It’s About Time! Disgraced Group SNAP Finally Apologizes to Falsely Accused Priest Whom It Smeared

Rev. Xiu Hui Joseph Jiang

Finally getting his long overdue apology: Rev. Xiu Hui 'Joseph' Jiang

The lawyer-funded hate group SNAP has issued a formal apology to St. Louis priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang, whom it had falsely accused of abusing children and maliciously branded a "pedophile."

The apology was released this afternoon by the Archdiocese of St. Louis but first reported by Robert Patrick at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Jeannette Cooperman at St. Louis Magazine.

SNAP's apology reads as follows (emphasis added):

"The SNAP defendants never want to see anyone falsely accused of a crime. Admittedly, false reports of clergy sexual abuse do occur. The SNAP defendants have no personal knowledge as to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang and acknowledge that all matters and claims against Fr. Jiang have either been dismissed or adjudicated in favor of Fr. Jiang. SNAP acknowledges that false claims of clergy sexual abuse injure those clerics falsely accused and the Roman Catholic Church. SNAP apologizes for any false or inaccurate statements related to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang that it or its representatives made which in any way disparaged Fr. Joseph Jiang, Archbishop Robert J. Carlson, Monsignor Joseph D. Pins and the Archdiocese of St. Louis."

As regular readers of this site already know, SNAP's apology caps a long, five-year battle by Fr. Jiang to clear his name and restore his trashed reputation. Along the way:

  • Law enforcement dropped all criminal charges against the innocent Fr. Jiang;
  • Fr. Jiang discovered his accuser already had a long and sordid legal past;
  • A federal judge ruled that SNAP indeed defamed Fr. Jiang and ordered that SNAP reimburse his legal fees, totaling $25,100;
  • Another judge ordered one of Jiang's bogus accusers to pay the legal expenses of both Jiang and the Archdiocese of St. Louis, totaling $48,516.84; and
  • A jury took mere minutes to swiftly exonerate Fr. Jiang in a two-week civil lawsuit.

Bravo to Fr. Jiang for fighting the good fight for truth and justice.

Comments

  1. Good to see!

  2. Joanne says:

    My heart went out to Rev. Jiang from the beginning. The man escaped religious persecution in China only to be falsely maligned here in the United States. 

  3. Norm says:

    SNAP should have been sued out of existence!

    • KenW says:

      I think it speaks volumes that the plaintiffs only asked for the defendents to cover costs and gave SNAP opportunity to publicly correct their mistake. If SNAP had done that to me, I'd have crushed them.

  4. Mark Taylor says:

    Funny thing. I was thinking of the Rev Jiang earlier today. This is good news. Too bad Barbara Blaine never aplogized before leaving. In fact, she continued to smear this priest on her Facebook page and what was so disturbing was that everyone seemed to buy her lies. https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=barbara%20blaine&ref=eyJzaWQiOiIwLjQ4ODk2MDQyOTQwOTI5MDg1IiwicXMiOiJKVFZDSlRJeVltRnlZbUZ5WVNVeU1HSnNZV2x1WlNVeU1pVTFSQSIsImd2IjoiYmVlMDlmOTNmYTczMmNmYTU5YTFjYjZkOWY0NTBkMzg5MjQyNGU0OSIsImVudF9pZHMiOltdLCJic2lkIjoiY2M4MWI3MDIyYjg4NTkwNmIwY2Q5MGZlYTUyOGQ0NWIifQ

  5. Jim Robertson says:

    Will Fr. Jiang sue SNAP? If not why not?

    Love in the apology SNAP chose to say, "Admittedly false reports of clerical sex abuse do occur." Was that sentence necessary to apologize to one priest? And then later "SNAP admits that false claims of clergy sex abuse injurs those clerics falsely accused and the Roman Catholic church." Why did they admit that as part of an apology to one man? We all know that a false accusation is the worst thing you can do to someone regaurding sex abuse of children but why is SNAP being so destructive towards other victims with real claims. What lawyer would agree to an apology like this if they were advising SNAP? Will any possibility of a suit by Fr. Jiang against SNAP be dropped because of this apology?.

  6. Jim Robertson says:

    I see how the church should be included in this apology even though the church has hidden hundreds and transferred thousands of perpetrators of sex abuse of children. False accusations do hurt the church. But SNAP wasn't supposed to be making false accusations. It never had before yet it did. After 27 years of keeping themselves clean they blow a more recent claim and right in St. Louis their hometown. A miracle.. The odds of that happening if SNAP were truely a lawyers front would be zip. Just an error with a national apology as the scandal winds slowly down. All planned by SNAP's real owners the church.

    You, here, think all or a large part of victims' accusations are false but thy're not. The vast majority are true.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      TMR, after dealing with P you expect me to remember anything you post?

      So did Fr. Jiang settle the case? Win the case? Or withdraw the case?  Is the apology SNAP has given a part of some settlement?

       

  7. malcolm harris says:

    This really is the result of people making the right decisions. In particular deciding to put up a fight for those falsely accused. I guess Archbishop Robert Carlson made that decision… and so I give much credit to him.  Incidentally the apology made by SNAP is lacking in one respect. Because whilst working as an auditor I learned that any organization is only as good as the people who run it. In particular their honesty, diligence, and dedication. Meaning that certain people in SNAP must have made the decision to defame the priest. Yet they were not named? They should have been.

    • Dan says:

      I'm glad to see that "the Church" is able to come up with the few, cherry-picked cases of fraud, and we're sure going to hear about it shouted from the rooftops. Malcolm, I'm glad to hear of your experience as an "auditor" has helped you learn "that any organization is only as good as the people who run it. In particular their honesty, diligence, and dedication", although that knowledge should be available to anyone with an ounce of common sense. Let me add that it can only be as good as its members, also.

      So why don't we consider how "the church" stacks up to those qualities. a) honesty – I have never come across such a large number of liars and deceivers from one group or religion. b) diligence – "the church" has been most diligent in denying, excusing, minimalizing, hiding and transferring the pedophiles and perverts of their cult, in order to keep their malfeasances secret. c) dedication – The church has displayed an uncanny dedication to protect it's horrible reputation, by any means, in order to preserve the impression that it is the One True Church. Possibly only true to itself and the hypocrites who run it".

  8. Dan says:

    Why don't we have an unbiased discussion in regards to the 99% of other cases, where the perverts were convicted, admitted guilt, "the Church" found accusations to be credible, those weasels who got off on the Statute of Limitations, or the other lucky ones who died before they could be charged and convicted. I would say that would be a fair way to "Separate Fact from Fiction". "It's About Time!"

    • KenW says:

      Hi Dan. Funny that you should bring up SOL’s. Cus’ in most states, SOL’s in sexual abuse cases are nil to none on the criminal side, yet those same states have SOL’s for sexual abuse cases on the civil side. That means that any accuser can simply dial 911 and report it as a crime, yet they don’t. They instead -choose- to circumvent civil SOL’s by claiming “Repressed Memory Syndrome”. Why is that?!?!

    • Dan says:

      Well, Gee, Ken, I don't know, but I'm sure you guys will have the answer to that one, because you seem to have excuses for everyone of the crimes of your perverted hierarchy. I looked at only a few diocese yesterday in BishopAccountability.org and was disgusted with the individual stories I read. And I didn't cherry-pick and read only what I thought was a benefit to some agenda. Way too many fell under the categories I stated on Nov.29 @ 3:03am. Not only that, but some of the convictions were cases where the pedophilia or pederasty was reported at the time of the incident and nothing was done to stop the pervert and he went on for several years or decades to commit multiple crimes against innocent children. I'm sure you fellas can come up, along with liar and excuser extraordinaire publiar, with several excuses or attacks against BishopAccountability.org. Scratch that theory, TMR has already labeled them as a hate group. "Funny" how anyone exposing the disgusting filth of "the church" is labeled as a hate group or anti-catholic bigot. All you excusers and defenders of the creeps of your cult should be apalled at the deceit and filth, instead of defending it and making excuses for their nasty crimes.   servant of the Lord, "The light that shines in the darkness and the darkness shall never extinguish it." John 1:5

  9. malcolm harris says:

    In reply to Dan's comment on the 29th, and his damning criticism of the Catholic Church. I will just say this…. because it rests upon his own claimed knowledge of the gospels, At one point Jesus told his disciples that he was the vine and they were the branches. If  they lived on in him… they would bear fruit. But separated from Him they would be pruned off… like dead wood and thrown on the rubbish heap.  If  we were as bad as Dan says then the power of God would have cut us off long ago. But at the moment about one fifth of the world's population are Catholics. Now that's a big vine? Dan, do you really think God lacks your smarts.?  You are kidding yourself Dan, but sadly… there are many like you.

    • Dan says:

      I will prove to you, using the gospels, that the size of your church has absolutely nothing to do with it's members being the saved of this world. Apparently the verses I've previously quoted have gone in one ear and right out of the other, Malcolm.

      "Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and MANY are those who enter by it (like 1.2 billion). How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! FEW are those who find it (those who obey God's Word, refuse to fall into the trap of greed, lust and idolatry, and then take the Word and put it into practice). Matthew 7:13-14  This does not mean that the some of the 1.2 billion can't come out and remove themselves from the deception of "the cult" and be saved.

      "Either make the tree good, and it's fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit."  Matthew 12:33

      "Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit." Matthew 7:17

      So in other words, if your cult has many bad fruits (pedophile perverts), molesting and raping innocent young children, boys preferably, then it is most definitely a bad tree, and it will be in the end chopped down and thrown into the fires of Hell. All these quotes were taken directly from the mouth of Christ, so you just might want to quit "kidding yourself", Malcolm, but it seems there are many deceived catholics that are just like you. The only reason that God is holding off the destruction of your church, is because He wants to give all a chance to be saved. "The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9 You shouldn't test his patience, because it just may end any day now.  servant

       

       

    • Dan says:

      And Malcolm, you can't cherry pick the quotes from the Word that suit your agenda, without considering the other verses of the Bible. Read it often and appreciate God's wisdom, and if "the church" you belong to thinks they know better than Biblical truth, get clear away from them. In time they will receive the punishment they so rightly deserve. Remember, God is patient. The catholic church will suffer the destruction He has promised. Let no one fool you.

  10. Publion says:

    On the 28th at 720PM JR will try to salvage something of his usual shtick. Thus we get the “hundreds” and “thousands” bit of enumeration. The numbers come from … someplace in JR’s mind or agenda.

    Further, that – we can take JR’s word for it – SNAP “never had before” made “false accusations” and had been “keeping themselves clean” for “27 years”. We can take JR’s word for it.

    But there’s a method to all that madness: JR was working up to – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – an insinuation, and an insinuation that would – tah dahhhhhhh – keep his Total Church Conspiracy thing going. Because – doncha see? – if SNAP had been doing so well all along, then why did it suddenly make such a grossly obvious mistake with Fr. Jiang … and “right in St. Louis their hometown”.

    This can only be – we can take JR’s word for it – “a miracle”. Or else – JR’s actual objective here – it is clear proof that SNAP’s exposure was planned by the Church in order to get rid of SNAP because it was no longer useful (the same way, we recall, that ‘the Church’ got the feds to take down the Philly DA and maybe even got the Philly DA to commit all those things for which he has been convicted … and so on).

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 28th at 720PM:

    SNAP was a front for the torties; it became that from Blaine’s meeting with Anderson in early 1988. But SNAP wasn’t run by the torties. I’ll go so far as to say that there are plenty of things the torties wouldn’t like to see come out in public, but they – at least – are to some extent covered by attorney-client privilege. Yet the checks the torties wrote to SNAP are in the record.

    And with the Stampede going at full tilt, who was going to question SNAP? And secure in that sense of assurance, then things were done at SNAP and by its operational staff that they never imagined would ever come to light because nobody would ever ever question SNAP.

    But that was then.

    Fast-forward to the present day and Fr. Jiang fought back and suddenly SNAP finds itself exposed.

    Oh, and you can take JR’s word for it that “the vast majority” of “victims’ accusations” are “true”. Since I doubt JR was present at any instance of anybody’s abuse except his (alleged) own, then how can he possibly ‘know’ that? (Short answer: he can’t and he doesn’t, but it’s a necessary bit to keep his shtick going.)

  12. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 255AM:

    ‘Dan’s solution to this grossly inconvenient development in St. Louis is to wave it all away as merely being on of “the few, cherry-picked cases of fraud”.

    If it were merely that, why did Clohessy head for the hills? And it is certainly within the realm of possibility that the stress of exposure contributed to Blaine’s sudden demise (unless, of course, you go the JR route and suspect that the Church did her in).

    ‘Dan’ then lectures on “common sense” and readers may derive from that such entertainment as it may well afford.

    And his comment trails off with more of his usual stuff yet again.

  13. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 303AM:

    Here he bleats as to why “don’t we have an unbiased discussion in regards to the 99% of other cases” …

    After the chuckle over ‘Dan’ exhorting about “unbiased” fades, one might well ask where he has gotten that “99%” figure. Well, of course, he just ‘knows’ it – perhaps from whatever entities appear to him in those bathroom mirror séances.

