Jury Exonerates Falsely Accused Priest and Archdiocese of St. Louis in Bogus Abuse Claims; Local Media Can’t Stand It

Rev. Joseph Jiang

Vindicated AGAIN: A jury swiftly exonerates falsely accused priest Rev. Xiu Hui 'Joseph' Jiang

A civil jury in Missouri took merely minutes to decide what many of us have already known for a long time: that Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and the Archdiocese of St. Louis are completely innocent of wild charges related to sex abuse of a teenage girl.

To illustrate how clear it was to the jury that the charges against Rev. Jiang were ridiculous: The jury was given the case at 12:30pm. And even with the staggering anti-Catholic atmosphere in the St. Louis area, and even though the trial's arguments and testimony took a full two weeks, the jury returned its exonerating verdict by 3pm, and that included a lunch break.

More lunacy from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Joel Currier : St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Crappy journalism:
Joel Currier of the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Yet if one were to get their information from the local St. Louis Post-Dispatch – who has a well-established track record of animus against the Catholic Church – a reader missing the headline would barely even understand that a jury had cleared Fr. Jiang.

The Post-Dispatch's Joel Currier – whose rottenness in reporting the Catholic Church abuse story needs to be noted – spent much of his article about the jury's exoneration actually regurgitating the crazy accusations against the innocent priest that a jury had already determined were phony.

In truth, Currier neglected a number of very important facts in the case of Fr. Jiang:

  • the teenage accuser originally did not even support suing Fr. Jiang in the first place;
  • law enforcement dropped charges against Fr. Jiang after determining the case was completely bogus, a fact which Currier relegated to the very last sentence of his warped article;
  • a federal judge ruled last August that the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP defamed Fr. Jiang by falsely accusing him of being a pedophile and ordered that Jiang be compensated for his legal expenses;
  • the accuser was represented by tort lawyer Ken Chackes, a close collaborator and financial supporter of SNAP;
  • the accuser wildly claimed that the abuse somehow happened in a family room at the very same time that seven other family members were present;
  • the accuser never suffered from "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" as claimed.

In truth, this entire case stunk from its very beginning. Bravo to Fr. Jiang for fighting back against his false accusers and the haters at SNAP.

It should also be noted that while media outlets all across Missouri went berserk years ago trumpeting the bogus accusations against Fr. Jiang far and wide, the same media has largely been mute in reporting the news of the jury's swift and clear decision exonerating the priest. Same as it ever was.

FINALLY, AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL PRIESTS: The lesson from the Fr. Jiang case is this: Never, ever, ever become too emotionally or personally involved with any family other than your own. It does not matter that you "baptized every member" and/or "officiated every wedding." We have seen this all too often. That family whom you thought were "like family" could become your worst nightmare. Don't say no one ever warned you. Remember:

"Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.
"But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts …" (Matthew 10:16-17a).

Comments

  1. Dan says:

    Glad to see someone get justice, and I'll be patiently waiting for God to give me justice, on Judgment Day. We won't question or assess whether Jiang was truly, "completely innocent", as others in this forum think they have the right to do, adding their nasty lies to destroy innocent victim's reputations. Thanks Dave for the Bible quote, but wonder how you can use that towards others, but fail to see how it applies to wolves in your church. You also may want to be careful about quoting the Bible. They'll start accusing you of being deranged fundie, having a fixed delusional disorder and plagued with mental infelicities.

    I also couldn't help but notice that you cut off the second half of Matthew 10:17.

    "But beware of people, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge [flog or beat] you in their synagogues [churches]." Sounds like Christ was warning us more to beware of members of false cults, handing you over to the courts and punishing you in their churches. Exactly how the cowards of your church, lying priests, nuns, cops and thugs, lied as an excuse to cause me trouble, threatened me several times, and one time beating me from behind, by four thugs who were much bigger than me. Real brave, holy, kind and godly people. Only difference was they did it outside their false temples, and yet still accused me of trespassing.

    I think it's time I take a break from the deception, slander and immature nonsense of this forum. I leave you with this prophecy my friend received today, if there are any in this forum who can appreciate God's Word.

    • Dan says:

      I came to you as your Father in heaven. But you don't want to accept Me as your Father. I came to you with My faith. But you don't want to accept My power of strength. I came to you with My hope. But you don't want to accept My hope, instead you would rather move backwards and downwards in life. I came to you with My love. But you don't want to accept My love, you would rather live with hatred in your heart. I came to you with My peace. But you don't want to accept My peace, you just want to keep on fighting and causing wars, in this unforgiving world. I came to you with My Word. But you don't want to accept My Word. WHY?

      "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves."  Matthew 7:15  They'll show themselves as so sweet and gentle, disguising the evil that dwells within, deceptive, treacherous liars, children of their father, Satan.   servant

    • Lucy says:

      Dan

      You are obviously a fake and a hater. Talking to you is usless. We will pray for you. Feel the sting.

  2. malcolm harris says:

    Dave has reminded us of the words of Jesus, "Behold I am sending you out to be like sheep amongst wolves, so be as shrewd as serpents and as simple as doves……".  The part that we often fail to take on board is the caution… "so be as shrewd as serpents".   To my mind shrewdness would mean identifying the particular wolves who orchestrated the attack.  And Dave used the word rottenness in describing the media's involvement. Without any doubt there is a witch-hunt due to a  complicit media. And incidentally, in Missouri,  there are two newspapers now being sued by Fr. Kenneth Kaucheck… for malicious libel.  This is like a warning shot aimed at the wolves. So  Fr. 'Joseph' Jiang and his Bishop should now sue the St. Louis newspaper…. for libel… and discrimination, on the basis of a citizen's race and religion.  Shrewdness here might mean keeping a counterattack going against the wolves.

  3. malcolm harris says:

    Should have said Michigan, not Missouri, when referring to Fr. Kenneth Kaucheck….sorry.

  4. Publion says:

    Well, we now get to observer a genre performance that hasn’t been seen around here for a while, but should be familiar to longtime readers: the pearl-clutching ‘last concert’ departure of this or that Abusenik performer.

    As usual we can expect that this ‘farewell tour’ will provide the platform for a final self-serving effort to spin the departee’s performances in just the way he would like to be remembered, regardless of that spin’s incongruity with any rational assessment of the actual material performed over time here.

    There will be a succession of Wigs, sometimes precariously perched one on top of another or suddenly changed in the middle of the performance as if before our very eyes.

    Thus the curtain rises now on ‘Dan’s on the 10th at 712PM.

  5. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:

    He opens with the Wig of Sober and Mature Evaluation, piously intoning that (with the results of Fr. Jiang’s jury trial) he is “glad to see someone getting justice”. A nice opening, but this is the ‘Dan’-verse and the experienced reader will wait.

    But won’t have to wait for long because instantly thereafter ‘Dan’ claps on the general Wig of the ‘Dan’-verse: using the pious bleat merely as a pretextual opening, he quickly launches into how he will “be patiently waiting” for “God” to “give [‘Dan’] justice” … although, in the sly way of an FDS, he doesn’t expect that outcome until everything is beyond examination or assessment or ‘proof’, i.e. “on Judgment Day”.  Thus, the ‘Dan’-verse will be able to roll on and on.

  6. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:

    Then however – but who can be surprised? – ‘Dan’ quickly retracts whatever import his opening pious bleat might have held: “we” shall not “question or assess whether Jiang was truly, ‘completely innocent’”. Because – apparently – nobody has “the right” to do that; nobody has “the right” to take the jury results as definitive.

    One could take this point as holding some legitimacy, but ‘Dan’ himself – doncha see? – has long demonstrated “the right” to make broad and deep accusations against priests, the Church, and Catholicism on even far less definitive grounds than a jury-trial’s results. He can do this – doncha see? – because he has speshull knowledge and is God’s deputy-dawg. And that stuff overrides any piffling concern for evidence or rationality, which are merely forms of “worldly knowledge” anyway and the Bible says … and so on and so forth.

  7. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:

    Then – quickly – the Wig of Victimized Innocence: we all  know to whom ‘Dan’ refers with the pearl-clutching riff on “adding their nasty lies to destroy innocent victim’s reputations”.

    His grammar fails to keep up with his slyness here, however: in order to avoid seeming like he is referring to his most singular self, he avoids using any singular limiting adjective such as “an” to describe that “victim’s” … but without the singular limiting adjective there can only grammatically be plural victims and he should have said “victims’”, yet he actually did have his mind focused on himself and so he has kept the singular “victim’s”.

    Thus the twisty intricacies of a character far too sly for its mind’s capacities.

  8. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:

    Then an effort to somehow make it seem that on this site anyone who puts forward a Scriptural pericope will automatically be labeled a “fundie” and a “deranged fundie”.

    But that isn’t true at all. It’s not the mere deployment of a pericope that would engender such a classification. What engenders that classification is the fundie-type effort to use a Scriptural pericope as a weaponized tool of manipulation for fomenting one’s own purposes, rather than accepting the pericope in its integrity for its message.

    And what triggers the “deranged” bit is not any simple deployment of a Scriptural pericope but rather the proffering of a large body of material that clearly leads to the sense of “derangement”  strongly suggesting “a fixed delusional syndrome” and being “plagued with mental infelicities” – such as happened in ‘Dan’s case.

    Indeed, I would say that the greatest example of “blasphemy” on this site remains ‘Dan’s myriad efforts to shoehorn Scriptural pericopes into his own scare-visions for his own purposes.

  9. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:

    On then to a ‘final’ demonstration of ‘Dan’s Scriptural chops: he “couldn’t help but notice” (lah-de-dah) that DP’s article “cut off the second half of Matthew 10:17”.

    And DP did leave out the final clause of 10:17, i.e. “… and scourge you in their synagogues”.

    Now clearly, this pericope refers to Jewish places of worship, and that makes sense since in this early era of Christianity early Christians are seeking to distinguish themselves from the regnant Jewish religion of that time and place. It would clearly be irrelevant to any matters at hand here, and DP thus appropriately leaves it out (while noting through that “17a” notation that there is indeed some ‘b’ bit of the pericope that has been left out).

    And so what?

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:

    And here ‘Dan’ demonstrates his usual modus operandi, so familiar in fundie usage: ‘Dan’ merely and slyly equates “synagogues” with “churches” – thus opening the way for his usual rants and riffs about how he has encountered so many of his legal and psychiatric misadventures while seeking to bethump Catholics in or near their parish churches.

    And so – on the basis of that utterly gratuitous and self-serving presumption – ‘Dan’s cartoon can roll merrily along .. as it does for the rest of that paragraph.

    Which includes his now-familiar bit that all his problems have been caused merely and solely by being made the subject of ‘lies’ told by those whom he had accosted “as an excuse to cause [him] trouble”. That any of his own words and actions might have had anything to do with his extensive legal and psychiatric record is something ‘Dan’s indenture to his FDS cannot even begin to contemplate, let alone accept.

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

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:

    And – as an added pearl-clutchy touch – ‘Dan’ doth add here that the “thugs” were “much bigger than” he is … so he is, with a trendy nod to current excitements, the victim of bullying on top of everything else. He’s just a victim. And – as I said – he’s all about making excuses for himself that will blame others for his (notable and profound) whackeries.

    As I have said on the immediately prior thread, who – confronted with ‘Dan’ in full-blown ‘prophet’ mode – wouldn’t dial 911?

  12. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 712PM:

    All of which leads, then, to the Great Farewell Tour Announcement: he shall “take a break”.

    Because it’s all just “deception, slander and immature nonsense” in “this forum”.  Readers may judge as they will.

    But wait – there’s more. By amazing coincidence , his “friend” just happened to have “received today” – had you been waitingggggggggg forrrrrr itttttttttttttt? – a “prophecy”. (Does a prophecy-maker not make prophecies rather than receive them? Or is this another oh-so-convenient Fax From The Beyond?)

