Now This: The Media’s Cardinal Pell Disinformation Campaign

Damian Dignan : Cardinal Pell : Lyndon Monument

Really, guys? Criminals Damian Dignan (l) and Lyndon Monument (r) accuse George Cardinal Pell (c)
of touching them in a swimming pool four decades ago.

The media is having a field day reporting that Australia's Cardinal George Pell has been accused of child abuse. From the way the media is telling it, one would think that this abuse was something that happened somewhat recently, and the acts of abuse have been well established.

But here are the facts the media is burying and as we know them so far:

1. The accusations date back four decades ago, to the late 1970s.

2. The alleged "abuse" so far does not maintain any explicit sexual acts. After an investigation that went on for nearly two years, two men so far accuse Cardinal Pell of touching them "inappropriately" while splashing and playing games in a swimming pool 40 years ago.

3. One of the accusers, Lyndon Monument, is an admitted drug addict and has served almost a year in prison for violently assaulting a man and a woman over a drug debt. Monument has also accused a boyhood teacher of forcing him to perform sex acts. What an unlucky guy.

4. The other accuser, Damian Dignan, also has a criminal history for assault and drunk driving. He has also accused a female teacher of beating him during class when he was a youth. He says he lives alone, suffers from leukemia, and has "lost everything" due to alcohol abuse. In other words, this dude has nothing to lose at all.

5. Back in 2002, Cardinal Pell faced an abuse accusation dating back to 1962. The accuser was "a career criminal. He had been convicted of drug dealing and involved in illegal gambling, tax evasion and organized crime in a labor union." He also had an impressive 39 court convictions under his belt at the time. A real winner, indeed. A judge cleared Pell after an inquiry.

It is very likely – in fact, it is almost certain – that other shifty blokes will climb out of the gutter to "substantiate" the ridiculous accusations against Pell and accuse him of other salacious acts.

We're not buying any of this. We pray that justice will be served, but we doubt it. has been observing the climate against the Catholic Church in Australia for some time now, and we have never seen anything like it. Imagine the hatred against the Church of the Boston Globe and the New York Times combined and spread out over an entire country. The climate is truly insane.

Australian law enforcement is claiming that Pell's case is being treated like any other historical offense. No, it isn't. Police do not give a rip about someone coming forward to claim someone touched them over their bathing suit 40 years ago. But this is a Catholic priest, and a high-ranking one at that. This is a big fish in the eyes of law enforcement.

Will another innocent cleric be dragged off to prison for crimes he never committed? We believe so, but we hope we're wrong.

The only thing for certain is that the haters of the Church will enjoy every moment of this.

[HT: Catholic League.]

————————————————————————– STORY UPDATE: We are thrilled to report that St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson has fully reinstated falsely accused priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang to active ministry. We have received a report that Rev. Jiang is celebrating Mass publicly and is presiding himself. We salute Archbishop Carlson for doing the right thing by restoring an innocent man to the full priesthood and not kowtowing to bullies. We hope other Church leaders take notice.


  1. Publion says:

    And on we go.

    On the 14th at 1113PM ‘Dan’ doth protest that he had “answered to much of [my] stuff today”, referring to his comment of the 14th at 145AM.

    Alas, and yet again, ‘Dan’ seems to be under the impression that once he has put up a come-back or some writing then that has to settle the question in his favor. He cawn’t think why – once he has put something up – that there is any further question to be asked or problem to be noted.

    I have commented further on his ‘explanations’ because his ‘explanations’ or ‘answers’ still don’t cover the ground that needs to be covered and may actually raise even more questions than they were supposed to ‘answer’.

  2. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:

    Nor does ‘Dan’ seem to understand the idea of being “satisfied with” an explanation. To be thus “satisfied with” an explanation one would have to accept that the responding ‘answer’ or ‘explanation’ effectively and accurately dealt with the original question or problem.

    But for ‘Dan’, this all seems to be a masquerade: someone comments, then ‘Dan’ puts something up, and thus ‘Dan’ has done his bit and there should be no further question or comment.

     It’s as if this were all just a dance, wherein one person makes a certain step in a direction, and the other person takes a corresponding step … and that’s all there is to it. It’s a scripted masquerade for ‘Dan’ and his concept here does not in any way grasp that exchange of assertions and questions and comments is designed precisely to achieve further clarity and perhaps even resolution of the basic question or issue.

  3. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:

    ‘Dan’ then decides that the problem must be with – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – somebody else, namely me, in this matter.

    It must “just be in [my] nature” – doncha see? – “to dispute everything of common sense, Biblical or otherwise”. And we note how ‘Dan’ slyly and manipulatively works in the presumption here that his stuff is all “common sense” – although what appears to ‘Dan’s mind as “common sense” may well be something else altogether, namely the content and demands of his own agenda.

  4. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:

    Thus the ever-victimized ‘Dan’ will – with a becoming patience in the light of such exasperations – give another pericope that should clear it all up.

    He quotes three different versions of the pericope – although he avoids confronting the NAB’s use of “mentioned”, which I had dealt with in a prior comment on this thread and which poses a notable problem for his position.

  5. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:

    But then he makes his now-familiar mistake or conflation or switcheroo: he asks if I am “going to try and tell [him] that it’s OK to be” any of the things the pericope mentions.

    Neither I nor Scripture have ever asserted that “it’s OK” to fail in regard to the ongoing human struggle between the law of the spirit and the law of the flesh. The problem – as Paul and Peter realize – is that as humans Christians are subject to original sinfulness and there are going to be failures; this is the paradox that causes Paul to call himself “miserable wretch that I am” and for Peter to tell Christ “Depart from me for I am a sinful man, O Lord”.

  6. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:

    Thus too then, ‘Dan’ should by now clearly see where his ‘interpretation’ of the pericope(s) is grossly off-target: it cannot be held, from considering the text, that once one has accepted the Gospel then one cannot ever fail in living out that law of the spirit; rather, even among those dedicated to the law of the spirit, there will be failures through yielding to the law of the flesh.

    What the pericopes say ‘should not’ happen yet will happen – that is the paradox Paul sees and embodies in his own self.

    And what does one do then? When something “improper” happens what does the sinning Christian do? What do other Christians do? What does the Christian community do?

    These were the problems facing the actual Christian community and facing Paul and facing Peter.

  7. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:

    ‘Dan’s “understanding” of the issue at stake here is thus largely insufficient.

    And that is revealed even by his own use of the subjunctive (“wouldn’t even be a hint”) – and it yields a ridiculous result, i.e. that there should not or cannot ever be sin among Christians or committed by “the true Christian”. This is a magical bit and contrary to the spirit of Paul and the Gospel.

    There “shouldn’t” be but there is. And what then?

    Is Paul not “a true Christian”? Is Peter not “a true Christian”?

    If a Christian sins, is s/he not then “a true Christian”?

    How does ‘Dan’s “understanding” deal with that?

    • Dan says:

      Just about everything you post is contrary to the Gospel. Your manipulating misinterpretations are only adding to your slew of lies. Read what I posted from 1 John 3:5-10 at 1:14 am. When you come to Christ you don't automatically become perfect, but you will be working on stopping your most horrific sins. Instead as catholic priests and hierarchy, you continue in your sins and don't even repent of your worst crimes and think you can make excuses and lie to keep yourselves from the punishment you so rightly deserve. And that's not good enough, you think you can falsely accuse the innocent in order to take the spotlight off yourselves. Compulsive liars and sinners, refusing to come out into the light, still living in darkness. God can count the hairs on your head. You think He doesn't know what garbage and deceptions you're up to?  servant

  8. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1113PM:

    Ditto that if you are a sinning Christian then clearly you are not “a true Christian” because “you have not come to know the healing power of Jesus Christ” … which once again leads us down the road that I discussed in an earlier comment on this thread, i.e. that the healing power of Christ is somehow a magical preventative of sin. Once again, this is magical, and contrary to the Gospel.

    The “healing power of Christ” – not to put too fine a point on it – is meant to ‘heal’ the rift caused by sin that is committed. It is not some magical backwoods elixir that prevents sin.

    Thus then ‘Dan’s attempt to channel God and declare that “you are … absolutely unforgiven by God or Christ” is mere and ridiculous posturing, with ‘Dan’ posing once again as the Possessor and Sole Reader of the Divine Tea Leaves.

    • Dan says:

      Your sarcastic mocking of a Christian or his God, is not only "ridiculous" but also evil. When will you stop with your ignorance and stupidity? It's definitely not as cute as you think it is.

  9. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 129AM:

    Paul’s use of the term “idolator” (sic) here is a warning that there is more to this pericope than might meet the eye. An idolater would be a pagan. And pagans have – Paul holds – no “inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God”.

    But what of Christians? Are we to assume that there will be utterly no sin among Christians? That there cannot be any sin among Christians? That conclusion cannot be drawn, in light of Paul’s and Peter’s own experiences and in light of the fact that the “healing power” of Christ is a healing and restorative power, not a magical total-preventative power.

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 129AM:

    The pagans are not pagans because they demonstrate such vices; they live lives utterly given over to such vices because they are pagans. Every human is subject to the paradoxical struggle and every human being – even Christians – may fail in that struggle between the law of the spirit and the law of the flesh.

    Sins do not make one pagan; paganism makes one pagan, subjecting one to the powers of the law of the flesh with no assistance from the healing power and grace of God.

    • Dan says:

      What it means to be catholic (def) – "Sins do not make one pagan; paganism makes one pagan, subjecting one to the powers of the law of the flesh with no assistance from the healing power and grace of God".

      You can go to Mary, "Queen of Heaven" for your healing power, grace and mercy, as if a dead human being waiting for her Judgment Day can be of any help. Let's see, maybe if we pray to saints who represent other false gods and goddesses we can increase our chances. Who cares what the Almighty God says in regards to Jesus being the only mediator ("I Am the way, and the truth and the life"). We're the catholic church and we have absolutely no need to listen to the Creator who made us. We are the greatest pagan religion of idolators to ever walk the earth, but that's our little secret. Our idols are refined and we certainly have way more statues than the Easter Island pagans. We do though have a fondness for Easter eggs, but don't say we worship the fertility gods. And please, don't ever say we worship statues , because we only honor, venerate, adore, kiss their feet and bow down to them. We never worship them because we are not pagan idol worshippers, any more than we are pedophiles, greedy, cowards or liars. And you can trust everything we say, because all our brainwashed followers know that we are the One True Holy catholic church and never ever lie.  servant of the One True God

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 129AM:

    And we also see that “empty arguments” bit, which for ‘Dan’s purposes is always taken to mean that once ‘Dan’ has declared what his “common sense” and speshull info from the séance tells him, then there can be no further discussion or question; such further discussion or question would be merely “empty arguments”.

    Readers can consider the matter here and decide where are to be seen the “empty arguments’ in all of this.

  12. Dan says:

    My " 'empty arguments' bit" as you again so rudely put it was a direct quote from the Bible. It just so happens that you seem to be the epitome of "empty arguments". I'll let you weasel your way out of what John says in regard to sin. And by the way, I never said anyone would have to be perfect, and your cult demonstrates most definitely the opposite of perfection.

    "You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:5-10

    I'd say that just about destroys your "empty arguments" in regard to sin and compulsive sinners. What is your agenda that you feel this great need to deceive others. Still abiding by the lies of your father, the devil, and wish to deceive as you have been deceived?    servant of the One True God

  13. malcolm harris says:

    There is relevant information having  bearing on the Cardinal Pell case, in an Australian blog called   and then go to 'mediawatchdog', issue 369.  Although it refers to particular cases in the U.K., there are some intriguing parallels.  A retired judge conducted a review into the police handling of complaints against prominent persons, including a former Prime Minister Edward Heath.  The findings of this review were generally critical of the U.K. police, in particular for their using the word "victim", when the appropriate word was "complainant".  In regard to our local complainants I think that their enthusiasm will quickly decline when they realize they will  be cross-examined in the witness box. Also in the U.K. many of the complainants were found to have criminal records… now does that sound familiar?



  14. Dan says:

    We've run out of suppositions, possibilities, excuses and outright guesses, so now we're going to grasp at straws? There is no "relevant information" or "intriguing parallels" to the Pell case. Raped and molested children often lead messed up lives, and from what I've witnessed many "victims" turn to homosexuality. Did you even pay any attention to the comment by Victor Parker on July 13 @ 10:11am? Obviously not! Why not let the courts decide, and if you're cult doesn't succeed in lying and deceiving, then you can cry foul. Laughable, if it wasn't so sad!

    • malcolm harris says:

      Dan, on the 17th, says that we should stop defending Cardinal Pell…. and just let the courts decide. A perfectly good suggestion… in normal circumstances. But there is  nothing normal going on here. The mainstream media appears determined to convict this man in the 'court of public opinion'. Meaning that even before any trial begins the public will have been persuaded that he is guilty. And juries are drawn from the general public. So they are deliberately trying to prejudice the jury against him. This is a denial of his civil rights, because western justice provides that we are all innocent until proven guilty. For reasons of long-standing bigotry they have presumed the guilt of this man, and want the rest of us to believe likewise.  It is quite sad that the most effective means of mass communication ever devised is sitting in my living room…. it is called a T.V. set. And it is now being used for the blatant manipulation of public opinion.

  15. Dan says:

    And Malcolm and the church is determined to smear the reputation of witnesses in the court of public opinion. Meaning before any trial begins, the public will be persuaded to think that Cardinal Pell is innocent. So strange that a cult I've experienced to be plagued with lying bigots, goes around accusing others of bigotry. Your church denied my civil rights, with blatant lies to prove me guilty. Your church would be so qualified to recognize blatant manipulation, seeing that second to lying, manipulation is one of their finest qualities, both Biblically and legally. Like I've said before, seems like your church is reaping what it sows, and deserves every conviction against it. And of course, the church in many cases has gotten away with piddley settlements with confidentiality clauses. A win-win situation for the church's reputation.  servant

  16. Publion says:

    Not all of ‘Dan’s most recent load of comments need comment; some of them – as so often – do quite a nice job of revealing what we’re dealing with without any further elucidation at all.

    As for the ones that are at all useful, I’ll take them in the order they appear on the site, not in strict chronological order.

  17. Publion says:

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 159PM:

    The problem facing him was this: if the Church or any individual Christian is not actually perfect (i.e. without committing any sin) in all respects, then can the Church or the individual legitimately be truly of Christ?