    He raises the point about the Church having found accusations to be “credible”.

    First, the term “credible” simply means that an allegation might be rationally considered to be possibly true. It is not at all the same as, say, the term “demonstrated” (to be true), let alone ‘proven’.

    Second, regular readers may recall that at the height of the Stampede in the early 00’s the parameters of that term “credible” were rather elastic; as I mentioned here at one point a while back when this topic came up, one definition of “credible” was if an allegant and an accused priest lived in the same geographical area at the time of the alleged incident; if they did share a geographical proximity (itself a term with elastic parameters) then the allegation was “credible”.

    • Dan says:

      Most all dictionaries define "credible" as; able to be believed, convincing, able to be trusted, trustworthy, worthy of belief, convincing.

      But when your a bonafied catholic lying, deceiving, manipulating schmuck, named publiar, then "credible" defined becomes – " SIMPLY means that an allegation MIGHT be rationally considered to be POSSIBLY true". What a bunch of gobbledygook! Then he'll turn around accusing opponents of "word-play" or "the Stampede" of having a "rather elastic" definition of the word.

      Don't you understand, when you're catholic, you get to make-up your own definitions and you don't agree with Biblical truth, because you have your own catechism, where corrupt popes and bishops made-up their own teachings to supersede God's Word, with all of it's contradictions. So a lying manipulator can misinterpret the Bible and claim someone who follows the Word is mentally delusional and whacked. Does he even believe that God will allow him to change the meaning of His Word and mock Him and His servants, and there will not be a price to be paid. You will pay a high price with your eternal soul. Again, no threat, just a promise.  servant of the Lord

    • Dan says:

      bona fide – before jackass claims my misspelling proves my whackiness.

  14. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 303AM:

    There have been far fewer “convictions” than ‘Dan’ seems to imagine. Have there been even a hundred actual criminal convictions, over the past 30 or 35 years covering the whole 70 or 80 years worth of allegated abuses?

    And it is – as I pointed out here recently – now the subject of studies and professional concern that a) the practice of ‘admitting guilt’ to avoid a much longer sentence is widespread in contemporary American criminal justice (and I would say even more so in Stampede-type trials) and b) we now know that at least one priest in that long Philadelphia Billy-Doe sequence has admitted that he took a proffered plea-bargain because he “didn’t want to die in jail”, which is a rather un-heroic but surely understandable choice, and hardly a groundless fear, since another priest in that sequence did indeed die in jail.

    And ‘Dan’ then tries to bring his vaudeville performance home with an exhortation to “Separate Fact from Fiction”. Let the chuckles roll on.

    • Dan says:

      The publiar oinks while stuffing his face with popcorn, "Have there even been a hundred actual criminal convictions…? If it's even possible that there were less than a hundred convictions, as I've said, the SOLs were definitely helpful in keeping that number down, secret settlements another factor and prolonged cases so the guilty creep had a chance to die before being prosecuted. What don't you get, publiar? If your cult was the True Church of God, then there would not be a single case of sexual crimes against innocent children. You have no right as a supposed Church of God to claim that it happens in secular society too. As the Scripture reads, "A dog returns to it's own vomit, and the sow [pig], after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire [mud]." 2 Peter 2:22

      "Like a dog that returns to it's vomit is a fool who repeats his folly." Proverbs 26:11

      There were many criminal pedophiles and perverted priests who repeated their crimes with several, dozens or hundreds of innocent children. Also, I'll expect the popcorn eating pig to return with more of his vomit, larded on with extra fake buttered lies, slander and excuses.

    • Dan says:

      Glad to see you think this is just some "vaudeville performance" and something you can chuckle about. You are one despicable immature deceiving creep.

  15. Publion says:

    And on to JR’s of the 29th at 457PM:

    TMR had pointed out – and it clearly had to be pointed out to JR – that Fr. Jiang had indeed sued SNAP (and that lawsuit’s outcome was the topic of this very thread here).

    If any reader had ever wondered if JR is a serial and chronic self-excuser, then this comment of JR’s should provide a pretty solid lead to the answer.

    It’s not his fault that he made such a howler – doncha see? – because – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttt? – it’s my fault. And it’s my fault – doncha see? – because JR had to spend so much time and energy on my material. Thus it’s not his fault that he couldn’t keep such obvious facts straight.

    He is – of course – insistent that he is a reliable and credible source of “truth” when it comes to his own story and anything about SNAP and anything about ‘victims’ and anything about the Church and so on and so forth.

  16. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 457PM:

    And then – in an attempt to recover his ‘creds’ by asking a series of questions – he unwittingly reveals that he hasn’t really read (or understood) the TMR article on this very thread, since a) the case was not ‘settled’ but rather a jury returned a verdict b) that Fr. Jiang did indeed ‘win’ the case (and was even awarded costs by the jury) and thus c) Fr. Jiang did not “withdraw the case” and thus d) SNAP’s statement is not part of any “settlement” since there was no such settlement.

    As I have said, Abuseniks only have their pre-programmed shtick; they don’t bother to let facts interfere and apparently don’t even bother to read material (especially if it’s bad news for their shtick).

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Shut up fuck face! Nobody wants to hear your shit.

      Fr Jiang took no money from SNAP just his legal costs? Does that make sense to any truthful person here?

      Seems like this was just another SNAP failure created by the church. No damages for harming Fr. Jiang! and now SNAP apologizes for no reason? An apology that admits harm to clerics and the church by false victims with no false victim??????  More miracles than Fatima! You all must think we real victims are idiots.

  17. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 653PM:

    ‘Dan’ can’t answer the question posed by ‘Ken W’. So what does ‘Dan’ do?

    He goes for the childish snark: he doesn’t know, but he quickly then tries to neutralize any conclusions by anybody else by preemptively trying to spin them as “excuses”.

    And then – in an effort to bolster that queasy bit – he declares that he had been doing some research himself … on the Bishop-Accountability site. This is the organization that had to be forced to put up a warning that it could not and did not vouch for the accuracy of any of the stuff on its site.

    But on the basis of his ‘research’ in such a trough, ‘Dan’ can quickly launch into his usual histrionics, declaring himself “disgusted” with the “stories” and so on.

    And he tries to wrap it all up with a pericope, as usual.

  18. Publion says:

    Popcorn alert – get some now before you settle in to read ‘Dan’s latest pair of comments.

    On the 30th at 444PM ‘Dan’ doth inform ‘Malcolm Harris’ that ‘Dan’ “will now prove to you, using the gospels” that … size has nothing to do with it.

    ‘Dan’ does not run a “cult”, as we know. His religion-of-one, with himself presiding as speshull Deputy Dawg over himself as sole congregant, is too small to really qualify even as a cult. It’s just ‘Dan’.

    But ‘Dan’ has that pile of 3x5s and he now pulls out a few periciopes that seem (to him) not only apt and relevant but utterly dispositive of his assertions.

    • Dan says:

      And we must return to the immature mocking. What would you have without it? Only long- winded ignorance, stupidity and nonsense.

  19. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 444PM:

    He starts off with quotation marks, properly enough, but then – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – he has to lard in his own preferred take since – alas – the actual Scriptural text doesn’t seem to do the work ‘Dan’ wants it to do for him. Thus the parenthetical stage-directions that seek to manipulatively ensure that readers see in the text a) not just what is actually there but also b) what ‘Dan’ sees in the text, which  – surprise, surprise – is not actually there in the text.

    In fact – as ‘Dan’s own comment here demonstrates – he gets so wrapped up in his own stuff that he loses track of where the Scriptural pericope ends and the ‘Dan’-stuff begins; thus the quotation marks that begin the pericope are not closed off with a necessary end-of-quotation marks.

    ‘Dan’ just can’t help revealing his whackness.

    • Dan says:

      "surprise, surprise" Gomer, it's actually in the text, but you refuse to see or listen. Oh! And I committed a crime because I forgot the quotes at the end of the verse. And you were dumb enough not to figure out where the verse ended? Probably where it said Matthew 7:13-14, should have tipped you off, idiota.

  20. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 444PM:

    The pericope from Matthew 12:33 demonstrates ‘Dan’s Bible-interpretation game as he deploys it against Catholicism: he deploys the logically fallacious bit known in the grammar and logic fields as the Fallacy of Composition: if X is true of some part of the whole, then X is true for all of the whole.

    Thus, for example, if a vehicle’s tires are made of rubber, then the whole vehicle is made of rubber. That sort of thing.

    Here, ‘Dan’ will try to define all of Catholicism by the failures of some of its adherents. Thus: some (and we still haven’t actually determined how large or small that “some” is) priests have abused, therefore all priests or all of Catholicism … and so on.

    Ditto with the next pericope, from Matthew 7:17.

    • Dan says:

      It's terribly odd that you think all Bible verse is "logically fallacious", especially "pericopes" that apply to you and your cult. Scratch that, I forgot you're a catholic with your own catechism bible, your own goddess, and your own truths, which qualify as nothing but lies. Well done, you idolatrous deceiving hypocrite.

  21. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 444PM:

    But having placed his foundation with that sand, he then proceeds to build on it with his usual effort to merge the text with his own stuff: “So, in other words” … which a) actually only provides more manipulative merging of the actual text with his own favorite fever-visions and which b) should probably more accurately read ‘So, in ‘Dan’s words …’.

    Which bit he also then tries to further reinforce by pointing out that the pericopes reflect statements that are “taken directly from the mouth of Christ”. Which merely seeks to merge ‘Dan’s stuff with Christ’s words. With ‘Dan’s gambits one might often be reminded of a submarine trying to sneak into a harbor by hiding under a ship legitimately passing through the anti-submarine nets.

  22. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 444PM:

    And he tries to bring it all home with the text of 2 Peter 3:9. But if Peter is saying here – as he does – that God is “patient”, then who the frak is ‘Dan’ to start muttering threats about God losing His patience?

    But – as we know – ‘Dan’ is never content merely to masquerade his deceitfully manipulative fever-visions as representing God’s own Mind and Will. Rather, ‘Dan’ will go even further and presume to know God’s Mind and Will (and perhaps even God’s ‘schedule’) such that you have to accept ‘Dan’s stuff or else you reject God’s.

    • Dan says:

      In one fine display of demonstrating what it means to be "a wolf in sheep's clothing", publiar uses the word "frak", the fictitious substitute for f_ _k. He thinks to himself, I'm such a good person, because I would never use swear words. I only lie, slander and falsely accuse others, and excuse catholic pedophilia and perverts, because I'm a hypocrite, but I would never cuss. At the same time he demonstrates that his vocabulary is just about as fictitious (fake) as he is.  servant of the Truth

    • Dan says:

      I was not "muttering threats about God", only saying that it wouldn't be wise to test His patience, as you so often do with your lies and mocking. Not "threats" at all, just a warning that you refuse to hear.

  23. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 451PM:

    The popcorn alert remains in force as we here have ‘Dan’ admonishing one and all that “you can’t cherry pick the quotes from the Word that suit your agenda”. Really? ‘Dan’ does this and more as his standard operating procedure – as we have so often seen here.

    And that “more” includes the fact that – given the depth of ‘Dan’s manipulative delusionality – he can take just about any quote and twist it into his own stuff.

    But then: he hasn’t ever resolved the problem such as the date of Jesus’ birth, with the two irreconcilable timeframes given in Matthew (2:1) and Luke (2:1-3). But “it’s in the Bible” and ‘Dan’s fundie-derived Biblical literalism is clearly demonstrated here to have some holes in it.

    As regular readers may recall, he once tried to plaster over this problem by claiming something along the lines of God providing secret understanding to genuine believers that enables them – but not anyone else – to resolve the problem. It’s a ‘secret’ – doncha see? – known only to ‘Dan’ and maybe a couple-three others.

    Let no one be fooled … as ‘Dan’ has so thoroughly fooled himself.

    • Dan says:

      Son of Satan, Do you think you're clever enough to trick me with your manipulations and deceit? I don't believe there is any "irreconcilable" differences in the "timetable". In Matt. 2:1 states that Jesus was born in the village of Bethlehem in Judea, Herod was king (of the Jews). Luke 2:1-3 states that Emperor Augustus (of Rome) asked for the record books of the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Joseph went to his hometown of birth, Bethlehem in Judea, where Mary gave birth to Jesus. Absolutely no contradictions. They were all reigning in their perspective different positions during Jesus' birth. So the only holes may be the ones in your head?

      Now since the Bible can be taken literally, I must say that my "perspective" is right on in claiming that catholics, especially the hierarchy and publiars, are the cowardly, abominable, murderers, unbelieving, greedy, idolaters, sexually immoral and blatant liars that shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone. And Isaiah 44, Jeremiah 44, Matthew 23 and 24, and Rev.17-18, 21:8, compounded with all your lies and deceit, definitely prove your cult to fit the description of unbiblical false teachers, idolaters, perverts and their excusers, and full of terrible liars, of which you are one of the worst. servant of God

    • Publion says:

      And what does JR do when confronted with his own mistakes?