    But – we are assured – this “prophecy” is “God’s Word” (The content of these faxes apparently deserve capitalization as if they were themselves Scripture.)

  13. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s further Farewell message (the 10th at 731PM), which now gives us the text of the “Word”, which appears not to be anything from the text of Scripture at all.

    And this whole bit just happens – by amazing coincidence – to make it seem as if ‘Dan’ was bethumped not on the basis of his legal and psychiatric issues or the content of his material, but rather simply because he – like Jesus and all the actual Biblical prophets – was rejected on the basis of his – as it were – ‘message’.

    He’s not plagued with mental infelicities  – doncha see?; he’s just like Jesus is all.

    And in this bit ‘Dan’ self-servingly bleats about “love” and “peace” and against “hatred in [one’s] heart”. Readers can consider the content of ‘Dan’s myriad comments here and see how much “love” and “peace” they don’t find, and how much “hatred in [the] heart” they do find in his rants and epithets and accusations and stories and claims.

    So do we not see precisely in the whole of ‘Dan’s performance a “false prophet” who comes piously bleating “in sheep’s clothing” that really only serves to be “disguising” the whackery and ranting “that dwells within”, “deceptive and treacherous” … ?

  14. btlidia says:

    may I ask, who will pay tzhe moral end emotional damage caused by these false accusations?

    • James Robertson says:

      The false flagged SNAP will pay nothing. they will just evaporate like the church always planned them to.The church created SNAP to do exactly this. that all victims might be smeared by SNAP's false accusations.( I'm no longer interested in watching P and co. blow smoke and filling these comment sections with nonsense). Your church is criminal as are other religions. You are not alone there but yours is the only church to create a fake victims group to control us by "representing" not our needs but your church's needs. Fuck you P and SNAP and Fuck their inventor Tom Doyle O.P.!

  15. Dan says:

    So now we return, back to Cartoon Time, with more mocking ignorance, lying stupidity and insinuating nonsense. And inform the grammar police (pig), that I was speaking in the plural, in regards to all the innocent victim's reputations, your deceiving cult has destroyed. You've made your own mistakes in grammar, that none of us have pointed out, Mr. Know-It-All. [sic] No, you're sick! Just to annoy you, I may throw in a verse or prophecy now and then. servant of God

  16. Jimmy Mitchell says:

    Per Dan on April 10, 2017 at 7:12 pm he is “glad to see someone get justice” as long as that justice is given to Dan. Dan has received justice but is not happy with how that justice has been applied to his conduct and who can blame him. Having been arrested six times for doing the same thing again and again having not learned your lesson the first time must be frustrating. He is also not happy that his material has been questioned and doesn’t believe anyone has a right to assess his material unless you swallow Dan’s story that he has been a victim. As Publion has pointed out to Dan and the like, there are websites out there that are willing to swallow whatever story you put out there regarding the alleged abuse being claimed. This website is not the place for such stories to be taken as fact. The stories presented by those claiming to be a victim have been loaded with questionable material and when assessed have led to conclusions that don’t lead to where the story tellers wish the readers to be led. Dan prefers you buy his story and disregard all the red flags he himself has presented. There have been no nasty lies added to Dan’s story from the outside that have led to Dan’s reputation being ruined. No one knows who Dan really is so no need for Dan to be worried about his reputation being ruined. If Dan’s reputation in the real world has been ruined and his story, as he has presented on this website is true, then Dan is responsible for his reputation being tarnished. Apparently, Dan has been bitten enough times to have learned his lesson in the real world because he has decided to take his show on the internet where he is safe from incarceration. I am sure there are “hundreds” of people out there who are happy about that.

    • Dan says:

      Justice is only just if it produces truth. When it declares the liars of your deceiving cult, honest or trustworthy, then that's a disservice to all justice. You and your mentor, publyin', are a joke, but I ain't laughin'.

  17. Publion says:

    As regular readers may recall, there was another element to the Abusenik ‘farewell concert’ phenomenon: they come back.

    Thus ‘Dan’ not only returns (the 11th at 421PM) within a matter of hours after his farewell bleat, but he is clearly revealed to have been monitoring the site closely even after he had finished his final and farewell keystroke.

    And do we get any examples of “mocking ignorance, lying stupidity, and insinuating nonsense”? Not a bit. I don’t think this omission is attributable to “stupidity” on ‘Dan’s part; “lying” would be closer to it, and we can never forget that beneath the indenture to the FDS there remains a manipulative and deceitful character to begin with.

    After all, nobody with a Wig collection as big as that of the various types we have seen on this site and with a practiced capacity to slip from one Wig to another or to pile one on top of another … can really be committed to truth or – for that matter – reality.

  18. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 421PM:

    And he then tries to establish a charge without any evidence: I have made grammatical mistakes too, he whines. It’s just that  … “none of us” bothered to point them out, doncha see?

    First, if I made any such mistakes, anyone – including ‘Dan’ – had every right to point them out. If they existed and he merely refrained from pointing them out … how credible is that? Did he exercise such (uncharacteristic) restraint out of an abundance of politesse?

    Second, some grammatical errors are mere typos. Some, however, yield insight into the writer. That’s what I saw and still see in ‘Dan’s victims’/victim’s error.

    And then – the final juvenile fallback position – he “may throw in a verse or prophecy now and then” but “just to annoy”. So … he just puts up all this stuff just to “annoy” … ? So much for the serious work of a speshull ‘prophet’. ‘Dan’s just an unripe juvenile mentality who gets a kick throwing mud and plop and then claiming he’s a victim of “lies” and of being bethumped by bullies.

    • Dan says:

      Ridiculous, publiar. Prophecy, as I previously said, is for those who can "appreciate God's Word". That wouldn't include you. The fact that they annoy you gives me added pleasure. I far from put up "all this stuff just to annoy", as you insist on twisting whatever I say.  servant

  19. Publion says:

    I doubt that average folk often get the chance to a) observe these types and their material b) in a forum where they are put under sustained analysis.

    Certainly, the Abuseniks never expected such a thing to ever happen.  ‘Dan’ – more significant for his fundie ranting and his indenture to his FDS – was probably never rational enough to strategize sufficiently so as to expect or not-expect analysis. But neither of these types is happy with sustained analysis. They are a caricature form of vaudeville hoofers, content to do a turn on stage, get some applause and their next booking, and go back into the night whence they came and wherein they dwell.

    • Dan says:

      Your analogies are as big a joke as you. Apparently, you're content to remain in darkness, eternally. No comment to the rest of the garbage and lies.  servant

  20. Dan says:

    After Christ tears into religious hypocrites, warning them that "blasphemy [mocking] against the Spirit, will not be forgiven", calling them a "brood of vipers", and cursing their evil generation, this is how he treats his mother, your "Hail, Holy, Queen of Heaven".  Matt ch.12

    While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak to him. [Someone told him, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, asking to speak with you."] But he said in reply to the one who told him, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers? And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:46-50 (NAB)  Your catholic Bible quotation.

    Catholics, If you prefer to allow deceivers and lying hypocrites, tell you that they honor, venerate, adore, but never do they worship their false goddess, then Jesus leaving his mother out in the cold, will never be understood. This is the Word of God, and let no one brainwash you, that your teaching supersedes the Lord's Word. They deceive others, but truly are themselves deceived. Yeah! I'm back. If you don't stop, then I may never stop.   servant

     

  21. malcolm harris says:

    In the civil case, in St. Louis, the jury exonerated Rev. Joseph Jiang. The jury took less than three hours to decide the case was without real substance. The plaintiff (accuser) was represented by tortie Ken Chackles, a backer and collaborator of those bigots in SNAP.  Perhaps I am sinning against charity, but I would have liked to have seen the look on his greedy face when the jury announced their verdict. Hopefully the judge will make him look even sicker…. when costs are awarded against the plaintiff…. Ouch!

  22. Publion says:

    Going down the list as they appear on the screen:

    On the 12th at 1227PM – perhaps forgetting his own several farewell performances here and thinking that ‘Dan’s farewell tour was actually definitive – JR seeks to put his show on the road again.

    To recap its gist: 35 or so years ago the Church created SNAP / as a way of capturing the budding Stampede and save itself a lot of money  / using Fr. Tom Doyle as a foil, and some nuns who let SNAP use a building under their control and somehow participate in their non-profit status / but this plan always called-for SNAP to somehow disappear when the Church decided it was time for SNAP to go / and then several years later, with SNAP failing to catch on, the Church got noted tortie Jeff Anderson to make Barbara Blaine an offer by which SNAP would front for the torties in exchange for ‘donations’ made by torties around the nation; said ‘donations’ would come from the monies the torties got from the settlements they got from the Church / so all the major players in this plan, plus media, judges, and others innumerable and unknown, were tools of the Church and its plan / and then, within the past few years,  the Church decided SNAP had to go / so the Church got the now-exposed Billy Doe-Gallagher case going in Philly / with local Philly judges who would surely make a hash of the trial(s) / and then the Church got Ralph Cipriano to expose the Doe-Gallagher mess / and then the Church got SNAP to make “false accusations” against priests – and for Clohessy to admit it publicly in court / and then the Church got an ex-SNAP staffer to expose the apparent kickback scheme between SNAP and the torties / and then the Church got Fr. Jiang to bring his (successful) lawsuit / and then the Church got the Philly DA himself to self-destruct through numerous financial irregularities / and then the Church got the feds to indict him for numerous serious charges  (having nothing to do with the Philly priest-abuse cases) / and all of this was done by the Church as part of its plan, successfully sustained over the course of decades, merely to make ‘victims’ look bad. Oh, and JR is the only one who has ever put all this together and knows it all to be true.

    • James Robertson says:

      If what I say is untrue, Explain Doyle's plan from the jump when he was still head Canon lawyer in the U.S..In his secret paper, now published in his own book, about how Doyle wanted the church to fund and create "committees"? The knowledge of the creation of these committees, according to Doyle, would cause a greater scandal FOR THE CHURCH than the sex scandal they already had. Why? Would could possibly cause a greater scandal than the sex abuse coverup scandal they already had? ANSWER PLS. AND don't say you've answered this question before. You have not. You only parrot that the Bishops rejected Doyle's paper. You never mention his plans outlined in his paper. Why should we believe your church wouldn't attempt to control victims, our choice of lawyers, and our political statements? That's what SNAP gave the church. Complete control of victims and our "choice" of lawyers. You don't deal in truth. Doyle's paper showed the truth of who the church really is and how it behaves regarding its sex victims.

  23. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 1227PM:

    Then – demonstrating that exact same manipulative slyness as ‘Dan’ – JR doth declare and proclaim that he is “no longer interested” in any problems pointed out with his ‘theory’ because all they do is “blow smoke” and fill the comment section here with “nonsense”. Apparently JR will yet again try to run the same ‘preemptive evasion’ bit that ‘Dan’ so often runs when his material (stories, accusations, claims) can’t hold up under analysis.

    As I have always said: SNAP may have been created under the auspices of well-intentioned nuns in the early-mid 1980s for the purpose of helping, but that effort did not succeed. But in 1988 Anderson saw an opening: the torties could run their time-honored forced-settlement strategy against the Church for big big bucks, but they needed a front-organization to funnel allegants to them because they were barred by law and professional regulations from doing such hoovering of allegants themselves. And thus, when Blaine agreed, was created SNAP as we know it.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 12th at 1227PM:

      It was a successful strategy (the torties have used their forced-settlement strategy in many venues against many deep-pockets targets) and had quite a run, garnering at least three billion in settlements and costs.

      But over time the tortie-SNAP scam came apart and is now in something approaching dire straits.

      And – having delivered his cartoon – JR will then bring it to a big finish by moving quickly on to his concluding and scheduled epitheticals about the Church (which, he presumes, his cartoon absolutely proves to have been the mastermind behind it all over all these years).

      Oh, and as usual, the addition of the juvenile scatology – a standard bit for JR when he has to somehow cover up the fact of the weakness of his actual claims and ‘theory’.

