Lock ‘em Up: Philly D.A. Who Put Innocent Priests in Prison Now Indicted On 23 Counts of Bribery and Corruption

Seth Williams : Philadelphia

Soon to be inmate: Disgraced Philadelphia D.A. Seth Williams

Inasmuch as Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams has been engaged in a years-long, Moby Dick-like obsession to throw innocent Catholic priests in prison, there was a sense of poetic justice when federal prosecutors indicted Williams last week on numerous charges of using his influence in exchange for opulent gifts, trips, and cash.

[**Click to read the federal indictment against Philly DA Seth Williams (pdf)**]

According to the indictment, Williams "solicited, accepted, and agreed to accept" gifts including round-trip trips to the Dominican Republic, Las Vegas, California, and Florida; Luis Vuitton clothing; a Jaguar XK8 convertible; thousands in cash, and more. And if this were not enough, Williams also stole money from his own adoptive mother.

Back in 2011, Williams orchestrated a grand jury to issue a report which made international headlines with its claims that numerous priests from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia committed sex abuse. Years later, however, we now know that Williams' grand jury report was completely bogus, and it destroyed the lives of numerous innocent men.

Msgr. William Lynn was imprisoned on the claims that he somehow "endangered the welfare of a child" whom he not only did not even know. His wrongful conviction has been overturned by appellate courts multiple times, and a judge finally ruled last Friday that Lynn was entitled to a new trial after Williams' office admittedly withheld evidence that could have exonerated Lynn.

Ralph Cipriano : Philadelphia

Must-read at BigTrial.net:
Journalist Ralph Cipriano

In addition, Rev. Charles Engelhardt, former teacher Bernard Shero, and former priest Edward Avery were convicted for crimes which certainly never happened. In fact, as veteran journalist Ralph Cipriano has exclusively reported, detectives at Williams' office knew that the accuser, career criminal Danny Gallagher, was telling wild and varying stories. And when Detective Joseph Walsh confronted Assistant D.A. Mariana Sorensen with his problems about Gallagher, she retorted, "You're killing my case."

In other words, the fix was in from the start. (By the way, this was something we observed six years ago – even before a jury was seated.)

The injustice that these men suffered was so outrageous that Cipriano's story even made the cover of Newsweek magazine.

And then there was Rev. James Brennan, who was accused of abuse from 20 years ago by Mark Bukowski, a serial criminal with a lengthy rap sheet which includes fraud and making up stories to the police. Brennan would be a free man today except for one boob on the jury in his trial who refused to acquit him, and the jury deadlocked 11-1. Last October, rather than risk facing a wrong conviction like his peers and face possible decades in jail for a crime he didn't commit, Brennan pleaded guilty to a measly second degree misdemeanor of simple assault.

In effect, Brennan's plea was an admission by Williams that Brennan was wholly innocent.

Now, as Cipiano reports, Williams himself is flat broke and needs a lawyer.

How fitting.


[We would like to recommend to readers a new article by Ryan A. MacDonald over at TheseStoneWalls.com, "How SNAP Brought McCarthyism to American Catholics." Check it out.]


  1. malcolm harris says:

    Don't know who owns the Philadelphia Enquirer, but will offer them some advice. Remove the existing editor and offer the job to Ralph Cipriano. Why? Well because surveys have shown that the majority of voters no longer trust the media. President Donald Trump understood this… and worked it to his advantage. So logically public trust has to be re-esablished. A good start would be to appoint an editor who has fought hard for truth and justice. Cynics will say that this is simply old- fashioned. Really?….then why does Hollywood still use truth and justice as a repeated themes in movies?  My impression is that people still want truth and justice in public life.


    • Dan says:

      Wow, Malcolm. You're right. We all want "truth and justice". You believe that you and your cult deserves it, but don't believe anyone else does. Hows about you all, practice what you preach.

    • James Robertson says:



  2. Dan says:

    Oh yeah! All the catholic priests are absolutely innocent of any crimes, because they work out a plea bargain. I am absolutely innocent of every crime and accusation of over one hundred lying catholics, including those who have added their stupidity in this forum, and I am judged now in the court of ignorant catholic opinions, false assessments and insinuations, guilty in all aspects. This is why all of you rightfully deserve the description, lying, hypocrite catholic creeps. I'm sorry I ever came across the BS publyin' was shooting at posters, and decided to join in and defend his nonsense and stupidity, aimed at others. Your cult is a bunch of sick, lying douchebags. Yes, Jimmy Mini-pee, that definitely includes you.  servant

    • William Guentner says:

      Gee, what pissed you off, or are you naturally an angry anti-Catholic/

    • Mary Petrini says:


    • Alma Groner says:

      You have a lot of angry issues. You are only talking throuhg emotions not using any reason.

      What is behind that uncontrollable hate of yours? The point of this article is that there are many priests accused of being guilty that are innocent. That is true of priest and many others incarcerated. What is so hard to believe? Think of this: people like you judge them with their very biased mind and heart and if given the opportunity you and people like you would put people in jail out of hate not out of justice. 

       May the Lord heal you!

  3. James Robertson says:

    Gee a bribe taking Philly DA," everything but the dogs yappin' at her heels" (Thelma Ritter in all about Eve).your church's plots are so old they reek. All the well placed bombs go boom.

    If I blow up a train and enable a child to be endangered even if I don't know them  I'm still responsible.

    Hey Catholic church and Tom Doyle can't you just walk away or do you need this well placed rocket to go off and "prove" your perpetrating priests were lied about.  This is the set up I've talked about for years.

  4. Publion says:

    How oh how will the usual suspects deal with the developments in Philly?

    On the 27th at 950PM ‘Dan’ will quickly try to invent a position that nobody here holds, i.e. that “all the catholic priests are absolutely innocent of any crimes”. But what else can he do?

    All Stampede cases have to be examined to filter out the deranging elements of the Stampede. Which is precisely what both the Stampede and ‘Dan’-verse cartoons are designed to prevent.

    And – if he does say so himself – it is really ‘Dan’ who is “absolutely innocent of every crime” he’s been accused of. Readers may consider the plausibility and credibility of that assertion.

    And we notice that the number of accuser-Catholics has now been reduced from “hundreds” to “over one hundred”. The football of ‘Dan’s “truth” doth bounce indeed.

    • Dan says:

      Absolutely no change in the facts from anything previous. Hundreds have called the police or threatened to, based only on my asking them to read the Bible to find the truth and letting them know they wouldn't find any truth in their false churches. I walked away from several hundreds of lying accusers, but stood there to talk to the cops 135 times. After awhile, I learned that catholics want to add their lies to ever story, so I found it best to walk away, rather than put up with the ignorance that you fools dish out. So once again, being falsely accused for what is the truth. How about you stop being such a lame jackass and find someone who is truly guilty to harrass. No, you catholics prefer to blame innocent people. Bunch of gutless, bullying, lying creeps. You wear the title well.     servant of Truth

  5. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 950PM:

    But since – we have his word for it – ‘Dan’ is thus “absolutely innocent” then – but of course – his queasily repellent and consistent vitriol and whackery against Catholics and questioners is “rightfully deserved[d]”. Thus – conveniently – ‘Dan’ will keep right on doing what he can’t stop himself from doing in the first place.

    That’s what nice, tight FDS will get you.

    And the whole thing trails off in a typical riff.

  6. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 28th at 107PM:

    Less coherently than ‘Dan’, JR will try to evade it all by coming up with a not-quite-comprehensible riff on “a bribe-taking Philly DA” and something about Thelma Ritter.

    And those two bits are somehow supposed to lead clearly to his next, epithetical bit – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – to the effect that “your church’s plots are so old they reek”. Actually, that would apply more clearly to JR’s pile of 3x5s. And as the Stampede’s chicanery now becomes more obvious, then that application will become ever more clear.

    Then back to incoherence with the bit about blowing up a train.

    And that is followed by even more incoherence as JR then wobbles on to the Church and Tom Doyle and something about “can’t you just walk away” and somehow a  “well-placed rocket”.

    The bottom line being – somehow – that JR has been talking about “this … set up” for “years”. Which is as cartoonishly nonsensical as the cartoons he has “talked about for years”.

  7. James Robertson says:

    Excuse me low life, did I ask for your opinion? Why don't you mind your own business? You're not a victim, not a priest. What are you? It can't be human.

    For those who don't know, I've been saying for years that if bad behaviour by SNAP and or the court system arises in this scandal. you can bet it was created to pop up like a cardboard dummy in a basic training exercise.A target meant to be shot at. Something to be easily shot down when needed. Placed to fail by the church itself. What better way to pretend victims are all liars by having major cases fall apart? Cases made major by who. When 99% of  perps have never been brought to punishment in this sex abuse scandal. Why only in Philly? Only in one town in all America was a weak case pushed forward (if it is weak) and only one high up goes to prison. , if these cases were such a rare occurrence why in Philly? Why the only major sentence in one town. Does that seem normal to you?

  8. malcolm harris says:

    Slightly taking the gloss off the good news, about the federal indictment of Seth Williams, is this…the 23 charges described in his indictment don't include the blatant  corruption in prosecuting certain cases.  However… maybe the federal prosecutor is a shrewd judge of public opinion.  Jusk ask yourself this… what is more likely to convince people of Seth's total lack of integrity…..highlighting his stealing of $20,000 from his own adoptive mother?. Or wrongfully sending Catholic priests to prison? Human nature being what it is,…. most people put a mother's welfare before the civil rights of Catholic priests. Sadly, but realistically, there is a lot of bigotry out there.

    • Dan says:

      And you don't think your cult is plagued with bigots, not only showing intolerance towards those who hold different opinions, but more than willing to add lies to cause them undeserved trouble. Sick, dishonest and cowardly bigotry.

    • Dan says:

      Furthermore, the pedophiles and perverts of your cult should be locked up forever, denied any civil rights, castrated and imprisoned so as not to harm another child. True justice for creeps.

  9. Publion says:

    And now for more of the same.

    On the 28th at 753PM ‘Dan’ will now claim that there has been “absolutely no change” in his story just because we went from “hundreds” to “over one hundred”. Memo: whenever ‘Dan’ gets going with “absolutely” or “truth”, be ready for something completely different.

    And we are again confronted with the scenario that so many “have called the police or threatened to” just because – waitttt forrrr ittttttttttttt!  - poor little ‘Dan’ had merely been “asking them to read the Bible”. Either that’s one whacky citizenry or ‘Dan’ is not telling the truth. Readers may weigh the possibilities and probabilities as they may.

    And – from the ridiculous to the sublime – for that added oomph of seeming factuality, ‘Dan’ doth now inform us that he “stood there to talk to the cops 135 times”. Readers may … and so on.

    And the whole show ends with a plaintive bleat that we Catholics “prefer to blame innocent people”. And so on from there.

    • Dan says:

      This is what I've been telling you all along. The catholic church is "one whacky citizenry", and it is systemic. In Romans, chapter 1, this is precisely how God explains those who turn to idolatry. I'll quote from the NAB, so you will have no excuses. Romans 1 20-26

      "As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts, for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the TRUTH of God for a LIE and revered and worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore God handed them over to degrading passions ….."

      And there you have it – catholic cult (def.) – a) Idolatry, leading to Queen of Heaven worship, turning into every kind of disgusting lusts, leading to all sorts of lies to cover for their terrible sins against innocence, and before long spreading lies about everything and everyone who questions their apostate cult. b) "one whacky citizenry"

      * Will be waiting for fools to make their excuses, twisting the Word, and evolving into lying snakes.

    • Dan says:

      This is "factuality" and "truth", and there is no reason for me to have to lie to you or anyone else. Remember, I'm not catholic, and you creeps make up enough lies and insinuations for all of society.   servant of the One True God, not yours

  10. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 28th at 706PM:

    He opens with a weak stab at juvenile sass: he hadn’t asked me for my opinion. So what? He put up a comment on an open site. “Mind your own business” … ? Is he serious? But it’s all he’s got, and he works in an epithetical, as if it could help him.

    And so on to the second paragraph, where he now says that he has been “saying for years that if bad behavior by SNAP or the court system arises in this scandal” … then “it was created to pop up”.

    Created by whom? Why by the Church, doncha know? So – let’s try to get this straight – the Church arranged for this Williams to be elected DA and then got him to do all the things he’s now indicted for (none of which have any bearing on the Lynn case) and then got the feds to do the indicting.

    And this was done – we are to further accept – by the Church “to pretend victims are all liars by having major cases fall apart”.

    Except the case didn’t fall apart.

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 706PM:

    And then the riff really starts to wobble off the rails:

    Who made the cases “major”? Well, is he going to put forward his answer or is he just going to leave it as an insinuation so as to spare himself the embarrassment of spelling his whackery out?

    Then an assertion to the effect that almost all of “perps have never brought to punishment in this sex abuse scandal”. And JR just ‘knows’ that this assertion is true … how? Perhaps, like ‘Dan’, he just knows and to question the assertion is to mock … well, who would one be mocking since unlike ‘Dan’ JR doesn’t take dictation from God?

  12. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 706PM:

    And then the riff leaves the rails completely: “Why only in Philly?” And again, no answer that would outline his ‘theory’, just an insinuation. And who’s to say that the only case will have been in Philly? There may be a number of cases that will come to light, now that the Stampede’s power to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes seems to be waning noticeably.