    This is – as I have said – the profound reality with which Paul and Peter wrestled: how do Christian faith and human sinfulness exist in each human and in the institutions comprised of those humans? We are into very heavy and serious theological territory indeed.

    ‘Dan’s solution is to distract from the profound theological challenges limned by Paul (and so many others over the subsequent millennia) and merely go for the epithetical.

  18. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 159PM:

    Thus he characterizes the Church as “plagued” with “liars, pedophiles” and so on. Whether the Church is actually plagued by them within or rather is plagued by accusations of same … quickly arises as the follow-on question.

    We continue to hear the insistent demands of ‘Dan’s cartoon (in the service of his own agenda and delusional system, borrowing heavy from fundie stuff) with his deployment of “absolutely” (“then it’s absolutely apparent”), which then immediately leads to his deploying – had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttt? – his usual I’m Not/You Are bit (here, in regard to “abyssal ignorance of Scripture”).

  19. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 159PM:

    Paul called himself “miserable wretch” well after he met Christ and are we to imagine that Peter committed no further sins ever (he had called himself “a sinful man”) after accepting the Great Commission?

    Even ‘Dan’ seems to realize on some level that this bit of his goes over the top. So he tries to recover with some good old ‘minimalizing’: well, did Peter and Paul “make other mistakes”? To which he quickly – and yet again – deploys “absolutely”, and with an exclamation point (“Absolutely yes!”).

    So then … Peter and Paul did “make other mistakes” (evading the term ‘sin’ here).

    And then quickly ‘Dan’ gets back to his undemonstrated base point: but they weren’t – and ‘Dan’ quickly recites his preferred cartoon laundry list. How does ‘Dan’ know what sins Peter and Paul might have committed in their later, post-meeting-Christ lives … ? Again, if you don’t buy ‘Dan’s and the fundies’ claim to possess the Divine Tea Leaves, then this is all just so much self-serving imagining.

    There’s a method in ‘Dan’s madness here, and it will come up a bit further on in this sequence of comments where I will deal with it at length.

    Meanwhile the comment trails off in more of his familiar epithetical riffing.

  20. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 803PM:

    Completely evading the point I had raised in my comment of the 15th at 956AM (i.e. that in ‘Dan’s case it was he who was the “guilty suspect” of his scenario), he merely repeats the essence of his cartoon formulation: “When the [already presumed guilty] liars walk away and [‘Dan’] is sentenced” … then that clearly – in ‘Dan’s cartoon mentation – means that such a sentence may be “justice” but – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttttt? – it’s “not God’s justice”.

    We have to enter into ‘Dan’s cartoon mentation – put on his speshull glasses and drink his Kool-Aid – to make sense of his assertion here: ‘Dan’ must be presumed innocent and falsely-accused … and if you just accept that, then the rest of his cartoon falls into place neatly.

    Thus – doncha see? – if a court finds ‘Dan’ guilty, then it’s “not God’s justice”. We can take ‘Dan’s word for it.

  21. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 803PM:

    And he quickly moves into distraction-mode by talking about “some of the pedophile creeps with several victims” … of which type of offender there have been very few definitively established to be such.

    But for the purposes of ‘Dan’s agenda, any accused who died before being able to make a defense must be presumed guilty and any accusations rejected by reason of Statute of Limitations stricture must be presumed veracious. ‘Dan’s entire cartoon here is built on the sand of gratuitous and self-serving presumptions.

    And he concludes with the familiar God’ll-getcha all bit.

  22. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 833PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ goes for the idea that there wasn’t necessarily “a conspiracy” among the Catholics and staffers and police and courts. Instead, it’s just that they were all individually and naturally “liars” (and there was only “on corrupt catholic cop” anyway).

    And was there only one judge who sent ‘Dan’ for evaluation six times?

    And was ‘Dan’ haled before the courts five more times for the same instance of offense?

    And what of those “hundreds” he mentioned who in opposing him have incurred placement on his delusional plop-list …? Are we to accept that all of them, too, were simply individually and naturally “liars”?

    Or it more probable that rather than this massive panoply of “liars” we are dealing here in this variant version of ‘Dan’s story with only one “liar”, and a “compulsive” one at that?

  23. Publion says:

    On then to a more meaty theological consideration:

    On the 16th at 414PM – in regard to my series of comments of the 15th at 959AM, 1002AM and 1003AM, among others of the past week  – ‘Dan’ merely waves away his substantive theological incoherences with an assertion: my “theory is absolutely false”.

    And how – if at all – will he back up that whopper?

    He does so by deploying his theological presumption that the grace of Christ and of God is such that “we can overcome all things”. Thus – and as I had previously characterized his position here – that such grace is somehow a totally-preventative elixir that prevents human sin.

    Thus – it also would have to follow – that once one is baptized and accepts the Gospel, then one is given the ability (through the aforementioned grace) to utterly avoid sin in one’s post-baptismal life.

    Thus that “true Christians” do not sin. (Although perhaps – as ‘Dan’ has tried to dodge the consequences of that – they might “make other mistakes”.) And if a Christian sins, then that individual is no longer a “true Christian”. (But if such a Christian merely doth “make other mistakes” then … what?)

  24. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 414PM:

    This – as I have said – is nothing short of magical. God’s grace builds on human nature, but does not – indeed cannot – so utterly transform human nature as to completely and permanently nullify the effects of original sinfulness.

    For God to do so would be for God to override the gift of being human, damaged as that gift has been by the failure of Adam and Eve. We become mere puppets and pawns, figurines on some divine train-table to be toyed-with as desired by the guy who built the set and wears the engineer’s cap.

    And clearly Paul cannot be lassoed into this cartoon conception of ‘Dan’s (and a lot of fundies) since even as he was writing Romans he could claim he was (still) a “miserable wretch” who does not do the good he wishes to do and does do the evil he wishes to avoid.

    Thus, while “all things are possible with God” in a conceptual sense, yet for God to provide such a magical elixir is clearly contrary to Paul’s conception and experience, and further is clearly contrary to God’s respect for the moral freedom and responsibility with which human beings are endowed.

  25. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 414PM:

    Where the Qumran Essenes reverted to some magical evil spirits working within humans, ‘Dan’ will revert to some magical conception of grace which prevents people from committing sin after they have accepted the Gospel.

    This is worse than a cartoon. This is a fundamental perversion of God’s Plan for Creation.

    And of God’s Plan for Salvation: if one ceases to be a “true Christian” once one commits any sin (or ‘makes mistakes’) … then what? One is permanently lost to the Gospel?

    Or does one declare oneself never to have sinned (although perhaps one has ‘made some mistakes’)?

    And for what reason would Christ have given Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” for the forgiving or retaining of sins?

  26. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 414PM:

    We see here the neat dove-tailing synergy of both the fundies’ and ‘Dan’s game-plans:

    For the fundies, everything boils down to one’s own individual tete-a-tete with God. There is no actual Christian community working its way through the moral terrain of human history; there is merely an assemblage of those who proclaim themselves to be (magically) “true Christians” (thus without sin, because they let God’s grace work its magic in them) and then there are those who are no longer “true Christians” (because they have sinned) and then beyond that the pagans.

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 414PM:

    And for ‘Dan’, his own clearly problematic self and life are instantly placed beyond any human judgment, to be sheathed in the mask of God’s speshull direct power, directly downloading the Divine Mind and Will that – by amazing coincidence – totally supports the ‘Dan’-verse in all its pomps and works, its claims and accusations and predictions and ‘prophecies’ and imprecations and threats.

    And in both cases, it becomes merely a blame-game: one declares oneself to be a “true Christian”, one denounces others as not being “true Christians” or as being pagans, and one can proceed merrily on larding onto the world and other people both proclamations of one’s own sterling gracefull-ness and denunciations of others’ lumpish and evil failures.

  28. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 444PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ is on about there being “a big problem when you add words to the Bible”.

    He gives no examples, and no surprise there.

    The reason for the lack of examples may well be that there has been on ‘adding words to the Bible’. Rather, what he is on about is – once again – his fundie ranting based on the idea that if something ‘isn’t in the Bible’ then it’s not Christian.

    We’ve been over this before. Religions use typewriters and indoor plumbing now and those aren’t ‘in the Bible’. Where does one draw the line such that the parameter of what is ‘in the Bible’ and what ‘isn’t in the Bible’ has any sensible relevance at all?

    And – as always – we behold the bemusing reality of persons who think the Church isn’t ‘biblical’ drawing for their ‘proofs’ on a Bible that exists solely because the Church compiled the canon of the Bible.

  29. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 350PM:

    Here – confronted by a series of questions I posed on the 15th at 900PM that support the point that the “magical” conception of grace is contrary to the Gospel  – ‘Dan’ – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttttttt? – evades the questions and instead issues a blanket epithetical denunciation, i.e. that “just about everything [I] post is contrary to the Gospel”. In other words, this is just another running of ‘Dan’s familiar I’m Not/You Are ‘comeback’.

    I’ll deal in a moment with ‘Dan’s bit about 1 John 3:5-10 when I comment on his of the 16th at 114AM.

    ‘Dan’ has his cartoons, increasingly revealed as cartoons as we examine his claims and assertions. He’s not going to let anything interfere with that system of cartoons, lest his head explode.

  30. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1150AM:

    Having been confronted with my point (previously explicated on this thread) about ‘paganism’ and ‘sin’ not being synonymous, ‘Dan’ merely evades the point and pulls from his 3×5 pile more bits with which he is more familiar and upon which he relies for the sum of his ‘Biblical’ arguments.

    Thus – and yet yet again – his ranting about the role of Mary and the saints and so on. All of which points have been dealt with in prior comments on this site and have been demonstrated to be seriously faulty.

     Buttressed by such ridiculous exaggerations as Catholics having “absolutely no need to listen to the Creator who made us”. But ‘Dan’ – as I said – has his cartoons and he’s not coming out of that cartoonish bubble for any reason, and – really – he can’t and still keep his head from exploding.

    ‘Dan’ requires a cartoon vision of the Church and Catholicism in order to keep his cartoons going and he merely repeats whatever cartoon bit seems most applicable to him whenever his stuff runs – as it inevitably does – into problems.

  31. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:

    Once again we see demonstrated here an essential element of ‘Dan’s cartoon take on Scripture and the Church: he conflates his “arguments” with the mere quotation of pericopes.

    This is merely ‘Dan’s adaptation for his own purposes of the old fundie gambit of the ‘proof text’, i.e. whatever the question may be, there is in the Bible this or that quotable pericope that in and of itself – and  without any further explication required or questioning permitted – utterly ‘answers’ the question.

    Curiously, the old fundie ‘proof text’ bit resembles the Victimist dogma about ‘victim stories’: once the story/accusation is told, then it cannot be questioned and must be presumed veracious and final.)

  32. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:

    Thus ‘Dan’ seems to think that if he merely tosses up his chosen pericope, then that constitutes an ‘answer’. His  own vision of how that pericope is to be interpreted and applied to the present situation or question is merely presumed to be the one and only interpretation. Given ‘Dan’s assorted mentation whackeries, it is this ‘interpretation’ problem of his that constitutes an even more lethal danger to Scriptural understanding than the whacky ‘proof text’ concept itself.

    But now he says that a) he does not hold that “anyone would have to be perfect”. Well, then, Christian and Catholic sinners are “not perfect”. So in what way, then, b) does any instance of Christian or Catholic sin constitute the type of fatal (to belief and standing as a Christian) offense that ‘Dan’s cartoons continually harp on?

    How does he get from (a) to (b) here?

    This is a lethal incoherence in his position.

    Nor does the cutesy epithetical wordplay on “perfect” do anything substantial here.

  33. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:

    ‘Dan’ then deploys today’s ‘proof text’, from 1 John 3: 5-10.

    This is a problematic text no matter how you look at it. Verse 6 encapsulates the problem: “No one who remains in him [i.e. Christ] sins, and no one who sins has seen him or known him”.

    If you look at this text not simply as a one-off ‘proof text’ but instead try to incorporate it rationally into the corpus of Christian belief and praxis, then there are going to be problems: because if one “sins”, then one cannot have “seen and “known” Christ (although the text does not specifically say that if one sins then one does not ‘remain’ in Christ).

    Yet – as even ‘Dan’ has now admitted – nobody’s perfect and so even Christians will sin (or “make some mistakes”, as ‘Dan’ tried to finesse the point in a recent prior comment).

  34. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:

    So outright a contradiction to human experience and belief requires much closer and careful examination of the pericope and the text.

    One possible relevant point is to consider what is the definition of ‘sin’ that the author is using here.

    Verse 4 appears to give us a solid lead: “sin is lawlessness”. Sin is thus a flouting of the law (the law of the spirit, to use Paul’s terminology, perhaps). In that sense sin is “lawlessness” since – at least for the moment that the sin is committed – one refuses to accept the authority of the law of the spirit.

    Thus for the moment that one commits the sin, one is essentially “lawless” and – for that moment, at least – “belongs to the devil” (verse 8).

    That certainly makes sense in a way that also comports with the reality of original sinfulness and the ‘nobody’s perfect’ formulation that even ‘Dan’ now claims to accept.

  35. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:

    One might also consider the possibility that it is the pagans, who have not seen or known Christ or accept the Gospel, who are truly ‘lawless’.

    This would require that the author of 1 John considers the most serious sin to be that of being ‘lawless’ in the sense of the pagans, who do not accept Christ and the Gospel in any way at all.

    Thus that the author of 1 John is primarily concerned here with distinguishing believing Christians from pagans. In that early Christian era, then, the greatest ‘sin’ would be the “lawlessness” that besets the pagans, who do not accept the Gospel, as opposed to the Christians, who do accept the Gospel.

    Otherwise, we do wind up here with a position that not even ‘Dan’ accepts: i.e. that once you have accepted the Gospel and are “begotten of God” (through the Spirit-prompted acceptance of the Gospel) then one “cannot sin”.

  36. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:

    Unless, of course, that “cannot” is taken not in the sense of being ‘unable’ to sin but rather in the sense of ‘should not’ or ‘must not’ sin.

    But even here then, one is back to Paul in Romans and the great paradox of being a believing Christian who yet participates in the Fall of Adam and is thereby afflicted with original sinfulness, the tendency to yield to the law of the flesh against the law of the spirit.