      On the 1st at 941PM he first resorts to scatology and we’re back to that table in the back of the cafeteria in days of yore. But JR still expects to be considered a reliable source of thought and information. Go figure.

      He then falls back on insinuation: it couldn’t be that Fr. Jiang “took no money from SNAP just his legal costs”, opines the Wig of Law. Well, if the jury only awarded costs and no damages or punitive damages then that’s all Fr. Jiang was awarded by the jury. We don’t have the actual Complaint to see what monetary categories were requested.

      And in any case the point is irrelevant to the core fact that Fr. Jiang won the lawsuit.

      But JR has only the one shtick and he has to keep it going. Thus to JR “it seems like” – had you been waitttinggggg forrr ittttttttttttttt? – this was “just another SNAP failure created by the Church”. Thus, then, that the Church arranged for SNAP to be exposed and arranged for the jury to find in Fr. Jiang’s success. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 1st at 941PM:

      SNAP “apologizes for no reason”? If SNAP didn’t apologize after having been determined by a jury to have caused such harm to Fr. Jiang, then SNAP would damage whatever credibility it has left.  It is PR 101 that SNAP would have to somehow demonstrate that it had any decency left at all.

      And then JR apparently – had you been waittingggg forrr ittttt? – loses track of his thoughts: somehow the case contains “more miracles than Fatima”. Readers who can suss out the rationality in that bit are welcome to share it.

      And he tries – marvelously – to bring the performance home with a self-serving advertisement for “we real victims”. As to who may qualify in the idiot department  … readers may judge as they will.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 755PM:

      Apparently trying to channel (or mimic) Jesus confronting this or that demon, ‘Dan’ doth address me as “Son of Satan” (he not only assigns titles to himself, but to others) and so on.

      On then to the nub of the problem: the irreconcilable difference between the Matthean and Lucan birth narratives, as I noted above (comment on the 1st at 206PM).

      And here – marvelously – ‘Dan’ demonstrates his abyssal lack of Biblical chops: no problem, says ‘Dan’ because while Herod  was king Emperor Augustus “called for the record books of the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria”.

      So ‘Dan’ has merely strung together the two accounts one after the other and declared them to have no irreconcilable difference because – popcorn alert! – “they were all reigning in their perspective different positions during Jesus’ birth”. No doubt the term ‘respective’ is what is required here, rather than ‘Dan’s “perspective”.

      But Herod the Great (who was called “King of the Jews” by the Romans) died in 4BC and Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6-7AD. Herod had been dead for about a decade when Quirinius was governor.

      There is most absolutely a contradiction. And the only holes are the ones in ‘Dan’s Biblical chops.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 755PM:

      Having thus satisfied himself as to his creds and chops, ‘Dan’ will quickly move on to his preferred stuff, which is just the usual plop-tossing at Catholics and so on and so forth.

      And threatening with the God’ll-getcha stuff and so on. 

    • Dan says:

      Thanks for correcting "perpective" and now I'll help you with your historical "chops" which I believe will back my "Biblical chops". "Records indicate that Quirinius was no minor figure in Roman politics", in "The Deeds of Augustus by Augustus placing him consul as early as 12 B.C.", and "was indeed governing in some capacity in this region"* at the time of Christ's birth. I've also seen the death of Herod at 4 BC/ 1 CE. Wouldn't 1 CE place him as living in the time of Christ's birth.                       *Quoted from BibleHistory.net

      I'm sure you'll have a rebuttal, but the Bible asks that I don't undertake such arguments, so this will be the last on this subject for me. Strange how you would rather dispute and find controversy or contradiction in God's Word, rather than ever accepting His beautiful Word.

      "But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."  Titus 3:9  Sounds like we should take that literally to me.

    • Dan says:

      Oh gee, I missed the s in "perspective". Better correct that before persnickety p catches it.

  24. Jim Robertson says:

    Let us know Pliar when you are through lying?

  25. malcolm harris says:

    On the 1st, JR makes the comment… "Let us know Pilar when you are through lying".  This is an interesting question. I mean for everybody and in a general sense. How do we separate fact from fiction?. For example, an Italian monk called Padre Pio, was talking to a guy who was doubting his faith. The guy said he personally did not believe in hell. But  Padre Pio simply replied "You will believe it when you get there".  Should we believe the monk? Well… given that this same monk suffered stigmata, in his hands and feet, for fifty years and endured.  Examined by numerous doctors, they could not explain the absence of infection. (there were no antibiotics or tetanus shots in those days) And also that his dead body was later found to be uncorrupted… after forty years in his grave.. So I would submit that his track record gave him a great deal of credibility. Fear of hell is not nice to think about… it's just a question of who we choose to believe. 

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, Where do I start? First off, I don't think you're answering Jim's question at all. We all would like to know when publiar is going to stop being a liar? I really don't believe he is ever going to stop, because from my "perspective" he seems to derive great joy from lying about others, seeing that he's willing to repeat the same lies quite often, even after being corrected.

      Secondly, to use Padre PeeHole as an example of honesty or "credibility" is absolutely hilarious. Are you not aware that if the stigmata in his hands was true and correct, the nails holes would have to be placed above the wrist and not centered in the palm? Are you aware that the deceiving creep was known to purchase acid, supposedly used to burn the marks in his hands. If the marks were real and not faked, then they are in the wrong place, which would more likely indicate that the miracle came from the devil and not God.

      "Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And with all deception of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10

      And are you aware that saints they claimed were incorruptible were many times repaired with waxed faces and hands, and yet claimed by "the Church" to be incorruptible? Sounds pretty corrupt and nothing but lies and deception to me. So in the end "it's just a question of who we choose to believe?" Apparently catholics choose to believe a false cult plagued with liars and deceivers, publiar being the prime example. And as far as Hell goes, "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment." 1 John 4:18  Nothing of Hell to fear for real Christians, only for those who are heading there.

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, If you question what I'm saying in regards to the nail holes in Christ's wrists, then take a look at the Shroud of Turin and see where the blood is at the wrist, not centered in the palm.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      OMG The shroud of Turin's fabric was carbon dated to the 14th century. And Padre Pio's surety of a hell along with his stigmata are a true example of faith Malcolm: trust in horseshit.

      Let's see Malcolm alchol was never used to clean wounds untill the 20th century?  And self inflicted wounds have never been passed off as miraculous before now? Padre Pio's a man of faith offering his own body as a way of acting out that faith? Lying is sort of ignored for the greater good of FAITH.?

    • Dan says:

      Jim, Are you even aware that when they carbon dated the Shroud, they took the piece from a repair made in the 1400's. No scientist has yet to figure out how the image came to be. Doesn't matter anyway, because the Shroud is only proof for unbelievers and I believe without seeing. He's proven his existence to me in so many ways, best of all saving me from a life of Hell on earth. Sorry you don't get it. Don't know why you use OMG when you don't believe in Him?

  26. Publion says:

    ‘Dan’s most recent bunch appears in no time sequence so I’ll just take them as they appear on the site.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 227AM:

    As I said, “credible” as it is used legally and in the Church parameters does not mean – and is not synonymous with  – terms such as “proven” or “demonstrated”. And as it is applied to charges or allegations, it means that the charge or allegation is not ‘incredible’, and thus as a charge or allegation it can be treated as ‘possible’ and worth examining further.

    If – in the alternative ‘Dan’-verse bit here – “credible” is the equivalent of “proven”, then there would never be a need for any legal trials of any allegations or charges at all; instead, the mere allegation or accusation or charge alone would, if “credible”, ipso facto establish the veracity of the allegation or accusation or charge.

    So what we have from ‘Dan’ here is just more thesaurus type word-play, the little blocks and piles of play-dough that he uses to build his little plop-castles in his sandbox of cartoons.

    (I would also note that it was precisely this conceptual sleight-of-hand that was a key factor in the Victimist Playbook and the Stampede: if a ‘victim’ made an allegation then the allegation was ipso facto true and had to be believed.)

    • Dan says:

      'Dan' NEVER said, " 'credible' is the equivalent of 'proven'." So the publiar can now follow up with his usual immature ignorance and garbage (little blocks, play-dough, plop-castles and sandbox of cartoons), accusing me based upon a statement that I never made. Boy, you are one class-ass. Did you have some problem with missing your childhood, or are you just that senile that you're making up for it now?

  27. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 227AM:

    And he concludes the show by tossing up the childish ‘It wasn’t a threat; it was a warning’ bit that he also deploys on the 2nd at 1010PM.

    • Dan says:

      Only an immature ignorant baby would ignore the warnings of their Creator. Guess that sentence speaks for itself, peewee publiar.   servant

  28. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 303AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ tries to salvage what he can from his fever-vision cartoon: tip-toeing by the problem with his scare-vision of all those convictions – he glides over it all with that “even if it’s possible that there were less than a hundred convictions” – ‘Dan’ then blames the SOLs (Statutes of Limitations) for such a dearth of actual convictions of priests.

    There shoulda been – doncha see? – lots and lots more convictions. Which – as with so much of ‘Dan’s stuff – immediately transports us into the realm of the not-actually-real and the realm of the phantasmic.

    What doesn’t ‘Dan’ “get”? – one might ask. ‘Dan’ doesn’t get the distinction between demonstrated reality and his fever/scare/cartoon-visions. That’s what  nice tight delusional system will get you, especially when seated in a person who is out to impose his whackeries on everyone else he can.

  29. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 303AM:

    We also see demonstrated here one of the key elements in  ‘Dan’s ranting against the Catholicism and the Church: in “the True Church of God” – waittttt forrrrrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttttttt? – “there would be not a single case of” sin (whether “sexual crimes” or anything else).

    This is the key ‘conceit’ of the ‘Dan’-script: with any “True” Christian or Christianity, there is no sin, and perhaps can be no sin.

    Which is baloney, theologically and Scripturally. Why did Christ give Peter the power to bind and loose sins if there was to be no sin in the Christian community?

    • Dan says:

      Are you that stupid and dense? Once you become a Christian you put away the horrible disgusting sins of your past? You won't continue in them, confessing those sins to man (priests) and then go right back committing the same terrible sins over and over again. Doesn't mean you're sinless or perfect, but you wouldn't continue as a nasty pedophile pervert or insistent habitual liar. You are neither saved nor Christian, and until you humble yourself before the Lord, repent and change you will never understand Biblical Truth. You think you're too smart even for God. You have a rude awakening coming for you, publiar.  servant of the Lord

    • Dan says:

      And before I forget, that's a threat, a promise and a warning!

  30. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 303AM:

    As we have seen before with ‘Dan’s stuff, he also presumes that if one sins, then one is a “pagan” or at least not a “True Christian”. Which brings us instantly to two questions.

    First, if one then presumes that there is to be no sin among such a mythical beast as ‘Dan’s “True Christian”, and if ‘Dan’ is supposed to be one of those, then ‘Dan’ logically has to be without sin. He has previously tried to wiggle out of this problem … by harrumphing that a “True Christian” might indeed ‘make the occasional mistake’ but – popcorn alert – wouldn’t be committing any sexual sins. Because – doncha see? – ‘Dan’s cartoon system has focused on sexual sins as being the worst (Hitler and Stalin and Mao and the rest of that horde can rest easy).

    Why ‘Dan’ has thus focused on sexual sins is food for some serious thought.

    • Dan says:

      All the rest of your ignorance, stupidity and nonsense just isn't worth my time.

    • Dan says:

      Found some time to waste dealing with your repetitive ignorance. You claim I've "focused on sexual sins as being the worst", and think that gives you reason for some serious thought. Aside from serious thought being something new from you, yes, crimes of sexual nature against innocent children do rank as terrible, especially with the high numbers of victims among some of your nastiest creeps. However, I've put as much emphasis on your cult's idolatry, false teachings and compulsive lying and liars, as just some of the many horrible sins of your cult. So to insinuate that I've "focused on sexual sins", as if I'm the one obsessed with that sin, when it's totally obvious that the filthy priests and bishops of your cult are the ones with that obsession, is evil, deceiving and rotten. It seems you have no problem blaming others for the faults of your fellow creeps and possibly yours also, lying hypocrite.   servant

  31. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 303AM:

    Second, is it really an either-or situation that faces Christianity, i.e. that one is either sinless or else one is a pagan? Nobody – not even the Reformers at their most extreme – insisted on such a schema. There was even for them always the question of what to do in the matter of Christians who commit sin (bringing us right back to the power to bind and loose given to Peter by Christ).

    • Dan says:

      Like I've told you before, you need to do some serious reading in 1 John chapters 1-5 in regards to how God and the Lord feel about sin, however when it comes to Biblical knowledge, I believe your deaf, dumb and blind. Christ's Words, "Go, and sin no more."

      "For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them."  Matt. 13:15

      How could a compulsive liar ever understand with their heart, when they don't possess one?

  32. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1028PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ has merely evaded his revealing failure to close the Scriptural quotation marks I noted in his comment of the 30th at 444PM with the pericope beginning “Enter in at the narrow gate … “. In the text of ‘Dan’s comment, there is – as I pointed out – no closing quotation mark.

