Copy and Paste: Boston Globe Again Hides the Truth and Misleads the Public About the Catholic Church Annual Abuse Audit

Brian McGrory : Boston Globe : Matt Rocheleau

Facts vs. The Boston Globe: Globe editor Brian McGrory (l) and staffer Matt Rocheleau (r)

The Boston Globe will do anything to keep an old story alive, even if it means repeatedly misleading its readers.

Once again, this year's newly released annual audit report by United States bishops about abuse in the Catholic Church amplifies the rampancy of false accusations, unprovable allegations against dead priests, dubious decades-old claims, and the determination of Church-suing tort lawyers and their allies to drain the Church's coffers.

Yet in an article by staffer Matt Rocheleau, the Boston Globe continues to try to convince the public that abuse is somehow still a current problem in the Catholic Church.

Just the facts

Taken straight from the data in this year's audit report, we again provide you the simple facts about the Catholic Church abuse story that you will never, ever see in the Boston Globe and which once again only underscore that the abuse story is a Globe obsession borne of animus for an institution which it so abhors:

  • a whopping 95% of all abuse accusations last year allege incidents from 1989 or earlier (28 or more years ago);
  • 47% of all identified priests who were accused in 2016 were already long deceased (and conveniently no longer around to defend themselves);
  • over 82% of all identified priests who were accused in 2016 were either already deceased, already removed from ministry, already laicized, or simply missing; and
  • only a mere 15% of all allegations last year were even deemed "substantiated," while nearly two thirds of the accusations were deemed either "unsubstantiated," "unable to be proven," or still under review.

So we will say it again: The story of abuse in the Catholic Church is less "news" and more of an attempt to extend a story line that croaked many years ago.

And the only real reason why lawsuits and accusations are still flying against the Catholic Church is that a number of states have enacted "window legislation" which enables anonymous accusers to make decades-old allegations against now-deceased priests. In the case of this past year, window legislation in Minnesota – home of the notorious Church-suing lawyer Jeff Anderson – enabled various accusers and flimflammers to step forward claiming abuse from many decades ago.

False accusations, the untold story

There is an important and notable fact in this year's report. 25 current minors came forward in 2016 alleging that a current priest abused them. Many of the cases are still under investigation, but of the 13 allegations in which a determination was made, only 2 were found to be "substantiated," and 11 were found to be completely bogus.

Chew on that for a moment … 85% of these contemporaneous accusations in which a determination was made were found to be outright fraudulent.

If the contemporaneous accusations are such frauds, can you imagine what the fraud percentage is of those claiming a priest touched them 30, 40, 50 years ago? Also keep in mind that 73% of the cases brought to the attention of dioceses last year were brought by a Church-suing lawyer.

This is the story that the Globe and the left-wing media need to report. False accusations against Catholic priests are rampant. But the Globe does not report this part of the story because it does not fit the bogus Spotlight movie story line.

Once again, we repeat that the Boston Globe's reporting has absolutely nothing to do with the "protection of children" or the tragic abuse of kids. It has everything to do with bludgeoning the Catholic Church for what it stands for and earning kudos from others – such as those in Hollywood – who also detest the Church.


[Addendum (6/6/17): We would like to respond to some readers who are unclear on what the report defines as an "unsubstantiated" allegation. Here it is, straight fron the report itself (emphasis added): "'Unsubstantiated' describes an allegation for which enough evidence exists to prove that the abuse did not occur" (p. 21 of the pdf / p. 10 of the report).

In other words, "unsubstantiated" claims are indeed bogus.]


See also:

1. Sins of the Press: The Untold Story of The Boston Globe's Reporting on Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church by David F. Pierre, Jr. (

2. 'Spotlight' Exposed: The definitive 'Spotlight' review.

3. 'Nothing to See Here!': Investigation Finds 15 Mass. Educators Each Year Suspended For Sex Abuse, Boston Globe In Hiding (Nov. 2015)

4. FIVE FAST FACTS About the Catholic Church Abuse Narrative


  1. Dan says:

    Are these facts something that the true and self-righteous catholic church can be proud of? The fact that there are any pedophiles in an organization claiming to be the One and Only True catholic church, or that somehow the numbers of perverts aren't anywhere near what the media has reported is absolutely disingenuous at best. Claiming that 47% are "long deceased" and "no longer around to defend themselves", also means they're not able to spend a lifelong prison term, which is what they would truly deserve for harming children. To say that "abuse in the catholic church" is a "story line that croaked many years ago" is an outright lie. It's a fact that many rape and sexually abused victims don't come forward for twenty or thirty years or more. This story is far from dead and you can't accuse me of being some leftist or looking for kudos from Hollywood. I've been falsely accused by hundreds of members of your cult and don't see any of your brainwashed sheep coming to my defense. No. You're like a bunch of vultures circling a kill and willing to add to the lies in order point a deceiving finger at the innocent, so others won't be so apt to notice the abundance of creeps in your cult. True fact that many are now just dead perverted creeps. As far as those who have been falsely accused, which the guilty would surely outnumber, all I can say is, "Your church is reaping what it sows." You're quick to falsely accuse, lie and slander, so you shall reap the same against your hierarchy and yourselves. Although you slyly inflate the numbers of fraud and deny, make excuses and deceive when it comes to the true accusations against your cult of pedophiles and creeps. The True God is patiently waiting to mete out His just punishments. Looking forward to Judgment Day, when the truly guilty shall be forever condemned and the righteous shall be forever freed from all the deception and lies.  servant

    P.S. I'll be waiting for all the vultures, cowards and snakes to attack.

  2. Dan says:

    Dave, I had trusted you to be honest and forthcoming when producing information, especially when accusing others of "Hid[ing] the truth" and "misleading it's readers" and "Public". I have a serious problem when you're claiming of the "25 current minors [that] came forward…of the 13 allegations in which a determination was made, only 2 were found to be 'substantiated', and 11 were found to be completely bogus." You typed "11 were found to be completely bogus" in bold print. The USCCB report read, "eleven allegations were unsubstantiated". Seeing that "unsubstantiated" means there is insufficient evidence to determine whether an accusation is true or false, then using the terms "completely bogus" or "outright fraudulent" would be terribly misleading to your readers and public, and borderline lies.

    Secondly – Are we to trust the reporting of incidents from bishops who previously enabled pedophiles and perverts to reoffend by sending perpetrators off to other churches? Bishops who themselves have at times been accused of pedophilia or perversions. Trust an institution which I have personally found to be full of liars, excusers and slanderers?

    The report also stated that there was a "lack of cooperation at the parish and school level in gathering information". Of the 194 dioceses only 23 dioceses included parish audits, down from 31 dioceses last year. Something tells me that this information shows a decline in accountability and transparency, not an improvement.

    Lastly, and certainly not least, the report stated, "It is important for the bishops not to conclude that sexual abuse of minors by the clergy is a thing of the past and a distant memory." I believe you may want to rethink the fact that Catholic Abuse Matters are far from any "story line that croaked many years ago". This problem is definitely systemic and apparently not going away anytime soon. Brainwashed catholic sheep may want to open your eyes and ears to what really is the truth. Yours and your childrens souls are certainly at stake.  servant of the One and Only True God

    • says:

      Dan, if you’re going to come on here and acccuse people of lying, you better have your facts right. “Unsubstantiated” does not mean “there is insufficient evidence to determine whether an accusation is true or false.” You made that up.

      Here is what “unsubstantiated” actually means, straight from the report itself:

      “‘Unsubstantiated’ describes an allegation for which enough evidence exists to prove that the abuse did not occur (p. 21 of the pdf / p. 10 of the report).

      In other words, “unsubstantiated” claims are indeed bogus.

  3. Dan says:

    Dave, I did NOT make the meaning of "unsubstantiated" up. That was a direct quote from Wiki.

    Another quote from Child Protective Services (CPS) – "Note that the finding of 'unsubstantiated' or unfounded does not always mean that maltreatment did not occur. Instead, it may mean that there is not enough evidence to support a finding of substantiated."

    Quoted from  - "A 'False' Claim of Abuse is not Necessarily a Lie" (title of article)…."In fact, they might be unsupported by sufficient evidence, but they could be true."

    Dave, We all know that claims of child abuse or rape are hard to prove, especially when dealing with children, dead suspects or perpetrators who are more than willing to lie and deny. I think it would have been better if you quoted the report directly, saying those "eleven allegations were 'unsubstantiated' " and not "completely bogus". I didn't accuse you of lying, but using the wording you chose, ('completely bogus' or 'outright fraudulent'), was a bit of a stretch of the truth. My facts are just fine and I'm not one of the compulsive liars or minipulators we've witnessed on this forum.

    • says:

      Dan – We are not talking about definitions from Wiki, “,” or anywhere else.

      We are talking about the definition according to the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection for the National Review Board and the USCCB.

      Here is some free advice: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

  4. Dan says:

    Saw that I misspelled manipulators. I also question your repeated claim "that the Boston Globe's reporting has absolutely nothing to do with the 'protection of children' or the tragic abuse of kids". You know that for sure? How do you know that to be true? Do you guys also think the same of myself? Then you would be truly mistaken.

  5. malcolm harris says:

    Dan, on the 4th,…. asks us…. who we should trust?. Some of his thoughts are superficially plausible. Meaning they are reasonable at first glance… provided you don't think them through. …But when you do you find that he has excluded relevant facts. He has left out parents, the natural protectors of their children. And he has left out the police…the first port of call when the law has been broken. When we include these realities we grasp that it would be virtually impossible for the Bishops to understate the numbers of alleged abuses (of current minors). If they did then some enterprising journalist when do his own research, simply by surveying various police departments. Given the hysteria, whipped up by the media, the public mood would prompt any parent to report any suspected abuse. And don't forget the mandatory reporting? 

     No…Dan is conducting his own personal witch hunt…. against all things Catholic.

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, I'm going to explain myself and what you describe as my "own personal witch hunt…. against all things catholic" at the end of publiar's comments on June 6th.

  6. Mark Taylor says:

    For someone who claims to be a born again Christian, Dan comes across as being pretty mean spirited.

    • Dan says:

      Sorry Mark, my reply to you is under publyin's 6/6/17 @ 10:35am. Easy to confuse you catholics, being your all such biased, brainwashed clones.

  7. Michael Skiendzielewski says:

    unsubstantiated…………………….not supported or proven by evidence.

    this definition is taken from several "dictionary" sites on the Internet.

    an unsubstantiated claim does not mean that a claim is bogus.

    bogus………………not genuine or true (definition)

    • says:

      We are not talking about “dictionary” definitions or definitions from web sites.

      We are talking about the definition from the audit report itself:

      "'Unsubstantiated' describes an allegation for which enough evidence exists to prove that the abuse did not occur" (p. 21 of the pdf / p. 10 of the report).

      In other words, "unsubstantiated" claims are indeed bogus.


  8. Publion says:

    And on we go.

    In our last episode – i.e. his final comment on the immediately previous thread, dated May 9th at 251AM – ‘Dan’ gave us a nice summary demonstration of a whole bunch of his whackeries rather nicely wrapped up: a) he simply cawn’t think why anyone reading his stuff would imagine that he doth have “problems and issues” that he is “blaming … on somebody or everybody else; b) (and had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt?) it’s all just “repetitive and compulsive lies” by … (fill in the blank); c) and “ignorance”; and d) not only does ‘Dan’ not find it “humorous”  but also (had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt?) “God” doesn’t find it “terribly funny” either (and – but of course – God’ll getcha all). Oh, and e) ‘Dan’ doth add “Satan” into the mix (because only Satan – doncha see? – would question ‘Dan’s stuff).

    • Dan says:

      Are you catholics such biased hypocrites that you think you can make any sarcastic comments towards me, yet think I have no right to reply to the lies, slander and sarcasm hurled at me. And you're sure quick to cast your judgments on others. Take a good look at the creeps in your own backyard. If you have no problem with the disgusting crimes against innocent children and other victims of your cult, then there's nothing we can do for your blindness.

    • Dan says:

      My mistake. This comment was directed towards Mark Taylor, but can just as easily apply to your lyin', sarcastic, hypocritical ass.  servant

    • Dan says:

      publyin' oinks, "(because only Satan – doncha see? – would question 'Dan's stuff)"

      This isn't true at all. Satan's demons and mini-Satans question my stuff all the time, but you don't even realize your doing it? That figures. All your londwinded ignorance and nonsense and yet you don't even know you're spewing it. Classic, brainwashed hypocrite. LOL

  9. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment:

    But wait – there’s more!

    Now that he thinks about it, ‘Dan’ doth realize that all along it has been he who has been calling me “a ‘deceptive and manipulative whackjob’”. But this isn’t a fine example of ‘Dan’s self-serving treatment of reality as if it were Silly Putty with his I’m Not/You Are bit;  nooooooo, this is just gawd’s honest truth that ‘Dan’ knows even though nobody else seems to.

    And we are treated to a definition from the Dictionary of ‘Dan’: in the ‘Dan’-verse, when he styles himself “prophet” he just means “teacher”. Sooooo … we are not really to consider him in a line with Isaiah and Jeremiah and such; he’s more of a Gabe Kotter kinda guy as in “Welcome back, Kotter”.

    But he’s a “teacher” with a difference, since he receives his course materials and syllabus directly from the Divine Fax, in the form of – we would have to say – the “25” ‘teachings’ he claims to have gotten off the Heavenly Printer.

    But there is another faculty member (and roomie) in the oh-so-speshull University of ‘Dan’ who has received “1000 in the last 7 years”. One wonders if ‘Dan’ doesn’t live in a house, but rather a home.

    • Dan says:

      Just another example of ignorant mocking of God, His Holy Spirit and His Chosen (i.e. gawd, Divine Fax, Heavenly Printer). None of you catholics have a problem with those who mock and scoff at God and His Spirit, and yet have such a problem with me? Have no problems with the pedophilia and perversions against innocent minors, and yet have such a problem with me? How can anyone be so blind?

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment:

    But – doncha see? – to ‘Dan’, once he has said something and once he has spewed his assorted claims and assertions, then that equals his having “explained” his stuff. The difference between ‘saying’ or ‘asserting’ or ‘claiming’ and actually ‘explaining’ … is a difference by which ‘Dan’ does not allow his performances to be obstructed.

    Thus who can be surprised when he then declaims that “there is nothing [that he is] trying to ‘evade or avoid’” … ? He’s just sorely bethumped by “lying assessments”, doncha see? He is – in case it has to be spelled it out for you – a victim here, as everywhere else. But – of course – a heroic and oh-so-divinely-truthy victim.

    And he brings it all home by once again repeating the rock-bottom fundamental whackery that grounds his entire Fixed Delusional System: if you question ‘Dan’s stuff, then you are questioning God. Because ‘Dan’ and God are … what else can we say? – one.

  11. Publion says:

    Well, so much for the old stuff. With a fresh bowl of popcorn, it’s on to the present material.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 317AM:

    Here, ‘Dan’ will retreat to the usual Playbook fallback position, that I will call the Even If Only One gambit: if all the claims and assertions of widespread perversion and organized debauchery start to dissolve, then the enterprising plop-tosser can Keep The Ball Rolling by puffing up the old pinfeathers and huffily declaiming that i) Even If There Is Only One, then that’s too much for a Church that claims to be God’s divinely-instituted human institution on earth and ii) even that Only One instantly and totally dissolves the Church’s legitimacy (which, by amazing coincidence, is one of ‘Dan’s primary objectives).

    Of course, pedophilia – and I refer to genuine clinically-defined pedophilia here – appears to be a human failing appearing generally throughout the species over time. There is no human organization that can coherently and credibly be said to be free of all instances of it. (Which, of course, is why ‘Dan’ avoids organizational membership in religion – that saves him the trouble of belonging to anything that might be tainted with pedophilia at all … which might seem a tad obsessive on his part, but perhaps he has his reasons).

  12. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 317AM:

    Then – and with a remarkably shallow but tactically shrewd comprehension – he simply insists that the eyebrow-raising percentage of recently-accused priests who are no longer around to defend themselves merely and only means that they have escaped prison, which is nothing but the classic manipulative and deceptive ploy of presuming what has yet to be demonstrated.

    A perfectly plausible alternative explanation is that there are still those enterprising types (individuals and torties) who consider it possible to run the old Stampede game-plan, now with an almost-perfect certainty that the accused will not be able to interfere with obtaining a check to settle the claim.

  13. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 317AM:

    And he then tries to bolster that bit by larding on another trusty Playbook gambit: that it takes decades for victims to “come forward”. There is no psychological basis establishing that as a generalyl applicable rule and there never has been; and if some – as is quite possible – might find it more difficult than others, it is also true that the check-issuing Stampede mania of the past few decades has certainly made it not only ridiculously easy to “come forward” but also to be lauded as somehow heroic for doing so.

    And in regard to “the story” being “dead”, we also have to distinguish between a) the actual historical reality of whether such widespread abuse still exists and b) whether the media consider it any longer a “story” that they care to attend to for their own purposes.

