SNAP R.I.P.: After Hefty Lawsuit Payout, Leaders Dorris and Casteix Now Abandon Ship

Barbara Dorris : SNAP : Joelle Casteix

Saying "Sayonara" to SNAP: Executive director Barbara Dorris (l) and Regional director Joelle Casteix (r)

How the mighty have fallen. Executive Director Barbara Dorris, Regional Director Joelle Casteix, and other longtime board members have resigned from their leadership positions at the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP, marking yet another significant downfall for the once-influential organization.

Their departures come after word that SNAP has finally settled a high-profile lawsuit that exposed lawyer kickback schemes, a callous exploitation of abuse victims, and SNAP's abiding ideological hatred of the Catholic Church.

News of the settlement and the departures were first reported by Brian Roewe at the sympathetic National Catholic Reporter, who buried the story on a late Friday afternoon.

Is anything left?

After last year's shocking lawsuit surfaced, longtime SNAP stalwarts and media blowhards David Clohessy and Barbara Blaine (SNAP's founder) abruptly resigned. The lawsuit – filed by SNAP's own former fundraising director Gretchen Hammond – may have been the straw the broke the camel's back. Also around the same time, a falsely accused priest in Michigan sued SNAP for defamation.

Indeed, the period leading up to all of the resignations is replete with examples of SNAP's rogue behavior and reckless actions in their campaign of hatred against the Catholic Church:

  • In August 2016, a federal judge ruled that SNAP maliciously defamed priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and ordered that SNAP "pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees" for defaming him.
  • In 2014, after years of attacking the Church for alleged "inaction" on abuse cases, it was revealed that SNAP did not call police or alert Church officials even though it knew "for several weeks" about a shocking sex abuse allegation against a Chicago priest. Instead, it held a circus-like press conference.
  • SNAP published the email addresses and personal phone numbers of accused priests to incite harassment against them.
  • In 2013, we exclusively reported that SNAP founder Barbara Blaine admitted that she not only wrote a letter on behalf of a doctor arrested with kiddie porn and but also outlined a plan to cover it up.
  • SNAP sued for the right to harass and intimidate parishioners at Sunday Mass.
  • In 2012, we revealed that the vast majority of SNAP's funding comes from kickbacks from Church-suing tort lawyers.
  • In 2012, we exclusively reported that SNAP's Clohessy admitted under oath in a deposition that SNAP had released false information to the press.
  • In 2012, Clohessy actually accused Philadelphia's Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of faking his cancer to avoid appearing at a deposition. However, within 36 hours of Clohessy's callous remark, Bevilacqua passed away.

Indeed, SNAP's intense animus against the Catholic Church cannot be overstated. As SNAP continues its rapid decline into oblivion, some measure of justice will have been served for the many priests and other innocent victims of its reckless and malicious campaign of defamation and hatred.

[See also: **TheMediaReport.com Special Report** Facts About SNAP That Will Shock You]

Comments

  1. Dan says:

    And let me add the thousands of priest molesters and bishop protectors that lie hidden in church archives or those very archives of evidence destroyed or refused by the cult to be exposed. Add to that those that remain free because of Statute of Limitations, creeps that dropped dead before trials, sympathizing prosecutors or judges, (possibly catholics or afraid of the cult), refusing to prosecute and those protected by the Vatican and it's many excuses and finally those hidden in monasteries or retired in catholic rest homes because they were just to frail or sick to be tried. They said they wished and wanted to live the rest of their lives in peace and be left alone, so they could pray their worthless prayers to their blessed ever-virgin idol, they claim they never worship, after destroying the lives of many innocent children. Wait until God and Jesus gets ahold of all you creeps and your excusers and enablers. Righteous Justice will finally be served and the eternal price will finally be paid, Judgment Day.   

  2. malcolm harris says:

    Yes, SNAP does appear to be in a headlong dive to oblivion. Hopefully they are now on borrowed time. God moves in mysterious ways, carefully weaving his tapestry, usually out of our sight  But there is no doubt he uses  dedicated and talented people….   to assist him. One such person is Dave Pierre, who has laboured long and hard to expose the lies and duplicity of this group. Basically they were modern-day rabble rousers…. and hate-filled bigots at that.  Try to imagine Gretchen Hammond, as she accepted her settlement check. She would have folded it neatly and dropped it in her purse. Then closed her purse with a satisfying…. SNAP.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      So lovely for you to have God on your side, Malcolm. Are Santa the Tooth Fairy and the Easter bunny also plugging for you?

      Gretchen Hammond, hired by SNAP because she's a trans person and Jewish, SNAP must appear "liberal' in order for the false flag to work, has received a judgment on her case? If SNAP really were "liberal' why would they risk the possibilities that arise from a wrongful firing?  SNAP must have really made a massive transition in the past years from when I and other gay people had to call them out again and again on there hate-filled behaviors AGAINST gay people including towards gay victims, that they hired Ms. Hammond then fired her.

      Again can anyone name anything that SNAP has done that has helped victims? Really name one thing.

       

    • Dan says:

      Nice job of brown nosin' there Malcolm.

  3. KenW says:

    Why are threats of murder allowed in these comboxes? Why do they go unreported?

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Because you dumb sh** you can't kill someone who doesn't exist. Anonymity allows invisability. How can i kill what's invisible?

       

       

    • malcolm harris says:

      JR's threatening words, directed at Publion, were clearly meant to intimidate him. When that happens…. most people…. well….they generally fall silent. Thankfully it didn't work with Publion. Perhaps JR should go on a holiday, and leave his computer and other devices at home. Because that  might refresh JR….  and help him put things into their proper perspective..

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Invisible people treatened with death. Oh the horror. LOL!

      Pliar a ghost that feigns sober reflection. LMFAO! Hey Casper, you are supposed to be a friendly Ghost. Jesus said you should. Lol!

    • Dan says:

      They're allowed because it gives the church the opportunity to point their fingers at someone else and say, "There goes the monster." Publiar can claim it's "very usefully revealing and instructive" and demonstrates the opponents "mentality", while taking the proverbial "SPOTLIGHT" off of the pedophile perverts and sick creeps of the cult. It opens the path for the cult to claim that they're the good, holy and one true church, when in reality they're nothing but disgusting "wolves in sheep's clothing". Why do you think the lying hierarchy and publiar lies and falsely accuses me? Same reason. There's the 'monster' bad guy 'Dan', not realizing that they'll be judged for their many cowardly lies and their sickening defending and excuses for the creeps in their cult. Pulling the wool over the eyes of their blind sheep and convincing them with more lies that they're not idolaters and worshippers of wickedness. Servant of the One True God, not your idols and worthless gods and goddesses. DESPICABLE LYING HYPOCRITES!!

    • Dan says:

      This is my response to KenW on April 16, 2018 at 11:12am.

  4. philip says:

    Dan, you're right.  God will judge in the end and what you call a cult,will be shown, despite it's sinful members to be the true Church founded by Christ Jesus. Are members of your church sinless?

    • Dan says:

      Hey Phillip, Maybe if you read the bible, you can find, in the end, the perfect description of your true cult founded by your ever-virgin "Queen of Heaven" (lie), described in perfect detail;

      "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–They will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."  Rev 21:8

      What could be more 'vile', 'sexually immoral' and idolatrous than pedophiles, pederasts and perverts and their cult of lying ('liars') excusers. Get clear of them before you end up swimming with them in their fiery lake of burning sulfur. These unrepentant serial child molesters of innocent children aren't just your normal sinners who deserve the forgiveness of an Almighty Pure and Perfect God. They are nothing but filthy scum.  servant of the Lord

      P.S. And Heaven help those who defend, minimize and spread all kinds of lies and deception in defense of such creeps and their evil cult of hypocrites.

  5. Jim Robertson says:

    SNAP's setting up groups of victims with no therapists involved as therapists only allowed victims to air our stories to each other. No healing there save for realizing we weren't as alone as we thought we were. That doesn't heal much.

    But think about it. A survivors' group that never demanded compensation for its membership. That would be like a union that never demanded higher wages but only spoke about how hard it is to be a low paid worker.

  6. Publion says:

    As should come as a surprise to no regular reader, the implosion of SNAP has prompted yet another extended dump of JR’s favorite bits (the 14th at 219PM):

    That SNAP is a “false-flagged” tool of the Church and always has been / putting SNAP right up there with – had you been waitttinggg forrr itttt? – “Lourdes or the Shroud of Turin”;

    That “you have to be a fool” not to “believe that SNAP and Jeff Anderson … weren’t working for the church”; readers will notice that JR offers – once again – not a single shred of evidence or even plausible thought as to how SNAP and Anderson were tools of the Church; his claim here is that they self-destructed (on orders of the Church, of course) by making “purposeful error after willful error” (in order to collapse themselves).

    As I have proposed, the matrix of elements that supported the Stampede lost the ability to maintain the oh-so-necessary presumptive illusion that the Church was surely a nest of (fill-in-the-blank),  and that presumption (to question it would re-victimize the ‘victims’, of course) served as the flood-tide that lifted all boats over the glaring problems and questions raised by the Stampede.

    Readers will also note JR’s signature form (or rather de-form) of rational argumentation: he merely tosses out epithets at anyone who doesn’t agree with him.

  7. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 219PM:

    That Jeff Anderson was “THE only tort lawyer for 30 years” – which would come as news to the numerous other torties involved in these cases  around the country (including the one who got JR’s claims grandfathered into the big LA abuse settlement of a dozen or so years ago);

    That the Stampede (deceitfully fronted for the Church, in JR’s eructations, by SNAP and Anderson) was a “success”; it was a “success”, surely, for anyone who wanted to play the game that SNAP and the torties set up – but how it was a “success” for the Church (that lost anywhere from three to four billion dollars) remains to be seen. (Regular readers will recall that JR’s bit to cover this problem is that there are gazillions of ‘victims’ out there who have never gotten paid, though there is no evidence of their existence that he can demonstrate; they are thus as real as – oh, say – leprechauns.)

    That only in California were allegants really nicely remunerated; this would come as news to other dioceses and archdioceses around the country that have also had to make huge payouts;

    “What a fraud” indeed. And as to who might “have no morals no shame and no sense of responsibility” (sic) and who also  qualifies as “an evil joke” … readers may judge as they will.

  8. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 219PM:

    That the “Rico laws were never brought to bare” (Freudian slip on JR’s part here?); perhaps they were never brought to bear because the government attorneys realized they did not apply and no case brought on the Rico basis in this matter could succeed;

    Ditto that “no national class action lawsuits were ever made against the Church”; perhaps because even torties realized that no case brought on such a strategy could succeed, especially if the cases actually had to stand up in court rather than be settled out of court (as almost all of them were);

  9. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 219PM:

    And then – apparently trying to do some pre-emptive damage and spin control, JR will try to characterize anything I might ‘type’ as – had you been waitttinggggggggggg forrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – “lies”.

    And that – yet again – the (oh-so-presumptively genuine) “victims” were merely “herded” like dumb animals into the toothy arms of torties promising big payoffs with little danger of real examination;

    And that the mainstream media never “investigated” SNAP because – had you been waittttingggg forrr itttttt? – the Church owned the land under the major media’s buildings. As I have said, the media knew a gripping (and ongoing and lucrative) soap-opera when they saw one (and SNAP and the torties very creatively obliged on this score with their assorted stories); and the whole Stampede fit in nicely with the general liberal agenda to weaken the influence of religion in the nation’s culture; and the ‘trial attorneys’ (i.e. torties) constitute a significant professional demographic supporting the Democratic agenda of ‘secularism’.

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 219PM:

    And that few bishops and priests went to jail “for their crimes”; perhaps because few allegants really opted for filing criminal charges (rather than the far more directly lucrative settlement in civil suit) and few DA’s figured that they could make a case out of the stories on offer and – for that matter – perhaps there were just not as many “crimes” as the Stampede would eagerly have everyone presume.

    As always, whenever JR bleats “that’s the whole truth” any reader is well-advised to start counting one’s pocket change.

    And in another bravura display of his apparently fundamental ignorance of how things work, JR tries to pooh-pooh the Church’s costs of settlements by bleating that the insurance companies paid a lot of it. It apparently has escaped him that if one makes a very large claim or a number of large claims on a policy, then either the policy is going to be cancelled or the premiums are going to skyrocket into the very-large category very quickly.

  11. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 14th at 219PM:

    Oh, and he’s still on his murderous-fantasies jag as well. At this point, regular readers may well imagine that these do not represent or do not only represent a rhetorical strategy on JR’s part, nor only a display of a long-standing characteristic of JR personally (i.e. if he doesn’t get what he wants he’s gonna getcha you betcha), but also constitute an indication of an intensifying descent into something best left for direct and focused clinical intervention.

  12. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 1136PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ too will take the opportunity to toss up a misch of his usual stuff, a) starting with the presumption of “thousands” of clerical “molesters” and “protectors”, then moving on to b) the presumed “thousands” not being prosecuted because of Statutes of Limitations or death or “sympathizing prosecutors or judges” who c) were “possibly catholics and afraid of the cult” or who d) died or were “hidden” … or perhaps taken away somewhere by Martians or leprechauns why not?

    But wait. There’s more. We also get such familiar bits as e) the “blessed ever-virgin idol”.

    And then ‘Dan’ gives us another bravura performance of his God-imitation, delivering a deliciously-fuming intimation of Hell and so on … which ‘Dan’ doth know for his bathroom mirror tells him so.

    And regular readers might recall that in the Fall of last year New York torties, approaching the end of a Statute-of-Limitations extension period, had to buy an overt advertisement in The New York Post  soliciting stories and claims urgently because time was running out. In the event the New York Metro area yielded only 180 or so fresh stories and claims after an entire year of that SOL extension.

    • Dan says:

      Response to publiar's April 16, 2018 @ 4:27pm -

      Publiar's back! I state obvious truths and facts in regards to Catholic Child Abuse and it's many cover-ups, and he thinks he can sarcastically claim they're just fantasies, displaying once again his childish stupidity and immature ignorance. Followed up with his "bathroom" toilet trash. For someone who passes himself off as being somewhat intelligent, you sure can often respond like an immature baby (i.e. " 'Dan' doth know for his bathroom mirror tells him so."). I bet you're proud of your little girlie man nursery rhymes. Grow up, peewee!

  13. malcolm harris says:

    Dave Pierre reminded us how former SNAP director David Clohessy had attacked the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacua, back in 2012. Clohessy accused the Cardinal of faking his illness, to avoid answering questions, during deposition. But within 36 hours the elderly Cardinal died, from his long-standing cancer affliction. This accusation must be straight out of the Playbook. Because Cardinal Pell (Australia) has been accused, by subtle inference, of exaggerating his heart condition.  So even any delay, caused by ill-health, is used to further smear a Catholic leader. But getting back to Clohessy, the outfit he was working for, SNAP, is looking very sick indeed, and may not survive. But the Church that Cardinal Bevilaqua was working for will continue it's pilgrimage… as it has done for the last 2000 years.

  14. Jim Robertson says:

    Because you dumbshit. Its no crime to threaten to murder someone who doesn't exist.

     

  15. Amateur Brain Surgeon says:

    Ding Dong

    SNAP is Gone

    Which old SNAP?

    The Wicked SNAP

    Ding Dong The Wicked SNAP is gone

    • Dan says:

      Just another catholic witch-hunt, in an attempt to take the SPOTLIGHT off of their church and it's plethura of disgusting unrepentant child molesting clergy and their lying excusers and defenders.

  16. Publion says:

    As I have said before in regard to JR’s recent ‘murder jag’ in comments: I don’t take them personally and actually think they are very usefully revealing and instructive.

    We now see a further nicely-vivid double display (the 17th at 1249AM and 12254AM) of how JR’s mind works to justify himself: since I am ‘invisable’ – doncha see? – then it’s not a (prosecutable) crime to threaten to murder me.

    First, this would require one to presume that anonymity equals some form of invisibility, which itself requires one to presume that being in any way ‘invisable’ (or more accurately, anonymous) equates to being non-existent as a person.

    Which would also mean that in any case where the police discover an unidentified but clearly murdered corpse then they can’t declare the crime a murder because the clearly-murdered corpse has not been identified by name (and thus – being ‘invisable’ – cannot be demonstrated to be a human corpse).

  17. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 17th at 1249AM and 1254AM:

    Of course, the astute reader will also quickly realize that if JR’s bit here is to be taken seriously, then he effectively admits that he has for quite a few years been expending time and energy in controversy with a non-existent entity (i.e. myself, anonymous and – if his ‘logic’ is to be accepted – non-existent as a person).

    What we see here is a (probably long-practiced) word-game deployed in the service of self-exculpation. Ideas, concepts and meanings are simply toyed with like a child’s blocks to make whatever little imaginary structure suits his fancy and his purpose.

    So for readers, we get yet another instructive demonstration of the type of mentality we are dealing with, which I would say is also the mentality that a high-school administration had to deal with 55 or more years ago and – while I yield not a whit of approval for the SNAP operation – what SNAP had to deal with during the time JR was associated with it.

    The Stampede was structured precisely to give such a mentality and game-plan as much play as possible and one must bear this in mind whenever assessing claims and stories and allegations.

  18. Publion says:

    Commenter ‘Malcolm Harris’s mention of Cardinal Pell’s case (the 16th at 959PM) dovetails with the most recent update from Down-Under:

    As some readers may recall, a year or more ago Cardinal Pell (who had fallen afoul of Pope Francis by objecting to some of the papal initiatives a few years ago) was accused of assorted and long-ago sexually-abusive acts back in Australia / he took a leave of absence from the Vatican and went back to Australia / which at the time was in the midst of a government inquiry into sexual abuse of the young (although not – if memory serves – in public, government-run or government-sponsored institutions) / and earlier this year his ‘case’ made its way through the stages of the Aussie legal system to a month-long set of hearings that was held in March in order for a magistrate to determine if the various claims merited a court trial.

    Despite the numerous glaring problems of inconsistency and outright impossibility in the various claims, stories and accusations, the magistrate presiding over the hearing opined a day ago that she was inclined to let the case proceed to a jury trial. To do so she and the prosecutors seem to have fallen back onto a curious legal standard of evidence: unless an accusation has been “annihilated” in pre-trial hearing, then the case should go to a jury.

  19. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on the ‘Malcolm Harris’ comment of the 16th at 959PM:

    As opposed to a standard such as ‘preponderance of evidence’ or ‘clear and convincing proof’ or ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’, the prosecution and the magistrate claim that the applicable standard at this point is ‘annihilation’, which is not a formal legal term but rather more of a literary or rhetorical term. (Although there is a formal legal term ‘anniented’ – meaning: made null, abrogated or brought to nothing – that is not the specific legal term the magistrate has used.)

    Does the magistrate simply wish to dodge responsibility and kick the case upstairs, as it were? Are the prosecutors perhaps still hoping that if they keep this thing going long enough somebody – anybody – will feel moved to ‘come forward’ (as the Victimists like to say nowadays) and throw some better wood on the fire?

    At any rate, readers may wish to consult the article ‘War against Cardinal Pell’, archived at the Catholic League site. This article simply lists the various accusations and how they have already been discredited in one way or another.

    The magistrate’s final decision is to be rendered on May 1st. Perhaps the strategy is to see how public opinion reacts in the next two or three weeks and go from there.

    • Dan says:

      Oh yeah! Let's take the word of big-mouth catholic defender and excuser Bill Donahue as he attacks all the victims of the pure and holy cardinal Pell, with the usual excuses that it all happened years ago, as if that alone is proof that accusations are false. You jackasses haven't heard that victims of child abuse on average take 30 or 40 years to come clean and be believed and can end up having serious lifelong problems?

      And if card Pell, as big-mouth Bill claims, "has a stellar record of combating this problem" in regards to "sexual abuse", it's only based on the fact that the church is plagued with clergy child abusers. What better way to take the "spotlight" off of yourself than to thirty years later claim you're against the very sins your guilty of.

      John Gill once stated back in the 1700's, " And whoremongers; all unclean persons, that indulge themselves in impure lusts, in fornication, adultery, and all lewdness; as the clergy of the church of Rome, who being forbidden to marry, and being under a vow of celibacy, and making great pretensions to chastity and singular holiness, give themselves to all lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness."