    But – doncha see? – the fact that he didn’t close the quotation marks doesn’t indicate that he has trouble discerning where Scripture ends and his own stuff begins; nooooooooo – it’s readers’ fault for not knowing where the quoted pericope ends and ‘Dan’s stuff begins.  Yet again, ‘Dan’s a victim – doncha see? – of all the “lies” and “ignorance” in the world.

    ‘Dan’ himself – doncha see? – must be considered “True” and truthy and wise and heroic and – not to put too fine a point on it – sinless … with the exception of ‘occasional mistakes’.

    Whatever the term “catechism bible” means is for readers to suss out. ‘Dan’ will stick with his bathroom mirror, thank you very much.

    When attending the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, bring your own popcorn … and don’t drink his tea.

    • Dan says:

      More childish stupidity from the "Mad Hatters Tea Party", publiar's made a glutton of himself and ate all the popcorn, fortunately he had plenty of Kathlic Kult Kool aid, and drank it all up.

  33. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 1018PM:

    Here we get a crystal-clear example of ‘Dan’s mendacious manipulation.

    On the 1st at 201PM I had stated “The pericope from Matthew 12:33 demonstrates ‘Dan’s Bible-interpretation game as he deploys it against Catholicism: he deploys the logically fallacious bit known in the grammar and logic fields as the Fallacy of Composition: if X is true of some part of the whole, then X is true for all of the whole. Thus, for example, if a vehicle’s tires are made of rubber, then the whole vehicle is made of rubber. That sort of thing.”

    Now ‘Dan’ tries to evade his whackery by claiming that I “think all Bible verse is logically fallacious” (sic). I don’t and I didn’t say anything of the sort. I pointed out that ‘Dan’s attempt to twist the text was logically fallacious. ‘Dan’s manipulations are the problem; not the text of the Bible.

    • Dan says:

      And sums it up with more ignorance and stupidity due to his lack of Biblical smarts.

    • Dan says:

      " 'Dan's manipulations are the problem; not the text of the Bible."

      Then tell me why obviously plain requests of God or Christ in the Bible are ignored, followed by a slew of excuses as to why "the Cult" doesn't need to obey those simple requests.

      Examples – a) "I AM the Lord thy God, and thou shalt have no other Gods before thee." Oh! It's OK. Because Mary is so speshull and Jesus is so "Awe-full". Cowards! b) "Call no one Father, you have one Father, your Father in heaven." And we'll not only call popes Father, we'll even call them Holy Father, for only pedophiles and perverted priests of our cult can be considered merely Father (i.e. Father Mary). No wonder they end up being fruitcakes and pedophile perverts, seeing you call them female names. Disgusting! c) "For there is one God, one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ." We don't have to agree with that, because we have a Mediatrix, our "Queen of Heaven", intercessor of all intercessors. Despicable!

      And I could show more examples of rebellion, like heathens babbling their prayers to false goddesses, sitting in the choice seats in the synagogues (or churches), bowing and kissing statues of their idols, even their feet, etc. etc. etc.. What would it take to convince catholics that you've been terribly deceived by filthy, lying con-artists of Satan himself and his demon forces. Read the Word and don't allow the perverts of His Word to deceive you.

    • Dan says:

      And for your information, publiar, Matthew 12:33 is Christ's word, not Dan's word. Your heathen church of rotten fruit proves that the verse is absolutely the truth.

  34. malcolm harris says:

    Thanks Dan, for confirming the modus operandi of all Catholic haters. You completely ignore the miraculous facts… and then search frantically for anything to distract attention. Even to the extent of using the Shroud of Turin as a distraction. Yet haters like you would normally dismiss the Shroud as another 'falsehood' of the Church. But now you are prepared to rely on it to prove a dubious point. Gimme a break. The miracle you are ignoring is that the wounds of the monk never became infected… over the fifty years. You may frantically suggest fanciful ideas as to how he got the wounds. But severe infection would be  unavoidable.. and fatal… at that time… in the early twentieth century.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      HAHAHA!  Malcolm you are hilarious.

      God would give Pio stigmata but not raise a hand to stop the holocaust? letting children die? Your "God" is either not all powerful or not all good or both by such actions and/ or lack of actions. "he",  therefore, can not be the God you claim "him" to be.

      When one needs magic to support one's imaginary faith? one has skipped through the looking glass wearing an "I'm a stupid" t-shirt.

    • Dan says:

      I will absolutely ignore "miraculous" fiction, signs or wonders, performed by any of Satan's charlatans. I bet you believe when your idols of Mary bleed from the eyes, that it's really blood, when in reality it's rust from the metal corrosion beneath cracked paint. So easy to call me a hater, asshole? I don't believe the Shroud is another 'falsehood' of the church. I'd be more apt to believe they stole it as proof that they are really Christians, when more likely it was handed down through their ancestors, the Romans who killed Christ. I don't know why I even attempt to help lead imbiciles like yourself to the truth, when it's a royal waste of my time. I can't make the blind see or deaf hear, only Christ and my Father have that capability.

    • Dan says:

      imbeciles

  35. Jim Robertson says:

    The People's FAITH.

  36. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1101PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will demonstrate his historical chops.

    He first proffers the quotation (irrelevant for the discussion here) that Quirinius was “no minor figure in Roman politics” – true enough. And he was appointed by Augustus to proconsular rank over Crete and Cyrenaica in 12 or 15BC. Yes and ditto as to the irrelevance.

    More to the point, Quirinius was serving as a mentor or guide to Gaius Caesar until at least 3AD. It was not until 6AD that Herod Archelaus, a son of the deceased Herod the Great who had been – along with a brother and a half-brother – ruling one of the parts of HtG’s former kingdom as per the stipulations in HtG’s will, was sent into exile by Augustus.

    Archelaus could not have been ruler of part of the deceased HtG’s former realm unless HtG – not to put too fine a point on it – was indeed deceased. Archelaus acceded to this rule in 4BC, which – again – means that HtG would have died no later than 4BC. Indeed, Josephus reports that Achelaus’s half-brother Philip died in the 20th year of the reign of Tiberius, after reigning 37 years, thus placing Philip’s accession (and thus HtG’s death) in 3 or 4BC at the latest.

  37. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1101PM:

    When Archelaus was sent into exile in 6AD, Coponius was named Prefect of Judea, with Quirinius simultaneously made Legate of Syria. Before the prefecture of Caponius there would only have been Archelaus, since the Romans didn’t exercise direct rule until 6AD and Quirinius’s Legature dates from 6AD.

    So the idea that Quirinius was somehow “indeed governing in some capacity in this region” (i.e. of Judea or Syria) before 6AD cannot be accurate: before 6AD Quirinius was mentoring Gaius Caesar, demonstrated both by the dating and because there was no Roman office of rule in Judea.

    We have a rather full record of the Roman governors of Syria from 65BC to 392AD. There is a single gap, for the years 4BC to 1AD, but  the Lapis Tiburtinus inscription would seem to indicate that Lucius Calpurnius Piso (known as Pontifex) held the post in those years.

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1101PM:

    What we have here from ‘Dan’ merely reflects efforts by fundies and some historians so inclined to somehow bring the Gospel dating problem into some sort of resolution: thus they wonder if maybe Herod didn’t die when he did, or maybe it was Quirinius who was governing in Syria for a first time around the date of Jesus birth (thus taking advantage of the missing name in the list of Roman rulers of Syria). And in that regard we see ‘Dan’s reliance on some Bible History site, which supports my point here.

    Nor were the Roman rulers of Syria assigned a ‘second tour of duty’ in that post; with the single exception of Gaius Cassius Longinus during the last decades of the Republic, there were no second-tours, and certainly not in the early Imperial period (which makes sense: no emperor would want any individual high-ranking subordinate to develop too robust a powerbase).

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1101PM:

    But, having tossed up a few bits and pieces, ‘Dan’ then slyly tries to get away from the whole problem: on the basis of those hugely iffy (and perhaps dubiously motivated) bits ‘Dan’ quickly absolves and extricates himself from having to deal any further with historical problems (and had you been waitttingggg forrr ittttt?): “the Bible asks” – doncha see? – that ‘Dan’ not “undertake such arguments”.

    And then he tries to spin the problem as being simply one of ‘disputing’ and ‘finding’ “controversy in God’s Word”. This is the old fundie dodge: when their own preferred take on Scripture runs into problems of actual historical facts they quickly blame the problem on such ‘unbelievers’ as notice the problem. Thus their preferred ‘idol’ – which is what they have made of the Bible – can stay in business.

    Thus these are all “foolish controversies” – doncha see? But in ‘Dan’s proffered pericope Titus is referring in that Letter to “genealogies and quarrels about the law” as the text clearly states. But we are not dealing with such issues here; we are dealing with a contradiction in the historical record and it is not one to be resolved with the ‘Dan’/fundie bits about maybe-this and maybe-that and anyway-we-shouldn’t-think-about-it.

    • Dan says:

      Sorry, publiar, I have no time to waste on your longwinded ignorant explanations, stupid nonsense and gibberish. I spend most of my valuable time with believers discussing God's faith, hope and love, so you might as well enjoy talking to yourself, because I'm sure not listening and can't be bothered.

    • Dan says:

      Hilariass how you claim the Bible to be my "idol", when you would rather bow down, pray to, idolize and worship your false goddess and your corrupt saints and popes(i.e. Padre PeeHole, pope RATzinger, and all the rest) . Even more hilariass that you think you've got the right idols. STUPID!! Speaking of stupid, you've yet to figure out that God's True Church has no hierarchy. We are all servants, but most of all friends of the One True God and His Son. If you don't understand that, then you really don't know squat when it comes to Biblical Truth.

  40. Jim Robertson says:

    Biggus Dikus and Glutus Maximus were surprised to find themselves at a crucifixion that was more fiction than cross. (Actually more off a double cross.) Where "he truely was the Son of God!" was never uttered in Latin or in any other language.

    Here's one small Example of the Decline of :Western Christianity, not that it had far to fall. Donald Trump's America where you can delude yourself that you are both a Christian and against the poor. A "miracle", as it were, that changes everything Jesus said into acts he was against. A bigger "miracle" than the Transubstantiation. ( By the way P's boring redundantcy: "- doncha see?" the word "doncha" is a class insult that assumes one has to speak colloquially in order to get down with the peasants) Putting one over on the poor again that the rich might run their endless rampage with zippo constraints. How Vaticanesque! How God like! How fascistic! How Evangelical! How fraudulent?

     

  41. Publion says:

    On the 4th at 845PM JR brings up the Shroud of Turin, referring (as best I can make out) to a test done in 1987. That test has been superseded by more comprehensive testing done in 2013 which was performed after it was realized that the historical record indicates the Shroud’s being damaged in the Middle Ages by a fire started by hot candle-wax dripping onto it, whereupon expert weavers of that era tried to repair the damage. It was this section that was carbon-dated in 1987. But when in 2013 a different section was tested, with more modern equipment, the carbon-dating gives a date far closer to the time of Christ (see the tenth point, below).

    Readers so inclined can consult this article by a former fundie (educated at Bob Jones University) now a Catholic priest: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/longenecker/the-shroud-of-turin-and-the-facts

  42. Publion says:

    We have been talking about “the Bible” (which I place in quote-marks to indicate the complexity of the reality that it poses).

    I would like to proffer another example of the dynamics I have been speaking of, not from the written-document(s) forum but rather from the pictorial forum: the Shroud of Turin.

    The problems it poses are similar to those posed by “the Bible” in this key respect: it seems a simple and clear object (as does the scriptural text) which, at most, merely requires one to take a position or adopt an opinion or conclusion about it.

    But actually, before one gets to the ‘drawing conclusion’ phase, there are tremendous complexities which first of all require that one knows the right questions to ask and second of all that one real with the evidence that examination yields.

  43. Publion says:

    The Longenecker article lists the facts that indicate the impossibility of the Shroud’s being a medieval artifact:

    First, the problem of the image on the textile material: there is no know technology to explain the image; it is not paint, it is not anything that can be explained either by modern technology or certainly by any technology available in medieval times.

    Second, the problem of the image’s 3-D capability: it can be examined successfully using modern 3-D technology, which is not true of paintings.

  44. Publion says:

    Third, the problem of the positive-negative: the image actually is a photographic negative, i.e. when one photographs the image, “what should be the negative appears as a positive image”. Not only would medieval painters not have the technology to achieve this, but they wouldn’t even have been familiar with the dynamics of photography in the first place.

    Fourth, the problem of anatomical accuracy: the image is not only anatomically accurate, but reflects a certain blurring as if the shroud had lain on a body and suddenly fallen away.

    Fifth, the problem of historical accuracy in relation to the Crucifixion: the image indicates the type of injuries and wounds not only specific to Roman crucifixion, but even specific to the particular Crucifixion of Jesus, i.e. the wounds from the crown of thorns and the lack of any broken bones and the indications of the wound in the side.

  45. Publion says:

    Sixth, the problem of geographical accuracy: the pollen on the Shroud is found in both Jerusalem and in parts of Turkey and other locales where the Shroud is said to have been kept over the centuries.