  14. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 317AM:

    And – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttttt? – ‘Dan’ then takes this opportunity to insert a commercial for himself, as being “falsely accused” and so on and so forth. That nobody came “to [his] defense” because he was, in the judgment of so many, accurately described … is something that ‘Dan’s FDS cannot allow him to effectively consider.

    Nor – were one to peruse ‘Dan’s many performances here on this site – would it likely occur that the Church or anyone else is trying to emphasize ‘Dan’s whackery in order to distract from the allegations of the Church’s or Catholicism’s own infirmities; ‘Dan’s material establishes his whackery all on its own, and no help from extraneous sources is necessary.

    On top if which it also has to be noted that ‘Dan’s rants against Catholicism are themselves actually necessary elements to maintain his own FDS; they help distract him from his own abyssal issues.

  15. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 317AM:

    And then that oh-so-charming observation about “many are now just dead perverted creeps” (and as I have often said, ‘Dan’ has this thing about “perverted creeps”, which is why when he looks in the bathroom mirror he doesn’t see ‘Dan’ but only the assorted divine figurines that pass on ‘teachings’ in those séances).

    And the whole bit concludes with a riff along the lines of – had you been waitttinggg forrrr ittttt? – God’ll getcha.

  16. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:

    Here we are treated to ‘Dan’ doing his impressions of an exasperated student of the truth, taking DP and TMR to task for not being truthy. The pinfeathers are in full-puff mode. (And – my, my – so grammatically and structurally uncharacteristic of ‘Dan’s usual performances, and rather epithet-free.)

    The article discusses the USCCB report. That report – as DP notes – defines “unsubstantiated” a) not as if there were insufficient evidence (as to whether the abuse did or did not occur), but rather b) that there exists enough evidence “to prove that the abuse did not occur”.

    If there is any semantic difficulty here, I would say that it is in the USCCB erring on the side of Victimist politeness: one doesn’t in this day and age want to come right out and say something like “false”, let alone “lies”, so the Report errs in its punch-pulling deployment of the term “unsubstantiated”, while simultaneously carefully defining that term (for the purposes of the Report) as meaning “false” without having to actually provide a terribly un-P.C. soundbite by saying “false” directly and overtly.

  17. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:

    One thinks of the Doe/Gallagher case in Philadelphia where D/G’s claim of being victimized was outright contradicted by his mother’s own carefully-kept records of altar-boy assignments and the fact that he was never of the age to be a “bell-ringer” (which claim played a part in D/G’s accusation).

    This would earn the classification of “unsubstantiated” according to the Report’s usage, but clearly it is actually a case of there being clear evidence that the accusation could not be accurate or veracious.

  18. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:

    After two decades during which the Church has shared any allegations or claims with police and prosecutorial authorities, it strains credibility to imagine that at this point the USCCB would issue a formal public Report that could be instantly reviewed by those authorities for inaccuracies. Indeed, while I am not privy to whether such independent authorities actually played a role in vetting the stats in the Report, I would say it is hardly beyond possibility that such authorities were involved in the Report even in its composition phase.

    As to what ‘Dan’ has “personally found” … readers may judge as they will.

  19. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:

    The Report’s opening Letter to Cardinal DiNardo (from the National Review Board) clearly indicates that the “on-site audit” process was conducted on 65 of the dioceses and eparchies. With minor failures in three instances, all of the audited entities were compliant and all of the 129 dioceses participated in reporting on the general conformity to abuse measures and data-collection stats, and all were found to be compliant.

    And this represents an increase in reporting entities, since last year six dioceses and two eparchies did not participate and this year all dioceses participated and the two eparchies assure that they will participate for the coming year.

    And while the Letter goes on to note that there remain some problems in getting dioceses and parishes to fully implement the (apparently substantial) formal training, tracking and data-collection tasks required by the Charter for Protection, yet – as I said – any actual abuse allegations would be reported  to public and Church authorities in any case. So while the Charter’s formal book-keeping requirements still haven’t been fully implemented, the actual reporting of abuse allegations remains quite acute.

  20. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:

    Further, the Letter then notes that there were 25 fresh current (as opposed to ‘historical’) allegations in this audit-year, which is an increase in current allegations. Of these 25, 11 were deemed “unsubstantiated”, 2 substantiated, and 10 still being investigated by diocesan or religious-order authorities.

    The Letter then takes the position that if only the two already deemed “substantiated” are veracious, then the Church must not let down its guard in this matter.

    That’s fair enough and any human organization would do well to continue its vigilance. However, I would say that the era of Stampede is indeed over, with its over-the-top, media-fueled phantasmagoria and legions of torties eagerly hoovering up allegants from their ‘victim-assistance’ front-organizations.

  21. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:

    I doubt that the Church or any other human organization will ever reach Zero-Point with abuse, any more than the Church or any other human organization can reach Zero-Point (i.e. total and absolute perfection) by utterly eradicating obesity or alcohol-abuse or a city can utterly eradicate traffic-fatalities.

    The concept of Zero-point seems to me a particularly American conceit: it makes for good copy, endows its agenda with some sort of aura of Total-ness or Complete-ness (always alluring to humans), and keeps up public approbation.

    But human nature is a wonky thing and there’s no avoiding that (look at ‘Dan’, who theoretically has speshull direct connections to God).

  22. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:

    ‘Dan’s performance then tries to bring it all home by deploying a familiar, scientific-sounding mantra: the Church’s abuse problem is – cue the drum roll – “systemic”.

    I would say, first and again, that the Church’s problem is fundamentally a human-nature problem.

    And second, that if it’s a “systemic” problem then it needs to be systemically addressed and that’s precisely what has happened in the past decades: the Charter – reinforced with papal mojo – erects  major systemic elements specifically designed to systemically enhance the system.

    And when we compare any abuse-allegation numbers today to what they were two decades or so ago, then clearly ‘Dan’s vatic twaddle about the problem “apparently not going away anytime soon” is – not to put too fine a point on it – “unsubstantiated” in all senses of the word.

    But you can take it to the bank that ‘Dan’s FDS is “apparently not going away any time soon”.

  23. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1133PM:

    And in the letter from the auditing agency (Stone Bridge Business Partners) we see that all of the 194 dioceses and eparchies over the past 3 years of the audit cycle; the 65 number mentioned in a prior Letter preceding the Report only covered the single calendar year 2016.

    And the Letter from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate reported that for its data-collection the diocesan response rate was 100 percent and from religious orders 78 percent.

    This agency collects data specifically on allegations and monies expended as a result.

  24. Publion says:

    I won’t review the entire Report here, although DP has provided a link to the full text of the Report. I do note however that the Report itself opens (Report page 3) with a positive reference to the ‘Spotlight’ movie.

    That film was considered at length on this site (with hyperlinks to other reviews) and I don’t share the Report’s initial burbly reference to it and all the assorted shenanigans that are connected to it.

    But, again, I think what we are seeing here is an overabundance of caution on the part of the USCCB, trying not to come across as ‘anti-victim’ in any way, shape or form.

  25. Publion says:

    I would also note, as DP has pointed out, that the ‘Definitions’ section can be found on Report page 10. Here one may see clearly the definitions that the Report will employ, which goes to the question of defining “substantiated” and “unsubstantiated”.

    Establishing definitions of terms at the outset is standard best-practice for any formal Reports and I would say that it’s a good practice whenever one is discussing an issue and its various elements and aspects.

    It is precisely n-o-t what the manipulative agenda of the Stampede deploys, since the Playbook greatly depends on insinuation and innuendo and conflation or outright misapplication of terms. A classic and relevant example would be the use of “pedophilia”, which has its own formal clinical definition (it is, after all, a formal psychological diagnostic term) and then also has acquired a less precise ‘meaning’ popularized by the media as they played their part in the Stampede for their own purposes.

    If the Report is to be discussed, then its carefully explained terms have to be taken into account.

  26. Publion says:

    As I have said in comments above, I would have preferred a more forthright term for “unsubstantiated”, such as ‘demonstrated to be false’ or ‘contradicted by evidentiary facts’. The Report here errs on the side of Victimist politeness, in my opinion.

    But the Report has chosen the terms it will use and for the purpose of discussing the Report then those are the terms of usage.

    References to other definitions of a term (“unsubstantiated”, in this instance) that exist in wider colloquial usage are irrelevant here. The ground-rules are set by the Definitions, the meaning of the term as used in the Report is clear to all, and within the circumscribed arena of discussing the Report’s substance then everyone knows beforehand what the term means.

  27. Publion says:

    I would, lastly, point out that there were about 1100 allegations in the reporting period, with all but 25 being ‘historical’. This number of 1100 is itself only a tenth of the allegations initially compiled over a decade ago in the first Jay Report, and we also – as DP points out – have to consider that in the interim some states have opened special windows of opportunity for filing allegations and claims (although the states, as we know, have largely been careful not to expose public institutions to the many dangers of opening such windows). The Report also notes that the increases in allegations were seen mostly in dioceses located in states where such windows of opportunity have been opened.

    • Dan says:

      I refuse to comment individually to all your ignorance and stupidity today. Are you so impressed with yourself that you think if you write all this longwinded nonsense and load on a slew of excuses for the wickedness and pedophilia of your cult, well then we must all believe that it's all a thing of the past. Everything is still done in house, overseen by the bishop excusers, enablers and in some cases even perverts themselves. We're supposed to accept the findings from them, while Da's, cops and even parents looked the other way, and refused to prosecute the holier than thou perverted creeps of their cult?

      Malcolm claims I'm "against all things catholic". Let me explain in a nutshell the catholic beliefs and Bible sins that I am against – catholic liars and lies, catholic idol-worshippers, catholic pedophiles and perverts, catholic statues and obelisks, catholic greed, catholic prayers to false gods or goddesses, catholic prayer babble, rosaries to Mary, prayers to saints, catholic worship of their popes, bishops and priests (I've witnessed), catholics refusing sound Biblical principles thinking they can twist and change the meaning of God's Word, catholic pomp and circumstance, priests wearing dresses and taking on the name of Mary, nuns taking on male names (last 2 pretty creepy if you ask me) – and then you wonder why they become pedophiles and perverts? These are just some of the reasons why I'm against the teachings and hierarchy of your church and not against lost catholic people.

      Now you can deny, make excuses and attempt to diminish the despicable crimes and sins the catholic church commits against God, but that doesn't change a single fact. The catholic church is not God's church, because it refuses to obey and listen to even some of the most simple things God asks of those who truly follow Him. In the end, He is your judge, not me. Quit blaming me for exposing the sins of your apostate church. His hope is that you might wake up and escape Babylon Rome. Hate me all you like, it's your soul that's at stake.


  28. Michael Skiendzielewski says:

    Yo, Dan…..what happened with my last comment……….

    Honestly, I know of no one in the field of investigations, review, evaluation, quality assurance, etc. that equates "unsubstantiated" with "bogus".  Their definitions do not align, they are not the same.

    Please, find someone, anyone or any professional organization involved in such investigative work that asserts that unsubstantiated is the same as bogus.

    Or, conversely, find a professional that agrees with the definition cited in the study:

    "Unsubstantiated defines an allegation for which enough evidence exists to prove that the abuse did not occur"

    In investigative circles, such a definition describes the term "unfounded"

  29. Dan says:

    Hey Michael, Don't you understand that catholic hierarchy can make their own definitions, follow their own catechism, ignore sound Biblical teaching and just about do whatever they please. They've gotten away with it for so long that they don't even notice it's leading to their destruction. They're bigger than God, adore, venerate and worship their Divine Mary and think that she'll have mercy and forgive all their disgusting sins. Say 10 Hail Mary's and Go Directly to Hell, Do not pass purgatory and do not collect $200 dollars. Too bad it's a game you wouldn't want to play.

  30. Mark Taylor says:

    Hey Dan, I am sorry about what you have had to endure but you really aren't behaving any better by insulting us Catholics. I know the Catholic Church is corrupt but calling it a cult is extreme at most. It is the Church that Jesus founded before going back to Heaven. Oh sure, it might have gotten corrput ( maybe around the time of Constantine) but it's still God's Church. Also your condesending attitude to Pubion is uncallled for. He may go on a bit but he talks more sense than you do, that's for sure.

    • Dan says:

      Hey Mark, I am not in agreement with the teachings of the catholic church. I do not hate or despise catholic people, nor am I about insulting decent or loving catholics. All of my immediate family, that's 9 minus myself, still consider themselves catholic, as do two of my closest friends of 48 years. We have some interesting discussions and some agree with my beliefs, but I love all of them.

      I have to question, if the catholic church was founded by Jesus, then why would they take on names and teachings that are not in the New Testament? There is no pope, no catholic church, no rosary, no bowing to anyone other than God or Christ, no immaculate conception or assumption of Mary, no Mary mediatrix or co-redeemer, no repetitive prayers (babble), no Mary or saint adoring or venerating, no sinless Mary, infant baptism, no monumental temples or churches, no statue making or worship, etc. – For these reasons, pagan holidays and traditions, and blatant misinterpretations of Biblical principles, I can't agree with your churches teachings. You yourself say the church is corrupt and for all these reasons and more, they most certainly fit the definition of an apostate cult.

      As far as publyin' goes, no catholic has ever lied about myself in the way he has and add to that his sarcasm towards my mental state (FDS, whacked, live in a home.etc.) and his mocking of my God, Christ, His Holy Spirit and His chosen, and I feel I have every right to treat him as I have. When someone is in agreement with his lies and ignorance, they may be treated likewise. Have I learned like Christ to turn the other cheek? No, but I never claimed to be Christ, my Savior or God on earth. I leave that ignorance to your Holy Father and members of your clergy. As far as a deceiver, excuser of pedophiles and perverts, idolator and apologist of everything catholics practice wrong goes, I would guess you might believe he makes more sense than me. I would suggest you read the Bible with an open mind, to find all the ways the church refuses to follow the Almighty God and publiar makes excuses for. I wouldn't be terribly proud of thinking he makes more sense than me, because he is as corrupt as your church.

      Catholic church in the Bible – (1) Romans 1:18-28  Is it just a coincidence that Paul wrote this letter to Rome, the home and birthplace of an idol-worshipping, false church.               (2) Rev. 17:3-9  (3) Jeremiah 44   If you don't see how these verses describe your cult, than I'll never convince you. I bear no animosity towards you, Mark.

  31. Michael Skiendzielewski says:

    James Marasco:  (Founding Member, Stonebridge Partners)

    Dear Sir:

    In the USCCB audit report, your company provided the following definition:       "Unsubstantiated” describes an allegation for which enough evidence exists to prove that the abuse did not occur.That definition describes that category of allegations that are "unfounded".
    To your knowledge, what other professional, investigative, audit, evaluation company or association uses the definition of "unsubstantiated" that you provide in the USCCB audit report?  I know of no source, organization that uses the definition described above.

    Michael Skiendzielewski
    Captain        (Retired)
    Philadelphia Police Dept.

  32. Publion says:

    In a pearl-clutchy performance (the 6th at 1108PM) ‘Dan’ demonstrates nicely how Victimist tropes merge seamlessly with the tactics of preserving a Fixed Delusional Syndrome: a) while he evades rationality like a vampire evades holy water, he is quick to detect “sarcasm”; b) he will (heroically and truthily, of course) defend his “right to reply” to – had you been waittttinggggggg forrrr ittttt? – “lies, slander and sarcasm”; c) which is “hurled” at him (at this point, one hand clutches the pearls and the other is raised back-of-hand-to-forehead).

    And then the old familiar comeback: let’s not look at ‘Dan’s whackeries but instead at all the stuff he throws up about the Church. It clearly has escaped him that his core whackery produces his rants against the Church, Catholicism, Mary and so on.

    He’s got his little swamp-box, he makes and throws his mud-pies, he’s happy – why oh why should people want to ruin his good time? He cawn’t think why.

  33. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1124PM:

    Here he will demonstrate his theological chops by – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – running the old I’m Not/You Are comeback bit: it’s not that only “Satan” would question his stuff, doncha see? Actually, he goes on to inform us, “Satan’s demons and mini-Satan’s” are also at work. There’s a distinction without a difference.

    But there’s a method in the madness: he slyly shifts the focus from a) the whackness of his (necessary) presumption that to question his stuff is to do Satan’s work to b) an epithetical stab at anyone who questions his stuff as being a “mini-Satan” and one of “Satan’s demons”.

    ‘Dan’ is being victimized by Satan – doncha see? – “all the time”.

    This is where a nice tight FDS will get you. The alternative – i.e. that a rather large number of people who come into some form of contact with him realize his whackery – is not something he has to consider because it’s all the work of Satan anyway.

  34. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1134PM:

    Once again, references to ‘Dan’s self-identification with the Divine are presumed to be an “ignorant mocking of God” – rather than a spot-on assessment of ‘Dan’s whackeries that leaves God out of it.

    “How can anyone be so blind?” honks the Wig of Exasperated Truthiness. How can anyone be so whacky, would be a more useful question to ask. But that nice tight FDS precludes the need to do so

  35. Publion says:

    But then there was a sequence of my comments on the Report, pointing out elements in the text of the Letters and Report.

    And how does ‘Dan’ evade those problem-points posed for his assorted claims and assertions?