      My guess is that your church has been plagued with perverted hierarchy for it's 1700 or so years of existence, so please don't include Simon Peter as the first of your creepy pompous popes. When big-mouth Donahue and all the rest of you catholic excusers wish to claim that it's all past history and long ago, well I guess there's some truth to that considering the systemic perversions, greed and wickedness of your cult has gone on throughout church history.

  20. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the list of ‘Dan’s most recent stuff in the order they appear going down the comment-list.

    On the 17th at 1126PM ‘Dan’ tries to solve his problems by (slyly and manipulatively) presuming that he merely doth “state obvious truths and facts” … and if you don’t drink that Kool-Aid then the rest of his bit collapses. Monstrances and Hosts as sun-god worship and moon-god worship and Mary as a pagan idol and so forth … such “truths and facts” can only be “obvious” to a mind like ‘Dan’s.

    Ditto when he tries to characterize my “’bathroom’ toilet trash”. My imagery in that regard only refers to his bathroom mirror, where – as I have often said – he appears to conduct his séances with the entities that grant him his oh-so-speshull ability to discern “obvious truths and facts”, including that of his own very-speshullness.

    That quotation involving “tells him so” is actually from an old Protestant and fundie jingle. So ‘Dan’ can go and deliver his invective against “little girlie man nursery rhymes” to the people from whom he’s lifted most of his stuff.

  21. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ will simply dig into his 3×5 pile and riff in a general sort of way on the Catholic League and Bill Donahue.

    But the article itself to which I referred simply goes down the long list of problems with the various stories and witnesses and so on, ticking off the problems – and they are not insignificant problems at all.

    Thus and as so very often, his game here is to evade the actual and the factual by tossing up a “smokescreen” (to use one of JR’s favorite terms) of general free-floating invective in the hopes of distracting any reader from sober consideration and instead ‘stampeding’ (to use one of my favorite terms) readers into an emotional state that is also free-floating and evasively disconnected from any actual consideration of the realities.

  22. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:

    And he lards on as many 3×5 bits from the standard Victimist Playbook as he can muster.

    Thus that it takes oodles of years before a victim might decide to ‘come forward’: when you are robbed coming out of a bank with a withdrawal does it take that long to decide you might want to inform the police? Well, one might say, being robbed isn’t the same thing. And that point is itself rather instructive: if something doesn’t appear to be a crime to begin with in the first place, then … well, where does that take us?

    And how then is a claim to be treated in the legal system, coming oodles of years later? The Victimist solution to that utterly intractable and abyssal problem has been to simply ‘believe the victim’ no matter what the claim and then just let ‘outrage’ govern the process and outcome of adjudication. One draws perilously close to totalitarian show-trial jurisprudence very quickly.

  23. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:

    Then another 3×5 bit that also seeks to deploy a specious imitation of logic: even if Cardinal Pell has been “combating this problem” then that only ‘proves’ that there is a huge problem just like ‘Dan’ says.

    There exists and always has existed the danger of sexual abuse in any human organization; and the Church as human organization no doubt has had instances of it. The more interesting point is that the Church has taken more steps than any other organization on the planet to deal with this all-too-human problem.

    • Dan says:

      I tried my best to ignore your ignorance and stupidity, publiar, and especially your belief that Big-Mouthed Bill has factually disputed anything, when all I read is the excuses and defense of another perverted catholic leader and the usual cowardly blaming of victims.

      Once again, and I repeat, an institution which makes claims of being Holy, Pure, True, Godly, etc., should not have any vile, lusting or lewd pedophile or pederast creeps among it's ranks. Once found they should have had them immediately laicized and imprisoned, not coddled, hidden and then secretly transferred the perverts to other dioceses.

      Once again, for you to compare yourselves to other human organizations, after claiming to be so pompously holy and attempting to place blame on others, is cowardly, hypocritical and plagued with nothing but excuses, lies and denials. And to claim "the Church has taken more steps than any organization on the planet" is just more of your lies, and yet they should have done more seeing that they are absolutely the worst homosexual pedophile cult, even among secular organizations.

      Must you continually lie and make excuses for your disgustingly vile and corrupt cult?

  24. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:

    One thinks of a similar dynamic in the matter of slavery: slavery of one sort or another has existed in just about all human societies throughout history; captives were taken in war and – when not executed – reduced to slavery; the Moslem empires and regimes not only took captives for slaves in their own wars but also ran slave-trading enterprises for many centuries (one recalls Thomas Jefferson’s efforts against the slave-trading economy of the so-called ‘Barbary pirates’); and the history of intra-African slave-trading, as well as the complicity in providing slaves to purchasers from abroad, has yet to receive sufficient notice (does anyone really think that for centuries small bands of European slave-traders penetrated freely and frequently to the heart of the sub-continent to take slaves and transport them without incident out to the distant seashores where ships awaited?).

    The historically novel point is that the British government in 1807 ordered the Royal Navy to stop the maritime slave-trade ships and eventually drew the US government of the day into assisting in that mighty task. It was not the tribal chiefs who decided to put a stop to the lucrative business. Nor, for that matter, was it the decidedly Protestant entrepreneurs of the Northern states who had engaged in what is historically called the Triangle Trade.

    • Dan says:

      What is your "similar dynamic", that slavery was as cruel as your cults molesting of young innocent children? No! Slavery was cruel, but nothing so disgusting as the harm your cult caused to thousands of families and their little ones. DESPICABLE AND INEXCUSABLE!!

  25. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:

    Then ‘Dan’ once again tries on the Wig of Educated Competence, this time quoting from one John Gill, a very early 18th-century English Baptist preacher of strongly Calvinist theological leanings. No doubt one can rummage through the post-Reformation era for bundles of such vivid and catchy invective – and are we to imagine that there were no such miscreants among that day’s Protestant clergy and faithful?

    (We note in this bit, interestingly, the old Protestant idea that Catholicism’s clerical celibacy is somehow a – or perhaps the – primary cause of Catholic clerical sexual issues. But if that is to be taken as accurate, then there would be very few – if any at all – sexual miscreants among the other world religions or non-Catholic variants of Christianity, since just about all of them do not require celibacy.)

    • Dan says:

      So once again, let's point the accusatory finger at others, so we can claim the nasty "miscreants" of our cult aren't any worse than the rest. First off, most Protestant clergy went after teen girls, and didn't rape and molest little boys and babies, not that this makes them innocent either. Secondly, this is the reason why I belong to none of the religious cults and phony false churches of the world. You're all plagued with deceiving lying hypocrites, claiming some false form of Godliness, when nothing is further from the truth.

      And I'm under no opinion that ending "catholicism's clerical celibacy" would solve any of your cult's problems. You would still be unrepentant idolaters, greedy, cowards, sexually immoral and blatant liars, all sins in themselves worthy of Hell's Fire. I've told you before that married respected catholic store owners (males) in the neighborhood of my youth were having sex with minor boys on the side. Clerical celibacy would change absolutely nothing. Your leaders are perverts and pedophiles and have done little or nothing to change their status, other than to deny and deceive.

  26. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:

    Thus, then, ‘Dan’ will conclude by favoring us with his “guess”, and readers may judge it as they may.

    And he further tries to make his “guess” do double-duty, tossing in a bit about Simon Peter not being the first Pope. Aside from the fact that a) nobody is familiar with whatever personal human failings Simon Peter demonstrated in his life whether pre- or post- his encounter with Christ then b) we are still faced with the pericope (never addressed by ‘Dan’) wherein Christ gave Peter the Great Commission (i.e. to be the rock upon which Christ would build His church and to be given the power to bind and loose sins).

    And we can also add c) the abyssal problem posed for the ‘Dan’-fundie approach by Paul’s admission that the good he wishes to do he does not do and the evil he wishes to avoid he yet commits.

    • Dan says:

      I have addressed and I'm not denying Christ's statement in regard to Peter being the rock, but some claim that Christ was speaking of himself and Peter didn't resemble much of a rock when he denied knowing Jesus. What I am denying is that there is no way that Peter was in any way the first catholic pope. No mention of any popes in the Bible, and how dare you claim the humbled Peter to be one of your pompous, deceiving, fish-headed phony, wolves in sheep's clothing. Absolutely nothing in the Word would lead even an imbecile to come to such a stupidly ignorant conclusion, but not surprising you have.

      Another one of your ignorant conclusions that Paul remained a horrible sinner after he came to Christ. You're taking his statements completely out of context to what he was teaching in this chapter (Romans 7) and the rest of his teachings of how with Christ we become a new creature, turning our backs on our sinful lives and striving to live pure, clean and changed lives. Perfect? No, but surely not insistent idolaters, greedy, disgustingly vile, sexually immoral perverts and let's not forget compulsive liars, like yourself.

      Why must you think you can interpret Biblical wisdom, while belonging and living the life of a lying, deceived and delusional catholic?    servant of the Lord

  27. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 17th at 1056PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ apparently tries a come-back to the question posed by commenter ‘Ken W’ (the 16th at 1112AM) as to why threats of murder are allowed in the comments section.

    “They’re allowed” – ‘Dan’ doth hereby declare – because (we must try to follow the bouncing ball here) by this site permitting those clearly-demonstrated violent lucubrations “it gives the church the opportunity to point their fingers at someone else” as being a “monster”.

    This excuse of ‘Dan’s relies – of course – on the acceptance of his presumption that the Church is fatally riddled with ‘monsters’ in the form of “pedophile perverts and sick creeps of the cult”, which assertion is hardly demonstrated to be true but is absolutely essential if ‘Dan’s personal shtick and agenda are to retain any semblance of accuracy and relevance.

    And as always, the bottom-line turns out to be a familiar old marketing strategy: having (he hopes) disposed of this particular rival to the claim of being divinely-commissioned and divinely-authorized, ‘Dan’ can then present himself for that status. Or – perhaps more accurately – ‘Dan can then presume himself to hold that status … and if you don’t agree, then God’ll getcha you betcha.

  28. malcolm harris says:

    Publion, on the 17th, is probably correct regarding how there may be some confusion between the word 'annihilated' and the word 'anniented'. Don't know if it's the Magistrate herself, or the court reporters, who have got it wrong? Will only say that standards in higher education have been falling steadily for the past 30 years. However the word 'annihilation' can mean…. "to totally defeat in argument or contest".   Well, having read Phil Donohue's article called 'The War against Cardinal Pell'… then to my mind 'annihilation' may well be appropriate. Because the known charges appear to have been totally defeated, on the defence's evidence, already placed before the Magistrate.

    • Dan says:

      Hey Malcolm, "Phil Donahue" was a talk show host. Maybe Big-mouthed Bill can do that for his next gig, although the only audience that would listen to him is brain-washed or deceived catholics, who enjoy listening to a fellow catholic liar, deceiver and manipulator of all truth. ONE BIG LYING CATHOLIC HYPOCRITE AMONG MANY! Yes, that would include you publiar!

  29. Publion says:

    On the 22nd at 153AM ‘Dan’ – with nothing significant to put up – merely tries to make some hay on the fact that ‘Malcolm Harris’ mistakenly typed the name of Phil Donahue instead of Bill Donahue (of Catholic League).

    He then tries to make his bit do double-duty by tossing up yet again his bit about “one big lying catholic hypocrite among many!” (scream-caps omitted) … without, but of course, demonstrating any hypocritical lie that he would like readers to think that I have put up.

    • Dan says:

      What gives you the mistaken impression that you're the one who puts up anything significant? You claim I can't demonstrate any "hypocritical lie[s] that [I] would like readers to 'think' that [you] have put up". Your stuff is so full of double-talk poppycock. You're such a liar that you even wish to lie and deny that you are one. You've personally slandered and lied about the liars in your cult who falsely accused me. You deny, twist, lie, manipulate and deceive the facts of Catholic (priest and bishop) Child Abuse. You think we're all stupid or is it just that you're so used to brainwashed catholics sucking up to your ignorance and lame stupid excuses. You think you're so smart that you can change the meaning of the Bible and most catholics will agree with your poor translations. Like I've quoted before, "Deceiving others but being themselves deceived." You're the worst catholic liar in your cult that I've ever come across, and believe me that I've run into many. I imagine that this must console you, Hypocrite.

  30. Donald Link says:

    One item to note to lighten things up a bit, the members of SNAP's board would certainly provide interesting subject matter for any PhD candidate in psychology.  The manner of their approach is near obsession and thier tactics makes one wonder if their motivations are more subliminal.  Possibly even a mini-series on LOGO channel would be appropriate to their mission.

    • Dan says:

      Why do catholics so easily see the faults in others, but are completely blind to recognizing their own more serious and filthy faults? "The church" hierarchy, deceivers, excusers and publiars would "certainly provide interesting subject matter", and yet the only one interested in delving into that disgusting darkness would be Satan and his demons. Catholics, run from them while God is giving you the chance. Beware not to take His patience and kindness for granted. You'll never find forgiveness until God forgives you and through Jesus, and he alone, helps you change your life. How can a hierarchy plagued with pedophiles, pederasts and perverts and their excusers give to you forgiveness when they are of the Unforgiven. Do not be deceived. Satan was known as the Great Accuser and Deceiver of the brethren. Sounds just like the attributes of a publiar.  servant of the One True God

  31. Jim Robertson says:

    No Malcolm, I want to kill Publion but he's a sphectre.  Silence Pub? why from your mouth to God's ear. He gets paid for being here. He's not going to pass up a pay check. Pub is the real reason this site exists. He daren't shut up. Pub is the apologist for Catholic sex abuse by minimising its existence. He's a piece of shit, as are those who supprt him.

    Threating nay promising to kill such a lying phantom is no crime. It's a moral duty.

  32. Jim Robertson says:

    This is SNAP's swan song. Its last shot perhaps at disgracing victims by SNAP's pretending it acts for us, for our interests. As it besmurches who we are, morally because of SNAP's stupily willful behavior.

    If you look at your own long list of SNAP errors above. I could treble that list. All of it done to make victims look bad. I can't think of one good thing SNAP has done for victims beside mentioning we exist. SNAP only uses victims to authenticate itself as being pro victims but when you add up SNAP's actions all you see are fuck ups. Legal fuck ups. Rather strange to have so many legal fuckups if you're a lawyers front.

  33. Jim Robertson says:

    Malcolm if I look up the word fool in the dictionary will I see a picture of you?

    I don't want to intimidate P. I wish to annihilate it.

    I need no vacation. I just dropped the facade of decency. Why be decent to a fascist? Why play the decency game if you are the only one playing decently? So I've gone for the death sentence for the murderers' accomplice here. All mockery and no respect equals death for me as a human here. I'm merely returning the "favor". Somebody get me a rope.

  34. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the list in the order they have been put up on the site.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 514PM:

    ‘Dan’s problem here was that he very much wanted to get back into the comments but couldn’t really deal with the points at issue. His solution? Eazy-peezy: the histrionic back-of-hand-to-forehead as he doth bleatfully intone in the whiney accents of Bethumped Virtue that he just couldn’t keep quiet any longer etc etc.

    He then tries to spin it this way: he simply cawn’t see how anyone could think that Bill Donahue had “factually disputed anything at all”; after all, ‘Dan’ applied his prodigious capacities to the article (we are to infer) and all he could “read” was “excuses and defense” and so forth. Ya see, for ‘Dan’, anything that doesn’t agree with his dreck must automatically be “excuses and defense” (and thus, of course, “lies”) and so he really doesn’t have to pay any attention to them at all. Neato.

    • Dan says:

      You're not a cult of liars because you don't agree with what I say or my beliefs, you're a cult of liars because your tendency to attempt to lie in order to push your agenda, and that is to cover-up for your cult's perverts and falsely accuse anyone exposing their ongoing filth. Like I've said, you're such blatant liars that you even lie and deny being liars. Bet you even think that you have the God of all knowledge fooled, fool.  servant

  35. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 521PM:

    Nor – having applied his prodigious capacities yet again – can he detect any “similar dynamic” between the Church and my extended reference to slavery.

    Spelling it out for him: the historically interesting and novel aspect of slavery is not that it existed but that notable measures were taken to stop it / the historically interesting and novel aspect about the Church as a human institution afflicted (as are all human institutions) with some degree of abusiveness is not that it is thus afflicted but that notable measures were taken to stop it.

    As for his considered historical opinion that slavery was nothing compared to abuse … readers may judge as they may.

    • Dan says:

      It's far from necessary for a manipulating imbecile to spell out anything for me. If there is the 'similar dynamic' you propose, it would be that slavery has taken years to remedy and the catholic cult has done little or should I say just about nothing to remedy it's disgusting pedophilia and pederasty problems. Still handled in house, creeps protected and shipped to the Vatican and others retired to catholic whorehouses, to end their disgusting evil lives in peace and anonymity. Hypocritical nasty old creeps, concealed by the liars and deceivers of the cult. Yes, publiar, that includes you.  servant

      P.S. catholic whorehouses – not your normal whorehouses, but retirement homes for homosexual pedophile and pederast perverted clergy creeps.

  36. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 552PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ has to find a way to preserve his shtick against my point that the Catholic Church is neither a) the only human organization to be afflicted with human failings nor b) the victim of its own clerical-celibacy protocols.

    And thus here – and, it must be said, truly marvelously – ‘Dan’ stitches together the following bits:

    First, he doesn’t want anyone thinking about either i) the historically omnipresent sexual failings of the human race or ii) any problems other religions have ( which problems cast into deep question the causative role of the celibacy protocols).

    How then to keep up his shtick? His solution: in a bravura display of sly witlessness ‘Dan’ huffs and puffs that “most Protestant clergy went after teen girls” …

    • Dan says:

      We're not talking about the "omnipresent sexual feelings of the human race". We're talking about a cult which claims to be Holy, Pure, Pius and God's True Church, when the only truth is that it's plagued with homosexual perverts who prey (not pray) on underaged little innocent boys and the liars and ecusers who protect the creeps. Quit comparing your cult to other cults or the secular world. You've already been judged guilty and Hell's Fire is lapping at your cult's doors. Christ's true followers are only waiting for their justice and freedom from you Accusers come Judgment Day. Do you even have any comprehension what the sting of a scorpion will feel like. Enjoy! Liars and Perverts!

  37. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 552PM:

    And he has now taken the position that ‘going after’ “teen girls” isn’t anywhere near as bad as ‘raping’ and ‘molesting’ “little boys and babies” (babies of one or of either sex, one feels constrained to inquire).  And does ‘going after’ “teen girls” not include to “rape and molest” them?

    And – if we were to credit ‘Dan’ oft-noted and grossly problematic reading of Jesus bringing over a child to impress upon the disciples His point about ‘becoming like little children’ in matters of belief in God – would that pericope exclude the abuse of “girls”?

    It appears that in order to keep his shtick going, ‘Dan’ now has to focus only on the abuse of males. Or perhaps ‘Dan’ has a particular concern in that specific area … for whatever reasons.

    • Dan says:

      I believe it's your cult that has it's "focus … on the abuse of males", and usually young innocent flesh. Don't try to lay your nasty clinical projection on me, you deceiving perverted creep.

    • Dan says:

      Way to nice a night to deal with your ignorance and garbage, but will return destroy your stupidity later.

    • Dan says:

      Since you think you can put words in my mouth, I'll let you add the 'to or and' after return.

  38. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 552PM:

    Then, trying to double-task his bit here, ‘Dan’ tosses in yet again his bit about why he doth “belong to none of the religious cults and phony false churches of the world”. But since that would – as he has said in prior comments – include what he describes as all “man-made” religions, we are back to ‘Dan’ being the oh-so-speshull Pope, Authorized Revealer, and Sole Member of the church-of-‘Dan’-in-the-bathroom-mirror.

    Of course, this “man-made” bit actually leads to a nonsensical (except for ‘Dan’ own agenda and purposes) conclusion. Because if any religion is revealed by God to humans, then that human participation or building-upon that revelation automatically makes it “man-made”, so ‘Dan’ has thereby ruled out all of the world’s religions, or certainly those of a Judeo-Christian bent.

    Leaving us – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – with only ‘Dan’ as the sole source of divine revelation, as channeled through his bathroom-mirror while he thumbs through this or that version of the Bible for those bits that serve his purposes and fuel his phantasms.

    Thus doth he continue to preside over his religious version of the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.

    • Dan says:

      I believe it's your phony false religious cult that harbors the "oh-so-speshull Pope, Authorized Revealer" (Mary 'Queen of Heaven'), and is full of Sole, not Souls, but a bunch of Fish-Heads.