    Toppling over the cliff, the riff now really gets rolling: Who here has ever said or opined that these bad cases were “such a rare occurrence”? My position has always been that they are not rare at all and simply remain to be uncovered by better investigative reporting.

    And he apparently doesn’t really think that the Doe-Gallagher case was “weak”.

    Does JR seem normal to you?

  13. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    On March 27, 2017 at 9:50 pm Dan claims he is “sorry he ever came across the BS publyin' was shooting at posters, and decided to join in and defend his nonsense and stupidity, aimed at others”. Dan can just walk away if he is so sorry he has confronted Publion but that’s is not in Dan’s DNA. If he had that capacity his legal issues never would have developed. He ends his post with a juicy description for not only Publion and myself, but the entire Catholic cult as well. We are “all a bunch of sick, lying douchebags”. You see, if you make Dan angry then Dan feels he is justified to use derogatory words to describe you. That’s all well and fine and he can call me any name he wishes but it illustrates, once again, that Dan, when confronted, is not the nice, calm, prophesizing angel he claims to be. When Dan is under no pressure to type a response prior to clicking the post button he will toss out an expletive. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility to believe that Dan, in the thick of things, with little time to react, will spew all sorts of juicy language to describe the “lying” Catholics who confronted him.


    • Dan says:

      1) Never claimed to be an angel. That claim belongs to the 'wolves in sheep's clothing' of your church, putting on an act of false humility (angels), when in reality a group of lying perverts and pedophiles. 2) My legal issues happened because of lies and fabricated insinuations, similar to those you lying creeps continually spill. Incessant lies and liars, aren't the easiest things to defend, and hopefully you'll get the opportunity to be a target of similar garbage, like I've had to defend from those of your cult. 3) You all deservedly "shall reap what you sow". So continue with the slander and insinuations, and take it like a man, if that's even possible for lying cowards.

  14. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    Then on  March 28, 2017 at 7:53 pm Dan claims there has been no change in the facts. His claim is that hundreds have called the police or threatened him for simply asking them to read the Bible. Over one hundred or hundreds, eh! what's the differnce, it's just a lot of people who have had to deal with Dan and the actual numbers are just semantics. But what are the facts according to Dan? The police have been called on Dan and he has spent time in jail and in a mental hospital on several occasions. He has asked people to read the Bible but when Dan is confronted about his approach he doesn't handle the confrontation very well and this little fact is what Dan ignores. He claims he just walked away from several hundred Catholics but waited to speak to the police 135 times. These are some fantastic numbers and I would love to see the record on those 135 encounters with police. His claim is that he has been falsely accused for what is the truth. What does that truth entail though? A new number of 135 encounters with police and we are to believe that Dan just “walked away”. Dan cannot just walk away, and after 135 and his inability to walk away from this website is solidification that Dan is not being so truthful on that account. Dan wants to deliver his anti-Catholic rhetoric and prefers that all sit with hands folded while listening to his beautiful prophesy. Don’t raise your hand and ask him a question though, you will be called a lame jackass by the teacher. Dan never cursed at anyone at the Church or schoolyard. Nah, not Dan. So, once again, give Dan time and he will reveal more of the truth.

    • Dan says:

      So Jimmy Mini-peewee, If your math is any better than peewee's, then maybe you can solve a pretty easy subtraction. I used to stay to talk to the police, because I knew I hadn't broken any laws. When realizing that catholics will lie to cause me trouble, I no longer hung around to defend my innocence. The math – 135 calls that brought police to the scene, minus 6 times falsely accused of misdemeanors and 3 times labeled crazy on account of your cults vicious lies and once by a so-called christian cult = 125 times that the police didn't believe the lying creeps. Did you ever give a thought to how hard it is to defend yourself when the liars accusing you are priests, nuns or corrupt cops, all dressed in their garb*? So you creeps can continue with piling on your lies and insinuations, and think you're innocent and undeserving of things I say. Soooo soooorrrryyy, as publiar would say. Go cry to your Mother Mary, Queen of Heaven. If you insist on defending what I called your hero, peewee, then I guess you must be a lame jackass also. So do you also defend the crimes of the guilty, disgusting pedophiles and perverts of your cult? If you think I would treat innocent children with the same language I've used towards the liars on this site, then I would have to add to what I just called you and realize your as dumb and ignorant as your mentor. Also, beautiful prophecy is reserved for His Chosen, and not for the deaf, dumb or blind, let alone insistent liars. And I don't recall my ever asking you to listen.   served by the servant

      *garb – never realized the clothing of hypocrites to be a shortened version of garbage.

    • Dan says:

      Jimmy Mini-peewee, In 52 years I never got in any trouble with the law. NEVER! For the past ten years the only problem I've had is mainly from liars of your cult. Is there a lying DNA gene pervasive among catholics, because it seems strange that so many possess such dishonesty. My question to you is, "Would you act so nice, calm, and angel-like, if you were slandered and lied about, the way I have by the members of your cult and the added  lies, slander and insinuations by you clones?" Your mentor, publiar is by no means a saint, yet none of you catholic groupies have any problem with his mocking or rude false accusations towards others mental state (i.e. "deranged", "Faxes from beyond", etc. etc….). You are all a bunch of biased, bigoted, hypocrites, who think that idolatry, cowardice, pedophilia, sexual immorality and compulsive lying is just fine, and we'll defend you as long as you're hierarchy or a phony contributing member of our One True Cult. DESPICABLE!   servant

    • kronae constanopolis says:

      Dan!  Why are you so afraid of the Catholic Church and its Faithful Clergy?  What great shame are YOU hiding?  You are so involved calling other perverts…it would seem you protest too much.  You have failed in incriminating others but you have done that very well to yourself and your soul.  You need prayer and healing.

      May the gracious Mother of Christ help you find a cure for your soul, mind, and body.  Poor soul.




  15. Dan says:

    Oh, yes! Everyone is off the rails, except you lying, disingenuous, hypocrite creeps.

  16. James Robertson says:

    You, judging "normal"? You who support sexual abuse of children? You who deny every victim who's ever come forward. I say that because you've never supported any victim ever. Not one. You attempting to insult me with a question about my normalcy is normal here and nowhere else. Therefore you are not normal. Your self-aggrandizement is not normal. Your pomposity isn't normal. Your questions I have answered. You deny my answers. Your disrespect of my veracity is not normal. You've got the not normal down at this hell hole.

  17. James Robertson says:

    Why is everything about power with you? You have to be seen as powerful even though you have nothing to back you up. Far less than the evidence I provided that proves my case AND my church conspiracy analysis to be true.

    But you? You are a mear apologist for child abusers. And that's all you are.

  18. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1110AM:

    Given the choice between insisting that a) the entire citizenry in his locale is “whacky” or that b) ‘Dan’ is notably unwell, ‘Dan’ will … i) call the entire citizenry in his locale “whacky” and then ii) expect to be considered extraordinarily well on the basis of that assertion.

    But – in a nice rhetorical touch – ‘Dan’ slyly includes the scientific-sounding “systemic” to burnish his whacky claim. The only thing “systemic” here is ‘Dan’s FDS.

    • Dan says:

      OK! Time to update your reading comprehension skills. Believe I said, "The catholic church is 'one whacky citizenry'." Pertaining to the compulsive liars of your cult being whackjobs, not the entire citizenry. If you have trouble understanding simple english, I'm sure your cult has a school where they can charge a ridiculous tuition for you to learn our language.

      Followed up with a pericope, for the pair-of-dopes to dispute. And true to form he comes through with more mocking of the word of God (next post, "pericope at the bottom of this cereal box"). Did you find it on the bottom of your Fruit Loops this morning, little peewee?

  19. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29that 1110AM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    We also get a free pericope at the bottom of this cereal box. Once again and as always, before you consider the pericope you have to accept ‘Dan’s presumptions that a) Paul is demonstrably referring to the Church and only the Church and that b) ‘Dan’ just absolutely knows that what his stuff is saying is the very soul of accuracy.

    And given the now-hugely demonstrated probability that ‘Dan’ is not at all well, then Paul might well be describing not an institution that barely existed in that era, but rather Paul might be describing psychologically debauched individuals such as – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘Dan’ (whose ‘issues’ may be vivid and florid but have been around in our species for a long long time).

    • Dan says:

      Oh yeah! And of course, I'm the one making "images of mortal man", like your creepy statues of popes and Mary "Queen of Heaven", and bowing down and kissing their feet, until half of their foot is gone. NO! This quote definitely fits your cult, including describing your ignorance with, "claiming to be wise, they became fools". Again, Paul is prophesying of a cult of idol-worshippers, that will become sick perverts and pedophiles, because they wouldn't worship God, but preferred worshipping false gods and goddesses. If you can't understand the correlation then you must be the "psychologically debauched individual" you're referring to. In fact your cult is plagued with lying, "psychologically debauched individuals", of which you should be proud to be in the lead of your hierarchy in that trait.

      Wake up catholics and run from this false apostate cult. These liars will take you down with them, and will not be happy until they deceive millions or possibly billions, ever since their existence!    

      servant of the only God and Father - Matthew 23:9  Look it up and find the truth.

  20. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29that 1110AM:

    Because in order to sustain ‘Dan’s FDS ‘Dan’ has to immerse himself in deceit and manipulation. His “impurity” and “lusts” might be of a more psychological nature rather than overtly sexual … or the whole FDS might be precisely the consequence of ‘Dan’ trying to evade some deeper urges. Only his psychiatrist would know for sure, but psychiatry – at least when funded by scarce public resources – knows an FDS when it encounters one, and chooses to let ‘Dan’ go on – at least until ‘Dan’ does something that will allow more extended and sustained access to intervention.

    • Dan says:

      Yes, and your cult prefers lies, "deceit and manipulation", in order to indulge in all sorts of "impurity" and "lusts" with innumerable adolescents, but most preferably, little boys. Sick creeps! They could probably save alot of money by turning their worthless churches into insane asylums, for pedophiles and perverts. They wouldn't have to travel anywhere to receive help, and a small investment in barred windows and they wouldn't be able to harm another child or family.    servant of the One Pure God and Father

  21. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29that 1110AM:

    Thus ‘Dan’s effort to reach a victory-lap conclusion (“And there you have it”) fails, nor is it redeemed by the further efforts at mimicking competent thought and argument by tossing up a dictionary definition, which definition is itself of one of the most dubious of ‘Dan’s many dubious cartoon bits, i.e. that Catholic are idolaters because they ‘worship Mary as a divinity’ and so on.

    And – with a well-grounded apprehension – he finishes it all by trying to preemptively neutralize any assessment that might demonstrate the whackness of his stuff.

    • Dan says:

      You're under the impression that your garbage and ignorance is not a cartoon mimicking competent thought and argument? Told you this before, that lies, slander and insinuations are not examples of competence or argument, unless being evaluated by the deceiving and deceptive creeps of your cult. You are an absolute joke, publiar.  servant

  22. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1144AM where he merely insists – yet again – this all his stuff is “factuality” and “truth”.

    And as to his pious bleat that “there is no reason for [him] to lie”, I say again: there is every profound reason for him to lie, because if he didn’t then his FDS would collapse, ‘Dan’ would have to face his factual and real personal issues, and his head would probably explode. And he’d be out of a gig.

    • Dan says:

      The scope of 'Dan's issues is wasting time responding to you lying catholic creeps. Wow! What a wonderful gig I got going. Oh! And my head hasn't come close to exploding yet, though listening to your ignorance and stupidity, could possibly push that along. Again, you're such a joke, publyin'.   servant

  23. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 117PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will try to create a position nobody here has taken, in order to try to evade the actual point and create a more convenient explanation for himself: nobody here has said that “everyone is off the rails” (well, except ‘Dan’ to the extent that he claims all the citizenry in his locale are whacko).

    What has been proposed is the extremely high probability that ‘Dan’ and ‘Dan’ alone is rather notably and demonstrably unwell.

    But he can’t deal with that because his head would explode.

    • Dan says:

      Last time I checked my head was still there. Duh! What part of the body would that be located? Is it anywhere near the brains you sit on?

  24. Publion says:

    Moving on then to something completely similar, we have JR’s of the 29th at 712PM:

    Here JR too will try to create a more convenient position, the better to evade the frakkery of his own stuff: he asserts that I “support the sexual abuse of children”. He proffers, of course, no accurate quotation from my material for that bit, but how could he since no such quotation from my material exists because I do not take and never have taken that position?

    Ah, but JR has come up with a solution for that problem, although not one he wants to spell-out (or see it spelled-out here). I’ll spell it out: This assertion of his is merely his inference, based on the fact that I’ve “never supported any victim ever”.

    We’ve seen this before, and I’ve answered it before: I have never seen any demonstrably credible ‘victim’ on this site and surely JR’s own misadventures with veracity can’t be expected to support the credibility of his victim-hood. And I have explained at great length the problems that exist a) in such ‘victim’ stories as have been proffered here and b) in the general narrative template of such ‘victim’ stories.

  25. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 712PM:

    And – marvelously – JR now tries to make himself a ‘victim’ yet again: he apparently didn’t notice or didn’t want to notice that my question as to JR’s being “normal” was simply a repetition of his own point as he tried to throw it. He doesn’t like when that happens.