    Easy-peasy: on the 7th at 1237AM he doth “refuse to comment individually” to what he blithely waves away as “all your ignorance and stupidity” and – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – “longwinded nonsense”. One sees here the sly manipulativeness and deception that ‘Dan’ can deploy when he has to.

    Having thus absolved himself of the need to deal with actual textual points that are seriously inconvenient for his mud-pie tossing, ‘Dan’ then buckles down to simply tossing up more versions of his same old mud-pies.

  36. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1237AM:

    Thus – to repeat – things are not done “in-house”: an outside professional firm was engaged, and police and prosecutors i) are informed whenever allegations are lodged; ii) are fully capable of making their own assessments of the public Report; and iii) may even be included in the preparation phase of the Report.

    But ‘Dan’ has an easy-peasy solution for that seriously inconvenient actuality: the police and DA’s and even “parents” “looked the other way” (one notes the slyness of using the past tense of that verb) and “refused” (past tense again) “to prosecute”.

    If we take ‘Dan’s own grammar as accurately representing his position here, then he is merely tossing up his old stuff from the way-back – though he claims that nothing is “over” and it’s all fresh and new.

    Bottom-line: ‘Dan’s ‘explanation’ for the dearth of actual trials for allegations in the past and for any possible (probable?) lack of actual trials in the present and future is merely to blame police and prosecutors and even parents for not taking action. But – he would like us to believe – all his scare-visions and plop-tosses are gawd’s own truthy truth.

  37. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1237AM:

    ‘Dan’ then addresses Malcolm Harris’s claim that ‘Dan’ is “against all things catholic”. He’s not, actually; he’s just against that collection of epithets (“catholic liars and lies, catholic idol-worshippers, catholic pedophiles and perverts”) and Catholic prayer, reverence and liturgy (“catholic statues and obelisks” … obelisks?), and on and on.

    Thus ‘Dan’ isn’t – as Malcolm Harris would put it – “against all things catholic”; noooooo, ‘Dan’ explains; ‘Dan’ is just – not to put too fine a point on it – against all things Catholic, whether actual or imagined.

    That’s where you wind up when ‘Dan’ starts ‘explaining’ himself.

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1237AM:

    And on some level even ‘Dan’ seems to realize the whackery of this whole bit. Thus he tries to save the day for himself by finishing the paragraph by insisting that he is merely “against the teaching and hierarchy of your church” but he is not “against lost catholic people”.

    But Malcolm Harris had said “all things” Catholic and “things” are not “people”.

    But, now that we’re on the subject, ‘Dan’ takes a whack at Catholic “people” too: they are “lost” (and “brainwashed” and “sheep” and all the other epithetical bits ‘Dan’ deploys when describing Catholic “people”).

    But ‘Dan’s a real people-person, doncha see? That’s why he hurls so much plop … he’s trying to save them that are “lost”. He’s not only heroic and truthy and speshully-Chosen by God – doncha see? He’s also engaged in a rescue mission, just like the fire department or EMTs or the Coast Guard (but not the police – doncha see? – because they tend to arrest him).

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1237AM:

    And in his final paragraph (having, we recall, evaded all the actual – though inconvenient – points from the text) ‘Dan’ will try to bring it all home by tossing more of his epithetical mud-pies, which is his preferred mode of operation.

    And in doing so he dons the Wig of Heroic and Truthy Exposer: don’t victimize ‘Dan’ by “blaming” him for “exposing the sins of your apostate church”, doncha see?

    And then ‘Dan’ literally lifts himself off the mundane earth itself: he is not only a people-person, doncha see? He is also a soul-person and he’s just trying to rescue the “soul”.

    It also helps to characterize himself as being ‘hated’; that’s like hot-sauce for this little stew of an identity he’s cooked up for himself … since the actual whacky ‘Dan’ isn’t apparently something he likes to see in his bathroom mirror. One can clearly see why.

  40. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1256AM:

    We see – yet again – one of those catty little just-entre-nous exchanges, this time around between sometime-commenter Michael and ‘Dan’.

    We have encountered this type of gambit before on this site; it usually happens when Abuseniks haven’t got anything else so they amuse themselves with such childish bits (essentially a written form of Myah-myah, we’re not talking to you clods – we’re talking to each other and you clods are not included).

    Readers can get some fresh popcorn and enjoy the entertainment as they may.

    • Dan says:

      Again, I refuse to answer to all your ignorance, nonsense, stupidity, mocking and excuses for the past history and current malfeasance of your disgusting cult and hierarchy. servant

    • Dan says:

      Didn't read this ignorance the first time around, but sure glad you realize you're one of the clods of your cult. Don't know if you're going by the "Definition" of (a) stupid person or (b) lump of earth and clay – better known as it applies to you, a clod of _ _ _ _.    servant of the Truth

      P.S. And peewee oinks, "There he goes slinging "mud-pies" again, if only there was enough for me to wallow in, oink, oink, oink."

  41. Publion says:

    For lack, it would seem, of anything better, commenter Michael continues to milk the Definition Issue.

    Thus on the 8th at 842AM we are presented – without explication – a comment in the form of a letter or email to the cognizant authority at StoneBridge Partners, the auditing firm that worked up the Report.

    Is this something that the commenter has sent? Would like to send? Thinks should be sent? And how would we know what response was made, provided a response was made?

    Let the project roll on, I say. But whether described as “unfounded” or “unsubstantiated” is, as I said, irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Report set forth its definitions clearly and for all to see; I have taken as much issue with the choice of term as commenter Michael has, but as long as the definitions are clearly set forth and operate consistently throughout the text, then the choice of terms is really neither here nor there.

    The key point is that the Report includes in its tally those claims/allegations that were found to be contradicted by the evidence. Whether the Report terms those apples as red or round, they remain what they are.

  42. Publion says:

    Through the wonders of modern medications or merely a sudden shift in the Wig selected for the present performance, ‘Dan’ (the 9th at 1207AM) treads the boards in full ‘purr’ mode. Nice kitty.

    What’s the fuss, y’all? ‘Dan’ is just sorta “not in agreement with the teachings of the catholic church” is all. “Not in agreement” … ? Readers may consult ‘Dan’s voluminous record here and see if that pale phrase can with a straight face be taken as an accurate and sufficient descriptor of his attitude toward the Church and Catholicism.

    What’s the fuss, y’all? ‘Dan’ doth “not hate or despise catholic people”. Nor – prepare yourselves – is he “about insulting decent or loving catholics”. Readers may consult … and so on.

    Also, we must recall we are in the ‘Dan’-verse here, and “decent and loving” actually has a very speshull meaning, i.e. if you disagree with ‘Dan’ then by definition you are not “decent and loving” … like ‘Dan’ is.

    • Dan says:

      I've had many conversations with "decent and loving catholics" who disagreed with my beliefs, but were never led to lie, slander or falsely accuse me in order to get me in trouble. Nor did any of them question my mental state or consistently mock my God, Christ the Savior, the Holy Spirit, or His chosen. Only the lying, deceitful and despicably evil catholics like yourself have gone that route. In your cowardice you would most definitely have been one of the accusers to call the police and falsely accuse me, like those who sent me to jail or hospitals. The absolute scum of this earth, parading themselves as wonderful, Bible-believing Christians, when truly only wolves or pigs in sheep's clothing.

      Like quoted to you before, "You shall reap what you sow." Get used to it.    servant of Truth

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:

    Then a bit about his “immediate family” and so on and who knows?

    Btu despite any differences, ‘Dan’ doth “love all of them”. We have his word for it. Who ya gonna believe – ‘Dan’ or your own lying eyes?

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:

    In the second paragraph ‘Dan’ will toss up – yet again – his essentially fundie bits about and against the Church.

    One recalls Harold Bloom in his 1991 book American Religion, where he opines a) that fundies really only recognize just the forty post-Resurrection/pre-Ascension days as the basis for genuine Christianity … everything after that is not to their taste at all.

    And also, b) that fundies – to further preserve their preferences – really only consider their own personal ‘walk with Jesus in the Garden’ as the source and form of any authentic experience of Christ. Anything beyond that apparently detracts from the ‘purity’ of their experience in the religious realm.

    Surely such a set of basic theological starting-points would exercise a seductive attraction to anyone who would quickly discover his sanity suspected in any human group and whose behavior would create a strong sense of social unease.

    • Dan says:

      This comment has to be one of your most ridiculously stupid and insanely false descriptions of myself, that I have ever heard. Apparently then, I don't fit yours or Harold Bloom's definition of a "fundie", because neither of those opinions describe me whatsoever.

      a) "fundies really only recognize just the forty post-Resurrection/pre-Ascension days as the basis for genuine Christianity… everything after that is not to their taste at all"  Are you serious? I've quoted and spoken on Paul's teachings, 1 John and Revelations, besides various Old and New Testament prophets. What type of genuine christianity do you prefer I recognize, your pagan and apostate catholic cult's beliefs? Sorry!!

      b) "fundies – to further preserve their preferences – really only consider their own personal 'walk with Jesus in the Garden' as the source and form of any authentic experience of Christ." I understand that you would "consider [your] own personal 'walk with Jesus in the Garden', so you might extend to Him another kiss, Judas. What do you prefer, that I see or believe in false visions of your Queen of Heaven, that I may "experience in the religious realm" the phony ecstasy of the other whacked creeps of your cult? Or would you like me to bow down in false worship to Mary or your unholy fathers, or maybe wear a dress like the pedophiles and perverts of your klan, so I could also defile the 'purity' of my beliefs. Sickos.

      Did you only quote or give these opinions, so you could claim an excuse for questioning my "sanity" and the fact that my exposing the nastiness and wickedness of your cult brings a "strong sense of social unease" among anti-Christian catholics. Are you in fear that the jig is up, Christ's light is shining in and exposing the works of darkness, the false apostate cult is losing it's respect and ought to lose it's tax-exempt statis.

      "You will see 'The Awful Horror' of which the prophet Daniel spoke. It will be standing in the holy place." (Note to the reader: understand what this means!)  Matt 24:15  These false teachers and religious charlatans have invaded holy places for centuries and will soon come to their doom. "Jesus answered: Don't let them fool you. Many will come and claim to be me. They will say that they are the Messiah, and will fool many people." Matt. 24;4,5   What can be worse than the catholic pope claiming to be the Vicar of Christ (666), his substitute or representative of Christ on earth. Claiming to be the Messiah, and fooling many people. Catholics run from this deceiving cult of lying hypocrites.  servant of the One and Only God

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:

    Oh, and ‘Dan’s merely being “not in agreement” with Catholicism here rises to the level of such epithets as “pagan” and “apostate cult”. There aren’t many nice Wigs a fundie can keep straight for very long; more often sooner than later the head starts violently bucking up and down and the niceness Wig is quickly tossed askew.

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:

    On to the third paragraph, then, where ‘Dan’ takes the opportunity to toss more of his stuff at me.

    I have apparently “lied” about ‘Dan’ more than any other Catholic (even those that got him arrested and sent for court-ordered psychiatric observation?). And he rather shallowly adverts only to my “sarcasm” and not to the possible (I’d say probable or highly probable) accuracy of my estimation of his mental issues. He’s no doubt wise to evade that.

    If ‘Dan’ can put up any quotation where I “mocked my God, Christ, His Holy Spirit” (one notes that fundie “my”) then he can put it up. Nor have we in any way at all established that ‘Dan’ is “chosen” any more than the average believer. Again, to buy this bit of his, you have to pretty much imagine that ‘Dan’ and God are somehow one.

    But there’s a method to the madness: if ‘Dan’ and the genuinely Divine are one, then ‘Dan’ can “feel” that he doth “have every right” and so on and so forth. Neato, and sly too.

    • Dan says:

      If you are a true believer then you are among the "chosen". Problem is you think any one calling themselves a believer is one, when there exists many who claim to be believers, who belong to false religions and worship their false gods and goddesses. Unbelievers duped by a pagan hierarchy of child molesters and creeps, praying Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. Seek out Mary for mercy, for your life, sweetness and hope, and you will receive no mercy from Almighty God who sent Christ as the one and only way to the Father. Read the Bible and don't let them lie and fool you. servant

  47. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:

    And the riff goes on with a bunch of the usual stuff.

    And beyond the riff, the only bit that’s interest is that pericope from Romans that gives a nice example of fundie word-play, which one gets so often.

    Current biblical scholarship holds that the Letter was written around 57-58AD at Corinth or Cenchreae, in advance of Paul’s leaving the Eastern Mediterranean to visit the Christians at Rome for the first time; they were a Christian community he had never visited before. This was not Paul’s usual territory; Rome was Peter’s territory and it was Peter who had played the great framing role in the Roman Christian community.

    Does ‘Dan’ want to have a go at Peter?

    • Dan says:

      2 Peter 3:15-16  Bear in mind that the Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

  48. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1207AM:

    And then the usual fundie stuff about Jeremiah (he wrote in the mid-500s BC against both i) the kingdom of Judah’s worldly political alliance with the Assyrians and ii) the ascendant Babylonian empire that defeated both the Assyrians and their allies) and Revelation (written sometime between the imperial reigns of Nero and Domitian, perhaps recalling the persecutions by the former and anticipating the further persecutions by the latter).

    To imagine that Revelation was written about the (at that time non-existent) Church and not written against the pre-Constantinian, Christian-persecuting Roman Empire … is each reader’s right to consider.

    But I would say that the same fundie theological starting-points I mentioned above also create the result that the Bible becomes merely one’s go-to source for fun and consoling bits that will feed the individual fundie’s personal religious phantasmagoria.

    And if I may offer a thought to ‘Mark Taylor’: I agree that I do tend to “go on”, but as I have several times explained here, these Abusenik bits are worth little unless they are used to elucidate realities, and with a fundie Abusenik, so much the more.

    • Dan says:

      Glad to see you realize that when Revelation was written the Church was "(at that time non-existent)". Pretty much proves that Peter was not your first pope or the rock on which your cult was built. Would more appropriately be the Rock that will make you stumble, the Rock that will make you fall. "They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do." 1 Peter 2:8 The Rock that will crush you and your false cult.

      In reviewing your poor material and fundie interpretations, the only "elucidate[d] realities" that become apparent is that you really don't know what your talking about. Or to put it mildly, you don't know squat.


  49. Dan says:

    Both Paul and Jeremiah were writing God inspired prophecy. Words that not only applied to that time in history, but at the same time prophetically predicting an idol-worshipping false cult that would come upon the scene that would prove to be worse than Israel or Judah (Jer 44). Paul in Romans is likewise prophetically speaking of an idolatrous cult, worshipping statues of humans, etc. who committed homosexual sins and received the punishment they deserved. How much worse the punishment for the ungodly catholic pedophiles and perverts who would harm innocent children. "They claim to be wise, but they are fools." Kinda fits you and your fellow creeps perfectly, wouldn't you say?

    Revelations chapter 17-18  This is the perfect prophecy concerning the destruction of your church. Taken from USCCB website – Rev. 17:1-6 "Babylon, the symbolic name of Rome, is graphically described as 'the great harlot."  Revelations 17:1 " … judgment on the great harlot who lives on many waters." [Whore because they worshipped Mary worldwide instead of God Almighty and Jesus the Savior - Adulterers] Rev 17:2  Kings [politicians, leaders] of earth in bed with her, inhabitants drunk on the wine of her harlotry. Rev 17:4 Wearing purple [bishops colors] and scarlet red [Cardinals / Archbishops red or purple] [also red and purple - favorite colors of the popes quarters, Advent and lent] and adorned with gold, precious stones, and pearls [filthy greed and wealth of the cult]. She held in her hand a gold cup [chalice] filled with the abominable and sordid deeds of her harlotry [perversions and pedophilia].Rev 17:5 On her forehead … a mystery, "Babylon the great, the mother of harlots [not Mother of God] and abominations of the earth.  Rev 17:6 I saw that the women was drunk on the blood of the holy ones and on the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. [The reason why they drink the blood of Jesus at mass and build churches on bones of apostles]. Rev 17:9 The seven heads represent the seven hills upon which the women sits. USCCB footnote – Rev 17:9 Here is a clue: literally, "Here a mind that has wisdom." Seven hills: of Rome.

    Catholics – Don't let your false hierarchy and false teachers fool you. These prophecies describe in every detail the horrible idol worship of Mary, "Queen of Heaven" over God. It describes catholic Rome in full color, with idolatry, greed and sexual perversions of all types. Don't allow publiar, a lying mocker of God and His prophecies, deceive you claiming he doesn't mock God. He is a terrible liar and deceiver and gets great pleasure in keeping you from knowing the truth. He is evil personified and a child of the devil, a manipulating trickster. Read your Bible describing him and his father, Satan, in minute detail. God will not lie to you. Deceiving others and being himself deceived. A perfect example of a wolf in sheep's clothing.  servant of the Almighty

    P.S. Don't let his stupid vocabulary fool you. He's not as smart as he thinks. Dumb Mocker.

  50. Publion says:

    On the 10th at 1032PM we merely see yet again the mendacious thought trick that ‘Dan’ uses to keep his shtick going: you can only qualify as “decent and loving” if you don’t “lie, slander or falsely accuse” him, and if you question his preferred take on his stories and claims, then you are already lying, slandering and falsely accusing him.