  37. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:

    Or, considering verse 9, another possibility is that if one is “begotten by God” then one “cannot sin” because the only true sin (at least for the purposes of the author of 1 John) is to reject the Gospel and Christ. Such that he is saying, in effect, that as long as you accept Christ and the Gospel then, really, nothing you do can constitute the “sin” of living without accepting Christ and the Gospel and the law of the spirit.

    This might be the stance that then informs verse 10: here the author seems greatly concerned to distinguish clearly and obviously and definitively between “the children of God” and the “children of the devil” (i.e. the pagans and non-Christians).

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:

    We see here then how complicated it is to achieve an understanding of and specific pericope in such a way that it comports with known human experience and the rest of the Bible and the New Testament especially.

    The fundie approach sidesteps this vast and genuine challenge posed by Scripture and its many possible pericopes by merely taking this or that ‘proof text’ pericope, applying it simplistically to some particular fundie excitation, and leaving it at that, with the fundie expounder of the pericope content in his little bit of plop-tossing and claiming that it’s the inspired (and only acceptable) indication of the Word of God.

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 114AM:

    Thus ‘Dan’s selection and deployment of this pericope from 1 John actually demonstrates how faulty and grossly insufficient ‘Dan’s own approach to Scripture actually is. And all that has been ‘destroyed’ now is ‘Dan’s deceptive if not also deceitful but also delusional masquerade as being a Scriptural interpreter par excellence and extraordinaire.

    And, looking at all of this in the context of the Stampede as well as of ‘Dan’s cartoon rants against Catholicism and the Church, we see again that ‘Dan’ takes each allegation or ‘story’ as being presumptively true (so long as it comports with the purposes of his agenda) and simply tosses up his ‘interpretation’ as if it were the only possible take on the story, thus claiming that anyone who doubts or questions is some version of an ‘un-believer’ and such.

  40. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1208PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will try to evade the many problematic bits about the Aussie accusations against Cardinal Pell by bleating (with the Wig of Sweet Reasonable Weariness now perched atop his head) that “we’ve run out of suppositions, possibilities, excuses and outright guesses”.

    This is rich, coming from a genuine font of fever-visions, accusations, denunciations, proclamations, and the vast panoply of non-credible bits that he has put up here over time.

    Anything further at this point, he doth declare, is nothing but trying to “grasp at straws”.

    This is rich, coming from a genuine font of fever-visions, suppositions, presumptions, claims, and the vast panoply of non-credible bits that he has put up here over time.

  41. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1208PM:

    As for “intriguing parallels” … why, they just don’t exist and thus ‘Dan’ doth blithely wave them away.

    Nor is there any “relevant information”, he doth declare.

    Except – that is – for the old Victimist dogma bit to the effect that “raped and molested children often lead messed up lives”. Well, is anyone who leads a “messed up” life therefore clearly a victim of childhood rape and molestation? Does his assertion work in reverse?

    Because this was the great switcheroo of Victimism decades ago when this all started: rather than prove the rape or molestation, simply claim that since you have the ‘evidence’ of the “messed up” life, then you must also have the rape or molestation that caused it. Because – the unspoken middle presumption – only rape or molestation cause “messed up” lives and thus if you have the sure consequence, then you must also have the sure and only cause.

  42. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1208PM:

    Which ridiculous and illogical whopper is then followed by another: that “’victims’” “turn to homosexuality” as a consequence.

    ‘Dan’, doncha see, has “witnessed” this. How can that possibly be true? Was he there inside the mind of  any person who had ‘turned’ homosexual?

    No, he’s simply – in best Victimist fashion – taken the story somebody proffered as being utterly veracious and accurate. All ‘Dan’ has “witnessed” is somebody telling this type of story, if he’s even done that.

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1208PM:

    Why not just “let the courts decide”, he bleats – as if butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth.

    Well, we’ve seen what happened when “courts” decided in ‘Dan’s cases: it’s possibly justice … “but it’s not God’s justice”. But since the Pell and all Catholic abuse cases are ‘Dan’s preferred bugbear, then he’s perfectly happy letting the courts decide (but he’s ready with his “lying and deceiving … cult” bit, just in case).

    Given the effects of Victimism and the Stampede on the courts in the US – although, thankfully, that seems to be changing – then I wouldn’t be so quick to presume even “justice”, given the distortions and derangements introduced by Victimism on the theory and praxis of Western law.

    And this Aussie case – in the police-investigation phase that it’s in now – doesn’t seem on the level at all.

    But I am happy to let the Aussie courts reveal themselves and we’ll see what happens.

    In the meantime, any rational person should give careful thought to the material already released.

  44. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 1250AM:

    Now here we have ‘Dan’ – as if he were Goody-Two-Shoes – bleating about attempts to “smear” reputations.

    ‘Dan’s entire shtick here is one long smear on Catholics and Catholicism, and the further insistence that such smearing is both veracious and the very Word of God.

    Nor does an analysis of the stories accusers tell constitute a “smear”. The accusers tell their stories, and the stories are then assessed. Do the stories have notable problematic elements? Pointing out those elements is no “smear”.

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 1250AM:

    ‘Dan’ then works in – had you been waitttinggggg forrr ittttttttttt? – yet another advertisement for his now-familiar preferred cartoon as to his own legal misadventures (it was all only due to “blatant lies” by Catholic accusers, doncha see?).

    Readers may judge this performance as they will.

    And on the basis of that bit, he can riff on further along those lines.

    And – scrounging around in his pile – ‘Dan’ then comes up with the bit of confidentiality clauses. As Federal Judge Schiltz – having presided over such cases or arbitrations – said, the confidentiality clauses were in many instances demanded by the accusers’ tort attorneys.

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 1250AM:

    And then – marvelously – he tries to paint the Church as trying to ‘persuade’ “the public … to think that Cardinal Pell is innocent” (whereas ‘Dan’ is trying to get everyone to presume that Cardinal Pell is guilty … but that’s OK in the logic of the ‘Dan’-verse).

    Cardinal Pell defends his innocence, and the accusers’ stories we have been able to examine don’t at all seem reliable and credible, and on top of that the actions of the police so far don’t seem on the level either.

    The real example of “win-win” here is ‘Dan’s basic cartoon gambit: what he wants is the only thing that he will accept; anything he doesn’t want he will evade or avoid or dismiss, with his usual panoply of claims, assertions, denunciations, accusations and so on and so forth.

  47. Dan says:

    I have "absolutely" no desire to answer to all your ignorance, stupidity and nonsense. I will touch on those facts that seem not to penetrate your thick scull, or could it be that your head has exploded? 1) For you to stupidly continue to accuse me of having a "preferred cartoon as to [my] own legal misadventures", is ridiculous and childish, and further cements the fact of your being a compulsive liar and justifies your defending a church plagued with liars and sickos. 2) No sentence against me was "justice" or truth and I will receive "God's justice", and can't wait until you get yours! 3) God gave us moral freedom; That freedom did not include becoming pedophiles and pederasts, destroying the lives of innocent children, repeating that crime over and over again, and then being transferred by a hierarchy of enablers and excusers who virtually had no moral compass. What kind of creeps would do such a thing? What kind of perversions were they indulging? THIS IS A SYSTEMIC SICKNESS PREVALENT IN YOUR CULT. 4) Honestly I hate and will continue to criticize "Catholicism", their false teachings, their horrible, disgusting sins and the sexual crimes against children performed by any false cults, schools, boy scout leaders or day cares, etc., etc. For a church claiming to be the One Holy Catholic Church of God, to commit such crimes, is despicable and worthy of Hell's Fire. Once again, I do not hate catholics but have little use for compulsive liars, like yourself. There's a reason why God listed them among these sinners, worthy of Hell. "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolators, and all liars, their portion will be the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8 You never questioned how you and your cult seem to possess all those qualities? I wonder if the lying snake can weasel his way out of these facts?      servant of The One True God

  48. Dan says:

    You're really a class act, publiar. You refuse to accept my honesty in regards to my being falsely accused by liars similar to yourself, including hierarchy. And yet you ask us to accept Cardinal Pell defend[ing] his innocence, which is definitely questionable, when your cult is plagued with liars, including hierarchy and yourself. The accusers stories I've listened to and watched seemed very reliable and credible. And you insist on adding that the "actions of the police so far don't seem on the level either", and yet you refuse to accept that I had issues with a lying, corrupt catholic cop and officers who only listened to the liars of your cult, priests, nuns, principals, etc., just like yourself. You are such a disingenuous, lying hypocrite. You may also want to stop your "I'm Not/You Are bit" with "win-win", when you're more the loser-loser situation.

  49. Publion says:

    Well, my most recent series of comments put a lot of serious and substantive material on the table: the question of the paradox of grace and sin (the 18th, 1108-1110AM); the logical incoherences of ‘Dan’s own misadventure stories (the 18th, 1111 and 1115AM); the legal problems inherent in Victimst law (the 18th, 1111 and 1114AM); the profound issues raised in Scriptural interpretation and theology by the question of the nature of God’s grace and how it works in regard to human nature (the 18th, 1116 thru 1118AM); the dynamics of the fundie use of proof-texts in Scripture (the 18th, 1121-1122, 1130-1131AM); the problems raised by the ‘in the Bible/not in the Bible’ hermeneutic (the 18th,  1123AM); the distinction between ‘paganism’ and ‘sin’ in the dynamics of Christian belief (the 18th, 1125AM); the specific problems with ‘Dan’s use of the proof-text approach (the 18th, 1131AM); and then an extended consideration of ‘Dan’s selected pericope, 1 John 3:5-10 (the 18th, 1132-1134, 1139-1142AM); and the problems created by ‘Dan’s deployment of Victimist dogma (the 18th, 1223-1226, 1230-1231PM).

    All of which matters inhered in ‘Dan’s own comments to begin with.

    And what does the self-styled Servant, Mind and Will of God and God’s Truth have to say about all this?

  50. Publion says:

    With popcorn popped and to the strains of imposing flourish from a kazoo band, we turn to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 1117PM, where we read … “I have ‘absolutely’ no desire to answer your ignorance, stupidity and nonsense”. (Also that my “scull” is “thick”.)

    I would submit that a rather significant indicator of the extent of ‘Dan’s derangement is the fact that in light of all the ‘divine’ knowledge and wisdom he has claimed to possess through the speshull favor of God, yet ‘Dan’ is not in any way embarrassed to put up the bits I have just quoted in the above paragraph.

  51. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 1117PM:

    But having just said that he doth not deign to “answer”, ‘Dan’ then falls back on what he does like to do: recite – with much epithetical larding and the usual threats – from his well-thumbed pile of 3x5s.

    However, we also note that his recitation is limited to the anti-epic of his own legal misadventures and how that ties into his cartoons about Catholics (they are largely just brainwashed sheep and compulsive liars) and Catholicism (it is nothing but paganism and perversion all wrapped up into one).

    Concerning the profound theological issues arising from “the Bible” (knowledge of which ‘Dan’ claims to possess in divinely-lavished abundance and depth) … not a peep, not a bleat, not a bray.

    • Dan says:

      Corrections to your poor assessment and misstatements in regards to Catholics and Catholicism -

      "Catholics (they are largely just brainwashed sheep [or] compulsive liars [, usually hierarchy] ) and Catholicism (it is nothing but paganism [, pedophilia] and perversion[s] all wrapped up into one)."   The three P's and you being the fourth.

      Of course there are cases similar to yourself, possessing both brainwashing and compulsive lying. You're so gifted in both that you don't even realize how often it applies to your material and poor assessments.  servant of the One True God

  52. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 914AM:

    Having had a few hours to think things over (such as that term may apply) ‘Dan’ gives himself a second chance here.

    And what do we get now?

    Epithetically-larded whining that I “refuse to accept [his] honesty”. He’s not quite right: I refuse to accept his claims, accusations, assertions and stories because not only do they raise significant, substantive and serious questions and problems, but also because ‘Dan’ ever-creative efforts to go back and re-explain them (or evade them) also create far more questions than they answer.

    But I would not use “honesty” in regard to him; he is a “compulsive liar” indentured not to God but to his own Fixed Delusional System, in the service of which he will turn truth into as much silly-putty as he needs whenever he needs to.

  53. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 914AM:

    And again we see that now there is “a lying corrupt catholic cop” who apparently was the key “liar” (what happened to the “hundreds” of others?). And was this single “cop” involved in all of the court cases? A court sent him off for six psychiatric exams. Was it the same “cop” all six times? Was it the same court? The same judge?

    And we get more of the juvenile myah-myah bits.

    But what we don’t get – again – is any indication whatsoever of that marvelous knowledge of the Scriptural and the spiritual, the religious and the theological, that ‘Dan’ claims to possess in Divine abundance.

  54. Dan says:

    This is my combined response to all your comments on July 19. I am quite impressed with how impressive you are with impressing others about how impressive is your knowledge. If I had the time to waste, I would like to do a case study on your Nacissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), coupled with a Compulsive Lying Disorder, backed with a Fixed Delusional System, larded with a heavy dose of psychological projection.

    After your head becomes so filled with yourself to overflowing, then you revert back to this childish personality of Cartoon Time, popcorn, alphabet blocks, kazoos and now "silly putty".

    When this doesn't suffice, then it's time to mock the things of God, His Word, His Holy Spirit, His Prophecies and His servant (or as you prefer, Servant). Then thinking you possess this great Theological wisdom when it comes to Scripture, you twist, manipulate and misinterpret the Word to suit your deceiving church's agenda, acting like God has gifted you with His knowledge. As I've told you before, God wouldn't grant His knowledge or wisdom to an egotistical fool, let alone one who mocks Him, His Son or any of His Creation.

    When all else fails, then it's back to attacking the problems I've run across dealing with the evil liars of your cult, yourself included. You are a cowardly, wicked liar, under the impression that others are just as dishonest. You just don't get that God hates dishonest people, for the very reason that nothing they say can ever be trusted. Do you think God can't see through your ignorance, stupidity or nonsense? Boy, are you in for a rude awakening!!

    "Servant", with the "Mind and Will of God and God's Truth" – thanks publiar, I appreciate that.

  55. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 126AM:

    He puts up a “combined response” – this should be quite the thing, given the many different subjects on the table presently.  Will he deal with all the material on the table in one comprehensive “combined response”?

    No, he won’t. Not a bit.

