Boston Globe Web Site CRUX Posts Bogus Headline to Inflame Readers on Clergy Sex Abuse Story

Crux : Boston Globe : Catholic

Crux from The Boston Globe amps it up against the Catholic Church while crushing truth

It should be no surprise that the new web site operated by the Boston Globe – in this case Crux ("Covering all things Catholic") – has become the latest Internet forum for aging dissidents and other angry critics of the Catholic Church, with the decades-old clergy abuse story always receiving priority treatment. (A recent day on Crux, for example, featured a jaw-dropping 11 stories related to clergy abuse on its home page.)

And apparently Crux's animus against the Church is so fevered that it has resorted to publishing bogus headlines about abuse cases. Witness this headline from Crux on February 24:

Crux anti-Catholic Boston Globe

From the headline, Crux leads its readers to believe that an abusive priest still has numerous victims roaming the public.

In truth, however, the headline and the actual story do not match at all. Chicago prosecutors actually dropped charges against the ex-priest Daniel McCormack because – and please note this – the accuser did not want to cooperate. There were no "new child sex abuse claims," as Crux's headline misleadingly blared.

And while Crux would likely claim that it was simply relaying a story from the Associated Press, that excuse won't fly. Illinois television station WREX posted the exact same story that Crux published but with the true and accurate headline:

WREX headline 022416

In other words, truth and accuracy have now taken a back seat at the Boston Globe's Crux to reflexively flogging the Catholic Church whenever and wherever it can.

Comments

  1. Dennis Ecker says:

    If you don't like the site then don't go near it.

  2. Dennis Ecker says:

    But thanks for letting us know there is another site out there.

  3. Det Roberts says:

    Wow, you are incredibly deceptive and dishonest without telling things that can’t be considered 100% lies.

    A few fact that can be gleaned by a Catholic magazine called the National Catholic Reporter, entitled "Chicago archdiocese releases 15,000 pages on priest sex abuse", so people can Google it for the truth:

    1) Father Daniel McCormick pleaded guilty in 2007 to sexually abusing 5 young men, so the guy is unknown, proven, documented, admitted child rapists

    2) The Catholic Church released nearly 15,000 pages of documents related to 36 priests who had raped children.  Those numbers are almost incomprehensible to me.  And they documented it and hid it to protect the child rapists.

    3) This was in addition to another 6000 pages of documents related to another 30 pedophile priests which had been released 9 months before.

    NOW people can determine who is the real victim here:

    1) this known pedophile priest
    2) the Catholic Church, who hid 66 pedophile priests like him
    3) or the hundreds and hundreds of victims of those pedophile priests.

    I would love to see people vote below.

  4. Publion says:

    On the 8th at 245PM ‘Dennis’ will simply try to avoid the problem by brushing it off with his bit here about if you don’t like the Crux site then “don’t go near it”.

    But that would leave that site’s (manipulative) inaccuracies un-noted and un-challenged. Which, in any instances where facts and reality are uncongenial to their preferred cartoons, is exactly what Abuseniks  prefer.

  5. Publion says:

    On the 8th at 1051PM a ‘Det Roberts’ posts.

    Readers might imagine that the ‘Det’ is an abbreviation for ‘Detective’, but the apparent looseness in the use of terms, even legal terms, and the selectivity of relevant information would make one hope that isn’t actually the case. I’ll use ‘DR’ to refer to the comment’s author.

    Before that, I include here the link to one of the NCRep articles to which DR presumably referred:

    http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/chicago-archdiocese-releases-15000-pages-priest-sex-abuse

    It is dated Nov. 7, 2014.

    There are other articles in this batch; you will find them too under the ‘Accountability’ tab on the NCRep homepage.

  6. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the DR comment of the 8th at 1051PM:

    The comment opens – a tad suspiciously, I would say – with an epithetical effort to spin or pre-spin the results sought by the comment before readers actually get to read the substance material of the comment.

    This is a familiar gambit – certainly to readers of Abusenik material on this site – but it is itself a deceptive and manipulative ploy. And that bit is buttressed by the accusation that this site is “incredibly deceptive and dishonest”.

    And – also familiarly – the author at this point also manages to squeeze in a reference to “lies”, while also stating that it will look at “a few facts” so readers can find “the truth”.

    Let’s see.

  7. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the DR comment of the 8th at 1051PM:

    The article notes that the files are those of 36 priests, none of whom are any longer in active ministry: 14 are already dead (giving an idea of how far back they might go), 9 have been laicized (reserved for the most serious cases). And  92 percent of the cases reach back beyond 1988.

    These priests had “substantiated claims of sexual abuse of minors” against them.

    I would note that both of the key terms in that sentence are broad and non-specific.

    “Sexual abuse” – as we know – can cover anything, even the least act of touching or – in many instances – might not require ‘touching’ or physical contact at all. The fact that only 9 of the priests were laicized is not of itself dispositive of any conclusion, but it does raise the thought that the other 27, although allegations were substantiated (however the Archdiocese determines that), were not found to have committed an act or acts sufficient to justify laicization.

  8. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the DR comment of the 8th at 1051PM:

    “Minors” is a legal term, usually defined as being under the age of 18 (although for purposes of sexual matters, the age may be 16). It is not the same as “child”, which in legal usage referring to bringing a charge of ‘statutory rape’ of a child usually lies anywhere between 12 and 15, depending on the jurisdiction. California, for example, requires “unlawful sexual intercourse” for the charge and a person over 21 to engage in “unlawful sexual intercourse” with a person under 16 is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony. Illinois, in all such cases, requires “sexual penetration”.

    And ‘minor’ most surely does not equate to “child” as the term is commonly used in ordinary conversation, as describing more or less any person from the age of birth to somewhere around pubescence.

  9. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the DR comment of the 8th at 1051PM:

    Thus there is some clear and serious question as to whether Father Daniel McCormick is actually characterizable as being a “child rapist[s]” by virtue of pleading guilty in 2007 to “sexually abusing 5 young men”.

    The release of the 15,000 pages of documents “related to” the 36 priests would seem to indicate – depending on the scope of that “related to” – a great number of therapeutic records, among other things. It works out to an average of 416 pages per priest, although some files may have contained more and some fewer pages. And if anything was referred to Rome, then I would imagine the paperwork for that file would increase significantly. And if legal matters (civil or criminal) were also included in the file, then so much the more.

    If DR finds a 416-page complete personnel file covering years or decades “incomprehensible”, then I don’t think the ‘Detective’ is familiar with large organizations operating over the long haul of time.

    Nor – from anything in the NCRep article – can one draw the assertive conclusion that the Archdiocese “documented it and hid it to protect the child rapists” (a term already noted above for its inaccuracy).

    Indeed, why “document” what you are intending to ‘hide’ at all?

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the DR comment of the 8th at 1051PM:

    DR then references a prior 6,000 pages relating to a further “30 pedophile priests”.

    Using the same points I just made above, that works out to 200 pages per priest and my prior points also apply.

    And I note that easy and un-grounded deployment of the familiar Stampede term “pedophile priests”, which is hardly a conclusion or characterization demonstrably applicable from anything in the NCRep article. And one would surely expect more care in usage from a police detective, if that’s what DR is.

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the DR comment of the 8th at 1051PM:

    Thus DR’s queasy scream-capped “Now” surely seems manipulative and un-grounded.

    And DR’s further tick-off of those three points is equally so:

    We do not ‘know’ that “this” priest (referring, it would seem, to McCormick) is a “pedophile” (especially since the NCRep article refers – rather carefully – to “young men”, whatever age that might imply).

    It cannot be asserted – from any material DR or the NCRep article has discussed – that either a) the Church “hid” those with allegations or b) that all (or any) of those with allegations were “pedophile priests”.

    It cannot be asserted – from any material DR has discussed – that there were “hundreds of victims”; let alone – presuming the accuracy and legitimacy of the Church’s findings in their individual cases – just what act or acts those with allegations perpetrated upon the victims (since ‘sexual abuse’ can cover a range of acts that do not even require physical contact).

  12. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the DR comment of the 8th at 1051PM:

    None of my presentation here is intended to establish or imply that absolutely no malfeasance by some of the included priests was ever committed.

    But the type of presentation proffered here by DR surely doesn’t shed light. And indeed may clearly be seen as simply another instance as the type of un-grounded and incomplete and muzzy ‘thinking’ that has fuelled the Stampede from the get-go.

  13. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the DR comment of the 8th at 1051PM:

    The NCRep article also includes some bits about Jeff Anderson. He was apparently counsel in the lawsuit that led to the release of the first (6,000-page) document release and as such was legally entitled to participate in the matters pertaining to those documents.

    He was not in any way formally involved in the later (15,000-page) release and gloms onto the Archdiocese’s refusal to simply allow him to be in on the preparations for the second release (which was a voluntary project by the Archdiocese).

    Anderson  spins his complaining as being somehow a failure of transparency. But he had no formal connection to the Archdiocesan project of the second release and no legal right to be involved. And surely any defense counsel or simply consulting attorney would object to any such blanket permission for him to participate since he might simply trawl for new material (and clients).

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on the DR comment of the 8th at 1051PM:

      And indeed the NCRep article does note that Anderson expected more clients out of all this (although no new allegations arose stemming from the first release).

      Anderson then contrasts Chicago with the Twin Cities.

      But the Twin Cities are his home base, where he is a high-stakes and well-supplied player on the local scene – which, as I have pointed out in prior comments on this site, can easily exert a deranging influence on various Twin Cities public agencies and institutions (such as that still-weird matter of a priest’s former hard-drive suddenly being discovered years later by a buyer in his garage / who opened it and allegedly discovered child porn / on which basis the local police launched an investigation / which investigation, once the that Archdiocese agreed to consult with the police (and Anderson), suddenly ‘went away’ / with none of the glaring questions as to the legitimacy of the garage-owner’s sudden and convenient discovery ever being resolved). 

  14. Miguel Prats says:

    Det, you have my vote.

  15. Detnottective Roberts says:

    Wow, a 10 post response?

    Det does not stand for "Detective", alhouth I assume "Publicon" stands for flilibuster, ballot stuffer (who didn't vote) or timewaster. Thankfully, you abbreviated the name to DR to save computer bits.

    Some comments:

    - Catholics always seem to say, "that happened 30-40 years ago", as if to dismiss it, yet they have no problem with things that happened 2,000 years agolse)

  16. Detnottective Roberts says:

    and now it won't take more posts

  17. Jim Robertson says:

    For you Det I'll vote twice.

    Pub hates democracy. He's a monologist. Like a certain Rep. candidate.

  18. Publion says:

    Who can be surprised, really?

    On the 9th at 923PM we get a post not from ‘Det Roberts’ – and that bit was dealt with above – but now from ‘Detnottective Roberts’.

    Any commenters who might have generously imagined that “Det” might have been the short-form of somebody’s first name can put that thought aside.

    Instead, now, we get a juvenile play on a word that can very plausibly be imagined to have been from the get-go just a sly Abusenik attempt to impress readers and bolster the (unimpressive) material with something just short of claiming a false authority (the title of ‘Detective’).

    Once again we see with Abuseniks that appearances are so very often deceiving: they claim and assert and accuse and demand, insisting upon their credibility and authority, and then it turns out that it’s a game (and maybe has been all along).

  19. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Detnottective Roberts’ of the 9th at 923PM (and from here on I will refer to this commenter as DR):

    With all the points I raised about DR’s prior comments, DR does … what?

    Merely snarks about my “10 post response”. This is an old and familiar juvenile Abusenik response: when you can’t deal with the material, just try to make fun of it. We are back to the far end of the parking lot at high-school. And, really, with Abuseniks such as we have seen them here, are we ever far from it?

    But this is the level of their commenting: a game (so, really, it doesn’t have to be bound by any ‘serious’ junk like coherence, accuracy, careful thought, careful use of language and concepts and terms or anything else like that; after all, this is a game – it isn’t ‘school’, and it’s supposed to be fun so you can get a few yuks).

    They put up their material that way and I do what I can to draw out whatever useful or relevant points occur to me.

  20. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on DR’s of the 9th at 923PM:

    And, of course, the ‘game’ bit provides a handy ‘out’ when whatever they put up that they think is ‘serious’ turns out to have some significant problems.

    And then we get an epithetical bit based on my misspelled screen-name, with a hash of little bits including “filibuster” (correction supplied) as if they can’t put up any material because I am putting up so much material, “ballot stuffer” – whatever that may mean, “who didn’t vote” – whatever that may refer to, and “timewaster” – concepts and ideas always do seem a waste to these types.

    They don’t expect their ‘game’ to be taken seriously in the sense of being assessed in a sustained manner (but they will puff up their pinfeathers if you don’t take their stuff seriously or if you raise questions).

  21. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on DR’s of the 9th at 923PM:

    And under the rubric “Some comments” we get … a single bit.

    It is inaccurate to say that “Catholics always seem to say, “that happened 30-40 years ago, as if to dismiss it”. Nobody I can think of on this site has ever spoken of clerical sex abuse dismissively.

    But to try to make any sort of definitive or serious claims about a subject in which a) so much has changed in those 30-40 years and b) so many elements require careful assessment, and then to try to do that without taking into account (a) and (b), isn’t going to lead to much accuracy or to any effective thinking about the present state of the matter.

    But then the Abuseniks aren’t really in it in order to achieve much accuracy or to do any effective thinking about the present state of the matter. Their game is plop-tossing and they do seem to enjoy it and they do seem to be rather practiced at it.

  22. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on DR’s of the 9th at 923PM:

    And so, in the present state of the question and the matter, we have claims and assertions and stories and accusations / made in so many instances about events from decades ago / which events are dubiously described and characterized / about those events which are and were themselves dubiously characterized and demonstrated / and all of it under the aegis and dynamics of a Stampede that has been demonstrated to have seriously deranging and distorting elements built into it.

    It takes a lot of careful assessment and serious thinking to work through all those aspects.

    But that’s not how Abuseniks play their game and that’s not how the Stampede operates.

    • Dan says:

      This "pericope" is for you and all the Catholic Abusers Stampede, the pedophiles, liars, excusers and enablers of your cult and it's groupies.

      "For your hands are stained with blood, your fingers with guilt. Your lips have spoken falsely, and your tongue mutters wicked things. No one calls for justice; no one pleads a case with integrity. They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies; they conceive trouble and give birth to evil."  Isaiah 59:3-4

      My guess would be that the Almighty also has your cult's number, "666".

  23. malcolm harris says:

    Just a quick comment on the Boston Globe's website 'Crux', and it's reporting of the Daniel McCormack case. Yes, they misled their audience, by only telling part of the story. But there may be another, more general deception, by the media. 

    Ex- priest McCormack pleaded guilty in 2007 to charges brought against him by 5 boys, and went to prison. He got five years.  Before taking an interest in these things I previously assumed that only guilty men pleaded guilty???. Would not be alone in that assumption. But imagine his horror when one boy accused him, and four more grab the opportunity for a pile-on, and the big bucks. He sees little chance of winning aagainst this chorus of opportunists, so accepts a plea deal.

    Better 5 years than the threatened 20 years if he pleads not guilty.So even those who have admitted guilt, may not be guilty at all???. But just trying to salvage as much of their life and freedom as possible.

    And they call this justice???

     

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, did you even read the article from the Chicago Tribune. It ends, "As of last fall, the archdiocese had received 'at least 30 substantiated claims' against the former priest." So before making assumptions as to how "there may be another, more general deception, by the media" or "those who have admitted guilt, may not be guilty at all, you just might look at the facts before trying to bring doubt to something "substantiated".