    And we are also treated to this bit: persons who question ‘Dan’s stuff are somehow responsible for “cowardice”, yet the adult who accosted children in a schoolyard is somehow … not cowardly.

    Also, those who call the police on him display “cowardice”.

    And thus merit another keeper of an epithet: “the absolute scum of the earth”. ‘Dan’s good at epithets; he likes them; there really all he’s got.

    • Dan says:

      This is a perfect example of why I consider you ignorant and stupid. You are far from "decent" let alone "loving", because you are a compulsive liar and slanderer. You do not "question" a rival, you falsely accuse them and then repeat that lie ad nauseum as if it is now the truth because you said it. I have never accosted children anywhere, let alone in any schoolyard, and that along with your dumb mocking, is why you are the ultimate "coward" and creep and well deserving of that description. And those catholics who called the police are the same cowardly liars as yourself. This is why you're all "the absolute scum of the earth."   servant of God and Truth

  51. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:

    As usual, he tries right off to manipulate reader response beforehand with another over-the-top histrionic bit of epithet. I think there’s a connection: the more accurate the assessment, the more histrionic the epithet trying to reject the assessment.

    And he then simply waves it all away because – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ doesn’t fit my or Bloom’s “definition of a fundie”.

    And how or why does he not “fit the definition”? “Because neither of those opinions describe [’Dan’] whatsoever”. In other words, ‘Dan’ is not-A because – waittt forrrr itttttttt – ‘Dan’ says he is not-A.

    This is the quality of mentation we are dealing with here. But it works nicely enough to keep a Fixed Delusional Syndrome working.

    • Dan says:

      You wouldn't know an accurate assessment if it came up and bit you in the ass. And you follow that with another ignorant assessment referring to my mental state. You make a donkey look smart.

  52. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:

    Then ‘Dan’ will tick off some points.

    In regard to his (a) point:

    Alas, while the Letters and Gospels were being written Peter was in Rome. Can ‘Dan’ provide an actual date when, in his schema, the fundie ‘primitive Christian community’ became the Catholic Church? By the end of the first century there had already been three successors to Peter:  Linus, Anacletus, and Clement (and Evaristus began his pontificate in 99AD). By the time of Constantine there had already been 32 successors to Peter (Miltiades was the 33rd, holding office during Constantine’s reign and he presided over the Lateran Council of 313AD).

    And before that Council there was an apostolic council (described in Acts 15) sometime around 50AD, and there were at least nine councils before Constantine’s reign.

    And – yet again – who does ‘Dan’ think actually selected the writings that would become what Christians now know as the New Testament?

    • Dan says:

      You can lay out your apostolic succession excuse until your blue in the face. There is no pope or papacy in the Bible. Surely no apostles were idol-worshippers like your leaders. They surely would never burn incense or bow down to Mary, your "Queen of Heaven." If you knew your Bible, you would know that no Christians, Apostles or Angels would allow anyone to bow to them. Face the truth. You are a compulsive liar and fit perfectly in a church led by many liars and deceivers. Talk all you like about your ancestry or traditions, and like yourself they don't mean squat.  servant of the One True God

  53. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:

    In regard to his (b) point:

    Moving beyond the silly try at epithet with the Judas-kiss bit, what do we get? Nothing that establishes the wrongness of the point about fundies’ relying on their own personal experiences (and readings of the Bible). Instead, just a pile of ‘Dan’s usual epithetical whackeries about Mary and “phony ecstasy” and so on and so forth.

  54. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:

    In regard to his subsequent paragraph’s questions: No, no, no, and no. I made the points I made to demonstrate the type of fundie actuality we are dealing with here. ‘Dan’ just happens to be a nicely vivid example, since – like a magpie – he has collected a whole bunch of fundie stuff into one convenient pile in order to further his FDS.

    • Dan says:

      You are hilariass! You accuse me of being like a magpie and in the same paragraph you chatter off "No, no, no and no." You are a joke. You long-winded chatter-box.

  55. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:

    Then he lards on a pericope, Mt 24:15. But this pericope – at the beginning of what is known as the Eschatalogical Discourse – describes the destruction of Jerusalem at the parousia, the Coming of the Messiah, especially as envisioned in the 9th, 11th, and 12th chapters of Daniel. The only way it could have relevance here is if you are a fundie looking for some fun and vivid destruction-of-the-Temple bits to spackle up your epitheticals against the Church.

    The pericope is strongly tied to Antiochus having erected an altar to Zeus Olympus in 167BC (whom Antiochus had connected with ba’al samem, the Syrian divinity, as related in 1 Maccabees 54).

  56. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1212AM:

    These imprecations were lodged against a Seleucid king who dedicated the Temple to utterly foreign (to Jewish religion) deities. The fundie game here is silently presume that the Catholic Church has done the same, i.e.  defamed Christianity by importing foreign and false gods. Thus all the weird bits from ‘Dan’ about Mary being a pagan goddess and so on and so forth.

    But Mary is a primary person in the Gospels and is in no way foreign to the life and ministry of Christ. Nor is she ‘worshipped’ as a ‘goddess’ and all the other whackeries ‘Dan’  – taking his convenient cue from the fundies – tries to shoehorn into his fever-vision about the Church being a foreign and pagan imposition upon genuine Christianity.

  57. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 104AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ tries to normalize his self-reference as “chosen” (var. “Chosen”) by claiming merely that “if you are a true believer, then you are among the ‘chosen’”.

    This would – on first glance – seem a truism (i.e. if you are a true believer in Christianity, then you are chosen by God to be a true believer in Christianity). But if that’s all it is, then anyone who truly believes is one of the “chosen” and thus ‘Dan’ is just one (odd) flower in a rather large field of flowers, since everyone who is a “true believer” is chosen by God.

    But this is ‘Dan’ and you must always be ready for a manipulative trick or two. Here, the trick relates to this question of definition: what constitutes a “true believer”? And this is where the fundies and ‘Dan’ pull their trick: if you don’t believe as they do, then – tah-dahhhhhhhhhhhh! – you are not at all a “true believer”.

    So then, the ‘Dan’ bit is: if you are a true believer, then you are chosen and thus ‘Dan’ is chosen, but if you don’t believe as ‘Dan’ does, then you aren’t a true believer anyway and ‘Dan’ is so you get left out as a pagan, myah myah.

    Neat and sly, but ridiculous.

    • Dan says:

      You're "chosen", if and only if, God chooses you, not because you claim to be a true believer. You'll have to try to do a better job understanding God's Word. However, you may just be deaf, dumb and blind to the truth, so maybe trying to get it will just be a waste of time. If you want to learn God's Truth, you may want to start by stopping your ignorant mocking. Apparently, from what we've seen, you're too stupid to understand that.  servant

  58. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 122Pm where he now tosses in a pericope from the Second Letter of Peter (the first pope, one might recall):

    Here – in his typically fundie and ever-abiding quest for bits to shoehorn into his fever-visions – ‘Dan’ is apparently trying for an epithetical run at the Church.

    What escapes ‘Dan’ and the fundies is that what the first Pope says here could as easily be applied to themselves.

    Including the “ignorant and unstable” part, I would surely have to say.

  59. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 330AM:

    The “Church” as the fundies (a late 19th-century development) would know it did not exist in the first century, but the essential structure of Apostolic Authority was in place.

    For that matter, if Peter wasn’t the first Pope then who would ‘Dan’ say was the first Pope? He can answer that along with my question put to him above as to when he thinks the ‘primitive Christian community’ became the Catholic Church.

    If the basis of the office of Pope was the Apostolic Authority, then that existed with Peter himself, so just what is it that ‘Dan’ thinks has been ‘proven’?

    Then some silly word-play on rock and Rock, just to lard on some impression that ‘Dan’ does indeed know squat.

    • Dan says:

      Rock that will make you stumble. Rock that makes you fall flat on your face. Maybe then you won't be so easily able to mock the Almighty and His Power, with your teeth down your throat.  servant

    • Dan says:

      Hopefully you're getting a clue that I don't particularly care for liars, deceivers or mockers, or in your case, all of the above.

    • Dan says:

      Really tired of your garbage and nonsense, so I deal with the rest of it at some other time.

    • Dan says:

      I noticed you had a couple of very dumb questions for me to answer, and remembered in the past your crying because I didn't answer your questions. Possibly because they were just as dumb as these two.

      Question 1) There has never and will never be a Christian Pope, not first nor last. Why? Because there is no pope or papacy in the Bible. Just one of thousands of falsehoods perpetuated by your false cult. June 13th @ 8:07pm, if you need more details.

      Question 2) I really could care less when your catholic church started. All I know is it's beginnings have nothing at all to do with the 'primitive Christian community' for the very fact that it's teachings are far from those of Christ, the Apostles and their teachings. And that is why your church is a heretical, blasphemous, apostate, pagan cult of liars and idolators, putting on a pompous performance of unholiness and false humility called the mass and eucharistic celebration. Grab your popcorn. Cartoon Time is almost over.   servant of One + Only God

      P.S. Now aren't you glad I answered your questions. Now we don't have to hear you cry.

  60. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 249AM:

    And before anything else, we note that this rather extended comment is not at all ‘Dan’s usual production, in style or form. Is this lifted from some fundie book or article?

    Anyhoo, the first paragraph gives a nicely vivid example of the sly fundie confusion about ‘prophecy’, i.e. that it is both a) an insight into the theological realities of the human existence and yet also b) a fortune-teller’s picture-perfect predictions about the specific shape of future events that are easily clear to those ‘in the know’.

    When you take this sly confusion about prophecy and combine it with the classic fundie idea that Scripture is instantly and accurately and totally understandable to anybody who opens the Bible … then you see how so much whackery got started.

    • Dan says:

      When every line of the 'pericope' defines your cult, book-ended by your own bishops (USCCB) statements referring to Rome, well it wouldn't take a genious to figure that this does describe your klan. These things are spiritually discerned, something you fail to understand or just aren't qualified to perceive. Never heard of the True God granting wisdom to liars or mockers.

  61. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 249AM:

    Then in the next paragraph of the comment, ‘Dan’ quotes Catholic commentary on some usual fundie bits and epitheticals … as if the commentary was thus admitting that the usual fundie bits and epitheticals were accurate.

    And we then get more of the usual proffering from ‘Dan’s pile of favorite pericopes along the same lines.

    And this bunch concludes with another fine demonstration of ‘Dan’ and fundie whackery: the “seven heads” referred to in Revelation 17:9 are – doncha see? – really a clue to the seven hills of the ancient city of Rome. To what passes for the fundie and ‘Dan’ mind, this is heavy and conclusive stuff.

    Readers so inclined may prepare popcorn and consider as they will.

  62. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 249AM:

    And then a fake-papal exhortation from ‘Dan’ as he tries to bring the performance home, addressed to “Catholics” (urbe et orbe, one might say).

    But it’s just a bunch of his usual epithets.

    And then a “P.S.”: ‘Dan’ has a problem, i.e. that my “vocabulary” – apparently – might make me appear as if I am “smart” (whereas ‘Dan’s stuff … ) but my vocabulary is just “stupid” is all, so that proves that I am not as smart as I think.

    As usual, ‘Dan’ is being sly and duplicitous here. His real problem is that he doesn’t really know much, relying merely on a bunch of fundie cue-cards and his own need to rant and his own delight in queasy epithet, and he’s worried that it’s beginning to show.

    It’s not really about my “stupid vocabulary” at all.

  63. Dan says:

    What's so "stupid" about the use of your Thesaurus, is the fact that your snobby vocabulary is emanating from the mouth of one who isn't smart enough to realize that compulsive lying and mocking of our Creator does not define traits of a person of much intelligence. Just plain dumb.

  64. Publion says:

    Well, on to the next bunch from ‘Dan’.

    As I have said before, his stuff provides a double opportunity: i) to see how whackery works in a particular individual, especially individuals who aren’t overburdened in the thinking department,  and ii) to see what fundie ‘theology’ tries to do with and to the Church.

    It’s not often one gets to examine such a phenomenon from a combined psychological and theological perspective.

    Let’s to it, then.

  65. Publion says:

    On the 13th at 750PM we get a nice example of the circularity of ‘Dan’s ‘thinking’: I am “ignorant and stupid”/ because I am “far from ‘decent’ and ‘loving’ “/ because I am “a compulsive liar and slanderer”.

    What we have here is nothing but a string of epithets, grammatically linked by a causal conjunctive (“because”), as if to mimic some logical progression. But this is, actually, what passes for logic in the ‘Dan’-verse, fatally hobbled as it is by the need to preserve the essential elements of his Fixed Delusional Syndrome.

    To which we can then add clinical projection: ‘Dan’ nicely describes himself with the accusation that “it is now the truth because you said it”. This is precisely the dynamic that governs all of his stories, claims, assertions and accusations. (And if you cawn’t see that, then you are “ignorant and stupid”/ because you are “far from ‘decent’ and ‘loving’” / because you are “a compulsive liar and slanderer” – it’s all so logical, doncha see?).

  66. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 750PM:

    As we shall see below, considering the quality of ‘Dan’s theological and religious chops, one wonders if any of those school-kids couldn’t have refuted his “beautiful prophecy” by the fence that day, if ‘Dan’ hadn’t been shooed away.

    So the comment of mine to which ‘Dan’ is responding here turns out to have prompted “a perfect example” of his whackery.

    And if there’s one thing to be said for ‘Dan’s stuff, it so very very often does provide “a perfect example”.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 754PM where we merely get a childish ‘come-back’, larded with scatology and an epithet. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 807PM:

      Now we are getting into the theological and religious-history material.

      And in response to the questions I posed as to just when ‘Dan’ would claim that the ‘primitive Christian community’ morphed into the Catholic Church we get … merely a wave-away evasion: ‘Dan’ couldn’t care less and “you can lay out your apostolic succession excuse until your blue in the face” (sic).

      Actual facts and demonstrated realities and serious thinking about substantive issues are not things that ‘Dan’ will allow to interfere with the ranty tossing of his ploppy bits. Indeed, they probably don’t gain much traction in his mind in the first place.

      “If you knew the Bible” he bleats.

      If one ‘knew’ the Bible like ‘Dan’ ‘knows’ the Bible … readers can fill in the conclusion as they may.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 813PM:

      More scatology.

      And I did say he functioned as a “magpie” – which characterization he has done nothing to refute, by concept or by example.

      My four-part succession of “no” responses was a clear and concise response to the four questioning characterizations of my thoughts that he had tossed up. To each of them, I responded ‘no’.

      Not in the sense of ‘No, ‘Dan’ is not a magpie’ but rather in the sense that the response to the accuracy of each of his bits is ‘no’. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 813PM:

      But ‘Dan’s mind is neither attuned-to nor governed-by following thoughts logically. He is a plop-tosser by nature and he is bound by his self-serving indenture to his FDS.

      Beyond that, in the ‘Dan’-verse, there is no there there.

      And he closes with an epithet. For the purposes of preserving the FDS of the ‘Dan’-verse, I have to be something akin to a “long-winded chatter-box” because otherwise ‘Dan’ would have to face up to the difficult questions posed to his fundie ploppy bits, and to deal with those would require undermining the phantasmagoria that sustain his FDS. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 817PM:

      Here he will simply evasively wave-away the problem of Mary being in no way foreign to the Gospels and to Christianity by repeating his tightly-embraced ploppy bits. That’s all he’s got here.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 826PM:

      We now get a demonstration of ‘Dan’s theological chops: one is “chosen” if and only if God chooses you, and not merely “because you claim to be a true believer”.

      Well, since God doesn’t provide a special certificate or badge of ‘chosenness’, then how does one establish one’s claim to be a “true believer”? And surely ‘Dan’s only claim to the status of “true believer” is ‘Dan’s own assertion and insistence that he is indeed a (or the only) “true believer”.

      We see here yet again the problem of fundie (and Protestant) theology: ultimately, one simply has to decide and declare oneself as being a “true believer”. This is where the early Reformers’ effort to eliminate the Church leads to: anybody who claims to be a “true believer” is a “true believer” merely because the individual says so.

      The individualistic core of the Protestant approach opens the door to people simply deputizing themselves as “true believers” (thus turning the Bible into a cereal box with a plastic badge to be had at the bottom for anyone enterprising enough to go digging around in the box). 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 826PM:

      From the outset, various Protestant polities have tried to find a way around this abyss.

      Thus many claimed that while anyone might be a “true believer”, yet this or that Protestant polity or congregation could judge as to whether one – “true believer” though s/he may be – would be granted “fellowship” in that particular polity or congregation. And if the polity or congregation didn’t agree with any particular person’s ‘true belief’, then that person could be refused fellowship or ‘dis-fellowshipped’.

      In that way i) the core Protestant assertion of the right of every individual to his/her ‘true belief’ could be preserved, while yet ii) some amount of doctrinal uniformity could be preserved among the polity or the congregation. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 826PM:

      ‘Dan’, of course, has shrewdly refused to accept the use or validity of any membership whatsoever in a religious polity, somehow instinctively realizing that he wouldn’t be accepted or long tolerated in any of them.