    Instead, he’s going to go for trying a new variant of his plop-tossing distractions: glomming onto the term “impressive”, he then works his way toward Narcissistic Personality Disorder. I try to ‘impress’ – doncha see? – so I must have NPD (on top, of course, of the “Compulsive Lying Disorder” – which, by the by, is not an actual clinical Disorder).

    Thus this bit reveals itself to be just another variant of ‘Dan’s juvenile I’m Not/You Are bit.

    And ‘Dan’ – busy Possessor of the Divine Tea Leaves that he claims to be – simply doesn’t have “the time” – doncha see? – to “waste” on dealing with all the material on the table.

  56. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 126AM:

    And thus he continues to riff on the psychological lines into the second paragraph, simply taking phrases from my comments and tossing them back.

    And in the third paragraph he falls back onto his old ‘mocking God’ bit: I “mock the things of God”, including – had you been waitttinggggggg forrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – “His servant”, i.e. ‘Dan’. As I said, ‘Dan’ is not in any way God’s servant; ‘Dan’ is indentured to his own delusions; he uses God and Scripture the same way a bank robber uses hostages as shields when he’s trying to get away.

    Does he have any explication or demonstration of where I “twist, manipulate, misinterpret the Word of God”? He does not. What he doesn’t want to admit is that I am simply pulling apart ‘Dan’s shaky, manipulative, deceptive and deceitful cartoon take on Scripture and God.

    • Dan says:

      My compliments! You finally came up with a good analogy; "he [as in 'Dan'] uses God and Scripture the same way a bank robber uses hostages as shields when trying to get away".

      "Finally draw strength from the Lord and from his mighty power. Put on the whole armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. So stand fast with your loins girded in 'TRUTH', clothed with righteouisness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. In all circumstances, hold faith as a 'SHIELD', to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Eph. 6:10-17 (NAB)

      I would suggest to anyone, including catholics, to try to live by this policy, for we live in an evil time, people not leaning on "God and Scripture", thinking they don't need Him to "shield" them from the wickedness, deceptions and hypocrisy that intends to destroy our lives. Satan comes in many forms to deceive us and fool us, and make us believe we're following the One True God. Read the Word and Live by it. He will not disappoint!

  57. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 126AM:

    And – being the Possessor of the Divine Tea Leaves – ‘Dan’ then puts on his God-wig to declaim that “God wouldn’t grant His knowledge or wisdom to an egotistical fool”. But God would – apparently – grant it to a cheesy delusional whacko, and – to top that off – the whacko wouldn’t need to demonstrate the knowledge in public because … well, because it’s just a speshull gift-y thing between the  cheesy delusional whacko and God. Neato.

    Thus ‘Dan’ insulates himself and his delusional system of cartoons from any need to have to demonstrate the chops that are supposed to ground all of his cartoon assertions, claims, stories, denunciations and threats.

  58. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 126AM:

    And “when all else fails” ‘Dan’ then has the delusion-fed nerve to declaim with a pious honk that “God hates dishonest people”.  And while ‘Dan’ can’t deal with the material on the table here that his own comments have raised, yet he mutters that “God” can “see through” it all.

    And tries to wrap it up with a threat about “rude awakening”.

    Bottom-line: ‘Dan’s got nothing. Nothing except his whackery and claims and stories and assertions and his pile of pericopes. So he tries to distract from that glaring reality by attacking me instead of responding to the material on the table.

    • Dan says:

      " 'Dan's got nothing", the publiar oinks. "Nothing except…. claims and stories" that happen to be the honest truth and "assertions", confident and forceful statements of facts and beliefs, that by coincidence just happen to be backed by Biblical principles and verses taken directly from God's Word. You think you can attack me with your claims of "whackery, pile of pericopes, 3X5's" and your latest "proof texts" and believe that's supposed to insult me? No, not at all surprising. Why should I expect a non-Christian, brainwashed with a false gospel, to understand the deep wisdom of Our Creator, and how Biblical knowledge applies to our everyday experiences in life. One who seems to get some sick kind of pleasure from mocking God's Creations, rather than trying to understand how He has all the answers and is willing to share them with those who desire to live and follow His truths. I actually pity your stubborn ignorance and blind stupidity, rather than deriving any pleasure in attacking you. My hope is that all will come to know the awesome gifts of Our Creator, His faith, hope, truth, forgiveness, and most of all His love for us.  Every person I come in contact with, I seem to handle differently, depending on how badly they've been deceived and how deep is their darkness. I feel I have every right to defend your sarcasm and repeated lies directed towards me. I've made every effort to be honest in everything I've said. The fact that you think I could ever cause any harm to a child and refuse to accept my honesty, is more your problem than mine. You really don't know me at all, although you're under the impression that you do.

  59. Michael says:

    This article is a disgrace. I am very sensitive to the possibilities of false accusations and am withholding judgement on Pell until this plays out in court. However, this article is just as bad as the media it attacks. Presuming innocence is as bad as presuming guilt.

    1. It’s irrelevant how old the allegation is. We know that victims often don’t come forward for many years.
    2. Abuse is not limited to traditional sexual acts. I was sexually abused by a priest, and we committed no overtly sexual acts. The extent of the physical contact is irrelevant.
    3. A large number of sexual abuse victims struggle with drug and alcohol addiction and end up involved in crimes. The facts presented in this article do more to substantiate the claims than refute them.
    4. Children targeted by one sexual predator are often targeted by others. Predators know how to find vulnerable children whose life situations make them good targets. I know a social worker who was sexually abused by three different priests.
    5. Old allegations and the conclusions of their investigations have nothing to do with current allegations.

    • Dan says:

      Thanks Michael for your input. Somehow these facts seem to escape the minds of the excusers and enablers of the church. Wish you well in your healing and know that the Lord is there to help us through our struggles and grant us peace and hope. Take care.

  60. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 515PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ is happy because he has contrived a way out of the abyssal rabbit-hole he has dug for himself: word games.

    Specifically, he took my bank-robber analogy and checked it against his 3×5 pericope pile and realized that he had something for God-as-shield.

    Thus the extended pericope from Ephesians.

    He’s right that my analogy is a “good” one, but for the wrong reason. A bank-robber uses hostages as shields because he doesn’t give a hoot about them and instead cares about nothing but himself and how he’s going to escape.

    As I have said, ‘Dan’ is no servant of God; ‘Dan’ is indentured to his delusions and thus uses God and Scripture for his own purposes; he no more cares about God and Scripture than the bank-robber cares  about the hostages he is using for shields.

    And if people need ‘shielding’ from anything, it’s from the type of deceptive masquerade that is ‘Dan’s stock in trade.

    • Dan says:

      "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and celebrate, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you…"  Matthew 5:11-12

      "God blesses you when people MOCK you and persecute you and LIE about you and say all sorts of EVIL things against you because you are my followers."  Matthew 5:11

      Think I'll kick back and have a cold one, knowing that your mocking is just another source of my receiving the Lord's blessings. Cheers creep.

    • Dan says:

      All your analogies are "for the wrong reason[s]". And we're under the impression that since you claim that " 'Dan' is no servant of God", than that just must be God's honest truth, coming from a compulsive liar. But wait, there's more – " 'Dan'… uses God and Scripture for his own purposes; he no more cares about God and Scripture than the bank-robber cares about the hostages he is using for shields." What tipped you off to claim such ignorance and nonsense? Is it the fact that I talk about Him constantly, am willing to defend those who trash His name or is it because I enjoy quoting His word when appropriate? He is my strength and my "shield" and arms me for battle against all ignorance, stupidity, evilness, liars and hypocrites. Just so happens you perfectly fit the bill. How dare you think you're strong enough to mock Him or His Chosen. You think way too much of yourself, and again I repeat, you're in for an extremely rude awakening. Servant of the God I love, and could care less what just another two-faced, lying hypocrite of your cult has to say about that. That's period!  servant

      P.S. You might want to go back and read Eph. 6:10-17 again to realize that you represent everything of the devil, evilness and darkness, coupled with untruthfulness. Proud of that?

    • Dan says:

      Correction – am willing to defend 'against' those who trash His name

  61. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 322AM:

    Here – and yet yet again – ‘Dan’ simply repeats that his “claims and stories” are not “nothing” but instead – had you been waitttinggggggggg forrrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttttt? – “just happen to be the honest truth”;  and his “assertions” are “confident and forceful statements of facts and beliefs, that by coincidence just happen to be backed by Biblical principles and verses taken directly from God’s Word”.

    That’s his cartoon. But that’s precisely not what we’ve seen here.

    His ever-mutable misadventure-epic about his legal and psychiatric history gives precious little – if any at all – evidence that it is “the honest truth”; nor do his further efforts to resolve its incoherences do anything more than raise even more questionable points.  Especially when, confronted with questions, he simply puffs up his pinfeathers and declares that he hasn’t the time or inclination to explain the problems with his stuff (but has more than enough time and inclination to simply repeat his stuff).

    • Dan says:

      Absolutely ALL LIES FROM LIARS OF YOUR CULT. This is the very reason why, when you want to have questions answered, you really don't deserve answers, because anything I say, you see as just an excuse to disbelieve it and think instead you can add your own false assessments and lies. You may want to do some research on your own psychiatric problems and hangups, and quit projecting your issues onto others.

  62. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 322AM:

    That his various bits are “confident and forceful” is merely indicative of the force of his delusional indenture and nothing more.

    That they are “statements of … beliefs” is what it is; anyone so inclined is welcome to try to suss out the distinction in ‘Dan’ between his delusions and his “beliefs”.

    That they are “statements of facts” is – as has been pointed out here on numerous occasions and at length – highly implausible at best, when not actually demonstrably untrue.

    That his stuff is “backed by Biblical principles and verses taken directly from God’s Word” is ditto: we have seen in so very many of his selected pericopes that a) his cartoons  require and permit only one very idiosyncratic interpretation (i.e. his own) in order to ‘work’ and that b) his ‘interpretation’ of the pericope so very often fails. And in none of the instances where the theological problems with his interpretation are pointed out has he continued by addressing those problems; instead he declares himself without the time and/or inclination to address those problems.

  63. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 322AM:

    He then attempts to claim that I intend to “insult” him (but – myah, myah – that’s not going to work on him , doncha see?). His material insults him without any additional effort on my part; and my purpose here is merely to examine material that is put up.

    He declares me to be a “non-Christian”, apparently on his self-proclaimed authority as the Possessor and Reader of the Divine Tea Leaves.

    Then the ‘mocking God’ bit again.

    And if what we have seen of ‘Dan’s material here is actually a result of his having “made every effort to be honest in everything [he has] said” then one can only be further convinced of the abyssal depth of his delusional indenture.

    He then (and did you notice how slyly?) slips in a bit about how he doth “seem to handle differently” various persons with whom he has “come into contact” (i.e. has accosted on this or that occasion).

    • Dan says:

      You have "accosted" and derided me as much or more than I have you. You should take a good at yourself in your toilets reflection. Before you bring up the " 'mocking God' bit" again, you feel compelled to lead in with more mocking (i.e. "Possessor and Reader of the Divine Tea Leaves"). What basically is your problem, for they are multifold, but apparently you refuse to see them.  servant

  64. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 322AM:

    And then a cutesy Mr.T. impersonation: he doth “actually pity” and so forth. He doth ‘pity da fools’.

    And he tries to wrap it all up by heading for the soap-operatic high-ground, with a pearl-clutching declamation to the effect that he is shocked, shocked to think anyone could imagine that he “could ever cause any harm to a child” or that anyone could “refuse to accept [his] honesty”.

    As for his “honesty”, that’s been dealt with above.

    As for whether any reader would like to have this man teaching – or alone with – their children or grandchildren … is for any and every reader to consider, judge, and decide.

    • Dan says:

      How dare the Perverter of Truth, who makes excuses for perverts and pedophiles make such an insinuating accusation about me. You're one sick excuse of a human being, publiar. I around dozens of grandchildren in my family, and for you to suggest such a thing is plain wicked. I'm not on Megan's List like the majority of your hierarchy should be. You're an absolute, lying, evil, nasty creep.

    • Dan says:

      I'm around, not I.

  65. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 322AM:

    And then – marvelously – ‘Dan’ doth sing for his final aria that claim so well-known to clinicians and law enforcement when dealing with the variously whacked and afflicted: “You don’t really know me at all”.

    This bit is often deployed as a last resort, when all the scams and stories have been exposed in their problematic untruth. The method in the madness is this: since ‘you don’t know me’ (meaning ultimately that ‘you don’t agree with me’) then I don’t have to listen to your demolition of my scams and stories.

    But under this bit is also the claimant’s utter inability to conceive of the possibility that his scams and stories have actually revealed more than he wanted them to reveal. So secure is he in his belief in the power of his  capacity to deceive others, he cannot imagine that in trying to spin his skeins of scam and story in the service of his own deceptive and manipulative purposes he has actually demonstrated his manipulation and whackery.

    ‘Dan’ is indeed ‘really known’ here; his own material has done that, time and time again, building to a convincing crescendo that cannot be evaded or avoided or waved-away.

    • Dan says:

      More ignorance, lies, stupidity and nonsense, not worthy of a response. The scammer and longwinded storyteller pointing the finger at someone else. Your hilari-ass, with an emphasis on ass.

  66. Publion says:

    On then to the comment by ‘Michael’ on the 20th at 808PM:

    It opens with an epithetical conclusion – which is rhetorically something of a warning flag that what follows cannot support its own weight and needs to be propped up by some epithetical preparation of the readership.

    But OK, then. Let’s to it.

  67. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:

    He asserts that “presuming innocence is as bad as presuming guilt”. He is apparently either not familiar-with or not in-agreement-with that fundamental principle of Western law, i.e. the presumption of innocence.

    This is as clear a demonstration as one might hope to see of one of the most fundamental Victimist switcheroos: that the classical Western ‘presumption of innocence’ is actually a bad thing, and that steps should be taken (through various Victimist law ‘reforms’) to weaken if not neutralize it or even replace it, for all practical purposes, with a presumption of guilt.

  68. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:

    In the U.S. today this is most vividly seen in assorted university attempts to create kangaroo-courts for alleged student sex offenses, in the defense of which assorted ‘advocates’ claim that any other process (i.e. a process based on the presumption of innocence) “denies a voice to the victims”.

    But this most recent efflorescence is based on the now decades-old re-jiggering of the principles of Western law and jurispraxis in the service of replacing actual evidence with stories, claims, accusations and presumptions of guilt.