    • Publion says:

      We then find ourselves – surprise, surprise – with more stuff from the recently departed ‘Dan’ (the 12th at 950PM) – who is apparently back from his farewell ‘break’.

      Here, ‘Dan’ will solemnly intone that “justice is just only if it produces truth”. This is an imposing and impressive declaration, until one realizes that this is ‘Dan’ and ‘Dan’s version of “truth” … is what it is, requiring attendance at ‘Dan’s Scripture-themed version of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1135PM:

      Here he evades the ‘receiving-making’ prophecy point by simply redefining prophecy for himself as being able to “appreciate God’s Word”.

      Which bit he then follows up with his personal authoritative declaration that I am not included in those who can “appreciate God’s Word” (or – but of course – ‘Dan’s cartoon marvelousness, either).

      And he does like to “annoy” people, he says. He neglects to include ‘amuse’ as well.

      And ‘inform’, since his material has revealed just what whackery is afoot out there.

      And does his cartoon material somehow never works out the way he slyly plans it? Why, that’s just because I am “twisting” it. No, it’s twisted to begin with, and I just point out the original twists.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s extended disquisition of the 12th at 1254PM, apparently meant to be the mainstay of his ‘comeback performance’ (the ‘farewell performance’ now to be quickly forgotten).

      The 11th and 12th chapters of Matthew revolve around the theme of rejection by this generation. (And who can be surprised that they would thus be particularly attractive for ‘Dan’s 3×5 pile?)

      ‘Dan’ has chosen the pericope comprised of verses 46-50 of the 12th chapter.

      Apparently ‘Dan’ picked this pericope for his 3×5 file because – in his mind, anyway – it seems to reject Mary as His (i.e. Jesus’s) mother. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1245PM:

      But if that’s the conclusion that ‘Dan’ would like us to draw (though he doesn’t want to have to spell it out, for reasons that are obvious) then his gambit here fails rather significantly.

      First, Mary is his mother, as the Infancy Narratives indicate, so Jesus certainly isn’t factually denying Mary’s motherhood, especially in the face of all those people, many of whom may well know that He is the son of Mary.

      Second, nowhere is it indicated that Mary is not ‘doing the will’ of God. Indeed, the Annunciation narrative indicates precisely and gloriously the very opposite.

      That Jesus points to his disciples as He declares “Here are my mother and brothers” clearly indicates that Jesus is speaking figuratively, since none of the disciples is either a female or – not to put too fine a point on it – His actual birth-mother.

      So Jesus here is simply using a figure of speech to drive home the point that anyone who does the will of His heavenly Father joins in His ‘family’, which is thus not merely a biological family but a family of belief and of common obedience to the will of the Father. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1245PM:

      But – oblivious to the consequences of his own rather vivid misreading – or his willful attempt to impose his own interpretation on the pericope – ‘Dan’ will then launch into his concluding paragraph, somehow trying to ground his scheduled epitheticals in this pericope.

      And we still don’t know if, after having delivered Himself of his point about the disciples, Jesus didn’t then go outside to check with Mom and see what she wanted to talk about. Surely, she remains in the picture and the Gospels, even unto that point where from the Cross Jesus tells a disciple “Behold your mother” (John 19:25-27) … “and from that hour the disciple [traditionally taken to be John, the Beloved Disciple] took her into his home”. An instruction which the Church has continued to fulfill.

      Mary will be seen again in Acts 1:14, among the disciples in the Upper Room, along with “his brothers”.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1245PM:

      And then and then and then: after a farewell break that can be measured in hours, ‘Dan’ twirls his pearls around his head and declares that “Yeah! I’m back”.

      And that he “may never stop”. ‘Dan’ is the servant only of his FDS; he cannot stop and trying to put a Scriptural/divine patina on that unhappy and abyssal infelicity is simply more cartoon posturing. 

  24. Dan says:

    Publyin', this has to be your poorest display of misinterpretation of the Bible and of Christs' words. Matthew 12:46-50

    First, Christ was not in any way denying Mary as his mother, nor do I deny Mary as the birth mother of Jesus.

    Second, among the apostles there would be no females. Among "disciples", which would mean a student or follower of Christ, there were both male and female.

    Third, the fact that Jesus was leaving his own mother and brothers outside, is showing that they were not 'doing the will' of God. Most likely not in agreement with her son's mission, possibly unbelieving and unsaved, at that moment in time. Also shows proof of Mary having other children, contrary to catholic false teaching (i.e. Mary – ever-virgin).

    To sum up, are we to listen to one making false accusations of my vivid misreading and misinterpretation of Scripture, when he fails to realize the difference between the meaning of apostles and disciples. apostles = men  disciples = male and female

    This is not the first time that he has totally misunderstood Scripture verse, but is under the impression that since he has an extensive vocabulary, this makes him knowledgeable in all things, even spiritual things. I've already quoted and brought his attention to the Bible verse.

    For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intellegent I will frustrate." 1 Cor 1:19 Maybe it should read, I will destroy the wisdom of those who think they are wise, for publyin' thinks he is so smart, that this quote doesn't apply to him. No wonder he thinks he can get away with mocking the things of God, including His servant. Not terribly intellegent, although he thinks he is.  servant

    P.S. The catholic religion; Hierarchy teaching Biblical falsehoods and lies, attracting followers who believe in these lies, and becoming themselves compulsive liars, while assuming that everyone else is a liar and hates their precious, holy apostate cult.

     

    • Dan says:

      Or maybe your best display of misinterpretation of the Bible. I'm sure the grammar police will correct that for us all.

    • Dan says:

      Oh! And don't forget to catch my misspelling of intelligent twice, but remember none of us are half as intelligent as you. And you must forgive me for being mentally deranged and incapacitated, but maybe God will accept my insanity plea. You are an absolute joke.

  25. Dan says:

    Did any catholics ever question why your Virgin Mary was not present at Christ's resurrection? Here you title her "Mother of God", "Queen of Heaven", "Immaculately Conceived", "Assumed into Heaven", etc.etc., and yet she wasn't among the several Marys that went to the tomb. Apparently, she wasn't included among the female repentant sinners who were 'doing the will' of God the Father. No one is saying she wasn't a good mother to her son, Jesus, for she was there throughout his life. We must be careful who we put up on pedestals, adoring and honoring, and yet claiming that doesn't equate to worship. Read the Lord's Word, and you'll find a plethura of things you've been taught were God's honest truth, when they are far from being anything of truth at all. A good place to start would be to research what constitutes as idols and idolatry in the Bible, taking a good look at the 1st and 2nd commandment, in different versions. Use the wonderful mind the Lord gave you, and don't allow false teachers to brainwash you and keep you from your prize, eternal life.

  26. Publion says:

    Going down the list, we have JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:

    We first note that JR does not dispute the accuracy of my summary of his cartoon ‘theory’ (the 13th at 1108AM).

    Whatever, then, will he do?

    He brings up more of the old 3x5s from his pile, long ago dealt with here.

    Doyle submitted a plan to the national Bishops organization in the early 1980s, which was rejected by the Bishops because it appeared more of a proposal for a group that Doyle and his associates would run and  thus seemed to the Bishops like a bit of empire-building on Doyle’s part.

    The proposal was not “secret” (the word, as regular readers will recall when we examined the text here quite a while ago) and its text did not have the word “secret” anywhere in it.

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:

    Doyle – perhaps after consultation with one of his two associates (a tortie; the other was a psychologist) – was shrewd enough to realize that if it became public knowledge that the Church was open for business in the ‘settlement’ line, it would create a ‘run on the bank’, so to speak. Which – in the event – was precisely what happened anyway once Anderson met with Blaine in early 1988.

    Doyle and his associates were prescient in that regard: the tortie could see how the time-honored tortie stratagem of forcing settlements out of deep-pockets defendants could be deployed against the Church and the psychologist could see how the rising tide of ‘victimism’ could be stoked to overrun any other considerations when confronting allegations. It would create – to use a phrase – a ‘perfect storm’ that would generate huge waves of cash.

  28. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:

    Thus JR’s “why” question is answered. The “greater scandal” would be the scrum that would be generated by both the hype and the scent of easy cash in great gobs.

    In that era (the early 1980s) there was no “coverup scandal” – that bit would only come into play once the full Stampede team was on the field: the torties, SNAP to feed allegants to the torties and issue press releases, and the media eager for  any salacious and sinister stories and claims pushed their way, especially the ‘Spotlight’ crew at the Boston Globe – under the new editor who was looking for a way to demonstrate that there was ‘a new marshal in town’ in January of 2002.

    Slyly, JR then tries to preemptively neutralize all of my foregoing points by claiming that his question has never actually been answered. But it has been and it was quite a while ago.

  29. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:

    He then, apparently, tries to float the insinuation that the Bishops took and implemented Doyle’s plan without Doyle. But it was Doyle who got going with SNAP, not the Bishops; and from the outset SNAP reflected Doyle’s anger vis-à-vis the Bishops who rejected his proposal (and his little empire that would have gone with it).

    JR tries further to insinuate that it would be possible for the Bishops to have been able to “control victims” … by controlling the torties who would represent them (and we’re back to JR’s ‘theory’ as I summarized it on the 13th at 1108AM). What other lawyers besides torties would aspiring allegants have chosen? Are we really to believe that all the tort attorneys involved in the Stampede were tools of the Church? Did all of the allegants who were eventually given checks actually go through SNAP to find a tortie? Under what “control” were those who went out and got a tortie without going through SNAP?

  30. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:

    And to what purpose and to what end? The torties and their forced-settlement stratagem cost the Church and Insurers upwards of 3 billion dollars. J

    R’s ‘solution’ to this problem is to insist that there were actually many more billions that the torties ‘saved’ the Church … somehow, usually involving the assertion that there are many more ‘victims’ still out there who haven’t yet availed themselves of a tortie. After the past 15 years of full-blown Stampede? After the public demonstration that you could get yourself a million dollars (minus standard tortie fees and expenses) for claiming you had a teacher stick his hand down your pants (originally claimed to have been ‘rape’)?

  31. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:

    Why should we imagine JR’s ‘theory’ here to be anything more than a self-serving, ranting cartoon?

    And he still doesn’t explain how the Church managed to get and maintain “complete control of the victims”. Are we to believe or imagine that the 500-plus allegants of the LA lawsuit were completely under the “control” of the Church?

    I have put forward before my theory: a large number of people saw a way to get in on the game, garnered quite a bit through the torties’ forced-settlement stratagem, cashed their checks, and now very much don’t want to be around if – finally – questions start to be asked.

    They weren’t under the “control” of the Church; they wanted a check, the torties said they could deliver and to the tune of 3 billion dollars they did so. The allegants were under the “control” – so to speak – only of their own desire, and the torties delivered, and the Church had nothing to do with the “control” of any of that.

  32. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 1211PM:

    SNAP “gave” the torties a steady stream of allegants looking for a way to get into the game; and the torties delivered – to the allegants and to SNAP (and probably to any other ancillary similar types of organizations).

    This “complete control” bit is nothing more than a cartoon slogan and mantra. It explains nothing, cannot even establish its own probability, and isn’t even credibly defined.

  33. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:

    As usual, ‘Dan’ tries to manipulate readers by putting out the ‘Dan’-verse party line before he even gets into putting forth his material.

    If ‘Dan’ didn’t intend (the 12th at 1254PM)to deny Mary’s being the mother of Christ, then what was the point of his quoting the pericope in the first place at all? Did he himself not then say that Jesus left “his mother out in the cold”?

    Granted, ‘Dan’ didn’t then explain the significance of what he presumed (i.e. that Jesus left Mary “out in the cold”) – but what then was his point if not that Jesus was somehow minimizing the role of Mary?

    And – as so very often – these fundie bits have to be taken as if they were free-standing and not an organic part of the entire Gospel text. Because – as I pointed out – we have the Annunciation scene, and then we have the scene at the foot of the Cross and then we have Mary with the disciples in the Upper Room. Surely Mary was not left “out in the cold” in the Gospel text.