      That’s due more to his personal issues than his theology, but then again, it’s his personal issues and not any unique theology that drives the ‘Dan’-verse; all of his ‘theological’ assertions, accusations and claims are pretty much familiar and standard fundie fare.

      And he tries to wrap up his bit with more epithet.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 828PM:

      Here, in response to my point about what Peter says in his Second Letter, ‘Dan’ tries to quote my quadruple ‘no’; but whereas I had used the quadruple ‘no’ in order to respond to four points, ‘Dan’ here is more accurately seen with his hands over his eyes, shaking his head, and simply bawling “No, no, no, and no”.

      ‘Dan’ has his fixed delusions, and ain’t nobody gonna interfere with ‘em. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1240AM:

      ‘Dan’ has “noticed” that I had asked him a couple of questions, but they were so “dumb” – doncha see?

      My questions were: i) which successor to Peter (or would it be Peter himself) does ‘Dan’ say was the first Pope in the baaaaad fundie sense of the office and ii) when does ‘Dan’ say that the ‘primitive Christian community’ morphed into the Catholic Church?

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1240AM:

      Dan’s solution – as it were – to the first question demonstrates fundie wordplay: since the term “Pope” does not appear in the Bible then there can be no such office as that of Christian Pope.

      But Peter was acknowledged as leader of the Church from the outset after the Ascension (Christ called him the Rock upon whom He would build His church; Matthew 16:18). So – not to put too fine a point on it – Peter’s role and authority are “in the Bible”. Whether Peter was called Pope by Christ, that “church” continued on under the Apostolic Authority of Peter and when Peter died, then that Apostolic Authority was passed on to his successor. And so on to the present day.

      Whether the term Pope or Chief-Cook-and-Bottlewasher came to be applied to the office that was invested with the Apostolic Authority originally assigned by Christ, it is the Apostolic Authority that defines the office and that is rather clearly grounded in Matthew.

      All ‘Dan;’ does here is to wave all that away and hide in word-games and wordplay. As do the fundies.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1240AM:

      Dan’s solution – as it were – to the second question is also a mere childish wave-away: ‘Dan’ “really couldn’t care less”.

      But was there then no ‘primitive Christian community’ preceding the Church? If that’s ‘Dan’s position, then no Christian community or polity has ever existed following the Ascension.

      Which leaves us with just a) the Bible and then b) the ‘Dan’-verse.

      And the Bible upon which the ‘Dan’-verse relies was itself compiled by the Church.

      And “the Bible” is actually nothing but a code-phrase for whatever ‘Dan’ claims to see in it.

      A fine rabbit-hole this is.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1240AM:

      But, really, all this is simply too much thinking for ‘Dan’, who quickly bleats “All I know is …” and that’s about the only accurately revelatory bit he has provided so far: ‘Dan’ knows squat, except for his pile of 3×5 ploppy-bits, several of which he quickly proceeds to toss up yet again.

      And in another vivid demonstration of what we’re dealing with here, ‘Dan’ doth declare that he has “answered your questions”.

      With ‘answers’ like these, the ‘Dan’-verse will continue its subterranean existence as a rabbit-hole, furnishing itself with various fundie ‘theological’ bits but – in the final analysis – leaving even the fundies far behind in the service of ‘Dan’s own FDS.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 729AM:

      Here ‘Dan’ simply myah-myahs yet again by repeating his own take – as if repetition somehow establishes the accuracy of his stuff.

      He seems to mistake his approach for “genious”.

      Also, we get a nice demonstration of another of his evasive and self-deceptive manipulations of language: his stuff has to be “spiritually discerned” – doncha see? If one were merely to rely upon actual knowledge of the material, then one wouldn’t ‘see’ and ‘know’ as ‘Dan’ does.

      The method in the madness here is to neutralize ‘Dan’s actual lack of knowledge by moving the game to a new level that cannot be examined or assessed. But ‘spiritual’ is grossly misused here; the intangible level where ‘Dan’s mind operates involves ignorance and delusion, not the “spiritual”.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 743AM:

      Here he tries yet again to evade his knowledge problem by continuing to harp upon my alleged “vocabulary”, this time by asserting that I use a “Thesaurus”. I don’t use them, because I find that they are largely insufficient since they merely approximate alternative words, ignoring vital differences in connotations.

      And – in another sly twist – ‘Dan’ tries to establish that I am not “smart enough” (and ‘Dan’, of course, is) to avoid – had you been waitttinggg forrrr itttttt? – “compulsive lying and mocking of our Creator”.

      As I have often said, ‘Dan’s only hope is that God accepts insanity pleas, because ‘Dan’s gross and flagrant abuse of knowledge and things spiritual is otherwise a sustained and abyssal example of compulsive lying and constitutes a mockery of things spiritual and conceptual.

      And for that matter,  the term “compulsive lying” is rather a bridge too far for ‘Dan’s demonstrated capacities; as we saw with another Abusenik here once upon a time, it is far more likely that he has merely taken a diagnostic observation made about his own habits and tries now to use it as a weapon against others. Thus just another instance of ‘Dan’s old I’m Not/You Are tactic.


    • Dan says:

      Little piggy publiar oinks, "Dan's only hope is that God accepts insanity pleas [now isn't that cute], because 'Dan's gross and flagrant abuse of knowledge and things spiritual is otherwise a sustained and abyssal example of compulsive lying and constitutes a mockery of things spiritual and conceptual."

      Got a pericope for the pair-of-dopes (that would be for the liar and the mocker) -

      For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intellegence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

      What does Mr. Know-It-All have to respond to that? Can't wait until God crushes your self-righteous stupidity and ignorance, that you think is knowledge. You're a lyin', mocking creep, who doesn't have the smarts to know when to shut his mouth. I'm sure God will be more than happy to shut it for you. You are totally ignorant of Biblical prophecy and your so-called knowledge will be worthless when you stand before God. Maybe your imagined, sinless, ever-virgin "Queen of Heaven" can meet you at the gates, but rest assured they won't be Heaven's Gate. I can smell the smoke already.   servant of the One and Only God Almighty

  67. Dan says:

    I state how you falsely accuse a rival and "then repeat that lie ad nauseum as if it's the truth because you said it". So rather than stopping your lying, you'd rather add to it by questioning whether "any those school-kids couldn't have refuted [my] 'beautiful prophecy' by the fence that day". I'm sure you would be able to find a few whom you could coach to lie for you and grow up to be a professional, compulsive, catholic liar like yourself. Like I've said previously, "You are one fine example of a perfect lying catholic hypocrite and your cult must be awful proud of your ignorance, little peewee." Have you ever researched the psychological traits of a compulsive liar and deceiver. You would be the perfect case study. As far as the rest of your repetitive garbage today, it just ain't worth any of my time.

    • Dan says:

      Aside from being a terrible liar, do you ever realize how often you fall back on the I'm Not/You Are bit", while accusing others of that tactic. You're one ridiculous, lying mocker.   servant

    • It has been interesting following this "discussion". Dan, you are obviously very hurt. I am sorry for that and for whatever happened to you. But, you will never be free or in peace until you forgive. Forgiveness is not about the abusers, it is about yourself. Let go and let God, and get on with your life.  Here is a document to help you come to forgiveness.

      Prejudice and bigotry is also not Christian. Such behavior is a result of anger, and the anger a result of not forgiving. 

      Jesus said that if we do not forgive that He will not forgive us. Thus, unforgiveness jeapardizes our soul.

      Dan, for your own sake let go. Rest in the arms of our Lord and let him take care of it. It only hurts yourself, not the Church, to be so angry, prejudiced, and unforgiving.

      Our Spiritual Warfare Prayer team will be praying for you from now on.

      God Bless,
      Bro. Ignatius Mary

  68. Publion says:

    In response to the material I put up, what do we get from ‘Dan’?

    On the 15th at 517PM just another repetition of his usual stuff, “lying” and epithet and all.

    And – beyond that: well, declares ‘Dan’ with some slang-y posturing,  “it just ain’t worth any of [his] time”.

    My, he’s the sly one, ain’t he though? You don’t have to put up much of a question that would require both knowledge and thought before ‘Dan’ suddenly realizes his “time” is wayyyyyy too valuable to be wasting just now.

    And as for his bit on the 15th at 808PM:

    It is not I who doth “fall back” so “often … on the I’m Not/You Are bit”. It’s ‘Dan’ who does it; I just point it out when he does. And he doesn’t much like to be reminded.

    • Dan says:

      You let me know when someone asks "a question that would require both knowledge and thought", and I'll be more than glad to answer it. If you're speaking in regards to responding to your ignorance and lies, or that I'm required to answer to the false teachings of your church or the ridiculous beginnings of your apostate cult, sorry, but you'll have to consult one of your apologists to have the answers you'd like to hear.

      Catholics, ask yourselves. Is your church hierarchy living by any means similar to that of Jesus, Peter (your 1st pope??), John, Paul or any of the rest of the Apostles. Do you picture Christ's true followers wearing triple crowns and fancy dresses, sitting on red velvety gold thrones, parading with statues of mary smothered in roses, dwelling in elaborate temples, or allowing people to bow to them, stroke them and kiss their feet, etc.etc. This type of worship was given to pagan kings and queens, Roman Caesars and pharisees. Look at your church and it's pagan traditions, ceremony and pomp in all honesty, and you will see, Babylon Rome, pharisees and the worship of kings (popes) and worst of all the worship of mary, "Queen of Heaven". I'm sorry, but in all honesty you have been brainwashed by an evil, greedy, idolatrous, lying group of pedophile and perverted hypocrites. They do not follow or obey Biblical principles and are far from living anything of truth. They will receive a just punishment.

      The world's kings live in temples, not God, Christ or His followers (Acts 7:48). Don't let the deceiving liars fool you. They care not for your souls. Only for your money, your worship of false gods and goddesses, including themselves, and for the fleshy lusts of sexually abusing your children. They are a sick, cunning brood of lying snakes. Be not fooled. servant of the Lord


    • Dan says:

      peewee, Make sure you quote it correctly, "your lying". I've told you, you shall reap what you sow. Keep on lying and adding more lying nonsense, because you have nothing else, and you shall get back what you truly deserve. You think that if you rant and falsely accuse with a sophisticated vocabulary, then it's not ranting. You may think so, in your little, childish, persnickety world, void of any common sense.  servant

  69. For the rest of you, you need to stop this banter. That, too, is not Christian behavior. St. Paul instructs us to cease unproductive argumentation (Titus 3:2, 9). What is going on here is the very defintion of "unproductive."

  70. Dan says:

    Bro. Mary, Thank you for your effort and I would hope it had some kind of good intention. You're accusing me of prejudice and bigotry, but fail to realize your own predjudice and bigotry by judging me and my unforgiveness, and yet later devote a very small paragraph to other's banter in this forum, those who just happen to be your fellow catholic cohorts and hypocrites.

    Would like to inform you of a few things you just may be unaware of. I've been falsely accused by your fellow priests, nuns, a catholic cop and beaten from behind by 4 thugs of your holier than thou catholic cult. On their multiple lies, had to go to court to listen to the bunch of them swear to God to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, and turn around and add to their horrible lies with more lies. Why don't you invest your time criticizing and teaching the hypocritical, unforgiving clergy of your cult about forgiveness. I wasn't aware that the holier than thou are free to accuse the innocent and show no remorse for their lies, but to the contrary, add more false accusations to their slander and wickedness. Though innocent of all their false charges, I still had to pay the price by staying under disgusting conditions and horrible food, 6 times in mental facilities, 6 overnite stays in jail with stinking, violent drunks, 7 full days in jail for contempt because I refused to admit to obscenities I never said, 20 days of Sheriff's Work Program (SWP) and 10 more days of SWP from the accusations of a lying cop. Been falsely accused of screaming obscenities at little children, shaking and climbing over school gates, threatening adults, when the reverse was true and telling little ones that "Jesus is dead". Your cult is chock full of wicked, cruel and unforgiving creeps, and I believe your time would be better spent working on your own kind. Thank You.

    Believe me, I could have sought my own revenge, but haven't harmed a single hair on any of the liars. Haven't harmed any of your temples, broken any windows, knocked over any of your precious idols or sprayed graffiti on your schools or churches. I live in such a place of peace and forgiveness, with my God and Savior, that you catholics can't seem to understand. I will not sit back and let creeps on this forum add to the lies I have already suffered for, questioning my sanity and mocking me, my God, Jesus Christ or His Holy Spirit. Apparently you're unwilling to judge or accuse their ignorance, seeing that they're your own kind.

    I have a reading for you, Psalm 101, that may help you understand where I stand among many enemies and lying hypocrites. Are you aware that as a true Christian we will be hated by the world. Have you ever heard of, "Be ye angry, but do not sin."

    "Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the LORD. Is not my word like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?" Jer. 23:28-29

    If you are unwilling to stand against the mocking of God and believe I'm the bad guy in all this, than so be it. I can forgive, but that doesn't mean my work against darkness, wickedness and false teachings of greedy, idolatrous, sexually immoral and lying cults can be pushed aside. I'm so blessed with forgiveness that the banter on this forum doesn't even anger me. In fact it's somewhat entertaining and at times even comical. I look forward to hear what kind of lies and slander I'll come up against next. I've been persecuted, lied about, insulted and slandered in just about every way, and believe me when I say that I feel blessed (Matt 5:10,11). This is truly forgiveness that's beyond comprehension, and only attainable through my God and Savior.   servant of a loving, forgiving and awesome God and proud to be called His friend

    P.S. Sorry, but not interested in the teachings of Padre Pio, a phony who burned acid in his palms to claim a stigmata. Who wasn't aware that Christ was nailed through the wrists. Punish and viciously whip yourselves until you bleed. I'm terribly not impressed and doubt that God is either. Show me where flagellation is Biblical, or was it for sexual gratification while molesting little boys?


    • Let it go Dan. Forgive and remove from your heart the hatred and bigotry that is as obvious and demonstratively objective as the Moon in the sky. But, I know I am wasting my breath. I will pray for your healing. Goodbye.

  71. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1050PM:

    It opens – manipulatively and as usual – with an epithet.

    He quotes my assessment of his activities … but does not refute it.

    Instead, he has rummaged in his pericope-pile and come up with one: slyly – though we’ve seen it before – it’s a pericope chosen by ‘Dan’ to neutralize his lack of “intellegence” by implying that even knowledge of Scripture – if it isn’t knowledge that supports the ‘Dan’-verse – is merely “wisdom of this world” and not – of course – the type of unquestionable God-infused ‘knowledge’ that ‘Dan’ claims to possess in such abundance. ‘Dan’, then, doesn’t have to actually know anything; he has God’s own knowledge and therefore to question ‘Dan’s stuff is to question God. And so on.

    • Dan says:

      Your "assessment" is just more piling on of lies. How do I refute "things that are untrue". When I have, you just come back with more lies, slander and ignorance. Your misinterpretation of Scripture, far from qualifies as any "knowledge of Scripture". It shows a total lack of Spiritual wisdom, and yet you're not totally to blame. As I've previously informed you, the Almighty God, Creator of everything that is good, is not about to pour out His wisdom on a compulsive liar and one who thinks it's cute and clever to mock Him, His Son, His Holy Spirit or any of His servants. You're walking a thin line of blasphemy against the Creator and His Creation, and yet believe with your so-called knowledge to be wiser than He. Good luck, Mr. Legend in your Own Mind.   servant of the God of Anger + Just Revenge

  72. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1050PM:

    Awarding himself a somewhat-premature victory lap, ‘Dan’ then bleats about what answer I could possibly make to the pericope.

    I would answer that – in addition to what I have just written in the immediately previous comment above – ‘Dan’ (slyly) mistakes his delusions for ‘knowledge’, and even for ‘knowledge’ specially infused by God.

    The basic purpose of his whole bit here is to i) neutralize his actual lack of Scriptural knowledge while ii) raising his own delusive rants and plop-tossing to the level of a higher level of ‘knowledge’ iii) that is insulated from question by masquerading as the unquestionable authority of God.

    Oh, and he tosses in another God’ll-getcha threat about God shutting my mouth (‘Dan’ is “sure” of it); and on that basis ‘Dan’ indulges himself in a little riff about smelling hell-smoke.

    • Dan says:

      Never claimed to possess an "unquestionable authority of God". However I will not be questioned by a mocker of God, a blatant liar or a "Queen of Heaven", idol-worshipping creep. You may try to make some effort at questioning another without slandering and that may be more productive and others may want to have a more civil conversation with you. Until then, as I've told you, "You shall reap what you sow". Continue lying and falsely accusing and you will get absolutely no respect from me.  servant

  73. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 517PM:

    Here he doth “state” – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttt? – that I do “falsely accuse” him – although he has never provided any evidence that would support his claim of any false accusation against him. (As I have said, his many mere denials and further assertions of “lies, lies” don’t at all make the grade as evidentiary.)

    Nor does he accurately characterize himself as my “rival”. He is – as I have said a number of times – an ‘example’, and a useful one for readers to observe how minds such as his operate, in both the psychological and the theological realms.

    • Dan says:

      What do you want as 'evidence', little peewee, a note from my mommy? I've told you straight out and listed several times just a few of your lies. You don't accept or believe me because you think everyone one is a liar like yourself. Is this just a trait common to many catholics, seeing that you've been brainwashed with so many anti-Biblical lies. Then I guess I could understand your persistent ignorance, and yet there's no excuse.