    This should have been clear as day as far back as the now-infamous McMartin Pre-School Day Care Satanic Ritual Child Abuse cases in California in the early 1980s, but for far too many it wasn’t, even after the cases failed spectacularly.

    The 1980s saw the rise of “survivor politics” and the “incest narrative” (amplified by various Oprah-type TV shows), with many of the elements pulled together by two enterprising non-professionals in the 1988 book The Courage to Heal.

  69. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:

    Further, this asserted equivalence of the two presumptions (i.e. of innocence or of guilt) neglects to take into account that a presumption of guilt can lead to the vitally lethal consequence of government power being deployed against an individual on slim if any evidence, which should be a bright red warning flag to anyone who is concerned for the arbitrary deployment of the government coercive power (think of Vyshinsky and Stalin’s show trials).

    Another aspect of the great Victimist switcheroo was the insistence that the integrity of the rule of law was not only a) insufficiently focused on ‘victims’ and ‘survivors’ but was actually b) detrimental to their demands – and therefore had to go.

  70. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:

    It is not at all “irrelevant how old he allegation is”. All that we know is that allegants often come forward many or many, many years after the alleged offense. We have no basis whatsoever to presume that any, let alone all, such allegants are ‘victims’. This is another aspect of the great Victimist switcheroo.

    There is a fundamental legal reason for Statutes of Limitations: evidence – physical or mental (i.e. witness memories of an event) – degrades over time, and surely over decades of time.

    And in such instances, then all one is left with is a ‘story’. And when it comes down to that, then the only prosecutory option left is to influence public opinion and juries (and judges), and the only way to do that is to make sure that the ‘story’ is so vivid that such personages and officials are stampeded into accepting the ‘story’ if for no other reason than that if it were true it would be awful. Which could have as easily been said about the 1930s ‘War of the Worlds’ scenario where aliens attacked – if I correctly recall – New York and its environs.

    This seems to a gambit operative in the current Aussie case.

  71. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:

    Buttressed by the fact that for much of its existence the recently-concluded years-long Royal Commission had a special option on its website for persons who might wish to make an allegation. I think it highly probable that the Aussie police are hoping that their (highly-selective) press releases might do the same.

    But not much came of it for the Royal Commission and it will be interesting to see if much comes of it for the Aussie police. If they come to court on the 26th (the first court date for Cardinal Pell, if I recall correctly) with more stories than the ones already released, then we’ll know they have had some success with their gambit here.

    And that gambit is basically the government or police asking publicly: ‘Is there somebody out there with a story we could use? Anybody? Something? Anything? We’ll make it easy for you.’

  72. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:

    And while the old “victims don’t come forward for many years” bit might have possibly held some water decades ago, yet today – after more than three decades of Victimist valorization of the ‘victim’ and the ‘survivor’ (and in the U.S., very hefty paydays for allegations) – this bit loses more than a bit of its bite.

    On then to point 2: It is indeed the case that “abuse” is an ever-fungible and elastic term; truly one of the class of words that Lewis Carroll called “portmanteau words”, i.e. they are like suitcases into which you can stuff whatever you like.

    However in the subsequent assertion that “the extent of the physical contact is irrelevant” we are into much murkier waters.

     Victimist switcheroo dogma would have one presume that even the merest brush of an event might (or must) have life-changing and negative significance (which bit then also serves to ‘justify’ i) the claim that those with “messed up” lives are “messed up” because of even the merest (alleged) incident of “abuse” and ii) the now de rigeur narrative presumption of a large-futured innocent suddenly and totally reduced to a life-wrecked unripe adult husk by the merest incidence of “abuse”).

    And for legal purposes (civil or criminal) this is all very relevant indeed.

  73. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:

    On to point 3: there is very little actual reproducible scientific research to support the claim here. Most ‘research’ was done by ‘survey’ – which means that you ask somebody with a demonstrable addiction or criminal-history problem if they were abused, and if they say yes (perhaps knowing that you can’t verify their statement and happy to unload responsibility for their condition or actions on something or somebody else) then you conveniently presume the veracity of their ‘report’ and then conveniently conclude (by presumption) that the addiction was caused by the (alleged) abuse. This is not science.

    The article here only ‘substantiates’ the claims if you make these presumptions.

  74. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:

    On then to point 4: this assertion – familiar as another bit of Victimist ‘science’ and dogma – is certainly called into question by the fact that in the first John Jay Report very few of the allegations involved multiple-sequential predation.

    It has always seemed to me that the “predator” trope was a version of the Vampire trope: they can change shape and appearance, they can read your mind, they can exert powerful influences on you, they can effect the most exquisite manipulations, yet they can perfectly hide themselves from you – even in plain sight; if you detect them then that proves they are vampires; if you don’t detect them then that proves they are vampires; if they are nice then that proves they are vampires; if they are violent then that proves they are vampires; if they are handsome then that proves they are vampires because they assume that pleasing form; if they are not handsome, then that proves they are vampires because they can entice you even if they are repulsive. They are everywhere and anywhere; they can be anyone. And on and on.

    Thus on to the Stampede where we get the Priest As Eternal Vampire variation on this theme.

  75. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:

    And as for the “social worker” claim, what does ‘Michael’ really and actually “know”? He is acquainted with an individual and that individual has claimed to have been “abused” by “three different priests”. Was ‘Michael’ actually there and present at those alleged occasions? If not, then what have we got here? We have a story within a story; a story about a story. So easily and quickly does it all become a carnival midway Hall of Mirrors.

    • Dan says:

      Like I had said to Michael, "Somehow these facts seem to escape the minds of the excusers and enablers of the church." But now steps forward the master manipulator and deceiver of all the excusers and enablers of the cult. Isn't it strange that publiar steps forward with a plethora of longwinded ignorance to dispute every point that Michael put forward. Funny how you think you have all the answers and since you put forward all this worthless knowledge and reason, than it must suffice, case closed. Now is this your Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), coupled with a Compulsive Lying Disorder (CLD), backed with a Fixed Delusional System, larded with a heavy dose of psychological projection or all of the above. Yeah, I know, the All Knowing One says there is no Compulsive Lying Disorder, not realizing it's been invented just for you.

      Isn't this ironic, and you are such a Schmuck. You question, "Was 'Michael' actually there and present at those alleged occasions? If not, then what do we have here? We have a story within a story…blah blah blah….and quickly does it all become a carnival midway Hall of Mirrors." Yet you were never at any occasions when I was falsely accused, viciously lied about by catholic hierarchy, threatened, jumped by 4 catholic thugs, and threatened and slandered by a corrupt catholic cop, but you're compelled to outright lie and think you know how it all went down. I "accosted, harassed and bethumped" everyone, including children. You are such a sick, lying bastard. You aren't a "carnival midway Hall of Mirrors", but instead a Cartoon Time Circus and Fun House of ignorance, all in one! Why not shut up and stop all your lies, manipulations and deceit, or are you afraid your two-faced circus head will explode?   servant of The Truth


  76. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:

    On then to point 5: It is not quite clear what he is getting at here.

    Does he mean something like a) ‘old allegations against Cardinal Pell have nothing to do with current allegations against Cardinal Pell’ … ?

    Or does he mean something like b) ‘any old cases or prior cases (anywhere against anyone) of abuse where an allegation was demonstrated or adjudged to be false have nothing to do with any current allegations against this particular accused person … ?

    If (a), then from a legal standpoint that is true enough: the fact that Cardinal Pell has been accused before should not have a bearing on the trial of the current allegations.

    If (b), I would say that if we have seen a number of these types of allegations fail, then we would want to consider the possibilities raised by that fact. What are the probabilities of veracity, given the nature and context of the claims being made against him?

  77. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Michael’s on the 20th at 808PM:

    And then, of course, in regard to the claims currently being made against him, we have to look at the allegations themselves and their circumstances, such as Julia Yost has done in the article I linked-to and discussed from the magazine site First Things earlier this month.

    On the basis of such an examination of the current allegations (as we know them) then the whole Aussie/Pell matter looks rather iffy indeed.

  78. Dan says:

    "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and celebrate, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you…"  Matthew 5:11-12

    "God blesses you when people MOCK you and persecute you and LIE about you and say all sorts of EVIL things against you because you are my followers."  Matthew 5:11

    Think I'll kick back and have a cold one, knowing that your mocking is just another source of my receiving the Lord's blessings. Cheers creep.

  79. Publion says:

    And on and on. Once again, not all ‘Dan’s comments need comment since some of them do their revelatory work nicely enough on their own. And I’ll take his comments in the order they appear on the site, rather than chronologically.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1132PM:

    Once again, more of the I’m Not/You Are gambit; ‘Dan’ merely takes the points I make and puts them up.

    Thus the opening assertion (“All your analogies are ‘for the wrong reason[s]”. Which assertion, of course, he quickly abandons without any demonstration of example in order to then merely assert that I am a “compulsive liar” and he is a “servant of God”.  Nothing but assertions.

    Topped off by a frosting of epithet (my points are merely “ignorance and nonsense”) as he tries to wave away what he cannot handle.

  80. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1132PM:

    And then we are treated to the pearl-clutching claims that ‘Dan’ doth “defend God” and doth “enjoy quoting His words”. Anybody can quote scripture, even – famously – one of God’s greatest opponents.

    Which leads into one of ‘Dan’s favorite arias, where he paints himself as the truthy and heroic Possessor of the Divine Tea Leaves and those who don’t buy his shtick are full of “all ignorance, stupidity, evilness” and are “liars and hypocrites”.

    Then the charge that I “think too much of” myself. It is not I who have assigned myself such a greasy rasher of titles and speshull gifts. It is not I who claims to channel the Mind and Will of God.

    And then the wrap-up with the usual threat topped off with more epithet.

    And the P.S. deploying yet another pericope in which ‘Dan’ again seems to imagine that the pericope ‘prophetically’ refers to – for his present purposes – me.

  81. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 748PM:

    I submit that nobody could provide a more convincing example of the pearl-clutching histrionics to which ‘Dan’ can so naturally revert than ‘Dan’ himself no doubt unintentionally provides in his first sentence.  I would envision some buxom, pointy-helmeted, armor-clad, spear-wielding chanteuse from a Wagnerian scene, if it weren’t for the clutching of the pearls.

    But yet there is a method in the madness here, and it is the long-practiced method of the chronic deceiver: he slyly and immediately segues into an excuse for all his evasions: I “don’t really deserve answers” to the questions I ask – doncha see? – because I would only “disbelieve it”.

    The alternative possibility – that I disbelieve ‘Dan’s ‘answers’ because they are not believable – is one that ‘Dan’ would prefer nobody thought about; surely he won’t be thinking about that alternative, because then his head would explode.

    And he tries to bring the performance home with another I’m Not/You Are bit.

  82. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 750PM:

    Here he slyly and deceptively tries to create an equivalence between his scriptural method and mine by insinuating that I think that only my position is correct. He proffers no example, of course, because there isn’t one.  I only point out various relevant points that challenge ‘Dan’s interpretations or misinterpretations.

    It is only ‘Dan’ who claims that his take on a pericope is God’ take and that there can therefore be no other without – of course – “mocking God”.

    • Dan says:

      The publiar oinks, "Here he slyly and deceptively tries …. insinuating that I think that only my position is correct. He proffers no example, of course, because there isn't one." Finally we can agree on something, that 'Dan' can find no examples where your "position is correct" when it comes to "scriptural method[s]". How could we expect more from one who lies, twists and misinterprets scripture. You might try using your own brain, rather than the brainwashed answers you've memorized from apologists and false fathers of your cult. servant sanctioned by the Almighty God

  83. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 810PM:

    Another pearl-clutching squawk.

    And no doubt unintentionally, he reveals more of his abyssal ignorance of his own delusionality by presuming that I was insinuating that ‘Dan’ would sexually molest readers’ children. That is his presumption, not mine.

    My point referred to ‘Dan’s gross delusionality and the accompanying character traits that he has revealed (no doubt unintentionally) here. Who would want their child or grandchild exposed to that at close range? (A thought which may very well have occurred to the school-staffers out in the schoolyard that day.)

    And he concludes with epithets based on his inaccurate (but still quite helpfully revealing) presumption.

  84. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 816PM:

    Once again we get evasions, and the pretended justification for them: since my points (in my comment of the 21st at 337PM) are merely “more ignorance, lies, stupidity and nonsense” then – had you been waitttingggggggg forrrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttt? – they are “not worthy of a response”. Thus yet another evasion.

    And – as so often – he reveals his juvenility with another stab at epithet.

  85. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 104AM:

    ‘Dan’s first mistake is to characterize ‘Michael’s points as “facts”; they are not “facts”, as I explicated in my comments on the ‘Michael’ material.

    Thus having – he presumes – prepared the ground, ‘Dan’ merely collapses into epithetical riffing.

    We note that while ‘Dan’ characterizes my material as “ignorance”, he gives – as so very very often – no  example. He seems to think that the epithet itself does all the hard work. He is a plop-tosser, basically, while masquerading with the various officious titles he has awarded himself.

    • Dan says:

      No, "Michael's points…. are not 'facts' ", because only a compulsive liar is able to present true facts. And once again we witness proof that publiar thinks only his statements are fact. You're a joke, publiar.  servant

  86. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 104AM:

    And while I don’t claim to have “all the answers”, I note that ‘Dan’ proffers none while pretending to already know the “answers”.

    Nor have I said “case closed”; that is ‘Dan’ invention, necessary to keep his cartoon shtick going here.

    And he tries to bring it home with another variation of the I’m Not/You Are gambit, this time along psychological lines (about which he is clearly and truly ignorant).

    But then we do get another nifty – and as always unintentionally – revelatory bits about ‘Dan’: his “Compulsive Lying Disorder” claim – doncha see? – was “invented just for [me]”.

    And by whom was it “invented”? Why … by ‘Dan’, who clearly believes himself authorized to add to the list of clinical Disorders. ‘Dan’s an inventor – doncha see? – and a compulsive inventor too. Theology, Scripture, psychology, claims about the Church and Catholicism, stories about himself … if you need an inventor, ‘Dan’s your man. He does it all the time, always has, and most likely always will.