  24. LDB says:

    His last post demonstrates yet again that the avatar called 'Malcolm Harris' is the Don Quixote of TMR comments. Good luck with your delusions. Keep on winning.

  25. Publion says:

    From a self-described attorney, in response to a ‘Malcolm Harris’ comment that raises some points surely of interest to a legally-trained mind, we get … what from ‘LDB’ (the 11th at 1009AM)?

    Just a dismissive epithet or two. And no engagement with the material MH raised.

  26. Jim Robertson says:

    Wow! there's P and Malcolm against everybody else.

    P hates everyone who disagrees with him.

    He insults people as juvinile who have posted only once or twice. Meanwhile he, P, the run on monologist, posts 10 responses to Det's one post.

    This is what TMR was created to do: BLOW SMOKE. Never allow any decent conversation to happen. TMR was built as the loading platform for P's denialist junk. It really was.

    Dave ever wonder why no other media source believes anything you all say here? It's because you are in denial about what your church has done and is still doing to your own raped children.

    Catholics must always be the victims and never the oppressors in order for the lies of divine creation of the "one true faith" to hold any "validity". The one true faith can never be wrong about anything "Doncha know?"

    Our being raped as kids never happened. How could they have? It's the one true faith.

    You are all stuck in your bull beliefs and you will attempt to destroy anyone who shines any light on your own too real corruption.

    Now P will say no it's you JR and LDB and Det or Dennis who are trying to destroy the church. If it were only possible; sign me up. I hate liars.Particularly "religious" liars. (Redundant i know)

  27. Jim Robertson says:

    17 out of 29 posts in this thread are by Smokey the P..

    Why in the world would this fool think he's interesting or intelligent enough to post nothing new but SOS 17 times?

    This is a bright well adjusted well educated person?

    Someone who knows how to spell words but doesn't care that the words he spells form sentences that are lies. This is moral leadership? No! This is fascism.

  28. malcolm harris says:

    JR, on the 12th, is pouring scorn on anybody with opposing views. He winds up his comment with the words…"This is fascism".

    Although I can't define fascism, it is pretty obvious that fascist goverments were a living nightmare. E.g. Hitler and his jackbooted fiends in Germany.

    Among other things, through influence and control of the media, they were able to demonize Jews and other minorities. And having done that, the civil rights of the target group ceased to exist.

    Today Catholic priests could be justified in feeling that their own civil rights have been taken away. Gone is the right to the presumption of innocence… gone is the right to a fair trial…, gone is the right to a good repuation. In short they have been demonized too.

    So who exactly is the victim?. And does it resemble fascism? Sadly,it does have worrying echos.

    • Dan says:

      Before there can be a presumption of innocence, there would have to be a case of innocence. No one is demonizing priests any more than they have, by their own actions, demonized themselves, by their own evil lusts. For you to question, "So who exactly is the victim?", is absolutely absurd, unjust and ridiculous. Condemn the guilty as they deserve, and truly free the innocent. To do anything less, is to be in agreement with their wickedness, and will not go unpunished. Your church shows absolutely nothing close to being the one true church or moral authority, anywhere on earth. Open your eyes.

    • Dan says:

      And to compare demon pedophile priests to the Jews of the Holocaust, is even more absurd, unjust and ridiculous.

  29. Publion says:

    On the 12th at 1132AM JR will once again try to distract readers with whatever distractions he can whomp up.

    In this case, that I ‘hate’ “everyone who disagrees with” me. He proffers no material of mine that would support that bit of plop-tossing, but of course that’s how plop-tossing is done.

    Just who this “everyone else” is that I and ‘Malcolm Harris’ are supposed to be against … is anybody’s guess.

    It takes a lot of responses to fully assess and grasp the stuff Abuseniks might put up. That’s not how it was supposed to go: they were supposed to just be able to toss up their stuff and have it remain unchallenged. And they don’t like it when that doesn’t happen and instead their stuff is discussed and assessed.

  30. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 1132AM:

    If they don’t like having their material characterized as “juvenile”, then they can stop putting that type of thing up. But once again, it wasn’t supposed to happen this way. Having declared themselves ‘victims’, they were supposed to be given complete freedom to put up whatever they wanted to and they were supposed to be ‘believed’ with sympathetic clucks and bleats.

    Then again the Wig of Decency as he bleats that TMR doesn’t “allow any decent conversation to happen”. Readers may go over the Abusenik material extending as far back as this site’s beginning, and judge for themselves just how committed to “decent conversation” the Abuseniks have ever been.

  31. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 1132AM:

    And JR doesn’t – because he can’t – put up any material of mine (accurately quoted) that indicates I am a “denialist”. But what he avoids are all the elements that certainly lead to the probability that the Stampede is riddled with problems of accuracy and veracity.

    Then, reaching further into his plop pile, JR shifts to the familiar bit that “no other media source believes anything at all you say”. How does he support that assertion? He doesn’t. He can’t. But plop is precisely designed not to be explained or supported; it’s just something to toss up.

    And as we have seen from my comments and questions on the immediately prior thread here, the term “raped” certainly doesn’t apply to everyone who claims it. But it’s too good a rhetorical bit to pass up.

  32. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 1132AM:

    Then some riffing on Catholics always having to “be the victims”. But – of course – not a bit about the problematic and dubious elements in the ‘victimhood’ claims of the Stampede.

    And JR – who at best was ‘lewdly acted upon’, as I pointed out in comments on the immediately prior thread – is really not therefore in a position to be talking about “our being raped”.

    And then the bit about questioning being an “attempt to destroy” anyone who “shines any light on your own too real corruption”. In this we hear the echo of the tortie pep-talk I had mentioned in an earlier comment: ‘Since you are taking part in the really good thing that will expose corruption, then it doesn’t matter if your own claim isn’t quite accurate or true – we all know the overall idea is true’.

    But of course, once you start adding not-quite-true claim upon not-quite-true claim, what then do you wind up with? You wind up with a whole lot of not-quite-true claims.

  33. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 12th at 1141AM:

    Just more epithet trying to deal with the points I have raised by trying to make fun of them. But what else can he do? Try to refute or respond-to them?

    And – had you been waitttttttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – again with the accusation of my “lies”. But – again – no accurate quotation from my material as to just what “lies” I am supposed to have told.

    But there’s a method to the madness here: it provides a lead-in for the Wig of Indignant Denunciation, about “moral leadership” and – in a clear bit of rhetorical over-acting – “fascism”.

    This is distraction. This is – as JR inadvertently gives the game away – “blowing smoke”.

  34. Jim Robertson says:

    P, dear, if you are typing then you are lying. It's that simple.

  35. Publion says:

    On the 12th at 1053PM ‘Dan’ – marvelously – returns to form, even reminding us of just what type of issues we are dealing with here with his reference to – had you been waittttinggggg forrrrr ittttt? – a reference to “666”, thus recalling the many assorted satanic and apocalyptic bugbears that do so excite the hyper-excitable fundamentalist mind.

    But this time – curiously – he delivers his stuff not as the directly-inspired (or dictated) god-gram-delivered Word of God but rather merely as his “guess”.

    I would “mock” his “guess”, but readers may, of course, judge as they will.

    • Dan says:

      That was a direct quote from the Bible, Isaiah 59:3-4, not any guess. Good try anyway, Mr. Mocker. And readers can judge a mocker when they hear one.

  36. malcolm harris says:

    'Dan' on the 13th at 6.40 pm attempts to misrepresent my comment about fascism. His is a textbook example of how moral panic sometimes becomes hysterical, and jettisons reason for emotion. Any rational reader would have understood that I was saying that there are similarities in the dynamics at work.

    I was not comparing the outcomes…because that would be absurd and unjust. In terms of the consequences there is no comparison between the witch-hunt against priests and the witch-hunt against Jews.

     

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, Read Joann Wypijewski's article about a "witch-hunt", and you'll find mention of a Fr. Paul Shanley, as a liar and untrustworthy, and as a young man having sex with teens and grown men. Not really a very good example of the poster child for witch-hunts against priests or your wonderful church hierarchy of perverts.

    • Dan says:

      No witch-hunt against priests, period. Shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with the witch-hunt if innocent Jews. Shame on your evil cult of liars and perverts.    servant Dan

  37. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 548PM ‘Dan’ will again try his hand at non-god-gram commentary (hoping, no doubt, that readers will either forget his extraordinarily credibility-and-integrity-damaging performance of two threads back or else will “pretend” that it really didn’t happen).

    How does that work out for him?

    He opens by referring to an article from the Chicago Tribune that had not previously been identified in the discussion.

    For readers so inclined, that article is here:

    http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-86009087/

    • Dan says:

      First off, you're nobody to question someone's credibility or integrity, as I've alluded to previously. Secondly- the article was previously identified in the TMR "Crux" story, highlighted in red, with the words, "dropped charges". And then- had you been waittting forrrrr ittttt? Ovvvvv courssssse! Duhhhh!! "I am not up to speed on the Church's protocols for 'substantiating' allegations". Well, Mr. Know It All, gets a brain freeze when he prefers to ignore the obvious. "As of last fall, the archdiocese had received 'at least 30 substantiated' claims against the former priest. The key word is "substantiated", meaning to establish by proof or competent evidence. Don't you think we've had enough of your excuses, manipulations and lies by now. And thank you, Malcolm, for mentioning the demonization of Jews, so I could discuss "one of [my] favorite subjects". It just so happens that demons and catholicism, do fit so well together.                                servant to the Creator

      P.S. Hey, I saw a good read for you the other day. Catholicism For Dummies. Perfect 4 U.

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 13th at 548PM:

    Before considering the specific concluding bit that ‘Dan’ personally selected from the text, readers may consider the preceding body of the article. The article is dated Feb. 24, 1016.

    In this “final pending criminal case” against the priest, the article opens, “prosecutors said they were forced to drop all charges”.

    The charges stem from a criminal case brought against him in 2014 regarding an allegation from 2005.

    Why were the charges were dropped? The allegant, with the prospect of the case now set for trial, “was no longer cooperating”, which – for whatever reasons – means that the allegant was backing out.

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 13th at 548PM:

    Now, standard Victimist dogma has a number of ready excuses for this sort of thing (since it is a possibility almost built-into this type of sex-allegation cases): the allegant – now about 26 – had used up the available amount of ‘courage’ it took to ‘come forward’ in the first place and lodge the allegation; the allegant just wanted to ‘put it all behind him’ (yet he had brought the allegation to the authorities to begin with); the allegant didn’t want to subject himself to the ‘re-victimizing trauma’ of having to ‘re-live’ the horrors alleged.

    Whatever … the Victimist dogma at this juncture would be that everyone just ‘believe the victim’, and pretend that the allegation was veracious. To which the Abuseniks would add: and that the thus-presumed or thus-pretended veracious allegations are true of all priests or at least all priests thus accused.

  40. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 13th at 548PM:

    One, of course, might also consider the entirely rational possibility that the allegant had some fun making the allegation, but now that he was about to face adversarial examination under oath at trial he suddenly decided it wasn’t so much fun now that “the case [has] progressed” (to the incipient point of clear and careful and public examination).

    Curiously, the prosecutor’s office included in its announcement the claim that “the State’s Attorney’s Office brought the charges in good faith” – in case any rational reader might suspect that the prosecutors were knowingly in on the game from the get-go.

  41. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 13th at 548PM:

    The article quickly seeks to recoup losses by then asserting that the prosecutors’ “decision will not affect any of the other cases” – although the article had opened by claiming that this case was “the final pending criminal case” (against, presumably, McCormack). Stampede ‘reporting’ so often exhibits such incoherences and we are left with what we’ve got here.

  42. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 13th at 548PM:

    We then get to ‘Dan’s personally-selected bit.

    I don’t purport to know whether the thirty subsequent allegations by various persons are veracious or whether we are simply seeing another familiar case of Stampede pile-on whereby an already accused priest receives a welter of follow-on allegations since there is already blood-in-the-water.

    At any rate, the criminal forum will not be the scene of those allegations being dealt-with. Rather, there will be – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – lawsuits, thus removing the allegations to that lower-standard-of-evidence happy-hunting-ground of torties where the vast majority of all Stampede cases have wound up.

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 13th at 548PM:

    The State has apparently also sought to have McCormick declared some form of what is often known as SVP (sexually violent person or sexually violent predator). But, the article notes without noticing, that effort began in 2009 and has still not been decided, more than half a decade later.

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 13th at 548PM:

    I am not up to speed on the Church’s protocols for ‘substantiating’ allegations, if there even is a single set of evidentiary standards by which allegations are considered to be “substantiated” by the various levels of ecclesial tribunals or assessment committees. I recall from a decade and more ago that in some ecclesial venues it was enough that one could establish that an allegant had lived in the same ‘parish’ or perhaps even geographical ‘area’ as the accused.

    Thus the Stampede saga goes on, with dubious reporting, dubious court cases, dubious allegations and all the rest of the Stampede panoply.

  45. Publion says:

    And then (the 13th at 603PM) ‘Dan’ tries the Wig of Legal Thinking: “Before there can be a presumption of innocence, there would have to be a case of innocence”, he doth pronounce and declare.

    This is a ridiculous distortion of an axial Western legal principle. The presumption of innocence precedes any determination of guilt or innocence; it is not conditional upon a subsequent finding of innocence.

    But ‘Dan’ is a basically a plop-tosser just like the rest, and he’s going for manipulative effect rather than substance and content.

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 603PM:

    ‘Dan’ then takes up what is surely one of his favorite subjects, “demonization”.

    How easily he adapts it here indicates the shallowness of his theology (at least compared to Catholic theology): no human being can turn him/herself into a demon. Like it or not, the utterly foundational reality of the human being as created by God cannot be changed, nor should it be avoided or evaded.

    Human beings can be sinners, and can yield to sin, but they can never change the status of their being created by God. Thus we shouldn’t even deploy this “demonization” bit even rhetorically or figuratively. That will take a lot of wind out of the sails of such as ‘Dan’ and the Abuseniks, but so what?

    And it is precisely the “demonization” of an entire class of persons (priests, in this instance) that has helped fuel the Stampede.

    And – as we have seen in so many ways on this site – that generalizing “demonization” is not accurately grounded.

    • Dan says:

      What do you mean by the "shallowness of [my] theology, (at least compared to catholic theology)"? Matthew 8:28 reads, "two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way." Other gospels describe a man with unclean or evil spirits within. 

      What better examples of "demon-possessed" adult men could there be, than those of your cult who rape young children, predominately boys and sometimes even babies. How are we to know what possibly goes on in the darkness of their Catacombs, Capuchin Crypts and skeleton rooms of Rome, or any other secluded halls of your churches? Your catholic theology would most definitely be different than mine, because it's packed with creepy, pagan rituals, performed by even creepier men in dresses, worshipping in churches dedicated to the "Queen of Heaven". I thank God for the "shallowness of [my] theology", rather than the depths of yours, teachings directly from the depths of Hell.   servant 'Dan'

  47. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 603PM:

    And the comment then wends its way to its conclusion, gussied up with far more rhetorical bits than we have ever seen come from ‘Dan’.

    Although it all leads – unsurprisingly – to the same usual plop-tossy conclusion.

  48. Publion says:

    Thus ‘Dan’s mere assertion (the 13th at 640PM) dismissing the Holocaust reference also fails.

    The dynamics of “demonization” deployed in the Stampede are the very same dynamics that were deployed against a class or group of persons back then.