  74. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 121PM:

    The first paragraph, once one cuts through the muzzy larding of words, basically goes for the idea that ‘Dan’ has yet to be confronted with any “question that would require both knowledge and thought”.

    We are apparently supposed to forget the questions posed to him for which his only ‘responses’ have been evasion, mere denial, or the mere tossing-up of more pericopes that – slyly – can only serve his purposes if they are looked at under the many presumptions that his fever-visions require.

    Having skated by that rather abyssal problem with is ‘responses’ and ‘answers’, ‘Dan’ then proceeds in the second paragraph to deliver yet another faux-papal declamation to “Catholics”, drawing in yet another assemblage of his various ploppy 3x5s, wherein he works in “pagan” and “temples” and Mary-as-goddess in order to bolster his presentation.

  75. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 121PM:

    And in that bubbly stew we also see the typical fundie Scriptural tactic of simultaneously a) insisting that the Bible (compiled, we recall, by the Church herself) is only to be understood literally while also b) insisting that anybody can then lard onto the literal whatever fever-visions they claim to see in the ‘prophetic’ dimension of the text.

    Thus “Babylon” is equated with “Rome”, and that “Rome” is a) not to be taken in the actual historical sense of the Roman Empire – decadent in its morals and persecuting the then-nascent Christian community – but rather b) in the grossly anti-historical sense of a Catholic “Rome” that would not exist as such for centuries yet to come.

    If you subscribe to the fundie game-plan, you can play games like this with a theoretically “literal” text. And the game can then go on and on and on, providing oodles of fun and feverish excitement to those so inclined.

    • Dan says:

      Are you dense or what. I quoted to you directly from the USCCB Bible on the internet, the footnote describing the Whore that sits on the Beast – Revelations " *(17:1-6) Babylon, the symbolic name of Rome, is graphically described as 'the great harlot'." And just by coincidence, the catholic church and the papal mass, fits every description of that pagan harlot. Don't play your little games with me. catholic cult = pagan Babylon Rome. They possess all the trappings of a dictatorship, with Roman emperors claiming to be holy, harmless, loving sheep. Deceiving others and being themselves deceived.

      "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap."

  76. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 121PM:

    And at this point I think it worthwhile and relevant to point out the historical dimension of the New Testament: nobody back then expected that the Second Coming of Christ would take as long as it has (and still counting). This is a bit curious, since even Jesus – assigning to Peter the role of the foundation Rock of the Church – appeared to realize that He would need to establish some organized form of a church since He wouldn’t be returning in the Parousia in the near-term.

    Thus both instituted and thrown – as it were – into the deep end of the pool of human History and events, comprised of humans every bit as imperfect as Peter himself, the Church began the trek through History, guided by the Spirit but still comprised of humans with all the weaknesses as well as strengths which our species has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate.

    • Dan says:

      I'll educate you on what the Lord says in regards to the Second Coming of Christ.

      "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

      Let this be a warning. You never know when that day may come. All your worldly knowledge and historical facts won't carry much weight when you stand before Him.  He is aware though of your lies and slander, and he'll show to you His evidence.  servant of Justice

  77. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 121PM:

    The fundie game is to emphasize the weaknesses while themselves refraining from any of the awe-full challenges of maintaining a human organization. Which is a game-plan very amenable to ‘Dan’s own purposes: railing at the world and human weakness while himself claiming the unassailable and unquestionable authority of God’s own Will.

    One might well ask if it is not so sly and duplicitous a game-plan that might warrant a “just punishment”.

    We are well-advised indeed not to be “fooled” by such chicanery.

    • Dan says:

      You seem pretty troubled today with my having the "unquestionable authority of God". I will say that you as a mocker, liar and deceiver would most definitely have no authority from God. I guess He really is the loving God He claims to be. I would have removed your tongue a long time ago. You should give more thought before mocking Him and lying against His servant. Just my humble opinion.

  78. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 355PM:

    Once again ‘Dan’ is on about my “vocabulary”, slyly evading – as I have said before – that it is not the particular terms or words I use, but rather the ideas and historical actualities upon which my points and questions are based that are the point at issue. It is the ideas and historical actualities and the thought applied to them, and not this or that bit of “vocabulary”, that ‘Dan’ seeks always to avoid and evade.

    • Dan says:

      Your "ideas and historical actualities" along with your annoying "vocabulary" carry little weight with the God who made you. It only witnesses to your being a snobby, self-righteous nerd.

  79. Publion says:

    On then to the ‘Bro’ (hereinafter: BJPIM) comment of the 18th at 228PM:

    Having already proposed (the 18th at 214PM) to ‘Dan’ that ‘Dan’ must “embrace forgiveness”, for which consummation BJPIM’s “Spiritual Warfare Prayer Team” will pray, BJPIM then adds – a few minutes later – that “this banter” doth “need to stop”.

    In the first place I would differ as to the characterization of the exchanges here as “banter”. Substantive issues have been raised, historical and theological points have been demonstrated, and the exchanges  – as I have said several times – offer the readership a rare opportunity to see how the fundie approach operates in regard to Catholicism and the Church (especially when deployed by someone with ‘Dan’s particular personal issues and predispositions).

  80. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the BJPIM comment of the 18th at 228PM:

    In the second place I would say that the BJPIM approach is one more pastorally than conceptually oriented.

    I am concerned to use the material produced in these exchanges as a conceptual opportunity for the enlightenment of the readership (many of whom might be themselves Catholics); thus my method involves conceptual examination and assessment. BJPIM’s approach would appear to focus on ‘Dan’s personal spiritual development or change, and thus involves a personal reaching-out for engagement and also involves prayer.

    The two approaches are valid (more on this point below) but they have different aims.

    • Dan says:

      Once again, compulsive lying does not qualify as "conceptual examination and assessment". Nor does your brainwashing qualify as "enlightenment for the readership". Just shows added proof of your being a "snobby, self-righteous nerd". Like I told Bro. Mary, I find much of your material pretty comical and larded with way too much pride.  servant

  81. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the BJPIM comment of the 18th at 228PM:

    I would also note that in an effort to ease the path to engagement, BJPIM commiserates with ‘Dan’s claims – presumptively, it would seem, accepting them as valid.

    But it has been demonstrated over the long course of the exchanges here that ‘Dan’s claims of victimization (to say nothing of his theological and religious claims, assertions, and accusations) are far more probably not-credible. Thus to try to begin the path to engagement by accepting them as accurate is already to undermine the effort, whether in the psychological or the conceptual realm.

     Of course, one might claim that there is a third realm, the pastoral – one might say, which has as its object not the validity of the material but rather the ‘conversion’ (perhaps not the best term here) of the individual. Thus that BJPIM is working on ‘Dan’s ‘soul’ here, rather than on his ‘mind’ or ‘psyche’.

    That might be, and BJPIM is welcome to continue such efforts.

    But I think that – given what we have seen of ‘Dan’ here – this is more akin to spraying water on an electrical or magnesium fire: the water is only going to make things worse.

  82. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the BJPIM comment of the 18th at 228PM:

    In the third place, then, I would question the relevance here of the pericope from the Letter to Titus. The “unproductive argumentation” to which BJPIM refers applies to intra-Christian communal bickering and arguments.

    But what we have in the ‘Dan’ material is something else entirely: it is – through its reliance on essentially fundamentalist arguments, assertions, accusations and claims – an attack on the very nature and role and legitimacy of the Church and of Catholicism (and, in light of BJPIM’s own screen moniker, of Mary as well).

    And I don’t think it need be pointed out how Paul would deal with such fundamental attacks.

    • Dan says:

      If your cult displayed any signs of "legitimacy" then there would be little to attack. As it stands as a greedy, idol-worshipping, sexually perverted, cowardly bunch of liars, well these poor qualities alone would lead any true Christian to expose in hopes that some remnant of catholics would awaken and run quickly away from it's destruction. God and Christ will destroy your pagan, false cult, and all those who turn their back on God, in order to worship their false gods and goddesses. That is a promise and not a threat. servant to the Almighty

    • Dan says:

      And by the way, Paul was a fundamentalist, and surely was no catholic. Or are you trying to claim Paul's teachings as your own. I think you better take a good look again at Romans chapter one, because he surely spoke against idolators, pedophiles and perverts. Maybe you should take a course on understanding simple english, Mr. Big Vocabulary.

  83. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the BJPIM comment of the 18th at 228PM:

    Thus to approach the ‘Dan’ material as merely another instance of intra-community bickering is to rather seriously misunderstand the nature of the fundamentalist stance and to greatly underestimate its incompatibility with the Church and with Catholicism itself.

    One might then claim that reclaiming ‘Dan’s soul is worth bartering away the legitimacy of the Church and of Catholicism, but that would not be my approach at all.

    • Dan says:

      There is no legitimacy to barter away, so it boggles my mind that you waste your time defending it and it's perverted creeps. You should get a life.

  84. Publion says:

    Marvelously, ‘Dan’ then quickly demonstrates the dangers inherent in what I have just described.

    On the 18th at 1135PM ‘Dan’ moves quickly to capitalize on the opening that BJPIM has provided: as BJPIM lowers his shield in order to invite a pastoral opening, ‘Dan’ immediately moves in to deliver his usual whacks and slashes: BJPIM should consider not ‘Dan’s “prejudice and bigotry” but rather BJPIM’s (and Catholicism’s) own “prejudice and bigotry”.

    And then follows that up by reciting yet again his preferred take on his assorted misadventures. There is no recreation ‘Dan’ enjoys more than retelling his preferred take on his assorted misadventures.

    And that whole riff goes on for the rest of the comment.

  85. Dan says:

    I wanted to make sure that Bro. Mary was aware of all the false accusations and lies of your fellow creeps, publiar. Time to slither back down your hole, you slimy, little worm.

  86. Dan says:

    Also, I would like it to be known, that I would prefer that no catholic pray for me. I don't believe the True God listens to the prayers of idolators, perverts or liars. Thanks anyway.

  87. Publion says:

    There are a couple in ‘Dan’s most recent crop that don’t really need any explication since they are nicely revelatory of ‘Dan’s mind and character all on their own.

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1148PM:

    He begins with an (accusatory and epithetical) assertion: “Your ‘assessment’ is just more piling on of lies”.

    Now right there, in standard conceptual exchange, one would move directly to provide examples and explication of the assertion one has just made.

    But that’s not how ‘Dan’ operates. Instead, having tossed out an assertion, he quickly moves on to a problem of his own: how does he “refute things that are untrue”? He then whines that whenever he does (i.e. “refute ‘things that are untrue’”) I simply “come back with more lies” and so on.

    In other words, ‘Dan’ is trying to run the idea here that a) he has indeed effectively done the refuting but even then b) I keep repeating my “lies” and so on.

  88. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1148PM:

    Sly, and yet a vivid example of the toxic misch of deceit and self-ignorance that drives such mentation as ‘Dan’ can muster.

    First, he hasn’t done any refuting at all; he’s simply i) repeated his own stuff and then ii) epithetically waved away the points I had made. But ‘comeback’ is not refutation. ‘Dan’ clearly doesn’t grasp the difference, and perhaps cannot allow himself to do so.

    Second – and as so often with those afflicted types who cannot allow themselves to grasp or see the dynamics of clinical projection – ‘Dan’ consistently accuses others of what he himself so often does: he merely repeats his own stuff and doesn’t actually engage the material (that he can’t handle anyway in the first place).

  89. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1148PM:

    But we also hear an echo of fundie (and much Protestant) thinking: if you have a theological or religious ‘testimony’ or ‘prophecy’ then nobody can ask you for proof or evidence because such things are merely between you and God and what human, then, can say it ain’t so?

    This is problematic enough in the religious/theological forum. It becomes even more problematic and toxic if introduced into any other arena of discourse (legal, historical, scientific, for example).

  90. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1148PM:

    Then another accusatory assertion, i.e. my “misinterpretation of Scripture”. Again, in proper conceptual exchange, ‘Dan’ should immediately proffer his examples and explication of that assertion. But – of course – he does nothing of the sort.

    Instead, sly presuming the veracity of the (undemonstrated) assertion he has just made, he quickly moves to a conclusion larded with epithet: my “misinterpretation” “shows a total lack of spiritual wisdom”.

    And we also notice the deceitful slyness in this bit here: the point he had originally made was on Scriptural chops, but suddenly he switches to “spiritual wisdom”. Readers of this thread will recall that ‘Dan’ has been demonstrating that gambit, i.e. trying to sidestep his lack of actual Scriptural chops by introducing the concept of “spiritual wisdom”, which would be above and beyond any merely ‘worldly knowledge’.

    ‘Dan’ – doncha see? – just has oodles and oodles of “spiritual wisdom”. Those who don’t buy his stuff have a “total lack” of it, of course. Neat and sly and deceptive and so very deceitful.

  91. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 1148PM:

    He then claims that he hath indeed and verily “informed” one and all about “the Almighty God” and so on. Further channeling (or masquerading-as) Divine Authority, ‘Dan’ huffs that God surely wouldn’t be “about to pour out His wisdom on a compulsive liar” … and – the marvels of clinical projection yet again – ‘Dan’ might want to look into the bathroom mirror and give that pronouncement some serious reflection.

    But this bit of his here serves to banish – in his own mind, anyway, and for his own purposes – any possibility that objections to ‘Dan’s various bits might be accurate.

    And he tries to wrap it all up with more threat about “walking a thin line” and so forth, which I would again suggest as excellent material upon which to reflect while he is staring into his bathroom mirror.

    And he has now re-monnikered himself as “servant” of God’s “Anger” and “Just Revenge”. Again, he should take that bit to the bathroom mirror as well.

  92. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1202AM:

    Having just presumed to speak for God, and threatened-with-God those who in objecting to ‘Dan’s stuff do verily “mock” God and Jesus and so forth, ‘Dan’ now – with a sublimely blithe disregard for coherence and consistency – doth declaim that he “never claimed to possess an ‘unquestionable authority of God’”. (‘Dan’ – doncha see? – isn’t Angry and Vengeful; God is and ‘Dan’s just passing it along.)

    On what basis, then, does he equate my treatment of his own stuff with “mocking” God? Why would God be mad at me merely for raising objections to ‘Dan’s stuff?

    And his accusatory assertion that I am “slandering” him is – yet yet again – an assertion that not only remains undemonstrated but actually flies in the face of all the material that ‘Dan’ himself has revealed.

    And the whole bit is larded thickly with assorted bits of epithet. That might work – or at least be worth a few chuckles and guffaws – around the tables in the back of the high-school cafeteria, but not here.

    • Dan says:

      publiar oinks, "On what basis, then, does he equate my treatment of his own stuff with 'mocking' God? Why would God be mad at me merely for raising objections to 'Dan's stuff?"

      "The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent word to them AGAIN and AGAIN by His MESSENGERS, because He had compassion on His people and on His dwelling place; but they continually mocked the messengers of God, despised His words and scoffed [mocked] at His prophets, until the WRATH of the LORD arose against His people, until there was no remedy."  2 Chronicles 36:16

      "Remember, Lord, how your SERVANT has been MOCKED, how I bear in my heart the insults of many [catholic] people." Psalm 89:50

      Now don't forget to lay out your multitude of excuses. You are such a manipulating, deceiving, slimy worm and you will be crushed just as simply as a person steps on a nematode. You lie consistently and say prove it, slander and question where are the examples, mock God and His chosen and cry, I don't mock God, I just mock 'deputy dawg' with the 'Fax from Beyond'. Your ignorant and stupid, childish "stuff" is proof and it shall be a witness against you when you stand before the Almighty. You are a scoffer and compulsive liar and you're headed for Hell's fire. Catholics should be ashamed to have you as one of their apologists, but after all they excuse and justify pedophilia, so I'm not terribly surprised that they would back one of Satan's chosen snakes.   servant of the Just and True God

      P.S. Maybe you can say 10 Hail Marys and she can hide you under her dress. If not there are plenty of scarlet red and purple bishops dresses for you to seek shelter from the Lord's wrath.

  93. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1211AM:

    Here – as if the subject had never been considered here before – ‘Dan’ bleats and whines “what do you want as evidence?”. That’s a substantive question, and – so very revealingly – ‘Dan’ quickly tries to move beyond the grenade out of which he himself has just pulled the pin by instantly descending into the adolescent about “a note from mommy”. (As if ‘Dan’ doesn’t consider his own material to be backed up by his secret ‘notes from Beyond’ …)

  94. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1211AM:

    First, I note again that “evidence” is not comprised of mere assertions and claims, no matter how vividly and epithetically crafted. But really, that’s all ‘Dan’s got. Well, that and then epithetically screaming when your own assertions are a) demonstrated to reveal what you don’t want revealed and that b) you most certainly don’t want to think about.

    Of course, we see here an echo of fundie religious praxis: you can get up and give your ‘testimony’ that comes from “the Spirit” and who in the assemblage can say it ain’t so?

  95. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1211AM:

    But I take this opportunity to share also another interesting and relevant historical bit.