    • Dan says:

      It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that Jesus or myself is trying to deny Mary's motherhood. What Jesus stated, "For whoever does the will of my Father is my brother, and sister, and mother." Matthew 12:50  What Jesus was saying, was that his true relatives and friends, are those who listen, obey and do the will of his Father. Those born not of the flesh, but of the Holy Spirit. He was in no way denying his birth mother, Mary. However, to claim that Christ somehow needed help in God's plan of our salvation, or with our mercy, grace, faith, hope or love, is absolutely false. He is the only Redeemer, and in no need of a Mediatrix or saint as a helper. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 Jesus was not minimizing the role of Mary, she has no role in our redemption whatsoever. For anyone to claim different, is to diminish the role of Jesus Christ as our Savior, and place undue emphasis on someone only human and not God. This would definitely qualify as idol worship and unbiblical, and the claims of the catholic church as to Mary's attributes, is idolatry in its worst form (i.e. Mother of God, sinless, ever-virgin, "Queen of Heaven", etc.etc.).

      Publiar states that my "second point is irrelevant to the matter on the table." It is most relevant. If one doesn't know the difference between the 12 apostles being all men, and disciples, or followers being of both sexes, then why should we have to listen to his poor and false interpretations of Scripture. How dare he claim my manipulation of Bible verse, when he insistently twists and destroys the Written Word. He says I make presumptions, and then follows that with a slew of his own false presumptions, like Jesus must have gone outside later to talk to Mary. This is ridiculous, when Jesus left Mary outside to begin with, and verse, Matthew 12:50, explains why.

      I'm not sure why, but catholic apologists think they can carry on with long-winded excuses as to why they refuse to follow the Bible and its truths, believing that if their answers are long enough, readers will think they know what they're talking about. Problem is that their excuses and lies, tend to be unbelievable, and only one not knowing Scripture would fall for their nonsense. Beware of those who think they possess more intelligence than the Almighty, and have to prove it by their vast knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Greek or Latin. Making a big show of all their worldly wisdom and knowledge, when in reality, only phonies and lying hypocrites, Know-It-Alls. I think we all know who we're talking about.  servant

       

  34. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:

    His second point is irrelevant to the matter on the table. There were – according to the Gospel texts – no women among the Twelve, but even if we grant that there were women among the larger group of disciples, the point remains irrelevant.

    His third point – as I pointed out – requires a presumption that after delivering His statement Jesus did not then go out to see what Mary wanted when she arrived outside. Indeed, it also presumes that Mary was somehow excluded from the group by Jesus’ own desire and intention; yet she may well have arrived too late to fit into the building ‘inside’ or she may have arrived late to speak with Him and not to listen to His discourse. The text does not help us here, but that is no justification for the presumptions that ‘Dan’ makes to fill in the gaps in the text’s relating of the event.

    How – by any stretch of a rational imagination – one can reach ‘Dan’s conclusion that the mere fact of her being outside definitively demonstrates that “they [i.e. Mary and His brothers] were not ‘doing the will of God’” is for the readers to judge.

    Once again, we see the fundies’ gambit of trying to fill in Scriptural gaps with their own self-serving presumptions. And once again, when we consider the Annunciation scene and the scenes at the foot of the Cross and in the Upper Room, then the idea of Mary somehow ‘not doing the will’ of God clearly become insupportable.

  35. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:

    Thus too , how could any rational mind – taking all of the above into consideration – come to the conclusion from the text that Mary was “possibly unbelieving and unsaved”?

    Do we even know from the text what Mary wanted to speak to Jesus about? We do not.

    Was Mary granted to capacity to see from the very outset (at the Annunciation) exactly and completely what God had in mind for herself and her Son? She probably was not given such a vision of the future in store for her and her Son. It was her role to demonstrate in the most fundamental aspects of her life as a mother a faithfulness to God’s will as it was slowly revealed to her, perhaps – one might imagine – as the fate Jesus slowly shaped for Himself and for her began to take form and she realized what dangers lay in store for Him.

  36. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:

    Continuing with quickie pass-alongs from his 3×5 file, ‘Dan’ then takes issue with the question of whether the “brothers” of Jesus were actual biological siblings or did the term in the original languages and usages of that time and place leave open other possibilities?

    Helvidius in the 4th century held that Mary had other children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. while St. Jerome held that she remained a virgin for the rest of her life and the brothers were actually cousins, children of Mary of Clopas, since the Greek term adelphios as used in that time and place could also mean ‘cousins’.

    Epiphanius held that perhaps Joseph had children by a prior marriage (he was much older than Mary when they were married and perhaps was a widower); this possibility is supported by the Protoevangelium of James and the Gospel of Peter and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, although for one reason or another these works were not included in the canon of the New Testament.

    Ancient Semitic usage used the term ‘brothers’ or ‘brethren’ in a very loose sense, as we see in Genesis 12:8 and 14:14 and 16; and Leviticus 10:4.

  37. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:

    But the Protoevangelium of James, written only half a century after Mary’s death, holds that Mary was consecrated by her mother, Anne, to be a virgin in the service of the Lord, who would need a protector, for which purpose the much older Joseph would be the guardian and protector of her virginity.

    His advanced age raises the possibility that he was an older widower with children from that first marriage, seems attested by the fact that after the birth of Jesus and His early years Joseph vanishes from the Gospels, since he might well have died before Jesus matured to adulthood.

    But if all of the ‘brethren’ and sisters of Jesus were actually Mary’s other children, it is very difficult to imagine her concentration on Jesus throughout His life; who would have been taking care of the others? How could she have managed to focus on Him if she were so frequently pregnant and – increasingly – the mother of many small and growing children? It seems highly improbable that she gave Jesus so many biological siblings (and from the elderly Joseph as well).

    And if He had so wide a biological clutch of siblings, why on the Cross did He recommend his mother to the care of a disciple (traditionally held to be John, the Beloved Disciple) rather than to the rest of His siblings?

    And on the Cross He says to Mary, ‘behold your son’, but the Gospel text in the original language has Him saying “ide o ouios sou” – with that singular “o”, rather than “ide ouios sou” which would have implied other sons.

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:

    And we already know that of the ‘brethren’, two of them have identified parents: James and Joses are the sons of Alpheus and Mary the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary, making these ‘brethren’ actually his cousins.

    Certainly, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all accepted the perpetual virginity of Mary.

    From all of the above, readers may thus consider ‘Dan’s self-puffing “sum up”. Are we to listen to ‘Dan’ who clearly hasn’t bothered to think his position through and isn’t really up to speed on the Scripture?

    And then we’re back to the utter irrelevance of his bit about the “apostles” and “disciples”, male and female.

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1106PM:

    ‘Dan’ is under the impression that since he has a big pile of 3x5s and already knows what he wants to know and what he doesn’t want to know or need to know before he starts shooting his mouth off about Scripture then he is a reliable guide to Scripture.

     He is a vitriolic ranter with nothing but his personally selected pile of 3x5s and the manipulative and deceitful slyness to costume his ignorant rants with Scriptural pericopes that he cannot explain except by presuming his personally-convenient presumptions, even when the text itself doesn’t support them.

    And his “P.S.” seems to be nothing but some notes jotted down from wherever he read or heard somebody else’s ranting and adopts it here as his own.

    Phooey and baloney.

  40. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1136PM:

    After further consultation with his 3×5 pile or perhaps the committee in this bathroom mirror ‘Dan’ then tosses up another one: why was Mary “not present at Christ’s resurrection?”. For the same reason none of the Apostles were present at the actual moment of the Resurrection either: because they weren’t.

    Why did God have it that way? Readers can put that on their spiritual bucket list to ask God when they get up there. I doubt many will try to short-cut that wait for their own convenience by asking their bathroom mirror, but I bet I know who has already tried that.

    Are we to imagine that none of the Apostles were doing the will of God either, and that thus they were ‘punished’ by not being on hand to encounter the Jesus immediately after His Resurrection? Nobody was actually present at the Resurrection of Jesus, as ‘Dan’ apparently has forgotten (or ignored, since it would interfere with his plop-tossing here in this comment of his).

    And the rest of the comment trails off into the usual scheduled rant.

    Readers may judge as they will.

  41. James Robertson says:

     
    Bows out. The camo is too thick.

    It's Pliars' world here at TMR. He hogs everything here.

    He is Mr. Piggy.

  42. Dan says:

    This is God's Word in regards to our holidays. Let no fool tell you it's not, because he will.

    All these holidays are manmade. Like Easter, I AM the ONE that was supposed to die during this holiday. A person makes sure they definitely get to church that day. But you never think about Me again. It is a time for people to show their fake personality, they get all gussied up and make their appearance. But you never think about Me again. You go and have a wonderful Easter dinner and have a few cocktails, just to have a good time. But you never think about Me again. You listen to people who think they know My Word, inside and out, and they don't know My Word at all. But you never think about Me again. You pray to an idol that can't help you in life and worship a piece of wood, that can't even hear your prayers. But you never think about Me again. Hey, My body may be gone, but My spirit will be with you until eternity.

    I already hear the heathen hypocrite, denying this to be the Lord's Word, and yet it speaks of him so perfectly. I'll probably have to point out which pericopes describe him. What a joke.

  43. Publion says:

    The most recent crop actually does provide some food for thought. I’ll explain as we proceed down the list of comments as they appear on the screen.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ – having been called upon his point about Jesus ‘leaving Mary’ “out in the cold” – tries to come up with an explanation of what he actually meant (although inexplicably – but unsurprisingly – failed to explain the first time around when he had the chance):

    No doubt of Mary’s biological motherhood of Jesus, ‘Dan’ says. So far so good.

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:

    But then he slyly evades the import – whatever it is supposed to be – about her being left “out in the cold”. Instead he heads for the theological deep woods: he doth declare, pronounce and assert that it is “absolutely false” to “claim that Christ somehow needed help in God’s plan of our salvation”.

    What this is is simply a re-run of a (conveniently, for ‘Dan’) inaccurate bit to the effect that the Church holds Mary to be a necessary co-adjutor and co-mediator of the New Covenant. As I said in comments above, Mary is not held to be a co-mediator of the New Covenant, but rather she is – as it were – ‘the human face’ of the New Covenant, i.e. that when Christians turn to the Heavenly Court they can find in Mary both a human and maternal person who will assist them in living out the New Covenant (whose sole Mediator is Christ).

    So while it is perfectly true to claim that holding Mary as co-mediator of the New Covenant is “absolutely false” it is also perfectly true that I never claimed that and surely the Church does not and never has. ‘Dan’ has merely created a non-existent assertion and then refuted it – which is useful only insofar as it reveals ‘Dan’s (and the typical fundie) modus operandi.

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:

    Thus  Mary plays – in the Church’s view – a vital role in the ever-ongoing implementation of the New Covenant because humans are more comfortable with a maternal human rather than a divinity – even Jesus, and especially the foreboding and awe-full Christos Pantocrator of the first Christian millennium.

    In those monarchical times, the Heavenly Court was quite understandably seen in the familiar terms of a human royal or imperial Court; and the average person would always seek a ‘friend at Court’, especially so human and maternally sensitive a friend.

    In a way, this fundie gambit here is a consequence of the Protestant idea that the Bible – and thus God and the Heavenly Court – is immediately and infallibly available to anybody who picks up a Bible and comes up with an interpretation (or, in the extreme, a ‘prophecy’).

    As I have said, such a presumption opens the door to anybody who feels an urge to do some god-talking as if they necessarily knew what they were doing and what they were talking about; thus, for example, any of the plethora of fundie stuff and – most certainly – the phenomenon of ‘Dan’ himself (or Himself).

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:

    Thus too then – and to repeat yet again – Mary is the “Mediatrix” not of the New Covenant itself but rather of its ongoing implementation in the lives of Christians.