  87. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 104AM:

    He then slyly tries to make more excuses for himself out of what’s on the table here: I asked if ‘Michael’ was present for any of the alleged three rapes by three different priests. ‘Dan’ tries to use that to (finally) extricate himself from the abyssal troughs of incredibility not only inherent in his original school-yard story and the rest of his legal and psychiatric misadventures, but also profusely amplified by his further inventive efforts to extricate himself.

    ‘Michael’ gave us the one sentence reference. ‘Dan’ has given us volumes and at each and every step of the way I have pointed out the problems created by his story and the further problems created by his further efforts.

    We were ‘there’; ‘Dan’s voluminous and inventive efforts put us there. And the efforts themselves create even more problems for his credibility and his veracity than the original version of the stories. He did it to himself.

    He concludes with another I’m Not/You Are bit, this time about the exploding head.

    • Dan says:

      They were all lies and more lies from liars just like yourself. It just may be that lying from your cult is just as dangerous and systemic as your pedophilia problems.  servant

  88. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 830PM, which is a repetition of the 21st at 1053PM further up the scroll.

    Here he proffers what must surely be two of his most well-thumbed 3x5s, two pericopes which would – if you hold your head at just the right angle – place ‘Dan’ among the prophets and apostles and saints and martyrs.

    If you are questioning ‘Dan’ – or haling him into court or examining him psychiatrically on court order – then you are simply ‘proving’ that ‘Dan’ is the servant/Servant and so on.

    But alas. That would only be true – as the pericopes are careful to point out – if you have gotten into trouble “because of Me” or “because you are my followers”, as Jesus said.

    But ‘Dan’ isn’t in the Jesus business. ‘Dan’ is in the ‘Dan’ business, and God and Jesus and the Spirit and the Bible and all the other capital entities are merely hostages he has taken to effect his scam.

    • Dan says:

      And my being a servant, prophet or follower of God, Christ, His Holy Spirit and the Bible, will be determined by a compulsive liar belonging to a cult of cowardly, greedy, evil, idolatrous, mocking, pedophile liars. Laughable

  89. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 830PM, which is a repetition of ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1053PM:

    And then – perhaps aware of the rather shriek-y performances he has given in this sequence – ‘Dan’ decides to try a different head-piece, the clearly unfamiliar Wig of Much-Man, declaring that he will now “kick back and have a cold one”, topping that bit of masquerade off with another juvenile epithet.

    Wow. Such much man.

    • Dan says:

      And since I've got nothing else of any value to say, I guess I'll criticise his manhood. What is it with your obsession with Wigs? Do you prefer wearing them with your black dress or maybe the satany dresses of bishop or cardinal? Come out of the closet, deceiving creep, and show your true colors. I've been honest in telling you alot about myself, and all you've done is twist it to suit your false agenda. You possess all the traits of the devil, deceiver, liar and slanderer of God's followers. All that is disgusting in the eyes of the One True God.

  90. Dan says:

    In your attempts to justify the continual, disgusting sins of your church, not accepting 1 John 3:5-10 as God's take on sin, claiming 'Dan' is just deploying another 'proof text' from his pile of 3X5's, can you explain your way out of this 'pericope'. And you can't claim Peter's 1st encounter with Christ saying "Get away from me, I'm a sinner" as proof that he remained a horrible sinner. Nor Paul's explanation of the power of sin on our lives, once the forgiveness of Jesus Christ comes in. Paul once knocked off his horse didn't continue persecuting Christians, in fact the opposite was true. Like I've said, priests took the vow of celibacy, prostrated themselves on the floor to show their humility, apparently accepted the forgiveness of God, and then continued in their perversions or pedophilia. Despicable and disgusting. When the prostitute was forgiven by Christ, He said, "Go and sin no more". Nothing indicates that she could continue in her sin and still be considered saved and a Christian. Here's the verses – Matthew 18:6-9. I'm repeating Matthew 18:6 because I still see this as Jesus stating that if you were to harm any of His "little ones", meaning babies, minors or disciples, you will be severely punished and cast in Hell's Fire. You can't claim he was talking only about adult disciples, so pedophilia and pederasty don't apply to that quote. Ridiculous!

    • Dan says:

      "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come! If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna."

      Did God want us to destroy our bodies? No! He was saying how important it was to make a sincere effort at stopping your sinning. And may I say, you criticize the use of "proof texts", but did you ever think they just may be "proof" of your's and your church's failures.?

  91. Publion says:

    There isn’t much to ‘Dan’s most recent sequence of comments; most are just ‘comebacks’ of the myah-myah variety, repeating his usual evasive mantras and gambits.

    However, on the 23rd at 523PM it is of modest interest that he is reduced to word-play as he tries to salvage something of use to himself by a) evading the fact that he has no examples of my claiming that my position is the only correct one while also b) trying the old I’m Not/You Are gambit: he misreads my comment in order to claim – had you been waitttinggggg forrr ittttttttt? – that we both “agree” that ‘Dan’ can come up with no examples whatsoever of any of my material ever being correct.

    Which – but of course – thus platforms more epithetical riffing on that theme.

    Readers are presumed to be experienced and hardy enough not to choke on their popcorn.

  92. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 548PM:

    Here – again not entirely unfamiliarly – ‘Dan’ will a) try his often-seen tactic of evading by heading for the victim-y high ground by b) running another variation of I’m Not/You Are: it is I who have “nothing”, so instead it is I who have chosen instead to “criticise [his] manhood” (sic).

    It was ‘Dan’ who – utterly gratuitously and of his own unprompted volition – announced that he would “kick back and have a cold one”, thus introducing his posturing as ‘masculine’ (which is itself just another posture in the service of evading the lack of content in his stuff).

    Trying to build on that meme, he then questions my “obsession with Wigs”. The imagery of the Wig captures rather nicely and vividly the variety of manipulative masquerading and posturing that we have so often seen (and continue to see) deployed by the more content-challenged commenters.

    Thus a further example of the deceitful histrionics we have so often seen (and continue to see) from such commenters.

    • Dan says:

      You may want to claim there's a lack of content in my stuff, but apparently God has no problem nailing your stuff to a tee.

      "God blesses you when people MOCK you and PERSECUTE you and LIE about you and say all sorts of EVIL things against you because you are my followers."  Matthew 5:11

      So the compulsive LIAR, MOCKER and EVIL one, who thinks 'Dan' is unable to pull the appropriate Scripture, just happens to find a 'pericope' that describes you perfectly. If your comprehension skills were sharper, you would have noticed that the first part of the quote was "God blesses you when people MOCK you". Kind of destroys your claims that it's fine to MOCK God's followers, as long as you think you're not mocking God. And your questioning my being a follower is just another example of your ignorant stupidity. servant of the Almighty


  93. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 548PM:

    As for the bleat about ‘Dan’ having been “honest” in “telling [us] a lot about” himself: ‘Dan’ has indeed told us a lot about himself, but such ‘honesty’ has been mostly unintentional; what he has intentionally told us about himself and his misadventures has merely been the skein of cartoons he has constructed in the service of his delusional agenda.

    It is an almost inevitable consequence of delusionality that in seeking to thoroughly evade uncongenial realities about oneself one notably diminishes even the general ability to accurately distinguish between ‘reality’ and … something else entirely. After all, the evasion of the reality of oneself is the primary objective of the delusionality in the first place.

  94. Publion says:

    On to something more useful: another aspect of significant potential relevance in the Cardinal Pell matter is that the appointment of a new Archbishop for Melbourne remains to be made by the Pope.

    What role this fact might play in the Cardinal Pell matter remains to be seen. But as the origin of yet another source of interest-group pressure (weakening ‘conservative’ Catholic opposition to a ‘liberal’ candidate while providing much grist for the mill of ‘liberal’ Catholic agitation for an anti-Pell candidate, perhaps) the bringing of charges against Cardinal Pell would be able to tap another source of support for the charges (whatever they might be).

  95. Publion says:

    Also, I have read that the Milligan book Cardinal: The Rise and Fall of George Pell – which seems to have played no small part in the Aussie police charges and showcases at length the stories later assessed by Judith Yost on the First Things site and discussed in comments on this thread  – has been withdrawn from sale in Victoria, purportedly in the service of protecting the rights of the accused.

    Given the highly diffuse and yet intense capacity of contemporary news and social media to disseminate material, I am not sure how effective such a move can be at this point. You can’t – as they say – unring the bell.

  96. Sonny's Mom says:

    Thank heaven Cardinal Pell is not a priest of the Boston Archdiocese.

    • Dan says:

      Why is that, Sonny's Mom? Afraid it would be more likely that he'd be exposed and possibly get the punishment he deserves? Excuse the pun.

  97. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:

    We note that he opens with a necessary cartoon formulation (‘invention’, we might say, since ‘Dan’ is so much of an inventor), i.e. that I ‘attempt’ “to justify the continual …” and so on. He offers no example of where I demonstrably seek to “justify” anything; and he doesn’t because he can’t because I have never done so.

    Apparently, my pointing out the problems and cartoon elements in ‘Dan’s material must be characterized as trying to “defend” or “excuse”; otherwise ‘Dan’ would have to make some relevant response to what I point out, and that he surely cannot do.

    He asks if I can “explain [my] way out of this pericope”, which apparently refers to the Matthean pericope further on in the comment and I will deal with it (again) below.

  98. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:

    Once again, we see a vital difference between my approach to issues and ‘Dan’s: I don’t “claim” or try to “prove” or “justify” anything; ‘Dan’, however, does, and presumes – although any reading of my material would quickly demonstrate otherwise – that I do it the ‘Dan’-way too.

    Then again, he has to presume that if he is to continuing living in that simplistic (but not actually clear or enlightening) cartoon universe behind his eyeballs.

    Thus I didn’t and don’t “claim” to the effect that Peter’s “sinful man” statement is “proof” that Peter “remained a horrible sinner”. I proposed the question and that’s all. It is – of course – ‘Dan’ who is in the only-one-answer, my-way-or-the-hell-way business.

  99. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:

    But with ‘Dan’s extension of that point to Paul, then we run into the problem posed by the text: if Christ offers “forgiveness”, then what is that forgiveness for if not for the forgiveness of sins that one has committed?

    Or are we to presume that the ‘theology’ behind this ‘Dan’-bit is that Christ only has to forgive somebody once – for past sins committed before the person embraced the Gospel – and that thereafter Christ’s grace would prevent all further sins (although – recalling ‘Dan’s silly weasel-wording from a prior comment of his on this thread – they might still “make some mistakes”).

    And as I had previously pointed out in a recent comment, even when Paul was writing his Letter to the Romans he could still declare “miserable wretch that I am” and that he didn’t do the good he wanted to do yet did the evil he sought to avoid.

  100. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:

    And – it apparently has to be pointed out to ‘Dan’ – there are many other possible sins available to humans besides “persecuting Christians”.

    And then he slyly tosses in an utterly insupportable (and unsupported) assertion to the effect that “priests” (as in ‘all’ priests, unqualified by any modifier here) “continued their perversions” and so on. The same old cartoon formulated in the same old cartoon fashion.

    ‘Dan’s cartoon may indeed indicate a scenario “despicable and disgusting” but it is a cartoon scenario in the first place. And is not all sin “despicable and disgusting”?

    • Dan says:

      Not all sin is as despicable and disgusting as the sins of your cult, especially the pedophiles and perverts who committed such travesties, then denied, lied and made excuses for what they did. Sometimes forgiven or transferred by bishops and popes and then gone out to repeat their disgusting and despicable sins. Your insistent lying, excusing and misinterpretation of Scripture to cover for their malfeasance would take a close second.

  101. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:

    ‘Dan’ then tosses in a pericope reference, to Jesus telling the woman at the well to “Go and sin no more”. Are we to imagine that the woman went forth from that moment on and never committed another sin in her life? Are we to imagine that such was the meaning of Jesus’ exhortation here?

    As I said in prior comments, this ‘Dan’ (and fundie) cartoon ‘theology’ quickly reduces to a blame-game wherein those who claim to have embraced the Gospel are forthwith rendered sinfulness-free (and thus can merrily spend their time declaring others to be sinners).

    • Dan says:

      Apparently you don't know the Bible or understand it as well as you want to make others believe you do. Jesus never said to the woman at the well, "Go and sin no more." That would be the prostitute that the pharisees wanted to stone. You might want to read the Bible before you attempt to claim that you have the right interpretation.  servant

  102. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:

    ‘Dan’ then immediately echoes more of that cartoon position by declaiming – in the accents of sober theological thought – that “nothing indicates that she could continue her sin and still be considered saved and a Christian”.

    First, we note the odd subjunctive “could”: is this a possibility that ‘Dan’ is proposing here, or an assertion of fact weasel-worded to appear as something less than a fact?

    Second, we have to consider the consequences of ‘Dan’s primary assertion here in the context of Jesus’s general position: is Jesus exhorting the woman to sin no more, or is He telling her that she cannot sin anymore? And if she cannot sin anymore is that because of His grace? Is that what the grace of God does – instill sinlessness in the human being … ?

    Third, is He referring to the specific type of sin (“prostitution”) she had committed or is He referring to any and all types of sin, from thence onward?

  103. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:

    Fourth, we see that giveaway fundie term “saved” (such that one is either “saved” and sinless or else one is not a “Christian”). But what, then, does it mean to be “saved”?

    Does it mean – as in the ‘Dan’/fundie cartoon – that once one accepts the Gospel and Christ then one is effectively rendered sinless for the rest of one’s life?

    Does it mean – as in the ‘Dan’/fundie cartoon – that committing any sin at all effectively renders one not-Christian? (And does that “sin” include or exclude making “other mistakes”?)

    And is there or is there not a path back to being a Christian once one has committed a sin of any sort?

    How does ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ deal with these problematic questions that are inherent in his assertions?

    • Dan says:

      I think you should try reading the Bible and maybe you would learn a few things and be able to answer all your stupid questions. We are all sinners and will never be perfect. We're just not committing and repeating the horrible sins against innocent children, like your cult's hierarchy and so-called teachers do. How can you ever trust what they've been teaching you, if they haven't learned how sexually immoral it is to abuse children? Add to that the idolatry, greed, cowards and all the lies and liars, and anyone would understand why they consider themselves to be the One True Church of God. Hypocrite liars!!   servant

  104. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1126AM:

    And then, either having run of ‘fresh’ distracting material or hoping that readers have forgotten, ‘Dan’ now apparently is reduced to pulling up some of the 3×5 pile from the way-back here and trying to run with it all over again.