    “We are faced with a conspiracy, with a group of people who intended to mount a coup against the state … a fairly complex conspiracy linking the conspirator with foreign fascist powers. How can one ask for formal proof under such circumstances?”

    The speaker of these lines was going for this idea: when the accusation is of such magnitude, how can one possibly ask for evidence?

    Regular readers of this site might recognize this idea: it is the same one that lubricated the Stampede: when the conspiratorial awfulness and alleged consequences to the ‘victims’ described in the accusations are so huge, how can one be so obtuse, insensitive, and obstructively contrarian as to ask for proof?

    The speaker was Andrey Vishinsky, Stalin’s chief prosecutor at the Moscow show trials in 1937, which was when he made the remarks I have quoted.

  96. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1211AM:

    And ‘Dan’ also introduces a new deceptive gambit as well here: I don’t believe ‘Dan’s stuff because – waitttttttt forrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttttttttt – I think everyone is a liar like myself.

    I don’t believe ‘Dan’s stuff because it doesn’t comport with any known facts or rational probabilities, whether in the matter of his own legal and psychiatric misadventures, or in the matter of the Church and Catholicism, or in the matter of the Scripture that he claims supports his stuff.

    I don’t believe ‘Dan’ because he is – fundamentally and literally, one might say – unbelievable.

  97. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1244AM:

    Here the reader is nicely warned beforehand by means of ‘Dan’s strong opening with epithet: stuff is coming that isn’t strong enough to stand on its own.

    ‘Dan’ considers ‘evidence’ to be whatever bits the Divinely Chosen Magpie has beaked up on the internet.

    But the “Rome” bit is one I addressed in a prior comment on this thread: it is merely the silly and juvenile wordplay (i.e. that “Rome” in Revelations is the Catholic Church “Rome” of today) that passes for deep “spiritual wisdom” in the ‘Dan’-verse and for ‘prophecy’ in the fundie-verse.

    And if you drink enough of the ‘Dan’/fundie Kool-Aid and wear their special see-through glasses, then you too will quickly see that “just by coincidence” … everything about the Rome in Revelations is also exactly and precisely true about the Catholic Rome. See? It’s both scientific and historical and shows reel reel theological chops!

  98. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1244AM:

    And just what does the “USCCB Bible on the internet” say? Once again, it says nothing that demonstrates the accuracy of ‘Dan’s fever-vision claims. To ‘see’ the accuracy of those claims (and accusations and assertions) you have to have the Secret ‘Dan’/Fundie Magic Decoder Ring on.

    And then – oh so very slyly – ‘Dan’ works in again his signature I’m Not/You Are bit: it’s I who is playing “little games” (word games, one presumes) and not ‘Dan’ and the fundies. Readers may judge as they will.

  99. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 101AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ doth insist that he will “educate” one and all as to what “the Lord says in regards to the Second Coming of Christ”. Then a pericope from 2 Peter.

    Question: it has been, in earth time, 2000 years now. And no parousia yet.

    The pericope ‘Dan’ proffers has to do with God’s slow patient working in the human soul throughout (the remainder of) human history. But it says utterly nothing about the actual Second Coming of Christ, when Christ will physically come again, breaking into human history in the fullness of His power and glory.

    So much for ‘Dan’s educating or – for that matter – for ‘Dan’s Scriptural education.

    “Let this be a warning”, as ‘Dan’ might say: ‘Dan’ knows squat about what he would presume to “educate” one and all.

  100. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 101AM:

    And while we’re on the subject of his lack of Scriptural chops, just how does ‘Dan’ deal with Matthew 16:18-19, wherein Jesus calls Peter the “rock” upon which He will build His church, then giving Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” … ?

    In a previous comment on this thread ‘Dan’ had nicely demonstrated both his own and fundie incapacities by merely resorting to juvenile word-play: Peter is – according to the peanut gallery – the “rock” upon which nonbelievers (and, of course, Catholics) would stumble.

    But a stumbling-rock is skandalon, and Peter in this passage is called a kepa, which simply means ‘rock’.

    So Peter’s role and authority is – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘in the Bible’.

  101. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 112AM:

    Here, in a now-unsurprising bit of either ignorance or deceit, ‘Dan’ misreads my comment. I am not “pretty troubled today” by ‘Dan’s “having the ‘unquestionable authority of God’”; I am troubled now and always by ‘Dan’s delusional presumption that he has “the unquestionable authority of God”.

    There’s a difference there, and not a small one.

    But clearly, and in support of that presumption, ‘Dan’ then uses his delusive authority of God to proclaim that I have no such authority. I don’t claim to have any such authority. The authority of some amount of accurate knowledge and clear thinking is all I have.

  102. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 116AM:

    Here he doth proclaim and pronounce that “historical actualities”, among other things, “carry little weight with … God”.

    ‘Dan’ sorta reely ‘knows’ this about God – doncha see? – because that’s what’s true about ‘Dan’: facts and historical actualities do not carry much weight with him. Indeed, they cannot, because if they did then ‘Dan’ would have to face the abyss of his ignorance and his delusions and that is precisely why he is into this masquerade gig to begin with.

    As to who might be a “nerd”, and who might be “self-righteous” … the material on record on the site is there for readers to consider.

    The “snobby” bit is a somewhat fresh twist, though. If your material makes ‘Dan’ feel like he just might not actually know much, then that makes you a snob and leaves ‘Dan’ secure in his “spiritual knowledge”. Neato.

  103. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 134AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will once again evade what he cannot deal with by merely waving his magic Wand of Delusion: it’s all “compulsive lying”, doncha see?

    If ‘Dan’ doesn’t want to hear it and can’t deal with it, why then it can only be “compulsive lying”.

    And again, we see what I would say is certainly a characterization made about him during one or more of his legal and psychiatric misadventures, which he now tries to use as a weapon against others instead.

    But as I have said before, once you indenture yourself to a Fixed Delusional Syndrome, then you are pretty much going to have to engage in “compulsive lying” in order to protect your own delusions, if not also to neutralize the points that others make when objecting to your rants and stuff.

  104. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 148AM:

    We see here again a familiar ‘Dan’/fundie dodge: I had used the term “legitimacy” in connection with the Church. Rather than address the idea, the dodge is to glom onto the word “legitimacy” and then – had you been waitttinggggggggg forrrrrrrr itttttttttt? – merely play with it, riffing away on how the Church has no legitimacy anyway and so forth.

    Specific words or terms – to the ‘Dan’/fundie mindset – are merely like quarters in a jukebox; they exist simply to start the pre-recorded tunes playing. As we see in the remainder of his comment here.

  105. Publion says:

    Breaking some new ground, ‘Dan’ (the 21st at 226AM) doth now pronounce, declaim and declare that “Paul was a fundamentalist”.

    Now that, one might think, is a whopping big claim that is going to need some demonstration and explication.

    From ‘Dan’ – had you been waitingggggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttt? – we get … nothing further.

    Nor was Paul a “catholic”. He was, apparently, just a guy with some ‘testimony’ and maybe even some ‘prophecy’ that he got from the ‘Bible’ that he had been reading. Sorta like any fundie, really.

    Readers may pop some more corn and settle back to consider this bit as they will.

  106. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 226AM:

    And we are given another marvelous if unintentional example of the ‘Dan’/fundie modus operandi: it’s all merely about “understanding simple english”, doncha know?

    But Paul didn’t speak “simple English” (correction supplied); in fact, he didn’t speak English at all. But the fundies – coming along rather late to the party, about 1900 years later – had only their Bibles (compiled by the Church, we recall) in this or that English translation.

    This is an utterly predictable difficulty that was inherent in the entire ‘Bible Problem’: how to translate into English from the several original Biblical languages (various stages of Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Greek) into English: a form of Middle English in Wycliffe’s Bible, for example, itself drawing upon Old English from the Anglo-Saxon era of Aelfric; which was followed by Tyndale’s translation and then Coverdale’s, and on to the Geneva Bible of 1560; all before the King James Version came along in 1611 (with a couple of revised versions later).

    And those earlier English versions were based on St. Jerome’s Vulgate Latin version.

  107. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 226AM:

    Further, as was especially seen in the Geneva Bible (appearing under Protestant auspices, as its date of publication indicates) there was not simply a translation of the text into English but there were also marginal notes (giving editorial opinions and directions as to how to ‘correctly’ interpret this and that passage) and even woodcut illustrations (which were editorial opinions in pictorial form).

    In fact, nowadays there are not only any number of versions in English but also voluminous commentaries (providing this and that editor’s hints, directions, and instructions as to how one might or should or must interpret and construe the theoretically ‘perfectly understandable’ and ‘totally clear to anybody’ texts and passages).

  108. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 226AM:

    ‘Dan’s cartoonish concept of the Bible, then, is itself built on the sand of the fundies’ core Bible Problem: the Bible in whatever English form they can get their hands on is totally and immediately clear to any reader, but yet you have to have special inspiration from God or voluminous directions from some ‘correct’ fundie commentator in order to get it right.

    Or, of course, you can also dream up your own interpretation, declare it a divinely inspired ‘testimony’ or ‘prophecy’ or ‘vision’, and who’s gonna say it ain’t so?

    • Dan says:

      Don't even care to comment on your same repetitive ignorance, nonsense and stupidity. You are absolutely Spiritually inept, yet think if you can convince others of your misinterpretation of Scripture and babble on enough, then they'll believe that you know what your talking about. You think that if you use your snobby, self-righteous vocabulary and your so-called knowledge, then you can tear an opponent apart and no one will suspect you to be a lying, rude, ranting fool. I'm onto you and your deceptive sarcasm and imagine you obsessed with your own bathroom mirror and impressed by your own stupidity and longwindedness.

    • Dan says:

      Guess God has your number and don't forget to lie and claim I'm making these up -

      Does everybody have love in their heart for the Lord? The Lord knows many people don't have His love. Does everybody have pure faith in the heart? The Lord knows many people have doubts. Does everybody have the hope to carry on and move on in their life? The Lord knows that they trust in the world's hope and not His. Does everybody read His Word, that lets us know how to live in life? The Lord knows that people put their faith, hope and love, more in the world's word. Listen to My true words of wisdom, instead of listening to all the false words of people, who will never tell the truth. They should know by now that they are not fooling the Lord and the world surely won't lead them to heaven.

      My hope is that there may be some catholics or others in this forum who can appreciate the Lord's words of wisdom, because as far as publyin' goes, it falls on deaf ears.


  109. Publion says:

    ‘Dan’ slyly doesn’t respond to many of the points on the table (about which see more below in this sequence of my comments), but the ones for which he thinks he has a ‘comeback’ in his pile of 3x5s do well enough to nicely demonstrate his scam.

    Thus on the 23rd at 940AM, responding to my question as to the basis on which he equates my treatment of his stuff with “mocking God”, he simply tosses up a pericope about God sending word “again and again through by His messengers” (scream-caps omitted here, although whether they were added by ‘Dan’ or existed in whatever English translation of the Bible he happens to have in front of him remains unclear).

  110. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 940AM:

    But that bit slyly and deceptively tries to slide right over the core and key question at issue: is ‘Dan’ a) one of those Biblical “messengers” or is he b) merely a delusional whackjob trying to use God and the Bible as a way to evade the reality of his own abyssal personal whackeries?

    As any sort of response to that key and core question, ‘Dan’s pericopes from his 3×5 pile have utterly nothing relevant to say.

    ‘Dan’s core scam is a house of cards, not the usual playing-cards but rather his pile of 3x5s, with their pericopes and ‘examples’ and so on and so forth.

  111. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 940AM:

    For that matter, and especially since we are dealing with a fundie-level of Scriptural chops, it is perhaps best to bear in mind at all times that when ‘Dan’ says ‘Bible’ we need to understand it as referring to whatever version of whatever translation he happens to have in front of him.

    He then tries to wrap up the performance by preemptively dismissing all problems with his stuff as merely “excuses”. Which effort he then tries to bolster with a riffy string of – had you been waitttinggggg forrrrrrrr itttttttttttttttt? – epithets (including “nematode”, apparently in some sort of effort to mimic somebody who actually knows a few things).

    And then that bit is bolstered by the clinically-projective riff on lies and slander and stupidity and ignorance (‘Dan’ clearly can’t be stupid and ignorant – doncha see? – because he has just used the word “nematode”).

    And his performance drains away with the remainder of the familiar riffing.

  112. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 151AM:

    He was faced with two major issues: i) the fact that Peter’s Great Commission is ‘in the Bible’, as fundies might say, in Matthew 16:18-19; and ii) that “the Bible” is a term freighted with problems since fundies (and ‘Dan’) base the core of their stuff on translations into English that have gone through more than 1500 years of English translating, spanning Old English, Middle English and on into the Early Modern English of the Shakespearean era … to say nothing of the efflorescence of ‘contemporary’ and ‘modern’ English translations derived from all the foregoing.

    Well, that’s quite a bit.

  113. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 151AM:

    And what do we get from ‘Dan’?

    He doth not “even care to comment on [my] same repetitive ignorance, nonsense and stupidity” and “babble” and “snobby … longwindedness” because I am – had you been waittttinggggggg forrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – “Spiritually inept”. With ‘Dan’, when the epithets start flowing like a flood, you know he’s trying to distract and deceive.

    In other words, he’s got nothing, though – perhaps – he’s sly enough to realize that these points – especially when taken in conjunction with the still-unresolved question as to whether he is a messenger of God or a whackjob – undermine everything he’s built his house of cards upon and would reveal him for the deceitful (and queasily repellent) poseur he has become through his indenture to his Fixed Delusional Syndrome.

  114. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 216AM:

    To which (non-)performance he then adds – had you been waitttinggggggg forrrrrrrr itttttttttt? – more threats delivered as if ‘Dan’ had just gotten a private note from God.

    And that bit is then immediately followed by an effort to try on a different Wig: in the second paragraph we do not get the Wig of Scriptural Chops but instead the Wig of Prophecy (which term, in the ‘Dan’-verse, means ‘Dan’ doing his impressions of God in a now too-familiar stand-up routine.

    And to top off that bit of underdone cake, he lards on a thick and smarmy bit of “hope”, as if he were suddenly now Goody-Two-Shoes burbling innocently from a stage with a fake pulpit for a prop.

  115. Publion says:

    So, really, we see in all of this the combined tactics of ‘Dan’ and the fundies, trying to use “the Bible” as a) an idol, b) a teddy-bear, and c) an ammo box to merely provide handy piles to toss in the service of their agenda.

    • Dan says:

      Scam? Deceptive? Delusional? House of cards? Fundie? Deceitful? Combined tactics? Bible as an idol? Last, but not least, the childish, Bible as a teddy-bear? Wow! And you accuse others of "clinical-projection". A compulsive liar, deceiver, slanderer, idolator, catholic fundie, mocker and self-righteous creep, pointing the finger at another. Now disputing God's Written Word and insinuating that it's tainted or corrupted, because of your own deficiencies in understanding and spiritually discerning with any wisdom, the brilliance of His Word. You self-righteous little worm, nematode as in parasite or maggot. "Deceiving others while being themselves deceived." Perhaps you were unable to understand the simple english in the line of prophecy precisely transcribed for you: "Listen to my true words of wisdom, instead of listening to all the false words of people, who will never tell the truth. They shall know by now that they are not fooling the Lord…" Let me know if you need a translation, seeing you have such a problem with simple english and common sense.  servant of The Almighty

    • Dan says:

      correction – "Listen to My true words of wisdom, instead of listening to all the false words of people, who will never tell the truth. They 'should' know by now that they are not fooling the Lord…" They 'should' know by now, but there are those so deaf, dense and blind, that they 'shall' never know, publiars for instance.

  116. Dan says:

    Whatever, Whackjob!!

  117. Publion says:

    Well, there was even more on the table this time around.

    And what do we get from ‘Dan’. On the 24th at 958AM we get – had you been waitttinggggg forrrrr ittttttt? – just another rerun of the old I’m Not/You Are bit, with the whole riff focused around ‘Dan’s myah-myah that it is not he who is projecting-clinically, but rather it is I.

    Having waved all that away (to his own satisfaction and consolation, at least) ‘Dan’ then indulges himself in a riffy rerun of his usual epitheticals.

    And about the complexity of ‘the Bible’, especially when one limits oneself to English translations … we get (had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt?) merely a huffy and pearl-clutching bleat about my “disputing God’s Written Word” – although, it has to be pointed out to ‘Dan’ again, God didn’t ‘write’ the Bible in English, and neither did any of the Biblical authors of either the Old or the New Testament.

  118. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 958AM:

    And who really is “disputing God’s Written Word” when it is ‘Dan’ who keeps bethumping Peter even though the Great Commission is right there in Matthew 16: 18-19 … ?

    Nor am I “insinuating” that it is “God’s Written Word” that is “tainted and corrupted”. Rather, I am saying that if you don’t know how complicated “the Bible” is – linguistically as well as historically and theologically – then you are well on your way to pushing tainted and corrupted interpretations.

    It is not ‘God’s Written Word” but rather the ‘Dan’/fundie interpretations that are tainted and corrupted.