    And so we can leave ‘Dan’ to his unsupported and inaccurate denunciamento here as well.

  49. Jim Robertson says:

    All conversation ended thanks to P. AGAIN.

  50. Mark says:

    Crux won't allow me to comment on their website anymore and I don't know why. Yet they allowed that dispicable Patrick O'Malley to post insulting remarks under his John McCormack persona. I hope they ban him in time.

  51. Mark says:

    And another thing, for someone who claims to be a born again Christian, "Dan" comes across as a very condisending git. Somehow I don't think that Jesus would talk the way "Dan" does.

    • Dan says:

      First off, Mark, I am not Jesus. Let me ask, "What kind of Christian are you, calling people a "condescending git"? Have you had to defend yourself from the outright false accusations of so-called catholics in this world and on this sight? Do you prefer to be coddled and told your religion of idolatry, greed and disgusting lust of young children is just fine, and keep up the good work? Check out the Bible, and you'll find that the all loving God was pretty strong when His people refused to obey and listen to His message. Think you can approach God through any other mediator, other than Jesus Christ, and your going to have a rude awakening. And believe me, it's not going to be according to anything I have to say. Other prophets have been warning the pagan religions of the world for centuries. Have you read Jeremiah 44 yet. Also, Christ wasn't here to witness how disgusting the catholic church teaching and hierarchy has become. I'm not above or judging brainwashed catholics, just warning you to open your eyes to the truth of your religion.

  52. Publion says:

    On the 15th at 1PM JR, performing (for lack of anything better) his office as rodeo-clown, i) tries to distract from all the material on the table while ii) somehow keeping at least a semblance of the rhetorical high-ground.

    He tries to accomplish his dual goals here by – yet again – claiming that I have “ended” “all conversation”.

    Because – doncha see? – Abuseniks like nothing better to have “conversation”, even if the bases of that “conversation” are outright whackery. Anything to Keep The Ball Rolling without actually having to deal with the myriad problems in their material.

    And anyway, how have I “ended” “all conversation”? Presuming he doesn’t mean to say that my points have effectively negated the possibility of continuing along the lines set forth by ‘Dan’ and other Abuseniks, then anyone can put up any further “conversation” they wish.

  53. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 125PM:

    In response to my reference to his substantially incoherent and mutually-contradictory multiple stories as to just how many times (if any) he was a) arrested, b) jailed, c) sent for mandatory psychiatric examination by a court – and (a) through (c) do not exhaust the list initially included in his November, 2015 comment as noted in comments on recent prior threads – ‘Dan’ will simply puff up his pinfeathers and assert that I am “nobody to question someone’s credibility or integrity”.

    Anybody can legitimately question any other commenter’s credibility or integrity if there is sufficient justification from the material that such commenter’s material has provided.

    And that’s precisely what I have done, demonstrating how I reached my doubts with accurately quoted references to his material (which, granted, is sort of a moveable feast of shifting claims and assertions and denials and take-backs, and take-backs of take-backs and so on and so forth).

  54. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 125PM:

    So much for his first bit.

    On, then, to his second: the TMR article here referred to a Crux article and a WREX report,  and the Crux article referred to an AP article and linked to a Chicago Sun Times article. The Chicago Tribune article was not proffered anywhere in all of that, but instead – as I had originally stated – was introduced as an un-supported mention by ‘Dan’ in his comment of March 13th at 548PM on this thread.

    So much for ‘Dan’s reading comprehension and accuracy. And his now clearly silly victory-lap chest-thumpy epitheticals.

    And from that point readers can take up with my assessment of ‘Dan’s quotation from the Chicago Tribune article in my comments above on this thread.

  55. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 125PM:

    Concerning my point about “the Church’s protocols for substantiating allegations”: ‘Dan’ will simply try to whiff the problem away by going for a dictionary definition of ‘substantiate’. Nice try, but the entire point I was making was that different organizations have different criteria as to what establishes ‘substantiation’, as I then supported with the example of mere residence in the same parish or even the same geographical area.

    There is nothing “obvious” here at all in this ‘substantiation’ issue. And, as I said, it remains to be seen if there even is one single and comprehensively-applied set of ‘substantiation’ criteria for all the Dioceses or other ecclesiastical jurisdictions.

    ‘Dan’s effort here – to simply pick stuff out of a dictionary (much the same way that he picks his favorite stuff out of Scripture and on that basis declares everything to be so clear and simple) – fails because of the organizational realities and complexities involved.

    • Dan says:

      I was not aware that the church has there own dictionary, with different meanings for words, other than their true meaning. I guess that's like their catechism, being much different than Biblical truth. I've learned alot from you. Not much of anything good or trustworthy.  servant.

  56. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 125PM:

    But on the basis of his grossly insufficient ‘thinking’ here, he has given himself a platform from which to launch into his selected bit about “at least 30 substantiated claims” again, and then on the basis of that repetition of his questionable point, to then launch further into his favorite mode, i.e. epithetical bits about my “excuses, manipulations and lies” (mirroring rather nicely his own contortions as he tried to explain-away and “excuse” his multiple and self-contradictory stories, which certainly qualify for consideration as actual “manipulations and lies”).

  57. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 125PM:

    And he concludes the whole hash here with an avoidance of the ‘similarity of dynamics’ in both the Holocaust and the Stampede as I noted them, and instead finishes off with another epithet, this time aimed at ‘Malcolm Harris’ and – had you been waitttting for itttttttt? – the Church.

    Well, almost concludes. We then get a “P.S.”, which – had you been waittttingggg for ittttt? – just happened to be another epithet. But what else, really, has he got?

    • Dan says:

      You ask, "But what else, really, has he got?" Got the God-gram you must have missed.

      "How they put up a front in church, and when they come out, they're the most deceitful liars that ever lived on earth."    Thus saith the Lord

      P.S. Have a feeling there will be more to follow, for you, Mocker.

       

  58. Publion says:

    On the 16TH at 133AM, ‘Dan’ – unwittingly, no doubt – reveals more of his insufficiencies.

    In regard to my comment about his comment concerning “demons” revealing “the shallowness of his theology” he merely tosses up a pericope in which the term is mentioned.

    Because for ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – if a word or term appears in Scripture, then ipso facto he has a ‘theology’.

    But he doesn’t. A ‘theology’ would be a carefully considered and well-informed and somewhat comprehensive reflection on the meaning and import of the word or phrase. In major theologies this type of reflection is indeed comprehensive and intricately-developed, linking the word or phrase with others or even all others in Scripture, resulting in a carefully and long developed body of serious thought.

    • Dan says:

      I must ask? Did you get your definition of "theology" from your catechism dictionary. I tend to take my theology from the Word of God. You might want to try that, and you just might learn a little something.

      "For it is written, I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE INTELLEGENCE OF THE INTELLEGENT I WILL REJECT." Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made FOOLISH the wisdom of this world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through it's wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.   1 Corinthians 1:19-21

      So you keep reading your books and add to your great knowledge of nothingness, and I'll gladly stay with Bible truth, because it simply trumps any great wisdom or theology, that you think you possess. And I've yet to hear anyone claiming that liars, mockers or excusers are considered to be the wisemen of this world. Maybe that's what your catechism dictionary defines as wise.        Born Again servant of the Almighty God of Wisdom, and proud of it.

  59. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan”s of the 16th at 133AM:

    Thus with ‘Dan’s bit here: he has a Scripture pericope that mentions “demon” in some form / therefore he has a ‘theology’ of “demons”.

    And this grossly insufficient presumption of his is then further demonstrated when we look to see what considered and reflective thought he might present in regard to the pericope.

    We get nothing of the sort.

    Instead – had you been waittttingggggg forrrr itttttttt? – we merely get a misch and hash of his usual fulminations against the Church and so on, based on his favorite presumption that the Church is demonic.

    But – again – this is not theology. This is merely the accumulation of one’s favorite selected pericopes congenial to one’s personal agenda, which are then weaponized to go after one’s target as if with the authority and knowledge of Scripture, with the whole resulting rant merely masquerading as ‘theology’.

    And to ‘Dan’s other curiously and queasily characteristic tropes, we would have to add “creepy” in its assorted grammatical variants, and at this point perhaps readers can understand why.

    • Dan says:

      Big difference between presuming a church to be "demonic", and knowing absolutely and positively sure that your church is "demonic". That's period. Have you even looked at the photos of your Capuchin Crypts [or Creeps if you prefer] or skeleton rooms of Rome. And that's just less than 1% of their creepiness.

      "None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see."

    • Dan says:

      Oh, that's right! That was many years ago and in the past, so will just adore and worship it as art and it's all good with the Almighty. I'm surprised they haven't come up with that excuse yet for their pedophilia. Give 'em time. They've come up with every other excuse or someone else they could blame (i.e. that demon media).

    • Dan says:

      Let me add the last line of the quote from Matthew Henry.

      "They have baffled their own consciences, and so walk on in darkness." Think that covers it.

  60. Publion says:

    We have a bunch of bits from ‘Dan’:

    On the 16th at 1131AM he dodges all the problems by simply huffing and puffing (the Wig of Outraged Decency) that he doth “refuse to respond” to – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttt? – “my ignorance”.

    Bottom line: he doth “refuse to respond”. But what else, really, can he do but scoop up his marbles and go home?

    And on the 16th at 1201PM we are back to his word-games: the objective of ‘substantiating’ may be what the dictionary says, but different organizations or persons in different contexts will have their own criteria that they choose to claim fulfills the definition.

    Thus, for example, the current brouhaha over immigration and valid identity hinges precisely upon just who is doing the ‘substantiating’ and whether the criteria they have chosen do or do not actually accomplish the goals set forth in the definition.

    Or, for another example, ‘Dan’, who seems quite satisfied that his god-grams are substantiated just because he says so or even that – since he claims they are from God – they are self-substantiating.  Or by the same token, that his claim to be “the Chosen” of God is substantiated by the criteria of his own assertion to that effect. And, really, what sort of substantiation is that?

    • Dan says:

      What's the problem with your word games? Your church says "at least 30 substantiated cases against this priest". So like yourself, we can't trust that the church honestly knows what they're talking about. I think at least this much is "substantiated". Again, like yourself- excusers, liars, deceivers and mockers of God and just about anything that is truth.

  61. Publion says:

    And on the 16th at 540PM ‘Dan’ finds – lah de dah – that he simply “must ask” where I get my definition of “theology”. Perhaps, since I have given my definition of ‘theology’, it would be more enlightening if he were to give us his definition of the term. Then readers could compare (or contrast) the two and judge between them.

    He then tries to claim that he doth “get [his] theology from the Word of God”. But that doesn’t really answer the question: What is his theology? (Short answer: ‘Dan’ doesn’t have a theology; he just has his handy pile of Biblical snippets that he has selected because – if looked at the way he wants them looked at – they provide some fake authority for his many eructations and fever-visions.)

    • Dan says:

      What could be a bigger "fake authority" than the catechism of your cult, worshipping the "Queen of Heaven" goddess and led by someone called a pope, a title you don't even find in the Bible. Remember, the Word contains no popes, archbishops, cardinals, Mary worship or purity. No rosary (repetition of prayers), no immaculate conception or assumption of Mary, and strictly warns against the burning of incense and adoration towards the "Queen of Heaven" (Jeremiah 44). You dare call someone's true belief, fake. You phony liar.

    • Dan says:

      Oh, and how could I forget, no catholic church in the Bible, either. Wake up, people.

  62. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 540PM:

    The case he tries to make in his second paragraph is basically the case any slightly loopy kid can make who doesn’t want to study and has bad grades: he doesn’t need to study (or ‘read books’) – doncha see? – because God doesn’t like “the wise” so why bother?

    And in any case, we aren’t discussing “the wisdom of the world” here; we’re discussing the wisdom of theology and Scripture. So there is already here a question as to whether ‘Dan’s deployment of one of his well-thumbed 3x5s is actually relevant in the first place.

    We are, to repeat, getting to the bottom of a shallow and damaged barrel indeed. And it is “proud” of itself in its current condition.

    • Dan says:

      Your choice: God's Infinite Wisdom or peewee's ignorance. Duhhhh!!! I'm just a "loopy kid". I'll just guess I'll go with God, 'cause peewee's worldly wisdom is just this great intellegence that my "shallow and damaged barrel" just can't contain. Gehenna would be a good place for that.

  63. Jim Robertson says:

    Meanwhile Dan and P bore us to death with their rehash of the Reformation.

    Yawn! Wake me when they hit the Age of Reason.

  64. Publion says:

    Nothing of 'Dan's most very recent is beyond my prior assessments: we're down to just getting one-liners with his favorite swipes, seeking to avoid the problems with his stuff.

    JR (the 17th, 1056AM) – on the other hand – will profess himself 'bored' with the Reformation rehash and wants to be waked up for the Age of Reason. We are to presume he would recognize such an era if he were plunked in the middle of it.

    The hair has all fallen out of his Wig of Raped-ness – since it is now clear, as it always has been, that he was – at best, if he is to be believed – 'lewdly acted upon'. Rather than the raped Lion King of Victimhood, he is now the Chihuhua of same. Alas.

    • Dan says:

      Oh, if you had only come to that conclusion long ago, so I wouldn't have had to waist my time with your nonsense. Later mocker

      P.S. Why do you think I started throwing out one liners, you think?

  65. Dan says:

    Jim, If you see no "Reason" in my message, then there isn't much I can do for you. It probably is boring to hear a message you could care less about. Sorry about that, but I haven't found some great excitement reading what you have to contribute. And I don't say that as an insult.

  66. Dan says:

    Publiar sarcastically and mockingly states that " 'Dan' doesn't have a theology; he just has his handy pile of Biblical snippets that he has selected because- if looked at the way he wants them looked at- they provide some fake authority for his many eructations and fever-visions."

    These are not my "eructations" or "fever-visions. They are directly from John's prophecies, given as the final word from the Lord to end the New Testament, prior to the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. His final description of the wicked, and you don't need a degree in theology.

    "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars– they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. Revelations 21:8

    And just in case you missed it, God had John repeat it, "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood [habitual liars]. Revelations 22:15

    These are God's final words, not 'Dan's whatsoever. Don't allow liars and deceivers to keep you from knowing and reading God's Word and truth. The catholic church and much of it's leadership and some dumb sheep, has or still does fit these evil descriptions perfectly. Run from them, while there is still a chance for repentance. Christ draws near. Matthew 24:1-14

  67. Publion says:

    As I said above, there is little new in any of ‘Dan’s recent gambits.

    However, his comment of the 17th at 1152AM is – I think – worthwhile to consider.

    Or rather: to consider again, since this point was raised (and several questions put forward) several threads back.

    ‘Dan’ notes – in another nice display of his juvenile ‘gotcha’ mode – that “there is no catholic church in the Bible”. From which platform he then issues his instruction to “Wake up, people”. So charmingly similar to another group that used that same construction with their instruction “Deutschland erwache!” – and perhaps can serve as a reminder to one and all to beware of those who come to you insisting that you “wake up”.

    • Dan says:

      That's real cute, coming from the deceiver of a cult, who's previous pope was a member of the Third Reich, and had the coincidental nazi name of RAT-zinger. Was not aware that the First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire. Oh, how easily the pieces begin to fit together. Mocker

    • Dan says:

      p, I thought you could figure out what post my P.S. was referring to, but I forgot that I have to hold you by the hand and show you exactly what I was talking about, so I brought it up to your sarcastic post.