    Seventh, the Shroud’s accurate comportment with ancient Jewish burial customs: traces of the ointments and even the flowers known to have been used in anointing the body are present.

    Eighth, tests of the blood traces on the Shroud demonstrate that the blood preceded the image; in a painting the blood – being painted along with the image – would test as contemporaneous to the image.

    Ninth, they type of cloth that comprises the Shroud comports with 1st-century Israel but not with medieval cloths. A medieval forger would have had to have fabricated not only the image but the cloth itself, requiring a medieval knowledge of 1st-century Jewish weaves and weaving.

    Tenth, the age of the cloth – as noted in a prior comment in this sequence – dates much more closely to the time of Christ, if one avoids using the medieval repair segment for carbon dating.

    The 2013 testing was actually a series of tests using several modern technologies: FT-IR testing, Raman testing, and multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three testing results is 33BC plus/minus 250 years.

    • Dan says:

      I previously stated that the Shroud of Turin was proof for the unbeliever. So who would give his longwinded response to Longenecker's article, nobody but the unbeliever himself, publiar. Not necessarily an unbeliever per se, but a believer in all the wrong gods and goddesses and all the wrong misconstrued church teachings. You already posted the website, we didn't need your longwinded explanation, now did we.  servant of Jesus Christ

  46. malcolm harris says:

    JR on the 4th, said that alcohol was used to clean wounds, long before the twentieth century. Yes, but it realy depended upon the severity of the particular wound… and the promptness of treatment. For example my parents told of a friend who scratched his hand when pruning roses….it actually killed him. They said he ignored the scratch and  then blood poisoning took hold (septicemia). Anti-biotics have now changed all that… and tetanus shots have prevented lock jaw  (tetanus).  The wounds of Padre Pio went right through his hands and feet.  No amount of cleaning by alcohol would have prevented  the infection of these deep wounds. And he endured them every day for the last fifty years of his life. That is a miracle….. and no amount of explaining away will change it.

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, I see you've really drank the Kathlik Kult Kool Aid, also. Did you even read what I wrote on 12/4 @ 12:03am, or are you so bent on believing that I'm a catholic hater so you paid no attantion? Padre pio is a charlatan, a fake and a phony. If the wounds were real and not done by his own actions, they would be in the proper location. The quote from the Bible describes Satan and his demons having power to perform "signs, and lying wonders". The Bible also explains not to trust those who claim to be special because of special visions. Do you ever read the Word and compare it to your false beliefs and the lying phonies of your church?

      "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head … with a growth that is from God."  Col. 2:18-19

      The visions acceptable and acknowledged by "the Church" are usually those of their false goddess, Mary, "Queen of Heaven", telling you to babble the prayer of heathens, the rosary, an unbiblical demand. Question, are those visions from God or Satan? I'll let you answer.

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, My grandmother had infection and gangrene so bad in both legs that the doctor planned amputation of her legs by the end of the week. My stubborn Irish catholic grandfather took her home and soaked her legs in extremely warm salt water, and grandma walked back into the hospital healed in less than a month. They were both born in the late 19th century, around the same time as Padre Pio's birth. Kind of shoots all your theories of lack of infection remedies to hell, there Malcolm. I have personally cured infections using this same home remedy with table salt. "And no amount of explaining away will change it", because hard headed and stubborn catholics like you and publiar are deaf to the truth and common sense.

  47. Dan says:

    Hey Jim, You're still blaming God for everything evil in the world, I see. Are you at all aware that the Jewish people throughout history had turned their backs on God and His Son. Is it possible to do that, and then when you're in trouble look to God to save you from the evil in this world. God is all powerful and all good and doesn't randomly go and kill people, let alone little children. He says in the last days He shall join the lost Jewish branch of the tree back on to His tree. Maybe it would be wise for you to take a good look at yourself, rather than concern yourself with God's lack or judging how He handles the evil He has to deal with in this wicked world. Hitler and his leaders killed Jewish young and old, not God. An evil ungodly marianist of a false cult molested you, not God. There will come a day when you may need the Lord's help, do you think he'll be right there after your denials and treatment of Him. I wish you could understand that God and the catholic church have no connection whatsoever. You can't blame God for the evil things false cults and wicked people do to others on this earth. He is not at fault, period!

  48. Jim Robertson says:

    What utter nonsense! Pio was a fraud. The Shroud is a fraud. Why would they take samples from a patch that was obviously done later than the original material?  Some believe the painting on the shroud was done by Leonardo da Vinci another child molester. Here's the empirical truth: God is a fraud and Jesus never existed. The Bible was written and rewritten by con artists serving their imaginary faith. P is a fraud.TMR and SNAP are frauds and the church is, as is all religion, a swindle.

    • Dan says:

      Jim, that is your "empirical truth" and not most of mankinds truth. Even those who hate or refuse to obey and follow God or Jesus Christ believe they exist. To say that, "God is a fraud and Jesus never existed." is your poor opinion and that's all it is. A lie as big as publiar's slew of lies.

  49. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the most recent list of comments as they appear on the site.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 339PM:

    The issue stems from ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 227AM on this thread.

    Here ‘Dan’ – unable to deal with the actual problem he has created for himself – now tries to extricate himself by merely claiming that he “never said” (scream-caps omitted) that “credible” is the equivalent of “proven”.

    Well, it either is or it isn’t. If ‘Dan’ now claims that he never meant to say that “credible” is the equivalent of “proven” and thus that “credible” is not the equivalent of “proven” (which was the point that I made in my comment), then what was his point at all in his comment of the 3rd at 227AM?

    As so very often, for ‘Dan’ rationality and coherence take a way-back seat to self-excusing and plop-tossing.

    • Dan says:

      Once again, dumbass, I NEVER said " 'credible' is the equivalent of 'proven'." It's another lie for you to state that I "never meant to say that". You twist and you turn, you manipulate and deceive, you purposely misinterpret and misconstrue Biblical Truth, in an attempt to confuse so you can accuse. You think you can make others believe that I'm "unable to deal with the actual problem [I've] created for [my]self, when the only problem is you, your ignorant questioning and false assessing as if you have all the answers, when in reality, especially when it comes to understanding the Bible, you don't know squat. The only one I'd like to "extricate" myself from is you and your insistent ignorance and stupidity. And I think I will do that tonite and ignore the rest of your nonsense.  servant of the One and Only True God

  50. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 353PM:

    Once again, ‘Dan’ is unable to deal with the consequences of his claims and assertions.

    So what does he do? Eazy-peezy: he merely repeats them: once a person becomes a Christian then s/he doesn’t sin any more.

    But why, then, did Jesus give Peter the power of the keys (i.e. to bind and loose sins) if Jesus expected that Christians would sin no more once they were baptized (or however ‘Dan’ imagines that persons become Christians)?

    And again: he then quickly tries to neuter his own assertion by then saying that it “doesn’t mean you are sinless or perfect” … well, one either is or isn’t sinless; one either no longer commits sins (and is thus sinless – at least going forward) or else one still commits sins, despite having embraced and been baptized into Christianity.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, one cannot – as ‘Dan’ would have it here – a) be “sinless” yet still b) commit sin because one isn’t “perfect”. Being sinless is analogous to being pregnant in this sense: one either is or one isn’t.

  51. Publion says:

    Then, having deployed his usual haven’t-got-the-time bit (the 5th at 356PM), ‘Dan’ finds some time “to waste” (the 5th at 1016PM):

    Not permitting oneself to be detained by ‘Dan’s bit about “serious thought” being “something new to” me, we press on to examine this present example of ‘Dan’s version of “serious thought”.

    Yes, sexual crimes against children are “terrible”. That’s a truism and what’s his point here?

    He then tries to bolster that with a bit about “the high numbers of victims” – although just how many genuine victims there have been remains to be demonstrated.

    And he then tries to bolster that with a mere repetition of all of his other whackeries (about cult, idolatry, and so on).

  52. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1016PM:

    And then he tries to extricate himself from his oft-repeated sexual focus by claiming he hasn’t really focused so much on the sexual at all.

    Instead, he’d like to be seen as having masterfully blended the sexual with the demonstrably whacky stuff about cult, idols, Mary-as-goddess worship, the Eucharistic Host as pagan worship of the solar disc and so on and so forth.

    All of which, apparently, passes for “serious thought” in the ‘Dan’-verse.

  53. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1101PM:

    Here, ‘Dan’ will evade the point at issue (i.e. what does one do about Christians who have sinned) by simply tossing up some pericopes from his pile in regard to how God and Jesus “feel about sin”.

    So what’s the point? Of course i) God and Jesus don’t like sin. Yet ii) Jesus gave Peter the power of the keys. How does ‘Dan’ square these two Biblical facts?  (Short answer: ‘Dan’ doesn’t square them because he can’t; he’s only got a pile of pericopes and beyond that he can’t think his way out of a paper bag.)

    And the same problem applies to the exhortation of Jesus to the woman caught in adultery : “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). How does one derive from this any conclusion such as a) this means the woman will not ever again commit adultery or any other sin and/or b) there is no hope of salvation for her if she ever does commit adultery or any other sin again?

    After all – and as he himself has admitted here on this thread – not even ‘Dan’ is sinless. (Or he is sinless, except that sometimes he does commit something because he’s not “perfect” – take your pick.)

  54. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1042AM:

    Here, basing himself on some word-play on “requests”, ‘Dan’ presumes that it is just the “obviously plain requests” of God and Jesus that we not sin.

    If this bit of ‘Dan’s be true, then God and Jesus apparently think that sin ain’t but a thang and anybody can avoid it anytime they want to for as long as they want to. But – as he himself has admitted on this thread – not even ‘Dan’ can do it (or he can do it, except only partially and sort-of and not-always).

    So why does ‘Dan’ “ignore” the “obviously plain requests of God or Christ”?

  55. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1042AM:

    The general answer, of course, is that God and Jesus know full well that humans – children of Adam and Eve – cannot refrain from all sin because failure to completely fulfill the Image of God in which we are created is an affliction all humans bear from birth. God and Jesus know it (that’s why Jesus gave Peter the power of the keys), the Church knows it, all major Christian thinkers pre-and-post Reformation know it, the evidence of human sinfulness is all around us in human history and affairs, and not even ‘Dan’ can avoid it (as he himself has admitted on this thread).

    Thus ‘Dan’s pericopes introduced here are irrelevant; they merely indicate the awfulness of sin and nobody doubts or denies that.

    So once again, the relevant question for ‘Dan’ must be: why doesn’t he perfectly fulfill those “obviously plain requests” of God and Jesus? If he can answer that, then he’s on his way to better grasping the mystery of sin in human life. Until then, he will simply continue with his genuinely perverse take on Scripture in this matter.

  56. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1046AM:

    Here we simply see – and as so very often – ‘Dan’ trying to evade his whackeries by hiding them under a Scriptural pericope.

    As I have pointed out before a number of times, the problems are not in the quoted pericopes but in ‘Dan’s attempt to impose his own take upon them as if that take was somehow included in the actual text of the pericope.

    Thus while Matthew 12:33 is indeed “Christ’s word, not ‘Dan’s word” yet there is utterly no mention in the text about Catholicism; that’s why ‘Dan’ (in his comment of Nov. 30th at 444PM) had to add his own bits in parentheses. Thus while the quotation from the text of Matthew is “Christ’s word, not ‘Dan’s word”, yet the parenthetical bits are – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘Dan’s word and not Christ’s word.

    This 30th/444PM comment is also the one where ‘Dan’ lost track of where “Christ’s word” ended and ‘Dan’s word began, as readers may recall.

  57. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1156PM:

    Here, ‘Dan’ will seek to evade the points I raised on the 4th at 931PM by simply clutching his pearls – yet again – and declaiming that he hath “no time to waste” on what he tries to wave-away as “ignorant explanation, stupid nonsense and gibberish”; channeling the late Zsa Zsa Gabor, he doth pronounce his “time” as rahlly rahlly “too valuable”, dahlings, and ‘Dan’ doth prefer to spend it among believers and so on. Thus ‘Dan’ “can’t be bothered”.

    Does he practice delivering these lines in front of his bathroom mirror? Does he actually think this ‘can’t possibly be bothered’ bit does anything except further embarrass his performances here? But no doubt the cheering-section resident in that mirror assure him and console him.

    The points I made remain.

  58. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1209AM where once more he pronounces something “Hilariass” (and ‘Dan’ isn’t rather too focused on sexual stuff …).

    To evade the point about his idolizing the Bible ‘Dan’ merely tosses up his usual 3×5 bits about Catholic “idolatry” and so on and so forth. And then declaims about the structure of “God’s True Church” – which, it would appear, consists of ‘Dan’, the wonderland crew in his bathroom mirror, and maybe a couple-three others equally invisible.

  59. Publion says:

    And now for something not-completely different we turn to JR’s of the 5th at 110PM:

    Apparently glomming onto the recent discussion of Roman officials JR digs into his knowledge bin for whatever he might have about early-Imperial Rome and he comes up with – had you been waittttingggg forrrrr ittttttt? – Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

    Although it is also noteworthy that he isn’t really up on English (it would be “Biggus Dickus”, since without the ‘c’ that ‘i’ would be long) and he is surely not competent in either Latin or anatomy (the term would be ‘Gluteus Maximus’).