    Then we get another epithetical riff, again trying to push ‘Dan’s epithet-du-jour, which is “nematode” and so on.

    • Dan says:

      I don't bethump Peter any more than I bethump Mary. I believe in the Bible version of both and do not agree with the catholic lies and imaginary version of either. Like previously stated, Do you see Peter adorned with a triple crown, kings vestments, sitting in a velvet gold throne and having underlings bow to him in worship? The work says, on this rock I will build my church. Show me your Greek or Hebrew version where it says catholic church in that statement.

      As far as Mary goes, take a good look at the Litany of Loreto and proceed to convince anyone that you don't worship her. The prayer starts with asking forgiveness from the Lord and then goes into ridiculous titles of worship, that humble Mary (Luke 1:46-55) herself would have been ashamed to pronounce. Your cult has made a mess of Biblical truths and you have absolutely no right to criticize anyones true beliefs, seeing the heresies that you promote and defend.

      "Babylon [Rome] the great, the mother of harlots and of the abominations of the earth." Rev 17:5  What could be more filthy or abominable than a church plagued with pedophiles, perverts, idolators, cowards and liars. Quit trying to deceive, lie and deny the truth, in order to push your evil agenda.   servant

    • Dan says:

      I have to put my trust in Biblical scholars and theologians who translated the Word from ancient manuscripts. I am not fluent in either Hebrew or Greek, and have seen where even scholars were troubled with the exact meanings. I did at one time have 16 different Bibles and cross-referenced several lines from each version, to find that they all said almost the same thing in different words. There were not different interpretations, and this tells me that God most likely had His hand in their makings.

      I looked in the preface of a Good News Bible to find this statement – "The primary concern of the translators has been to provide a faithful translation of the meaning of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Their first task was to undestand correctly the meaning of the original."

      I see how you dispute and undermine constantly the prophecies that my friend and I have received. God has given those in plain and simple english, and by that I mean without a snobby, self-righteous vocabulary. Simple english does not mean stupid english, unless you promote yourself as being above common man and his language, which apparently you do. God will find a way to take you down from your pedestal, Mr. Know-It-All.


  119. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 958AM:

    But – yet again – there is no “simple english” in “the Bible”. This, of course, throws the whole ‘Dan’/fundie gambit and cottage-industry into serious doubt, but there it is.

    And then a (no doubt unintentional) revelatory bit: ‘Dan’ suddenly tosses in not only “simple english” but also “common sense” as the criteria of the ‘Dan’/fundie game. Doncha see? … ‘Dan’ is a font not only of “simple english” but also of “common sense”, as well as “spiritual wisdom”.

    If it were all that “simple”, one wouldn’t then need “common sense” and “spiritual wisdom” … but of course, it’s not that “simple” at all.

    • Dan says:

      Like I've said, "Common sense", "simple english" and "spiritual wisdom", all the qualities you lack, though fluent in your snobby, self-righteous vocabulary of ignorance and lies. Publiar is  a font of lies, deception, slander and manipulations. And let us not forget, Scripturally inept.  

  120. Publion says:

    On then to the 24th at 1051AM, where ‘Dan’ apparently re-pushes this bit beginning “Listen to My true words” … whether this is from Scripture or just a self-serving and manipulative ‘Dan’-verse ‘prophecy’ or perhaps somebody’s personal stab at a translation of something … readers may consider as they will.

    And – as the mentation descends in this sequence of ‘Dan’s three comments – he just tries (the 24th at 1251PM) to wave it all away with a ‘whatever’, as in ‘what-evvv-errrrrrrrrrrrrr’. Apparently this is ‘Dan’ doing his stand-up impression of a Valley Girl from the long-ago movie.

    We may not get many revelations about Scripture from ‘Dan’, but we do get a lot of revelations about ‘Dan’ from ‘Dan’.

  121. Dan says:

    I think you've been to way too many movies and cartoons, and it may be time you wake up to reality. Maybe then you might improve your reading comprehension and better understand Biblical principles, after all they're written in simple, common and plain english. You and your church screw them up by bringing in your pagan traditions and historical meanings, when really God's teachings are relatively simple, Faith, Hope and Love, yet unattainable from a heresy of greed, idolatry and liars.  servant of the One True God

  122. Publion says:

    And finally (the 26th at 1002AM) ‘Dan’ gets around to addressing some of the significant problems with his stuff.

    Peter isn’t the first Pope; Mary is worshipped as a goddess in “pagan” Catholic “temples” … as readers may recall.

    ‘Dan’s response: why, ‘Dan’ doesn’t “bethump Peter any more than [he bethumps] Mary”. He cawn’t think why anyone would think otherwise.

    It’s just that he doesn’t “agree with” – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – “catholic lies and the imaginary version of either”.

    Indeed, he doth muchly “believe in the Bible version of both of them”.

  123. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1002AM:

    As to Peter: ‘Dan’ here slyly avoids the Great Commission of Matthew 16:18-19 (wherein Jesus proclaims Peter as the rock upon which He will build His church and assigns to Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven”.

    Does he “believe in the Bible version” of Peter here or not?

    Instead, we get a far shallower rant about the historical accretions of “triple crown, king’s vestments, sitting on a velvet gold throne” and – had you been waitttinggg forrrr ittttt? – “having underlings bow down to him in worship” (Catholics, apparently, “worship” the Pope like they “worship” the goddess Mary).

    Did Peter receive the Great Commission from Christ or did he not? Did Christ intend to “build” His “church” or did He not?

  124. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1002AM:

    We get, then, the shallow fundie cartoon version of the Church here. Which only demonstrates the fundies’ failure to account for the dark and powerful currents of human history: when the Roman empire came apart and fell, it was only the Bishop of Rome and the various Bishops in the former Roman cities who could fill in as any sort of public authority at all in order to keep the lives of not only their flocks but the cities and towns and villages themselves alive and functioning.

    And on the basis of the Great Commission then the Papacy had to maintain its independence in order to prevent its becoming merely a tool of whatever secular royal authority was currently reigning, as happened to the Orthodox Church in the Eastern half of the former Roman empire (and, many might say, actually did happen for a while to the Papacy during the Avignon interlude).

    It was this effort to maintain the independence of the Papacy in order to ground the independent identity of the Church that kept Catholicism from falling off the other side of the bridge, becoming merely a sect, a bunch of loosely-aggregated individuals fragmented on the basis of this or that take on theology and on Scripture … much – come to think of it – like the fundies.

    • Dan says:

      All your history lesson proves is precisely what I've been saying. As the "Roman empire came apart and fell", the Roman catholic church filled the void, and became the offshoot of the evil dictatorship that it replaced. It took over the wealth and kingship of Rome with all its greediness. Triple crowned themselves, wore robes of kings, sit on velvety gold thrones, had underlings bowing to them, and still do all these things, all as proof that they are not followers of Christ, Peter or any apostle, or living according to God's Word. That is not a "far shallower rant", but to the contrary, the very proof of why you and your heretic church are "wolves in sheep's clothing". Although in your case as a lying, mocking deceiver, more wolf throughout. Even with all your worldly knowledge and annoying vocabulary, you present very little valuable substance of any worth. However, as you gloat over yourself, staring into your reflection at the bottom of your toilet bowl, thinking, I sure am a legend in my own mind. Stop your deceiving nonsense, you are not God's or Christ's church. If you were, you would line up with Bible truth, instead of using excuses and apologies for mirroring everything depicting a false cult with false teachers. Take a look at the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapter 5-7 and ch. 23, and I'll break down 2 Peter 2, just the first paragraph for you. Your church lines up with just about every description of evil in God's Word. Got way more important things to do today than dealing with your ignorance. Catch you later.  servant

  125. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1002AM:

    But having tried that gambit, ‘Dan’ then goes overboard and tries something that is indeed too clever by half: “Show me”, he slyly purrs, “your Greek or Hebrew version where it says catholicchurch in that statement”.

    Let’s first quickly move beyond the howler about a Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel. The Gospel was written in Greek, with heavy reliance on what appears to be an Aramaic collection (perhaps the one Biblical scholarship calls “Q”) of Jesus’s sayings. Hebrew, Aramaic, potayto, potahto – when you’re in the fundie cartoon business who can bother to rely on actualities? How can you keep a good cartoon going if you stick too carefully to actualities?

  126. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1002AM:

    But then – in the second place – what other “church” did ‘Dan’ have in mind, based on the Great Commission of Matthew 16:18-19 and reinforced clearly in Matthew 18:18 (“Amen, I say to you: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”) … ?

    And in the third place, ‘Dan’ has already quite a while ago here declared himself against “religions” generally, so how is he now trying to imply that Jesus might indeed have been talking about a “church” … but just not the Catholic Church?

  127. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1002AM:

    Matthew clearly envisions a church in which there is Apostolic Authority, just as – let’s face it – the Apostles weren’t just a buncha guys hanging out who all believed – somehow, in their own individual ways – in this or that aspect of Jesus and His ideas.

    The Apostles themselves were gathered around Jesus as the fulcrum and focal point of their belief. And as He prepared to withdraw His actual personal physical and bodily presence from them and from human history, He instituted a successor source of His authority (but not His actual presence; the Pope is not a successor divinity nor is the Pope free to fundamentally depart from Jesus’s and set up on his own; this is not at all like a monarchy where the new monarch can change whatever he or she wishes).

    Thus at the outset of the 10th chapter of his Gospel, Matthew names the Apostles in order – with Simon Peter being “first”, and then immediately goes on to give them His instructions (Matthew 10: 1-14).

  128. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1002AM:

    Although it is nicely revealing that whereas Jesus told the Apostles not to “go into pagan territory” but rather to “go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (verses 5-6) yet Paul will later differ with Peter as to the question of bringing Christ’s Gospel to non-Jews; and the two then met to work out a position on Paul’s practice of delivering the Gospel to the Gentiles (see the first and second chapters of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, who were themselves a non-Jewish people of Celtic origin who had invaded western and central Asia Minor in the 3rd century BC).

    Paul recounts meeting Peter twice in Jerusalem and a third time at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-20), as a result of which Paul formulates a position that differs from Jesus’s instruction, which had been interpreted by Peter and the original Apostles as meaning that if one were to become a follower of Christ, one must first become Jewish.

  129. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1002AM:

    The key point here is that Paul felt it necessary to confer with Peter, despite their (at the outset) significantly different approaches and interpretations of the instructions given by Christ. And Peter ultimately came around to Paul’s way of thinking, thus placing the full weight of his – Peter’s – Apostolic Authority behind Paul’s approach.

    So, then, in what way does ‘Dan’ propose – if this is indeed what he is proposing – that Jesus did institute a church … but just not the Catholic Church … ? And if so, just what other church did ‘Dan’ have in mind?

    Or perhaps ‘Dan’ has in mind that Jesus merely sought to turn loose a whole bunch of sects and sub-sects and sub-sub-sects, in effect an orchestra with neither a conductor nor a common score and each of the little bunches of instruments tootling and banging away on their own version of the original composition’s score?

  130. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1002AM:

    And then in the second paragraph of his comment, ‘Dan’ goes back to his 3×5 pile in regard to Mary.

    He is so indentured to his ‘pagan-goddess’ cartoon that he doesn’t even see the import of what he himself writes about the Litany of Loreto: “the prayer stars with asking forgiveness from the Lord”. If Mary were considered to be a goddess, nobody would need to ask forgiveness from any divinity but her.

    Who has “made a mess of Biblical truths” here? She is held to be the Mother of Christ. In her actual physical life she was the mother of Jesus, but once Jesus died and rose and ascended, then she became in the eyes of the faithful the Mother of Christ, not the sovereign, but the mother of the sovereign (as the point was once made to Queen Victoria’s mother); Theotokos, the God-bearer but not the God.

  131. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1002AM:

    In fact, the text of the Litany specifically names her “Mother of our Creator” and “Mother of our savior”, and not herself either Creator or Savior.

    But ‘Dan’ here has slyly shifted the argument: from going on about Mary being worshipped as a goddess, he now bleats that in her physical historical life on earth the “humble” Mary would not have accepted such accolades.

    Well, who is ‘Dan’ to say what Mary would or would not have accepted when she was among us?

    And once Christ ascended, then who is to say that Mary does not accept the fact that she bore the Christ and is the Mother of Christ? And who is ‘Dan’ to say that now – seated in heaven – Mary rejects such reverential accolades from believers? From what we know of Fatima and Lourdes, Mary doesn’t seem to take humanity’s accolades as offensive.

  132. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1002AM:

    But there is a method to ‘Dan’s sly madness here: if Catholics have “made a mess of Biblical truths” then – doncha see? – Catholics “have absolutely no right to criticize anyones true beliefs” (sic).

    Thus ‘Dan’ can embrace any whackeries he wants, and who’s to say it ain’t so? The usual fundie bit.

    And there is an even more sly bit embedded in his gambit here, because a belief may be “true” in the sense that the believer actually does believe it, but yet not be true in substance. Communists may have genuinely believed that Marx and Lenin and even Stalin had it right, but that didn’t make Communism any more “true” in fact, as a basis upon which to build and govern a human society.

    And he tries to bring the performance home with more of his usual 3×5 ranting.

  133. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1038AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ the fervid in-your-face asserter of so much plop now suddenly puts on the Wig of Humility and doth bleat that he has to “put [his] trust in Biblical scholars and theologians who translated the Word from ancient manuscripts”. How nice, as do we all.

    But he quickly backs away from whatever implications that confession might bring: he hath had – we can take his word for it – “at one time” anyway – “16 different Bibles and cross-referenced several lines from each version” (whatever that’s supposed to mean).

    So … what?

    Well, in ‘Dan’s mind and estimation, “they all said almost the same thing”. (Note the weasel word “almost” as well as the vagueness of “the same thing”.)

  134. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1038AM:

    He apparently favors the Good News Bible. This 1976 version has recently been renamed the Good News Translation, since it had gained a mushy reputation as being merely a paraphrase version rather than an actual fresh translation from the original ancient languages.

    But whatever it’s named, the GNB is based on the linguistic theory called ‘dynamic equivalence’, i.e. that one need not translate word-for-word, but rather – and here’s where things get rather iffy – ‘thought for thought’.

    Add to this that the whole purpose of the GNB was in response to Protestant missionaries in Africa in the early 1960s requesting a bible that would be more accessible to those for whom English is not their first language.

  135. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1038AM:

    So the GNB is somewhat removed from being a purely literal word-for-word translation from the ancient languages. Rather, it’s a version that a) substitutes its translators’ take on the ‘thought’ of a passage rather than on the actual wording used in the ancient languages and that b) then takes those already dubious ‘thoughts’ and puts them into the translators’ take on contemporary English idiom that also c) is then further modified to make the ‘thought’ accessible to persons who don’t really know much English.

    We’re pretty much out of ‘translation’ territory and into ‘paraphrase’ territory with the GNB.

    But clearly it appeals to ‘Dan’.

  136. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1038AM:

    Thus too then, when the translators note – as ‘Dan’ tells it – that they were primarily going for “the meaning of the original” then that’s a giveaway that they are not concerned for actually translating the words of the ancient texts, but rather – as I said above – the “meaning” as that is taken to be in the theory of ‘dynamic equivalence’.

    And they’re the ones who get to see and say what such “equivalence” might work out to be in English.

  137. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1038AM:

    And then ‘Dan’ suddenly changes the subject and bleats about how I “dispute and undermine the prophecies that my friend and I have received”.

    First of all, we don’t really know and can’t really in any way at all establish the difference between i) genuine prophetic revelations received from Above and ii) the imaginings and excitements that occur to the minds of individuals for such variety of reasons and causes as may apply in their particular case.

    We see here merely the playing-out of the fundie – and at core Protestant – idea that anybody can look into the Bible and come up with a genuine grasp of any part of it. Which bit – with the fundies especially – got extended from Biblical interpretation to actual ‘prophecy’ (mimicking Jeremiah and Isaiah and others).

  138. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1038AM:

    The problem isn’t that they get these ‘prophecies’ “in plain and simple english” (sic), it’s that we don’t know – and neither do they – whether these ‘prophecies’ are actually “given” by God or are merely the agitations of their particular issues manifesting in their mind.

    After all, some patients wear Napoleon hats and insist on being deferred-to as the Emperor of the French, and some people put on Bible hats and insist on being deferred-to as ‘prophets’. This is a genuine case of potayto-potahto.

    And while “simple english does not mean stupid english” (sic), yet simple thoughts may yet be stupid thoughts. And you can also so ‘simplify’ a thought in English (or any language) that you lose the actual gravamen of the thought and wind up with merely a husk of the original thought. Or worse.

  139. Publion says:

    ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 1049AM is merely an epithetical stab. Not being very good in the theologizing department, ‘Dan’ isn’t much more impressive in his far more natural role as a plop-tosser.

    And on the 26th at 1108AM he simply tries more along that line, wherein the Valley Girl doth opine – for whatever it’s worth – that I have seen “way too many movies and cartoons”.

    Rather – I am advised by the Cartoon-maker Divinely Extraordinaire – that I should “wake up to reality”. I have indeed awakened to ‘Dan’s reality – that’s what he doesn’t like.

Speak Your Mind

(email addresses will not be displayed publicly)