    Jesus is the sole Way, Truth, and Life … but Mary helps Christians along that Way toward that Truth and Life.

    And the paragraph trails off with the usual scheduled bits about idolatry of Mary and so on and so forth.

  47. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:

    ‘Dan’ then tries – with notable slyness – to claim that if I don’t “know the difference” between Apostles and disciples then why should I be trusted in the matter of any further insights? That would be the crux of ‘Dan’s assertion of the relevance of his distinction.

    If we are to imagine that Jesus was suggesting that any possible female disciples were His mother, ‘Dan’ can come right out and say it. Otherwise, the point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

    But this bit gives ‘Dan’ an opening – which he quickly tries to exploit – to try to regain some high ground by then immediately donning the Wig of Righteous Outrage and denounce my characterization of his manipulations of Scripture. But ‘Dan’s manipulations of Scripture have been pointed out numerous times and explicated at length. What he’s trying to do in this bit is merely to somehow evade or neutralize all of his demonstrated problems of interpretation and Scriptural ignorance, since he cannot refute any  of those problems specifically and rationally.

  48. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:

    And again ‘Dan’ slyly and manipulatively slides in the bit about “when Jesus left Mary outside”. There is nothing in the text to indicate that Mary was “left outside” by Jesus or anyone else. As I said, she could have arrived later on or she chose to remain outside in order to leave more room for folks to hear her Son’s address.

    Nor do we in any way know from the text either a) what she wanted to speak to Him about or b) whether after delivering His comment He did or did not go outside to see what she wanted to speak to Him about.

  49. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1236AM:

    Nor does “Matthew 12:50” “explain why” about any of this. Nor does ‘Dan’ – of course – try to explain his selection of that verse or the significance he seems to think it holds for the matter at hand.

    And then ‘Dan’ tries to bring the performance home by moving into his preferred territory of delivering his opinions. And thus the final paragraph with the usual bits now familiar to all readers here, and to anyone familiar with fundie stratagems and rants generally.

    And as to the many points I have raised from the text itself, ‘Dan’ has a standard evasion: they are all merely “long-winded excuses” (for – had you been waitingggggg forrrrr itttttttttttt? – not going along with ‘Dan’ and fundie cartoons of Scripture).

    And that any actual Scriptural chops are merely “worldly wisdom and knowledge”; ‘Dan’ and the fundies don’t need any actual Scriptural chops – doncha see? – because they already know what their cartoons require. One is vividly reminded of one of Goebbels’s favorite instructions larded thickly and imperiously onto German readers and viewers: “Mehr als dieses braucht ihr nicht zu wissen” (tr: More than this you don’t need to know).

  50. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 16th at 640PM:

    Here we have a problem and a gambit similar to ‘Dan’s: I had put up a series of comments (the morning of the 15th, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1146, 1147, 1149, 1150) dealing with his usual SNAP ‘theory’ and such.

    How does JR deal with those problems with his ‘theory’?

    Merely by tapping out this sort of stream-of-consciousness comment that at best is pure evasion and at worst indicates some sort of departure from facing reality at all.

    He “bows out” – is this another of JR’s ‘farewell performance’ bits?

    “The camo is too thick” – meaning what? That he cannot come up with any adequate explanatory or refutational responses?

  51. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 16th at 640PM:

    “It’s [my] world here at TMR” – meaning what? That JR can’t find anyone on this site to buy his stuff? And if he can’t get the team to play according to his rules then he’s going to take his ‘theory’ and go home?

    I “hog[s] everything here”. This is a familiar bit of his: as if this were a verbal conversation and only one person can speak at a time; but TMR – to repeat yet again – is a written forum and JR can put up as much as he likes. But, of course, he hasn’t got anything worthwhile to put up in refutation (except for more cartoonish claims) so he has to come up with a smokescreen to cover his evasion while simultaneously making himself out to be – had you been waitinggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttt? – a ‘victim’.

    And pitch-perfectly he ends with an epithet. We’re not dealing with a mind or maturity-level ready for prime-time here.

    Bottom line, if you don’t allow yourself to be distracted by the smokescreen: JR hasn’t made any effective response to any of the problems raised with his ‘theory’.

  52. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 126AM:

    Here – and you can’t make this stuff up – ‘Dan’ now poses himself (or Himself) as delivering “God’s Word” … “in regard to our holidays”. Oh, and anyone who thinks that ‘Dan’ isn’t here channeling God is – had you been waitingggggggg for itttttttttttttt? – a “fool”.

    And what is the word from ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror?

    “Easter” is “manmade”. So apparently the formal communal celebration of the core Christian reality – the Resurrection of Christ as God’s definitive demonstration of the reality of the New Covenant – is merely “manmade”.

    What can this possibly mean? That the Easter event itself is nothing or that it is merely a “manmade” invention?

    Or that the Christian community, realizing the vital core import of the Easter event, is somehow failing the Gospel by formally recognizing and remembering the Easter event?

  53. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 126AM:

    This entire bit reflects one of the more crucial and abyssal problem with the fundies’ whole approach: trying to anchor itself by making the Bible into a literalistic and all-encompassing totem, the fundie approach must freeze itself in time. As if there were no ongoing Christian community making its pilgrim way through Time and History.

    Rather than Christianity being a ship making a voyage through the oceans of Time and History “under the good Providence of God” (as the Brits once so well put it) the fundies have taken the Bible ‘out of the water’ and dry-docked it like Nelson’s Victory in a permanent static display.

    And they have further made visits to this preserved specimen a members-only event, with gonzo, nasty whackjobs like ‘Dan’ presuming to preside over the membership committee.

  54. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 126AM:

    And his characterization of Easter is something out of a cartoon that has nothing to do with the Church’s liturgical celebrations: “people … show their fake personality, they get all gussied up and make their appearance”, forgetting about God and “have a wonderful Easter dinner and have a few cocktails … just to have a good time”.

    This is nothing but the bitter rant of someone who – perhaps having heard “disgusting creep” aimed at him too often and for far more than just the last ten years – has dedicated himself to nothing more than seeing if he can jam a broom-stick between the bicycle-wheel spokes not only of religion but of human society generally, while simultaneously claiming to deliver – if not also to be – ‘the’ authentic and authoritative voice of God.

    What a joke.

    • Dan says:

      This prophecy was written by my disabled friend. I've never witnessed her to be a bitter person, let alone write 'bitter rant's. As far as calling her a "disgusting creep", I guess one would just have to consider the source. I am sure of one thing, "gussied up" is a term neither of us have ever used in our vocabulary. In one of my prophecies, God threw in at the end the word thicket, so I would know the words were not my own. This was the last line of that prophecy; "You have mocked my servant, you have mocked Me. You will no longer ride on this bus. You shall go out into the weeds and the 'thicket'."

      In regards to your foolish insinuation towards myself, He "has dedicated himself to nothing more than seeing if he can jam a broom stick between the bicycle-wheel spokes not only of religion but of human society generally", I find pretty disturbing, especially after your sick lies in regards to my accosting and harassing small children. We'll just add that to the fact that you're one "disgusting creep", combined with being a "nasty whackjob", words more fitting to describe the pedophiles and perverts of your cult.    servant

       

  55. Dan says:

    "You listen to people who think they know My Word, inside and out, and they don't know My Word at all. You pray to an idol that can't help you in life and worship a piece of wood, that can't even hear your prayers."

    Mary died like any other human being. She is waiting, like any other human for her Judgment Day, before the Almighty. If catholics feel "more comfortable with a maternal human", rather than the son of God, "the foreboding and awe-full Christos Pantocrator", then salvation will be unattainable. Christ is the Supreme Being, the only mediator, sacrificed by the Father for the forgiveness of our sins. If you prefer a replacement, adding dogmas* and lies* to the virtues of a false goddess, creating an artificial savior, then there will be no forgiveness of sins. There will never exist a substitute for Christ's sacrifice and there is no need of helpers, let alone human helpers. To claim so is to diminish the power of the cross and resurrection, and deny God's awesome and wonderful plan of salvation.

    Catholics, don't allow false teachers and their false teachings to deprive you of God's gifts, especially of His Precious Son. Evil people find pleasure in deceiving others, especially if it's to their gain. "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is NO truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44

    * Mary never sinned, ever-virgin, Immaculately conceived, Assumed into heaven, prayers to Mary, Rosary, bowing to her statue or any statue or anyone, especially hierarchy.

    • Dan says:

      add. – Catholics have been taught that "Mary will crush the head of Satan." Gen. 3:15, states that her seed, her offspring or he will crush or bruise the head. Even the Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse to refer to Jesus Christ. Even Michael, the archangel, when disputing with the devil, only said, "The Lord rebuke you!" Jude 1:9  Mary, being only human, is not going around crushing Satan's head, and this statement is definitely Anti-Christ. Beware of the excuses of the church and those who claim to be apologetics. If they told the truth according to the Bible, then they would have no need to make excuses for their misinterpretations and failures. Instead, just about all the hierarchy has been taught programmed answers and excuses for why they refuse to follow Bible teachings, and much rather prefer the false teachings of their apostate cult. Publyin' included. Long-winded nonsense and ignorance, falling far short of any reasonable explanation of the Holy Bible.

  56. Publion says:

    On the 20th at 201PM ‘Dan’ will open by masquerading as God. He seems charmingly oblivious to the fact that he qualifies rather clearly as one of those “who don’t know My Word at all”. The “idols” bit is all he’s got, although no Catholic worships a statue as an idol – as if that point hasn’t been made here before.

    On then to more of ‘Dan’s bits about Mary:

    It is more than curious that in an era such as that of early Christianity, when the bodies and bones of holy ones were highly prized and there was great rivalry among cities and churches to claim the remains, yet no city or local church ever claimed to possess the body of Mary. This fact tends strongly toward the explanation that the early Christians knew that Mary’s body was not anywhere to be found.

    And since Paul said that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3: 15) then on that theological basis the Church’s Spirit-guided proclamation of Mary’s Assumption stands as it does.

    • Dan says:

      1 Tim 3:15  "if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

      How can the biggest liar, among many liars spewing their lies, claim their cult is "the pillar and foundation of truth", when it's hierarchy is plagued with pedophiles and perverts, who have no clue on how they "ought to conduct themselves in God's household"? Hypocrites, perverters of Biblical truths, bowing down to statues of false goddesses, while claiming never to worship such. Lies from liars, caught up in falsehoods and having no truth within. Children of their father, the devil, parading around in their ignorance, while deceived into believing themselves to be members of the one true church. What a joke.  servant

  57. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 201PM:

    Further masquerading as God – or at least the ‘Dan’-verse version of a pope – he then doth pronounce that for those who feel more comfortable with a maternal human when approaching the Throne of God, “then salvation will be unattainable”. Readers may take this pronunciamento and judge it as they will.

    And as I pointed out before, Catholics don’t approach Mary as the Way or as a “Supreme Being”, but only as a human and maternal helper to assist them. ‘Dan’ here continues to try to run his already-disproven idea that the Church holds Mary to be a co-Mediator with Christ of the New Covenant. ‘Dan’  has to try to run this bit again: it’s all he’s got and he’s got a pile of 3x5s about it.

    Thus Mary is in no sense and in no way a “replacement” for Christ nor does the Church hold that she in any way forgives sins. Nor is she a “substitute” for Christ.

    And from the human end of the process, there is indeed a “need [for] helpers” since humans are more comfortable with the maternal, for reasons which appear to escape ‘Dan’ and that’s as may be.