    But – just like ‘Dan’s takes on the Bible – JR’s stuff is only tossed up to be believed, not to be examined. To examine his stuff would be to ‘victimize’ the poor thing.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 110PM:

      Anyway, perhaps there is some point in his comment?

      Well, a few bits declaiming about the Crucifixion and we can take JR’s word for it all, but of course.

      Then – apparently having come across this 3×5 in his own plop-pile – JR goes on a bit about “the Decline of Western Christianity” and – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – he tries to do so by going on about Trump, or rather something about “Trump’s America” anyway, based on who-knows-what.

      And then – scraping the bottom of his conversational and ‘knowledge’ barrel (as if that has ever stopped him before) – he tries to whomp up a class-based deconstruction of my use of the colloquialism “doncha” (as in doncha-see or doncha-know). Oh, and my use is – we can take JR’s knowledgeable word for it – a “boring redundantcy”. JR is ever so knowledgeable, doncha know?

      But at least we are spared any of JR’s frequent scatology – which perhaps is supposed to induce us to think that maybe JR isn’t the type that often deploys it.

  60. malcolm harris says:

    Dan, on the 7th, gives us an education in bigotry. He lays it all out…his modus operandi in action. His responses can be put into three different boxes. The first box is to imply that all Catholics are simply gullible. Example…. he suggested that Padre Pio would regularly go to the local store to buy acid… to  pour into his wounds. Yikes! Ouch!  Strangely, over the 50 years, nobody noticed? But then we are all stupid? Box #2 is to ignore material, such as ignoring the numerous doctors who examine the monk over the years. Box #3 is to say we are liars and deniers. E g…. when I say… that neither myself, my wife, or her friends,  ever personally heard rumours of child abuse. And that the narrative first came to light from the media. All that goes into box #3. So good'old Dan, with his magical boxes, can refute anything we say. 

    • Dan says:

      Malcolm, First I'm a catholic hater, now I'm a bigot, so what's next, I'm on a witch-hunt. You're ridiculous! I said and will repeat. I do not hate "gullible" catholics. I hate false teachings that are unbiblical and taught as if they were the truth. FALSE! I hate idol-worship. I can't stand pedophiles and perverts destroying innocent childrens lives. I think they're disgusting and I have no respect for anyone making excuses for their horrible deeds. I hate liars, just like my Father in heaven hates compulsive liars. You just don't get it? Padre PeeHole claimed a stigmata in the wrong location. I'm saying, if it is a true stigmata and not caused by acid, then it would have to be a sign or wonder from the devil, because if God gave him the stigmata it would be in the right location, above the wrist. You got that yet? It doesn't matter how many doctors examined him. It's in the wrong location so it has to come from evil power, not a Godly stigmata. As far as all of you never hearing rumors of child abuse, maybe you're a bit naive, but I wouldn't call you a liar because of that. Just saying that 6 out of 8 of the priests in my church of my youth were child molesters, plus the gym teacher and one other priest was a womanizer. Glad you were in the only pure catholic diocese that ever existed. So I don't know what you mean by "magical boxes", I believe in truth and fact, something you excusers seem to know nothing about.

    • Dan says:

      And Malcolm, Why is it that you have no problem with publiar refuting everything I say?, and adding his ridiculous outlandish lies on top of it. He's one of your fellow catholic deceivers and liars, so that makes it OK? Hypocrisy at it's best!!

  61. Dan says:

    I witnessed this prayer on catholic TV - EWTN. This is heresy against everything Biblical, anti-God, antiChrist and obvious worship of your false goddess, the "Queen of Heaven".

    1) "Majestic Queen of Heaven and Mistress of the Angels, thou didst receive from God the power and commission to crush the head of Satan; 2) wherefore we humbly beseech thee, send forth the legions of heaven, that under thy command, they may seek out all evil spirits, engage them everywhere in battle, curb their insolence, and hurl them back into the pit of hell. 3) "Who is like unto God?" 4) O good and tender Mother, thou shalt ever be our hope and the object of our love. 5) O Mother of God, send forth thy holy Angels to defend me and drive far from me the cruel foe. Holy Angels and Archangels, defend us and keep us.

    • Dan says:

      1) Majestic – as in "Your Majesty", and your going to let puliar tell you that it's not worship? The one given the power to crush the head of Satan was our Savior, Jesus Christ, not Mary.

      2) God or Jesus has command over the legions of heaven and the power against evil spirits, to "hurl them back into the pit of Hell", never Mary.

      3) "Who is like unto God?" Jesus possibly, and absolutely never Mary, a simple human being, but placed by "the church" on manmade pedestals of idolatrous worship.

      4) Catholic answer to the question, "Who is like unto God?" - "O good and tender Mother, thou shalt ever be our hope and the object of our love." God and Jesus is our hope and the object of our love. Replacing God and Jesus with the virtues of Mary. Despicable blasphemy!

      5) Unwarranted power given to the false goddess, "Queen of Heaven" to send forth Angels and Archangels. "Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about visions they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind."  Col. 2:18  They carry on about visions of Fatima, Lourdes, etc., and false stigmatas they've witnessed on liars and charlatans.

      Catholics – Once again, don't allow yourselves to be deceived by the lies and liars of your church. They are the epitome of evil and want to see your soul destroyed in Hell. They only love your money and your children and babies they can rape and molest. Be not fooled.

  62. Jim Robertson says:

    You have no proof for any of your beliefs. And because you have no proof for anything you say exists or existed yet we have proof that fleas have digestive systems but as for dieties  nothing.

    • Dan says:

      Creation is the proof. The Universe is proof. The miracle of an earth sustaining life is proof. The miracle that man in their greed has done just about everything to destroy God's earth and yet it still exists, is proof. The fact that there's a food chain among humans, animals, reptiles, fish, birds and insects, that works in utter perfection for thousands of years is proof. The fact that you have a choice to decide between good and evil is proof. The fact that God predicted in His Word every good and evil culture, sometimes thousands of years before they even existed is proof. Do you know any human who has the psychic ability to accomplish that? Most psychics are more psycho than psychic. All of His predictions have and shall come to pass for both the wicked and the good. He says in the last days a light shall shine in the darkness and everything done in secret shall be exposed. First gays out of the closet, then priestly pedophiles and pederasts, then Christian pastors who preached against homosexuality, ended up having their own homosexual affairs, sometimes with minors behind their wives backs, politicians, now Hollywood elite perverts, news reporters, anchormen and even the elite owners. Open your eyes Jim. Everything He has predicted is coming to pass. His final blows will be against all the false churches of hypocrisy, unrepentant hypocrites and Armageddon, the last battle between good and evil before Judgment Day. Live to see that day and I believe that will make a believer out of you. Problem is then it will be too late.

    • Dan says:

      Actually Christian pastors should not be capitalized, because they are only frauds and charlatans and there is nothing Christian or Christ-like about them.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dan, Dan, sheer and utter nonsense. You are entitled to believe in anything you want but the Thomas Aquinas nonsense (i.e. the universe proves God exists) proves nothing.

      6 million children die every year from diseases created by your god in whose image and likeness we are supposedly made. Now why would a God of Love do that to innocent children and their families? 

      And if he was an all knowing God why wouldn't he be able to predict a future? He, according to your discription, is a jumped up future predictor of a world he supposedly controls. What good does that do anybody? Why no warning in the Tsunami for a quarter of a million people who died?

      And you would have us Gay people back in the closet? What has my sex life got to do with you? Mind your own business.

      Why would your god have to deliver blows to anything? He skipped the Middle passage, the Tsunami and the Shoah, plus he kills 6 million children every year. Judging by "his" actions and inactions, your God's a demon. 

  63. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 11PM:

    In the matter of my sequence of comments summarizing the key facts from the Longenecker article ‘Dan’s best shot is that they are “longwinded”.

    Further evading the rather substantive gravamen of the Longenecker points, ‘Dan’ then riffs on about “unbelief”, although he has to work a bit to avoid saying outright that I am only an unbeliever in regard to the ‘Dan’-verse dreck.

    He then tries to bring it home with the rather silly point that since I had posted the link to the article, there was no need for my “longwinded explanation”.

    But there was a reason, and actually two. First, to summarize the ten points and give readers a quick overview. Second, to put such rather telling points right here in front of the Abuseniks and see what they would do with them (I suspected they would try to evade the actual points).

    • Dan says:

      First off, Airhead, as I told Malcolm, I have no problem with the Shroud, because I believe it is authentic. I even used it as proof of where Padre Pio's nail holes should have been placed if they were in the proper location, above the wrists. My point that you had to give one of your usual "longwinded explanation[s]" to prove your ignorance was unnecessary because anyone interested could go to the website you posted. The ten points were already summarized and didn't need to be plagiarized.

      In regards to your "unbelief". I said you were a believer, only problem is you're a believer in all the wrong things, goddess worshipper. And I guess you're wrong again, because I must not be an Abusenik since I didn't "try to evade the actual points" whatsoever. I must say that I have no problem with them at all, I just didn't need them repeated by you, Mr. Know-It-All.

  64. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 7th at 954AM:

    Here JR – defending his cartoons in his own way, but not so different from his peapod mate – merely declares the Shroud to be “a fraud”.

    Why would (the 1987 testers) have taken samples “from a patch that was obviously done later”? The Longenecker article didn’t say that the patch was ‘obvious’; this is a (convenient and self-serving) assumption of JR’s.  Did the 1987 team not realize the history of the Shroud and its damage? Was the patch not so obvious? Were the testing methods of that era not as precise and capable as the tests of today? Did, for that matter, the team not want to find an older date?

    All of these questions would need to be answered before anyone could legitimately declare “The Shroud is a fraud”. But rational analysis and legitimate conclusions are not JR’s preferred modus operandi.

  65. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 954AM:

    And he even tosses up a howler: the image is now demonstrated not to have been painted. But JR merely tosses up a bit that “some believe” it was painted – by Michelangelo, no less. The 2013 tests have removed that possibility from rational consideration. But again, JR is not in the rational-consideration business. Nor, for that matter, is the Stampede, where if you can just get people to ‘believe’ then you have somehow prevailed.

    And JR then puts up a second howler as if to reinforce the first: it is “empirical truth” that “God is a fraud and Jesus never existed”. Those assertions are not in any way “empirical truth”; they are merely JR’s self-serving presumptive cartoon assertions, flowing from no evidence but rather from the cartoons in JR’s head.

    As for who here is a “con artist” and has pulled of a “swindle”, readers may judge as they will.

  66. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1112PM:

    Here, ‘Dan’ merely repeats yet again that he “never said ‘credible’ is the equivalent of ‘proven’”.

    But he evades completely point I made in my comment of the 7th at 313PM, i.e. the logical consequences of his own statement:  either ‘credible’ is the same as ‘proven’ or it isn’t. Which is it?

    And here – as I have said – ‘Dan’ simply evades answering that key question by bleating that he never said “credible is the equivalent of proven”. But the entire point of his comment of the 5th at 339PM requires that he presume that “credible is the equivalent of proven”. Either he thinks that is true or else his comment of the 5th at 339PM makes no sense at all. So – again – which is it?

    Instead of answering, ‘Dan’ riffs on about how he is victimized (by – of course – having his material actually examined and assessed). Which ‘victimization’ – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttt? – then platforms his typical evasion, i.e. that he will therefore “ignore” the question.

    • Dan says:

      If I never said nor meant that "credible was equivalent to proven", then anyone with an ounce of brains would realize that I didn't believe that "credible" meant "proven". At the same time, I not buying your deceiving catholic definition of what "credible" means either. I don't know why I should assume you have an ounce of brains, when you don't even know the difference between Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, two different artists. And yet you'll criticize our grammar, but not that of your brainwashed cronies. Remember, one drew The Last Supper and one drew "the Churches" final and eternal destination, Hell, right at the proper level, so the cardinals could pick the next pope to lead them into the fire and brimstone.  servant of the God of Judgment, and it ain't gonna be pretty.

    • Dan says:

      That would be, "I'm not buying your deceiving catholic definition … either".

  67. Publion says:

    On to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1154AM:

    Here he  proffers what he says is a “prayer” he saw on some Catholic TV channel, which prayer he doth pronounce, declare and declaim to be “heresy against … “ and so on and so forth.

    But his Mary-as-goddess bit is undermined straight-away, in the first phrase of the prayer: Mary “didst receive from God the power and commission” (italics mine).

    Thus Mary is not a goddess; she was given a “power and commission” by God.

    Thus she remains a human being who has been given such “power” as she has from God, to be used for His “commission”. And all the rest of the prayer flows from that “power and commission” given to Mary by God.

    Thus too then, ‘Dan’s attempt to parse the entire prayer to his own purposes in his comment of the 8th at 1232PM fails because his core presumption was utterly undermined in the prayer’s very first phrase.

  68. Jim Robertson says:

    Catholicism is a reactionary system. The world is wrong we are right say the Catholics, and everyother 2 bit theses on the planet. Catholicism as demoed by P is a no no no no no no no proposition. All outsiders bad! You must believe such and such to be an insider. 