    But – in a charming demonstration of the juvenile I’m Not/You Are gambit – JR will then try to say that since I have used the term then “therefore you are not normal”. Such logic.

    And that leads to riff that includes “pomposity” and the marvelously pitch-perfect bit to the effect that I don’t “respect [his] veracity” and that’s “not normal”.

    And as I have pointed out many times here, JR’s “answers” simply raise more questions than they answer. It would not be normal to simply accept them as they are proffered.

    Scamming a million bucks, I would say, is normal … for certain types.

    Is TMR a “hell hole”? Why does JR choose to keep posting on it? It may be a “hell hole” for him, but I would remind him yet again of Harry Truman’s point: “I never gave anybody hell; I told them the truth and they thought it was hell”.

  26. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 29th at 719PM:

    Here he will try to change the subject from his material to my intentions by posing the question “Why is everything about power with [me]?”.

    I just ask questions that flow from the material presented.

    For a ‘power-play’ you have to consider the Victim Playbook: quickly claim the high-ground of being a ‘victim’, then from that commanding height bethump anyone who questions the story (i.e. such questioners are un-Christian, sociopathic, insensitive, un-Jesus-like, and so forth).

    And for a real power-play, threaten them with violent death by shotgun.

    As for the further claim that JR’s “evidence … proves [his cartoon] case and [his] church conspiracy analysis” … readers may judge as they will. That “analysis” is a nice touch, mimicking competent and objective and logical and scientific praxis and applying it to describe the cartoon stuff JR has put up.

    And the concluding epithet fails at the end as it did at the beginning.

    • Dan says:

      I'd say you pretty much covered it, publiar. Catholic cult questioners, as witnessed on this site, are definitely "un-Christian, sociopathic, insensitive, un-Jesus-like", and could I add, idolators, deceivers, hypocrites, liars, "and so forth". Think that just about covers most of it. Oops! Forgot disingenuous creeps!  servant

  27. Publion says:

    On the 30th at 1247AM ‘Dan’ now takes the opportunity to proffer more stuff, which no doubt is supposed to demonstrate that he’s the victim in all this, with all the lies and slander and so on.

    So let’s see what we’ve got here: Dan used to “stay to talk to the police” (his actions prompted 135 “calls” to 911 and possibly involved 135 separate incidents)/ because he just knew he “hadn’t broken any laws” / but then he stopped doing that when it appeared that “catholics will lie to cause [him] trouble (alternative: he stopped hanging around for the police when it became clear he had broken laws and would be arrested).

    Out of this, which resulted in a mere 6 arrests and 5150s, there were thus 125 times that the police did not take action (the problem here isn’t ‘Dan’s math; it’s his credibility with the 135 and 125 bits) .

    • Dan says:

      Terribly impudent for a compulsive liar, deceiver, manipulator and slanderer, to question someone who's unafraid of being truthful, of having problems with their credibility. An obvious ploy in order to keep the brainwashed from questioning his credibility. We are definitely witnessing an obviously disingenuous hypocrite, willing to accuse an opponent of the outlandish, in order to pursue his own warped agenda. Truly a liar, proud of his lies.

  28. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1247AM:

    Then another stab at trying to paint himself not only as a victim but as justified in all his vitriolic ranting: who could possibly maintain one’s prophetic composure – doncha see? – when made the subject of so many complaints that – but of course – were lies, all lies … ?

    And it is apparently hard to defend oneself from religious personnel dressed in religious garb.

    And the rest of the comment trails off with more of the usual rant stuff, topped off by the genuinely silly effort at word-play between “garb” and “garbage”.

  29. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 158PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will spin more story and readers may consider the credibility as they will.

    For his first 52 years ‘Dan’ never had “trouble with the law” but in the past ten years it’s just that he’s had this “problem” with “liars of your cult” (he cawnt’ think why, and, indeed, finds it all so very “strange”).

    Then he tries yet again to run the bit that he’s just tried to run in his prior comment; how could he possibly “act so nice, calm, and angel-like” in the face of such bethumping? ‘Dan’ is a ranter with an FDS; there is no way he is ever going to “act so nice, calm, and angel-like” unless he’s medicated; and if this was indeed a sudden onset 10 years ago then “genes” would have to yield explanatory precedence to something significant in the psychiatric line.

    He finds my thoughts on his mental state to be “rude” and – but of course – “false” and – but of course – “mocking”. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

    ‘Dan’ is a “servant” of nothing but his own FDS. And if God were to come down from heaven and tell ‘Dan’ so then ‘Dan’ would call God a liar. ‘Dan’ would have to, otherwise he’d have to face his serious issues and his head would explode.

    • Dan says:

      Fairly obvious, that you and the other lying members of your cult, think you can twist the Lord's Word, interpret the meaning to suit your wicked lusts, and slander His chosen without consequence. Boy are you deceivers in for one rude awakening.   servant

  30. Publion says:

    The most recent crop is ‘Dan’ trying to put up some zippy ‘comebacks’. But even those reveal him.

    On the 30th at 1025PM ‘Dan’ apparently thinks he’s evaded the problem by insisting that it wasn’t all the citizens in his locale who were whacky. Noooooo … it’s just that “The catholic church is ‘one whacky citizenry’” – and that – doncha see? – makes him OK. It’s not “the entire citizenry”; it’s just the entire Catholic church. The difference appears quite clear to his mind; the consequences of that difference clearly not so much.

    The other possibility – we recall – was that ‘Dan’ is a chronically non-veracious case, necessitated by his abyssal indenture to his FDS.

    And were his reading comprehension not deranged by his indenture to his FDS, he would realize that grammatically “this cereal box” referred to his story bits and not to the pericope. But then again, if you mock ‘Dan’s own stuff, then you mock God … that’s where a nice, tight FDS will take you.

    • Dan says:

      Time to work a bit more on those reading comp skills. I clearly stated that the "compulsive liars of your cult [are] whackjobs, not the entire citizenry". If you believe it's more systemic than that, I'm not surprised, seeing how many I've run into. You think you might require surgery, to remove that foot from your mouth.

    • Dan says:

      Catch you later. Too beautiful a day to ruin reading your nonsense and ignorance.

  31. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1055PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will stoutly insist that statues equate to idolatry (and thus the effluvia of his FDS are right and very clever). And does the statue of Lincoln in the Memorial in Washington equate to an idolatry of that President? Do the many statues of Civil War veterans in the town squares of so many towns and villages (in the older parts of the country, anyway) indicate an idolatrous worship of those who fought in the Civil War? Does the bronzed Bull of Wall Street equate to an idolatrous bull-worship repeating the animistic pagan religions of yore?

    ‘Dan’s FDS has – of necessity – drunk deeply from the fundie fever-swamp. He left ‘Kool-Aid’ behind long ago.

    And if “you can’t understand” the clear logic of ‘Dan’s whackery, why … “then you must be the ‘psychologically debauched individual”. If you don’t want a tasty breakfast of the stuff in ‘Dan’s cereal box, doused liberally with fetid and frothy fundie swamp-water … then it’s clear to ‘Dan’ that you must be crazy. It’s so very very clear to him. He cawn’t imagine why the world doesn’t see that. And instead calls the police.

    • Dan says:

      Statues of Lincoln and Civil War veterans, would definitely qualify as those of idolatry, if citizens bowed down and worshipped them, rubbing and kissing the feet until the toes were completely missing, as your idolators do. As far as the bronze Bull of Wall Street goes, I bet you catholics are jealous, that you didn't come up with such a symbol of your greediness. It would compliment the dogs and pig statues in Vatican City. LYING PAGAN IDOLATORS. I left the Kool-Aid behind, and you creeps drank the whole cup.

      "Thou shalt NOT make unto thee ANY graven image, or ANY likeness of ANYTHING that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."  KJB

      "You MUST NOT make for yourself an IDOL of any kind or image of ANYTHING in the heavens or on the earth orin the sea."  Exodus 20:4

      "You shall NOT make for yourself an IDOL or a LIKENESS of ANYTHING in the heavens above or on earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;"   Exodus 20:4  NAB

      No comprende ingles? publyin'? Same question for your next 3:48pm post.

  32. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1055PM:

    The concluding pericope offers a nicely revelatory example of ‘Dan’s ignorant and fundie-like abuse of Scripture.

    The term ‘father’ had, in Matthew’s time, recently come into Jewish usage. The rabbi (tr: ‘my great one’) Saul ben Batnith – who lived about 60-80AD – was the first Jewish sage to be called “Abba” (tr: ‘father’). Matthew’s comment about not calling anyone ‘father’ was part of that writer’s effort to distinguish nascent Christianity from Judaism.

    In verse 34 of that 23rd chapter Matthew offers his own preferred alternatives: “prophets and wise-men and scribes”. Although for one reason or another, those titles-of-address never caught on.

    Was any of this not in one of ‘Dan’s secret Faxes?

    • Dan says:

      "And call NO man your father upon the EARTH: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Matthew 23:9  KJV  Are your priests or your holy father not on earth? Are they aliens? Where did you learn or find all these ignorant arguments, thinking you've found the answer that disputes what the Word plainly states? Is this philosophy, because if it is, it stinks horribly. All it proves is something evil has invaded your empty mind, and found it's home, multiplying into nothing but long-winded nonsense and stupidity.

      And he volunteers even more ignorance with claims that Matthew, spiritually inspired, "offers his own preferred alternatives: 'prophets and wise-men and scribes'." He falsely claims this, "Although for one reason or another, titles-of-address never caught on". Maybe according to your own catholic interpretations, considering you wouldn't find any "prophets and wise-men" among the liars of your hierarchy.

      Publiar conveniently passes over the previous verse 33, describing what I've rightfully called him. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" Then, misinterpreting what Matthew was expressing, verse 34 states that God will send "prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify, and others you will flog in your synagogues and persecute in town after town." I've been beaten by catholic lying thugs and persecuted from town to town. Obviously, I have yet to be killed, only because I was able to outrun the cowardly thugs that beat me. You deny I'm a prophet (teacher), sent by the Lord, but should you continue in your unrepentance and vicious lies, you will suffer from all the Bible quotes and prophetic messages I've sent you. You can bank on that. If only your ignorant, lying accusations as to my FDS were true, you may stand some chance. From the stupidity and nonsense I've witnessed, I'd say your chances of waking up are somewhere between slim and none.  servant, totally protected from your lies

  33. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1112PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will try to bolster his argument with a point that precisely has not been demonstrated: the “innumerable” that he uses here actually means that X cannot be ‘numbered’ … but whether that inability to be enumerated lies on the ‘infinite’ end of the scale or closer to zero remains to be established.

    Further, his accusation is undermined by his own term here because – as I have always pointed out here – we actually haven’t determined the ‘numbers’, and given the dust raised deliberately by the Stampede and Victimist agitprop it is possible that we may now never be able to get a good fix on whatever number that may be.

    And this is precisely the predictable result of the Stampede’s effort to go the tortie route: avoid court trials and testing of the accusations and just go for the cash settlement without a trial.

    But ‘Dan’ can’t get “pedophiles and perverts” out of his head. Perhaps because of the rhetorical value; perhaps because of … something else.

    • Dan says:

      Oh! Yeah! Take it from the mouth of the deceiver, "innumerable" could possibly mean "closer to zero". Do you think people are honestly that brainwashed, when so many catholic perverts and pedophiles have been exposed, and several even admitted to their crimes against children. Despite all the secret payoffs and settlements, totally in your cults favor, still many have come to light. The church can always come clean and open all files to the public. Don't tell us they don't exist, although they've probably done everything to destroy much of the proof. Your excuses and arguments are progressively getting weaker and weaker. Don't even try to suggest the title of "pedophiles and perverts", so perfectly fitting in describing your apostate cult, could somehow be put on me. Your one lyin', disingenuous, hypocrite creep, but I guess you're well aware of that by now.  servant of God

      P.S. Have we conveniently over-looked my offer to discuss "Don Mercedes", creep.

  34. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1120PM:

    Here he simply tries the old I’m Not/You Are bit, trying to spin it that it is my material and not his that is “mimicking competent thought and argument”. Readers may judge as they will.

    And while ‘Dan’ has indeed on many occasions merely asserted that all of the charges against him were “lies, slander and insinuations” … yet he has not only never established that claim (so vital to the integrity and veracity and coherence of his programme here) but he has instead voluminously proffered material that would indicate quite the opposite.

    And he tries to wrap up this steaming pile of his with a cutesy epithetical ribbon and bow.

  35. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1128PM:

    Once again, ‘Dan’ will don a Wig for this performance, this time the Wig of Exasperated Integrity and Truthiness: he simply cawn’t think why he “is wasting time responding”.

    He isn’t “wasting time”. He is a) carrying on in such a way as to strengthen his own indenture to his FDS and thus keep his head from exploding and b) carrying on in such a way as to provide busy readers with a nicely vivid and convenient compendium of the stuff comprising the fundie and Stampede fever-swamps.

    Very useful. For both himself and the readership.

  36. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 1144PM:

    I had used a quick collection of characterizations that JR has used in his assorted epithetical come-backs against those who question his material.