     Thus ‘Dan’ once again pulls from his pericope pile Matthew 18: 6-9, which we had gone over here several times, and as far back as late January of 2016, at least.

    It is interesting to note that this time around ‘Dan’ hedges his bets with that “I still see this as …”, rather than the usual declamatory insistence on only one (i.e. his) interpretation).

    That, however, is about as good as his bit gets here.

  105. Publion says:

    Thus we continue the sense of his comment by considering his immediately subsequent comment of the 24th at 1201PM, which gives the full text (from whatever version he is using).

    First, I note that he claimed at the very end of his prior comment (the 24th at 1126AM) ‘Dan’ said that he doth “see this as Jesus stating” … and that ‘Dan’ sees His “little ones” as “meaning babies, minors or disciples”.

    If one were to commit in any way the act of sexually abusing a ‘baby’, how in the wide world of ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ is one leading that infant to commit “sin”? How indeed can a ‘baby’ be said to “believe in” Christ, for that matter?

    Thus ‘Dan’s gratuitous (and so very convenient to his agenda) presumption that in that “little ones” Jesus was referring to “babies” leads to a ludicrous and impossible conclusion.

  106. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:

    And if one were to abuse or rape a “minor” or a “disciple”, how in the wide world of ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ is one presumptively leading that person to commit “sin”? Is ‘Dan’ saying here that the victim in this scenario is committing sin?

    And if the victim in this scenario is neither baby nor minor nor disciple, then what?

    • Dan says:

      This will cover the last couple and next two comments from the publiar. Again, it might be beneficial to consult the Bible for a 'proof text' to answer your questioning.

      "Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked. "Yes, Jesus answered, "have you ever read: 'From the mouths of children and infants You have ordained praise'?"

      But then you would have to know the Word and be in the Word in order to know these things, not always disputing  and misinterpreting it to suit your cult's evil agenda, oinking that that's a 'proof text' and doesn't count, because it shows proof.

      Now in regards to leading little ones into sin. Have you ever heard that children learn from example? If you have adult priests, bishops and cardinals, young people are taught to respect, running rampant raping or sexually abusing any little boys they can get their filthy hands on, and you're under the impression that by example they're not at all leading those vulnerable minds into sin or future sinful, screwed up lives. How naive and ignorant can one get? Wake up to reality, step out from your Cartoon Time, peewee, and stop eating all that popcorn. Try eating something to improve your brain cells. servant of God's Word

  107. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:

    Nor is it therefore at all possible to insist – as ‘Dan’ does for the purposes of his agenda – that Jesus was primarily speaking about any particular sin (i.e. “pederasty” or “pedophilia” for ‘Dan’s purposes), and this actuality is especially clear when we realize – again – that the victim in any such scenario would not be committing sin in the first place.

    The key to the pericope is the descriptive qualifying phrase “who believe in me to sin”. One must first a) “believe in Christ” and b) one must have been caused to “sin”.

    Can it possibly be imagined that Jesus is implying that if a victim in such a scenario doesn’t believe in Christ and/or didn’t willingly engage in the abusive action then the abuse isn’t a sin? But that’s where ‘Dan’s ‘theology’ must lead. If ‘Dan’s presumption that Jesus was talking about “sin” and actual “little children” is to be taken as accurate.

  108. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:

    But, then, was Jesus actually talking about “little children” at all?

    If you deploy the ‘proof text’ method, then you focus with bovine intensity merely on the specific pericope – in whatever version/translation you have chosen – and that’s that.

    But if we look at the pericope within its placement in the text of Matthew’s chapter here we find ourselves looking at verses 1 through 5: the disciples were asking – apparently in reference to themselves – as to “who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”.

    Perhaps sensing that their discipleship was starting to go their head, Jesus “called a child over” and told the disciples that unless they became “like children” then “you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”.

    (Let’s pass over in silence the fact that the act of an adult taking “a child” and putting him on your knee would qualify as ‘abusive’ nowadays.)

  109. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:

    Jesus is using “child” here as an image of what (adult) believers – and especially the disciples – had to seek to become: docile and willing to be taught. Or does ‘Dan’ imagine – as his ‘thought’ here would seem to imply – that Jesus actually meant that physical adults had to physically regress to the age and form of their childhood selves? This is what ‘Dan’s type of approach brings you to, and in short order.

    And if any disciple passes along any ‘teaching’ that induces or “causes” any believer in Him “to sin”, then the stakes are – Jesus points out – very high indeed: God’s punishment will make having a millstone tied around your (i.e. the disciple’s) neck and drowned in the sea.

    This pericope thus shows Jesus demonstrating to the disciples the seriousness of their commission and its responsibilities.

  110. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:

    But even then, as Matthew will soon demonstrate with the Great Commission in Chapter 16:13-20 (Peter is declared the rock and is given “the keys to the kingdom of heaven” for the forgiveness or binding of sins) and in Chapter 28: 16-20 where the resurrected Christ gives His commission to the Eleven, Matthew requires us to consider the forgiveness of sin, and in the Great Commission pericope there is no mention of forgiveness only being possible for certain sins and not for others.

    And the “children” here are the adult believers Jesus is addressing in verse 3 (“unless you become like little children …” and verse 4 (“whoever humbles himself like this little child …”).

    ‘Dan’s plop-tossy interpretative gambit here, designed purely to support his own agenda, fails utterly once one actually considers the text of Matthew’s Gospel here.

  111. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:

    With all that having to be taken into account, ‘Dan’s concluding paragraph pales – and indeed it would seem that ‘Dan’ himself starts to weaken his own interpretation by now claiming “how important it is to make a sincere effort at stopping your sinning”.

    But what happens when the “sincere effort at stopping your sinning” fails at some point and you – to use ‘Dan’s weasel-phrasing – “make other mistakes”?  Then what?

    This is where both the proof-text gambit and the utter inadequacy of the ‘Dan’/fundie ‘theology’ are clearly revealed: while the proof-text gambit weaponizes Scripture for its own denunciatory purposes, that ‘theology’ is also utterly inadequate to deal with the human realities of original sinfulness and the abiding reality of humans a) failing to do the good they wish to do and b) doing the evil they wish to avoid, just as Paul said of himself.

  112. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1201PM:

    Forgiveness as an indispensable element in any Christian theology is utterly essential in order to continue the work of God’s salvific work in the world of humans. And that’s why Peter was given “the keys to the kingdom of heaven”. Were Jesus to have assumed that once He was embraced by anyone, then that person would not ever be sinning again, then there would have been no need to give Peter those “keys”. After all, as even ‘Dan’ says, it’s possible to “make other mistakes” as time goes on.

    • Dan says:

      Forgiveness involves being truly sorry for the sins you've committed, and through the help of Christ and God's Holy Spirit, changing your life. Not continuing in your disgusting sins, denying, making excuses and lying in hopes you can fool the courts. Your cult has expertise in this field, many times concealing their crimes by taking care of matters in house and keeping authorities and the public from knowing how vast, sickening and widespread are their perversions. So unfair to victims, never giving them the justice they deserve. You think the Lord God doesn't have your number? He's licking His chops in anticipation of His Judgement Day. servant of the Almighty

  113. Publion says:

    And ‘Dan’ apparently wants to award himself a victory- lap by then adding his bit on the 24th at 726PM.

    But – and yet again – the pericope that he has chosen (Matthew 5:11) itself is careful to point out that one is going to be ‘blessed’ by God only if your misadventures are created “because you are my followers”.

    So – yet once again – it all depends on being one of the followers of Christ. And ‘Dan’ – yet once again – is not a follower of anyone or Anyone; he is indentured to his delusionality and manipulatively and deceitfully has chosen to masquerade as being not only ‘a’ but a very speshully i(f secretly) authorized tea-leaf channeler of God’s very Mind and Word and Will.

    The compulsion generated and required by his indenture undermines all of his masquerade and posturing, however, no matter how much he honks and brays to the contrary.

    I don’t mock God; I don’t mock God’s followers. I assess ‘Dan’s material because it is a content-less masquerade involving deceit and manipulation and cannot withstand even the simplest questioning.

    That it is also mock-able – and it surely is – results merely from the fact that ‘Dan’ isn’t at all up to the job to which he has indentured himself.

  114. Dan says:

    Are you at all aware that Satan is known to be the Accuser. And you following well in his footsteps have taken on the part of The False Accuser. You the master manipulator and deceiver trying to project your deceptive sicknesses on another, thinking if you repeat the accusations enough, than that becomes truth. Claiming that you don't 'mock God' or His 'followers', right after stating that Dan "deceitfully has chosen to masquerade as being not only 'a' but a very speshully i(f secretly) authorized tea-leaf channeler of God's very Mind and Word and Will."

    Let me tell you how sick and tired I am, "Casting pearls before swine". I have never come across such a deceiving, slandering, lying pig in all my life, although other liars from your cult come in a close second. You're more evil than all of them combined, and I'm glad I only have to deal with you on the internet. One could only guess the cowardice and lies you would display in person. Creep!   servant of God, not self-appointed or self-serving, you blatant liar.

    P.S. A catholic lying creep will never be the one to decide whether I'm truly a servant, chosen or special in the Lord's eyes. Your word means nothing and you mean nothing to me, you Lying Accuser.

    • Dan says:

      Let me correct that. If I had spent more than a minute or two with the lying catholic creeps of your cult, than I would have probably found them to be as wicked, deceiving and ignorant as you. There, now you shouldn't feel so bad, being partners with a slew of liars.  servant sanctioned by the Almighty

  115. Dan says:

    I'll be waiting to have an indepth discussion on the updated version of Pope Rat's brother and the choir boys they abused. The number of abuses being 500 of physical violence and 67 of sexual violence, committed by a total of 49 perpetrators. The pope's brother being one of the perpetrators and the worst offender is dead. Pop the champagne, the church has no guilt in the matter because the cases are too old. "I knew that the rector there was violent and would beat the boys hard, and that he would do it for no reason," ratzinger said. He also said he was aware of allegations of physical abuse at the elementary school and did nothing about it. He did nothing to protect the children, but we're supposed to believe he had no knowledge of sexual abuse. Despicable liars. The current bishop of Regensburg has already announced plans to offer compensation of between $5,000 and $22,000 each by the end of this year. So much for only allegations, publiar. Oh yes! And the cult's generosity with their dumb sheep's money is almost God-like. Despicable creeps.

    And then we have Fr. Joseph Maskell, "a suspected paedophile and serial abuser of teenage girls." No problem for the church, he's dead too. He's also the prime suspect of the murder of a nun, who happened to be privy to the accusations of the young girls and possibly confronted him.

    Last, and definitely not the last creep from your cult, Fr. Don Mercedes. "Pope Francis has decided to defrock Mauro Inzoli, also known as Don Mercedes for his love of fancy cars, who has been found guilty of eight counts of sexual abuse of children aged 12 to 16. Benedict XVI moved to defrock him in 2012 but Francis chose leniency before recently changing his mind. "He reportedly paid $28,000 in compensation to five victims he molested between 2004 and 2008."  Crux June 30, 2017  The generosity with their brainwashed sheep's money was almost God-like. I'll be waiting for our discussion.  servant of the God of Judgment

  116. Publion says:

    And with all the material now on the table, what do we get from ‘Dan?

    On the 26th at 748PM we get the ‘Dan’-verse justification for his oh-so-necessary-for-his-agenda focus on the Catholic “pedophiles and perverts” and so on: there is a hierarchy of sins. Yes there is, but then there haven’t been very many demonstrated and proven cases where his scare-scenario as he outlines it here has actually taken place.

    Once again, we are back to the core question: how many instances of such a scenario would it take to de-legitimize the Church? I suspect that – if he had to actually come up with an answer – ‘Dan’ would go the old even-if-only-one route.

    But no human institution is perfect because no human being is perfect (except for ‘Dan’, whose misadventures are merely the result of being lied-about a whole lot).

    ‘Dan’s position – if applied, say, to the recent collision of the Navy destroyer and the container ship – is that the Navy should be disbanded since they obviously don’t know how to sail their ships properly.  Readers may consider as they will the weaknesses of that approach.

    • Dan says:

      publiar oinks, In regards to "Catholic 'pedophiles and perverts'…. there haven't been very many demonstrated and proven cases" – This is absolutely false and an outright lie! There are thousands of cases of proven and admitted guilt and many secretly paid-of victims and many priests and hierarchy who think they escaped punishment because of Statutes of Limitations or death. Stop with all your ignorant excuses and lies. This problem of sexual abuse against children is systemic, and any catholic who thinks otherwise is living in denial. It's citywide, statewide, countrywide and worldwide. Anywhere the cult has stepped foot, they molested, violently abused and raped innocent children. Somehow it had to be taught or mentored in order for it to be this widespread. Bunch of sick, pioused hypocrite deceivers.

  117. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 805PM:

    Here – as we have so often seen before – ‘Dan’ is confronted with a number of theological questions that arise from his assertions and – had you been waitttingggggg forrrrr ittttttt? – he merely waves them away evasively as being “all [my] stupid questions”.

    Questions about his cartoon positions are – doncha see? – “stupid” prima facie and ipso facto: if you raise questions about ‘Dan’s stuff then that’s just “stupid” in the first place (and therefore – but of course – he doesn’t need to try and come up with an answer to them).

  118. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 805PM:

    But then we see the slyness: “We are all sinners”, he piously bleats, “and will never be perfect”.

    Well, you might think, that’s a big admission and it raises some problems for his whole focus on the Church.

    But then he quickly slaps some silly-putty over the hole he has just punched through his own cartoons:  “horrible sins against children” – doncha see? – are … somehow beyond all that. “We” are OK, because “we” are just ‘normal sinners’, apparently. (And you notice right here the blame-game dynamic that I had mentioned in prior comments: ‘we’ are pretty much OK, but ‘they’ are reely reely reely sinners.

  119. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 805PM:

    And of course, most of the “innocent children” scenarios are creatures of ‘Dan’s cartoon imagination and haven’t actually been demonstrated to have taken place in anywhere near the astronomical numbers  and lurid forms that ‘Dan’ would claim.

    And – in a neat two-fer – ‘Dan’ even works in a) a whack at Catholic teachers (like the staffers who shooed him away from the schoolyard fence) because b) if you can’t trust them in regard to abuse, then you can’t trust that they aren’t actually teaching you paganism and goddess-worship too.  Neato.