    • Dan says:

      You call her Advocate, Helper and Mediatrix, and claim she possesses all the attributes of Jesus Christ, our only Savior, but she's never worshipped or considered by the Church to be a co-Mediator with Christ. You title her as Mother of God, crowning her "Queen of Heaven", yet "in no sense and in no way a 'replacement' or 'substitute' for Christ". I'm beginning to agree with this claim. She, Mary, your sinless, eternal virgin, is your christ, the false messiah of an effeminate, apostate, pagan cult. I think it's time you show your true colors and ordain a woman to be your next pope. Come out of the closet and worship a living goddess, rather than the dead Virgin Mary, who's beautiful quality of humility, you creepy liars have totally destroyed. Thankfully, you Satan worshippers, can't harm her soul.  servant

  58. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 201PM:

    Thus – and yet yet again – ‘Dan’ has created a false claim and then refutes it. This is a manipulative and deceitful form of shadow-boxing, or of wrestling with one’s own pillow. But it’s all he’s got.

    But – yet yet again – on this ephemeral and phantasmagoric basis ‘Dan’ can then launch into his scheduled exhortation to “Catholics”.

    And he again demonstrates with a charming obliviousness how very much his exhortation about “evil people” who “find pleasure in deceiving others, especially if it’s to their gain” can apply to himself.

    Then a concluding epithetical bit about “the devil” and “lies” and – not to put too fine a point on it – ditto.

    The asterisked final paragraph is apparently a bunch more bits that ‘Dan’ hasn’t got the chops to explain, so he just rattles them off, as if they were jottings from a 3×5 – which they probably are.

    • Dan says:

      "Then the concluding epithetical bit about 'the devil' and 'lies' ", peewee rudely states, is a Biblical quote from John 8:44, perfectly describing himself and the lies and deceptions of his apostate cult. And he'll tell us he doesn't mock God's Word.

      The "asterisked final paragraph" is a footnote denoting all the false "dogmas and lies" that the church has brainwashed it's followers to believe about the Virgin Mary. These are terrible lies and not worth explaining, unless you're dumb enough to think they are true. Catholics should run from this idol-worshipping, anti-Christian cult.

      And explain to me, Mr. Know-It-All, if I'm deceiving others for my own gain, what that gain would actually be? I have no physical church, collect no money, no Pope or Archbishop Fund or second collections. No books, DVD's, Cd's, rosaries, statues, trinkets, holy cards, etc.etc. for sale. Ask for no tithes, offerings, donations or gifts. I collect no donations or turkeys during the holidays, and then claim my church does all this good for the poor. And deceived sheep think they can make the claim of all the good their cult does, as if it's an excuse for their hierarchy being pedophiles and perverts. I actually worked for a living and paid my taxes, unlike the greedy thieves of your cult. You're one disingenuous creep, and you should stop your false accusations. Telling the truth in regards to your cult, is without any personal gain, other than the possibility that some catholic may come to their senses and leave the Idolators, before losing their souls.  servant of Christ, God's only Mediator

  59. Publion says:

    On the 21st at 351AM ‘Dan’ will try to deal with the bitterness characterization.

    He tries this by first coming up with a (rather trendy) “disabled friend”, and a female at that; he has “never witnessed her to be a bitter person” (for whatever either ‘Dan’s powers of observation or his credibility are worth). Whether or not this person has any more reality than the Easter Bunny is for readers to consider.

    But there’s more method to the madness here. Either through ignorance or design ‘Dan’ somehow misreads my comment to the effect – now – that I called “her” a “disgusting creep”. This misreading thus casts ‘Dan’ in the role of knight in shining armor rescuing a (trendily) disabled maiden, while casting me as someone who would call said disabled maiden a “disgusting creep”.

    But as I wrote, it is ‘Dan’ about whom I observed that – given his long consistent repetition of that phrase for his epithetical purposes – he had far too often for his own good heard that phrase aimed at him. The (trendily) disabled female not only wasn’t the subject of my comment but also wasn’t even known to exist when the comment was written.

    But this whole bit is a nicely clear example of ‘Dan’s manipulative and reliably unreliable methods when trying to extricate himself.

    • Dan says:

      You, peewee, are one class act, and I bet you'd think that was a compliment. You, a compulsive liar and manipulating hypocrite, have the nerve to question my credibility. I've honestly told you too much about myself, of which you've twisted, blatantly lied, slandered and insinuated, in order to make it fit into your deceiving agenda.

      You were previously told of my friends disabilities, and how she wrote at the level of an 8 year old. You play stupid, but maybe it's not just an act, claiming she wasn't "the subject of my comment but also wasn't even known to exist when the comment was written." I informed you of my friend and her prophetic gift months ago, and your ignorance to that fact is far from cute. The only "disgusting creep" we're dealing with is you, proven by your nonsensical lies, spewed at a fairly consistent rate. You are a prime example of a true Apologist catholic, full of lame excuses, false assessments and misinterpretations of God's Word, yet believe yourself to be some great theologian, well versed in longwinded stupidity.

      What a joke.

    • Dan says:

      Or if you prefer, a true catholic Apologist, or those making excuses or apologies for being catholic, or what I simply label as catholic liars.

  60. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 351AM:

    He then tries to demonstrate the veracity of his “prophecy” by claiming that neither he nor the (trendily) disabled female friend would ever have used a term like “gussied up” so that – had you been waitingggg forrrr itttttttttttttt? – must clearly prove that they didn’t make this thing up but rather that the text of the “prophecy” was indeed a Fax From Beyond.

    He’s “sure of” it.

    And he even throws in more ‘evidence’: in some other one of his “prophecies” – doncha know? – “God threw in” also “threw in” a word that ‘Dan’ would never use, i.e. “thicket”. So – doncha see? – that just goes to show how much ‘evidence’ there is that these are indeed Faxes From The Beyond.

    Readers may consider it all as they will.

    • Dan says:

      And insistent in labeling God's gift of prophecy as Faxes From The Beyond. I look forward to the day, the Almighty takes His revenge on your mocking His Holy Spirit.  servant of The Lord

  61. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 351AM:

    Then, changing gears and Wigs, ‘Dan’ will now pronounce that my observation about his essential motivation (i.e. jamming a broom-stick in the bicycle-wheel spokes of not only religion but of human society generally) is something that ‘Dan’ doth “find pretty disturbing”.

    Slyly, he doesn’t bother to distinguish here: is it “very disturbing” a) that I would make such an observation or that b) ‘Dan’ would be thus motivated …? (Hint: ‘Dan’ slyly presumes (a) and doesn’t want to go near (b) at all.

    But (b) is the point I was making.

    Readers may also note that for ‘Dan’, each comment of his is meant to be taken as if de novo, i.e. as if it were the first and only comment he has ever made here. Which is also a sly method in the madness since we now have a voluminous record of ‘Dan’s self-revelations in the record here.

    • Dan says:

      " 'Dan' would be thus motivated" to "jamming a broom-stick" in your lying, mocking mouth. Problem is we would have to hear you speak out of your ass, if that's not how you already speak.

  62. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 351AM:

    Further, it is rather remarkable (not to say “very disturbing” as well) that ‘Dan’ can review the sum total of his comments here and not see any possible reason in the whole corpus of comments that might indicate the “very disturbing” nature of his basic stance toward “religion and human society generally”. He just cawn’t think why anyone would make such an observation about him and his stuff.

    And he tries to wrap it all up and bring the performance home by thus intoning, proclaiming and declaring that he doth find me “pretty disturbing” and so on and so forth. In other words, the old I’m Not/You Are bit all over again.

    • Dan says:

      The thing I find "pretty very disturbing" is lying religious hypocrites of any religion, especially you. You can try to lasso my spite for human society into the mix, but we'll just add that to your list of many lies.

  63. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 31st at 445AM:

    Here, ‘Dan’ will demonstrate the quality of his Scriptural and interpretative chops (such as it is):

    He gives no reference for his claim that “Mary will crush the head of Satan” is a teaching of the Church. Perhaps he can riffle through his 3×5 pile and provide it. Because I’ve sat through my share of Catholic religion classes and was never taught that “Mary will crush the head of Satan”; her “offspring” (i.e. Christ) did so, but not Mary herself.

    Perhaps ‘Dan’ is drawing merely upon various paintings or sculptures that show Mary with her foot on Satan’s head (the serpent having already been subdued by Christ).

    The pericope itself is part of an address God makes to the serpent after Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit in the Garden.

    Who is the “he” of whom God says “he will strike at your head” … ? It is the “offspring” of Eve (and is denoted by the Hebrew masculine pronoun). It is this masculine offspring of Eve who – God says – will strike at the serpent’s head.

    • Dan says:

      Last week I listened to religious authorities, if you can call them that, on EWTN catholic TV, speak on how "Mary will crush the head of Satan". I couldn't believe my ears, so I googled that same statement and found on the first page several catholic websites, including You Tube making that same statement. I believe I'm aware of what Gen 3:15 says, for I wrote, "states that her seed, her offspring or he will crush or bruise the head. Even the Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse to refer to Jesus Christ." I know you think you possess excellent "Scriptural and interpretive[sic] chops", but my statement covered it fine, without your longwinded explanation.

      The artists who painted and sculpted your idols, did so on their own accord, or were they commissioned by your church or your popes? You think they weren't told to depict Mary crushing the head of Satan, based on catholic false beliefs? If they did it wrong they'd be burned at the stake or boiled in oil, for being heretics. Do you think they'd be willing to take that chance? I don't need to consult your idols or icons, to realize that your cult is a fraud and plagued with Biblical untruths.    servant of God

  64. Publion says:

    And on we go then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 435PM:

    We are given a nice example of ‘Dan’s ‘reasoning’ here: he simply makes his favorite assertions and somehow imagines that he’s demonstrated something. In this case, a) that I am “the biggest liar” and so on, and b) that the Catholic “hierarchy is plagued with pedophiles and perverts”.

    This is ranting, not rationally explicating. But ‘Dan’ travels in circles (the séances in his bathroom mirror and whomever else he might hang out with) where the distinction between ranting and explicating is not really understood and – no doubt – would not be welcome if the topic of were raised. Cartoons do better with ranting than with explicating and demonstrating.

    ‘Dan’s own conduct, of course, is beyond reproach – and we shouldn’t consider his legal and psychiatric misadventures. That’s what a nice tight FDS will get you.

    And the whole bit larded thickly with his favorite cartoon epitheticals.

  65. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 506PM:

    Here we are yet again given another assertion about Catholic teaching that doesn’t exist, i.e. that Mary “possesses all the attributes of Jesus Christ”. He’s going to have to provide a reference to Catholic teaching here, because this assertion is a whopper.  It’s a cartoon, and a deceitful and manipulative cartoon.

    Surely the fact that she is called “Advocate, Helper and Mediatrix” doesn’t establish his point since she ‘advocates’ for humans at the Throne and Christ is neither a “Helper” nor – certainly – a Mediatrix (especially since the word is directly from the Latin and is the feminine form of the noun).

    She is not worshipped and she is not considered to be “a co-Mediator with Christ”, both of which points have been refuted by quoted Catholic teaching here. But his cartoons are all ‘Dan’s got and he’s got nothing else so he simply keeps repeating his cartoon assertions.

  66. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 506PM:

    She is the Mother of Christ, and Christ is God, so it is certainly allowable (via the Transitive Property) to say – somewhat loosely – that she is the Mother of God (meaning: of the Son in His human incarnation, not of the Father or the Spirit).

    And surely a “Queen” – in the presence of the King – is not an equal to the King. In fact, if one were to insist, she should more properly be called the Queen-Mother of Heaven. Although, as the highest-ranking female up there, “queen” isn’t so far off. But Mary surely is not “queen” in the same way as Elizabeth I was of England. This bit of ‘Dan’s is just another chunk of fundie ranting, scrounging for plop to toss and make it sound like a rational theological objection and argument.

    And the rest of the comment is simply a further indulgence in rant. But it’s all ‘Dan’s got.

  67. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 603PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will try to gain the high-ground by claiming that I have been ‘rude’ to Scripture. I am not rude to Scripture; I point out ‘Dan’s epithetical and manipulative misuse of Scripture, which is not the same thing at all.

    And as I said, the pericope can as well apply to ‘Dan’ as to anyone else.