      P.S. And by the way, "WAKE UP, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Biblical writing from Paul's letter to the Ephesians 5:14    Not Mein Kampf, deceiver.

      Do you understand the relevance now? "WAKE UP" is a Biblical phrase, and you're the deceiver that others would want to beware of.

  68. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 17th at 1152AM:

    The question that really needs to be asked is: would there be a Bible as we know it without the Church?

    In 200AD the first attempt to codify the books to be included in what we now call the New Testament was proposed in the Muratorian Canon.

    In 367AD, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, proposed a canonical list much as we recognize it today.

    In 382AD, in the Council of Rome, Pope Damasus took the Athanasian listing and sought to have it become a universally accepted listing of the New Testament.

  69. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 17th at 1152AM:

    In 397AD the Council of Carthage accepted the Athanasian listing and forwarded the list to Pope Innocent for his approval, building on the prior North African Council of Hippo in 393AD, which set up the listing of Old and New Testament Books that we have today.

    In 405AD Pope Innocent, in a letter to Exsuperius, Bishop  of Toulouse, listed the contents of the Old and New Testament as the canonically accepted books.

    And in 787AD the Ecumenical Council of Nicea II adopted the canon of the Council of Carthage for both the Latin West and Greek/Byzantine Churches of the East. Some Churches (the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, Syrians, Syro-Malankars, Chaldeans, and Malabars) were still not signed-on, which finally took place at the Council of Florence in 1442AD – more than a millennium after Athanasius first proposed his list.

  70. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 17th at 1152AM:

    Thus, we can see from the historical record that without the Church there would not be the Bible as it is today. (And where would ‘Dan’ be then? In an even worse position than he is in now.)

    This is the problem that has plagued Protestantism and certainly the anti-Catholic elements of fundamentalism since the Reformation: it was the Church that set the contents of the Bible that they wished to claim as the replacement source of theological authority in-place-of and against the Church.

  71. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Dan’ comment of the 17th at 1152AM:

    Some of them have tried to solve this profound problem for themselves by asserting that there was a “primitive Christian community” before the Church ‘took it over’ or some such, and that “primitive Christian community” was the genuine Christian community.

    When would that era have been? If it was before the 300s then there was no Bible as we know it, especially the New Testament. If it was after the 300s then there were the Popes and Bishops and Councils that defined the canon of the Bible.

    And do we imagine that in such “primitive Christian community” times – whenever they are supposed to have been – those Christians would have called the ‘readings’ at their gatherings ‘Bible readings’?

    • Dan says:

      True Christians aren't those who assembled the the writings of the Apostles and prophets into book form. Christians are those who read the prophetic words of God, live by them and put them into practice. All your little history lesson proves, is what I previously stated and you disputed, that the catholic church, popes, temples, statue idolatry and catechism didn't get it's start until the 300s. Your cult didn't write the Bible, doesn't follow the Bible or live the Word, and still does not. Why do you think Christians were burned at the stake and boiled in oil by your cult, for making, owning or reading the Book.        servant of the Word

      P.S. And by the way, "WAKE UP, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Biblical writing from Paul's letter to the Ephesians 5:14   Not Mein Kampf, deceiver.

  72. Publion says:

    On the 17th at 1041PM ‘Dan’ will demonstrate further a) the impermeability of his personal cartoon(s) and b) the consequent evasiveness (not quite truthy at all) deployed in an effort  to avoid the consequences of (a).

    I had said that he didn’t have a “theology” and that instead he merely had “his handy pile of Biblical snippets that he has selected because – if looked at the way he wants them looked at – they provide some fake authority for his many eructations and fever-visions”.

    He seeks to counter my statement by – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – i) merely tossing up more Biblical snippets from the pile and ii) simply repeating his assertion that his stuff is “the final word of the Lord” (which, by amazing coincidence, is the only way he wants them to be looked-at).

  73. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1041PM:

    Thus in the second paragraph he misconceives (deliberately or otherwise) the point at issue. I don’t doubt the general accuracy of his quotations from Scripture. My point is that a) their relevance to the Church is highly questionable and b) they seem rather clearly to be connected not by any theological position but rather merely by his “eructations and fever-visions” that drive him to focus so utterly (and not quite relevantly) on the Church as the intended object of the Biblical writers.

    Since – as I have already established in my most recent comments above (to which as of this writing ‘Dan’ has not responded) – it was the Church that determined the canonical corpus and contents of what we now have as the Bible, and especially the New Testament, then what would it imply if the Church had included writings that – if ‘Dan’s position is to be accepted as credible – utterly and certainly damned the Church as the usurper (or what-have-you) of Biblical truth and wisdom?

    And would the dogmas of the former Soviet Union and Communism, or the dogmas of what might generally be termed ‘secularism’, not be eligible for such imprecations as we find in the texts he quotes?

  74. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1041PM:

    Thus his sly, self-serving and self-exculpatory assertion in that paragraph to the effect that “you don’t need a degree in theology” to see that the Church is precisely “the wicked” referred to in the pericopes he quotes … actually demonstrates the opposite, i.e. one certainly does need some serious thinking and learning about the Bible if one is going to start trying to apply it to contemporary events or even if one is simply trying to comprehend accurately what the Biblical writers (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) were trying to convey.

    And, of course, this reality is even more urgent when one decides to wade around in the Book of Revelation, which is where certain types so often wind up, as if drawn by a magnet.

    • Dan says:

      "The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one." 1 Cor 2:15

      Let alone, by a deceiving, manipulating, mocking liar. Those pericopes nail you and your church perfectly, just like you both continue to nail Christ to the cross on a regular basis. Why do you think you must have your trophies of Him crucified and bloodied right above your blood stained altars.                   servant of the Almighty

  75. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1041PM:

    Thus – to repeat – I don’t deny the accuracy of the quotations; I do very much question whether ‘Dan’s take on them is either comprehensive and accurate or – even more – the one and only, sure and certain interpretation of what the Biblical writers intended (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to convey.

    And thus ‘Dan’ here – like so many others unleashed by the Reformation impulse – winds up becoming one of those who, as 2 Timothy 4:3 puts it, heap up teachers according to their own lusts (although, admittedly, ‘Dan’s ‘teacher’ here is actually himself (or Himself), operating – as he would insist we believe – under the direct and certain knowledge of God, imparted to him as “the Chosen” by some sort of clear and direct participation in the Word, Will, and Thought of God).

    And – in a nicely vivid demonstration of the guy in a robe walking the streets brandishing a ‘The End Is Near’ sign  – ‘Dan’ will then declaim that “Christ draws near”. And as so often with such types, the robe-guy’s presumption is that Christ will just happen to agree with everything the robe-guy imagines.

    Perhaps we might append to the bottom of ‘Dan’s “Christ draws near” sign the addendum: ‘He just tweeted me; He always does’.

    Readers may consider it all as they will.

    • Dan says:

      Your hilariass- You finally quote something from the Word and it doesn't apply or describe me, whatsoever. You even realized it yourself, saying, "although, admittedly, 'Dan's 'teacher' here is actually himself (or Himself)". Now how well that verse applys to your cult, they "heap up teachers according to their own lusts". Your heap of teachers- The church fathers, apologists, theologians, philosophers, Mary and thousands of saints, teaching "according to their own lusts". And that last part just totally speaks for itself.

      You might want to do some work on your 'theology'. It's not very "carefully considered" or "well-informed", nor is it at all a very "comprehensive" or "intricately-developed" use of Scripture unless you were seeking one of your mirrored "reflections" of your cult.  servant

  76. Dan says:

    Your Bullsxxt is getting so deep it's coming up over my waders. From my recollection it's your Klan that wears the dresses ("robes").

    "But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments." Matthew 23:5   Read Matthew chapter 23, catholics.

    When grown men take on the name of Mary, insist on you calling them fathers, when they have no children and wear dresses, would it be a surprise to anyone that they become perverts and pedophiles. You may want to take a good look in your own backyard, p, it's become overgrown with weeds.                 servant Dan

  77. Publion says:

    We continue with our interesting study of a certain type of mind.

    On the 18th at 620PM ’Dan’ seeks to distract (and might one say “deceive”?) by avoiding the Bible-Church problem and instead doing something far more congenial: declaiming upon “true Christians” (among whom, we had better nor forget, he holds himself as a prime example).

    He then makes another historical howler, combined here with his misreading of the historical implications of my point: there was indeed a Church before the 300s, going back to the Muratorian Canon and beyond. When Peter died in 67AD his successor was chosen, Linus, and the line continues on from there.

    Who called the Council of Carthage? And whence the Bishops who attended and decided matters? Who called the First Council of Jerusalem, mentioned in both Acts 15 and Galatians 2? And are we to imagine, cartoonishly, that the entire Church structure simply suddenly appeared with First Nicea?

  78. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on Dan’s of the 18th at 620PM:

    There was no Bible as we know it today until the Church defined the Biblical canon. Nobody said the Church ‘wrote’ the Bible, which is another deceptive distracting change of subject by ‘Dan’ here.

    But we see again how ‘Dan’ has to try to have his cake and eat it too (as has been the problem facing all Protestants since the Reformation): he wants to stand four-square on ‘the Bible’ (or at least his vision of it) while denying the profoundly vital role of the Church in forming the list of Books we now know as the Bible. If the Church hadn’t determined the canon of the Bible, then ‘Dan’ wouldn’t have a Bible (in whatever version he prefers) in the first place.

    And the rest of the paragraph simply platforms more of ‘Dan’s usual epitheticals.

    And his “P.S.” quoting Ephesians doesn’t in any way distract from the historical instance to which I referred – and, I think it is clear, hardly irrelevantly.

  79. Publion says:

    On the 18th at 832PM ‘Dan’ will deploy what is clearly one of his carefully selected self-exculpatory pericopes, to the effect that “the spiritual person” (of whom ‘Dan’ – we had better remember – considers himself a prime example) “is himself to be judged by no one”. Which, in the Dan-verse, means that none of his material can be assessed or questioned. Neato.

    Which bit then lubricates his further but familiar epithetical excursus in his second paragraph.

    • Publion says:

      But on the 18th at 853PM the “spiritual” and “Chosen” and “servant” and so forth, starts deploying the adolescent scatology so characteristic of Abuseniks when they’re at a loss for anything more substantial to put up. 

      And those bits serve merely as frosting to lard onto the usual epithetical cake that he has baked for himself.

       

    • Publion says:

      And on the 18th at 1132PM (larded with a bit more scatology) he will get himself out from under the ‘teachers according to their own lusts’ pericope by – had you been waittttingggg forrrrr ittttt? – simply declaring that “it doesn’t apply to or describe” him. Perhaps if we modified the pericope to read “according to their own whackeries” or “lunacies” it would appear more clearly relevant. 

      Readers may consider the accuracy and worth of his self-exculpatory declaration here as they will.

      But it is equally obvious that the greatest “deceiver” here is ‘Dan’, who has so perfervidly and comprehensively deceived himself (or Himself). 

      Even to the point of insisting that any assessment or questioning of his cartoons is itself ‘deception’. 

      And then tries the old I’m Not/You Are gambit by insisting that the pericope applies only to the Church. (And he does go on about “Mary”, as always.)

      What “speaks for itself” here is ‘Dan’s abyssal whackness. And since it “speaks for itself”, of course, then he needn’t really explicate it. Cartoons are to be enjoyed, not explicated. 

      And the whole preceding bit then lubricates his final epithetical paragraph. 

  80. Dan says:

    I think you would make a great "cartoon" character. A persnickety nerd that has to use big words in order to impress himself. I think many would like to see it, but doubt anyone would want to listen to it.

  81. Dan says:

    Hey Publyin', Why not just modify the whole Bible to your liking. You already have, with your poor interpretations and twisted manipulation of the Word, to fit your sick agenda. And your'e quick to say someone's using the "I'm Not/You Are gambit, when you use it more often than anyone. You've been lying and deceiving in just about every way, and yet you think you can lay that on me. I would hope other catholics aren't as stupid.              servant of Truth

  82. Publion says:

    We needn’t be detained by ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 146PM, except to notice that he answers none of the problems pointed out in his position, and instead tries to distract with assorted epithetical bits.

    On then to the 19th at 1111PM:

    He opens with a name-calling epithet and nothing new there.

    He then tries to deceptively raise a point that is not relevant to anything I’ve been discussing: “why not just modify the whole Bible to your liking?”, he asks.

    First, I’ve never discussed ‘modifying’ the Bible, neither as my own thought nor as an accurate characterization of the Church’s compilation of the canonical Books we know today as ‘the Bible’.

    In fact, I’ll go as far as to say that ‘Dan’ hasn’t actually ‘modified’ the Bible either. But he has selectively reduced it to a pastiche of snippets that are very much indeed “to [his] liking”.

    Certain troubled people will do some whacky origami and fashion a Napoleon hat for themselves out of old newspapers. ‘Dan’ hasn’t quite done that; instead he’s fashioned a pope-hat for himself out of torn-out Bible snippets and the paste of his own problems.

    God will be very very mad, he would like us to think, if anyone points out the paper-and-paste job he’s wearing.

    • Dan says:

      As far as the "name calling", I haven't said anything that isn't true, unlike yourself.

      P wrongfully says, "He then tries to deceptively raise a point that is not relevant to anything I've been discussing: "why not just modify the whole Bible to your liking?", he asks.        

      p again mistakingly says, "First, I've never discussed 'modifying' the Bible". Apparently he's forgotten, since it was so long ago, that on March 19th @ 12:05pm, he wants to change the Bible quote, 2 Timothy 4:3- they heap up 'teachers according to their own lusts'. These are his very own words: "Perhaps if we 'MODIFIED' the pericope to read 'according to their own whackeries' or 'lunacies' it would appear more clearly relevant." Now who is deceptive and deceiving?

      And as far as my "fashion[ing] a pope-hat for himself"- Yeh, like I'd really want to be a pope, when they are more deceiving than you and have the same simular problems with twisting the Word and manipulating it to their liking (i.e. And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Matthew 23:9) Oh, but we're the catholic church and we'll not only call our pope, Father, but HOLY FATHER. And our catechism and apologists will give excuses as to why we don't have to obey God's Word. We're special, and God has a special place waiting just for you deceivers. Wake up, catholics, while there's still a chance to change and run from this lying cult.               servant 'Dan'

      P.S. Talk about "lunacies" and whack jobs, you'll find them all hiding in their temples and skeleton rooms. Read about your religion in Matthew 23 and Revelations 17:1-9. Don't allow anyone to tell you how wrong I am. Read the Bible for yourself. Then tell me I'm wrong.

       

  83. Mark says:

    To Dan, you recommended a book to Publion called "Catholicisim for Dummies". That sounded pretty rude to me. No less rude than "Condesending git". Well I have that book and it convinced me that God wants me to stay Catholic. And I do read the Bible including the whole book of Jaramiah. I am sorry that you have had to contend with bad people in the Catholic Church but that never happened to me, and even if it did, it would never convince me that it is not God's Church. Also, no-one here defends child abuse, you break the 9th commandment every time you say that we do.

    In short, don't try to make me leave the Catholic Church. It's never going to happen.

    • Dan says:

      No on can make you leave your church. That would be between yourself and God. If reading the Bible doesn't convince you, then nothing I say will.

  84. Publion says:

    We continue with the study of a certain type of mind.

    ‘Dan’ excuses himself for his “name-calling” by simply declaring that everything he says is “true”, whereas anything he doesn’t want to hear is not “true”. And this is certainly a gambit readers might consider for what it reveals about the mind we are dealing with here.

