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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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).

  8. 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.


  9. 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).

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Dan says:

    Whatever, Whackjob!!

  17. 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.

  18. 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.


  19. 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.  

  20. 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’.

  21. 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

  22. 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”.

  23. 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?

  24. 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

    • Dan says:

      Taken from The New American Bible (NABRE) – Been quoting at your request from your catholic Bible, but it seems nothing satisfies your childish persnicketiness. 2 Peter 2:1-3

      False Teachers*

      1 There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.

      2 Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.

      3 In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep.

      Commentary on 2 Peter 2:1-3

      1  a) false teachers among you – as in liars and deceivers permeating a false church b) introducing destructive heresies – twisting God's Word to their liking – denying the Master – believing saints including Mary to be the savior, Mother of mercy and of God, sinless, pure, immaculate, assumed into heaven – Holy Fathers, when Bible says only one Father, your Father in heaven – all blasphemies against God and Christ, and these are but a few c) their destruction sure and swift

      2  a) Many will follow their licentious ways – licentious (def.) – promiscuous and unprincipled in sexual matters – pedophiles and perverts – guilty of every disgusting sex crime against innocence (minors), yet denying and excusing their perversions b) way of truth will be reviled – criticizing and abusive towards the saved - spreading lies against true believers and those who have escaped hell through their only Savior and mediator, Jesus Christ

      3  a) in their greed – there is no organization more greedy or richer than the catholic cult  b) exploiting others with fabrications (made up stories as in Fatima and Lourdes, etc.) – claiming visions of their false goddess – raising her on rose covered pedestals and worshipping her, while parading the crucified Christ, the one they bloodied and beaten, and displaying their triumph over Him in all their pagan temples and shrines. c) Their condemnation and destruction shall be sure, swift and violent, just as their heresies deserve.

      Catholics run from the false pagan cult while the Lord God is giving you the chance. Don't allow lying creeps and deceivers to deny you from your eternal prize. They care nothing for your soul and are only interested in robbing you blind, to pay for all their indescretions, greed, sexual lusts and idolatries of all kinds. If they do any good it's only to brag and receive bigger donations. Don't allow fools to tell you that I'm deceiving or manipulating you. This is just another of their multitude of lies. The Creator knows their disgusting sins and just laughs at their utter ignorance and stupidity. servant of the True God and Jesus the Christ

      P.S. If you believe I wrote this for your sake, then you think way too much of yourself, publiar.

    • Dan says:

      Realize catholics, that 2 Peter 2:1-3 is only three verses in a Bible full of God's knowledge and wisdom. Yet in these three verses, God through Peter, perfectly describes the shortcomings of your false church. In others words the apostle that you've been falsely led to believe was your first pope just dissed the hell out of your pagan cult. Come out of them and find the truth of the Lord in your heart, not in their manmade temples, pagan traditions and made up histories. They don't even realize that Christ was nailed in the wrist and claim lying stigmatas to further deceive their lost sheep. Hierarchy and so-called saints beat and punished themselves because they were unrepentant, unforgiven sinners and possibly pedophiles, and knew they were guilty and blood red in sin. They deceived and tricked brainwashed followers into believing they were humble and suffering as Christ suffered. Show me in the Bible where God asks us to mutilate ourselves. Lying, phony, creeps, so don't fall for their igmnorance and stupidity. God will gladly punish the liars in Hell's fire. servant

    • Dan says:

      The ignorant will want to correct my typo of ignorance, so I'll save him from his FDS (sic)ness.

  25. 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?

  26. 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?

  27. 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).

  28. 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.

  29. 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?

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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”.)

  34. 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.

  35. 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’.

  36. 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.

  37. 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).

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. Publion says:

    There were a number of points on the table, serious ones and some of which actually involved ‘Dan’s position on this or that major question.

    But on the 28th at 1231PM he merely picks a very secondary issue, i.e. my “history lesson”.

    He has chosen this bit, apparently, since it “proves precisely what [he’s] been saying”. This should be good; pass the popcorn, please.