    Here ‘Dan’ doth declare and proclaim (from that faux-papal chair he has set up in front of his bathroom mirror) that the list I compiled “pretty much covered” what is, but of course, ‘Dan’s own preferred epithetical fever-visions.

    This establishes nothing but the fact that JR and ‘Dan’ are pretty much two peas from the same pod.

    If they are pleased with that fact, well … who can be surprised?

    And I think many readers knew that already anyway.

  37. Publion says:

    What have we now?

    On the 1st at 643PM we see ‘Dan’ donning one of his favorite Wigs, that of He Who’s Unafraid Of Being Truthful.

    Having presumed that bit, ‘Dan’ can then launch into a typical riff about how anything that doesn’t fit his preferred narrative and characterization of himself must be the problem. Because – of course – ‘Dan’ and his actions can’t possibly be the problem.

    As to who is “truly a liar, proud of his lies” and – even more revealingly – “a compulsive liar”… readers may judge as they will. ‘Dan’s indenture to his FDS is the core of his compulsion.

  38. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 654PM:

    I had put up a comment (the 31st at 241PM) in response to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 158PM. Here ‘Dan’ simply tosses up his stock comeback about “twist[ing] the Lord’s Word” and so on, although there was no Scriptural pericope in his original comment of the 30th at 158PM nor in my response of the 31st at 241PM.

    At this point we see ‘Dan’ presuming that anything he writes is “the Lord’s Word”.

    And the bit concludes with the usual threat about God’ll getcha.

  39. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1155PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ tries to deal with the Lincoln and Civil War statue problem by claiming that Catholics make statues and then have “bowed down and worshipped them”. This is just another bit from the fundie fever-swamp; Catholics do not worship statues of the saints or Mary; were a statue to be damaged or broken, no Catholic would imagine that therefore the saint represented by the statue would be somehow thus immediately damaged or broken. No ‘divinity’ or entity resides in the statue.

    He then tries to wave-away the Bull of Wall Street by changing the subject, trying to work in something about “greediness” – which was not the point at issue.

    Are there “dog and pig statues in Vatican City? Is he referring to any Catholic statues or merely to ancient Roman productions antedating the Church? Is he referring, indeed, to the ancient Roman statues of Romulus and Remus being suckled by a she-wolf? Does he even realize he difference?

    • Dan says:

      In the Catechism of the Catholic Church there are two columns from a normal Bible of the 10 commandments – First column Exodus 20:2-17   Second column Deuteronomy 5:6-21  The Third Column is labeled – A Traditional Catechetical Formula – This list totally leaves out Exodus 20:4-6, ignoring the bowing, making idols of anything and the punishment that follows. Is your cult that cowardly, yet realizing they've broken that commandment, as to ignore and remove it from their teaching? They think God doesn't see their stupid little tricks and won't notice their omission?

      From UCCSB – (NAB) – Exodus 20: 3) "You shall not have other gods beside me. 4) You shall not make for yourself an idol or likeness of ANYTHING in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; 5) you shall NOT BOW DOWN BEFORE THEM or serve them. For I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their ancestors' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; 6) but showing love down to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

      Quit denying your bowing down and worshipping Mary. There are pictures and I've watched services of the last 5 popes, bowing down before her statue, kissing or placing their hand on her feet. The only "fundie fever-swamp" we're witnessing is the one your drowning in. And "the dog and pig statues in the Vatican", are the same ones Peter prophesied about in 2 Peter 2:22 regarding your cult and it's filthiness, "A dog returns to it's vomit," and "A pig that is washed goes back to wallow in the mud." Maybe that's the same "fundie fever-swamp" you're drowning in, Porky.  servant of the Almighty

  40. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1155PM:

    On the basis of his ‘twisting’ of both historical reality and Catholic theological praxis, however, ‘Dan’ then takes the opportunity his ignorance or deceit has created for him in order to spew out a few more pericopes (from an assortment of Bible versions).

    But the problem with the 20th chapter of Exodus – as ‘Dan’ tries to weaponize it here – is that the Decalogue is a warning that Israel can have only one God; but Catholic statues are not worshipped, as I pointed out, and thus no Catholic statue is an “idol”.

    The problem, therefore, is not that I don’t understand English; it is that ‘Dan’ either doesn’t understand or willfully misapplies the Scriptural text to suit his own agenda.

    • Dan says:

      Can you be that stupid? You've called your "Queen of Heaven" by the same name as the idol of Israel, burn incense to her and make cakes in the form of the moon, but we don't worship her and she isn't our idol. We put her on pedestals and carry her around on our shoulders, crown her in gold, but never do we worship or idolize her. Are you really that ignorant? Man, the nonsense is pouring from your lying mouth.

  41. Publion says:

     Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1155PM:

    And then we see ‘Dan’s abiding and manipulative slyness nicely demonstrated: ‘Dan’ tries to evade the content of my post of the 31st at 348PM – in regard to not calling anyone ‘father’ – by simply going for the idea that the same type of gambit applies there.

    But the 31st/348PM content indicated that Matthew was far more plausibly trying to distinguish Christianity from Judaism and the then-current styling of Saul ben Batnith as ‘father’, which is a historical actuality.

    Against that, the fundie fever-swamp approach requires the presumption that Matthew was actually talking about the Church. Such oh-so-selective and self-serving literalizing – which also requires the fantasizing presumption that Matthew was predicting the future – is a typical fundie gambit.

    And so we see that ‘Dan’ is doubly deep in exercising such chicanery against the integrity of the Bible text: not only serving the general fundie purpose of trying to delegitimize Catholicism, but also serving the specific ‘Dan’-verse purpose of supporting ‘Dan’s own personal agenda, i.e. supporting his FDS.

    • Dan says:

      It is impossible for me to delegitimize catholicism, any more than your cult has with it's false teachings combined with it's disgusting crimes against innocent children. Add your misinterpretations, excuses, lies, ignorance and stupidity, and I'd have to say you've done more damage than I could ever have done.  servant of the One True God and Father

  42. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1242AM:

    ‘Dan’ opens by merely repeating his manipulative literalism in regard to the calling-father bit. And he riffs on from there.

    Then in the second paragraph, ‘Dan’ merely asserts that I “falsely claim[s]” that Matthew’s titles-of-address never caught on. That is a) precisely what I did claim and b) that fact is historically accurate (i.e. Catholics don’t refer to priests as “prophets” or “wise-men” or “scribes”).

    And conceptually, children (Catholic and Protestant and otherwise) call their male parent ‘father’. That doesn’t appear to trip the fundie wire. So clearly there is more to be considered here.

    The fatherhood of God is reflected in the usage that children everywhere employ.

    Joseph told his brothers that God had “made me a father to Pharaoh” (Genesis 45:8). Job declared that he was “a father to the poor” (Job 29:16). Of His servant Eliakim, God said that He would make him “father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah” (Isaiah 22:20-21). As Elijah was taken up into heaven (Mary’s was not the first “assumption”) his servant Elisha called out “My father, my father!” (2 Kings 2:12). And later Elisha himself is called a father by the King of Israel (2 Kings 6:21).

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1242AM:

    Clearly none of these men were actual biological fathers to those who called them father.

    Ditto when in the New Testament Stephen refers to “our father Abraham” (Acts 7:2) and Paul refers to “our father Isaac” (Romans 9:10).

    Nor is it plausible that Jesus (in Matthew 23) is speaking literally, since He also forbids calling any man “teacher” and yet in Mathew 28:19-20 He commissions teachers (“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations … teaching them …”. And Paul even refers to himself as a teacher (1 Timothy 2:7 and 2 Timothy 1:11) and declares that “teachers” have been appointed in the Church (1 Corinthians 12:28 and Ephesians 4:11).

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1242AM:

    And then Paul refers to Timothy as his “child” (I Corinthians 4:17) – leaving no doubt as to the relationship of Paul as Timothy’s spiritual father; and Paul refers to Timothy as his “son” (1 Timothy 1:18 and 2 Timothy 2:1) and Paul similarly refers to Titus and Onesimus.

    And Paul even makes a more direct reference to the spiritual fatherhood (applicable thus to priests) in 1 Corinthians 4: 14-15 when he says to that community that he “became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel”. In various places Peter and John made the same connections.

    • Dan says:

      Thank you for your several pericopes. Does this mean now that you're deranged as you've accused me. Don't tell me you're going to start getting Faxes from Beyond, or maybe tweets from Trumpster Dumpster or Bleeps from Beelzebub?

      I have never heard one child, (catholic and protestant and otherwise), call their male parent father. This is the same programmed response catholic priests gave me, when I questioned them on this same verse. Where do you all learn these excuses for not obeying the Lord's Word. The Word says in plain and simple english -

      "And call NO man your father upon the EARTH: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Jesus was saying to give NO title to anyone. Humble yourselves. "The greatest among you shall be your servant." Mattew 23:11  And you call me deranged or FDS, because I've said I was His servant. They have their sheep calling them titles of "Father" and "Holy Father", and you think this shows the humility Christ was referring to? v.6) "They love the places of honor at banquets, the chief seats in the synagogues, 7) the greetings in the marketplaces, and the title of 'Rabbi' by which they are addressed."  Goes on to say you are not to be called 'Rabbi' or 'Father'. You think you're wise enough to know better than Jesus, hypocrite liar?

      If I have to listen to anymore of your ignorant excuses or poor interpretations, I think my head will explode. Will be looking forward to more of your stupidity.

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1242AM:

    So all that ‘Dan’s eructations and rants here prove is that he isn’t really up to speed on the Bible at all; he only has his carefully (and eagerly) selected pile of 3x5s, from which he picks various pieces to toss at the screen.

    You have to put on blinders the size of a plow-horse’s to go along with ‘Dan’s Bible stuff.

    And he wraps the whole steaming pile up with an extended version of his usual epithetical and threatening rant.

  46. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 105AM:

    When we factor in all the conceptually demonstrated elements of the Stampede, and the results of cases we have been able to examine (including the priest – Avery – in the Billy Doe/Gallagher case in Philadelphia who pled guilty simply because he (and quite possibly any counsel he consulted) realized that no fair trial was possible and Avery “didn’t want to die in prison”) it becomes very clear that under the circumstances of Stampede a guilty plea in a criminal trial is no more reliable an indicator of actual guilt than is a settlement reached by the time-tested tortie strategies in a civil case.

    And Federal judge Schiltz – quoted here long ago – opined that more than half of the settlement cases he had seen involved secrecy demanded by the torties/plaintiffs.

    Nor did even the long-touted LA Times release of its “cache” of Church files actually produce any notable “smoking guns” in terms of this hoary “secrecy” charge that ‘Dan’ once again tries to make.

    Readers may judge as they will whether it is ‘Dan’ who  is “one lyin’, disingenuous hypocrite creep”, and a Scripturally ignorant one as well.

    • Dan says:

      You seem to be falling back on the I'm Not/You Are bit, that you accuse others of doing. Readers do not have to judge. You are "one lyin', disingenuous hypocrite creep", and a Scripturally ignorant one as well. Thank you for the opportunity to repeat your 'Title'. servant

  47. malcolm harris says:

    On the 2nd Dan raised once again an accusation which puzzles me. Can't recall his precise words but basically he was saying that the Church should come clean and release all files (on the subject of alleged sex abuse). But he then went on to suggest that these files would probably already be destroyed anyway.  Well in some cases all files were actually  released. But when the torties (and media allies) didn't find any smoking gun, they quickly suggested that the evidence (files) had been withheld or destroyed. Can you believe it? Any policeman would get a conviction in every case?.  E.g.."Your Honor… the defendant did have the stolen goods, but when I seached his house, he had already disposed of them, so that clearly proves his guilt'"  Gee….like something out of Alice in Wonderland?


    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, Are you sipping down that Katholic Kool-Aid again, or has the Mad Hatter, publiar, invited you for tea with the Door Mouse, Jimmy Mini-pee. If the catholic cult really was the One True Church of the Almighty God, then they would humble themselves before the Lord, admit their guilt, expose ALL their secret files and make right with every victim or child they've ever harmed. Not wait to see if they're prosecuted or caught, deny and lie like the Devil, lean on the statute of limitations, or hope the disgusting creep will die before there's a chance the cult might have to give up some of it's riches. What's wrong with you people? You think you can lean on a miniscule amount of fraudulent cases, as proof that the true amount of veracious cases is possibly 'closer to zero'. What kind of deceived creeps would defend and make excuses for the nasty creeps of your cult. The same ones who shuffled the creeps from diocese to diocese, so they could continue doing their disgusting perversions against innocent children. You might want to try some truth serum, instead of sippin' the tea and Kool-Aid. You creeps and creepy excusers puzzle me.  servant of the One True God

      P.S. Are you catholics unaware that God knows all truth, and will repay all as we deserve. You can either pay Him now or you will truly pay Him later. Waiting for your Judgment Day.

  48. Dan says:

    And by the way, don't act so stupid, as if we've forgotten the confidential edict from the pope, to the bishops to keep everything secret, all for the good of your apostate cult. Quit your lies and excuses, or does this just come as second nature to a compulsive liar? servant of Truth

  49. Publion says:

    On the 4th at 255AM ‘Dan’ – either having forgotten or willfully ignoring prior exchanges on this topic of Mary-as-Goddess – goes back to the Catechism of the Catholic Church again. Fine place to go.