    • Dan says:

      First paragraph – more lies and excuses – there are thousands if not millions of "innocent children" harmed by the crimes of creeps in your cult.

      Another repeated lie – I was never shooed away from the schooyard fence – sick of your ignorance, nonsense and stupidity.

  120. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 835PM:

    As readers may perhaps now have figured out, this is another of ‘Dan’s evasive tricks: faced with clear questions in several comments, he will refrain from answering each comment’s questions, and instead issue a blanket comment (which, as we will see, winds up not answering any questions at all).

    First, he suggests merely that one might “consult the Bible … to answer your questioning”.  Any answer more specific than that, ‘Dan’ isn’t up to at all.

    And don’t forget to put your speshull ‘Dan’ glasses on before you “consult the Bible” or else you won’t see what he sees.

  121. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 835PM:

    Then we get what appears to be merely a selection from ‘Dan’s 3×5 pericope pile that deals with “children” generally somehow. Apparently – in this case – something along the lines of the old ‘out of the mouths of children’. What that has to do with “babies” (who aren’t known for their verbal declamations in the first place) is anybody’s guess.

    But from that little pile of sand ‘Dan’ quickly and evasively launches into a distracting riff on “the Word” and how nobody knows the Word like ‘Dan’ knows the Word (though he doesn’t have  to demonstrate that knowledge by answering the questions – doncha see? – because it’s a secret speshull knowledge that God gave ‘Dan’ and if God knows ‘Dan’ knows, then what does it matter if anyone else realizes it because they don’t know anyway … ? – that’s basically ‘Dan’s core scam on this point).

    None of ‘Dan’s ‘proof-texts’ “shows proof” (that’s just more silly word-play on his part); ‘Dan’s delusionality “shows proof”, but only in his mind and to his mind. That’s how delusionality works.

    • Dan says:

      Those were the answers to your dumb questions, but you're too ignorant to figure that out. You only thing my Biblical quotes are something you can dispute, instead of learning from. You're Scripturely inept.  servant

    • Dan says:

      Correction – thing should be think – As in you think you have all the answers, but only think God, His Holy Spirit and His Word is for you to criticize and mock. Despicable!

  122. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 835PM:

    The presentation in the second paragraph requires the acceptance of ‘Dan’s fever-vision cartoon, i.e. that “you have adult priests, bishops and cardinals … running rampant raping or sexually abusing any little boys they can get their filthy hands on” … and that cartoon remains ‘Dan’s personal cartoon (which, it has to be said, certainly seems to consistently engage him).

    Certainly any actual instance of “rampant raping” would – among other things – set a bad “example”. As would – if we’re careful in applying the term – genuine ‘sexual abuse’. But there have been very few demonstrated cases of that. Nor would I accept the comeback that ‘where’s there’s smoke there’s fire”. Sometimes there’s a lot of smoke because somebody has deliberately thrown a smoke-bomb.

    • Dan says:

      For you to claim your cult's sins against children is all just a "fever-vision cartoon", is both disrespectful and evil personified, against every victim your wicked cult has ever harmed.

  123. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 835PM:

    If some priests can be demonstrated to have done such things, then let justice take its course.

    But the cartoon of a Church “rampant” with all this is ‘Dan’s own smoke-bomb, from which he then claims that the whole institution is aflame and good-riddance.

    Nor can ‘Dan’s presumption be accepted, i.e. that if ‘bad example’ is given to anyone, then that ‘bad example’ will ineluctably be accepted as the proper way to conduct oneself. Kids’ minds may be impressionable but kids aren’t stupid. (Look at the number of kids in the schoolyard who – even as ‘Dan’ tells the story – walked away from his ranting performance.)

    • Dan says:

      More ignorant lies – The kids ran back because they were yelled at by panicking teachers. If there was any ranting it came from the teachers. You're one stupid liar!!!

    • Dan says:

      That's it for me today. Tired of answering to your repetitive, ignorant, stupid lies. Why wait? Why not pack it up and go to Hell. I think you'd be happier among your type.  servant

  124. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 849PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will discourse on “forgiveness”.

    It seems on first reading to be pretty mainstream Catholic thought on the subject. But given what we have seen of ‘Dan’s ‘theology’, we have to ask: what does “changing your life” mean here as ‘Dan’ is using it?

    If this means that ‘Dan’ envisions that once you embrace Christ then His grace prevents any further sin – which is pretty much what he has claimed in prior comments here – then that “changing” means a one-off, one-time-only ‘change’. And after that … what then if one falls into sin again?

    If this means something along the lines of ‘you embrace Christ and the Gospel and with the help of His grace you work hard on “changing your life” as best you can, failing and turning to God and picking yourself up and going on to improve your “changing”’ … then that’s pretty much the Catholic and mainstream Protestant approach.

    Which is it?

  125. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 849PM:

    ‘Dan’s solution to the problem he has created for himself here is to presume the authority of the Divine Tea-Leaves and declare that priests are “continuing in [their] disgusting sins” and so on. And this is merely a cartoon that relies upon ‘Dan’s oh-so-necessary presumption that (fill in the blank: a few, some, a lot, most, all) priests are merrily “continuing” in their “rampant” rapine.

    So – doncha see? – if priests are “continuing” with no desire or thought of contrition and of “changing” (as ‘Dan’s cartoon would have it) then they don’t qualify for “forgiveness”.  Neato.

    But that conclusion requires the presumption that ‘Dan’s cartoon caricature and its fever-vision scenario here are accurate.

    And as always, it is a very open question as to just where ‘Dan’s ‘belief’ and ‘Dan’s messages from ‘God’ end and ‘Dan’s delusions and their agenda begin.

  126. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 849PM:

    Upon all of which he then lards on the now-familiar deceptive manipulation that presumes allegants are “victims” and that thus they aren’t getting “the justice they deserve”.

    And ‘Dan’ – perhaps  realizing on some level that his stuff here can’t quite stand up on its own – quickly lards on a God’ll-getcha threat, just to top it all off.

  127. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 951PM:

    Here we get more silly (and distracting) word-play, this time with something about Satan being “the Accuser” – apropos of nothing clear – which then (slyly) platforms a riff on my being “The False Accuser”.

    What can this mean?

    ‘Dan’ quickly deploys the old I’m Not/You  Are bit: I am “trying to project [my] deceptive sickness on another” … and that sounds very familiar, since I have explicated ‘Dan’s scam here at length and often.

    And isn’t it ‘Dan’s scam – as we see so very often – to “repeat the accusations” (against priests and the Church) “enough, then that becomes truth” … ?  How often has he repeated both a) his accusations against Catholicism and the Church and priests and b) his claims as to being some speshully-appointed Deputy Dawg of God? And then claimed that if you can’t see the “truth” of his stuff then that’s just “ignorant” and “stupid” and so on?

  128. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 951PM:

    Then some queasy combination of the pearl-clutching and the macho: he’s gonna tell us “just how sick and tired” he is.

    “Sick and tired” of what? Why, of “casting pearls before swine”. The prophetic Deputy Dawg is “sick and tired” of not getting the respect his bottom-of-the-cereal-box plastic badge deserves. Can’t I see it pinned to his heaving prophetic bosom there?

    Yes, I can see it. And it’s plastic and it still has cornflakes stuck to it.

  129. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 951PM:

    And he’s “sick and tired” of being surrounded by “liars”.

    But I can agree with him about this: I’m happy I only have to deal with him on the internet. Because clearly – and by his own telling – an awful lot of people have encountered him in person and he gave them such cause for concern that he wound up in jail and before a judge and in court-ordered psychiatric stays a number of times. Are there “hundreds” of liars involved in all of that, or is there just the one who’s telling the story?

    Oh, and since I’m such a “liar” – and we can take ‘Dan’s word for it – then I can’t “decide whether [‘Dan’ is] truly” God’s Deputy Dawg or not. This is the key switcheroo in ‘Dan’s delusional economy: nobody can; ‘Dan’ has arranged his personal cartoon precisely to prevent his having to accept the responses of anyone who questions him and his stuff. That’s what a nice, tight Fixed Delusional System will get you.

  130. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 957PM:

    Here he – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttt? – tries a further comeback that actually serves only to dig himself deeper into the hole he has dug for himself.

    He would now have it that he has only spent “a minute or two” in his encounters with all those “hundreds” who contributed to his epic legal and psychiatric misadventures. Strange that somebody who has only “spent … a minute or two” with so many people yet has made so deeply disturbing an impression on them that they have called the police and so on.

  131. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1235AM:

    Here he has rummaged though his news-story pile to reinforce his cartoons with stuff he has read.

    How long does he expect to be waiting for any of the ever-lengthening list of ‘abuse scandals’ to prove he has been right and very clever all along?

    Dutch Abuse Report of 2011? Magdalene Laundries of a year and more ago? The Australian Royal Commission? And the Regensburg brouhaha involved mostly physical abuse claims and not sexual abuse claims. All of them have been discussed here over time.

    No doubt the Cardinal Pell matter will create the opportunity for this or that ‘scandal’ to be reignited somehow. The former priest Paul Shanley is being released from prison at age 86 (with 10 years of supervised parole yet to come), which prompted noted area torties to dust-off and deploy all the old Stampede bits and proclaim that even at the age of 86 Shanley is a danger and parents should be careful of their kids wherever he is going to live.

    Surfers will toss in their board wherever and whenever any wave looks like it might give them another  ride.

    • Dan says:

      The pig oinks "Regensburg brouhaha". 500 choir boys physically abused and at times violently, along with 67 sexually abused combined with sexual violence, and this you label a "brouhaha". You consider these multiple crimes against innocent young boys, basically a fuss over nothing? The church never disputed these claims, but pope ratzinger's brother has this to say, "I KNEW that the rector there was VIOLENT and would beat the boys HARD, and that he would do it for NO reason." The report faulted Ratzinger "in particular for 'looking away' or for failing to intervene." "Looking away", or falsely accusing innocent victims, the modus operandi of your cult when it comes to their heinous crimes against innocence. In your case excusing, defending, enabling and minimizing their malfeasances. Add to this you're defending of a convicted serial sexual predator, Paul Shanley. Why not make him a saint of your cult of perverts, pedophiles and predators?

      The Dutch Abuse Report of 2011, the Magdalene Laundries and The Australian Royal Commission, just help cement the fact that these disgusting crimes are systemic and worldwide.

      The rest of your ignorant, stupid nonsense and mocking I refuse to comment on. Since you feel so compelled to repeatedly call me the "Deputy Dawg of God", then perhaps we can from here on out consider you the Deputy Dung of the Devil. You are one sick, lying, mocking bastard who needs to be stopped. Any catholic defending or agreeing with your insidious garbage would have to have their head examined, or attend a cult desensitization. servant of God

  132. Publion says:

    We’ve seen how easy it is to make allegations. We’ve seen the allegation-stories from Milligan’s book that may well constitute the gravamen of the charges against Cardinal Pell. (Although the Aussie police still haven’t gotten around to actually saying what the charges are, even though they were quick enough to announce they were bringing charges.)

    We have already seen cases, examined here, where “allegations” garnered rather substantial payouts without any demonstration of veracity. That was the key gambit of the Stampede for decades: make allegations, get settlements, and cash the checks. Now we see that the tort attorneys and SNAP may very well have been in cahoots in a kickback scam.

    We have nothing but allegations. The Philadelphia Archdiocese gave Billy Doe/Gallagher 5 million even though his stories and his claim were utterly improbable and even impossible.

    The Maskell matter is the subject of the most recent article on this site.

    We’ve seen all this before.

  133. Publion says:

    On the 28th at 523PM ‘Dan’ doth declare my point that “there haven’t been very many demonstrated and proven cases” to be “absolutely false and an outright lie” (with exclamation point for emphasis). He goes on to assert, claim and pronounce that “there are thousands of cases of proven and admitted guilt”, plus “many secretly paid-off victims” plus “many priests and hierarchy who think …” and so on.

    He provides no factual basis for his numbers here, and that cannot be surprising since there is no reliable basis that would support the factuality of his claims here.

    Instead these phantasmagoric numbers are just a (very necessary) element in ‘Dan’s cartoon-structure.

  134. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 532PM:

    Then we get – yet again – his stab at mimicking competent analytic language with his deployment of “systemic”. He does not explain what he thinks “systemic” means in relation to the Church here, and for all we know it’s simply another bit of masquerade slathered over his basic cartoons.

    From which phantasmagoria he then proceeds to make the assertion that the Church must have classes for this sort of thing (i.e. the stuff claimed in his cartoons) or some sort of ‘mentoring’ arrangement.

    But we are to accept that it is somebody else – and surely not ‘Dan’ – who qualifies as “sick” and “hypocrite” and as being a “deceiver”.  Readers may judge as they will.

  135. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 537PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ bleats that his comments to which I referred in mine of the 27th at 213PM and 217PM were indeed “answers” (to my “dumb” questions) but … I am just “too ignorant to figure that out”.

    With any of ‘Dan’s “answers” – doncha see? – you have to ‘figure out’ how they are actually “answers”.

    Which is rarely easy since most of his “answers” – as I pointed out then – aren’t really answers at all; instead, they are merely ‘comebacks’ or ‘repetitions’ of his already-questionable stuff.

    And – clutching his pearls and his plastic Biblical Deputy Dawg badge – he doth bleat that I “only think [his] Biblical quotes are something [I] can dispute, instead of learning from” (sic).

    I don’t dispute the actual Biblical quotes; I dispute ‘Dan’s interpretation of them. Much can be learned about God and life from the Biblical quotes; nothing such can be learned from ‘Dan’s stuff except about ‘Dan’s own cartoon problems.

    And as a useful side-project, readers can review my sequence of posts on the 27th and tote up how many questions and points ‘Dan’ avoided ‘answering’.

  136. Dan says:

    I couldn't help but notice how you conveniently avoided any comment on my post July 26 @ 7:54am. Let me repeat it for you, because I believe it gives credence to your poor understanding and misinterpretations of Bible verse and Scripture.

    "Apparently you don't know the Bible or understand it as well as you want to make others believe you do. Jesus never said to the women at the well, "Go and sin no more." That would be the prostitute that the pharisees wanted to stone. You might want to read the Bible before you attempt to claim that you have the right interpretations."

    Didn't want you to miss an opportunity to make more excuses for your ignorance.