      They are "man-made" religions because they are based on the deception that they're Churches of Christ, when they are far from the true teachings of Christ our Savior. Like your cult for instance and it's false worship of Mother Mary, not Christ, because you're too cowardly to face God and his "Awe-Full" Son, as you have stated, little mommy's boy.

      When you have nothing of importance to add to the conversation, you revert back to your bathroom-mirror mocking stupidity and your childish and immature "Mad Hatter's Tea Party" BS. Why don't you grow up, peewee.

  39. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 552PM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    He then reports that he is “not under the opinion” that the Catholic celibacy protocols have anything substantive to do with the ever-human abuse problems.

    Rather it is ‘greed’ and ‘idolatry’ and ‘cowardice’ and being “sexually immoral and blatant liars” (Catholics, we recall, summoned the police and got him lugged and sent to a psychiatric facility … six times) that are the cause. Just how those elements that he has claimed play a causative role, ‘Dan’ doesn’t or can’t say. But you can take his word for it. And have a cup of his tea.

    And – perhaps on some level aware of the diaphanous nature of his claims here – he then seeks to bolster his presentation with … more diaphanous claims, i.e. that when he was a kid “married catholic store owners were having sex with minor boys on the side” (no girls allowed?). This ‘Dan’ doth surely know, for his personal agenda tells him so.

    Readers can consider it all as they will.

    • Dan says:

      It takes quite some level of ignorance and stupidity to need an explanation of how your unbiblical rules of celibacy, or your plethura of sins of greed, idolatry, cowardice, sexual immorality and blatant lying "play a causitive role" in sending your cult into Hell's Fire. Apparently you understand little or just about nothing in regards to how sin can destroy the human being and eventually all of the deceived and their deceivers, especially when they falsely claim to be followers of God. Nothing but lying hypocrites destined for destruction.

      And once again, when you have nothing concrete to add, you're back to promoting the lies of your fellow catholic lying hypocrites.You must be such a proud bunch of liars, for I know you're proud of all your lying garbage and nonsense, peewee.

  40. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:

    And now doth ‘Dan’ declaim upon the Great Commission pericope.

    ‘Dan’ doth allow as how Jesus did make “the statement in regard to Peter being the rock” (upon which, we further recall, Jesus said He would build His church) but – try to follow the bouncing ball now – “Christ was speaking of himself” (does ‘Dan’ mean ‘Himself’ here?).

    What does this lead to? Jesus saying to Peter something like this: You are Peter and upon this rock meaning Me Myself Jesus I will build My church. The ball is not bouncing here; it is simply performing cartoon-like gyrations in mid-air.

    • Dan says:

      Throughout the Bible Jesus is referred to as the Rock. So if you're dumb enough to think that a human is your rock, then that explains why you're stupid enough to go to Mary for your life, your sweetness, your hope and mercy. Good luck with that you deceived heathen idolater.  servant

      P.S. The only bouncing balls are the rocks in your head.

  41. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:

    Slyly – or perhaps attempting to lard on a patina of studious and informed and judicious competence – ‘Dan’ hedges his mind-numbing bit here with the introductory “some claim” … but there are many such “some” claimants who also say things like ‘Jesus was really just an extra-terrestrial from the planet Wingding’ … and so what?

    ‘Dan’ then – and no surprises here – delves into his 3×5 pile to lard on more bits. Thus that Peter “didn’t resemble much of a rock when he denied knowing Jesus”. But that is a hugely decisive point: Jesus / in fulfillment of God’s Plan / chose humans who were almost guaranteed to be imperfect vessels of God’s Will and Plan.

    That is the stunning mystery that we receive from the Gospel: God willingly entrusted His Will and Plan to fallible humans (and their inevitably “man-made” religion – to use ‘Dan’s bit here).

    • Dan says:

      God may have "entrusted His Will and Plan to fallible humans", but never would he entrust it to pedophile perverts, idolaters, greedy pigs, blatant liars and deceivers, and your "man-made" cult qualifies for all of the above.

  42. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:

    Thus too we see again his oft-repeated claim that Peter was “not the first catholic pope”. (Well, we have to infer that because the actual grammatical statement ‘Dan’ has made here actually indicates that ‘Dan’ is “denying that there is no way” Peter was the first pope.)

    But then too, since Peter – according to the ‘Dan’-verse reading here – was hardly a perfect “rock”, then why did Jesus give Peter the Great Commission in the first place (presuming that Jesus wasn’t simply and impossibly referring to Himself as “the rock” in the pericope)?

    As so very often, ‘Dan’ – let us recall Imelda Marcos’s shoe collection – simply has a bunch of bits to be admired but not otherwise examined; thus his bits, when tossed together, do not and cannot hold together in any rational way. Imagine that Imelda’s collected shoes were merely papier-mache and one could only admire them because if you tried to actually wear them they would quickly fall apart. Thus ‘Dan’s Biblical-bits shtick.

    • Dan says:

      Have we forgotten that there are no popes in the Bible, no catholic church, no Mary worship, no Rosary, no Immaculate Conception of Mary, no Assumption of Mary, no statue worship or even making of statues, except for the wicked, and all of the other stupid lies of your phony cult. Wake up catholics, the cult promotes the beliefs that will lead you all into Hell. God will treat your false religion and it's statues and temples as if they're "paper-mache", when he tosses the whole mess into His Judgment Day bonfire. Run from their terrible lies and fate.

       

  43. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:

    In further demonstration of that, ‘Dan’ then finds it tactically convenient to don the Wig of Righteous and Sympathetic Outrage to deliver the harrumphing bleat “how dare” I “claim the humbled Peter was in any way the first catholic pope”.

    So … (follow the bouncing ball if you can) Peter is back to being the good guy in the story, unjustly bethumped by those who would respect and revere him as the first Pope.

    Peter was – if the relevant pericope be taken as any guide – the “rock” upon whom Jesus would build His church. Though Peter would deny Christ and though Peter (at some unspecified point, according to ‘Dan’s bit) was “humbled”) yet Jesus chose him and gave him the power to “bind and loose sins” (which is nothing if not the overt delegation of a truly divine power and authority).

    What we see here is simply ‘Dan’ trying to protect his own (fantasied) turf and title from not only Mary but Peter. That his various bits hold together no better than papier-mache in a rainstorm is something he would prefer not be noted or discussed.

    • Dan says:

      Hey dummy, read Matthew 23:9 to find there are no titles for God's true followers, not Father, nor Rabbi, nor ever virgin immaculate Marys and most definitely no pope Peters. Stupid idolatry promoted by lying idolaters, catholic fairytales and fantasies. Houses full of holes expected to float on the Lake of Fire. Happy sailing.

  44. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    In regard to the problem of Paul’s heart-felt admission of his ongoing sinfulness in Romans 7, ‘Dan’ – in the accents of some sly political press agent – merely bleats that I am “taking his statements completely out of context”.

    Am I now? And just how might that be?

    Well, ‘Dan’ doesn’t say. Rather, he merely points out the problems that his (and the fundie school of interpretation) would then have: if a) Paul has admitted to committing ongoing “evil” then b) how can the fundies (and ‘Dan’ who has lifted so much of their stuff) build their little house of Biblical blocks to the effect that once you have ‘accepted Jesus as your personal savior’ then you don’t and perhaps can’t sin ever again any more (although, recalling ‘Dan’s sly hedge, maybe you might make “the occasional mistakes”) … ?

  45. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:

    I agree completely that Paul’s admission in Romans 7 creates abyssal and fatal problems for any simplistic fundie-type gambit. But that doesn’t constitute my taking the pericope “out of context”. Indeed, it demonstrates that it is the ‘Dan’-fundie bit that seeks to rip Paul “out of context” in order  to clear their path to their whacko and preferred self-serving fantasies of ‘genuine and true Christians’ who cannot and do not sin ever again.

    Thus the problem comes down to defining exactly what constitutes the ‘newness’ in Christ’s message and in His redemptive action. The ‘Dan’-fundie’ conclusion is that this ‘newness’ is defined by the believer no longer being capable-of committing or willing-to-commit sin.

    • Dan says:

      I stated plain as day, "with Christ we become a new creature, turning our backs on our sinful lives and striving to live pure, clean changed lives. Perfect? No, but surely not insistent idolaters, greedy, disgustingly vile, sexually immoral perverts and let's not forget compulsive liars, like yourself." Let me emphasize "Perfect? No …"

      Now publiar, as he always does, thinks he can manipulate and falsely translate what I stated to mean I'm trying "to clear [a] path to [my] whacko and preferred self-serving fantasies of 'genuine and true Christians' who cannot and do not sin ever again." He goes on further to state that, "The 'Dan'-fundie conclusion is that this 'newness' is defined by the believer no longer being capable-of committing or willing-to-commit sin."

      Clear as day I stated "Perfect? No …". So who is the "whacko" and liar who thinks he can change whatever I say to fit his blatant lying agenda? He plays the same game, twisting and manipulating Biblical verse in order to achieve his deceiving purposes. How can you catholics believe and suck-up to this lying manipulator. He is evil, wicked and deceiving in all his excuses, denials and defending of all the deceptions of your church. Your cult's leaders care nothing for your souls and are only interested in stealing your money, as they teach you false interpretations of the Lord's Word. Get away from these false teachers and liars.

  46. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 624PM:

    The Catholic conclusion is not that the saving act of Christ has magically lifted us out of the swamp of sin (somewhat like a rescue helicopter rounding up stray and lost hikers) but rather that we have been shown a path through the swamp that will keep us from straying off into its deeper abysses. But a muddy and mucky and demanding trek through the swamp is still the human lot (thus the power to “bind and loose” the inevitable sins).

    ‘Dan’ – indentured to the fundie impulse – needs more than that to bolster himself. And if the stern but saving reality of Christ’s and God’s Plan won’t do that, then he and the fundies will construct some idol-phantasm theory of their own that will make them  more easily and quickly feel a whole lot better about themselves and serve their various purposes.

    And ‘Dan’ (the 24th at 628PM) – having enswamped himself about as much as possible today – heads for the wings bleating slyly that he doth “believe” he hath “answered to enough of [my] garbage today”.

    • Dan says:

      The catholic conclusion is a "muddy and mucky and demanding trek through the swamp", lacking Christ as their Savior and substituting Him with the human replacements of an ever-virgin mary, popes, saints and false fathers, powerless to forgive sins, and leading over a billion followers down the path to Hell. The only Christ they know is the one their ancestors murdered on the cross, bloodied trophies displayed proudly in their pagan temples of utter doom. They are happier turning to their false visions of Mary and think their unbiblical repeated prayers (Rosary) will guarantee them a place in Heaven, when they won't even take them to their made-up purgatory, but their idolatry will lead them straight into Hell's Fire.

  47. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 24th at 126PM:

    Still trying to talk himself out of the consequences of his murderous and self-exculpating  fantasies he now calls me a “sphectre” (another Freudian slip; was he thinking of  ‘sphincter’?) he will now claim that I am “paid for being here” (I am not); thus – doncha see? – that poor little bethumped and honest JR is being made a fool of by a paid professional Catholic shill … that sort of thing. So if his material looks like a pile of dubious dreck after I examine it, that’s not because JR’s stuff is dubious dreck; it’s because he is being victimized by some professional “paid” shill who just makes JR’s stuff look that way.

    Readers may judge as they will. And might also assess the worth of JR’s bleated opinions as to what constitutes “a moral duty”.

    Regular long-time readers will also recall the inconvenient (to JR’s agenda here) fact that this site existed well before I ever came to it.

    And on the 24th at 135PM JR apparently has tried to bolster his previous bits with a ‘ghost’ riff. As to whether my material constitutes “sober reflection” or not, readers may also judge as they will.

    JR, meanwhile, has consoled himself by declaring that he doth “LOL!” and “LMFAO!”. One cool dude is JR.

  48. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1014PM:

    ‘Dan’ apparently would like himself to be numbered among those who put “up anything significant”. Who can deny the remarkable usefulness of what ‘Dan’ has demonstrated in the stuff he puts up here?

    Then – having noted accurately enough my position that ‘Dan’ “can’t demonstrate any ‘hypocritical lie[s]” that he claims the Church or I propagate – ‘Dan’ quickly – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – moves right along to something else more congenial to his mentation, i.e. he just starts spouting epithets in a multi-sentence bravura riff.

    And thus thanks are due to ‘Dan’ for another remarkably useful  and – what the hey? – “significant” demonstration of the value of this thoughts and mentation.

  49. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 24th at 924PM:

    Here JR doth bleatfully intone the demise of SNAP. This is simply too nice, one might think.

    And one might be right in thinking that. Because the hook under the butterfly of JR’s niceness here is that SNAP has done nothing but make “victims” look bad. As we saw over time with JR’s own story here, it was not SNAP that made him look bad; it was his own stuff that did the job.

    Puffing mightily that he could “triple” the list of SNAP’s errors or “stupily willful behavior”, JR then doth declaim and declare that he cawn’t “think of one good thing SNAP has done for “victims beside mentioning” that they exist.

    SNAP was the front that helped the torties surf the wave (to the tune of billions of dollars) for almost all known allegants (JR being one of those allegants).

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Continuing with my comment on Publican being a lying piece of shit.:

      Publion is a lying piece of shit.

  50. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 24th at 924PM:

    As I have said, SNAP’s mistake was to keep trying to surf after the wave had subsided to the point where the usual surfing gig was no longer very easy or even possible. It was a “lawyers front” but by definition it was not under the direct control of the lawyers (who were apparently shrewd enough to have backed off when they sensed that the Game was pretty much up).

    Nor at this point do we see any of those torties now rushing to the defense of SNAP. They know a dead horse when they see one and they aren’t going to be risking themselves to try to claim it’s still alive and honest as the day is long (one thinks of the marvelous Monty Python skit where the pet shop clerk tries to claim that the recently-purchased dead parrot that the customer has brought back to the store is “just sleeping” and is still very much a righteous parrot that is still alive and not – as the purchaser claims – an “ex-parrot”).

    The torties won’t be risking themselves to try to defend SNAP now. There are too many years of too many dirty tricks that might come out in serious litigation.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      On then to P's Monty Python analysis: Close but no cigar.

      The expired parrot is the Catholic church hierarchy. You, the fathiful, have been been sold a dead birdy.

      They,  your much kowtowed to Cardinals; Popes and Bishops, protected the priests that fucked your kids and then called your, religiously "morally" raised, sinned against children, liars.

      Perhaps P projects the crimes he commits and supports here, libel, fraud, theft, the murder of the innocents, the hiding of accused priests in other states and countries, these crimes against humanity onto the victims themselves. A case of kill the messenger by claiming it was the messengers who are, in false fact, the "real" criminals? Accusing the very victims of being the victimizers.  And you wonder why I offer to kill such an unholy ghost?

       

    • Dan says:

      Your "dead parrot" analogy is perfect for your cult. It's truly a dead religion, but there are the brainwashed who believe it's "just sleeping". It shall come to a rude awakening on Judgment Day and then sent off into eternal punishment and damnation, where it's fire shall never be quenched and the worm shall never die. Kind of gives you something to look forward to, publiar.

  51. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 24th at 933PM:

    After a give-away epithetical opening (always with JR a give-away that he’s about to be putting up more silly stuff), JR claims that all he has done by venting his various murderous fantasies is to have “just dropped the façade of decency” (JR being, of course, the very soul of decency).

    Because – doncha see? – since JR and his material are not being treated with “decency” (i.e. isn’t being taken at face value with oohs and ahhhs) then he’s perfectly justified in … and so on.

    And so – since he gets no “respect” here (i.e. his stuff isn’t taken at face value with oohs and ahhs) – then this means “death” for him, and since he is thus shown to be murdered here, then he’s perfectly within bounds to indulge his assorted murderous fantasies. Got that?

    Thus a fine demonstration of JR’s habitual playing with blocks in the service of self-exculpation. It’s what he does.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Who's the self expulcator here P me or you? You excuse an entire system than enabled the sexual abuse of Catholic children and the protection of their/our abusors.

      And TMR boldly claims above about "SNAP's ideological hatred of the Catholic church".

       Which tenet of the the Catholic church does SNAP disagree with exactly? Transubstantiation? Original Sin? the Virgin Birth? 

      Or was it merely the ideology and crime of child rape and the support and protection and hiding of sex abusing priests over the protection of Catholic children?  If those acts are your church's true ideology then who could support such ideas but criminals?

       

    • Jim Robertson says:

       I was waiting to have my sex abuse responded to with oohs and ahs, here at TMR?

      I did not know that.

      I thought that even if we disagreed  we could agree to disagree and still be civil. Civility is just one form of decency you' destroy here. You have NEVER been civil to any victim who's posted at TMR. Why exactly is that? Isn't that what you are paid to do here P, pass off incivility as normal?

  52. Publion says:

     ‘Dan’ – as we recall – has to keep his cartoon-level shtick going; he’s stitched together a bunch of cartoon-level bits which are designed to keep his personal balloon inflated; i.e. that ‘Dan’ is a (or perhaps the sole) possessor of divine and Biblical truth beyond any religion; that all of those religions  (but especially the Catholic Church whose adherents and congregants have gotten him lugged six times and sent to psych facilities) are merely “man-made” (whereas ‘Dan’s bits are ‘Dan’-made, which in his mind isn’t the same thing since there is no difference between ‘Dan’s stuff and God’s very own Word and Will); and that the Catholic Church is nothing but a den of ancient idolatry and homosexual pederasty (girls, we recall, are the preserve of Protestants – momentarily cast in recent episodes as the good-guys for only ‘going after’ teen girls, whose travails are not of primary interest to ‘Dan’s agenda and perhaps also not to ‘Dan’ personally).

    • Dan says:

      Dan's exact quote on April 24 @ 5:52pm was – "First off, most Protestant clergy went after teen girls, and didn't rape and molest little boys and babies, NOT THAT THIS MAKES THEM INNOCENT EITHER."

      So that slimy snake publiar, in order to manipulate and twist what I plainly stated and did not condone, claims I said "PROTESTANTS" were "THE GOOD-GUYS FOR ONLY 'GOING AFTER' TEEN GIRLS". How do the other catholics in this forum believe anything this lying deceiver says when translating Biblical verse or falsely accusing an opponent? He's one of yours and you're just used to being deceived and tricked by all your cult's lies?

      Since you like analogies, here's one for you; "Now the snake was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He asked the woman, "Did God really say, 'You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden'?" The woman answered the snake: "We may eat of the trees in the garden; it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, 'You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die." But the snake said to the woman: "You certainly will not die!" Genesis 3:1-3 USCCB NAB

      Now who could this lying deceiving snake who manipulated and twisted God's Word be? Well, of course it's, YOUR FATHER WHO ART IN HELL, Peewee, you habitual liar!

    • Dan says:

      And by the way – You point out to me the website where Protestants deny, excuse, minimize or transfer their child molesters to other churches in order to hide and protect them and I'll be the first to expose their crimes also. Why do you think I'm not a member of any of the disgusting perverted cults of this world? And Peter nor any of the Apostles were ever a member of your nasty churches of pedophiles, pederasts, child molesters or perverts. Why? "Because the Bible tells me so." There's your little nursery rhyme, peewee! This should console you.  servant of the Almighty God

      P.S. Are you that stupid that you think someone considering himself as a servant is a 'title' of some significance. Tell me, are you really that dumb?

  53. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 25th at 1231PM:

    He opens with a histrionic (but oft-repeated) bleat that he cawn’t understand why Catholics can see the faults in others but not their own faults. This is another necessary shtick-bit: for his overall cartoon to work ‘Dan’ has to picture Catholicism as being in total and utter denial as to any sex-abusive behavior whatsoever among its clergy or congregants. Readers may consult the record on this site to see that nowhere in any material put up here (and certainly regarding my material) has any such claim ever been asserted; indeed I have noted a number of times that the probability of some such sex-abusive behavior is as high for the Church as it is for any humanly-peopled organization in human history.

    Moving on quickly from that sly bleat, ‘Dan’ immediately moves into more (for him) congenial territory, larding on an extended riff of scare-bits about “Satan and his demons” and so on and so forth, which thus affords him the platform to do one of his God-impersonations, declaiming and denouncing and threatening and such. As always, in his own sketch on “Sinners in the hands of an angry God”, ‘Dan’ always prefers to play the role of God.