    Then – making yet again more excuses for himself and his content-less material  – ‘Dan’ then claims that his “asterisked final paragraph” consists of “terrible lies” that – nonsensically – are yet “not worth explaining”. Go figure.

    What’s really going on is that ‘Dan’s cartoons are not for explaining; they are for plop-tossing and once ‘Dan’ has to try to explain them, then he’s in way over his head.

  68. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 603PM:

    And thus the comment wobbles on its plop-tossy ranting way, including the hierarchy of “pedophiles and perverts” bit again, for which asserted characterization he proffers no demonstration, as usual.

    And ‘Dan’ tries to bring the performance home – yet again – with the pious bleat that he is merely “telling the truth” and “without any personal gain”. As I have said several times before, ‘Dan’ doth “gain” a great deal by these whacko performances: it gives him something congenial to do; it furthers his indenture to his FDS; and it keeps his head from exploding if he ever had to step out from under the FDS and look at himself in the bathroom mirror instead of populating the thing with the ‘divinities’ that he sees there in it.

    He would be better advised to concern himself with his losing his mind rather than with the readership and all Catholics losing their souls.

  69. Dan says:

    You think you can speak of my "legal and psychiatric misadventures", knowing they were based on lies, by liars similar to yourself. I speak of "pedophiles and perverts" of your cult, which is the truth and the whole world knows there were and are way too many, and you think all I do is rant and plop toss. Your cult is such a "cartoon" of lying whackjobs, false teachings and greedy, sexual deviants, who have no right to criticize and falsely accuse others. Like I've told you several times before, "Work on cleaning up your own backyard, and no one will have anything to plop toss at your filthy apostate cult.   servant

  70. Publion says:

    Going down the most recent crop as the comments appear on the screen:

    On the 23rd at 1133PM ‘Dan’ tries to head for the victim-y high ground on behalf of his “friend”.

    He opens with a pair of epitheticals that are simultaneously a) undemonstrated and thus merely epithetical assertions and b) nicely revelatory – through the workings of clinical projection – of that dark truth that even in the depths of an FDS remain somehow beyond the FDS’s power to drive away: ‘Dan’ is “a compulsive liar and a manipulating hypocrite”; on the basis of which we get the thus-ludicrous follow-on bleat of ‘outrage’ that I “have the nerve” to “question [‘Dan’s] credibility”.

    He’s right, though, to say that he’s told us “too much about [himself]”. But this is where a nice, tight FDS will take you: you become so consumed by the delusions that you don’t and perhaps can’t imagine that your cartoons will actually work against you by revealing precisely what the delusions were created to hide.

  71. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1133PM:

    And when that happens, you wind up with no means of evading the problem your own FDS has created for you except to start bawling the long-rehearsed bleat about “lies” and “more lies”. Because, after all, if you have embraced the delusions as truth, then anything that contradicts them must be “lies” and the revelations that your own delusions have betrayed you into making can only be the result of being “twisted” and so on and so forth.

     ‘Dan’s own embraced delusions have betrayed him; like the devil, they’ll do that: their “deceiving agenda” will ultimately betray those who serve the FDS’s “deceiving agenda”, because that very same “deceiving agenda” works first and foremost to deceive the indentured deceiver himself.

    • Dan says:

      "Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matt 5:10-12

      It must bring you great happiness to know that you and your cult of liars are the source of my joy and gladness, leading to my heavenly reward. Thanks to all you hypocrites.

      "But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it. Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves."  Matt 7:14-15

      I was under the impression that our earthly battle was against the obviously wicked, greedy, mean, nasty or even Satan worshippers. I was shocked to learn the real fight is against deceivers, in their false humility, pretending to be the holy ones and of the one true church. Phonies and con artists, thinking they're fooling others, with their lies and deceptions, when truly only deceiving themselves. Becoming such compulsive liars, believing they've even fooled the Almighty, when all He does is laugh at their ignorance and hypocrisy.  servant

    • Dan says:

      Fax From Beyond for mockers, or prophecy for the Lord's chosen ones;

      "Christ will have victory over the wicked in the world. Christ will put us in situations to let us see how a person is two faced, claiming to be righteous. Christ knows their righteousness comes from the world. Christ understands that they are faking. Christ sees how they turn their backs on you. Christ does not call it love. Christ call that being dishonest. People think when they enter churches, Christ's love is in them, when really it is wickedness within. Christ can win over the wicked. Christ will never quit. Christ is love."

  72. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1133PM:

    Apparently the “friend” who yet again so conveniently came up with a “prophecy” in support of ‘Dan’ is the same one from “months ago”. Who knew? Has he only the one “friend”?

    And anyway, for all we know this “friend” also dwells in the bathroom mirror, with as much reality as the Easter Bunny or whoever else appears to ‘Dan’ in his séances.

    It would be greatly and self-servingly convenient, though, for ‘Dan’ to have a “friend” whose mind operates at an eighth-grade level: a mind functioning at any higher level would quite possibly see through the cartoons, and then the “friend” wouldn’t be ‘Dan’s “friend” any more.

  73. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1133PM:

    And he then tries a familiar Playbook gambit: I am epithetically characterized as “a true Apologist catholic”. Anybody who punctures Abusenik and fundie cartoons – doncha see? – can only be an “Apologist” for whatever it is they are ranting against.

    And he concludes the performance by trying to neutralize the substantial theological problems inherent in this or that of his cartoons: those theological points and problems are merely “lame excuses, false assessments and misinterpretations of God’s Word” and “long-winded stupidity”.

    And ‘Dan’ has never made any actual response to those problems, explicated at length here. But as I have said, he can’t. His cartoons are made for plop-tossing and ‘Dan’ is only a plop-tosser; having to explicate his cartoons isn’t something he’s capable of and further, to explicate them would be to further expose the workings of their delusiveness.

  74. Publion says:

    On the 24th at 1239AM ‘Dan’ merely takes a moment to reveal that – for the purposes of his cartoons – he has redefined “Apologist” to mean one who is “making excuses or apologies”. An apologist, classically, is one who speaks up for a particular position, explicating its points.

    But ‘Dan’ has no classical knowledge at all. Thus he simply tries to deploy a derived and secondary definition that draws only upon contemporary usage in English. This is a hallmark problem with fundie plop-tossing wordplay.

  75. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1140PM where he huffs – under the Wig of Outraged Victimization – that I am “labeling God’s gift of prophecy as Faxes From The Beyond”.

    I am not labeling “God’s gift of prophecy” as any such thing. Because we have not at all in any way established that ‘Dan’s plop-tossing is a) an example of “God’s gift of prophecy” rather than b) merely the deceitful and manipulative and delusional ranting of somebody with a serious case of FDS.

    But, of course, this was the problem of Protestant sola scriptura thinking from the get-go: if anyone can pick up a Bible, see whatever they think they see in it, and then claim that their stuff has the accuracy and authority of “God’s gift of prophecy”, then Scriptural interpretation becomes nothing but a general free-for-all and scrum, with anybody’s derangements masquerading as the authoritative Word of God.

    Into the space opened by that abyssal problem, the fundies galloped like Custer going into the valley of the Little Big Horn, leading anybody who tried to maintain the fiction that the Bible is a simple, clear, handy how-to book that anybody can just pick up and master on the first bounce.

    • Publion says:

      We thus proceed to ‘Dan’s next bit, on the 23rd at 1147PM:

      Here we get violence blended with pitch-perfect juvenile scatology.

      Clearly my point struck far too close to the core operation of ‘Dan’s FDS. 

    • Publion says:

      And that bit is then reinforced (the 23rd at 1158PM) by ‘Dan’ once again trying the old I’m Not/You Are gambit: what he finds “pretty very disturbing” is – had you been waitinggggg forrrr ittttt? – all the “lying” from “religious hypocrites of any religion”.

      We would have to exclude – of course – ‘Dan’s bathroom-mirror religion-of-one … otherwise his cartoons wouldn’t work right. 

    • Publion says:

      And then on the 24th at 1220AM we get ‘Dan’ trying to deal with his unsupported assertions about actual Catholic dogma and teaching.

      Well, as it turns out ‘Dan’ just happened – just last week, in fact – to have “listened to” something on TV. We have his word for it, doncha see?

      Thus we get (if indeed we are getting anything actual at all here) not a reference to a commonly-accessible formal source (such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church) but instead i) a TV show that ‘Dan’ claims to have watched or heard, and ii) whatever ‘Dan’ claims to have heard in this TV show.

      A double whammy of inaccessible corroborating sources that are notable only for their not including ‘Dan’s claimed report of the table-talk at the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1220AM:

      Readers can consider ‘Dan’s claim here as they may.

      Oh, and there’s a You-Tube video or two from “several catholic websites”.

      There’s also the Catechism of the Catholic Church – which ‘Dan’ has used before – but apparently that wouldn’t serve the purposes of his plop-tossy evasions this time around.

      And, indeed, there’s no “apparently” about it: in the Catechism’s section on Mary – paragraphs 963 through 975 – there is no mention whatsoever of Mary crushing the head of Satan. (Which would explain why the google search-engine – responding to the query term ‘mary crushing the head of satan’ – provides no link to the Catechism or any formal teaching of the Church.)

      So ‘Dan’s various plop-tossy bits here have not “covered it fine” at all. And it appears he purposely avoided that fact, so profoundly uncongenial for his cartoon. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1220AM:

      And we see again ‘Dan’s oh-so-necessary-for-the-cartoon bit about “idols”. To repeat yet again, for a statue to be an idol, it would have to be worshipped as itself being the god or divinity. No such statue exists in Catholicism.

      Statues and paintings merely remind and recall; they do not embody (as idols must do).

      But this uncongenial reality would wreck the fundie cartoon, which is why ‘Dan’ – like the fundies – must ignore it and pretend otherwise.

      Thus ‘Dan’ huffs that he needn’t “consult your idols or icons”. And he needn’t – and dares not – “consult” the Catechism or any formal doctrinal teaching of the Church either. For obvious reasons. 

    • Dan says:

      Response to publyin's 25th @ 6:09pm – Quoting your NAB – Exodus 20:2-5

      "I am the Lord your God…You shall not have others gods beside me. 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: YOU SHALL NOT BOW DOWN BEFORE THEM OR SERVE THEM."

      As previously stated, I have seen several photos of every pope going back to John XXIII, bowing down to statues of Mary and some kissing her feet. The Bible states that you're not even to make statues, let alone bow and pray to them, or kiss them. This is worship in the highest degree, and detracts from the works of Christ as our only Savior and God our only Creator and Father. Words you've given to Mary, adore, honor, venerate and devotion are all synonyms for worship. CCC 971 "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is intrinsic 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". Make all the excuses you can conjure up, this is worship and blasphemy against God's Holy Word.

      Add to all this all the prayers to Mary, visions of her, temples named after her, carrying her crowned statues on rose adorned litters, Jesuits taking on her name, and the ridiculous claim that saying her Rosary will earn you special dispensation and indulgences in heaven, and you have the most blatant form of idolatry and goddess worship on the planet. Can one be anymore brainwashed and ignorant, while accusing others of being delusional?  servant

    • Dan says:

      Publyin's 25th @ 6:08 – Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB), a catholic translation of the Latin Vulgate w/ imprimatur – Genesis 3:15  Speaking to the serpent, Satan.

      "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; SHE SHALL CRUSH THY HEAD, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

      It makes no difference what the Catechism or any formal teachings of the Church might say, many well respected catholics teach and think Mary crushes the head of Satan. The only cartoon bits are coming from the erroneous teachings of your church. Any religion claiming to be following the One True God, should be referring to the Bible as a reference and not to their false teachings. It seems that all cults like to think that their books can explain their beliefs better than God's Holy Inspired Word. Unbelievable!   servant

  76. morganB says:

    Glad to hear of at least one cleric who was freed after being worngly accused of being a pedophile. There is, however, the hierarchy and Francis' promise to "clean house" of those criminals responsible for moving priests to unwitting parishes in order to cover up their crimes. As a matter of fact, the church continues to ignore the deeds of Cardinals Mahoney and Law.

