irrelevancies to try to make his problem disappear in a cloud of verbal dust.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 119AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to evade his conflation of spiritual and physical death, this time with a sly and deceptive riff on … things Catholic.
Including his hoary bits about the Host being indicative of sun worship and the monstrance being indicative of moon worship and tossing in Etruscan gods (which statues, being in the Vatican Museum, would not have been made by Catholics but simply found and put in the Museum).
This is what you get from drinking way too much fundie Kool-Aid, which could addle even a modestly well-formed brain, let alone one such as ‘Dan’s.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 141AM:
Here ‘Dan’ tries to weasel his way out of his pericope problems by bleating that he cawn’t think how he is “the one ignor[ing] the text if [he’s] the one explaining it’s meaning” (sic).
Well, here’s how that works: if you are trying to ‘explain’ the text but are ignoring what it actually and grammatically says so that you can ‘explain’ what you want to see instead of what’s actually there in the text itself … then that’s how you ignore the text while supposedly trying to explain it. And that’s pretty much the basic template of ‘Dan’s pericope strategy.
And if, further, you ignore the relationship of the pericope to other passages – perhaps even in the same Book or Letter – then you most certainly are trying to make readers play baseball with your football.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 141AM:
And then more of his usual bits about the “Queen of Heaven”.
But there is utterly nothing presented in support here except ‘Dan’ own insistence that establishes that any particular sin on ‘Dan’s preferred list is “the sin that leads to death”.
And he riffs on, as usual, apparently hoping that if he throws up enough epithetical chaff a reader might simply assume that ‘Dan’ is making any sense at all.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 146AM:
For ‘Dan’s deceptive and fallacious bit to work here, you would have to presume (as ‘Dan’ wants you to presume) that Catholicism is merely an idolatrous cult.
But if one doesn’t drink his Kool-Aid then that’s a rabbit-hole down which one need not ever fall at all.