    But – yet again – he does so not to go to the direct explanation (reference to which I made here just  recently) but rather to something about the page layout. Apparently, also, the Catechism doesn’t take his own cartoons into account (as if we are to be shocked by that omission).

    Once again: the direct explications of Catholic doctrine are in Numbers 963-975. On the immediately prior thread, responding to a ‘Dan’ comment of the 28th (March) at 1124AM, I went over all this on the 29th at 217PM and 218PM. Mary is human, though united closely to Jesus by virtue of being His (completely human) Mother, and she is the primary human intercessor at the heavenly court.

    What we get here now from ‘Dan’ is merely a repetition from his 3×5 pile.

    His other references merely presume what ‘Dan’s cartoon insists: that Mary is a “god” and thus ‘Dan’ can quote even Catholic documents that make reference to Exodus. But for Exodus to work in the case of Mary, she would have to be considered a goddess or divine, and she most clearly is not considered to be so by the Church.

    • Dan says:

      I shall use your CCC 971, to prove you to be most definitely and undeniably wrong. "The churches devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic [essential] to Christian WORSHIP." The church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs." "Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an 'epitome of the whole gospel,' express this devotion to the Virgin Mary."

      Don't know about you catholics, but I'm going to the Savior who died for me, "to whose protection the [true] faithful fly in all their dangers and needs." He is the only mediator. Mary is no mediatrix, intercessor or "Helper", as you have been misled and lied to. You think Jesus, God's only begotten Son needs a "Helper"? Boy, you catholics need help!

      "For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. 1 Tim 2:5

      "The rosary, an 'epitome of the whole Gospel' "  This is utter blasphemy! Repeated prayers to Mary, in absolute violation of the Bible, "epitomizes the whole Gospel"? This is a horrible deception. The Gospels are the stories of Christ our Savior and HIS teachings, and mention little of Mary, and a few times, don't show her in a very good light. Read the Bible and stop this ignorance and nonsense.

      We'll use terms like 'Honor', 'Venerate', 'Adore', "the church rightly honors the Blessed Virgin with special devotion" "Immaculate Virgin", just don't say we worship her.

      More absolute, unbiblical, outright lies – Mary sinless (Romans 3:23 "all have sinned"), Immaculate Conception, Assumption, Mary ever-virgin, Rosary. All fabricated falsehoods by a lying, deceiving cult, of which publiar, is a card carrying member.

      All the above is proof that Mary is falsely worshipped as Divine Goddess, and the title of "Queen of Heaven" and "Holy Mother of God" further proves the Idolatry. How can a human being be crowned "Mother of God". This would make Mary the Creator. BLASPHEMY!!!

  50. Publion says:

    Oh, and ‘Dan’ tries to wrap it all up and bring it home by introducing as evidence of his cartoon thought here his own observation of “the last 5 popes”. ‘Dan’ could no more proffer worthwhile insight into what he has “watched” then a cow could deliver fruitful insights from having been walked through the Louvre repeatedly over the course of years.

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 303AM:

    Mary may be “queen” but she remains in origin a ‘commoner’, i.e. human. She is no goddess.

    And again with the Host in the shape of pagan moon-cakes as in Astarte worship. The Host, again, has to do with Jesus and not with Mary.

    At which point a reader might be prompted to ask of ‘Dan’ his own question: “Are you really that ignorant?”. But ‘Dan’ – while quite probably being “that ignorant” generally – also has to nurture his indenture to his FDS.

    Thus he has nothing that he can do except keep repeating his collection of 3x5s regardless of how inaccurate and/or inapplicable they are demonstrated to be.

    • Dan says:

      At least, even a cow isn't dumb enough to bow down and worship a false goddess. And I believe even you with all your ignorance, would be capable of seeing pictures or watching TV with popes, including Francis, bowing down to Virgin Mary, smothered in dozens of roses. For you to make such a childish, stupid statement, shows your full blown ignorance.

  51. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 311AM:

    Here he tries – as so often – to evade a point by changing the subject: he – with the fundie movement generally – is trying to delegitimize Catholicism; whether he actually can do so was not my point at all, since clearly he cannot – as even he admits.

    But he really isn’t concerned about the world generally; he is indentured to his FDS and it is in the service of that indenture that he must try to delegitimize Catholicism, even if only in his own mind.

    He is only the servant of his FDS – and that harsh master will reduce him to the role of ranting fool all on its own and all the time.

  52. Publion says:

    And now: what will ‘Dan’ do with all those Scripture pericopes indicating that his ‘call no man father’ bit doesn’t work even in the text of Scripture?

    On the 4th at 357AM we see what his FDS will instruct him to do:

    First, he tries to change the subject to snark: since I am using “several pericopes” then does that mean that I am as “deranged” as I accuse ‘Dan’ of being? Not at all, since my pericopes establish the point in question, while his pericopes invariably require that you first accept his cartoon presumptions in order to accept his cartoon interpretations.

  53. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 357AM:

    Then – from the ridiculous to the sublime – ‘Dan’ tries to claim that he has “never heard one child” of any faith “call their male parent father”. Apparently, if a child says ‘Daddy’ or ‘Dad’ then that doesn’t count because the Scriptural text uses the word “father” … which, in the fundie literalist fallback position, isn’t the same thing.

    Well, readers can consider the juvenility of that bit as they will. But that still leaves Paul and all the other Old and New Testament figures who – as my examples and quotations indicate – did use the term “father”.

    And “abba” – not in “plain simple english” but in the Biblical languages of Aramaic and Greek – means “father” whether used by a biological child or by one who acknowledges a spiritual fatherhood … as my examples demonstrated.

    • Dan says:

      Humility would never demand others to refer to them with a title, let alone one that does not fit. Grown men wearing lacy dresses, having no children and taking on the name of their Goddess, Mary, have no right to be called or looked up to as Fathers, let alone Holy Fathers. Especially when belonging to an idol-worshipping cult of hypocrites, liars, cowards, pedophiles, perverts, and creeps.  servant

  54. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 357AM:

    Once again, we see a major and substantively disqualifying aspect of the fundie project: having gotten its start a) only in the late 19th century in this country and b) having been embraced by persons often with only a patchy acquaintance with English and largely devoid of any knowledge of the actual Biblical languages then we see here a vivid example of the old saw that fundies wish others would just ‘speak plain simple English like Jesus did’. Which also means that their word-games are limited to Bible translations in English; they thus limit themselves fatally, while also conveniently reducing the number of complications that their cartoons have to account-for.

    From a general lack of knowledge, ‘Dan’ has made himself willfully “ignorant” and indeed “stupid”, in the service of his indenture to his FDS. He’s not the first and he won’t be the last.

  55. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 405AM:

    Here he will try – yet again – to claim that the I’m Not/You Are observation is actually more applicable to me than to him. Readers may judge as they will.

    But he also then asserts – on the basis of nothing – that “readers do not have to judge”. I think they do have to and I think they do.

    And on the basis of my failing to fulfill the requirements of his cartoon presumptions, he then – with marvelous obliviousness – tries to run the old I’m Not/You Are bit right here again: it is I who is “Scripturally ignorant” and not ‘Dan’.

    Readers may judge as they will.

  56. Publion says:

    And then on the 4th at 413AM – apropos of nothing on the table at the moment – ‘Dan’ riffles through his 3×5 pile and comes up with “the confidential edict from the pope”.

    He refers, one can only infer, to the 1962 Instruction from the Holy Office to bishops in regard to priests accused of having used the sacrament of penance (i.e. an instance of ‘confession’) for soliciting sex from the penitent. The Instruction codifies procedures to be used and punishments to be applied if the accusation is determined to be veracious.

    It is also applicable to homosexual, pedophile, or zoophile behavior by clerics.

    The document was to be kept confidential by the bishops. This makes sense since its publication would provide handy fodder for any groups (the Soviets at that time, fundies, and such) to claim that the Church had a ‘problem’ that it was trying to ‘hide’. But in no place does the document forbid bishops from reporting such alleged crimes to the local police.

    • Dan says:

      They are still prosecuting cases in house whenever possible, and keeping the truth from the proper authorities. I've even pointed out cases where DA's refused to go against your corrupt cult. When that fails, we'll just grant them immunity under the protection of Vatican City. Still waiting to discuss "Don Mercedes", cowardly creep. Glad to see they included protection for animals raped by clergy. Do you take those cases to Vatican Kangaroo Court, the same one that screws over child victims, you've destroyed.

  57. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 413AM:

    And the confidentiality of the trial-documents (for any ecclesiastical and canonical proceedings instituted to determine the case) would protect the penitent-accuser as well as the accused – at least until such time as a full determination had been made. This would prevent any premature conclusions from being reached in the public forum that might derange the actual investigation and judgment. (The wisdom of this caution was demonstrated by the Stampede two decades later.)

    Readers are welcome to read the official English translation of the document (superseded in 2002) here


    And ‘Dan’ tries to wrap his performance up with more of the usual epithet. I doubt ‘Dan’ has “forgotten” the document because I seriously doubt he ever read it. No surprise there.

    • Dan says:

      I read the long-winded edict the 1st time and this time, and all it sounds to me, is a corrupt cult of pedophiles and perverts, covering all legal bases, in order to protect and keep secret the crimes committed with juveniles and donkeys. Only problem is, I can't tell who are the biggest jackasses, the hierarchy, bishops and priests, or the pope with the help of his legal team, protecting and demanding utmost secrecy, for the good of their Most Unholy Cult.

  58. malcolm harris says:

    On the 4th Dan says… "What's wrong with you people?"  So I guess it must be frustrating for the "servant" that he can't get through to us?.  However Dan should reflect on the possibility that he has a blind spot of his own. Does he not understand that children in a schoolyard have a mother to look out for them?. Catholic mothers are as loving and protective as any other mother.  What's more they talk to each other.  Why is Dan trying to convince himself that the faith of Catholics would over-rule their parental instinct to protect their kids?. My siblings are only lukewarm Catholics, and this would describe many parents. Yet there is no drop- off in enrollments in these schools. Dare I suggest that Dan "can't get through to us" because we know more than he?. The kids are not at risk. If they were it would be reflected in the enrollments. But Dan works on the strategy of….'if you throw enough mud.. then some will always stick'. Although, in reality, some of the thrown mud has blown back on the "servant".

    • Dan says:

      Not really sure what you're trying to say, Malcolm. I have no problem with parents protecting their kids. I would hope so. The very school where the corrupt, catholic cop, falsely accused me of saying "Jesus is dead" to 8-10 year olds, 6 months earlier, I had actually closed one of the gates that was mistakingly left open while the kids were in the yard. What the church doesn't understand, is that neighbors who walk the neighborhood, can be an extra pair of eyes for the protection of their kids. Not everyone is a monster, and adults with any common sense, should be able to discern between those who would cause harm to their children and those who would be the first to protect them. Most cases of child abduction around schools are done by creeps in cars, grabbing a child or coaxing them into a car. Pretty hard to run off with a child on foot, during school hours, when they're protected by an 8-20 foot fence.

      In regards to you all knowing more than me, I'll be waiting for some evidence to that. Do you mean you know more about bowing to Mary, praying to Mary, greediness, lying, slandering and insinuating things that are false. Then I guess you're right. I haven't heard any catholics with any Spiritual wisdom as yet, so I could care less, what worldly knowledge you may possess more than me. As far as I'm concerned, and the Bible states, that this world's knowledge is utter ignorance.  1 Cor 1:19-21

      For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intellegence of the intellegent I will frustrate*." Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."

      As far as mud throwing, there's been plenty thrown at me, and any I threw back was well deserved. Especially when most of the mud thrown from your side has been lies and insinuations. Adding the stupid insinuations towards my mental state, is absolutely ridiculous.

      * According to this verse, it must be those claiming to be wise or "know more", who are truly frustrated.  servant

  59. Publion says:

    On the 4th at 518PM ‘Dan’ gives us yet again a fine example of his sly manipulation: in order to accept his accusations and denunciations against the Church, one first has to accept his (unstated) presumption that there are “only a miniscule amount of fraudulent cases” (and thus, conversely, that the vast amount of allegations are veracious).

    But we are seeing that the cases that come to light are all fraudulent, which certainly indicates the possibility (I would say probability) that there are still cases – perhaps more than a “miniscule” amount – that were and remain thickly laced with fraudulence.

    Thus – in light of this possibility or probability – then denial of the accusations in any particular case may well have been justified. (Indeed, I would say that the Church’s or various Ordinaries’ caving to the Stampede by not more robustly defending priests might itself be the key form of “denial” in all of this.)

  60. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 518PM:

    But ‘Dan’s seemingly high-ground Victimist/Stampede position here – which is also catnip to fundies and anyone else with an axe to grind against the Church or Catholicism – requires the acceptance of so many presumptions that it can be said to be built on sand, i.e. the sand of those presumptions.

    And we note again ‘Dan’s predilection for the term “creep” (vars: “disgusting creep” or “pedophile creep”), a term which I suspect he encountered far too frequently for his own good quite a while back.

  61. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 518PM:

    But all of this enables ‘Dan’ to once again don the Wig of Forthright Truthiness: “What’s wrong with you people?” he doth puff himself up to inquire. It is a question better addressed to his bathroom mirror (at least before the séance begins, but perhaps during the séance as well).