    The Roman Empire was “an evil dictatorship” – ya see – and thus the Church simply became its successor “evil dictatorship”. This bit displays a rather insufficient knowledge of the Roman Empire, especially in its final centuries, and an even more insufficient – indeed cartoonish – ignorance of the history of the Papacy (how many Popes issued Bulls and other documented orders that were ignored by their recipients, religious and secular?).

  41. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1231PM:

    What would be the difference between a monarchical or imperial form of governance (as the terms were understood in those centuries) and an “evil dictatorship”? For ‘Dan’s cartoon there would have to be no difference at all.

    That leads into another riffy recitation about “velvety gold thrones” and so on. Which rely for whatever impact they are supposed to have on a) ‘Dan’ and the fundies presuming to know the mind of Jesus (He didn’t want any of it) and b) a somewhat silly and cartoonish anti-historical presumption to the effect that the historical developments of later centuries were all anti-Biblical (thus, we are to imagine that the use of typewriters and indoor toilets provide sure indicators that Christ’s will was being flouted).

    On which basis ‘Dan’ doth declare and declaim that his stuff is not at all “a far shallower rant” but is rather “the very proof of” … what ‘Dan’ and the fundies envision in their cartoons.

  42. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1231PM:

    At which point – had you been waitingggg forrr ittttt – ‘Dan’ slides in some epithetical stuff. Beyond the usual “lying, mocking deceiver” stuff I have “worldly knowledge” and an “annoying vocabulary” – as if the ‘Dan’/fundie ideas can stand up to scrutiny and it’s just my “annoying vocabulary” that’s the problem; ‘Dan’s recent deployment of “nematode” – apropos of nothing – however, isn’t a silly use of vocabulary, in his mind.

    Then another run with the old I’m Not/You Are bit: it is not ‘Dan’s stuff but rather mine that doth “present very little valuable substance of any worth”. That – doncha see? – gets ‘Dan’ off the hook for evading the far more substantive problems with his stuff.

    And from the self-declared “Chosen” and “Servant” and so on we then again get his marvelously revealing epithetical to the effect that it is I (and not ‘Dan’) who is “a legend in my own mind”.

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1231PM:

    He then tries to nail it all down with some pericopes from his 3×5 pile.

    Read the “Sermon on the Mount”, he doth exhort. What relevance that pericope might have is not something ‘Dan’ cares to explicate.

    Then he’s on to 2 Peter 2, wherein that author warns about “false teachers” and so on. Here ‘Dan’ merely doth declare and declaim that “your church lines up with just about every description of evil in ‘God’s word”.

    Again we get no explication for this rather totalistic accusation. Apparently, if you have the special magic ‘Dan’/fundie cartoon glasses on then it all becomes instantly and perfectly clear. And if you don’t then you don’t deserve to ‘know’, doncha see?

    Which slyly gives ‘Dan’ the chance to get off the stage: “Got way more important things to do today than dealing with your ignorance”, he gaily tosses off as he makes a beeline for the wings.

    Leaving all the major points, of course, thoroughly evaded. He’s so ‘kewl’, as the contemporary slang might have it. And so very very busy with reely reely important stuff to do; no doubt the Divine Fax Machine has run out of ink and/or paper and it’s off to the dealer’s to buy some.

    • Dan says:

      The Sermon on the Mount is Christ's teachings, of which your cult falls far short. Likewise the same for His instruction and Woes directed towards your false, pagan cult in Matthew 23. The same for 2 Peter and you might as well throw in the book of Jude. Just about every book of the New Testament curses the sinfulness and disobedience of your cult. Quit acting so dumb, but judging from your last paragraph, maybe it's just a trait of your childish adolescence. You should reely reely grow up.  servant

  44. Dan says:

    In response to your whackery 6/27 @ 10:57am – You think you can quote a piece of my statement out of context, and that will show that I don't know what I'm talking about. Sly but ignorant. I was referring to the fact that I compared the same verse from 16 different Bibles, "to find that they all said almost the same thing in different words. There were not different interpretations….", as you would like to make others believe with your misinterpretations.