    • malcolm harris says:

      On the 25th MorganB refers to "those criminals who transferred priests to unwitting parishes in order to cover up their crimes". This comment contains dubious presumptions, but  I will only address one. He overlooks the fact that western justice contains protections for everybody. E.g.. the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  A Bishop cannot therefore presume that an accusation is, by itself, proof of guilt. Under western law there has to be evidence of guilt. In most accusations there is no proof… just a story. But why would anybody lie?. Well human nature being what it is…. What about revenge?, Or intense dislike of the school? Or disliking the priest?. But the most common motive for lying is money… some settlements are equal to a big lottery win. That is why the Bishops have been so cautious. Anyway.. if the alleged assault was so serious, then why didn't the parents go to the police?.  That's a question they don't like.

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, I'm not sure what country you live in, but "innocent until proven guilty" in America isn't worth the paper it's written on. I was never considered innocent, even when there was substantial proof to my innocence. It didn't help that wicked, lying priests, nuns, principles and corrupt catholic cops, backed each others false stories and lies. You ought to try your hand at defending yourself against deceiving members of the cloth, when you're judged guilty from the moment you walk into the courtroom. I thought you people were supposed to be those who forgive. The lying creeps stuck to their evil schemes and granted no forgiveness or mercy. I hope when they stand before God that he will grant them the same justice. On top of that, I have to put up with the evil, ignorant assessments of the liars in this forum, who weren't even there to witness the injustices. Walk in my shoes and tell me you'd sit back and make no attempts at defending yourselves. Cowards, liars and hypocrites, pretending to be holy, merciful and forgiving. They only think they deserve justice and mercy. There will be no justice or peace for the wicked and deceiving. You can count on that. I'll be able to stand before God with a clear conscience. How about the lying creeps of your cult? Will be looking forward to receiving fair justice on Judgment Day.  servant

    • Dan says:

      Also Malcolm, as to "why didn't the parents go to the police?" There were several reasons, of which I'm sure you are aware. Parents sometimes didn't hear the accusations, because rape or molestation victims are known to feel embarassment or some form of guilt when these crimes happen. At times parents wouldn't believe their child, especially when the church makes claims of a priest's innocence or convince parents that children can sometimes have imaginations or exaggerate things. Parents* or children were threatened with excommunication from the church. For all these reasons, I don't believe that that's a fair question to ask or present as proof of innocence.

      *John 9:20-23  Shows an example of parents in fear of being shunned by the false, self-righteous church and the power they wield in the community.

  77. Donald Link says:

    ​A couple of brief side notes for context:  The Post Dispatch has for decades been in the pocket of the left-radicals.  Their reliability is right up there with Obama's statement regarding the IRS scandal, "not a smidgen of corruption".  Potential lawsuits draw the trial lawyers bar like flies to a corpse.  Only in this instance, the corpse was not dead.  Kudos to Father  Jiang.

  78. john says:

    It's a bit much to refer to SNAP as a "hate group." Do they aggressively pursue justice against rampant instances of sexual abuse by priests that bishops/archbishops/cardinals/popes turned a blinid eye to? Yes. Are there some instances where they might be wrong? Probably. But they are a great resource of strength and justice for many of those who have been abused not just by individual priests but by an elaborate system of cover ups and shifting priests around and allowing them to abuse even more children.

  79. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1042PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ demonstrates more of either his method or his madness or both: I a) “think” that I can speak of his “legal and psychiatric misadventures” while I am b) “knowing they were based on lies”.

    Which is precisely untrue.

    Because I certainly don’t ‘know’ that his assorted legal and psychiatric misadventures were “based on lies”.

    Indeed, over the long course here I have pointed out at great length and in detail how ‘Dan’s material indicates and supports precisely the opposite conclusion: his “legal and psychiatric misadventures” were the result of his own actions and his own issues.

  80. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1042PM:

    He then tries to evade the evidentiary problems with his general assertion about “pedophiles and perverts” (he slyly here leaves out the “hierarchy” bit from his prior statement of the point) by merely asserting that what he says “is the truth and the whole world knows it”.

    I continue to think that all he does is “rant and plop toss” and I will continue to demonstrate those aspects in his material.

  81. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1042PM:

    He then starts riffing along the old I’m Not/You Are lines, claiming that it is not his own material but rather the Church and Catholicism that constitute a “’cartoon’ of lying whackjobs”. Readers may judge as they will.

    And then – slyly – that since his cartoon calls for (fill in the blank: the Church, the hierarchy, all Catholics) being “lying whackjobs  … and greedy, sexual deviants” then – had you been waittinggg forrr itttttttttt? – Catholics generally “have no right to criticize and falsely accuse others”.

    And with that last bit there he slyly tries to dispose of two problems with one try: i) no Catholics here have a right to criticize his material here and ii) he was falsely accused by Catholics and that is the only reason for his (numerous) legal and psychiatric misadventures. Neato, but now all too obvious a deceptive ploy.

  82. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1044PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ simply tries to evade a number of problematic points with his material that I raised (the 23rd at 1023PM through 1026PM) by huffing that the points are “trash” and “not worth wasting [his] time”.

    Neato, but now all too obvious an evasive ploy.

  83. spiderman44060 says:

    @ Dan,

    Please read the Bible my friend and study the Catechism. Your rants prove nothing more to others in this forum other than you are ignorant of Jesus and His church.

  84. Publion says:

    On the 26th at 126PM ‘Dan’ will merely try to spin himself as one who is “persecuted because of righteousness” – larded thickly with Scriptural pericope. But the entire point at issue is whether he is a) simply a ‘prophet’ bethumped by the unbelievers or b) a queasily aggressive whackjob who incurs legal and psychiatric interventions due to his actions (and quite possibly, his derangement).

    Readers may judge as they will.

    And he heads for the histrionic victim-y high ground by claiming he was “shocked to learn” that “the real fight” in life is against “deceivers, in their false humility, pretending to be holy ones” … but if Satan, “the old Deluder” as the Puritans put it, is in the business of deluding, then it is hard to see where anyone with a competent and accurate grasp of “our earthly battle” could be “shocked” in the first place.

    And if ‘Dan’ is indentured to an FDS (i.e. Fixed Delusional Syndrome) and Satan is “the old Deluder”, then ‘Dan’ is rather clearly part of the problem. Which problem is only amplified by his efforts to aggressively pass himself off as the voice and word of God, with all the status and authority thereunto appertaining.

  85. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 142PM:

    The problem is not whether “Christ” will triumph; the problem is whether ‘Dan’ accurately represents Christ or whether ‘Dan’ is simply an aggressive whacko who has manipulatively and deceitfully appropriated Christ and Scripture in the service of his own self-serving agenda.

    Thus his Fax From Beyond here doesn’t really get to the heart of the matter at all.

  86. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1211AM:

    Here – and yet again – ‘Dan’ will try to quote Scripture to establish one of his favorite fundie bits, in this case the claim that Catholics ‘worship’ Mary and the saints and thus violate the first Commandment.

    My copy of the NAB version of Exodus 20 states “You shall not have other gods before me” (v.3); “You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth” (v.4); “You shall not bow down before them or worship them” (v.5).

    And this NAB translation mirrors almost exactly the King James Version (KJV) of the same text, with merely some stylistic changes.

  87. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1211AM:

    Catholics have “no other gods”; they have not “carved idols” of any non-divine creature; and since they have not created such “idols” then they cannot ‘bow down before them or worship them”. (That “them” used twice in verse 5 refers to the “idols” of verses 3 and 4.)

    Statues and paintings used to assist in the reverence of those who are close to God and whose lives of faithfulness to God are worthy of emulation are not – to repeat yet again – “idols” since neither the statues/paintings nor the persons they depict are held to be themselves “gods” or divinities.

    So all we have here is another repetition of one of ‘Dan’s favorite fundie 3x5s.

  88. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1211AM:

    Nor is reverence for the reality of the person whom a statue or painting represents in any way accurately characterizable as “worship in the highest degree”. This is – yet again – merely a convenient fundie word-confusion designed to further the agenda of plop-tossing at the Church. The persons depicted are reverenced precisely because of their faithfulness to God and to Christ and such reverence clearly fosters “the works of Christ” and the ongoing work of Christ.

    The statue of Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial – to use a secular example – does not in any way indicate that those who visit it are ‘worshipping’ Lincoln as a deity; they are demonstrating respect for a life and purpose greatly worthy of emulation.

  89. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1211AM:

    And then ‘Dan’ once again runs yet another 3×5 that has been dealt with before here: the official statement that “the Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is intrinsic to Catholic worship” does not in any way thereby demonstrate that Mary herself is ‘worshipped’; the statement clearly describes the Church’s relation to Mary as one of “devotion”, which is not at all the same as “worship”. The Church’s “worship” is directed to the Trinity; the Church’s “devotion” – intrinsic to that worship – recalls and reverences all those who led lives faithful to the Trinity, among whom the Church holds Mary to be the greatest.

    The CCC text ‘Dan’ quotes quite clearly deploys two different terms – “devotion” and “worship” – and the term “devotion” is consistently and repetitively applied to Mary.

    ‘Dan’ can play the deliberately or natively ignorant fundie word-play game all he wants; but that’s all it is.

    And as a further vivid demonstration of the almost juvenile fundie manipulation, ‘Dan’ even again tries to label Catholic churches as “temples” – the better to manipulatively rouse the image of pagan temples and idol-worship. Sly but rather too obvious.

  90. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 202AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ manipulatively and perhaps deceitfully ignores the NAB version (“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel”) upon which he has previously relied in this series of comments and instead dredges up the DRV, originally translated in the 1580s.

    That translation did not take into account the masculine and plural of the Hebrew term for “offspring” and it remains of great historical value as the first major post-Reformation Catholic translation.

    But while Jerome held that the verse pre-figured Mary, yet faithfulness to the Hebrew grammar requires a different interpretation, as is reflected in later Catholic translations such as the NAB and as was originally held by Irenaeus of Lyons and others to refer to Christ, connecting the verse to Galatians 3:19 and 4:4.

  91. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 202AM:

    But of course none of this will further the ‘Dan’-fundie cartoon, so ‘Dan’ quickly moves to dismiss the fact that there is utterly no formal Catholic teaching supporting the claim he wants to make here: “it makes no difference” what the formal teaching of the Church says – doncha see? – because (‘Dan’ now claims) “many well respected catholics teach and think that Mary crushes the head of Satan”.

    Do they? Can ‘Dan’ proffer some examples?

    And are we to accept with a straight face that the matter revolves not around formal Catholic teaching on the point, but rather revolves around what some Catholics may (or may not) mistakenly believe based on the now-outmoded DRV? Which is a version of the Bible that has not been generally used in formal Catholic training or worship for quite a long time.

    And – to repeat yet again – on this matter ‘Dan’ has precisely not demonstrated any “erroneous teachings of your church”. There once was an inaccurate translation, half a millennium ago, and that inaccuracy has been subsequently corrected – and that’s where the matter stands today and has for quite a long time.

  92. Dan says:

    Spiderman, I read the Bible daily, which is the very reason why I have such a problem with your Catechism. I speak of Jesus regularly and am not sure if you're aware of what constitutes His church. It surely wouldn't be one of cowards, unbelievers, vile, murderers, sexually immoral, idolators and all liars, as I have witnessed personally from members of your cult. Maybe your Spidey Senses need an overhaul?

    Here's some Bible verses that may help you recognize what constitutes God's real, true church. Ephesians 2: 19-22, 1 Peter 2:5, Rev 21:8  If after reading these verses, you still feel you prefer a manmade church of nasty, cruel, and unforgiven sinners, rather than God's Spiritual building, well so be it. I'll forgive your ignorance and hopefully God also does.

Speak Your Mind

(email addresses will not be displayed publicly)

*