    He then simply picks out some of my points and merely proclaims them to be in error (“wrongfully” and “mistakingly”) (sic). This in his mind constitutes refutation, as – in much the same way – tossing around his favorite Biblical snippets constitutes ‘theology’ and even the Thought and Will of God.

  85. Publion says:

    We continue with the study of a certain type of mind.

    ‘Dan’ excuses himself for his “name-calling” by simply declaring that everything he says is “true”, whereas – but of course – anything he doesn’t want to hear is not “true”. And this is certainly a gambit readers might consider for what it reveals about the mind we are dealing with here.

    He then simply picks out some of my points and merely proclaims them to be in error (“wrongfully” and “mistakingly”) (sic). This in his mind constitutes refutation, as – in much the same way – tossing around his favorite Biblical snippets constitutes ‘theology’ and even the Thought and Will of God.

    The profound whackness here is: whatever ‘Dan’ wants to be real  is what God wants to be real, and whatever ‘Dan’ doesn’t want to be real is what God does not want to be real.

    Because ‘Dan’ and God are as close to being the same as you can get. Got it?

  86. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1PM:

    He then resorts to word-play: I had suggested the modification of the pericope only for the purposes of the exchange that was then underway, in order to make it even more clear what ‘Dan’ was up to in the context of that particular exchange. I didn’t suggest that his more or less accurate Bible quotation needed to be permanently and universally ‘modified’ in all the Biblical translations in existence and for all future time.

    More specifically, my point was that in ‘Dan’ we see operative not so much “lusts” and not so much merely “desires”, but rather the elements that seem to be driving him are closer to mental infelicities. (Although, without getting too deep into things-clinical here, it appears that some deeper level of sexual predilection fuels those infelicities that then have manifested in the form we have seen here.)

    • Dan says:

      All I can say to you is, you have alot of nerve insinuating anyone has mental problems. In regards to your last sentence, you have truly reached a new low, that I refuse to respond to.

  87. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1PM:

    But word-play is all he’s got if he has to defend his assorted plop-tossing.

    Of course, he wasn’t supposed to have to defend his stuff at all in the first place. If things had gone according to his cartoon-script, everyone would simply yield and submit to the marvelous and authoritative truthiness of his unassailable and undeniable and unquestionable revelations from the Dan-verse (although masquerading – as becomes increasingly clear with every effort of his – as the true and only Scriptural interpretation).

  88. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1PM:

    ‘Dan’ is the pope of his own little religion, as he has made abundantly – if unintentionally – clear. And he does like to pronounce, proclaim, declaim, denounce and otherwise carry-on; as JR is so irritated by anyone else who might appear more competently a spokesman for the Victimry, ‘Dan’ is really really irritated by any rival to his self-imagined pope-hood.

    Nicely he has created for himself his personal version of the fundamental Protestant Problem: where the fundamental Protestant Problem is How to base oneself on the Bible as opposed to the Church, when the Church herself created (through selection) the Bible as it is known, ‘Dan’ wants to be some version of a pope while trying to saw off the head (figuratively speaking, at least) of that particular ‘rival’ over in Rome.

    This is a little soap-opera that can go on for many seasons, and probably has.

  89. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1PM:

    And then, but of course, a retreat to the core cartoon: that there is absolutely and utterly no space between the text of the Bible and ‘Dan’s personally-preferred take on that text; thus a perfect and complete identity or union between ‘Dan’ and the Thought, Word and Will of God.

    That may seem quite an abyss for any human to leap in a single bound, but that’s the nice thing about any cartoon-universe: you can do stuff like that simple as pie.

    And as a personal and personally-consoling cartoon it could provide a lifetime of a sort of satisfaction … if he didn’t insist on going around insisting that other people enter his cartoon-universe and call it reality.

    But in its way I suppose it does serve to pass the time.

    And then there’s the now-familiar “P.S.” and readers can consider it all as they will.

    • Dan says:

      "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."  Proverbs 9:10  You continue to mock with no fear of the consequences?

  90. Publion says:

    From ‘Dan’ we get a string of short bits.

    On the 21st at 1057 he piously bleats that a decision to “leave your church” would be “between yourself and God”. Of course, since between “yourself and God” you also have ‘Dan’, self-declared Mouth and Mind of the Divine, then you had better pay attention to ‘Dan’s stuff.

    But then ‘Dan’s stuff is merely – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttttt? – what you will get if you start “reading the Bible” (and, conversely, if you don’t ‘get it’ the way ‘Dan’ gets it then you have clearly read the Bible wrongly and perhaps worse).

    We encounter here the psychic-economy equivalent of interlocking defensive lines, designed to support each other in defending the core cartoon presumption, i.e. that there is no space whatsoever between what ‘Dan’ wants and what God wants.

  91. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1114PM:

    I don’t “have a lot of nerve”; nor am I “insinuating”. I am simply going with the material ‘Dan’ has provided, including – of course – his numerous claims and then denials as to his own misadventures with mental institutions and so forth, and his demonstrated position that between God and himself (or Himself) there exists no space wherein might arise differences of interpretation or failures of knowledge or any of the other possibilities that his own material has raised consistently.

    Nor am I interested really in psychologically assessing ‘Dan’, except insofar as his material and his claims, accusations, allegations, and assertions about the Bible, the Church, and everything and everyone else are somehow relevant to his condition.

    • Dan says:

      No p, you absolutely do "have a lot of nerve". As you so kindly state, my "misadventures" were all based on false accusations by your church of lying hypocrites, those very simular to yourself. By that fact, it wouldn't matter what consequences I had to suffer, from the forked tongues of your priests, nuns and co-conspirators. As you have, you can continue to mock the Lord God, His written and prophetic word, and justify in your conscience that you're only mocking my "material", and that's fine. "That must console you." You stand as the perfect example of one of the many deceiving hypocrites that are destroying your church from within. So we'll let you continue having fun in your imaginative, immature "cartoon" playground, while you assume everyone else, excluding of course, you and your church, has some form of mental deficiency. This must console all of you.           His in Christ

  92. Publion says:

    Once again, on the 22nd at 1240AM, we see the core problem: if you don’t “fear” Dan, then you don’t “fear the Lord” and you indeed “mock” God when you find problems with ‘Dan’s material.

    And the whole bit then buttressed with that queasy threatening bit about “no fear of the consequences”. In other words, if you question ‘Dan’ then – as Maude used to say in the old TV show – “God’ll getcha for that”.

  93. Publion says:

    On the 23rd at 951AM ‘Dan’ will merely insist that I really “do have a lot of nerve”.

    His basis for that – at least in his mind – leads us to another twisty turn: now he refers to his “misadventures” (with the mental health system, we recall) as “all based on false accusations” … establishing, for today’s performance, anyway, that they really did take place.

    So for those keeping a notebook or graph-chart of ‘Dan’s Yes’s and No’s (and a zig-zaggy chart it would be), things have now zagged to the Yes end of the spectrum. For today’s performance.

    And this no doubt unintentionally revealing ‘incoherence’ (to “kindly state” it) thus platforms more stuff designed to build the image of the Suffering Servant trope so frequently seen in Scripture. Neato.

  94. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 951AM:

    And the record here will show that I have never ‘mocked’ “God’s Word” or “the Lord God”. Rather I have been reduced to somewhat bemused amusement by the stuff ‘Dan’ has put up trying to masquerade as God’s Will and Word and Thought.

    And to have exposed that masquerade does – come to think of it – console me.

    Nor have I – as ‘Dan’ so conveniently tries to create something I didn’t at all write – claimed that “everyone else … has some form of mental deficiency”. I have simply pointed out that ‘Dan’s own claims or reports of his (court-required) misadventures with the mental health system are certainly supported by his various performances here.

  95. Jim Robertson says:

    "bemused amusement"?

    Isn't that like "redundant redundancy"?

    What a pompous shmuck you are! If there was a god, he'd spit in your eye.

  96. Dan says:

    I never denied that the lies that sent me to jail or mental hospitals happened. Remember, I was the one who informed you of such. Hopefully for the last time: When I had the beautiful prophesy by the schoolyard, there was no conviction, no jail time, no plea bargain and no judge, because there were no legal charges against me. In all the incidents, these were citizens arrests based on false accusations, because officers would explain that no laws were broken. All mental hospital stays were 1 to 4 days, no medications or counseling. Doctors understood that I did not have mental illnesses, and some even questioned why I was sent to them in the first place. I'm sure you'll find some way to dispute what I've just given you, because as we know, you were there to witness exactly what really happened, and you are the "truthy" one.

    How can you claim you don't mock "God's word" or "the Lord God", then turn around in your next sentence with your "bemused amusement by the stuff 'Dan' has put up trying to masquerade as God's will and word and thought". More than half of what I quoted was God's or Christ's word taken directly from the Bible. So keep believing, that when you mock things I quote, your not mocking God, and so you can be amused and consoled. Let me give you a prophesy the Lord gave me towards two catholics who mocked me simular to what you have.

    "You have mocked My servant, you have mocked Me. You will longer ride this bus. You will go out into the weeds and the thicket."- thus saith the Lord. So keep believing you can mock God's chosen and you shall suffer no consequences. This too must amuse and console you.             servant of the Almighty God

  97. Dan says:

    I already see you'll be jumping all over that one. I was placed in psyche wards in regular hospitals, not "mental institutions" or "mental hospitals".

  98. Dan says:

    And for the umteenth time, it wouldn't really matter, because they were all based on absolute lies ,by lying religious hypocrites. That's period.

  99. Publion says:

    For those keeping a Notebook on the Playbook for ‘Dan’s material, the 24th at 1259PM provides some interesting twists:

    Faced – yet again – with the problem of explaining-away  a) his misadventures with both the legal and mental-health systems  and b) the ‘issues’ that those misadventures would surely seem to indicate while c) not seeming to contradict any prior ‘truths’ he has told about (a) and (b) – as if that ship hadn’t already sailed – he opens with a sly and shrewd gambit: he “never denied that the lies that sent [him] to jail or mental hospitals happened”.

    Readers who have been following the zigs and zags of Dan’s ‘truth-telling’ can judge that denial for what it’s worth as they graph it on their chart.

    All he’s saying here is merely that the precipitating incident(s) – which, of course, was all based on “lies” and lies and more lies – did happen. Which was not really in question in the first place, unless one were to try to follow his zigs and zags over the entire course of his comments on this site.

  100. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1259PM:

    Although in the process, he sort of gets all tangled up with being “sent … to jail or mental hospitals”, and readers can record that bit on their zig-zag chart as well. “Oh what webs we weave …”

    And then, again, we see the depth of his derangement with his comment about having “the beautiful prophesy” (using the wrong form of the term here) “by the schoolyard”. Which bit at this point requires no further comment.

    Whether that incident was one of the “six” that he originally claimed got him jail and court-ordered psychiatric stays or whether it constitutes a seventh incident … can remain in the cloud that ‘Dan’s various efforts at ‘truth’ have thrown over it.

    • Dan says:

      You claim my "bits" require no further comment, and yet you insist at commenting more and more. You should look close at your own zig-zag B.S.

  101. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1259PM:

    He now claims, as well, that all of the “arrests” were “citizen-arrests” (“based”, of course, “on false accusations”) but that “no laws were broken”. Which raises the questions as to i) why the judge(s) involved  did not throw the cases out of court and ii) how any court would have the authority to require a period of mental-health observation if the charges had been thrown out.

    He then – if it has escaped his notice – admits to the “mental hospital stays”, claiming i) that they were all, however, of short duration and ii) resulted in “no medications or counseling” because iii) the “doctors understood that I did not have mental illnesses”.

    I am not surprised at doctors being ‘unimpressed’ with his issues, since there are clearly more deeply and violently disturbed mental-health cases demanding attention and resources in the world these days. A chronic and low-grade derangement that did not result in actual mayhem would not register high on their scale, no matter how pervasive and deeply-set, especially since the prognosis for recovery would no doubt be very poor.

    • Dan says:

      And you continue on with more of your garbage that "required no further comment". And how deranged must you be, to carry on an in-depth conversation with someone, you claim to possess a "chronic and low-grade derangement", who's "prognosis for recovery would no doubt be very poor". What would that say in regards to your ignorance and level of derangement. At least my convictions were totally based on lies, where your derangement is based on the stupid, twisting, deceiving manipulations, which you have brought upon yourself, with no one else to blame but yours truly.

  102. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1259PM:

     

    He then seeks to fall-back on the bit about my not being there and he was there and so he knows and I don’t. (So similar to Abusenik claims that nobody can ‘know’ their allegation because nobody except them was actually there when the alleged act(s) happened.)

    This is a sly bit: X says something happened; nobody else was there; therefore nobody can ‘know’ except X. This is nothing more than the enabling dynamic for the old ‘spectral evidence’ bit from witchcraft trial days in post-Reformation times: there is indeed evidence for the claim / but nobody can see it except for the person making the claim / but it’s still valid evidence.

    And as for ‘Dan’s reliability as a credible reporter of events, readers may judge as they will.

    • Dan says:

      It hilariass, that you and your cult prefer this same excuse in order to try to convince everyone that your pedophile priests and perverted hierarchy are innocent, because there was no witnesses. Then they're able to deny anything happened and falsely accuse the victims to be liars, like themselves. If that doesn't hold water and they're cornered, with there filth, then they claim statute of limitations, so that makes everything alright. Cowardly, deceiving hypocrites, of which fit in perfectly.                  servant

    • Dan says:

      That would be "you fit in perfectly", Publyin'

  103. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1259PM:

    As for his bleat as to how I can claim that I don’t “mock ‘God’s word’ or ‘the Lord God’: my answer is simple and in the record of my comments: I have never mocked the Bible passages he quoted; I have only pointed out the problems with his interpretations and conclusions – with his material, in short, and not with – as it were – ‘God’s material’.

    Of course it is one of the core gambits in the Dan-verse that by wrapping up his own whackeries in actual Scriptural passages, then one cannot – he imagines – doubt his own stuff without doubting Scripture. But that’s a rather silly presumption that just isn’t so, and the very fact that he has made the presumption in the first place is indicative of his whackness.

    • Dan says:

      If Jim and myself "bleat", then it would be appropriate to say that you hee-haw. Although the oink-oink of a lying pig may fit fine, too. Why not go back to wallowing in the mud. Oh! That's right. That's already what you've been doing in this forum. You also have quite the nerve to insinuate anyone to be whacked, after the ignorance you've presented.

  104. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1259PM:

    And the whole comment concludes with – remarkably – God being quoted as saying that I “will no longer ride this bus”.

    The whackery here being that ‘Dan’ is so utterly convinced of the completeness of his imagined direct and total bond with God that anything ‘Dan’ chooses to say is also what God wants to say and can be ‘quoted’ as such.

    Thus endeth the lesson provided by his comment here  – and an illuminating one it has been.

    • Dan says:

      Let me educate you, Mr. Know It All, when lying hypocrites of your cult, falsely accuse a person, and that person is outnumbered (i.e. 4 thug liars), the police listen to these so-called religious phonies. Believing that these holy people would never lie, they put me on a 5150 hold and on many occasions wouldn't even take a statement from me. 5150 hold- your a danger to others, a danger to yourself, unable to take care of yourself or others. I never hurt myself, never physically hurt another and am just short of a gourmet cook and do all the cooking in my household. So all these added lies of a 5150 hold are piled on to your cult's vicious lies. So who do you think a judge is going to listen to? Turns out the majority of these lying cops were also members of your cult of hypocrites. Don't question or answer me and I'll be able to walk away from all your ignorance.