    As an example to your childish, repetitive mockery, "deputy dawg of God, Cartoon-maker Divinely Extroadinaire and Divine Fax Machine", the Bible says of scoffers –  2 Peter 3:3

    "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts" 2 Peter 3:3  (KJV)

    "first knowing this, that in the last days scoffers will come with scoffing, following according to their own evil desires,"  2 Peter 3:3 ( Berean Literal Bible)

    "Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires." 2 Peter 3:3 (New Living Translation)

    "Know this first of all, that in the last days scoffers will come [to] scoff, living according to their own desires" 2 Peter 3:3 (NABRE)

    scoffer (def.) – someone who jeers or mocks or treats with contempt – syn: jeerer, mocker – Type of: disagreeable person, unpleasant person [sure sounds like the definition of you, publiar]

    So as I explained to you, every version depicts your ignorant mocking, using slightly different words, but all having the same interpretation. Stop playing dumb, although it fits you perfectly. The Bible is not as difficult as you and your cult claim. You just refuse to listen to God's Words or obey them, and think you can invent your own meanings, full of excuses for your misinterpretations and ignorance. The result being a pagan cult plagued with greedy, cowardly, lying, idolators, perverts and pedophiles.    servant of God's honest truth


  45. Publion says:

    And now for something not completely different.

    On the 28th at 1155PM, ‘Dan’ claims that somehow I had requested him to quote from “your catholic Bible”. This  appears to be nothing more than a hook he has constructed to hang his ‘persnickety’ epithet upon; to get into any of his plop-tossy subjects so deeply that ‘Dan’ doesn’t know what to do is – doncha see? – merely demonstrating “persnicketiness”.

    If, on the other hand, you buy all the ornate little ins and outs of ‘Dan’s ranty cartoons, that’s not being persnickety. But if you point out problems with the cartoons that ‘Dan’ is not prepared to handle, that’s being persnickety.

    Because really, ‘Dan’ is just a plop-tosser; he knows just about nothing beyond the little bits he has scribbled on each of his 3x5s. Once you actually try to examine his stuff, then he’s got nothing.

    • Dan says:

      publiar oinks, "Once you actually try to examine his stuff, then he's got nothing." Well I'm glad to see you admit to only "try[ing] to examine my stuff", realizing finally that you're a complete failure. I take it you're pretty used to failure. Lying, slandering, exaggerating and falsely accusing another, is not how a normal person would go about examining one's material. From what I've seen from several of your fellow catholics, apparently deception, denial and lying are some of your best character traits. Maybe if they could teach Biblical truths, instead of fabricating a false, pagan religion, it just may produce some honest, holy and righteous followers. Sorry to inform you, but that train left the station centuries ago, is now barreling down the tracks and heading towards it's doom. Only hope is for a remnant of catholics to jump off before it's too late.   servant of the God of Justice

      P.S. Strange how you respond with such longwindedness to someone who has "nothing".

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1155PM:

    So what do we get when we finally get around to it?

    Just a bunch of pericopes (or paraphrases; there are no quotation marks) from ‘Dan’s ‘false teachers’ pile. They could as easily apply to him, of course, but that’s not something his Fixed Delusional Syndrome will permit him to consider.

    He can quote pericopes from any version of the Bible he wants, and even in the original ancient language, but it won’t make any difference because the problem with his stuff is not the accuracy of the quotation but rather his attempt to allow or impose only his own fever-vision interpretation as being accurate and sensible.

    And the same goes for his bit on 2 Peter 2: 1-3.

    And he tries to bring it all home, as usual, with a faux-papal declaration and exhortation to “Catholics”, going for the idea that through ‘Dan’ (tah-dahhhhhhhh!) “the Lord God” is giving them “the chance”.

  47. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1215AM:

    The faux-papal address continues as ‘Dan’ evades the points still on the table to declaim a lecture on the Bible as being “full of God’s knowledge and wisdom”. That’s true, but it’s not the point here; it’s ‘Dan’s stuff that is not “full of God’s knowledge and wisdom”.