    Then, further, we see how he conflates (out of deliberate manipulation or merely ignorance of language and logical procedure) “proof” with “possibly”. But a) the terms are mutually exclusive: if something is proven, then there is no ‘possibly’ about it.

    And b) I never asserted or claimed that any of the points I have raised provide “proof” of anything. None of us here have sufficient information (that can reliably be assumed by third-parties) which would ‘prove’ anything. We must deal with possibilities and probabilities and I have raised points in explication of the conclusion that there are certain possibilities and probabilities that appear quite justified, given the factual material we can muster.

    It is ‘Dan’ and the Abuseniks who insist that their ‘knowledge’ must be accepted as ‘proof’.

    • Dan says:

      And just about all your "perhaps", "possibilities" and "probabilities" in regards to myself, are totally wrong, but instead of accepting that, you think you can repeat these lies and insinuations, until you're satisfied that they have morphed into your truth. This is why I think you're a perfect fit for a cult based on Biblical misinterpretations, perpetuating false beliefs, and producing liars who fit their mold, pushing the agenda of their Father, Satan. Welcome to Hell.

  62. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 518PM:

    Ditto as ‘Dan’ then shakes his head (and Wig) yet again to inquire about “what kind of deceived creeps” … again, a question better delivered to his bathroom mirror.

    And if you don’t buy his cartoons, then he presumes that such refusal constitutes proof-positive that you are merely trying to “defend and make excuses for” the (presumed) “nasty creeps of your cult”. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

    And readers will note that this type of FDS whackery does not neutralize an individual’s capacity to strategize his slyness. While heading on the wrong track, yet the train chugs along at full speed. The engine works; but the track is wrong. Recalling Bonhoeffer’s sad and dark reflection: Once you have gotten on the wrong train, walking backwards through the cars isn’t going to help.

    And as for “truth serum”, ‘Dan’ once bragged here that he refused drugs that were proffered or recommended in one (or more) of those 5150 stays. He seemed to realize – however inchoately – that if any sort of medication reduced the power of his FDS, then he would be all alone with himself and his issues.

  63. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 518PM:

    And he tries to wrap up this performance by donning the Wig of Honest and Exasperated Puzzlement. For as long as he remains indentured to his FDS, then a whole lot of things are going to “puzzle” him.

    Because rather than rightly follow up that sense of puzzlement with some courageous and honest self-examination, he will remain firmly and fixedly entrenched within the stifling cocoon of the delusional explanation (i.e. everyone who doubts him is ‘lying’) that constitutes his mainstay.

    And in the usual “P.S.” he adds in the God’ll getcha bit. He can remain profoundly thankful that God accepts insanity pleas.

    • Dan says:

      Doubting me is not a problem. Lying about me is. That's all you seem to continually do. I don't agree that God accepts insanity pleas, but if he would accept ignorance and stupidity, you'd be a shoe-in.

  64. Publion says:

    On the 6th at 148AM ‘Dan’ will buckle down to the text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and declares that he “shall use your CCC 971, to prove you to be most definitely and undeniably wrong”.

    Well, that’s quite a project. Let’s see how he does.

    His first paragraph does nothing but quote that Number 971. Nowhere do we see Mary declared to be ‘divine’ or a ‘goddess’.

     He does quote the statement that “the Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship”. And he is right that “essential” is a valid substitute for “intrinsic”. But what can be concluded from that? Surely not that Mary is divine and worshipped as a goddess.

    Indeed, the Church uses not “worship” but the far lesser term “devotion”: the “devotion” to Mary is “intrinsic to Christian worship” but that “devotion” is clearly distinct from “worship”; that “devotion” is an essential part of the Church’s worship, but that “devotion” does not itself constitute “worship”. Otherwise, the Church could have saved ink and simply said that ‘the worship of Mary is intrinsic to Christian worship’ and leave it at that. But the text doesn’t … because while one is ‘devoted’ to Mary, one does not ‘worship’ her as a divinity and/or goddess.

  65. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 148AM:

    The rest of the quotes in that first paragraph – as I said – further expand upon Marian devotion, but do not in any way establish a claim that Mary is divine or worshipped as a goddess.

    Maybe he’ll have better luck in the second paragraph:

    Nope. In the second ‘Dan’ just opines according to schedule about how he’ll take Jesus rather than Mary. That’s merely ‘Dan’s opinion and approach and so what?

    He then doth declaim – using the faux-papal Wig and Sedia Gestatoria – that “Mary is no mediatrix, intercessor or “Helper”.  And ‘Dan’ doth ‘know’ that … how?  Yet again, this is merely ‘Dan’s opinion and approach and so what?

  66. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 148AM:

    And ‘Dan’ has now apparently invented a term (Helper) which he also encloses in full-quote marks (“Helper”) as if it were a statement that I made – which I did not make. In any case, Mary would help people who need help; which is not at all the same as her helping a Jesus who purportedly “needs a ‘Helper’”. Jesus needs no help; people need help approaching the Throne and Mary is there to help those people. (Of course, those who receive direct faxes through their bathroom mirror séances perhaps would not, under those circumstances, see themselves as needing any of Mary’s help – although some sort of “help” they most certainly would need from somewhere.)

    And – let’s face it even if ‘Dan’ doesn’t dare to do so – ‘Dan’ isn’t really dependent on any actual Jesus either; ‘Dan’ is beholden and indentured to the promptings of his FDS, which for the purposes of his cartoon he imagines to manifest in the shape of Jesus in the bathroom mirror.

    • Dan says:

      CCC 969 "Blessed Virgin Mary is invoked in the Church under the TITLES of Advocate, 'Helper', Benefactress, and Mediatrix." Nothing but more lies from liars. No proof of these titles, anywhere in God's Word. Made up fantasies from deceivers with wild, false imaginations. servant of Truth

  67. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 148AM:

    So, then, to the third paragraph and still nothing “definitely and undeniably” proven.

    Here we have a pericope from the First Letter to Timothy, the Pauline authorship of which – along with the Second Letter to Timothy and the Letter to Titus – is held to be questionable but nonetheless authoritative.

    The actual pericope is itself a quotation from some traditional formula. And Moses is referred to by Paul as an “intermediary” in Galatians 3: 19-20. But beyond all that, was the Church’s awareness over time that Christians sought the comfort and aid of the more approachable maternal human Mary rather than the distant, foreboding and powerful Byzantine Christos Pantocrator of the early centuries (the suffering and human Christ does not enter the record as a popular devotion until the Middle Ages in the north of Europe.

    And while Paul rather palpably encountered “a great light from heaven” on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-4, 22: 6-7, and 26: 12-14) and heard the voice asking “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?”, and thus might quite vividly sense the presence and actuality of Christ with no help from anywhere else at all, most Christians are not thus favored by so direct an encounter with Jesus. Hence the need for some assistance in making a request of the Throne.

    Of course, those who encounter God or Christ in their bathroom mirror or in special Faxes might, like Paul, not see any need for further assistance either. But we’ve been over that already.

    • Dan says:

      First covenant of Moses as "intermediary"? "Now however, Jesus has received a far superior ministry, just as the covenant He mediates is superior and is founded on better promises. For if the first covenant had been without fault, no place would have been sought for a second." Heb 8:6-7

      "Therefore Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, now that He has died to redeem them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." Heb 9:15

      "You have come to God the judge of all men, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel." Heb 12:24

      Are you now going to claim Hebrews to be "questionable"? "But beyond all that, was the Church's awareness over time that Christians sought the comfort and aid of the more approachable maternal Mary…rather than [Christ]". Really? Apparently, as the church often does, they bend to false traditions rather than God's Holy inspired Word. If catholics and false christians feel it best to turn to Mary's comfort and more approachable maternal side, then that's fine and dandy, but don't expect the Creator to view this as anything less than false goddess worship, especially choosing her over God's choice of His son as the only mediator. Mary's blood was not shed for our sins. Look to her or any other of your thousands of false saints and false christs, and there will be no chance of forgiveness. God will not listen to any of your pleas for mercy or grace, and you will suffer your just deserts.

      I'm not sure what your agenda and motives are, but if you prefer a false gospel, and a false christ or savior, you may want to keep your false beliefs to yourself, rather than polluting God's Word, while claiming to be the correct interpreter of Scripture. You are an absolute con and whackjob, promoting heresies and false teachings in direct violation of Biblical truths, splattered with vicious lies and insinuations, in order to further your deep, dark deceptions, in hopes someone might accept your apostate cult as God's True Church. The lines between your ignorance, stupidity and nonsense, have become so blurred that it's hard to tell any difference.

      Apparently, when you have nothing else, you fall back on your usual mockery of God, your repetitive, compulsive lies as to my "issues", or your insinuations as to my mental state, FDS. Your ignorance, stupidity and nonsense is on full display, you mocking, lying creep.

  68. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 148AM:

    Better luck moving on? We get in the fourth paragraph a reference to the rosary as being “the epitome of the whole Gospel”. ‘Dan’ merely doth declare and denounce and rant this to be “utter blasphemy!” – which a) does nothing to establish the alleged divinity of Mary and b) can surely qualify as such an epitome when we take the various sets of Mysteries around which the rosary is formulated into account: all the major elements of the Christian Message are there.

    As to how by any stretch ‘Dan’s assertion that the Gospels “don’t show [Mary] in a very good light” can be taken as anything but ranting whackery is anybody’s guess. Does the Annunciation by the Archangel and her overshadowing by the Holy Spirit ring any bells? (Not to ‘Dan’, who is frequently visited by those apparitions in his bathroom mirror.)

    On then to the fifth paragraph, where ‘Dan’ tries to evade the colossal problem for his cartoon (i.e. that nowhere does the Catechism use the term “worship” – which would be vital to his project here) by merely claiming that the Church has simply not-used the word “worship” but for all practical purposes does worship Mary. Thus that the absence of evidence is itself evidence of a cover-up … and does that sound familiar?

  69. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 148AM:

    And on and on. But at the end, there is nothing that here that establishes that Mary is “falsely worshipped as Divine Goddess” by Catholics.

    Nor was Mary “crowned Mother of God”; she was – back to the Annunciation again – rather specifically Chosen by God to be the Mother of Christ (Who is God). The Church merely acknowledges that stupendous and utterly extraordinary factual reality.

    Nor – for that matter – is there any logical connection whatsoever between Mary the human specially Chosen by God to be the Mother of Christ and Mary therefore being “the Creator”.

    Thus ‘Dan’s pearl-clutching screech of “Blasphemy!” (scream-caps omitted) does nothing but reveal him in all his fundie whackness.

    And he has achieved nothing of what he claimed he was going to do at the outset of his comment here.

  70. Publion says:

    In order for ‘Dan’s bit in the comment of the 6th at 159AM to hold water, we would – had you been waitingggg forrrr itttttttt? – have to assume his presumption that Mary is “a false goddess”. And that’s clearly not the case.

    The Presidents place a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Is there any “worship” involved in that act of respect and honor?

    People place flowers on the graves of loved ones or other deceased. Is there any “worship” involved in that act of respect and honor and devotion?

    And ‘Dan’ concludes with more epithet. He is desperately trying to establish my (and Catholics’) “childish, stupid” acts that will demonstrate “your full blown ignorance”. He actually pulls the lanyard while standing in front of the muzzle and damages only himself. It’s actually rather a Keystone Cops type of theological and religious argumentation.

  71. Publion says:

    On the 6th at 210AM ‘Dan’ huffs that “humility would never demand others refer to them with a title”. Yet it is only ‘Dan’ who styles himself (or Himself) with that congeries of honorifics he (or He) so often deploys here.

    And who else is ‘demanding’ to be referred to “with a title”?

    As for the “fathers” bit, we have been over that before – and we recall that ‘Dan’ chose not to address the numerous Scriptural references that undermine his cartoon in this regard.

  72. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 224AM:

    Here he claims that the Church is “still prosecuting cases in house whenever possible, and keeping the truth from proper authorities”.

    First, the Instruction dates from 1962 and – as I said – was superseded in 2002.

    Second, not even the 1962 Instruction prohibited bishops from contacting the police. And current practice is to inform the police of an allegation even before instituting formal Church investigations.

    ‘Dan’ needs to update his 3×5 pile. Although factuality was never a criterion for any bit to be included in the pile.

    Then a juvenile word-play on animals and Kangaroo Courts.

    ‘Dan’ has – in a marvelous irony – found himself in quite a bit of legal trouble for what he has done to children.

  73. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 234AM:

    Here he claims to have “read the long-winded edict” before and again. Readers may consider the reliability of that claim as they will.

    Complex and thorough writing seems to put him off, if not also confound and confuse him. Those Faxes From The Beyond must be written in very very simple sentences indeed.

    And more juvenile wordplay on animals and so forth.

  74. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 352AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ makes more additions to his schoolyard story: he was – doncha see? – merely closing a gate that had “mistakingly” been left open. Yet he had been saying things (he claimed before that he was “delivering a beautiful prophecy”) and that’s the part he now leaves out. This time around, he was just doing his civic duty and was then sorely bethumped and set-upon by … and so on and so forth.

    But he then quickly moves on to an irrelevant riff on child-abductions from schoolyards and so on and so forth.