    • Dan says:

      In regards to the part of the quote that applied to you, was, "You mock My servant, you have mocked Me." Now if you still are supposed to ride in your little yellow school bus, I'm sure it will be alright. However, if you think the bus portion applies to you, I'm sure your kindergarten classmates won't mind if they don't have to listen to your nonsense anymore, on their way to school. And you claim with your deranged mind that others are whacked? What a whack job you're turning out to be! Again, "You mock My servant, you have mocked Me." If you need that translated in Latin so you can understand it, let me know, Mocker.

  105. Publion says:

    And on the 24th at 448PM he will circle back to add that he was “placed” (i.e., sent by a court) in the psychiatric wards of “regular hospitals” (plural) and was not sent to a “’mental institutions’ or ‘mental hospitals’” – a distinction, to be sure, but hardly a difference for the matters under consideration here.

    And on the 24th at 452PM he will circle back again to insist that in any case “they” (being the instances where he was sent by a court for observation) “were all” (plural) “based on absolute lies” (and we have only ‘Dan’s credibility for that claim and readers may judge as they will).

    He doesn’t want to play this game anymore (who could be surprised?) and thus he tries to put an end to it all with his “That’s period” bit (as oddly structured grammatically as it is).

    Not “period”, I would say.

    • Dan says:

      Does it console you to constantly correct those who don't agree with your nonsense? Does this make you feel full of great wisdom? Here's another one of those quotes from the Word which you can claim inappropriate, for the umteenth time.

      "Professing to be wise, they became fools."  Romans 1:22

      "Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them. Proverbs 26:12

      Explain to us again, how God's Word does not apply, you mocking fool.    servant

  106. Publion says:

    On the 24th at 1127AM JR will demonstrate his incapacities once again:

    Apparently relying on nothing more than the fact that the core particle ‘muse’ is contained in both the words “bemused” and “amusement” he presumes that both words mean the same thing.

    Thus his concluding epithet recoils on him, as so very often.

    • Dan says:

      You've made it pretty clear, that you're not happy unless you're criticizing, correcting or demeaning another. Does this make you feel like you're really a man, or do you in reality don one of those lacy, girly vestments of your cult? Strange how you put yourself out there as being so wise, and yet not smart enough to keep your mouth shut when it pertains to mocking God's Word or the power of His Spirit. Laughable, that you are.

  107. Publion says:

    Desperate now to have something to pick at, ‘Dan’ will again try to create something more convenient for himself: I didn’t claim all of his material (or all of his “bits”) required no further comment, just a particular bit under consideration in that particular comment.

    That reality wouldn’t have been any use to him so – had you been waittttingggg forrrr itttt? – he tries to create a more useful ‘reality’ for himself. Which appears to be a long-standing habit with him.

  108. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s comment of the 26th at 5PM:

    After repeating his “required no further comment” bit, he will now deploy the familiar gambit of I’m Not/You Are: he is not “deranged”, I am.

    And how am I “deranged”? I am “deranged” because I “carry on an in-depth conversation with someone [I] claim to possess a ‘chronic and low-grade derangement’” with only a weak prognosis.

    ‘Dan’ here is – slyly – far too complimentary too himself. I don’t see any “in-depth conversation” in my exchanges with him. Rather, as I have said in comments here, I am sustaining and continuing an examination of particular type of mind and mentality that most readers don’t often get a chance to encounter or engage.

    Nor would I characterize any of his material and the points he tries to make as being in any way “in-depth”, except as grist for the aforesaid examination.

    And the rest of his comment then trails off into epitheticals built upon the foundation of sand he put forth at its beginning.

    • Dan says:

      Maybe then I was wrong. I didn't realize you were having an "in-depth conversation" with yourself. Like previously stated, and the more you respond, "What a whack job your turning out to be!" Let me correct that one, too. You've been whacked since the beginning of your "in-depth conversation[s]" with yourself. You can find consolation in this- When talking to yourself, at least then you can say someone is listening who really cares what you have to say. Unfortunately, not many of us do. Back at you, Mocker, of all that is truth.  servant

      P.S. Psychos don't make good psychiatrists. You have no right, with your ignorance, to examine or assess anyone's mentality, although you would be a great lifetime study for yourself to analyze. Maybe you can start with the 'anal' part, and work your way down.

  109. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 512PM:

    Once again, finding the actual “conversation” to be uncongenial and not-useful to him, ‘Dan’ will try again to create a more congenial ‘reality’ for himself here: I have not at any time tried to make the “excuse” that since there are no witnesses then all accused clergy and hierarchy are “innocent”.

    I have simply pointed out that – in both law and rational inquiry and assessment – a lack of witnesses opens up a clear and substantial question as to evidence. And that with all of the a) motivation for potential gain while b) running (at present) little risk of having one’s claims seriously examined, and c) given the well-established tort-attorney strategies and d) the many larger and deeper political and cultural interests involved … then there remains a probability and perhaps not a small one that the Stampede is not all it’s cracked up to be.

    • Dan says:

      There you go again with your "in-depth" garbage dump of excuses and assessments that no one besides you, really needs to hear. It's always someone else's fault, surely not the fault of your pedophile priests and perverts. You forgot to blame the media. You're really slippin'.

  110. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 512PM:

    And using ‘Dan’s own ‘reasoning’ here: if there are no witnesses, then anyone so inclined could whomp up a story to suit his/her purposes.

    And – to repeat yet again – the Statute of Limitations is a legal principle in effect whether any Party claims it or not. And since the Statute is in place for a very good reason (i.e. that evidence or potential evidence degrades over time and after that time becomes unreliable even if it still exists) then it is a remarkably wise and prudent principle that is enshrined in the Statute.

    Could ‘God’ be this uninformed and irrational and/or slyly duplicitous? Or is it just ‘Dan’?

    • Dan says:

      IF YOUR CULT HAD ANY CHRISTIANS AMONG THEM AT ALL, THEY WOULD CONFESS THEIR MALFEASANCE AND BE TRUTHFUL ABOUT THEIR SINFUL PERVERSIONS AND NOT HIDE UNDER THEIR DRESSES AND CLAIM THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. PROBLEM IS THAT THEY'RE FAR FROM BEING HONEST AND TRUTHFUL AND HAVE YET TO REALIZE THAT THE LORD GOD KNOWS ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE IN SECRET AND CAN'T WAIT FOR JUDGMENT DAY TO REWARD THEM FOR THEIR DESPICABLE, DECEPTIVE LIVES AND LIES. SERVANT

      P.S. KNOW YOUR GOING TO CRITCIZE MY USING CAPS, BUT MY CAPS LOCK KEY JUST BUSTED. THE LORD DOES WORK IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS, AND TIMELY, ALSO.

       

  111. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 521PM:

    He will riff on “bleat” and then build his epitheticals on it.

    Nor does he bother to give any actual examples of what he asserts is my “ignorance”.

    When you get to the bottom of ‘Dan’s barrel, this is what you get.

  112. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 549PM:

    Here we are simply treated to a repetition of his various bits in which the school staff lie and the police (perhaps on the basis of what they themselves observed?) agree that something is wrong with ‘Dan’s actions … but of course it’s all “lies”.

    But he then reveals even more interesting bits: he was considered a danger to himself and/or others. But, of course, that was all lies.

    He is, however, “a gourmet cook” or close to it (and, we recall, wrote a 50-page term-paper on evolution in the eighth-grade). Are we then to imagine that almost-gourmet cooks couldn’t possibly be a “danger”?

    So under the weight of all these “lies” (from the staffers, the police, previous misadventures that might be in the record for the judge’s perusal) then whom is the judge is going to believe? Oh, and it turns out “the majority of the police” were Catholics. Well, that pretty much clinches it then, to ‘Dan’s mind.

    So, you see, if I didn’t know all that, then the only conclusion ‘Dan’ can draw – out of such mental resources as remain available to him – is that I am ‘ignorant’.

    Readers may consider these interesting bits as they will.

    • Dan says:

      "HEE HAW, HEE HAW, HEE HAAAWWWWW"

    • Dan says:

      The reason I had mentioned that "the majority of these lying cops were also members of your cult of hypocrites", was for the fact that I've been realizing that maybe more rampant among catholics than pedophiles and perverts, may be the fact that they're plagued with a slew of liars, of which you also qualify. I do so appreciate the fact that you're finally realizing that your cult is full of liars (i.e.- "school staff lie and police", "of course it's all 'lies' " and "of course, that was all lies"). And by the way, all your added lies in regards to my "misadventures" and your poor assessments regarding my mentality, are all prime "examples" of your "ignorance" and nonsense. Does it console you now that I'm pointing out and answering your questions for you, 'cause you're way too "ignorant" to figure out your own shortcomings. Got an Easter prophecy (is this grammatically correct, snarky?), that fits you perfectly, but I'm hesitant to post it, because all you know how to do is mock God's Spirit and Word, rather than learn from it. Happy Easter Egghead.

      Egghead def.- a highly educated person who may not know much about real life (syn. nerd)

      Egghead def. by Wiki- person considered too out-of-touch with ordinary people and too lacking in realism [truth], common sense, virility, etc. (syn. Eggheaded geek troll)

    • Dan says:

      Publiar says, "Are we to imagine that almost-gourmet cooks couldn't possibly be a "danger"?

      Oh yeah! I can make one heck of a "danger"ous cyanide pie, and Jim can get his wish of dancing on your coffin, maybe to one of those ghastly gregorian chants. Bunch of creeps.

  113. Dan says:

    I wasn't bragging of my talents. I was only saying that a 5150 hold would be invalid because I don't qualify for those accusations. Won't you please just go away or not respond, so I don't have to waist my time with your persistent nonsense or ignorance.   

  114. Publion says:

    On the 26th at 611PM ‘Dan’ will give us an assertion in quotation marks that bears no reference indications for any Book of the Bible.

    It is a very convenient assertion for both his purposes here and for the overall cartoon that he has constructed for himself: if you “mock” (meaning, in the Dan-verse, question or point out problems with) the servant of God (which title and authority ‘Dan’ has awarded to himself) then you “mock” God.

    We’ve been over all this before: it’s his blanket ‘007’ status, awarded to him by himself, which (in his mind, anyway) puts his material beyond any doubt or question. In this instance, ‘Dan’ has apparently put up his assertion in quotation marks because – we are to believe – it is a statement made by God to ‘Dan’ which ‘Dan’ is passing along. Ovvvvvv coursssssse.

    But the rest of the comment then derails itself into an extended riff on a “little yellow school bus” and “kindergarten” students and … readers may consider what’s going on here as they may.

    And then the comment concludes by derailing itself in another direction with epithets of the I’m Not/You Are and “mocker” variety.

    • Dan says:

      Prophecy is new revelation from the Lord and doesn't necessarily have any "reference indications for any Book of the Bible". Seems like you could use a little sharpening done to your theology and Biblical principles. Sorry, but we haven't gotten to that lesson yet. You're forgiven, now go say ten hail marys and stick your head back in the sand, where it belongs.

  115. Publion says:

    On the 26th at 632PM ‘Dan’ will merely whine that he doesn’t like being “corrected”, which ‘correction’ is being done – he is sure – just because he doesn’t “agree with [my] nonsense”.

    But in the comment of mine to which this bit was put up as a response, I didn’t ‘correct’ anything; I simply pointed out just what he had – no doubt unintentionally – revealed about his Now Yes/Now No court-ordered mental evaluation stays.

    And the oddly structured grammatical bit (i.e. “That’s period”) wasn’t corrected; rather, I noted it because when you start to see a mind lose control of its grammar, you are starting to see a mind lose control of its material.

    And wasn’t there something in Scripture about not calling people “fool”? Or does ‘Dan’s (self-awarded) 007 status exempt him from it?

    • Dan says:

      Like previously stated, you could use quite some sharpening to your theology and Biblical principles, and let me add interpretation skills. The Scripture verse is Matthew 5:22

      "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council: and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." Matthew 5:22

      I'm flattered and surprised that you would consider me to be a brother, but I must say I'm sorry, because it is written not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness? —2 Cor 6:14

      Based on this fact that you're not my brother and you're a mocker and scoffer of my Lord and God, I would be exempt and be able to call you the "fool" that you are. Just calling them as I see them, a spade by any other color, would still be a spade. And capable of shoveling your sxxt and burying it where it belongs. Service from the servant "OO7" (God-awarded)

      P.S. That lesson was on the house. But go bow down and say ten hail marys, just for the heck of it, her fake statue will appreciate your nonsense and ignorance. Maybe she'll reward you with extra coal for the fire.

  116. Publion says:

    On the 27th at 843AM ‘Dan’ will try his tea-leaves: to him, anyway, it is “pretty clear” that I am “not happy” unless I am “criticizing, correcting, or demeaning another”.

    Actually, I am not happy about it at all; it is not at all pleasant to have to engage his material on a sustained basis.

    There is some inescapable humor, however, in his effort to spin himself as a ‘victim’ here, when his own rants against the Church and clergy and Catholics are so vividly vituperative.

    He, however, wasn’t going for anything like a self-revelation. He was actually trying the gender-bendy route, impugning – had you been waittttingggg forrrrr ittttt? – my masculinity or manhood. Has he been reading too much of JR’s material or has he come to this gambit all on his own? (Or did ‘God’ tell him to try it?) It seems something of a common gambit with Abuseniks, when they don’t have much else.

    I have “put myself out there” (perhaps he meant ‘here’) as nothing at all. I have simply put my thoughts up, with no assertions that would manipulate or demand of readers their immediate acceptance of my thoughts. Does a lot of Abusenik material look ‘not-wise’ or ‘unwise’ in comparison? If so, then whose problem is that?

  117. Publion says:

    On the 27th at 1254PM, trying somehow to salvage his “in-depth conversation” bit, ‘Dan’ will try a different contortion: I was having “an ‘in-depth conversation’ with myself”. As I said, I wasn’t having a conversation at all; I was conducting an assessment of material that ‘Dan’ chose to put up. And he doesn’t like being assessed. And I can see why. But that’s his problem, not mine.

    And the comment goes on, riffing on something like me talking-to myself.

    However, there’s a “P.S.” – as so often. And as so often, it winds up being a bit useful. “Psychos” (now that he has broached the term himself) don’t make good ‘servants’, especially when they have wrapped themselves up in the aura of the divine.

    And I have as much “right” to voice – and explain – my assessments and opinions as he does to put up his opinions about the Church and clergy and Catholics. But – who can be surprised? – ‘Dan’ doesn’t like it at all when the light he has tried to weaponize against his favorite bugbears is turned on him. Even when it is his own admissions that create the fuel for that light.

    And he concludes with another of those queasy scatological adolescent epithets that is fascinated with various body-parts. Did ‘God’ tell him to say that? Or is it just ‘Dan’ revealing himself here?

    At any rate, assuming he has some knowledge of anatomy, working one’s way “down” from the “anal” would lead one simply  to the legs, and he appears to have lost control of his imagery here. But the epithet was – of course – too much for him to pass up.

    • Dan says:

      Maybe I need to draw you a picture so you might better understand. When I said, " 'anal' part and work your way down", I wasn't talking anatomically, but rather commenting on the direction you seem to be heading. I'm just not allowed to say what I would like to, because that would be against my Father's Word, and I respect His Word. Unlike ignorant mockers.