  54. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1033PM:

    Here he tries to get himself out of the limelight by claiming that it is not Catholic disagreement with what he says or his beliefs that constitutes them as “a cult of liars”; nooooo – it’s really all about Catholics wanting to “push [their] agenda”.

    And – through the wonders of clinical projection – that’s as prettily accurate and concise a description of ‘Dan’s entire shtick as one is likely to encounter.

    Which bit – slyly – would cast ‘Dan’ as the truthy truth-teller, a role which – he takes care to specifically remind us – he doth greatly prefer.

  55. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1049PM:

    Here, he huffily harrumphs that “it’s far from necessary” to have to “spell anything out for” him. But that’s clearly not true since he has often demonstrated his utter inability to divine (as it were) the meaning of historical metaphors or analogies that do not support his cartoons.

    Further demonstrating more bits necessary for his cartoon-shtick to appear to work, he then asserts that the Church “has done little or … just about nothing to remedy” such sex-abusive elements and dynamics as exist among clergy and congregants. You would have to ignore a) the numerous protocols now in place and b) the actual evidence (such as the example I recently gave of last autumn’s miniscule (compared to ‘Dan’s scare-visions) response to New York Metro area torties’ efforts to make hay on a year-long Statue of Limitations extension). To which I would also add c) the torties’ rather complete failure to risk themselves by coming to the defense of SNAP, their decades-long Stampede front and partner.

  56. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1049PM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    Allowing himself to demonstrate the lower ranges of his interests and the quality of his mentation and ‘research’, ‘Dan’ then adds a “P.S.” about – phantasmagorically – “catholic whorehouses”, which he further whackulently equates with clergy “retirement homes” (where elderly priests, apparently, continue to fulfill the juiciest and greatly-fondled scare-visions of ‘Dan’ and the lower ranges of fundie imaginings).

  57. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1101PM:

    Here ‘Dan’ clearly demonstrates another necessary element in keeping his cartoon-shtick going: one must maintain a tight focus on only that tightly-selected level of specificity that would support the shtick.

    Thus to observe that sex-abusive behavior is sufficiently visible along the historical spectrum in just about all human civilizations and organizations – and thus to put the phenomenon in “context”, about which ‘Dan’ has recently bleated in comments on this thread – cannot be allowed.

    He then tries to bolster that bit by asserting a cartoon-vision of the Catholic Church long convenient and dear to Protestants and especially the fundie sub-variant: the Church “claims to be Holy, Pure …” and so on.

    The Church’s being “Holy” comes from Christ’s Great Commission to Peter, not from some (fantasied) already-achieved holiness of any here-and-now Catholics (again, why else did Christ give Peter the power “to bind and loose sins”?). The Church’s ‘Purity” is a goal and a standard which must constantly be sought but can never be fully and totally and perfectly achieved by any humans in this life.

  58. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1101PM:

    Thus what we see ‘Dan’ demonstrating here is the following scam: i) having presumed (incorrectly) and asserted (falsely) that the Church and Catholics claim utter and already-achieved holiness and purity and then ii) comparing that (false) assertion to the existence of sin (which is descriptive of all humans as individuals and afflicts the institutions they comprise) then iii) ‘Dan’ – having selected and stacked his little blocks just so – can dine daily off his self-devised role as Divinely-Authorized Truthy Exposer (which status thus neatly exempts ‘Dan’ from any further scrutiny as to his own ‘perfection’, morally and psychologically … or the lack of it). Neato.

    And on that queasy (if not ridiculous) basis ‘Dan’ then buckles down to an extended epithetical riff.

  59. Publion says:

    cover his retreat for the moment.

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 138AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ – with uncharacteristic caution and modesty – doth demurely declare that he doth “believe” that it is Catholicism – and not ‘Dan’ – that is running a scam; ‘Dan’ – we are to believe – is simply working with the entities in his bathroom mirror to provide “clear and obvious facts” revealed to him by his claimed ‘divine guidance’ and his own well-thumbed pile of pericopes and prodigious powers of competent thought and informed observation.

    Readers may consider whether to “believe” that bit as they may.

  60. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 138AM:

    But his inveterate 3×5-pile habit gets the best of him, and thus here he now hammers some lethal nails into his pretense of demure competence and balanced assessment: he once again tosses up his stunning presumption not just about Catholicism but about all “man-made religions”: they’re fraudulent – doncha see? – (and in a way that ‘Dan’s dreck is not, you are to infer) because “they are based on the deception that they’re Churches of Christ” when – we are to infer – “they are far from the true teachings of Christ our Savior”.

    Because – doncha see? – it is only through the speshull workings of ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror that “the true teachings of Christ our Savior” are vouchsafed to humanity. Got that? How can you not? ‘Dan’ is stunned by the mulishness in the pews.  But – what the hey? – Jesus wasn’t accepted either, nor so many of the prophets and thus the rejection of the ejecta from ‘Dan’ bathroom-mirror simply proves to him in some “clear and obvious” way that he is to be numbered among the aforesaid prophets, if not the Godhead itself.

    More Tea from the Mad Hatter’s Party, anyone? It’s not “garbage and nonsense”, people; it’s really really Tea – you can take ‘Dan’ speshull word for it.

  61. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 205AM:

    Here – trying to somehow dig his way out of his bit about Jesus referring to Himself and not to Peter when He used the term “rock” – ‘Dan’ now claims that “throughout the Bible Jesus is referred to as the Rock”. Really? The Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures refer to Jesus as “the Rock”?

    If we subtract the mention of mere geological and physical “rocks” and “stones”, we have a number of references to God as Rock in the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, which invests the image of “the rock” with powerful spiritual and theological significance.

     But we are still left with the fact that the text of the Great Commission pericope clearly indicates that Jesus is naming Peter as the “rock” upon which Jesus would build …. and to assert otherwise (i.e. that Jesus was referring to Himself as “the rock”) linguistically reduces the Gospel text itself to gobbledygook.

    And since we must presume that Jesus was deeply familiar with the Hebrew Bible (the Christian New Testament did not yet exist), then when Jesus deliberately and clearly names Peter as “the rock” upon which He would build, then we are encountering a profoundly significant declaration by Jesus indeed.

    And ‘Dan’ swims off squirting an inky cloud of his usual epithets to cover the holes in his assertion here.

  62. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 212AM:

    Here ‘Dan’ has to extricate himself in a clumsier and more obvious way, i.e. he has to resort to merely doing his God-imitation, claiming (on behalf of the entities in his bathroom mirror) that God “would never entrust” and so on and so forth. God would – we are to presume, of course – entrust His Word and Will to ‘Dan’ and that bathroom mirror.

    As I said, the stunning naming of Peter as “rock” by Jesus confronts us with the reality of God’s world-historical willingness to entrust His Church to sinful humans. I would propose to any spiritually-inclined reader a year-long contemplative focus on that reality, perhaps starting on the ground floor with the simple and prayerful question “What the hell was He thinking?”.

  63. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 225AM:

    Once again, ‘Dan’ returns to a 3×5 of yore: the old fundie bit that the Bible doesn’t mention “popes” or “catholic church” or the “worship” of Mary and so on and so forth.

    As I said quite a while back when he first ran this one by readers, the Bible didn’t mention fountain pens or computers (or internet commentary for that matter) … and so what? What’s his point here?

    And even before we get to that question, we have to eradicate the mistakes in ‘Dan’s list, such as the bit that Catholics “worship” Mary, which (as I demonstrated clearly by reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church) is clearly not the case and for which ‘Dan’ has never proffered any evidence except his own fever-vision takes and his conflation of ‘reverence’ with ‘worship’ to suit his purposes and agenda.

  64. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 237AM:

    Much like JR, when ‘Dan’ opens a comment with epithet you know that something weak is coming next.

    Here ‘Dan’ is apparently feeling his oats as he (yet again) deploys from his pericope pile Matthew 23:9.

     In the immediately preceding verse 8 Jesus says to call no one Rabbi “since you have only one Master and you are all brothers”; he then (verse 9) continues in that mode with “call no one father” – clearly building a distinction between humans and the “only one Father” (shared by all as brothers) “and he is in heaven”.

    It is notable also that in verse 10 Matthew goes on with Jesus saying “do not allow yourselves to be called teachers”. (More on this point below.)

  65. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 237AM:

    The first Jewish sage known to be called ‘father’ (‘Abba’ in Hebrew) was Saul ben Batnith. He lived, however, from 80 AD to 120 AD, so what we might see here is Matthew’s umbrage at a subsequent (and non-Christian) religious figure somehow bearing the term-of-address  that Christ had used on the Cross in referring to God.

    But then Matthew also lists various acceptable titles (“prophets, wise men and scribes”) a bit further on in the Chapter at verse 34.

    What to make of all this? Is nobody to be called “teacher” in any context whatsoever?

    The desert monastic tradition of very early Christianity used the term ‘father’ to denote a spiritual guide, usually an older monk to younger and less experienced monks, which is most likely the way that the usage then became accepted in the Church as it expanded beyond the earliest desert monasteries and entered the Greek-speaking cities where ‘episkopoi’ (tr. ‘overseers’) and ‘presbuteroi’ (tr. ‘elders’) were used, thence into the Latin as ‘father’ not necessarily meaning ‘elder’ in the sense of age but rather reflecting the Catholic sacramental role of the priest as ordained to stand – as much as a human can, though under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit – as ‘fathers’ to the believers (the “little ones” of Jesus as He styled them in contrast to the Disciples, as in Mark 9:42).

  66. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 237AM:

    So ‘Dan’s sly use of the term “titles” here is rather too clever by half.

    And surely ‘Dan’ of all people is in no position to bleat and bray about “titles” since he has consistently and vividly shown a demonstrated preference for amassing assorted titles for himself in signing his posts.

    Although – by curious (and sly?) coincidence – ‘Dan’ avoids styling himself with any of his usual preferred titles in the conclusion to this particular comment.

  67. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 316AM:

    Once again we can watch ‘Dan’ try various wriggles and twists to extricate himself from the consequences of his own stuff.

    Here, he is trying to evade a problem with his stuff that I have noted before: in what does Christian ‘newness’ consist? He tries to have it both ways:  a) “we become a new creature” and as a result are “turning our backs on our sinful lives, striving to live pure, clean changed lives” … but – waitttttt forrrrr itttttttttttttt! – b) we are not “perfect”.

    Well, then, that’s pretty much the Catholic theological position, surely. So is ‘Dan’ lifting stuff from the Catholics now as well as the fundies?

  68. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 316AM:

    ‘Dan’s solution to this problem is and – given his self-serving, self-aggrandizing and self-exculpating agenda – has to be, this: Well, nobody’s perfect but – ya see – Catholics are “insistent idolaters, greedy disgusting vile, sexually immoral perverts and … compulsive liars” (they ‘lied’ to get him lugged into court and psych-wards six times, doncha recall?) and so that means they aren’t just ‘not perfect’ but are totally and utterly beyond any acceptable allowance for ‘imperfection’ and thus – if ‘Dan’ doth say so himself – beyond God’s Plan and God’s forgiveness.

    You can take ‘Dan’s word for it.

    And therein lies the rub, does it not?

    For his own purposes, ‘Dan’ has had to impersonate God as well as presume a fever-vision of Catholicism.

    And as for the caressingly-constructed and vivid lingering on “greedy disgusting vile, sexually immoral perverts and … compulsive liars” … any clinically-inclined reader might fruitfully consider this whole meme of his from the point of view of clinical projection.

    • Dan says:

      So "easy-peasy" oinks the deceiving manipulator, publiar, of God's Word and His honest truths. We'll just throw out the parts of the Bible that we don't agree with, that just so happens to describe our cult in fine detail along with it's final annihilation. I'm sure you can find something in the Catechism of your Catholic Cult that can refute God's Holy Word. May I ask, "who the heck" do you think you are?

      "But cowards, triators, perverts, murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic, those who worship idols, and all liars–the place for them is the lake of fire and sulfur, which is the second death."  Revelations 21:8

      And one more time in case one is too deaf or dumb to get it the first time;

      "Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying."  Revelations 22:15

      I'm sure God will choose to forgive you seeing that you only love and practice lying, being that you're not very good at it, but you're insistent to keep trying. Once again, "who the heck" do you think you are, you coward, idolater, defender of perverts and habitual liar?  Lord's servant

    • Dan says:

      And you're unaware that your description of my "self-serving, self-aggrandizing and self-exculpating agenda" is perfect "clinical projection" describing you and your false cult? You're such a lying accusing hypocrite peewee.

  69. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 316AM:

    Thus, ultimately, the point at issue is this: who the heck is ‘Dan’ to be declaring as if authoritatively what God considers to be beyond His forgiveness? Who in heck does ‘Dan’ think he is? And the answer to that question is … (readers may fill in the blank).

    And there you have it. And there you have ‘Dan’.

  70. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 332AM:

    Unable to engage my characterization of the ‘Dan’-fundie rejection of the basic nature of Christianity’s ‘newness’ and of life itself, ‘Dan’ here merely tries to pick it up and throw it back in best myah-myah fashion.

    Thus the silly but oh-so-necessary bit about Catholics “lacking Christ as their Savior” and so on.

    Expanding upon what I said in my original comment: the ‘Dan’-fundie approach essentially rejects the implications of the Incarnation and the Crucifixion in favor of a more zingy, sugar-spun, consoling and self-aggrandizing fantasy, i.e.  that a) one is not only rescued (for being so speshull) from the swamp but is then also b) deposited in the middle of some ‘Dan’-fundie version of Disneyworld where c) one has been given an eternal and free E-ticket.

    Thus we have ‘Dan’ lecturing and bethumping the world-beyond-the-fence from his perch atop the divinely-giant Ferris Wheel, while deftly managing a divine foot-long hot-dog, divinely super-size soda and giant gob of cotton candy along with his 3×5 file and bathroom mirror. No wonder he doesn’t want to face the real world (or the real ‘Dan’) when he can ride the Ferris Wheel for free on and on, around and around …

    What – one wonders – is fundie-speak for ‘Wheeeeeeee!’ … ?

    • Dan says:

      And once again we see publiar's fine display of immaturity. Why do you equate everything to cartoons, childish fantasies or children's playgrounds? Is it just because your life is one big joke or because these are the places where child molesters always hang out and fantasize about?

  71. mary says:

    Yes, it is really quite interesting how Jim Robertson threatens people here and allegedly elsewhere, I suspect.  I wonder why he feels the need to do that and for whom.

  72. mary says:

    The mediareport has an interesting "Hazing" technique.  Does the mediareport want a bonafied rape victim? Certified and all that stuff?  There are lots of those.  Oh, but no, the mediareport settles for those who threaten to kill and all that stuff.  Perhaps Robertson and the Mediareport should get a room somewhere, because I do not think that sex abuse surviviors want any part of the abuse that the mediareport website creates and propagates.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dear Mary how about you go fuck yourself? Now I and TMR are together and should get a room? You are a SNAP blinded moron. I'm not the problem for wanting to kill P. P's the problem because he's such a manipulative enabling liar. You protect  and enable people who rape children knowingly? Which is what he does. you deserve to die. Mary you've swallowed the Kool Aid.

       

    • Jim Robertson says:

      My 3rd from less sentence to mary above, should begin with an "If". I wasn't speaking about Mary but about P.

       

    • Jim Robertson says:

      mary I threaten people "allegedly elsewhere"? Really? where is this elsewhere?

      Why do you who know me not at all, presume I'm not a "bonifide victim"

      Who are you? Is my question.

  73. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 29th at 1125AM:

    In this comment  – and in all of his most recent batch of comments – we get a bravura demonstration of the many Wigs that JR wears, and how quickly they can shift or at least how quickly one can be suddenly plopped atop another with – it would clearly appear – not a moment’s hesitation as to whether a) the second actually fits well over the first or b) the sudden change itself reveals the essentially molten and unripe (still, after 70 or so years) nature of his mentation.

    Here we get an essentially juvenile bit, replete with epithet, that also reveals that JR’s fallback epithet is – revealingly – that whatever he objects to  is a lie (“lying”) anyway. Which is also a gambit so very much like ‘Dan’s histrionically-bleated “lies, lies!”.

    But does JR then (or ever) demonstrate just what the specific “lying” or the ‘lie’ is? He does not.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 29th at 1144PM:

      Here, for lack of anything of his own, he simply tries to piggyback his usual stuff on the Monty Python reference. (Replete, of course, with the adolescent scatology for that added zesty zing that might lard over the usual gaps in his claims and accusations.)

      JR – by the by – is not only a very live “birdy” but also hugely reliable as a truthy guide to all things. If you don’t already realize that then you are – but of course – a liar.

      Then – quickly clapping the Wig of Sober and Informed Analysis on top of his sassy Backwards-Ballcap Wig – JR intones a faux-reflective “Perhaps” and then … gets right back down to his usual level.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1144PM:

      Again merely picking up my material and tossing it back (much like ‘Dan’) JR will propose that I “project”, as if his psychological chops extend beyond whatever unhappy bits of news he has gotten on the receiving side of the clinical desk.

      And what do I – ummmm – “project”? Why it is “the crimes” that I ‘commit’ and ‘support’ here. For someone so very very acutely sensitive to ‘lies’ and ‘liars’ and ‘lying’ JR – and who can be surprised? – is quite adept at those actions and activities, as we see here: what ‘crimes’ do I ‘commit’ here?

      And what ‘crimes’ do I ‘commit’ and ‘support’ here?  JR’s list includes “libel, fraud, [and] theft” – which, by the most amazing coincidence – quite nicely cover a hardly-improbable analysis of his own adventures in the Stampede, which netted him a million dollars (minus – alas – the outrageous lawyer costs and fees and cut).

      The “murder of innocents” and “crimes against humanity”? Presumably these are among the things I ‘support’, although – as always – JR’s selection of rhetorically-zingy terms involves a rather elastic sense of definition. But JR’s mentation is so much like play-doh to begin with that I doubt he even realizes it any longer.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1144PM:

      And he tries to wrap it up and bring it home by disposing of the problems arising from his own infelicitously-constructed ‘victim story’ by – had you been waitttinggg forrr itttt? – going for the idea that he is merely the (oh-so-truthy) messenger being ‘killed’ by being accused of falsity. As I have often said, JR’s own stuff reveals the inescapable probability of its falsity – all I did was to note that point by point.

      And in a blast from the ideological past, JR gives us an echo of that old Victimist saw that ‘victims cannot be victimizers’ (which, readers may recall, was then expanded to also mean that ‘victims don’t lie’ so you must always ‘believe the victims’). 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1144PM:

      Why – one wonders – would he even go rummaging around in his 3×5 pile for these hoary old bits? The answer comes quickly: since I am “accusing the very victims of being the victimizers” JR – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – tries to effect a double-self-exculpation: i) he’s a victim and ii) he’s therefore utterly justified in his “offer to kill” me.

      “Offer”? ‘Threat’ would be the appropriate term – but JR is ever the sly deceiver when it comes to effecting self-exculpation, and he’s shrewd enough to realize that the actually appropriate term (‘threat’) would not work well in his manipulative favor at all here, so he goes for the term “offer”, despite its ridiculous effect.

    • Publion says:

      ‘Dan’ (the 29th at 515PM) tries to get in on the act with his own piggyback effort in the matter of the Monty Python dead-parrot reference. Readers will recognize the usual ‘Dan’ bits and may consider it as they may.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 29th at 1219PM:

      Failing even to copy a word properly JR now dons a fresh Wig to intone his question as to who is the “self-exculpator” here (correction supplied).

      Much like ‘Dan’, JR has a core Cartoon upon which his whole shtick is built, and it must be presumed implicitly (or readers must be manipulated into presuming it implicitly) because if it is actually examined it will fail. In this case it is that b) there is “an entire system” and so forth and that a) I “excuse” it.

      Readers may consider the validity of (b) and (a) in either order – this is all ground we’ve been over at great length before, for which JR has proffered only the continued repetition of his own (dubious) scare-vision claims and imaginings in response.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 29th at 1229PM:

      Here JR – wearing the Wig of Goody-Two-Shoes – bleats innocently that he had no idea that he “was waiting” to have his “sex abuse responded to with oohs and ahs”.

      We will be parked here quite a while if we await the list of things that JR claims not to know about himself.

      As I have said several times here recently, if you don’t go along with what he wants then he’s gonna getcha you betcha – and his recent phantasmagoric ‘murder’ jag is irrefutable demonstration of that.