  75. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 352AM:

    And then he moves on to the bit about “you all knowing more than me”. He huffily dons the Wig of Science and doth declaim that he will “be waiting for some evidence to that”. Clearly he is not clear on the concept of evidence, and doesn’t know it when he sees it.

    Anyway, he continues, he “could care less” about “worldly knowledge”. Myah-myah to everybody then.

    I would say we haven’t even seen any Scriptural knowledge from him, and that’s supposed to be his specially chosen métier.

    Then more from his pericope pile that are to be shoe-horned into the purpose of making him seem the possessor of the only real knowledge, i.e. what his indenture to his FDS tells him in the bathroom mirror.

    And then – yet again – that if he has demonstrated a rather vivid and disconcerting tendency to throw mud, well … that’s just because people throw mud at him (by – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – not buying his stuff).

    Alas – what’s a self-declared prophet to do when people don’t buy his stuff and instead think he’s rather a bit off?

  76. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 417AM:

    He doth merely declare and assert that all the various bits about himself and his mental infelicities “are totally wrong”. We have his word for that. Does he expect this bit to work here?

    They’re all “lies and insinuations”. No, they’re pretty solid inductions from the material he’s presented.

    Apparently he’s under the impression that if those points are repeated often enough, then people will – out of a certain conceptual laxity or laziness – come to accept them. I would say that his own material will move people in that direction, sooner or later, and with greater or lesser degrees of reluctance.

    And the only “Hell” we have been introduced to here is the one in which ‘Dan’ and his FDS dwell.

  77. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 427AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will try on the Wig of Evidentiary Integrity: he’s got no problem with being ‘doubted’ – doncha see? – but it’s just that he doesn’t like being ‘lied’ about.

    But if you don’t go along with ‘Dan’s stuff, and consider far more convincing alternatives, then you – along with the ever-expanding list of others who have done the same – are merely lying about him out of “ignorance and stupidity” … doncha see that?

    It’s all very clear to ‘Dan’.

    That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

  78. Dan says:

    The rest of your ignorance and stupidity was not worth responding to.

  79. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    On March 30, 2017 at 12:09 am Dan reveals more about himself. He admits that he is no angel. This admission need not have been made but Dan, in an effort to toss more mud at the Catholic church by making a claim that no Catholic has made, tries to excuse his behavior by labeling his targets of the very thing he claims to be. Ironically Dan places himself on equal footing with those he insists are a group of lying perverts and pedophiles. But it’s all right for Dan not to be an angel despite being appointed by God to be his prophetic servant because Dan just knows so much about the Catholic Church and it being a cult. Dan could fill a book with what he doesn’t know and his attempt to take apart the Catholic Churches teaching on the role of Mary on April 6, 2017 at 1:48 am is evidence of how much he doesn’t know. To Dan, it doesn’t matter what the teaching says because he knows it’s all just lies. So, since the Church is made up of “sheep in wolves clothing” and are a “bunch of liars” then Dan will excuse himself for not being an Angel and all of Dan’s lies are perfectly fine as well. Follow Dan’s exchanges throughout this website and you will see a pattern where Dan will label anyone who challenges him a douchbag, (March 27, 2017 at 9:50 pm ) lame jackass, (March 30, 2017 at 12:47 am ) “twisting, greasy, sleazy, oily, irrelevant, obnoxious, pretentious, little nurd dweeb weasel” (November 24, 2015 at 9:27 pm ) while none of those who are challenging Dan have ever used derogatory terms in their exchange and you can easily come to the conclusion that Dan has been the aggressor and the liar in all of his legal issues.

    • Dan says:

      Human beings are not angels. Go take a look at your false idols of angels in your churches, and you will see that they have wings. Humans do not have wings. And that's just plain stupid to claim that I'm "on equal footing" with "lying perverts and pedophiles." What's really ironic, is you're crying about being called names, and yet you display as much ignorance and stupidity as your mentor, publiar.

      First off, the quote was "sick, lying douchebags". You state, "none of those who are challenging Dan have ever used derogatory terms in their exchange." Are you serious? I've been called deranged, FDS (fixed delusional system), and all types of other insults about my mental state. The slew of lies from both of you, including harrassing, accosting, threatening and haranguing children. Add to that you're new, stupid insinuation, that I'm out there with a bullhorn, when even the signs weren't brought out until thugs they threatened, beat or screamed obscenities in my face. On top of that, mocking myself, my beliefs and my God, Savior and Holy Spirit, with terms like "speshull deputy dog of God, Faxes from Beyond" and the blasphemy that I'm the third person of the Trinity, in "my bathroom mirror." Todays comparing "God's Word" to some stupidity about a "Ouiji board".

      You think that his and your compulsive lies and what I just quoted is not derogatory. Why don't you lying creeps get yourself a life, and quit putting the blame on innocent people, all because you think things are plausible, possible or probable. They're just outright lies, coming from the cult of Satan, father of all lies and liars. When you stop assuming falsehoods, than I'll stop the name calling. Until then, every derogatory word was fitting for compulsive liars. That's something you may find hard to understand, being a blatant liar, it's called telling the truth. You guys are a bunch of biased, bigoted, lying creeps. Get used to it.

      I don't have the time to waste on the rest of your ignorance tonite. I'll give some thought to whether I'll bother to respond to you tomorrow.  servant of the Almighty


  80. Publion says:

    Whatever is ‘Dan’ to do? So many of the chunks he has gleaned from the Dummy’s Guide To Fundie Bible Bits Against Kathliks don’t seem to be working they way the cartoon wants them to.

    On the 7th at 323AM he quotes from Number 969 of the Catechism … but neglecting all the parts that don’t fit his cartoon:

    First, the text of 969 explains that Mary’s role in Christianity is based “in the order of grace” (i.e. spiritually and Providentially, and not biologically) upon “the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross”. Her position thus is precisely based upon her actions as the human being she was (and remains) and thus precisely not upon any divinity she is alleged to possess.

    Second, the Catechism’s title of “Helper” occurs after the text’s statement that “by her manifold intercession [she] continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation”. Thus – to repeat from one of my comments yesterday – she is ‘helping’ humans; she is not ‘helping’ Jesus (Who is divine and doesn’t – so to speak – need the help).

    • Dan says:

      Now I've been accused of having "gleaned from the Dummy's Guide to Fundie Bible Bits Against Kathliks…" I was quoting, as the publiar noted, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not aware that it's considered the "Dummy's Guide to Fundie Bible Bits Against Kathliks", but I must say that sounds appropriate. So whenever we see anyone use "Dummy Guide" for short, we'll understand they're talking about the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I guess the fact that much of the teaching is based on catholic tradition, superseding Biblical teaching and thought, would lead many to consider the CCC a "Dummy Guide", seeing that there's at least one Dummy that thinks it's Biblical truth. I wouldn't want to embarass or expose who, so I'll just use his nickname, peewee. I also love the insistence as to his not mocking God, but plain as day, now he's even mocking the Bible and God's Inspired Word. "None so blind, as those who refuse to see."

      His claim as to "Humans feel more at ease in the presence of the maternal", may be true for a momma's boy, or priests that wear lacy dresses and like being called Mary. I'm sure God has no problem with catholics changing the meaning of His Word, so grown perverts will feel more at ease, because their sweet false goddess won't be so apt to judge them harshly for being pedophiles and excusing creeps. Hypocritical, deceiving dummies. The rest of his posts, April 7, is just more jibberish he's gleaned from the Dummy Guide (CCC), so there's not much point in my responding to the same, repeated stupidity and ignorance.

      I would like to end with a question, "If priests would prefer the maternal, then why didn't they sleep with their mother, instead of raping innocent little boys?" If you could have convinced them to sleep with their dead, maternal "Queen of Heaven" statues, then none of this mess would have come upon your apostate cult.  servant of the Just God and His Only Mediator

      P.S. In your last post today, April 7 @ 1:22pm, you must have been referring to me being sly as a fox and wise as an owl. Thanks for the compliment, Porky. Oink, Oink, back at cha!

  81. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 323AM:

    Why would humans need her intercession and ‘help’? First, because a) life is so challenging and complex. This profound existential human problem is evaded by those who solve it for themselves by essential engaging in the idolatry of Bibliolatry, i.e. the erection of the Bible into – not to put too fine a point on it – an idol.

    You simply have to open it (in an English version, of course) and – presto! – you have your ‘answer’. You need know nothing at all about the complicated evolution of the Biblical texts over millennia, the English translation of which stands at the very end of a long and complicated line of the texts’ historical existence. The Bible for such types becomes, in effect, a compendium of one’s preferred cartoons.

    And anybody so inclined can thus declare himself a ‘prophet’ or a ‘servant’ or what-have-you.

    • Dan says:

      I understand the accusations of catholic idol-worshippers, claiming that anyone leaning on the Word of God is "engaging in the idolatry of Bibliolatry, i.e. the erection of the Bible into – not to put too fine a point on it – an idol." Take it from lying idolators to point the finger at one of God's true followers.

      I never made a Bible, like catholics have made all sorts of statues and icons to idolize. I don't bow down to Bibles, pray to Bibles, kiss the Bible, burn incense and light candles to Bibles, or stroke the Bible. I bow down and worship at the feet of my Creator, and find my eternal salvation through His Son, Jesus, the one and only way to the Father. "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."  John 4:6

      Are you willing to dispute Christ's own words and continue with your ignorance, that there's some other way or that God needs false gods or goddesses, in order to bring His chosen to Him? Catholics have created such a multitude of false christs and crooked paths to God the Father, confusing lost sheep with their long-winded, false explanations and misinterpretations, that Bible ignorant followers will buy their nonsense, and follow like sheep being led to slaughter. You false teachers should be ashamed of your lies and ignorance. You will pay for your false messages and heresies.   servant of Christ

  82. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 323AM:

    Second, because in her role Mary demonstrates the vital role of maternity in human life and existence, as was intended by God when He Created humans in His Image. Humans simply feel more at ease in the presence of the maternal.

    Very long before those paintings of Jesus as a ‘brother’ became popular, there was Jesus as the awesome and awe-full Pantocrator, the Risen God-and-Man. A sinner would no more feel utterly at ease approaching the Throne of such a God than a dreck-smudged peasant would feel utterly at ease entering unbidden the Throne-Room of the Emperor in Byzantium or Rome looking for a favor or some consolation.

    The Jesus-as-Shepherd pictures have their place, but they do contain the off-putting implication that humans should be like sheep; the Jesus-with-children pictures are nice, but contain the unhelpful implication that humans need not struggle through to maturity and greater authenticity with the help and guidance of God’s grace and can instead remain comfortably  childish for their entire lives.

    Mary, however, demonstrates the potential inherent in a human life that has accepted God’s grace and Providential plan, come – as they say – hell or high-water.

  83. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 323AM:

    And thus ‘Dan’s far-too-easy fall-back to “God’s word” reflects the simplistic fundie effort to evade the Bible’s challenges by turning it into a bulkier and heavier form of Ouija board.

  84. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 252AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will simply look up “intermediary” in his Dummy Guide and toss up a bunch of pericopes.

    And does he bother to explain them? Nope. He probably could no more provide an explication of his selected pericopes than that cow could proffer an appreciation of a work of art in the Louvre.

    And – as so very often – he creates something I didn’t say in order to smooth the path of his cartoons: I said of the so-called Pastoral Letters (i.e. First and Second Timothy and Titus) that their authorship was questioned by a number of scholars, but that they were still held to be “authoritative”.

    Thus there is no basis for implying that I would find the Letter to the Hebrews “questionable”. It is in the canon of the Bible, after all.

    • Dan says:

      It's plain english, that even a pair-of-dopes could understand. Wasn't aware you were in need of an explanation. Guess you're dumber than a pair-of-dopes, but I bet you can oink louder than that cow at the Louvre.

  85. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 252AM:

    What then would be the point relevant to the matters at hand which these pericopes might support?

    That Jesus brought a new “covenant”? Who here has ever doubted or questioned that?

    That He is “the mediator of a new covenant”? Who here has ever doubted or questioned that? But Mary is not held to be equally “the mediator of a new covenant”; rather, Mary is the mediator (Mediatrix, in the ancient Latin) between humans and that ultimate and sole “[M]ediator of a new covenant”.

    Mary’s role is both human and ancillary and subordinate to Christ’s.

    And the third pericope simply repeats that “mediator of a new covenant” point discussed in the prior paragraphs immediately above here.

  86. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 252AM:

    Moving to the next paragraph, and beyond the already-treated “questionable” nature of Hebrews, ‘Dan’ posits the mere assertion that the Church’s awareness of the believers’ need for a friend-at-Court to be “false traditions rather than God’s Holy Inspired Word”.

    That’s a ‘Dan’ opinion, supported no doubt by his Dummy Guide, but readers may judge whether the Church was – under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit – wrong to infer both from below (believers seemed greatly and constructively to need it) and from above (Mary’s role – from the Annunciation onwards – demonstrated the extraordinary favor of God and the extraordinary potential of a human life aligned to God’s grace and Providence) that Mary was destined by God’s Will and Providence to continue to play a profound and vital role in the life of Christians and of the Church.