    • Dan says:

      Who declared you to be the psychological assessor of everyone and everything. If your assessments were based on truth, that would be one thing. But instead you tell fairy tales and stretch the truth into what is beneficial to your sick agenda. As you whimper, "I have as much "right" to voice – and – explain my assessments and opinions as he has to put up his opinions about [our cult]." Are you the self-declared "007" assessor and so that authorizes you to twist the truth and make up any stories you wish in order to demean or destroy one's  reputation, even when it pertains to God. I believe that was Satan's role also. When I voice my opinion of your cult, it's based on all too well exposed facts, not on slander. The church of my youth had over 50% pedophile and pervert rate among it's priests, and as an altar boy I personally witnessed their greed and drunkenness. Fortunately, as a public school kid, I wasn't around them long enough, to have suffered the perversions of their cult. I really don't believe you have any right to consistantly demean and slander the children that were molested, unless you've walked in their shoes. For you to do so as you have is utterly preposterous and uncalled for. Like I've said, "Might be time to take a serious look into your own backyard." The secrets of the extent of your cult's crimes are just beginning to be exposed, and it's lawyers do everything they can do to prevent that exposure. The scourge your cult has done to all that is decent and pure in a society is disgusting and terribly too widespread for anyone to defend, in any rational sense. I would guess, one who has the gall to mock the Creator would also feel he has the God given right to assess and slander anyone he wishes. Keep up the good work, mocker of all that is truth.

    • Dan says:

      Yeah. I see I misspelled consistently. That's cause I'm illiterate and mentally challenged and clinically projecting all my ills on others. When I look in the mirror, I'm actually pretty satisfied with what I see and can say, I can lie down in peace and rest in the reassurance of my God.

  118. Publion says:

    And on the 27th at 106PM he reveals himself further: principles of law and rational inquiry are simply “excuses” to him. But he does have this cartoon he’s put together, and he can’t be letting “excuses” get in the way of it.

  119. Publion says:

    And on the 27th at 108PM he will try to dodge any need to back up his assertions by simply declaring – or reporting to us ‘God’s declaration – that “all [my] posts are ‘actual examples’ of [my] ‘ignorance’”.

    While I have found very many of his posts examples of this and that infelicity on his part, I have gone to great lengths to explicate my assessments – basing them on the material he himself has proffered.

  120. Publion says:

    And on the 27th at 118PM he will try to make some sense – as it were – of his “gourmet” comment: he denies that he was “bragging” (although I never wrote that he was); he was merely pointing out that a “5150 hold for mental observation” … “would be invalid because I don’t qualify for those accusations”.

    Ah.

    And his evidence for the assertion that he doesn’t qualify for being the subject of a “5150 hold for mental observation” … ? Why, as always, his evidence is because he says so. Or perhaps ‘God’ has already told him that he isn’t a “psycho” and doesn’t qualify for a “5150 hold for mental observation” – and who could argue with ‘God’?  Yes, that must be it. Problem solved and only the “ignorant” would think otherwise. Ovvvv coursssssssse.

    He would be better advised to follow his own advice in this matter: if he is a “psycho” (and reasonable folk can have various opinions as to that) then he wouldn’t make much of a psychiatrist in assessing (and clearing) himself.

    • Dan says:

      "HEE HAW, HEE HAW, HEEEEEE HAAAAWWWWWWW!!!"

    • Dan says:

      Using that catholic "abusenik stampede bit" again, "I'M NOT/YOU ARE". I'm the whiny little peewee troll and he's always picking on our holy, poor, pedophile cult of big hypocrites.

    • Dan says:

      Recess is over, and time to educate you once more, that you might stop your nonsense and ignorance. I was twice accused falsely by clergy or their staff of saying I want to kill them. Other times I was accused of starting a fight with them, when it was them who came off their property to come after me. Other times they lied saying I screamed obscenities at their children, when I truly just greeted them and told them to have a nice day. These accusations were ridiculous and they know darn well what will get a person in trouble. These reasons are why I was put on a 5150 hold. You come along and add to these lies with, I accosted, harrangued and several other unfair lies against me. This is why I can truthfully call you and your fellow cult members habitual liars, because this is the absolute truth. Not as you again wrongly claim, "Why, as always, his evidence is because he says so." So like I've already said, unlike you and your cult's cronies, when I label you lying 'fool's, it's not slander, it's basically just fact. God and Scripture is never against truth. Stop your nonsense and ignorance!!

  121. Publion says:

    On the 28th at 220AM ‘Dan’ now explains some of his stuff.

    He had mentioned the bit about the majority of police being Catholic (and therefore “hypocrites”) because – doncha see? – he has been “realizing” that “maybe” there are a whole lot more “liars” among Catholics than he had previously imagined.

    Thus – doncha see? – Catholics are “liars” about God’s Word and Will and (by amazing coincidence) they are also “liars” about his being a “psycho” (to use his own hardly inapt term here). A very neat little piling of his little blocky-blocks indeed.

    And then the rather juvenile attempt to quote my material as if I myself admitted same. Bottom of the barrel here and what else has he got, really?

    Thus again we see that in the ‘Dan’-verse, if he doesn’t want to hear it, then it’s all “lies” (however histrionically typed and emphasized).

  122. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 220AM:

    Oh, and in addition to being “lies”, anything ‘Dan’ doesn’t want to hear is also nothing more than “prime ‘examples’” of “ignorance and nonsense”. Basically, a re-run of the old I’m Not/You Are gambit.

    And he also considers epithets of various types and mere counter-assertions and so on to be “answering your questions for you”. A ‘comeback’ is not an answer to a question, as I have tried to tell him; neither is simply tossing up a bunch of what the fundies like to call ‘proof-texts’ from Scripture.

    And in a marvelous example of clinical projection, he adds an epithet far more dangerous in the recoil: “because you’re way too ‘ignorant’ to figure out your own shortcomings”. (Actually, and revealingly, ‘Dan’ tries a childish grammatical form of ‘because’, i.e. “’cause’”. Does the childish form work more effectively here? What is his sustained fascination with childish forms and imagery?)

  123. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 220AM:

    But it’s Easter time now, and this provides him with yet another opportunity for epithet: we get a sustained riff on ‘eggs’, as in “Egghead”.

    As to who (isn’t highly educated but) “may not know much about real life” … perhaps ‘Dan’ would like to take this thought of his to the nearest mirror and work with it. He needn’t take on so portentous a project as “real life” in its totality, but rather might simply consider the “real” and “truth” as it applies to himself (or Himself).

    And, really, I’m not about to agree with his slyly self-congratulatory and self-promoting bit about himself being characterizable as one of the “ordinary people”.

    But that “troll” bit is curious. Back in the day, early grade-school kids might well have read a story called – if memory serves – ‘The Three Billy-Goats Gruff’, wherein the three would be walking along toward a little bridge, and there was a “troll” hiding under the bridge, ready to pounce upon them. (Or, in the variant reading from the ‘Dan’-verse: ready to deliver to them ‘a beautiful prophecy’.)

    • Dan says:

      Thank you for realizing that I'm extraordinary. Thanks to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I'm fortunate to know what living the life of a true Christian is really about. Not putting on a big, dog and phony show of my goodness, but living a life that doesn't represent anything close to God's chosen people, like your ridiculous cult.          servant

  124. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 250AM:

    Here he will try to whomp something up in regard to whether “almost gourmet-cooks” could “possibly be a ‘danger’”.

    He will try to work this in with JR’s equally queasy stuff (about ‘dancing on coffins’), although one might consider the panoply of edged-tools of which cooks would have a ready supply. Although the poisoned-pie bit is indeed an attention-getter; one thinks of those old fairy tales of witches and their poisoned foods with which they lure the unsuspecting travelers in the deep woods.

    And – alas – he doesn’t think much of “those ghastly gregorian chants” (sic). I would strongly disagree: properly done, the Gregorian chant is a powerful and profoundly expressive musical form. But let’s chalk this one up to ‘opinion’ and leave ‘Dan’ to his own musical preferences, such as they may be.

    And then, from the archetypal troll under the bridge, we get the marvelously apt recoiling epithet: “creeps”. He still doesn’t grasp the “real” dynamics of clinical projection.

    • Dan says:

      For someone claiming I have a "sustained fascination with childish forms and imagery?", you sure have quite the fondness for fairy tales and fantasies, and also remembering them in great detail. Is it possible that you're one of those catholic fairy "creeps" that is still reading those stories to your young male prospects and the reason they're so vivid in your memory. We prefer you not trolling on this forum, creepy peewee.

  125. Publion says:

    On the 28th at 524PM ‘Dan’ will demonstrate a few more of the blocks that he has used to make his little house for himself: “Prophecy is a new revelation from the Lord” so it doesn’t have to come as a Biblical quote.

    Neato. Of course, the problem is: how to distinguish i) actual and genuine “prophecy … from the Lord” from ii) any whackjob’s eructations dressed up in Biblical or ‘God’ bits to parasitically garner the authority that the eructations surely wouldn’t have on their own. (Which was a problem immediately created by the Protestant Reformation, especially at its more low-church and populist levels.)

    ‘Dan’s solution to that problem, of course, is that he has awarded himself (or Himself) 007 status so there is – in terms of his cartoon here – no difference at all between his eructations and the Mind and Will of God.

    And then this cartoon construction is itself raised to ‘theological’ status as “theology and Biblical principles”.

    And the epithetical conclusion, of course.

    • Dan says:

      Love your use of low-church, because by definition I have no desire to follow your stupid "liturgical patterns, and does not make use of developed ritual, ceremony, or worship accouterments like vestments". Or as 'Dan' would describe, phony creeps parading around in dresses making you think they're something special with their arrogant worthless titles. Jesus Christ had no use for the rituals and ceremonies of the Pharisees and religious hypocrites, and no one who claims to " 'believe' in Christ' would either. See reply to next comment.

  126. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 6PM:

    Here he will try to say that the Scriptural pericope only relates to a “brother” and he is “flattered” and so forth.

    But – doncha see? – St. Paul then says that it doesn’t apply (or so ‘Dan’ reads the Pauline passage) to “unbelievers” so that avoids, neatly, his tossing around the epithet “fool”.

    But Paul was referring to those who don’t ‘believe’ in Christ (and I do) and ‘Dan’ is trying to make it work for himself here by presuming that if you don’t ‘believe’ ‘Dan’ then you don’t believe God and Christ and the Bible and so forth. And that’s where this whole bit of his here fails.

    • Dan says:

      Very easy for someone to claim they " 'believe' in Christ" with their mouth, but that would be an impossibility for a practicing member of your idolatrous cult, which worships thousands of false gods and goddesses. Let alone the worship of the "Queen of Heaven" and think she's the mother of God, your salvation, mercy, life, sweetness and hope. Add to that your insistent mocking of God and His Holy Spirit, with your poor excuses that your mocking me, and we'll all believe your added lies of how you " 'believe' in Christ". Slither back where you came from, MOCKER.

  127. Publion says:

    On the 28th at 611PM he will then say that he wasn’t speaking anatomically when he used the term “anal” “but rather commenting on the direction you seem to be heading” – whatever that may mean.

    While he may like drawing certain types of ‘pictures’ for himself, he hasn’t quite resolved his problem here. And it can stay up just where it was put.

    But then he refers to God (presumably) as “my Father” – and that gets close to the heart of the problem: God is “our” Father, not just ‘Dan’s. But that would  expose ‘Dan’s whole cartoon here, constructed precisely to give him his own personal and private daddy-god who will beat up everyone who disagrees with ‘Dan’. And thus ‘Dan’ weaponizes ‘God’ for his own purposes.

    He might well have had a hard (if brief) time of it in Calvin’s Geneva.

    • Dan says:

      Getting deeper into your immaturity with more cartoons, baby building blocks and more childish mockery of God (i.e. daddy-god). You get creepier by the minute.

    • Dan says:

      You insist there's a problem with me saying, "my Father", previously claiming the same with me saying "my Lord" or "my God". Moses sang in Exodus 15:2, "This is my God". David sang in Psalm 18:2, …my God, my rock, Thomas claims in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God!"

      So once again, your poor assessment of my material backfires, based on your lack of knowledge and interpretation of Spiritual truths. Saying "my Father" in no way claims exclusivity for myself alone, for He is God to all "His chosen", which unfortunately would exclude you and your cult of liars and perverts. He has never in Biblical history been the God of idolaters and pagan worshippers of false gods and goddesses. It was quite a try, but again, your claims of my being wrong is actually your failure. Wrong again, Mocker of truth.

    • Dan says:

      Once again, your obsession with "cartoons" turns out to be another of your "fairy tales".

  128. Publion says:

    On the 29th at 611AM ‘Dan’ will now try to get out from under his psychological issues by impugning my material instead: what right do I have to “be the psychological assessor of everyone and everything”?

    First, I don’t try to be “be the psychological assessor of everyone and everything”; I am only going with the material about ‘Dan’ that ‘Dan’ himself provided.

    Second, since his psychological issues have been played so great a part in his variously-related misadventures and also – I have demonstrated – in his assorted assertions and claims that constitute the basis for his comments on this site, then those issues are most certainly a legitimate part of the considerations to be made.

  129. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 611AM:

    He will then slyly try to neutralize all that by claiming that I “tell fairy tales and stretch the truth into what is beneficial to [my] sick agenda”. Which a) is a pretty concise description of his own game plan and b) tries to reduce my points to merely ‘stretching the truth’. But the conclusions I draw from the points he makes are right there in his own material, which he neither wants to see nor have anyone else see. That won’t work, although if it doesn’t work, then his whole cartoonish enterprise is exposed.

    And my points are put up for readers to consider. They are not propounded assertively as Gospel truth, such that disagreeing with them will result in the wrath of any deity descending upon the “mockers”.

    Nor do I think I can do anything worse to ‘Dan’s “reputation” than his own material has done, especially in regard to his misadventures. And as far as his “reputation even when it pertains to God” is concerned … he refers here to his presumptive claim that he is somehow especially “the Chosen” of God who doth “prophesy”and he has hardly established those claims, for any number of reasons already considered at length here in prior comments and on prior threads.

    • Dan says:

      Publiar nows informs us that his points "are not propounded assertively as Gospel truth". Truthfully, most of your points are far from anything anyone could call truth. We'll leave it up to God to decide the wrath your mockery deserves. Sounds like you have something to look forward too, Mr. Mocker. You don't think you "can do anything worse to 'Dan's reputation". I guess you mean any worse than you already have with your added lies. How can you continue to repeat and add to your lies and make such a claim. Oh, I forgot that you're one of the hypocritical catholic liars of your cult of deceivers and creeps.

  130. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 611AM:

    Nor does he merely “voice [his] opinion of [the Catholic] cult” … he has made numerous assertions and claims as if they were fact (and “prophecy”, if you wish), such that if any persons disagree then they are “mocking God”.

    But then – marvelously – in an attempt to somehow buttress all that, he will come up with yet more assertions, this time about his own youthful time in the Church (apparently).

    And he then – had you been waitttttttttingggggggg forrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttttt? – tries to head for the Victim-y high ground by sniffing and harrumphing that I do “demean and slander the children that were molested”. He proffers no accurate quotations from my material to justify that accusation and since such quotations do not exist in my material, that’s no surprise. But he had to do something there to distract readers.

    His own verbal accosting of children? Why that was just “a beautiful prophecy” twisted by “lies” and lies and more lies on the part of adult onlookers and staffers and police and judges. Ovvvvv courssssssssse.

  131. Publion says:

    On the 29th at 636AM he will use that kiddy “cause” again, and the rest of that sentence is best taken as accurate and he should, as I said, consider it carefully.