    And then a fresh – though somewhat ridiculous – bit: as ‘Dan’ cartoons it here, Peter (whom Catholics have “falsely been led to believe was your first pope”)  – by warning about “false teachers” has “dissed the hell out of your pagan cult”. But how can that be? If Peter wrote this, and there was no pope or leader but Peter at the time, then Peter would have to be “dissing the hell out of” – not to put too fine a point on it – himself.

    And if Peter wasn’t the first pope, then – back to this unanswered question again – who was the first pope? And did Peter not have the Apostolic Authority granted him by Christ in those passages from Matthew’s Gospel?

    Why did Christ give Peter the Great Commission if not to “build [His] church”? And was Peter thus “dissing the hell” out of the “church” Christ commissioned him to lead and for which Christ entrusted him with “the keys to the kingdom of heaven”? And if not the Catholic Church then what “church” was Christ talking about in Matthew’s Gospel?

    Thus ‘Dan’s cartoon here quickly unravels.

    • Dan says:

      Peter was never your first pope, and he was warning of the lying deceivers of Christianity in his time and prophetically referring to a greedy, idolatrous, lying and sexually perverse cult called catholicism, soon to come on the scene. "Their condemnation and destruction shall be sure, swift and violent, just as their heresies deserve." Come Lord Jesus.  servant

  48. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1215AM:

    We also see here a standard fundie claim: that those with stigmata are – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – merely “lying”; I recall in a prior comment on this thread that ‘Dan’ had mentioned persons pouring acid on themselves to mimic stigmata (except that a splash of acid isn’t going to create the same type of wound as a nail; the two types of wound would be clearly different; acid will messily consume the flesh while a nail will only tear through flesh cleanly).

    Nor has God asked anyone to “mutilate” themselves. It is the fundie cartoon that proposes that. Genuine stigmata are not the work of the one who receives them; they are the work of God.

    (There are times, reading these fundie fever bits and their incoherent claims, when one simply feels one is reading old script proposals for a Monty Python movie.)

    And the rant goes on until it sputters out with – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – a God’ll-getcha threat.

    • Dan says:

      Pretty ignorant to claim a "Genuine stigmata…[is] the work of God", when the mutilation is in the wrong place. Center of palm is different from above the wrist. Not terribly surprising that Padre Pio, a ridiculous worshipper of Mary, forgot to ask his goddess where he should place the deceiving holes. Strange how you put confidence in the deceiving and dishonest idolators of your cult, but criticise constantly one who has the truth. "Deceving others but being themselves deceived."   servant

  49. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1052PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ simply delivers a truism that anyone would know – that “the Sermon on the Mount is Christ’s teachings”; but upon that unobjectionable bit he then tries to lard his own epithetical bits about Catholicism.

    Come to think about it, ‘Dan’ then claims that “just about every book of the New Testament” is a rant against Catholicism.

    As may well appear to be the case … if one is wearing the secret speshull ‘Dan’/fundie glasses.

    And then – tripping over himself to get in another I’m Not/You Are epithet – ‘Dan’ refers to “childish adolescence”, utterly ignorant of the fact that “child” and “adolescent” are psychologically two distinct phases of the growth cycle.

    • Dan says:

      Just saying, "psychologically two distinct phases of the growth cycle" that you apparently have never grown out of. Go grab some more of your popcorn, Porky, cartoons are about to begin.

  50. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1016PM:

    Here he whines that I have taken “a piece of [his] statement” – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – “out of context”.

    Out of what “context” was ‘Dan’s “piece of … statement” taken?

    My point was that – presuming one were to believe the 16-Bibles research bit in the first place – ‘Dan’ claimed that “they all said almost the same thing”. And I had pointed out the weasel-word “almost” and the vague phrase “the same thing”.

    Perhaps ‘Dan’ can consult his records and give us the particular pericope (i.e. that “same verse”) and the 16 particular versions of the Bible that he used (perhaps the paperwork is in the same filing cabinet as the 50-page report he wrote on Darwin in the 8th grade).

    But then, that’s still a pretty small sample upon which to base his conclusion: one pericope out of the tens of thousands of possible percicopes one might extract from the Bible.