    As to who are and aren’t “false Christians”, readers may consider the Church and then consider  ‘Dan’ with his Dummy Guide and bathroom mirror and self-declared “secret” and speshull role … and decide as they will.

  87. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 252AM:

    And then – sublimely – ‘Dan’ doth inform us that we are not to “expect the Creator to think” … whatever ‘Dan’ claims to secretly and speshully know about what God thinks and doesn’t think.

    And ‘Dan’s point about Jesus being the only mediator because He shed His blood is obviated by the points I raised in a prior comment in this sequence: Jesus is the only Mediator of the New Covenant; Mary is a Mediator not of that Covenant but between humans and that Mediator of the New Covenant.

    ‘Dan”s organizational chart of Heaven needs some work in the accuracy department.

  88. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 252AM:

    But all of his foregoing stuff now provides a platform (of sand) for ‘Dan’ to deliver himself (or Himself) of his scheduled diatribe, once again casting himself (or Himself) in the role of the Truthy and Gutsy Proclaimer of God’s Word and so on and so forth.

    I like the Keystone Cops better: they did all those whacky things, but they didn’t deliver whacky lectures; they let their actions speak for themselves, as ‘Dan’s so often have.

    And ‘telling any difference’ between things is something ‘Dan’ is clearly not good at; at least not in reality, although he is master of that inner swamp-hell wherein he and his FDS and his Dummy Guide and his bathroom mirror and its denizens do dwell.

    And where in any of this do I “mock God”. ‘Dan’ is becoming a laugh-riot, but – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘Dan’ is not God. Or did we miss something “in the Bible” on that score?

  89. Publion says:

    On the 7th at 308AM ‘Dan’ – and perhaps wisely – doth sniff huffily that he doth see no value in “responding to” any of the other points on the table.

    I disagree. There is great value for a number of readers who otherwise might never encounter ‘Dan’s particular type of life-form on the hoof, in the wild, in its natural conceptual habitat. He is the closest thing to the old “Wild Kingdom” show that one might encounter.

  90. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    Imagine yourself leaving Mass on a Sunday morning and outside of the Church there is Dan standing alone with signs in one hand and possibly a bullhorn in the other. The bullhorn is a common tool of the fundie streetpreacher used to shout over any objections to their presence. Most parishioners will head for their car and avoid any confrontation with the obnoxious “protester”. Others may try to confront the annoyance in hopes of getting him to leave while others may try to engage him on his anti-Catholic rhetoric. Anyone who has encountered the streetpreacher fundie knows that the first course of action is the best option and to ignore the spectacle and head for home. We get a glimpse of how an exchange would go with Dan on April 7, 2017 at 2:52 am.

    Dan speaks for the Creator and any opinion that Dan holds ie, that devotion to Mary as anything less than false goddess worship, is equivalent with the mind of God. What Dan thinks and what Dan knows are miles apart. When you show Dan that Catholics do not worship Mary in the way that Dan accuses Catholics of worshiping Mary he will ignore what is right in front of him and accuse you of lying despite evidence to the contrary. These accusations will certainly be filled with derogatory terms. The difference to an exchange with Dan on the internet and Dan in person is that Dan cannot shout you down on the internet. In person, Dan can tell the police anything he wants because, despite all the witnesses to contradict Dan’s story, Dan doesn’t have his words in writing for the police to see so Dan can accuse all the witnesses of lying despite the 6 incarcerations and numerous mental evaluations or the wild number of 135 police visits. Dan tries that same tactic on this website but his words are right up where he left them for all to see, read and evaluate. This has been done and the obviouse conclusion is that Dan is no victim.

    • Dan says:

      God says you shouldn't even make statues, let alone bow down to them, pray to them, kiss their feet, burn incense and light candles to them, or stroke them. They are dead, and since you catholics do all of the above, makes you idolators who worship dead and false gods and goddesses. Make all the excuses you like and it still changes nothing. You make and worship death. Come out of the darkness and into God's marvelous light, or live with your lies and sin.  servant


  91. malcolm harris says:

    Once heard of an old Greek saying…. "Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad". The latest revelation about disgraced D.A.Seth Williams is this … he revealed his true colors nine years ago, even before he was elected. A judge in an Election Court found Seth had lodged a false statement about his financial dealings. The judge ruled that Williams be struck off the ballot. But incredibly this was a overturned by a subsequent appeal and Williams contested, and won the election for D.A,  Speaking as a former auditor I am amazed that so many people are blind to evidence of a person's true character. Reckon that some judges are activists…perhaps they were thinking along the lines of helping the African-American cause?. Yeah right… today we have groups like "Black Lives Matter" demonstrating outside Seth's office… demanding he resign?. I am reminded of another old saying…."The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

  92. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the most recent batch in the order they appear on the site.

    On the 8th at 1239AM ‘Dan’ once again deploys his grossly over-expansive definition of “idols” in his reference to statues of angels in Catholic churches. An “idol” is worshipped as a god; statues of angels – like statues of Mary and the saints and even Jesus – are not worshipped as gods. Rather, they are meant to remind us of the existence and presence of heavenly (though not necessarily divine) beings.

    To repeat: for a statue to be properly an “idol” the statue itself would have to be worshipped as a god. Otherwise, it is just a statue. That makes a hash of ‘Dan’s Dummy-Guide cartoon, but that cartoon was a hash to begin with.

    Nor does the fact that angels have wings (and thus demonstrate that angels are not human) automatically and necessarily imply that angels are gods. They are non-physical or spiritual entities, but they too are creatures and are not themselves gods.

    Nor, from an ontological point of view, is ‘Jimmy Mitchell’ wrong to point out that in claiming to be human ‘Dan’ has put himself on the same level as “lying perverts and pedophiles”. ‘Dan’s is a human; all other sinful humans are humans.

  93. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1239AM:

    On then to the second paragraph where ‘Dan’ has scheduled himself for a victim-turn in this performance and thus would have us equate “sick, lying douchebags” (not the worst example of his queasily repellent juvenile epithets, but it will do) with the various characterizations of his assorted mental infelicities. That won’t work since clearly “douchebags” cannot be based in any literal reality and “lying” and “sick” remain to be demonstrated; at this point, they remain just another ‘Dan’-toss onto the screen.

    As for his having an FDS, that is not an epithet. That is intended to be an accurate description of his infelicities, and has been explicated at great length from ‘Dan’s own material. If he wishes to demonstrate how any reader here is a “douchebag” with the same level of analysis, he is welcome to give it a try.

    And more riffing, then, on the usual stuff about how it’s all “lies” (put together by a large number of people (some of them in official legal capacities) – online and in actual circumstances – who have been exposed to his stories and various claims and have concluded otherwise all on their own).

    And yet again we are left wondering: if the “signs weren’t brought out until thugs threatened” him, then what was he doing that – if his story is to be believed – caused so many people to call the police? His self-serving excuse here merely draws even more attention to his actions even without any “signs”.

  94. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1239AM:

    And again the sly conflation of ‘Dan’s stuff with God’s, and so on and so forth. To take issue with ‘Dan’s stuff is not to take issue with God’s, and ‘Dan’ – to repeat – is not so closely equated with God that to mock ‘Dan’ is to mock ‘God’. Or did we miss something “in the Bible” that establishes ‘Dan’s concurrent divinity?

    And the only thing approaching “blasphemy” here is ‘Dan’s claim that to mock him is to mock God, thus equating himself – again – with God. (He is familiar by now – I trust – with the Transitive Principle in logic.)

    Nor did I compare the Bible to a Ouija board”. I characterized ‘Dan’s and many fundies’ use of the Bible as reducing the Bible to nothing more than a Ouija board. There is a difference there that is visible even in plain simple English.

  95. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1239AM:

    And then – in another fine and pitch-perfect demonstration of clinical projection – ‘Dan’s tries to make others here out to be “compulsive liars” when it is actually he himself (or He Himself) who is the compulsive purveyor of manipulative untruths, in the service of that FDS that is his only true and real master.

    As is evidenced by his immediately-following claim that he is just one of the “innocent people”; yet he has a police, court and psychiatric file longer and larger than most human beings (the police called “135” times).

    He finds all that “hard to understand”, no doubt. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

    And then he tries to lay a smokescreen to get off the stage: clutching his pearls he doth declare that he doesn’t “have the time to waste on the rest of your ignorance tonight”. He doesn’t dare face the rest of the points made.

  96. Publion says:

    On then to Dan’s of the 7th at 1121PM:

    Here he tries the juvenile gambit of conflating the Dummy’s Guide to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not even cutesy; but revealing, as so very often.

    And the rest of that paragraph riffs on his initial juvenile bit.

    Then he tries to tackle the profound existential fact that humans have a deep attraction-to and need-for the maternal. That would only be true – he essays the juvenile ‘comeback’ – for a “momma’s boy, or priests that wear lacy dresses and like being called Mary”. We are dealing not only with an untutored mind and manipulatively deceitful character, but also with an unripe and immature capacity to approach the realities of human beings. (Small wonder, then, that he finds his own constructed cartoon-world more congenial.)

    But there’s also a sly method to the madness here: all of this riffing along these lines gives him the opportunity to evade the problems in his material raised in my April 7th posts: “The rest of [my] posts, April 7, is just more gibberish” so “there’s not much point” in ‘Dan’s responding. As I said, an FDS creates a fundamental derangement, but it doesn’t neutralize the surface skills of an unripe, sly, and deceitful mind and character.

  97. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on Dan’s of the 7th at 1121PM:

    Having slyly evaded the task of dealing with the uncongenial points I raised, ‘Dan’ can then allow himself back onto center stage to “end with a question” (the Wig of Honest Questioning perched atop his head).

    That “question” – posed in full quotation marks – is so repellently unripe that it need not be repeated and readers can look at it for themselves.

    First, it is all human beings that are attracted to the “maternal”, not “priests”. ‘Dan’ still hasn’t come to grips with that profound human existential reality.

    Second, very few priests have been accused of “raping little boys” – although ‘Dan’ is, as always, quite taken with the thought. That act would appear to be a major conceptual attraction for him.

    And the riff proceeds from the queasily repellent to the utterly disturbing – both logically and conceptually – with the bit about “sleeping with statues” and so on.

    Would one, simply on hearing stuff like this from somebody standing not far away, be moved to dial 911?

    And as for his “P.S.”, he clearly attempts to impose on my comment a meaning more congenial to his cartoon, but that wasn’t there in the text itself (and does that sound familiar?): writing that comment, I was thinking more of a hyena, and a rabid one if such afflicted creatures exist.

  98. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 141PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ claims to “understand” something, which can reliably be taken by readers as a warning that he is about to leap off the rails.

    Yes, he’s quickly off with the now-unsupportable “catholic idol-worshippers”.

    Yes, he can see how Catholic “lying idolators” would try to “point the finger” of idolatry at – had you been waitinggggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – “one of God’s true followers”. This is where a nice, tight FDS will take you.

    That being said, ‘Dan’s then merely asserts that he has “never made a Bible … to idolize”. Nobody ever suggested ‘Dan’ made the Bible (whether he has reduced the Bible to a pile of 3x5s with pericopes that he thinks are supportive of his cartoons or made a paste-board Bible consisting of nothing but such quotes  … is another question altogether).

    But that gives him a chance to riff on, although ‘kissing the Bible’ is something far more often seen by public servants or witnesses at court trials. Most of the rest of the stuff his afflicted mind throws up here are also not done by Catholics. But why would ‘Dan’ let reality interfere when he is on a ‘Dan’-roll?

  99. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 141PM:

    The relevance of the pericope from John is dubious here, unless one wants to buy ‘Dan’s necessary presumption that Catholic worship the Bible now.

    And unless one wants to buy Dan’s equally necessary presumption that ‘Dan’s dreck is somehow a pretty good approximation of what Jesus was speaking about. But then, ‘Dan’ has just recently declared himself “one of God’s true followers” … no doubt he was assured of that during a séance with the committee in the bathroom mirror.

    The further bits in the rant – about “false christs” and so on, simply carry things further into the whackness.

  100. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1146PM:

    Here, ‘Dan’ tries to excuse himself for not explaining his selected pericopes by merely saying that they were in “plain english” and it’s not his fault if he assumed that anyone could see the (meaning his) point. But as I noted in my comment of April 7th at 118PM, the pericopes themselves – while being written in plain English – do not at all support the cartoon stuff that ‘Dan’ apparently sees in them.

    But ‘Dan’s not really about understanding the Bible; he’s all about making excuses for himself.

  101. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1257AM:

    Prescinding from Whether the Bible in the original languages actually says that one shouldn’t make “statues”, there remains the fact that for something to be a “false god” it has to be worshipped as a god.

    Thus – further repeating points I have made above – since Catholics do not worship any statues (even of Jesus or God the Father or the Holy Spirit – then his pericope fails.

    He tries to get around this by conflating gestures of respect and reverence with “worship” but that won’t work since respect and reverence don’t equate to worship.

    But if you follow the paragraph/comment through to its conclusion, you get a nice clear picture of how ‘Dan’s logic works (or – actually – doesn’t).

    And as if that weren’t enough, ‘Dan’ apparently considers himself a living example of what it means to live “in God’s marvelous light”. That’s what a nice, tight FDS will get you.

  102. Barry O says:

    Dan, it appears your vagina has dried out.