    But he reports himself (or Himself) “actually pretty satisfied with what [he sees]”. I have no doubt of that, which is why I opined that the psychiatrists would have realized that there was a poor prognosis.

    • Dan says:

      Oh yeah, that's why I was released, sometimes that first day, with never a need for follow-up treatments. My assessment of you is that you're an extremely delusional liar with a poor prognosis from the Almighty. Repent while you still have a chance.

  132. Publion says:

    And then he tries a predictable and familiar gambit: it is not he but rather I who has “a sustained fascination with childish forms and imagery”.

    I am merely commenting on the material that he has put up; the “childish forms and imagery” come from his own imagery (think of the “yellow school bus” and the “kindergarten” and “peewee” and so forth, let alone actually going to a schoolyard fence and verbally accosting the children there).

    What ‘Dan’ is trying here is akin to claiming that since firefighters have such a sustained concern for fires, then they set fires and ‘like’ fires and thus are simply uniformed pyromaniacs.

    My task is to refute inaccurate Stampede assertions, as the task of firefighters is to extinguish fires.

    It’s ‘Dan’ who keeps setting the fires.

    • Dan says:

      You think your repetitive lies of me accosting children, along with other multiple lies isn't 'publiar' setting fires. I think you might work on extinguishing your own fires, the coals are being stoked while you speak. Habitual lying, mocking hypocrite. The only task I see you capable of is twisting truth, deceiving and demeaning innocent people. Pants on fire, liar!

  133. Dan says:

    Publiar, Since you believe this to be my word and not prophecy from the Lord God, you have my permission to ignore the teaching, probably would be of no benefit to deaf ears, anyway. For everyone else, this prophecy was given on Easter Sunday, 2016.

    "Why do you celebrate Me as the darkness in the world? You give me this holiday, but you still don't want to believe in Me at all. You celebrate My death, when I died on the cross, instead of My light, showing you that I AM still alive in the spirit and glowing brightly. You give all kinds of gifts, but My precious gifts will always be those coming from the heart. That is My faith, hope, and love, you can share with anybody, at anytime in life. You say it is very important that you go to church on this day. Don't you realize, My church is all over the world, and you can see My creations everywhere, to enjoy them in peace and silence. Not in a place where there is phony and false people that seem to think they're great, and want to impress everyone and look good. I give you the freedom to go into the woods or anywhere else on earth, if you wish to talk to Me. You don't need anyone else except Me, to make it into heaven."                        This is the Word Of the Lord

  134. Publion says:

    On the 29th at 523PM ‘Dan’ will try to dispose of the fact that I believe in Christ by pooh-poohing that it is “very easy for someone to claim” such belief. But that such belief “would be an impossibility for a practicing member of your cult”. Well that solves his problem with his “fool” comment, at least in his own mind anyway, for whatever that’s worth.

    Whether ‘Dan’s global assertion here (i.e. that no practicing Catholic could genuinely believe in Christ), taken in conjunction with his bit about the ‘worship’ of “thousands of false gods and goddesses”, is more a sign of mental infelicity, ignorance, or a stunning hubris – or perhaps a combination of all three  … readers may decide for themselves.

    • Dan says:

      Well I see your maturing and moving on to "pooh" cartoons. Did you watch those on Romper Room. Our little peewee is growing up. We'll just have to start calling him pee.

  135. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 552PM: he tries to work epithetically with my point that I do not attempt to pass off my comments as “Gospel truth” (as he does).

    And the comment descends further into the swamps of epithet from there.

  136. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 6PM: he would have us imagine that he was released from his (six?) stays in mental health facilities because he was not at all … unwell.

    As I said on a previous comment on this thread: presuming that his claim here is true (perhaps a too-generous presumption but I’ll make it for the purposes of this comment), then psychiatrists faced with the more physically violent and dangerous psychotics of various types would realize that they had a low-grade chronic derangement on their hands, for whom the prognosis would be very poor and upon whom the expenditure of scarce resources would bear little fruit. He might well continue being a public nuisance of some sort, but that of itself would not constitute a serious claim upon their resources.

    But – it must be noted – he wound up in such a situation six times – by his own telling – and that fact in and of itself indicates that his “chronic” condition, although low-grade, is deeply seated and not to be put off by police and court action. Who knows how it will all end? The psychiatrists are no doubt hoping he simply remains a public nuisance and one wishes them well, while not expecting the best.

  137. Publion says:

    On the 29th at 611PM he tries to evade his actions at the schoolyard fence by simply calling it all “repetitive lies” (his own personal ‘truth’ about the incident, readers may recall, is that it was “a beautiful prophecy”).  Readers may judge as they will.

    And then – marvelously – he who insists that he is not somehow queasily  immured in childhood things caps it all off with “pants on fire” (from the old schoolyard ‘Liar, liar, pants on fire’ jingle).

    • Dan says:

      The truth was "a beatiful prophecy". The reason I was hospitalized was totally based on lies and slander, idiota. Just like your lies and slander, idiota. And the reason I answered with the  little nursery rhyme (liar,liar, pants on fire), was so you would understand, little peewee. It related well with your little fireman story.

  138. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1013PM: where he will literally deliver a “prophecy”, “given on Easter Sunday, 2016, that he whomped up himself (or Himself) in his capacity as “Chosen” and gourmet prophet.

    And I think we can just leave him to it, then.

    • Dan says:

      Didn't I grant you permission to ignore the prophecy, since it would only be falling on deaf ears, anyway. Although, since you couldn't resist, I'll point out for you the words from the Lord that fit you perfectly, seeing that you have quite the reading comprehension problem.

      "You give me this holiday, but you still don't want to 'believe' in Me [Christ] at all."

      "Not in a place where there is phony and false people that seem to think they're great, and want to impress everyone and look good." (i.e. "wolves in sheeps clothing") Oh, geez, that one absolutely lines up with Biblical Scripture, condemning your pagan cult.

      "And as far as the Lord using the words "you celebrate Me as darkness" and "you celebrate My death" and how "I died on the cross", instead of His light and [S]pirit. This describes your cult's worship of the dead in their skeleton rooms, all Hallows Eve, Day of the Dead and most defintely your statues of Christ mutilated and bloodied above your pagan altars. I believe you when you say you "believe in Christ", yeah, the one your roman cult annihilated. Too bad for you that he rose from the dead and is waiting for your Judgment Day.

  139. Dan says:

    If any catholics doubt that your church is one of idolatry, I suggest you read Baruch chapter 6, or "The Letter of Jeremiah". No coincidence that this information is predominately found only in catholic versions of the Bible. Read the Bible, and find God's answers to all things.

  140. Dan says:

    Catholics, check out your fellow, 'devout' Filipino catholics mutilating their bodies with whips and fake crucifi[ct]ions on Easter sunday, 2016. The church claims to frown upon these acts and yet applaud similar acts of flagellation when performed by their saintly saints (i.e. Saint francis of a sissy, junipero serra, padre peehole, etc. etc.), So what is– Is it wrong unless it's your false proof of holiness and sainthood. Talk about hypocrisy. Wake up, people. Don't let them deceive you and bring you down with them. Trust only in God and His Son.

  141. Publion says:

    On the 29th at 1231PM we are to imagine that “recess is over” and now ‘Dan’ is going to buckle down to some serious ‘educating’ (just like he imagines himself to have done at the schoolyard fence and who knows where else).

    ‘Dan’ doesn’t realize just how much ‘educating’ he’s already done here.

    And, to further our education, we get a few more bits: the staff claims he said he wanted “to kill them”. Readers may take any impressions they have already formed of ‘Dan’ from his material and performances here and consider if such a claim by the staff rings true.

    And then Lawyer ‘Dan’ harrumphs that it was they “who came off their property to come after [him]”. The scene then becomes more clear: he chose to stand on the public sidewalk, alongside the schoolyard fence with the kids just on the other side, perhaps at recess, and verbally accost the kids (variant ‘Dan’-verse reading: and deliver a “beautiful prophecy” to them). Does the staff’s action seem unwarranted? Would any parent object to the staff trying to stop him or least calm him down?

    • Dan says:

      You have become such an annoying idiot. Look for the key words, "Other times". So this would mean they had nothing to do with the schoolyard false accusations. Man, your reading comprehension is so bad, and now I understand all your immature, childish analogies and cartoons, because it's obvious your brain shut down in second grade. A child would understand what "Other times" means. There was nothing for me to calm down about because for the umteenth time it was "a beautiful prophecy" given by the Lord to the children. Four catholic lying thugs took it upon themselves to twist that, much like you do, giving them an excuse to hit me and show how macho they were, protecting the kids when the kids were in no danger. If that's the kind of violent people that protect children, I would think any parent would have the intellegence to not want them around their children. I've noticed that intellegence isn't much of a prevelant trait among catholics, as you have demonstrated. Liars, pedophiles and perverts seem to be much more prevelant.

  142. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1231PM:

    And, really, he didn’t “scream obscenities”;  he “truly just greeted them and told them to have a nice day”. Readers may take any impressions they have already formed of ‘Dan’ from his material and performances here and consider if ‘Dan’s self-exonerating assertion here rings true.

    (Leaving still to be considered: why he would choose to interrupt his walk to engage the children at all.)

    About all these claims by the staff ‘Dan’ simply whiffs that they “were ridiculous”. Readers may take any impressions they have already formed of ‘Dan’ from his material and performances here and consider if ‘Dan’s self-exonerating assertion here rings true.

    • Dan says:

      When God gives one of his chosen a prophetic word, you deliver it to whom the Lord desires. I've told you before, Jonah didn't and you know what happened to him (sent in a fishes mouth down into the deepest, darkest depths, for disobedience). And you being the great believer probably thinks that another one of your childish fairy tales. Not surprising.

  143. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1231PM:

    What “lies” have I come along and put up? Everything is right there in his material as he himself (or Himself) has related it.

    But on the basis of his soooo convenient spin that everything that makes him look bad (or “psycho”) justifies his accusation that all Catholics are “habitual liars”, he can “truthfully call” all Catholics “liars” because of that, doncha see?

    And in case you didn’t reach the conclusion he wants you to here, he adds “this is the absolute truth”.

    Readers may take any impressions they have already formed of ‘Dan’ from his material and performances here and consider if ‘Dan’s self-exonerating assertion here rings true.

    And readers may further consider just how ‘truthful’ ‘Dan’ really is.

  144. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1231PM:

    And thus – doncha see? – when he makes his accusations he’s not lying and it’s not “slander”, doncha see? What it really is – doncha see? – is that his accusations are “basically just fact”. And we have ‘Dan’s truthy word for it.

    Oh, and God’s too – doncha see? – because “God and Scripture is never against truth” (sic) and thus, since – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ and God are one, then ‘Dan’ can never be un-truthy.

    If you see anything else in his material and performance here, then it’s just “nonsense and ignorance!”.

    And he ends with the instruction to “stop”. Really, in light of the florid whackery, how could one do that?

    • Dan says:

      Your "nonsense and ignorance" shows bright and clear, through your insistent mockery of God. I agree, your way to whacked to ever have the intellegence to "stop".

  145. Publion says:

    On the 30th at 0128AM ‘Dan’ will then defend his use of “my God”.

    Given his (or His) almost-total identification with the Mind and Will of ‘God’, I would say that his (or His) use of “my” was far more heavily freighted then he (or He) suddenly wants it to appear here.

    So, once again, ‘Dan’ abyssal ignorance of his own problems demonstrates itself, while simultaneously seeking to get him off the hook.

    But wait. There’s more: since- doncha see? – God is only God “to all ‘His chosen’, then ‘Dan’ can “exclude” Catholics. God, therefore, is not actually God for Catholics and apparently doesn’t want to be and doesn’t consider Himself to be (if ‘Dan’ is to be believed).

    Well, now, that’s a bit of theologizing. It doesn’t really fit in with any recognizable theology of God and Creation, but – hey – this is the ‘Dan’-verse and anything goes if ‘Dan’ needs it to.

    • Dan says:

      Not obeying the 1st commandment, and worshipping false gods or goddesses is deplorable in the eyes of the Almighty. I've given you several Scripture verses and chapters to show that fact. All you have to respond, sarcastically, is that "they are 'Dan's eructations", when they are truly God's anger with those who refuse to respect and obey Him.. Exhaustingly, here they are again. OLD–Exodus 20:1-6,  Isaiah 44,  Jeremiah chapter 7 and 44 ("Queen of Heaven" worshippers),  Baruch 6,  Letter of Jeremiah, NEW– 1 Cor 12:2,  2 Cor 6:16, 1 John 5:21,  Revelations 2:14,  Rev 2:20,  Rev 9:20,  Rev 21:8,  Rev 22:15

      Catholics- I have nothing against catholics that have been tricked, confused and lost in this idolatrous belief system. Don't allow Satan's followers to deceive you and prevent you from knowing the truth, in regards to your pagan false religion. God starts early in the Bible with His disdain for statue worship with Moses (golden calf), and continues all through the book and ends with the condemnation of idol worship in the very last chapter of the Bible. If you prefer to listen to man's words, let alone publiars and perverts, over the All-Knowing God's Word, then there isn't much I can say. My hope is that someday God will help you change your mind.

  146. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 128AM:

    His major failure here  –and it’s a doozy – is to confuse and/or conflate two different elements: a) whether some persons consider the God of Scripture to be their God and b) whether the God of Scripture considers all persons, regardless of whether they believe in Him or not, to be His creations and children.

    But ‘Dan’ – for his own troubled purposes – needs an ‘exclud-y’ God and also a vengeful God (at least, vengeful enough to get back at those who think ‘Dan’ is rather deeply unwell).

    • Dan says:

      Tired of explaining everything to you. You think you can twist, manipulate and deceive, in order to dispute the truth, and your father, the devil must be very proud of his child. If "the God of Scripture considers all persons, regardless of whether they believe in him or not, to be His creations and children." Apparently sounds like your back-pedaling in regards to your believing in Christ, and hoping your included despite your unbelief. We are all His creation, obviously, and yet we are not all His children. Christ's words can take it from here.

      "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."  Matthew 7:13-14

      For everyone- The Lord of Creation holds out His hand, inviting all to come and truly know and understand what He's about. He is gentle and kind and wants all to come to know Him in Spirit and in truth. "Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, don't be stubborn like those who rebelled." Hebrews 3:15 Don't fight against the Lord's truth (Bible), and He will take you places beyond belief. And that's no fairy tale. He promises.

       

    • Dan says:

      Again we have one of your immature statements, "But 'Dan'- for his own troubled purposes- needs an 'exclud-y' God and also a vengeful God." And what kind of god or goddess does publiar need, one that will always look away and accept you as the liar that you are? You're absolutely wrong, again. Dan needs a God who is true and excludes habitual, unrepentant liars, idolaters, perverts and cowards. Why does 'Dan' need a God like that? Because that is the true God and the God of Bible truth. And again, last words in the Bible.

      "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and ALL LIARS– they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur."  Revelations 21: 8   And repeated just in case you missed it the first time;

      Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood [LIARS].  Rev. 22:15

      This is prophecy, and I know you have quite a problem understanding such.– "The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The Lord takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies. The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by NO means leave the guilty unpunished."  Nahum 1: 2-3

      You have yet to figure out that habitual liars and unrepentant sinners get to hear the message of God's vengeance, while decent human beings, and especially innocent children get to hear the Lord's message of Love. And ending with your diagnosis that I'm "deeply unwell". My question to you is, "How deep is your well, getting a little hot down there?"