      Just as his subsequent efforts at self-exculpation demonstrate that he’s not only a) gonna getcha you betcha, but that b) he will insist that it was your fault that he did it (and thus, one can infer, he will later c) claim to have been victimized into doing the deed). What a specimen.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 29th at 1229PM:

      But wait. There’s more.

      Another Wig suddenly appears, plopped precariously atop the Jack the Ripper Wig (and top hat?): the Wig of Mature Rue.

       JR here doth mournfully declaim how once – Alas! Alack! Oy! – he had thought “we could be civil”.

      And you can stop the cameras right there; as I have pointed out on previous occasions where he has tried this gambit, the record here will show clearly that there never was a “civil” JR – not once you gave the least indication that you had some questions about his stuff. JR’s ‘civility’ was less deep than the frosting on a World War 2 ‘rationing’ cupcake. And the veneer was instantly shattered as soon as he realized you weren’t going to go along the way he wanted. The JR of now is the JR of then .

      Thus the manipulatively posturing riff in the rest of his comment is undermined by his own record here. 

    • Publion says:

      On the 1st at 1228AM commenter ‘Mary’ comes along and opines that it “really is quite interesting “ how JR “threatens people here”.

      “Interesting” seems a bit weak, if not actually a bit off. Murder threats, especially when of-repeated, usually strike people as something more than “interesting”.

      But then but then we see what’s going on: She doth “wonder” two things: a) “why he feels the need to do that” and b) “for whom”.

      Question (a) is  the type of clinical question that so often should be asked before the commission of an  actual crime; after that point, one has to focus on the act and not on the diagnosis and treatment of the predisposition (unless, of course,  one is going for an insanity plea).

      But ‘Mary’ asks the question … and then apparently having thought of it, doesn’t have any thoughts about it. it’s all rather obscure. Does she have some thoughts to share? Is she rather clumsily trying to spark some thought? Is she even more clumsily trying to insinuate something? Who knows at this point?

      And the second part of the question (i.e. “for whom”) doesn’t make grammatical sense so there’s no telling what she’s trying to say or where she’s trying to go with it. 

    • Publion says:

      But wait. She’s back at 1259AM on the 1st, half an hour later.

      Now we start to see some teeth glistening in the dark. She is still on her “interesting” jag, although this time in a more toothy way: she pronounces the site to have “an interesting ‘Hazing’ technique”.

      That alone is a proposition that begs for some development. Surely someone who is so alert to “interesting” things will have some interesting things to say about what she finds interesting.

      She does not.

      Rather she immediately drops the subject and tosses up another one.

      This time she is – oddly – asking whether TMR does “want a bonafied rape victim”.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Mary’s of the 1st at 1259AM:

      It’s odd because TMR is an open (though moderated) site and anyone might put up a comment, and it’s been that way for the half decade and more I’ve been familiar with it. Thus the more interesting observation – one might say – is that there haven’t been many such persons (or torties, for that matter) who have come onto the site.

      Second – as I have said on many occasions – is the question of establishing the bona fide aspect in the first place when in the internet forum. Credentialing, as it were, is not easily achieved in internet forums.

      And even before one gets to the limitations of the internet forum, there is the question of what might establish such a bona fide status. Just declaring oneself to be so? Simply having a story to tell? Having gotten a settlement from one of the tort cases? Having prevailed in a criminal jury trial?

      ‘Mary’ takes a somewhat breezy approach to these issues with her nicely tossed-off “Certified and all that stuff?”.  (Is there actually a certifying body that officially and formally certifies this sort of thing?)

      But I will say this: none of the problems – either with the internet forum or (far more importantly) with the establishment of ‘certifiable’ victimization – are in any way so secondary as to be tossed-off as “stuff”. It is precisely the side-stepping of such serious but essential matters that enabled not only the Stampede against the Church but also many other similar stampedes.

      Indeed, any time there is a presumption made in the absence of actual and sufficient evidence or – even worse – as a substitute for any actual and sufficient evidence, then any such legal system and the society it is supposed to serve are headed over the side of a tall bridge indeed. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Mary’s of the 1st at 1259AM:

      ‘Mary’ then tosses off the mere assertion that “there are plenty of those” (i.e. certified victims). Is that supposed to somehow be convincing?

      And I am not sure how TMR can be accused of ‘settling for’ the likes of JR. Again, it’s an open (though moderated) site and it’s therefore hard to see how she holds TMR responsible for those who choose to comment (and those who do not).

      She then heads off the road entirely with a bit about “Robertson and [TMR] should get a room somewhere”. One would imagine that if she were at least familiar with rape dynamics, then that would be one of the last suggestions one might want to make. But perhaps this is some form of insinuating-humor, in which case it is too clever by half and has gotten away from her rather completely. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Mary’s of the 1st at 1259AM:

      And – following what has become a seriously bouncing ball indeed – we are told that in her opinion “sex abuse survivors do [not] want any part of the abuse” that TMR “creates and propagates”.

      What to make of this bounce?

      As best I can make out, this “abuse” is somehow connected to the “Hazing” she mentioned earlier. But she never did define that “Hazing” either, so we remain with nothing solid here.

      But I will hazard a guess and say this: if by “Hazing” and “abuse” she means that victim stories aren’t simply accepted with instantaneous oohs and ahhs here, and might actually be looked-at carefully … well, then perhaps that might not be to her taste and preference.

      And there remains – in theory certainly – the possibility (and perhaps every possibility) that some ‘certification’ was issued merely on the basis of claims that escaped or evaded serious examination.

      This is the confounding nature of the problems raised by making claims about actions to which there were no witnesses nor any evidence. There is no short-cutting these abyssal but vital and ultimate problems.

      Stampedes are created when a legal system seeks to substitute claims for evidence and to then proceed on that basis, as if the substitution itself would not finally raise more problems than it purported to solve.

  74. mary says:

    Wow Publion, your BS is so craftily spun, it really makes a great croche project.  A no brainer forensic psychologist (certified and all that) can easily figure that out.

    • Jim Robertson says:

       Mary,He's a priest, a retired one obviously, he's old enough to have eaten a bad cup cake during WW2. He enables child molesters and he has created a war like atmosphere here at TMR. TMR is just lame in its attacks but P is far more devious. He says things that never happened and then says his opposition does that. Its an old public relations/ Machevellian  tactic. It works for morons. Just like never investigating SNAPs birth origins works to make SNAP believable as caring about victims.

      Mary you defend SNAP and attack P but you are fighting a single pupetteer who runs both SNAP and TMR.: The Church (or at least its right wing).

      I still want P dead and would gladly do it if P had the balls to lay down his wig collection and announce who he are. Easy enough thing to do.  Then if I treatened to murder him I could be arrested and you and he and his dopey defenders could feel safe as you continue to harm victims.

      Mary why don't you tell us what you know about SNAP? Share all the "good" it's done.

  75. Jim Robertson says:

    Publiturd, thanks as always for your kind words.

    I know that when ever I want to feel safe and truly understood I can count on you to support the decency in me.

    What a light you bring unto the world. What insight and wisdom!

    Mary you had it right at "hazing".

  76. Jim Robertson says:

    Don't you think an accessory after the fact to murder deserves the death penalty? I thought you conservatives just loved your death penalty.

    When you support people who allowed more children to be abused and then some of those tortured victims do commit suicide you are in fact accessories to their "self-induced" murders.

    You feign outrage at my threatening to slaughter P. I don't know who or where he is to kill him. I'm quite the threat if I don't know how to get at who i threaten. P attacks here from his very safe niche of invisibility.

    I notice none of you moral people get outraged at P as he weaves his webs of implications as he hazes rather than converses.  Never has one of you told this fuck to shut up. I hear nothing from you moral posuers just crickets.

    But when i offer to kill him, up you pop like Jimminy Cricket himself passing yourselves off as having moral consciences. You are absurd and TMR is a moral desert. Injured Catholic children don't matter to you. Apologists for child rape do. You people are top drawer assholes.

    And I have to wonder again how Dan found this site and why he's here attacking your Catholic faith? Child rape has nothing to do with a devotion to the Virgin. NOTHING.

    Who would naturally come to a site about media attacks on the Catholic church re sex abuse to fight for the Protestant cause? Why would P roil in enjoying to call Dan a "fundie"? When did the Virgin become involved in sex abuse of Catholic kids? She didn't but Dan and P have put her front and center here. Did the media insult Mary and her devotees? No? Then why is this even mentioned?  Cui bono? Who benefits ? Only P and co., because if the readershp is Catholic then insulting the Virgin while at the same time being outraged against the pedophiles and cover up. links those who hate the cover up to those who hate the religion. which is right where we are. With P defending a devotion that has zippo to do with covering up and transferring sex abusers. While Dan mentions that fact right next to his attacks against Mary. A false connection between being anti Catholic with being anti pedophile and anti church cover up. Why is that link-up being made here? Look at the number of posts being made by the 2 biggest clowns at this circus. What has any of it got to do with the demise of SNAP?

    • Dan says:

      So Jim, What is it that provokes you to attack me? We'll let a gay atheist teach us how there is no connection between the idolatry of a false goddess and homosexual pedophilia, pederasty and disgusting perversions. Really Jim? I think you're interested in protecting the cult for the fact that if they remain, it just may mean another payoff for you or your gay partners or homosexual constituents. I believe that the church owes victims of their child abuse, but with the threats you throw around and the filth spewing from your mouth, I'm pretty sure you've received all you deserve. I could care less about SNAP because between what you've said and the church claims, I'm at a point where I don't know who to believe. A homosexual threatening to murder whoever gets in his way or a disgusting idol-worshipping, greedy, wicked, lying bunch of pedophiles and creeps. You don't believe in the Creator or His Word, otherwise you would understand the connection between a wicked false religion and their crimes against innocent children. Why do you think minors are sexually abused in all the phony religions of the world? I don't believe you're in any position to throw your ignorance at anyone or looping me with publiar as a clown. You think you're the decent one in this forum? You're acting like as big a hypocrite as the publiar. What you gonna do coward, threaten to murder me now. You're all one big joke and I don't know why I've tried to lead any of you to the truth. You might want to try to understand the Lord's book and it's wisdom before you attack and criticize the one who gave you life. You're one screwed up human being and it just might be time you face that reality.

    • Dan says:

      And for all your information, I'm not fighting for Protestant causes and I'm not a 'fundie', as the rude toilet-trashed liar has labeled me. I fight the good fight for the truth of the Almighty God, something all of you have no understanding of, for you don't even have a clue why I'm here. And as far as that goes I could care less that you're under the impression that I somehow don't belong. My God and Father wants the truth to be known and wants to expose all wickedness wherever it may hide, in hopes that those who are lost might come to their senses and realize there's a way out, though apparently most would prefer to fight against His faith, hope and love. I guess you believe you're right to do so but you'll find you're fighting against someone far more powerful than yourselves. You have absolutely no chance in a fight against the Creator of the Universe. You'd have to possess quite a mistaken ego to even try.  servant

    • Publion says:

      With a sublime lack of self-awareness, JR continues to provide vivid examples of just how not-matured he is. It would be neglectful not to note them since he has gone to all the effort of writing them and posting them.

      On the 2nd at 738PM he bares his typing-toothies at commenter ‘Mary’, combining scatology and epithet with his usual (and long-practiced) skill.

      He’s not at all pleased that ‘Mary’ opened – though did not develop – the thought that somehow JR is in either a symbiotic  or – the horror! – dependent relationship with TMR.

      One is reminded of Churchill’s observation: “The Hun is either at your throat or at your feet”. Here and for his present purposes, JR is at her throat. (See how that suddenly changes below.)

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 738PM:

      He then demonstrates – yet again – a) the actual nature of his ‘moral’ thinking and b) one of his long-fixed methods of handling his failures (i.e. self-exculpation through blaming others). Thus he brays that he is “not the problem for wanting to kill me”. Noooooo – rather, I am the problem because I am “such a manipulative enabling liar”.

      Even if I were – for purposes of argument here – would there be a sense of proportionality in his ‘solution’ (i.e. murder)?

      There would not. But this reflects the depth of JR’s multi-aspected derangement: if you don’t go along with what he says or claims, then he’s already thinking of murder; he’s gonna getcha you betcha. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 738PM:

      Was a teacher failing him in a course and thus endangering his scholarship? JR went for the jugular, as it were, with his abuse-accusation. And when that failed but then various elements later synergized into the Stampede, JR picked up where he had left off decades before.

      And if you had any reservations about that possibility, JR unwittingly but ever so helpfully provides an even more obvious demonstration of it: ‘Mary’ too doth “deserve to die”. But – of course – it’s not JR’s fault that she “deserves to die”; she has, after all, “swallowed the Kool Aid”. That “Kool Aid” may not kill her, but JR remains ever ready to help matters along. And it will be her fault, not his. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 801PM:

      Here he tosses off yet again one of his prior bits. But – as before – in his little book of demonology I have been promoted to “priest” from a previous claim of his, i.e. that I was a “nun”. Or whatever.

      Then he buckles down – as so often – to tossing out accusations but failing to demonstrate just how his accusation works. Thus I ‘enable’ etc etc and – had you been waittttttttttingggggggggggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttttt? – have “created a war like atmosphere here at TMR”.

      Thus – doncha see? – JR is not a murder-addicted fantasist and deep unripe; noooooo – he is simply the Ultimate Truthy Heroic Warrior and – it would appear – Sole and Lone Defender of the Peace and Order of the TMR site. Just as ‘Dan’ is not a self-serving wingnut pretending to be God in order to push his agenda; nooooo – he is simply the Only Authorized Revealer of God’s Word and Will, striving mightily against all “man-made” religions … but especially the one that got him lugged and sent to a psych-ward six times.

      One begins to see a pattern. And the Stampede was tailor-made to provide a platform for such as these.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 2nd at 814PM:

      As always, the experienced reader is pre-warned by the opening epithetical gambit.

      But he has now plopped the Helpless Victim Wig on top of his Murder (or Heroic Defender) Wig: he bleateth that he doth not “feel safe and truly understood” here and his – had you been waitttingggggggg forrrrrrrrr ittttttttt? – “decency” is not ‘supported’. Can there ever be enough popcorn to get one through JR when he’s in full-performance mode?

      And – but of course – since he hath proclaimed himself to not-“feel safe” … why then he is surely justified in defensive murder, doncha see? And then – going for the note that James Dean struck in that actor’s iconic plaintive-bleat scene in ‘Rebel Without A Cause’ – JR has larded on that he is not feeling “understood” … well, JR did grow up in the general environs of Hollywood back in the day. You can’t say he didn’t pick up  more than a few pointers. 

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 2nd at 814PM:

      But then but then but then JR returns to commenter ‘Mary’. But this time she who was just recently advised to ‘go f**k’ herself is embraced as a bud and pal – and who can be surprised, since JR has suddenly found a way to use her to further his agenda.

      She was right – doncha see? – about her (glaringly un-explicated) “Hazing” bit.

      Lucky ‘Mary’. She said something that may turn out to save her from JR’s gonna-getcha hit list (at least for today’s episode), i.e. she implied that JR – the poor, heroic, truthy, sorely-bethumped  and utterly innocent thing – has been subjected to nothing less than unmitigated and unremitting “Hazing” here.

      If you don’t go along with his stuff then you’re “Hazing” him. And he’s gonna getcha you betcha. And it will all be your fault. He’s not a cry-bully; he’s just a guy full of ‘decency’ who’s being bullied by having his stuff questioned.

      It’s the nub of a Hollywood studio film ‘treatment’ is what it is. While preferring to view his hit-listees through a high-powered scope, JR sees himself through the view-finder of a big-time studio camera. He’s ready for his close-up, Mr. DeMille. 

    • Publion says:

      I’ll be going down the list of comments as they appear chronologically on the site; not all of them need to be considered.

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 227PM:

      As usual, ‘Dan’ opens with epithet in the hope of greasing the skids for whatever weak bits he’s about to try to pass off as worthwhile and credible.

      We see again the oh-so-necessary scam whereby ‘Dan’ slyly tries to sneak in the presumption that what is at issue here is “God’s Word and His honest truths” when actually what is at issue here is a) the very poor quality of ‘Dan’s own stuff that is b) proffered as if it were “God’s Word and His honest truths”.

      Readers can consider for themselves just how many pericopes (or “parts of the Bible”) ‘Dan’ has ignored when they turn out not to fit into his manipulative cartoon claims. This gambit is baked into his entire deceptive (and self-deceptive) game of trying to pass off his own stuff as God’s.

    • Publion says:

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

      He follows closely the fundie strategy of claiming that the Bible (both Testaments) describes the Church without even the possibility of a doubt, although – to use one of their own favorite bits – the term “Catholic church” doesn’t appear in the Bible; the fundies merely presume this identification, upon which they have built much of their own position.

      Who do I think I am? I am simply a person who paid attention in college and kept up my learning and proffer what I have. Who does ‘Dan’ think he is? The Divinely-Appointed and Divinely-Instructed Owner and Operator of his magical bathroom mirror and 3×5 pile, whose bits and stuff must be accepted as God’s own stuff on pain of having ‘Dan’ call you a whole lotta names and huff and puff about Hell because you don’t.

      Readers – as far as I’m concerned – are free to consider and choose.

      And then he tries to bring the show home with another string of epithets and threats, while larding himself with a “title”.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 325PM:

      Here ‘Dan’ merely tries his usual bit when he’s got nothing else: in best juvenile fashion he merely picks it up and tries to throw it back in best myah-myah fashion, concluding the exercise by larding on more of his usual epitheticals.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 257PM:

      Here he tries that same bit again, this time trying to improve his stuff by huffing about “immaturity”(a topic about which he is no doubt as abyssally uninstructed as he is about the Scriptures). He simply cawn’t think why I “equate everything to cartoons” and such “childish fantasies”.

      Here’s why I use such analogies (which – it clearly has to be pointed out to him – do not “equate to” but merely draw similarities): ‘Dan’s own stuff is such a hash of “childish fantasies” (though slyly and manipulatively self-serving) that such analogies serve to clarify that point.

      And – come to think of it – his claimed justification for his “childish fantasies” (i.e. that he is the This and That of God Himself) is also a pastiche of “childish fantasies” (though slyly manipulative and self-serving).

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 3rd at 139PM:

      Here JR will further indulge himself in one of his major pastimes, i.e. exculpating himself by placing the blocks in just the right way so that it looks like he has been right and true all along (and if you point out his game he will then claim that the mere fact of the observation doth victimize him and justify your being killed).

      This time around he will try the legal forum: does not accessory-after-the-fact in a murder case also ‘deserve’ “the death penalty”? Thus bleateth JR.

      First, he has hardly established the fact of “murder”.

      Second, he hasn’t established my status as “accessory after the fact”.

      Third, the actual legal system does not prescribe the death penalty for the “accessory after the fact”.

      Fourth, the establishing of that “accessory” status and the carrying-out of any such ‘penalty’ remains with the courts and not with any individual, especially when said individual is party to the problem in the first place to begin with.

      Thus this is all just an exercise in JR’s mind, although in that regard it serves as a nicely vivid demonstration of what goes on in there.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 139PM:

      He then tries to bolster that with more fruit from the diseased tree of his mentation: he tries to paint my points about the weaknesses in his own stuff as being “support” for this and that. Because – doncha see? – with JR you either agree with him or you support evil and so forth; he’s only got a two-speed transmission attached to such a mental engine as exists in there.

      He then tries to justify the “accessory” bit by presuming that any persons who have at some point claimed to be abused who later kill themselves are to be considered ‘murdered’ by the accused abuser. This requires two huge presumptions: a) that the accuser was actually abused and b) that the abuse was the cause of a later suicide. (As opposed, say, to the possibility that the same issues that drove a person to make the claim of abuse later also drove the person to suicide.) The Stampede was tailor-made to provide a rich ground for such illogical but vivid dynamics.

      He then tries to make the point that he doesn’t know who I am and doesn’t know where I might be located, which already presumes that I exist, which contradicts a prior argument he has recently made on this thread to the effect that being “anonymous” I don’t exist and thus he can’t be accused of threatening to murder me.