    The planet loses 6 million children yearly  due to hunger and disease and your dear God's will

    He breeds us that he may slaughter us. What a guy! And we are supposed to admire this contraption of a colossus ? Why?

    • Dan says:

      How do you find blame in a Creator who is all perfection and holiness, who even gave up His only Son for sinners just like you. You blame God for the evil greed, corruption and wickedness of man. Man is responsible for their own death or destruction. Those who believe in Him shall NEVER die. Your disbelief is becoming quite annoying. I hope God isn't as annoyed as I am.

    • Dan says:

      Jim, "the Church" has amassed billions and quite possibly trillions over the years to build their golden palaces and bishops mansions, in some of the very locations where children starve to death. They sometimes made bedfellows with the very leaders that restricted donations and food from reaching the poor and hungry, while they paraded in their precious satin robes or three piece suits. Yes, I'm blaming the so-called christian churches also. For decades they've been sending missionaries to these places to claim they were bringing the gospel to these heathen nations. In God's Word He says to first take care of the necessities of someone poor or hungry. No, their aim was to build big temples or mega churches and feed their gluttonous selves, while serving hotdogs and beans to the poor as a front to drum up more and bigger donations. Then they turned around and raped and molested the children, were killed and then worshipped and adored as martyrs. What con jobs, the whole bunch of them. And you think you're going to blame God for this evil done in high places. Wake up Jim.

      P.S. And I would hope since you're pointing your finger at others, that you're doing your share in your area to help the poor and homeless. If we all did something for our fellow man, just maybe we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in. We can't depend on these hypocrites for any help or kindness. It's just a show of false humility and worthless words of concern. It was all written about them two thousand years ago, and you still think it's not the truth?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I don't care if you are annoyed Dan and I could care even less if your imaginary friend is annoyed. you and P have no proof that God exists. God is your premise therefor you must provide the proof of both him and an afterlife and too that either of your religions are correct even if there was a god and an afterlife. Your premise requires your proof.

       

  69. Dan says:

    You have "undermined" nothing, Deceiver. Mary, your "Queen of Heaven" was never given the "power and commission" to crush the head of Satan. Most versions say "He shall", "it shall (her seed)" or "they shall (Mary's offspring)", crush or bruise the head of Satan. I found one version that states that "she shall crush thy head", surprise, surprise, it's misinterpreted in the catholic Douay-Rheims Bible. Well there's the proof, their bibles can twist, manipulate and deceive as well as the hypocrites that believe and profess "the cults" deceptions.

    Publiar once again has "undermined" nothing except to expose more of his own ignorance and stupidity. My description of the prayer being disgusting idolatry, goddess worship, antiGod, antiChrist and heresy against God's Word still stands.   servant of the One True God

  70. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1248AM:

    Here he continues with his riff on “proof” (following up on his clearly confused use of “empirical” in his post of the 7th at 954AM).

    But if we follow along with the riff, then we can point out that JR has no “proof” that God does not exist.

    Which simply goes to demonstrate that the entire issue is beyond the power of the purely material and this-worldly to determine ‘empirically’ one way or the other.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      You claim "he" exists. Your claim; your need to prove. I know you can not. You know you can not. All the rest is your fantasy.

  71. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1259AM:

    Moving beyond the opening epithetical, we have ‘Dan’ claiming that he doth believe in the Shroud. That might seem curious until we realize that ‘Dan’ thus is trying to use the Shroud to demonstrate that Padre Pio’s wounds are fake since they are in the wrong place.

    I’ve never been a fan of the Padre Pio phenomenon and it’s not an article of faith for Catholics.

    But ‘Dan’s knowledge of anatomy – had you been waitttinggg forrrr ittttt? – is a bit off indeed. The eight carpal bones of what we commonly call the wrist (e.g. the place where you wear a wristwatch) are actually based in the heel of the palm; thus the anatomical wrist (as opposed to what we can call the colloquial wrist) is actually the heel of the palm. Strictly speaking, in terms of anatomy, we wear wristwatches on the lower forearm.

    The conjunction of those eight carpal bones would be sufficient to bear the weight of a man’s body (for a while, anyway) which is why competent Roman crucifixion practice would have used that locus for the nails.

    • Dan says:

      Thank you, Dr. Know-It-All. The wrist is the joint between hand and bones of the forearm. That's where the nails were located. I would know because I had a real stigmata 30 years ago and the location was right at the joint and not in the center of the palm. I was reluctant to mention that because I know what a douchebag prick you can be, and I know what an immature response I'll get from you. There was first a sharp pain in my right wrist which proceeded to both wrists, in the last church I attended and left on my own accord. I did not have any holes or blood. Quit your attempts at trying to make me look dumb, because I will never be as dumb as one who mocks God, His Son, His Word, and His chosen.  servant

      P.S. You may not be a big fan of the padre peehole phenomenon, but it sure seems to be a stumbling block and source of misguided faith for deceived catholic followers like Malcolm.

  72. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1259AM:

    This is supported by the fact that there is no image of the thumbs on the Shroud: driving a nail into that conjunction would injure the Median nerve, turning the thumbs inward.

    And readers might also recall that Jesus said to Thomas “put your finger here, and see my hands … “ (Luke 24:39-40).

    As to ‘Dan’s further bit about my having “plagiarized” the Longenecker article, clearly ‘Dan’ is not clear on the concept of plagiarism (or probably can’t afford to be, since it would make a hash of his plop-tossing at this point): I identified and linked-to the Longenecker article, and then summarized his ten major points.

    In fact, in my comment of the 4th at 227PM, I said “The Longenecker article lists the facts that indicate the impossibility of the Shroud’s being a medieval artifact:” – that colon indicates that what will follow are those “facts” that the article “lists” and that is precisely what I put up, enumerating the points one through ten.

  73. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 128AM:

    Here – as best can be determined – he is trying to wiggle out of his self-created problem by now proffering that “if [he] never said not meant that ‘credible was the equivalent to proven” … then (apparently; his point is conveniently and slyly a bit foggy here) rational readers “would realize that [he] didn’t believe that ‘credible’ means ‘proven’”.

    Well, then, his original comment must – as I have said – therefore be meaningless. Either ‘credible’ means ‘proven’ or it doesn’t. There really isn’t any other alternative, logically and rationally.

    But wait, there’s more. In a nicely vivid demonstration of his slyness, ‘Dan’ now claims that he is “not buying [my] … definition of what ‘credible’ means either”.

    At this point, of course, rationality would require that he then explain exactly what this implied third alternative of his actually would be. But he precisely does not do that, instead moving quickly on to epitheticals based on his unexplained third alternative.

    So ‘Dan’ seems to claim that he has some other alternative … but he’s not going to explain what it is. Or else ‘Dan’ has no other alternative, but he just needs to somehow weasel out from the problem he has created for himself.

    • Dan says:

      "the Church" said accusations against the perverts and pedos were "credible". That's period!

      credible def, – trustworthy, believeable, worthy to be trusted or believed

      Try to deceive with your version and your catholic definition all you like. You'll only deceive and fool the brainwashed and gullible followers of you and your cult.  servant

      P.S. Once again the only "problem" lies with you and your compulsive lying and twisting of truth.

  74. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1121PM:

    Here JR will simply toss up some bit from one of his own pile of 3x5s: “Catholicism is a reactionary system”. Whatever that might mean is anybody’s guess, and before considering it one would have to wonder what relevance it has to the present material under discussion.

    But it was a ploppy-bit JR had hanging around in the pile and he’ll toss it up – along with the other notations from the card.

    Exactly how I demonstrate that Catholicism is a “no … proposition” is anybody’s guess. JR’s own assorted efforts certainly have their gross and abyssal problems, and I have certainly pointed those problems out at length. But from a) having his own stuff questioned to b) “Catholicism” being a “no …. proposition” … is a leap only possible for a mind innocent of rationality and coherence, to say the least.

  75. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 157AM:

    I didn’t claim to ‘undermine’ anything; ‘Dan’s own chosen text undermined his position, and at the very outset.

    But then he pulls another sly and deceptive move: from a) discussing the actual text that he himself selected and upon which he based his assorted plop-tossy bits he suddenly and quietly shifts to b) his own cartoon, i.e. that “Mary … was never given the ‘power and commission’ to crush the head of Satan”.

    And ‘Dan’ doth know this … how? (Short answer: he doth know because his bathroom mirror told him so.)

    And “most versions” … of what? This prayer that he selected as his demonstration text?

    Perhaps he meant versions of the Bible.

    • Dan says:

      publiar, you put on such airs of intelligence, and yet at times act so dumb, and have to be fed pablum like a baby. Anyone half familiar with the Bible would realize that crushing the head of Satan would refer to Gen 3:15. Then you show how intelligent you are because you were able to figure that out four wasted sentences later, and didn't even have to find that in the reflection of your toilet. Your ignorance has no limits.

  76. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 157AM:

    Let’s go with that idea: ‘Dan’ meant versions of the Bible.

    Those versions would all go back to Genesis 3:15 and the precise question is whether the text states that “he” or “she” is the one who “will strike at your [i.e. the serpent’s] head. (A secondary question is whether “seed” is taken in the singular, i.e. an individual offspring, or in the plural, i.e. all of humankind, the children of Eve.)

    The original Hebrew is non-specific as to gender, so it could be “he” or “she” or “it”. Jerome, in his Vulgate translation into Latin, relying on the Septuagint translation of the Jewish Bible into Greek, opted for the masculine; other Church Fathers opted for the feminine, which wound up appearing in the Douay-Rheims Catholic version put forward in response to the English King James Version in the Reformation era.

    So the original language of the text of Genesis 3:15 doesn’t distinguish gender.

    • Dan says:

      Try to confuse readers by proposing a "secondary question" that has no bearing on what I claim. I'm claiming in no way, and in almost every version except catholic interpretations of Gen 3:15 was Mary ever given the "power and commission" by God to crush the head of Satan. And I could care less what catholic "Church Fathers" contribute to misinterpreting Biblical truth, anymore than I would accept your perverted interpretations.

  77. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 157AM:

    There is also the passage from Revelation 12:1-5, referring to “a woman clothed with the sun” who appears against the dragon (identified as “the ancient serpent” in Rev 12:9, 14-15, and in 20:2). Since the woman here is opposed to “the ancient serpent”, then Revelation’s text here can only mean that this woman is – to put it far too mildly – on the side of good.

    She is also “heavy with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth” (Rev 12:2). Here the text seems to take care to make explicit that this woman is human, since she is both pregnant and having a painful delivery.

    From these points based on the Biblical texts it becomes clear that the Catholic conception of Mary’s role in God’s salvific plan comports with the Scriptural texts.

    And very little – if anything – of ‘Dan’s ranting cartoons “still stands”, except in his own ranting (yet ever so sly) cartoon delusions.

  78. Dan says:

    "God's salvific plan" according to "Scriptural texts" details Mary only as the virgin mother who would have God's Son. All she was was His mother and plays no other part in God's Plan of Salvation. Christ died for our sins, and needed no help from His mother to accomplish that task, other than her being His mother. For the catholic church to pervert and pollute that fact by placing her on a pedestal and giving her any credit in God's Salvation Plan is blatant idolatry, antiGod and antiChrist blasphemy. To add all the rest of the antiBiblical stupidity as to her immaculate conception, assumption, sinless, ever virgin nonsense is ignorance and evidence that "the Church" preaches a false gospel and is one of the worst deceiving cults in the world. Your church and your cartoons are the only "Cartoon Time" show playing in this forum.  servant of the God of Truth, Love and Honesty

    P.S. You may want to try acquiring some of those qualities, instead of being such a catholic liar.

  79. Publion says:

    On then to the most recent string of ‘Dan’ bits.

    On the 11th at 1002PM ‘Dan’ evades the point I made, i.e. that the major bones (necessary to support the weight of a crucified human body) are all to be found in the heel of the palm; a glance at any skeletal representation of that part of the anatomy will demonstrate that what is commonly called the wrist is almost a blank space when it comes to bones, and bones are the only anatomical parts capable of supporting the weight.

    But wait. There’s more. ‘Dan’ now reveals, reports, and asserts that once upon a time, “30 years ago” (prepare yourselves … ) he “had a real stigmata”. Thus saith ‘Dan’.

    And he hasn’t given us this revelation heretofore?

    But wait. There’s more. He’s got an answer to that: he knew “what a douchebag prick” I can be, and he didn’t want to invite “an immature response” from me (“douchebag prick” being in ‘Dan’s mind not at all an “immature response”).

  80. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1002PM:

    But wait. There’s more. It turns out that he actually only had “a sharp pain” in his wrists, and didn’t actually have any “holes or blood”. It would appear that the ‘Dan’-verse definition of “stigmata” is as unreliable as the ‘Dan’-verse definition of “prophecy” (and “truth” and “Truth” and “Biblical truth” and knowledge” and “ignorance” and so on and so forth).

    But wait. There’s more. We are then told – rather fuzzily – that this happened “in the last church [he] attended” and that he “left of [his] own accord”. Does this mean that he got pains in his wrists and left a service of his own accord or does this mean that his “stigmata” experience wasn’t given the respectful recognition he expected and thereupon he left that congregation or polity … ?

    Who knows and at this point what difference could it possibly make?

    • Dan says:

      And to no one's surprise and right on cue, the "douchebag prick" attacks with his usual ignorance and stupidity, to deny the stigmata I experienced was true. On top of that he wants to use this as an excuse to claim my definition of "prophecy" and "truth and Truth and Biblical Truth and knowledge and ignorance" is unreliable. Apparently my definition of those words are correct, especially in regards to publiar's ignorance, because I researched today a stigmata without blood or injury and it's referred to as an "invisible stigmata". Not only that fact, but I also had it in the right location, 1 cm from the wrist and not in the center of the palm, which would be approximately two inches from the douchebags claim of the nail placement in the carpal bone area. So apparently the "douchebag prick" is wrong as usual with his false assessments and rude claim of an "only-sorta-stigmata". Your insults and nasty comments are what drives others to threaten your life, because you're an insistent lying creep up from the depths of Hell. Servant of the Lord of Truth, Biblical Truth and knowledge beyond your understanding, you ignorant Jackass.

      P.S. douchebag prick (def.) -

    • Dan says:

      I wanted to define it for you, but all the Urban Dictionary definitions won't come up on my friends older computer. I'm sure you can figure out the meaning or have some clue, Mr. Know-It-All.

  81. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1002PM:

    And then – with a marvelous lack of self-awareness that approaches the sublime – he doth huffily bleat that I must “quit [my] attempts to make [him] look dumb”.

    “Dumb” is the least of the possibilities. Delusional? A “compulsive liar”? These don’t somehow apply even more urgently?

    And then what is apparently – to ‘Dan’ mind – not an “immature” epithet in regard to Padre Pio. (And with that “peehole” bit we are not to infer that ‘Dan’ is rather queasily given to the sexual-scatological … ?)

    • Dan says:

      Maybe you're too ignorant to remember, but you're the "compulsive liar". And I only consider him a pompous padre peehole, because like yourself, he's a fraud, liar and deceiver. A lying piece of s__t would be just as appropriate and warranted.

  82. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1007PM:

    Here he was faced with the points I raised in my comment of the 11th at 240PM, i.e. that i) there are no thumb images on the Shroud (which is consistent with the placing of the nails in the heel of the palm) and ii) that Jesus Himself told Thomas to “see my hands” and iii) that my handling of the Longenecker material was not “plagiarized”.

    And how will ‘Dan’ deal with these inconvenient (to his cartoons) points that I raised?

    “Nothing worth responding to” he doth declare, declaim and pronounce. Because – doncha see? – “the article explained it fine” (sic) … but then we thus also see that ‘Dan’ isn’t going to be rebutting the points in the article either.

    Channeling the late Zsa-Zsa, ‘Dan’ simply cawn’t be bothered – doncha see?

  83. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1015PM:

    Here he tries to deal with the “credible” vis-à-vis “proven” problem he created for himself.

    First he repeats what nobody denies: that the Church deemed some allegations “credible”.

    Then he merely repeats his dictionary-dependent word-play as to what “credible” means. But – again – we are dealing with a legal context here, and if “credible” means that it is “worthy to be trusted or believed” ipso facto, and thus “proven”, then why would there be any need for trials at all?

    Also the dictionary alternative of “believable” doesn’t mean “proven”, a) for the same reason as given immediately above and b) because “believable” simply means that something so designated is not unbelievable, which is also not the equivalent of something being “proven”.

    And lastly, deeming something “credible” does not, in the legal context, constitute an admission of guilt – which, if ‘Dan’s word-game here is to be accepted, it most certainly would.

    • Dan says:

      There is a "need for trials" so the liars of the catholic cult, it's bishops and lawyers, have the opportunity to make excuses, deceive, deny and lie for the pedophile and perverted creeps who admitted guilt and were considered "credible" by "the church". This way "the church" might be able to weasel out of paying compensation to the victims and protect the sorry reputation of their heathen child molesting cult.

  84. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1110PM:

    Here, ‘Dan’ tries to evade the point I repeated in my comment of the 11th at 248PM, i.e. that ‘Dan’s own selected text indicates that Mary is not a goddess in her own right since she “was given” her role by God and did not possess such power inherently (i.e. as if she were herself divine).

    First, he tries to claim I “put on such airs of intelligence” (all I do is point out the problems with his material, and he doesn’t like the fact that the problems might indeed make him look “dumb”).

    Then from the ad hominem to the epithetical: he merely lobs some ploppy epitheticals at my material (“pablum” – perhaps he meant ‘pabulum’).

    Then to truisms, i.e. that I didn’t have to point out that the ‘crushing the head of Satan’ pericope was from Genesis 3:15. I did – it certainly clarifies the point for readers who might not be familiar with the pericope – and so what?

    And then the rest of the comment trails off with more epithetical and content-less riffing.

  85. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1118PM:

    Then, still evading the gravamen of the points I raised, he huffs that I “try to confuse readers by proposing a ‘secondary question’”. I noted – in parentheses, which have a distinct grammatical purpose, of course – the “secondary question” simply to give readers an idea of how complex the pericope is, as is true for so many pericopes. But having made that notation, I get down to the primary business at hand – and will ‘Dan’ yet address that?

    Here – had you been waitttingggggg forrrrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – ‘Dan’ merely repeats his own cartoon and doth declare and declaim, with the clutching of the pearls, that he “could care less” what else there is to be said or has been said over the millennia in regard to the problem.

    ‘Dan’ has his cartoons – doncha see? – and ain’t nuffin’ else he wants to have to deal with.

  86. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1118PM:

    And yet – it has to be pointed out – the “Bible truth” is profoundly affected by the Hebrew grammar and its ambiguity.

    So if all the subsequent Bible translations and “versions” are dependent on that already mushy ambiguity in the original Hebrew … then whence doth ‘Dan’ get his “Bible truth”? After all, any subsequent translations or “versions” are going to have had to take a position on the gender issue, which the original text did not clarify or clearly determine.

    He’s either going to have to rely on a translation or “version” that participates in a) the male or b) the female pronoun (or perhaps even c) the neuter pronoun).

  87. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1141PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ merely makes assertions about his own cartoon take on Mary’s role in God’s salvific plan. Or perhaps he expects us to take him and his bathroom mirror as credible, as with his only-sorta-stigmata claim.

    And he again tosses up the same old point from his 3×5 pile, i.e. that it was “Christ” Who “died for our sins”. Which nobody here has ever denied.

    But in doing so he tries thus to evade the core point: in Catholic theology Mary is seen not as the divine effector of human salvation, but merely as an intercessor between humans and Christ (reflecting God’s awareness that humans often feel more comfortable approaching major power-figures through relatives, especially maternal ones).

    Nor would I support ‘Dan’s assumption that the entities he encounters in his bathroom mirror are reliably and credibly to be identified as God or Christ.

    About the point concerning the pericopes I noted from the Book of Revelation, ‘Dan’ has nothing to declaim. Instead, he merely lards on more of his usual epitheticals. And who can be surprised?

    • Dan says:

      Let me state this simply for the simple minded. Mary can not, could not and will not ever have the "power or commission" to "crush the head of Satan". She was never given by God that power, nor that of an "intercessor", or ever sinless, or immaculately conceived, or assumed into heaven, or supposed to be prayed to with babble (rosary). So keep spreading your lies and misinterpretations of Biblical Truth and claim it's "Catholic theology" so you can add to the Bible insistent lies and falsehoods. You can hide under your "Queen of Heaven's" dress, if that's where fearful lying cowards go because they're afraid of God and Christ, but rest assured that you will not be covered or forgiven by the blood of Jesus. You're a lying fraud and deceiver.

      In regards to your Revelations chapter 12 quotes I ignored, and you insist I answer to, I'll make you even look more stupid than you already are. Look again at the chapter 12:6, "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God … ? And then, verse 7, "Michael and his angels fought against the dragon … " v.9) "And the great dragon was cast out" of heaven and "he was cast out into the earth …". v.14 "And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness …". Finally, v.16, "And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth."

      So read the whole chapter. Michael fought against the dragon, and in verse 10, "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down …". So salvation and strength comes from God and Christ, and Mary is fleeing into the wilderness, and with the help of God and His earth escaping the dragon. She's not interceeding or "crushing the head of Satan" whatsoever. She is fleeing. Stop your lying and deceiving, Son of Satan.

    • Dan says:

      And you're under the impression that your "immature" ignorance in regards to your constant obsession with accusing me of finding "God or Christ" or "dieties" in my bathroom mirror is an example of maturity. You don't believe that this equates to filthy mocking of God and Christ. You may find your goddesses face in the reflection of your toilet bowl, but God and Christ is found in the heart, soul and mind of a Christian, but understanding your lack of Biblical knowledge and immaturity, I'm not surprised you think you find them in your bathroom. Maybe you should inform "the Church" of your vision of Mary. Maybe they can sell bottles of your toilet water, seeing that they sell everything else, even the souls their followers.  servant

      P.S. This criticism is not against the real Mary, mother of Christ, but against your false goddess, "Queen of Heaven", worshipped, adored and revered by your idolatrous cult.

       

    • Dan says:

      Corrections – "deities" and "they sell everything else, even the souls [of] their followers."

  88. Leah says:

    I can only speak from my own experiences: I am a Catholic woman who loves the gift of her faith and who owes a great debt to the many good priests, religious, and lay people who have encouraged me on my earthly journey. I have written and spoken out in defense of clergy and of the Catholic faith in the past. I wish the Rev. Jiang all the best in his healing, which will require him to forgive those who have wronged him.

    I need to do the same: to heal and forgive the priests in the Church who have wronged me. The following is just one example of what I have experienced in my life's journey.

    This past year I brought a complaint to our Chancery re a priest who had been counseling me. He violated the trust and established ethics of the relationship. This created severe impact but he threatened me if I were to file a report.The Chancery received my narrative and follow up letters but refused to respond. Their silence has indicated that it is OK to abuse, threaten and harm and that the Church has no accountability… I have seen this before. 

    Does Mediareport exist to nip at the heels of SNAP? I am not associated with them -at least not yet. All this to say, there are two sides to these issues. In our human journey to the Eternal City, some will suffer the indignity and horror of false accusations, while others suffer the same – of Church-covered abuse. Yet both sides deserve respect, due process, and justice. I did not receive that from the Church, so now I must trust in God alone for healing. May all falsely accused be vindicated -and may all those abused by the Church be victors, not victims, in the end!

    • Dan says:

      Leah, I'm all for forgiveness, except when the modus operandi of a religion's hierarchy is to sexually "abuse, threaten and harm" innocent children and then lie, make excuses, deny or refuse as you say to respond, then it just might be time you look closely into the Bible and see if your religion is living up to the qualifications required by God the Father. These crimes are systemic in the church, and though they claim that they're changing, it's just another of their many lies. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me." Problem is they've been fooling followers for centuries with their lies and deception, but now the jig is up. They are becoming exposed and yet they're still throwing all their lying excuses at us, thinking everyone is as gullible and stupid to accept their lies and perversions like previous generations. The game is over, the light is shining in the darkness and the blood sucking vampires are losing their shield of protection. "We won't be fooled again!"

  89. Jim Robertson says:

    P, you evil toad, comparing men to women seems to be an insult in your sad little book of how idiots insult people. I'm honored to be compared to women. They have so very very few massmurderersin their ranks. Unlike us males. They also don't molest children on the whole; save for serving kids religious horse dung as fact.

  90. Dan says:

    Better correct "deities" before the grammar police catches it.

  91. Dan says:

    Hey Jim, I actually get along fine with most gay people. If you're asking me to lie to you and tell you your immoral lifestyle is just fine and not a death sentence, well I'm sorry. Homosexuality is a sin just like many other sins. If you think it's fine parading under the banner of Gay Pride, then yes, I would have a problem with that. Pride of all types disgusts the Lord. "The LORD detests those who are proud; truly they will not go unpunished." Proverbs 16:5  I spent 56 years as a native of SF. Forty years ago, I was invited to Halloween in the Castro and witnessed the most disgusting public show of sexual immorality and nasty filth I've ever seen in my life. Would I like to see some of them go back in the closet? Oh! Yeah! Don't try to convince me how loving and wonderful your group is. Add atheism to your lifestyle and I would have to assume there's a few "demon"s that have deceived you. You're right. It's "your own business" if Hell sounds like a good place for you to end up. It's my business to let you know, if I care about you at all, that it just ain't gonna be pretty. The party will be over. AIDs was a warning, just like other sexually transmitted diseases warn anyone living an unhealthy lifestyle. Blame God for everything, since you think you're better and smarter than He. In the end you'll answer to Him, like we all will, and maybe He can have answers for your questions? I'd be careful if you think you're more loving, forgiving, fair or just than He is. I think you're in for a big surprise.

Speak Your Mind

(email addresses will not be displayed publicly)

*