      JR also tries to go for this bit of illogic: he simply cawn’t be much of a threat if he doesn’t know who I am or where I live. This ignores the difference between actual murder and threatening-to-murder. Nobody here has accused JR of murdering me; everyone has seen his threats to murder me, often repeated and so vividly caressed.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 139PM:

      He then nails that bit down by fuming that I am “safe”. Charming. And it indicates that from the get-go I had figured out just what we were dealing with when dealing with JR.

      He then displays once more his either-or deficiency: since I have pointed out so many problems with his stuff – or perhaps any problems at all – then I have ‘attacked’ him, doncha see? And thus – doncha see? – he is thus justified … and so on and so forth.

      He then goes after the readership generally because nobody else has told me to shut-up (juvenile scatology omitted). The possibility that his stuff is so dubious that nobody has seen fit to disagree with my observations or support JR’s stuff … doesn’t occur to him and I would say cannot occur to him; his personal characteristics won’t permit it.

      And thus the general readership here is itself to be ‘indicted’ by Judge Judy-JR for being “moral poseurs” (correction supplied) and “passing yourselves off as having moral consciences” and being “absurd” and TMR being “a moral desert” and for being “top-drawer a**holes”. This is what you get for not giving JR what he wants.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 3rd at 139PM:

      And since he’s on a roll the floodgates (such as they may be) inside his head collapse and he then and again goes after ‘Dan’ (the implication being that ‘Dan’ is a perhaps-paid plant put here by … somebody JR doesn’t like or whatever). Thus that ‘Dan’s own very genuine whackery constitutes – in JR’s mind – just more ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ that … whatever.

      As I have said, ‘Dan’s stuff finds a ready-home in the Stampede atmosphere. Whereas the old-school fundie bits that ‘Dan’ has so largely borrowed attacked the Church from the religious direction, the Stampede itself was deeply supported from the anti-religious direction. But both approaches share the same animosity to the Church (even if ‘Dan’s own personal spin also places him against any religion at all except his own bathroom-mirror revelations).

      And it is precisely for that reason that the likes of ‘Dan’ would come to a site like TMR.

      And it is precisely for that reason that I take time with ‘Dan’s stuff: I think it’s good for Catholics and any other readers to see just how these dynamics synergize.

      JR is mad b) because the comments about Catholic theology don’t support his preferred abuse-narratives (as if his own material performed well in that regard) and a) because nobody is paying enough attention to him and his own stuff (ditto). If you don’t pay attention to him, then he’s gonna getcha you betcha – it’s what he does.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 119AM:

      Here ‘Dan’ is now roused – slyly – to harrumph that he is not a Protestant and is not “a ‘fundie’”. As I have said, ‘Dan’ has borrowed almost all his stuff from the fundie positions as they have existed for a very long time.

      With the exception of the “all man-made religions” bit which is (and has to be) ‘Dan’s personal position because he’s so whacky that he realizes he is going nowhere in any congregations or polities, which is why he has created his own ‘church of ‘Dan’. But the Biblical and ‘theological’ bits are all fundie stuff; that’s why ‘Dan’ can quote them but can’t explain or further explicate them … and we think again of the Closet of Imelda and its papier-mache shoe collection).

      And the rest of the comment allows ‘Dan’ to open up his own floodgates and toss up yet again all his favorite self-justifying claims and assertions and threats and titles and such. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1108PM:

      Here – having been confronted with a glaring problem in one of his prior assertions – ‘Dan’ will now try to come back and rewrite the history of what he said: he now claims that he “wasn’t excluding other Protestant clergy” and so on. But that’s not what he had originally said; and if when he wrote his original assertion he also had in mind Protestants who were “rapists and homosexual child molesters” … then why did he actually write and focus only upon Protestants who “went after” teen girls?

      Answer: because ‘Dan’ was again busily and deceptively and manipulatively tailoring his presentation to go after Catholics and for his immediate purposes the Protestants had to be somehow rhetorically positioned as the ‘good’ guys or at least the ‘no so bad’ guys.

      And then he further – and ridiculously – tries to assert that anyway the Protestants “surely weren’t taking [their alleged targets] to the malt shop for a soda” …

      And how does ‘Dan’ know that? Answer: he doesn’t, but this is how his mind works and readers so inclined can consider that set of dynamics as they may and bear it in mind as they consider his other claims, assertions, assurances, accusations, epithets and threats.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1145PM:

      Here – and yet again – ‘Dan’ will try to get by with this howler: he’s not anti-Catholic – doncha see?

      Nooooooo- he’s just against a whole lot of awful things that the Catholic Church just happens to totally be. And you will know that because … well, because ‘Dan’ has said so.

      But he has let his floodgates down, we recall, and thus he simply cawn’t help himself as he once again makes bleating and braying reference to his own Big-Bang experience: the Catholics (who are “lying bastards”, you can take ‘Dan’s divinely-directed word for it) called the police and got him lugged and sent to a psych-ward six times.

      And so on and so on.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 1156PM:

      Here he demonstrates his abyssal lack of Biblical chops (and/or the extent of his manipulative deceptiveness) by first confusing “translation” and ‘interpretation’. They are not the same thing.

      I have pointed out a number of times here the difference between i) actual translations of the Bible, that hew carefully to the original languages when translating them into English and ii) those ‘paraphrase’ editions that allow this or that person or group sponsoring the ‘paraphrase’ edition to slide in their own favorite bits under pretext of making the text ‘easier to understand’ and so on.

      I have also pointed out a number of times here the problems with ‘Dan’s interpretations of this and that pericope, which are not simply presented to us as ‘Dan’s take but rather are dumped on us as the very Mind and Word and Will of God – as channeled by ‘Dan’ and his bathroom mirror. ‘Dan’ Bible scam is that he is not even trying to make the Bible ‘easier to understand’; rather he is trying to make the Bible fit into the ‘church of ‘Dan’ position.

      That’s the heart of ‘Dan’s Bible ‘translating’ and ‘interpreting’. 

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Why thank you Dan.

      You and P aren't alike? You both make me out to be nuts because I want to murder P.. My rational for coming at long last to that position is completely ignored by you.  That's why you are untrustworthy Dan.

      P's hatred of "funde" you doesn't harm you. You can walk away. But his hatred of victims harms us.

      You don't like homosexuals? Don't be one. As with the rest of the religious bigotry you display here. Your opinion is your opinion. It literally has nothing to do with the subject at hand and the fact that it doesn't only leads me to say what i do about your being here under false pretences

      Dan, as I've told you before, Catholics VENERATE the Virgin. They don't worship her, now. Maybe they did before the Reformation but they don't now. Would they shit themselves with veneration if she appeared before them? Yep. but believe me you've offered nothing to this conversation that would change any of that.

      So why are you preaching at the TMR street corner? Why do you share a hatred of gay people with P?

      In your own bible it says "judge not" yet that is all you do.

      Jesus said ZERO about gay people. ZERO.

      Who was Jesus' "Beloved", according to your magic book? Why it was another male. Live with that biblical truth.

      Hate away sunshine. You mean nothing to me or to victims and our needs. Your arguements here are in fact an impediment to our needs as victims. That's why I distrust you.

      P hates you, me, Mary and anybody else whose posts here that don't back his nasty bull shit. And he never misses a beat going into his evil dance. See how quickly he went after Mary with the same crap attitude he attacks me and you?

      Dan, Jesus said  "He who is without sin cast the first stone". When you start practicing what you preach maybe then someone will believe that you are what you say you are.

      Dan, perhaps you need to find another street corner.

       

    • Dan says:

      This is one more time for Jim and catholics that think that the Lord God doesn't know what there up to and the connection between idolatry and sexual immorality, along with ignorance of God's mighty power and truth. Paul's letter to the Romans - some 1,950 years ago;

      "They know about God, but they don't honor Him or even thank Him. Their thoughts are useless, and their stupid minds are in the dark. They claim to be wise, but they are fools. they don't worship the glorious and eternal God. Instead they WORSHIP IDOLS THAT ARE MADE TO LOOK LIKE HUMANS WHO CANNOT LIVE FOREVER, and like birds, animals, and reptiles. So God let these people go their own way. They did what they wanted to do, and their FILTHY thoughts made them do SHAMEFUL THINGS with their bodies. They gave up the truth about God for a lie, and they worshiped God's creation instead of God, who will be praised forever. Amen. God let them follow THEIR OWN EVIL DESIRES. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds. Since these people refused even to think about God, He let their useless minds rule over them. That's why they do all sorts of indecent things."  Romans 1:21-28

      Your solution is to deny His existence, dispute His flawless Word or curse at Him and blame Him for all the troubles in this evil world. Don't forget that you're part of what makes this world evil. You may not want to know Him, but apparently He's got your number and knows all about all of you and the things you worship falsely and wrongly believe. Good luck in choosing the wrong path. Do you still believe their is no connection between the disgusting worship of Queen Mary and pedophilia, pederasty and perverts? Clean up your beliefs and maybe God will have mercy on you and help you clean up your morals. You'll only come to Him by way of Jesus Christ, or you won't be coming to Him at all. Your choice.

    • Dan says:

      And publiar, Nobody asked for any of your stinking excuses and denials of how catholics don't worship their ever-sinless virgin Mary "Queen of Heaven", our life, our sweetness and our hope. We'll just add this to all your other lies. I bet this will console you.  servant of The Truth

  77. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1117PM:

    ‘Dan’ eagerly hops to it here, working to establish that he hath been ‘lied about’ yet again.

    So let me examine his own (here repeated) quotation from his comment of April 24th at 552PM:

    First, he refers to whatever Protestants may have done as that they “went after”; yet describing Catholics accused of teen-aged boys he uses the phrase “rape and molest” … this is a classic and nicely vivid and clear and obvious example of a sly and manipulative rhetorical loading of the dice.

    Second – and similarly – that the objects of the Protestants’ activities were “teen girls” while the objects of the Catholics’ activities were “little boys and babies”.

    • Dan says:

      When I stated that "most Protestant clergy went after teen girls", I wasn't excluding other Protestant clergy from being rapists or homosexual child molesters. When stating they 'went after teen girls' I meant sexually, they surely weren't taking them to the malt shop for a soda. You're nothing but a twisting and deceiving liar, so stop trying to to claim that I'm deceiving anyone, hypocrite!

  78. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1117PM:

    Third, that ‘Dan ’then tosses away the Protestant activities (already ‘minimized’ – as the Victimists like to say) with the quickie demurrer “not that this makes them innocent either”.

    Straightaway, ‘Dan’s admission in this Protestant  matter i) immediately opens up a whole new world or aspect of the religious/clerical abuse matter, and ii) is directly relevant to everything I have been saying about the Stampede (i.e. that as a carefully constructed and managed strategy against Catholicism it’s rhetorically pre-loaded specifically against Catholics to the exclusion of any other religious polities or any other organizations for that matter).

    Fourth, one wonders if ‘Dan’s assertion is indeed at all true in the first place, i.e. that offending Protestants have demonstrably limited themselves only to “teen girls”. But for the purposes of his basic Cartoon and agenda, ‘Dan’ has to make that presumptive assertion in order to keep up his usual scenario about Catholics.

    So, then, who is best characterized here as a “slimy snake” that doth “manipulate and twist”?

    • Dan says:

      As I've said before, I'm not anti-catholic. I'm anti-idolatry, anti-pedophiles, anti-pederasts, anti-liars, anti-paganism, anti-Rosary (anti-repetive prayer), anti-pastor or bishop worship, anti-praying in church or on street corners, anti-titles, etc. etc. Why? Because the Bible says these things are wrong, along with those who do these things. I don't care what religion you are. If you're doing things that are against God's Word, then you are dead wrong and you can make all the excuses you want. It changes nothing. I've approached other religions about these matters and a few of them have lied about me just like you lying bastards to have me taken away. So stop with your crying that I only pick on your corrupt nasty cult of perverts. All religions are phony deceiving hypocrites, ripping off their dumb brainwashed sheep in the name of God. "Wolves in sheep's clothing." As it is written, "He dwells not in temples made by human hands." So call them churches, kingdom halls or child molesting whorehouses. God does not live or go near your phony buildings or religions. You can rest assured that the Devil dwells in the buildings and hearts of cowards, sexual perverts and greedy rotten liars.

    • Dan says:

      And be not fooled, You're the slimy snake who manipulates and twists. You're so stupid blaming others of your "I'm Not/You Are bit" when you use it more than anyone. More clinical projection there, publiar.

  79. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1117PM:

    But the whole foregoing moosh thus enables ‘Dan’ to quickly lard on further manipulative distraction as he slides immediately into his bleating and braying about “how do catholics in this forum” etc etc.

    He is (as always) attempting to ‘deceive’ in the service of his own cult-of-‘Dan’-in-the-bathroom-mirror.

    And readers may also note how he attempts to make the whole bit do double-duty as he slyly slides in that bit about “translating Biblical verse” … and regular readers can consider any and all of my comments regarding Scriptural pericopes to assess the quality of my Biblical comments and “translating”. Nor has ‘Dan’ ever raised a ‘translation’ objection against any of those comments of mine.

    • Dan says:

      What a stupid lie to say I've never raised a 'translation objection' to any of your 'Biblical comments'. Are you brain dead? I've disputed all of your lying manipulating Biblical translations and all the rest of your ignorance and nonsense. Talk about lying about being a liar. You're a joke, peewee.

  80. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1117PM:

    And then – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – just to check the ‘analogies’ box for his Scriptural Chops creds, ‘Dan’ tosses up a pericope – the immediate relevance of which (beyond it’s merely being an analogy used in the Bible) is nugatory; it’s just ‘Dan’ yet again trying to mimic competence and nothing more.

    And he brings the performance home with more juvenile epithet – as if that would buttress his effort here to mimic adult competence.

  81. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1137PM:

    Here, as an afterthought that ‘Dan’ clearly has not seriously assessed as to its relevance and coherence with his immediately prior bits, ‘Dan’ bleats about any Protestant website that doth “deny, excuse …” and so forth.

    First, this oh-so-slyly seeks to inveigle the prior presumption that there are Catholic websites that do.

    Second, the general immunity of all other religious polities to the type of dynamics we have seen in the Stampede as deployed against the Church is itself of significant analytical interest. As might be said: What’s up with that?

    Clearly something is indeed up with that and the fact that ‘Dan’ then tries to burnish his mimicry by braying that if he were to be shown such a site then he would – more Tea, anyone? – “be the first to expose their crimes also” … falls rather flat.

    Surely anyone genuinely of a scholarly bent would already have been moved to explore whatever is going on in other religious polities in this regard. But then, ‘Dan’ isn’t really someone with a scholarly bent … he just plays one on this site for his own purposes.

  82. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1137PM:

    But wait. There’s more.

    Addicted to his 3×5 pile (and accompanying songbook) but also incapable of assessing even the coherence of his own bits, ‘Dan’ then cannot restrain himself from launching once again into the now-familiar aria ‘That’s Why I Am Not’.

    In which – and had you been waitttingggggggggg forrrrrrrr itttttttttttttttt? – he scoops up his “man-made religions” bit as he belts out his bit about “any of the disgusting perverted cults of this world”.

    Yet he has just above bleated out the implication that there are no other religious polities that deny or minimize their sexual-abuse issues. (Or at least there are none that his ‘research’ can locate, or none that he cares to inconveniently know about.)

  83. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 1st at 1137PM:

    And since he has asked (i.e. “Why do you think …?”) then I will propose this response: ‘Dan’ in the flesh is even more demonstratively unhinged than his writing demonstrates here; any religious congregation would realize that (a number of them probably already have); and so ‘Dan’s solution is to declare them all merely “man-made” and idolatrous and whatever and instead has retreated to his bathroom to set up the church-of-‘Dan’-in-the-bathroom-mirror, the Supreme and Divinely-Informed Reverend ‘Dan’ Presiding and Principal Congregant.

    And under that declaration, scrawled  on the sign on his front lawn, perhaps ‘Honi soit qui mal y pense’. (Tr: ‘Shame on him who thinks ill of it’, with my apologies to the Throne of England.)

    And again: the jingle about “Because the Bible tells me so” is actually an old fundie bit. And perhaps in ‘Dan’s case might be modified thus: ‘Because my bathroom mirror tells me so’.

    And this time ‘Dan’ – perhaps forgetting a very recent issue raised by himself on this very thread – assigns himself (Himself … ?) a title that he rather quite likes.

    And brings it all home with another pastiche of epithet. But of course.

  84. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Mary’s of the 2nd at 209AM:

    Readers may recall her very recent comments and my comments concerning them.

    I raised a number of points.

    Her response here is actually more of a juvenile come-back than anything else; she merely tries the myah-myah gambit, managing to screw up ‘crochet’ in the process while – somewhat obscurely – going on about “a no-brainer forensic psychologist” and “can easily figure that out”.

    But that final ‘that’ is simply left there with no clear referent in the foregoing text, so who knows what she is trying to say or where she is trying to go with the whole bit?

    But perhaps she doesn’t know either. Anyway, she knows what she is certain she knows and if you don’t realize that then you must be … and readers are welcome to fill in the blank. It’s a familiar bit we have so often seen from certain mentalities.

    I was impressed, however, that while she isn’t up on the spelling of ‘crochet’ yet she tosses off “forensic psychologist” nicely enough; has she perhaps a more working familiarity with the latter than the former?

  85. Jim Robertson says:

    Let's see by calling out Dan's attacks on the Catholic faith and on the Virgin in particular here I've done something wrong?  I've fouled his footpath on the stairway to heaven?

    I don't believe any of these religious ikons exist. No God No Jesus No Mary. No heaven No hell. Just….. now. Our lives moment to moment. After lives mean zip to me.  We know this is what I believe but I don't tear into other peoples' religious beliefs without end.

    That's my case.The end of my holy stories.

    I have never called the Catholics here a cult. It demeans them for their faith. You do that.

    I have criticized the people here for being pretty poor followers of Jesus but that's about it.

    Can I get a vote here of people who need or want Dan to save their/our souls? (P, u can't vote because you don't exist and God knows you've no soul.)

    I'm fine here Dan. And your attempts to enlighten me, for one have fallen on deaf ears. Go save somebody else. My question is this: Has it ever worked for you? How many have you saved from your loving God's flames?

    And just because I'm a gay atheist I'm not moral? No. I'm just not servile to a bronze era set of male supremacist standards and superstitions that you are devoted to. You are. I say fine. Tell someone who wants to hear it.

    There that's a real attack.

    And I think it's real cute how you made my threatening of Pub the big problem here not the lack of the Church's  decency towards victims. Now it's me that's fucking it up for victims.   Really I did not know I had that magical power.

     

    Dan a normal person wouldn't even think in those bizarre terms. Like Pub is worth treating decently? What goes around comes around. His just came around.

     

     

     

     

     

    • Dan says:

      Jim, I take offense to you comparing me to P? And P thinks he can compare me to you. I thankfully, by the grace of God, am not anything like either one of you.

      You have once again attacked me and I'm supposed to sit back and think what a wonderful upstanding human being you are. You are not by any means a good spokesperson for victims or the homosexual community. You actually are making both look pretty bad. You seem to be angry and hateful of just about everyone and everything. You claim I don't like homosexuals, when more accurately I just don't agree with their lifestyles. You don't like that I defend my beliefs and criticize things I've said against false religions, and yet you've trashed God, His Son, His Word and His Power. Do you even know what the word hypocrite means? And as far as "religious bigotry" goes, I haven't heard worse than what spews from "the Cult" liars.

      Strange you claim I'm "untrustworthy", when I've previously backed you up and believed what you've said about your experiences with the cult of molesters. I'm also a victim of this church and have done more to expose it's crimes against children than you have. I even have publiar stupidly quoting and repeating all the things I truthfully say against them and their crimes against innocent children.

      Tell me, Jim, what gives you the right to claim I'm the one who doesn't belong here. Are you now the dictator for some Gay Nazi Gestapo? Who do you think you are? You think you can spew all your venom at others, while telling someone defending the One True God that he ought not speak against a pagan false religion or the hypocrites who subscribe to their ignorance? Really at this point I could absolutely care less about your soul or publiars, because it would take a miracle beyond my power to change you two. My hope is that there may be someone out there with the common sense to realize that I am trustworthy.

    • Dan says:

      God and Jesus must be really impressed with you believing that he never said "ZERO about gay people" and His "Beloved … Why it was another male." So you're a believer only when it works to what you think is your benefit, and then turn around trashing, mocking or slandering anything to do with God or His Son. Jesus answered, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?" Matthew 19:4-5  Funny how people only hear what they want to hear. What do you read in that, "He made them male and male and husband and husband"? What happened to Sodom? You might try reading the Word with an open mind instead of seeing only what you want to see or what you don't want to see. "Live with that Biblical truth." I wouldn't even be commenting in this perverted 'untrustworthy' forum if I wasn't practicing what I preach. Only God makes believers and I'm in no need of anyone to verify or authenticate where I stand in God or Christ.

      P.S. God has placed me on the prefect street corner to expose perverts and whoremongers who only claim to be Godly and living in His Truth.

    • Dan says:

      I find it terribly ironic that you're the one defending "the Catholic faith and … the Virgin" when you don't believe "ikons" even exist. God and Jesus are not icons. These images and statues are only the fantasies of the false church you wish to defend. You are one odd atheist. And you don't believe in "tear[ing]" into other peoples' religious beliefs, especially when they are false pagan religions, but you have no problem tearing into my beliefs, my God or my Savior. Wow! Even Satan works in mysterious ways and makes strange bedfellows and alliances. If you're living a sinful life against God, then it makes it much easier to disbelieve in Hell, because then you don't have to worry right now what it's going to be like when you get there.

      I'm sorry that you're offended because I call "the Church" a cult, and you and others have a problem with the truth, going around calling honest people "untrustworthy". I also have no need of keeping a tally or bragging about who I've saved, as all false religions seem to claim. Remember, only God saves people or makes believers. I only plant seed, and sometimes it falls on very rocky ground and terribly 'deaf ears'.

      No, Jim, just because you're a gay atheist does not make you immoral, for you're immoral for many other reasons, and not just because of your disbeliefs. Funny how you accuse God of male supremacy and yet you prefer sleeping with males. Oh! The irony of it all. And how strange and superstitious that you have problems with the opposite sex, but you think sex with men is somehow moral. Also, I wasn't aware that you're the only one I'm talking to in this forum.

      Lastly, I think you made "threatening of Pub the big problem" and I've been the one criticizing the church's decency towards victims. I realize you have a hearing problem, but wasn't aware that you have a reading and seeing problem too. Not just now, you've been "f ….ing it up for victims" for a very long time, and I don't believe that it's by some 'magical power'. I believe in real things, like a Creator, not psychic poppycock or atheistic theories of nothingness. You have to tell me that a deceiving lying publiar is worth treating decently? Strange how two people that are very abnormal think they can question my being normal. Clinical projection?

    • Dan says:

      I hope you're happy that I'm paying attention to you now!

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Just because I can quote from the bible doesn't mean i believe in the bible as the word of god.

      I believe you believe it is. And if Catholics here attacked you for that belief I'd defend your right to hold that belief; but they haven't done that to you. You do that to them daily.

      Just because I defend Catholics' veneration of Mary doesn't mean i believe Mary exists or ever existed. I don't.

      I believe in people.

    • Dan says:

      I find it so strange that you don't believe catholics have attacked me because of my beliefs. They've called me and my beliefs anti-catholic, bigot, on a witch-hunt, crazy, whackery, whacked, whackulent, unhinged, mentally disturbed, mentally deranged, etc. etc. Now that your defending the worship of Mary, apparently you're joining with the publiar and the rest of the deceived. Even more hilariass your statement, "Just because I defend Catholic's veneration of Mary doesn't mean I believe Mary exists or ever existed." Do you often defend non-existent people? If you believe she doesn't exist, then why do you have a problem with my Biblical truths about Mary? You want to murder people who don't exist and then want to claim I want to murder Mary, something I never said. Keep it up Jim, you have a long way to catch up with the publiar's lying ignorance. Lastly and not least, "[You] believe in people." Are those the ones that don't exist or all the ones that are all against poor Jim?

  86. Publion says:

    Just one point from JR’s of the 4th at 441PM seems especially noteworthy: notice how slyly JR inserts his own self-exculpating agenda into what is ostensibly a JR lecture to ‘Dan’: it is I who “hates” ‘Dan’ and ‘Mary’ (the same Mary whom JR told go “f**k yourself”) and “anybody else who posts here that don’t [sic] back his nasty bullshit”.

    In other words, JR tries – a bit too obviously at this point, alas – to pin me with his own signature strategy.

    Even to the point – popcorn, please! – of saying I “went after Mary” when he was the one who told her to go and … so forth.

    And what is a “crap attitude” in JR’s estimation? As I said: anyone who doesn’t agree with him has a “crap attitude” and may well deserve … and so on and so forth.

    And the Stampede was tailor-made to invite such types to step up and have a whack at the piñata.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Telling mary to go fuck herself is an appropriate response to someone who suggests that I and TMR should get a room because we love each other so much.

      Is the readership to believe that I support TMR? That I admire TMR? Is mary supposed to be Mary Grant from SNAP? Are we supposed to believe or suspect that that is who mary is? (Or is she the Virgin herself or am I making an Assumption?)

      Isn't it cute how both Dan and P both attack me as if on the same page. I wonder if their church pay checks arrive at the same time of the month.

      Dan you act like this is your site as much as P acts like it's his. Funny that. Normal though? not really. I'm the only victim of clerical sex abuse here. You two are usurpers. Trolls beneath my bridge.

      Dan you attempt to kill Catholics' devotion to Mary. When I mention that, you go apeshit. I become the moral problem, according to you, because I want to kill P. You want to kill the Queen of Heaven. I only want to kill the piece of shit called Publion. You as god's true servant here have such a high target for your regicidal feelings. I merely want to kill a piece of shit.

      P thinks I'm nuts because I tell mary to go fuck herself then attempt, in future communications  to treat her like a human being as if the two behaviors were polar opposites. One can get angry at someone and yet still treat them like a person. Saying TMR and i should get a room was a sleazeball attack. mary got told what she could do with her bullshit. She was, however, very right on when she referenced the word, hazing regarding P and Dan's bullshit and I guess my own as well.

      No matter. Look at the behaviors of servant; P and mary. They save the virulence of their anger for moi. Me the only victim of Catholic clerical sex abuse here. And I'm the one inventing a conspiracy? I'm the one wrong for noticing how quickly Dan and mary, though supposedly loathingy P, jump in with both feet to do his dirty work for him and in fact with him?

       

       

    • Jim Robertson says:

      Dan says, rather bizarrely, that he hopes I'm happy because he's paying attention to me now. (f he was really paying attention to me he wouldn't be here now.)

      I say bizarrely because such a statement hints that I want a bible thumper's attention. As with all such religious people they assume themselves to be worthy of being paid attention to. They assume that what they they have to say is important because it references "God". (Please notice Dan still doesn't give his success rate re' conversions or the number of souls he's saved.)

      We all know P's going to do his litle hazing around every word i write here. No surprise there. And i suppose I'm supposed to feel bad for wanting to kill him. Good people don't want to kill other people. Really? Tell that to the Marines.  This is America, God damn it, and we solve all our problems with murder and we are the GREATEST country in the world.

    • Jim Robertson says:

      I was invited to "step up to the plate" here the minute that Catholic brother forced my hand down his pants. I would not be here but for that. I was invited to the plate when TMR created itself as a voice for a "victimized church". A base invention.

       

  87. Dan says:

    I guess I'll contend with your repeated ignorance and stupidity on the 5th and finish straitening out your added nonsense. Don't you ever get tired of repeating your bathroom mirror toilet trash, your insistently stupid and now added on mockery ("Divinely" Dan) and your annoying repetition of the catholic lies and liars, that you as a fellow catholic liar must repeat cause the rest of your shit is worthless garbage.

    Now to the current stupidity of the day. publiar oinks and grunts, 10:48am – " 'Dan' can quote them 'Biblical' bits but can't explain or further explicate them." I've several times explained the meaning of verse I've quoted, but since it's not to your liking and condemns your evil cult, you think you can lie that I can't explain what I quote. Followed by another stupid analogy of the "Closet of Amelda and it's papier-mache shoe collection", spouting from a papier-mache brain.

    !0:49am – Idiot, I "focus[ed] only upon Protestants who 'went after' teen girls", because that's what the majority of their crimes were against, unlike catholic clergy who attacked and raped a majority of young boys (80%). And that's why they've well earned the reputation of homosexual pedophile and pederast creeps. Despicable! And as far as Dan just "go[ing] after Catholics", NO, you're clergy and lying leaders have brought it all upon themselves with all their disgusting sins, especially those against innocent children and the liars*, excusers* and enablers* of the cult of pervs.          *publiar included

    • Dan says:

      10:51am – Glad to see you've come to the realization that I'm "against a whole lot of awful things that the Catholic Church just happens to totally be." And anyone Christian who isn't 'totally' against all the 'awful things' and sins of your clergy, wouldn't be able to consider themselves a Christian. That's Period! And there's more, publiar oinks, Catholics … are 'lying bastards', you can take 'Dan's divinely-directed word for it." And why is that? Because I'm not a habitual liar like yourself.   servant of The Truth

    • Dan says:

      10:50-10:51am – And we've come full circle back to publiar's ignorant repeating of bathroom toilet trash, stupid mockery and the annoying repetition of the false accusations of catholic liars, of which publiar qualifies at the top of the compost heap. When you have nothing of any value or truth to add to the conversation, you can always return to your childish and immature stupidity and ignorant mocking.

      "But they mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy." 2 Chronicles 36:16

      And I'm sure you'll have your stupid interpretation and excuses of how this doesn't apply to you, but this is self-explanatory. You will pay the price for your mockery of adding God, His Son and His Holy Spirit to your 'Divinely' bathroom toilet trash, and there will be NO remedy!!  servant of the Lord

    • Dan says:

      At 2:07 Straitening should be straightening. I've gotten so tired of dealing with nonsense, that I didn't reread what I wrote last night.

  88. Dan says:

    Jim, I hope you understand that I have no animosity towards Mary of the Bible. I only have a problem with what catholic teaching has added and lied about her qualities and attributes. I don't think you care to read the Bible, but Jeremiah chapter 44 explains in detail Israel's false worship of the "Queen of Heaven". They angered God by worshiping idols, burning incense to other gods and making bread in the form of the moon (hosts). You think it's a coicidence that the catholic "Queen of Heaven" Guadalupe vision stands on a black moon, a moon of darkness, not of light. The second part of the 1st Commandment says, "Do not worship any god except Me. Do not make idols that look like anything in the sky or on earth or in the ocean under the earth. Don't bow down and worship them." Exodus 20:3-5

    Now "the Church" can deny the worship of Mary "Queen of Heaven", but if they perform all the acts of worship of idols as described in the Bible, then it is worship. Calling it only veneration, honor, reverence or adoring changes nothing, especially when those words can mean worship. You know, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

    Isaiah 44:9-10 says, Those who make idols and worship them are blind, stupid and foolish. Why make an idol or image that can't do anything? Romans 1 says, Idolatry leads to many sins.

  89. Jim Robertson says:

    Now I, according to my big supporter Dan, am a "Gay Nazi Gestapo".

    If there are any sane readers here, look at the exuberance of Dan's attack. I'm supposed to relate to him nicely even as he attacks believers devotion to Mary because he believes that I was abused.

    Sorry Dan I don't need your belief in me. I was there. i lived it.

    You don't get to behave badly towards Catholics just because you believe me. I don't need a support that harms other victims by making believers believe that all victims and our "friends" hate their faith. That's what you were sent here to do, to hate Catholic believers faith and to there by shade the argument against victims.

    You make me out to be a monster and P makes me out to be a monster and mary does and KenW and Malcolm's tried it to. Gee and all because I want to murder P.  Someone I can't even get near because no one knows where he is. Especially me.

    Funny how much alike in anger you self appraised "moral" people are. Where's that "other cheek" we've heard about in legend and in song.

    God save us all from Christians.

     

     

    • Dan says:

      Why do you think you can accuse me of behaving badly against catholics, but are blind to their insistent lies and bad behavior towards me? I don't hate "Catholic believers faith", I hate that they've mistakenly been led to believe to have faith in "the Church" and it's false worship of human gods and goddesses. I'm not making anyone, including victims hate their faith, but if you and other victims want to defend and believe in a cult with leaders that caused you great physical and mental harm, well that's your choice. I don't believe in you Jim. I believe in God my Father, His Son and every precious word that emanates from their mouth, whether Spiritually inspired or actually spoken by them. I don't trust a church claiming infallible leaders that commit worse sexual sins than secular society. I believed in your claim of molestation, but that far from makes me a believer in you, your beliefs or much of the rest of what you have to say.

    • Dan says:

      And may God save us from false Christians and atheist unbelievers, especially those who feel the need to protect the brainwashed from one teaching God's Truth. Hate me Jim, I don't care, but don't accuse me of things that are untrue, because I haven't done that to you.

  90. Dan says:

    Hey Rockhead (publiar) – "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the CHIEF CORNER STONE. In whom the whole building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."  Ephesians 2:20:22 (KJV)

    Jesus the corner stone, as in ROCK, a building held together by God, Jesus (the Lord), and His Holy Spirit. Not like your dead worthless man-made monuments (mausoleums), housing the bones of the saints your Roman ancestors murdered. See Matthew 23:27-31*               *See Rome's Skeleton Rooms and Catacombs of the Roman Empire

    Peter's own words on Jesus the Rock – "You are followers of the Lord, and that STONE is precious to you. But it isn't precious to those who refuse to follow Him. They are builders who tossed aside the STONE that turned out to be the most important STONE of all. They disobeyed the message and stumbled and fell over that STONE, because they were doomed." 1 Peter 2:7-8

    Stop crowning your saints as popes and your "Queen of Heaven" and worship the one who deserves to be crowned, Rock of All Ages. Read and follow His Word, not catholic fairytales.

    "Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD himself, is the Rock eternal." Isaiah 26:4

     

    • Dan says:

      "The LORD liveth, and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted." Ps 18:46  (KJV)

      "Let my words and my thoughts be pleasing to you, LORD, because you are my mighty rock and my protector."  Psalm 19:14

      Still think Peter is your rock as you bow down and kiss the ring finger of popes and exalt, adore, venerate, revere, honor and worship your "Queen of Heaven?

  91. Dan says:

    Jim, You started out by attacking me claiming I don't belong here and this was not the first time. You ended that comment looping me in with publiar as one of "the 2 biggest clowns in the circus." I'm going to simply list things you've said that finally was enough for me.

    I believe God loves sinners, and also believe that he hates hypocrites. 1) You claimed you're the only "decent person" in this forum and have implied that more than a few times. Really? 2) You've displayed this nasty sarcastic behavior towards God, His Son and His Word, and yet you think you're the defender and excuser of catholic idolatry ( a terrible sin against God). 3) You've criticised others morals like you're the moral authority of this forum. 4) You've at times said filthy gay things that would be better left for your gay community. 5) You somehow have attacked just about everybody in this forum, and yet think you're the one treating others with respect. 6) You told Mary to go F…  herself because she made the comment that you should get a room with TMR. You can't sleep with a website anymore than your excuse that you can't murder publiar because you have no info on his whereabouts. 7) Then in frustration you mentioned murdering publiar, but you wouldn't let it go and kept adding to the threats. I was the last one to call you out on it and now you think that's the only reason for my going after you. Oh! And the typical excuse that it's because you're gay. I could care less. Your problem not mine. 8) Looping me again with p that I'm on the payroll. I should be for all the BS I've put up with from the both of you.

    Now you think you can go "apeshit" on me and I'm supposed to turn the other cheek, along with the fact that you think you can judge me, but I better dare not ever judge you or your false church and it's idols. Are you aware that there are over one billion souls that are deceived by this church of sexually immoral child molesting idolaters. Do you even care about anyones eternal punishment, just because you refuse to believe in the Creator of everything, including you. Once again, I am a bonafied victim of the lies and sufferings that I've endured from this cult and believe I have just as much right to fight for my cause as you do for yours. If you have a problem with that then maybe it would be best if you go away or just stay out of my business and I'll be glad to stay out of yours. Much Thanks.

     

  92. Dan says:

    Jim and other catholics, I strongly suggest you watch EWTN, catholic TV. Watch all the shows devoted to Mary or the Rosary. I'm watching "Our Lady of Rosary Pompeii", And all I hear is Mary, Maria and our devotion to "Our Queen of Heaven". Mary is wearing the gold crown of idolatry in every picture (Baruch 6:9).

    "And taking gold, as it were for a virgin that loveth to go gay, they make crowns for the heads of their gods." Baruch 6:9

    When entering the Shrine of Our Lady of Pompeii, they made all the young girls walk on their knees across a marble floor, from outside the church all the way up to the altar of Mary. Now tell me how you don't bow down and worship your damn idols. May God damn all idolatry.

     

  93. Publion says:

    I’ll go down the list as they appear on the site, not chronologically.

    On then to JR”s of the 7th at 1026AM:

    Once again we are given a nifty demonstration of JR’s inveterate self-exculpating: it was “appropriate” – doncha see? – “to tell mary to go f**k herself because” – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttttttttt? – she was “someone who suggests that I and TMR should get a room”. JR’s innocent, doncha see? (Hint: if you don’t see that then you “hazing” him.)

    He then – slyly – tries to pre-empt any number of possible reasons for ‘Mary’s suggestion … just to make sure readers are aimed to one of the less tenable possibilities. A different possibility comes to me: JR has been removed from just about everywhere he’s tried to put up his stuff and TMR is one of the last sites that gives him a platform for his histrionics and stuff. JR is indeed dependent on TMR; were he simply to put up his own site, the chances are very good that nobody would really waste the time to visit it.

  94. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of JR’s on the 7th at 1026AM:

    He then tries this bit of ‘logic’ to ground an insinuation: since ‘Dan’ and I both “attack” him then we must be “on the same page”. To the extent that different commenters see different problems with his stuff then he gets objections from different commenters; but that does not in any way establish that – aside from objecting to JR’s usual stuff – any such commenters would be “on the same page”.

    He then tries this bit: that ‘Dan’ and myself both “act like this is your site”. And JR … doesn’t do anything like that at all. And on top of that, JR doth opine that it’s not “normal”. Even before one allows oneself to imagine what grasp JR has on “normal” in general, one is moved to imagine what JR sees about himself as “normal”.

    Anyway, it’s a nonsensical point in the first place because it’s the site-comments are an open forum.

  95. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of JR’s on the 7th at 1026AM:

    Skipping a bit, we then come to JR trying to extricate himself from his telling Mary to go and so forth: he now claims that it’s really perfectly normal (we might say) that one minute he is telling somebody to go and f** herself and then the next he is ‘treating’ her like a human being”.

    And this is a nicely vivid demonstration of what “normal” means to JR: the two “behaviors” are not “polar opposites” – doncha see? Noooooo … it’s really just a case of a person who might “get angry at someone and yet still treat them like a person”.

    Do you see what he just did there? He mis-describes what he actually did, i.e. he tries to paint a picture in which he did “treat [her] like a person” in the same comment in which he had just told her to “go f**k” herself. Unless it’s “normal” in JR’s mind to be telling a person to go and do something like that and yet still be treating that person “like a human being”, then this is just another sly JR effort to self-exculpate, even if he has to present a false picture of what actually happened.

    The Stampede was tailor-made for persons like this. And JR realized it.

  96. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment of JR’s on the 7th at 1026AM:

    Anyhoo, JR would like to move readers quickly beyond that dodgy bit (before they might have a chance to examine it more closely, one could imagine) so he immediately declares “No matter” and thus he quickly segues into – had you been waittinggg forrr ittttttttt? – the bleat that ‘Dan’ and ‘Mary’ and myself merely “save the virulence of their anger for moi” – i.e. JR, the poor, honest, truthy, heroic and bethumped thing. He’s – popcorn, please – a victim … doncha see?

    And that must be a “conspiracy” – he continues, because why else would people object to his stuff? That his stuff is highly objectionable and objection-worthy … does not and cannot occur to him.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 1045AM:

      JR is going after ‘Dan’ in the first two paragraphs and that’s as may be.

      What’s of more interest is that he tries to spin himself as not being in search of – and I would say in need of and dependent upon – “attention”. I would say that he very much is in search of “attention”.

      Then he tries to characterize my “hazing” of his “every word”. But “every word” of his stuff – one could say with only a minimum of exaggeration – is in need of a comment. Surely, just about every point he makes is in need of such responsive comment.

      And then and then and then – can there ever be enough popcorn to get one through a JR performance? – JR doth suddenly wrap himself up in the flag, drags in “the Marines”, and brays (with the ever-revelatory bit of scatology) that in “America … we solve all our problems with murder” … so – doncha see? – JR is merely a true-blue American and “murder” is as American as – oh, say – apple pie.

    • Publion says:

      On then to JR’s of the 7th at 1151AM:

      He now tries to base his performances on this site as being justified – the popcorn point again – “the minute that” … and we get his already-dubious claim about his abuse-experience … and once again we are confronted with one of the most hoary of the Victimist presumptions: that the merest (alleged) abuse experience can utterly derail a marvelously large-futured waif and turn him into … what we have here now. Thus that some iteration of Beaver Cleaver was quickly turned into JR by having his hand forced down and so forth.

      Readers may consider it all as it is.

      As to what any relevant “base invention” might be here … readers may judge for themselves.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 207AM:

      Here he first tries to build on what can only be a willful (and oh-so-necessary) claim that my “bathroom mirror” imagery is actually a “bathroom mirror toilet” reference. As I have said, no it is not.

      There is never a reference to the toilet-bowl, which is only one of the fixtures in a bathroom. Rather, the references are uniformly and specifically to the “mirror” (drawing upon the cultural connection to “Mirror, mirror on the wall” and such). Would it be better if I said the mirror was in the hallway or the bedroom? I doubt it; the bathroom setting nicely captures the level at which ‘Dan’s mentation and his delusional scam operates.

      As to who is the source of any “annoying repetition” of “lies” … readers may judge as they will.

      And in a nice giveaway, ‘Dan’ is then moved to bolster his usual “worthless garbage” wave-away with some juvenile scatology.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 207AM:

      Then (again trying to manipulate the reader by opening with an epithetical characterization)he turns to the problem of his abyssal lack of capacity to explicate the pericopes he tosses up here. 

      He tries to effect this by (slyly) presuming that the various bits he throws up in regard to his pericopes constitute such ‘explanation’ or ‘explication’. But an examination of his ‘responses’ in explanation or explication – when it is pointed out where they fail in some way – demonstrates that all he really does is this: he has picked a perciope / he has on a 3×5 some bits about it which he parrots here / and beyond that he can only huffily bleat and bray when the problems with his 3×5-bits are then pointed out, and can only repeat what he has already said (from the 3×5 card file). Beyond that 3×5 file and its bit, he’s got nothing in the line of Biblical competence or the capacity for serious thought.

      Which brings it all right back to the Closet of Imelda, as I have said.

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 207AM:

      And in his final paragraph (again trying to manipulate the reader by opening with an epithetical characterization) he tries yet again to extricate himself from his Protestants-“teen-girls” problem.

      But again, all he can do is to ignore the points I raised and repeat what was already in his 3×5 file.

      Thus we again get his utterly unsupported (but for the purposes of his agenda, oh-so-necessary) repetition of the bit about “the majority” of Protestant “crimes” being “against” those “teen-girls”. I had already noted that such a claim and assertion would require some documentation, but instead ‘Dan’ merely repeats his bit. Has he got any documentation? I’m going to say No, he doesn’t.

      As to whether “80%” of accusations against Catholic priests were for ‘attacking and raping’ “young boys” … that one is going to require some documentation too. Has he got any documentation? I’m going to say No, he doesn’t.

      And then – in a marvelous echo of the usual JR self-exculpation method – ‘Dan’ then says that it’s all the Church’s fault anyway. Because of – he requires it to be simply presumed – “all their disgusting sins” and on and on. And the sun-worship and moon-worship stuff too, but of course. 

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 218AM:

      Here he simply tries the juvenile myah-myah of claiming that my characterization of his whacky bits indicates that I accept his whacky bits as true.

      And he then tosses in an advertisement for himself: he is “not a habitual liar” – doncha see? Readers may judge as they will.

    • Publion says:

      On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 243AM:

      His entire first paragraph is merely more larding of (manipulative) epithet that – nicely – appears more accurate in the recoil than in the projectile … but that’s what happens with ‘Dan’ being so abysmally ignorant of the dynamics of projection.

      His second paragraph is merely a repetition of his oft-used 3×5 to the effect that “God’s messengers” are “mocked” … which requires the hugely dubious presumption that ‘Dan’ is one with the “messengers” and “prophets” of 2 Chronicles and the Old Testament generally. ‘Dan’ – but of course – will have you accept that he is; that his self-serving claim to such status is merely “stupid interpretation and excuses” to cover the fact of his own rather clear and obvious infelicities … does not occur to him at all.

      Which comes as no surprise whatsoever.

    • Publion says:

      We’ll pass by ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 538PM where he tries to make excuses for his spelling errors: the poor bethumped but divinely-guided thing is just so “tired of dealing with nonsense” … doncha see?

      Thus on to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1250PM:

      Again, an opening with manipulative epithet.

      And here he simply downloads a bunch of his 3x5s about Jesus being the rock or Rock and so forth.

      But they are all irrelevant to the Great Commission pericope where Jesus said to Peter that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus would build His church (and also gave Peter the power to “bind and loose sins”).

    • Publion says:

      Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1250PM:

      Thus and once again, ‘Dan’ demonstrates his abyssal incapacity to do anything except focus like a demented honeybee on his one preferred point, while ignoring how the rest of the pericope does not support his preferred claim. Thus – in the Great Commission pericope – ‘Dan’ ignores the consequences of Jesus not only a) declaring Peter “the rock” but also b) giving Peter that power “to bind and loose sins”.

      And on that abyssally insufficient basis ‘Dan’ then allows himself something more within his competence: a myah-myah hooting as if he had somehow disposed of his Scriptural infelicities and failures here and can declaim to Catholics with his usual bits. As he also does in his add-on bit of the 7th at 209AM.

    • Dan says:

      I was unaware of the theological controversies associated with the phrase, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church …". I've gone by all the references to Rock verses I read in the Bible. Contrary to your foolish opinion, I was never taught by "fundies" the truths I've gleaned from the Bible. So if you wish to take the verse out of context and go with your catholic apologists version, then so be it. We will never agree, which is quite obvious, on any Bible verse, but it's totally ignorant for you to think you have the proper interpretation just because it's your catholic misinterpretation. I can only go by what is Biblical, and still fail to see any connection with Peter as your first pope or even presenting himself as one of your triple crowned pompous infallible leaders. As far as Christ giving Peter or any of the Apostles the power "to bind and loose sins" I do not dispute. I do dispute that any of them became popes or fathers of your catholic church. Why? Because the Bible states you are to call no one Father, let alone Holy Father (Matthew 23:9). You have no worthwhile argument or debate that can change Biblical Truth, and yet I'll expect you to keep trying.

      And another verse – 1 cor 10:4 "… and that Rock was Christ."

      As far as the rest of your ignorance, nonsense, lies and false accusations today, I'm somewhat burned out defending myself and discussing and debating Biblical Truths to the deaf, dumb and blind. I'll make Jim happy and let him contend with the ignorant accusations you throw at him.

  97. Jim Robertson says:

    In order to exculpate myself from anything I have to be guilty of something. What am i guilty of?

    I tell Dan he doesn't belong here. I'm a problem.

    I promise to murder shit head, who can not be seen and therefor can not be found without a real name, and according to Dan, I'm a monster.

    And according to dung breath, P,  I need to excuse myself for such actions.

    I excuse myself from nothing. If I kill P I'll go to jail.

    Problem is: I don't know his name or what retirement palace Father P is holed up in ruminating over WW2 cupcakes.

    When Dan first arrived on TMR shores I felt it odd. Usually trolls get bored. They hit and run and are gone. Not our Dan.

    Look who he attacks. P he hates, in a limp dick kind of way, arguing over religious beliefs, which has nothing to do with SNAP or its behaviors or its demise.

    But as for me? he holds real relish in loathing me. I wonder why?

    He accepts not, my critique of his linking being pro victim to being anti Catholic faith. He ignores that to rapidly jump to I'm a monster.  I, a single victim, am a monster. I'm inhuman and why? Because I want to murder someone who claims through lying implication that I was not sexually abused by my clerical teacher, that I was a crook at 16 that I am a thief and a liar.

    (Or am I also a monster because I'm gay and or an atheist to Dan? With such Christian soldiers, hell on earth is made.)

    Where i come from thems fighting words.

    So Let's make things fair, for Dan, more equal, more genteel. I'll forget about murder.

    Let's have a duel, P.

    Let's meet at the old Duelling Oaks where Miss Katherine gave up her virginity.

    You armed and me armed. and we can shoot it out once and for all. 

    I'd slap your face as a challange but you have no face just a lispy bitter voice here, hardly mufflled by your own wig collection.

    (Actually, You should be murdered for how you've slaughtered the English idiom and honesty here but I'll duel it out with you, P. Tette a tette.) And since I'm such a shit speller? if i die I'll have deserved it for my poor spelling.

    Dan's a phony. P's a phony. Hired hands.

    Malcolm is real. Kenw is real. Both wrong but both just other people.

     

     

    • Dan says:

      Wow Jim, Where do I start. Over four times now you're claiming I called you a monster. I never called you a monster. You add, I "relish in loathing [you]. [You] wonder why?" Well possibly because I never said I loathe you or relish in loathing you. Don't remember calling you 'inhuman'? In fact I thought of you as very human.

      I do relish in telling things as they are and enjoy telling the truth. Is that what's bothering you? Is my being honest and quoting things from God's Word making you feel guilty, so it's time to attack me? I told you it's your choice if you want to be gay or an atheist. No problem. I do have a problem with you attacking my religious beliefs or my God and Savior, and have heard you say some pretty cruel and disgusting things in that regard. I don't understand why you would 'relish' doing and saying such things.

      Now I'm a 'phony' along with publiar? Really? Oh! And let's not forget that we're both 'hired hands'. I'l be waiting for my paycheck. Are you the one to sign it, since I've wasted the last couple of years unpaid while I did my best to expose the wickedness of this false church and their disgusting sexual sins against innocent children? A cult that you have now decided to defend along with their blatant idolatry and goddess worship. If I'm to be paid by anyone, it will be from my Heavenly Father, but I'm not even sure He's happy with what little I've accomplished here or should I say haven't accomplished here.

      If that's not enough, now I'm a "troll" with publiar "under your bridge". I don't even know if you own a bridge, but if you do it is surely the bridge to nowhere. Let alone the fact that wherever publiar is, I surely would never be. I think you need to figure out who is really your friends and who is your enemy. You making me your enemy is surely news to me. Glad it's only a virtual enemy and not a real one, at least it wasn't to me. I've found enough enemies from this church just because they hate the truth and apparently love the 'lie' and 'relish' in being liars. Good luck in your pursuits Jim.

      P.S. "the Church" weasels out of compensating victims and you think they're paying me for the exposing the falsehoods and lies of their evil cult. Wow Jim, you sure have an imagination!

    • Dan says:

      Jim, I stumbled upon this April 17, 2018 @ 10:56pm and think you should go back and read that complete comment again. I wasn't calling you a 'monster', I was saying that's what "the Church" would like us to believe in order to take the "SPOTLIGHT" off of them. I even stated the same about myself. They want all to believe, "There's the 'monster' bad guy 'Dan'", and our One, Holy and True Church is being persecuted by these trouble makers.

  98. Dan says:

    I invite catholics to check out Cruxnow.com and see the May 8, 2018 article "Priest accused of abusing 2 boys, making 1 confess afterward". Father David Poulson is among others on a list "The Catholic Diocese of Erie, Penn. has published … of 34 priests and 17 lay people who have faced 'credible' accusations of sexual abuse or inappropriate behavior. It's the 'first' time the diocese has revealed the names of those accused of abuse." "Prosecutors said the Erie Diocese had received complaints about what they say were Poulson's "sexual predator tendencies" as far back as 2010, but did not report him to law enforcement until the grand jury issued a subpoena in September 2016."

    Anne-Marie Welsh, the diocesan spokeperson says, "It is work that needed to be done. We are not here to pat ourselves on the back." It took until April 2018, no doubt under Grand Jury pressure to release this list of perverts? You had better not pat yourselves on the back, but could I suggest the cat of nine tails with metal cleats to your backs. You have to wonder what kinds of sexual sins catholic clergy and brainwashed sheep are guilty of when they flagellate themselves. I would say it's most likely done for sexual gratification among the sick perverts, rather than any religious reasons.

    I ask you publiar, man of a million excuses and denials, what happened to your un'credible' claim that "the Church" has done more than any other organization to stop child abuse among it's ranks. As usual, nothing but ignorant words lacking any 'credible action'. The cult of lying deceiving "Wolves in sheep's clothing".  servant of the One True God

    P.S. Catholics, you think you would question your beliefs and faith, when these multiple cases seem to keep popping up in every diocese in our country and across the world. Faith in what?

     

  99. Publion says:

    The exchange between ‘Dan’ and JR is something upon which readers may feast at their leisure.

    However there is the occasional useful and revealing bit.

    Thus on the 8th at 132AM ‘Dan’ doth bray that “God loves sinners” but also that God “hates hypocrites”.

    But is not hypocrisy a sin? In which case the fact that “God loves sinners” would and must logically apply.

    But instead we see that ‘Dan’ has somehow excluded “hypocrisy” as a sin and “hypocrites” as sinners eligible for God’s love … and on what authority has ‘Dan’ taken his scissors to the Divine love?

    Short answer: on the ‘authority’ of ‘Dan’s having an agenda that requires him a) to make it sound like his stuff is well-grounded in Christian theology while b) making sure that he has his oh-so-necessary stick by which to beat any religion that doesn’t think ‘Dan’ is a very speshull and divinely-authorized spokesperson for the Divine.

    Thus God loves sinners … except when ‘Dan’s purposes require Him not to do so / at which point God must take a back-seat to ‘Dan’s own self-serving and self-exculpating purposes.

    • Dan says:

      Publiar, your ignorance and foolishness has reached new heights. I don't go around calling people " 'hypocrites' for not putting up with [me]" or because they don't listen to my 'stuff', as you've sarcastically claimed. Don't pretend do be so stupid, unless your not pretending. People or clergy are 'hypocrites' because they purport to be moral, virtuous and religious when nothing could be farther from the truth. Take for instance your cult. Leaders act so self-righteous in their pompous robes and headress while they're secretly bonking young innocent boys. On top of that they are greedy cowardly idolaters who have excusing and deceiving blatant liars like yourself who attempt to cover for their nasty 'sins'. All these would definitely qualify as being labeled 'hypocrites'. Don't play your little games with me. I ask any conscious catholics to "consider and judge" "As to who is 'deaf, dumb and blind' ."

      Jesus was all forgiving to sinners, but he was constantly attacking the phony hypocrites in the gospels. Don't know how many times I've asked you to look at Matthew 23 to see all the descriptions and warnings given to religious "hypocrites". Can you not see how your cult fits just about every description and warning? And this is why you are definitely the one who is "deaf, dumb and blind", so quit tossing your favorite "I'm Not/You Are" bits at me.  servant

      P.S. And you will pay the price for your insistent stupid mockery, so keep it up.

  100. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 132AM:

    Recalling ‘Dan’s many bleats (even recently on this thread) that he doth harbor no ill-will towards the faith of Catholics and such, we note his description of the Church and “over one billion” Catholics as reducible to being a “church of sexually immoral child molesting idolaters” … and “hypocrites” too , he apparently forgot to add.

    My surmise is this: actually being even more disturbingly whacko in the flesh than online, ‘Dan’ has been shown the door by many religious congregations and polities / and apparently the Catholics top the list because they called the police and got him lugged and sent to a psych ward six times / and since they would not sit still and allow his disturbing whackness  to run rampant in their midst then ‘Dan’ has hit upon the following scheme: a) call them “hypocrites” for not putting up with him; b) tailor the classic ‘God is love’ and ‘God loves sinners’ formulations by arbitrarily excluding “hypocrites” from the category of sinners; c) amass a 3×5 pile with only such bits of Scripture and ‘news’ that will fit into his agenda; while d) declaring all religions to be “man-made” except for his own which he started on the speshull-revelation and status granted to him by – let’s face it – himself, although e) he then declares himself to be the irrefutable bullhorn of God, the doubting of which claim doth condemn one to Hell because ‘Dan’s speshull role and status is God’s clear and obvious Will and you can take ‘Dan’s word for that.

    • Dan says:

      How does it feel, you lying jackass to "surmize", assume and claim something is apparent when you don't know a damn thing about what your assuming. All the denominations I've ever attended have never shown me the door. When I left it was by my own doing. You lie so much about a person that sooner or later you make it your ignorant truth, yet it still doesn't change that it started through your habitual lying.

      For instance, your insistence that I was "lugged and sent to a psyche ward six times", conveniently ignoring the fact that these issues came about based on the lies of catholic clergy just like your lying self. The fact that you feel the need to continue to harp on these lies and liars is what makes me a "bonafied victim" of catholic liars from your cult. First a victim from your catholic lying clergy and revictimized every time you indulge yourself to continually repeat these false accusations and false arrests and add your ignorant input.

      I so much appreciate your "treasury" of worthless lying thoughtlessness and your immature "comedy" act. Lucky no one would pay to hear your ignorance, nonsense and stupidity and the catholic church shows there total lack of wisdom if you're paid as Jim claims.  servant

       

    • Dan says:

      "surmise" for Mr. Know-It-All, who thinks he's still a child competing in a spelling bee.

  101. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 132AM:

    Oh, and borrowing the misspelled term from ‘Mary’s recent comment, ‘Dan’ also claims for himself the Victim mantle; he’s “bonafied”, doncha know?

    And he tries to wrap it all up with a proposal that might make sense among feuding neighbors over a backyard fence but is ludicrous in the internet setting: you stay out of my business and I’ll stay out of yours, he doth propose.

    What a loss to the treasury of human thought – and to stand-up comedy – that would be.

  102. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    And – again in best fundie and 3×5 fashion – ‘Dan’ then tosses up another pericope. But while Paul in 1 Corinthians is using the well-known “rock” imagery to establish the fact that Christ is the ground (or Ground) of the Church, Jesus in the Great Commission pericope is precisely referring to Peter as the Rock upon whom Christ would build His church – in addition to which, again, Christ then adds that unique and stupendous authority to “bind and loose sins”.

    All ‘Dan’ has – as ditto the fundies – is that he (and they) don’t want to see how one could get i) from Peter and Christ that day when Christ pronounced  Peter’s Great Commission to ii) the Catholic Church as it developed in subsequent eras of human (and Providential) history.

    And he tries to head for the wings by – yet and yet again – putting hand to forehead and declaring that he be “somewhat burned out” by having to be “defending” himself and – had you been waittinggg forrr itttt? – “debating Biblical Truths with the deaf, dumb and blind”. The poor victimized thing is “burned out” – doncha see? – like the only ambulance crew at a mass casualty incident.

    Except he doesn’t ‘debate’ – he simply regurgitates over and over again his 3×5 bits. As to who is “deaf, dumb and blind” … readers are welcome to consider and judge as they may.

    • Dan says:

      And you have "regurgitate[d]" your ignorant "Peter's Great Commission" meant he was your 1st catholic pope, when I've insisted that that is an impossibility because humbled and fallible Peter of the Word could never be one of your pompous, triple crowned, dress wearing, idolatrous popes. However maybe Cardinal Dolan could change outfits with Rhianna at the Met, because he's already got the pompous big-mouthed qualities of a catholic pope down. He fit in perfectly with all the filth of Hollywood and boasted about the wonderful time he had. Maybe your church of pervs can move their Vatican down to Hollywood and San Francisco wouldn't be a bad choice for some Catholic NAMBLA Sodomite parades. I mean they've already named their city after Rome's City of Seven Hills. Babylon of the West.

    • Dan says:

      I would answer to more of your ignorance and stupidity tonite, but I'll have to ask Jim if it's OK. I'm sorry Jim that you feel that you're the only qualified victim who can defend himself from the continuous lies, slander, mocking and excuses from "the Church" of Publiars. I don't think that is fair at all.

  103. Publion says:

    On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1055AM:

    Here JR will try the familiar stream-of-consciousness style.

    As usual, the unifying theme is JR’s theme of self-exculpation. “What am I guilty of?” bleateth he in the accents of a sorely-bethumped Goody Two-Shoes.

    That he has taken upon himself to pronounce that ‘Dan’ “doesn’t belong here”?

    That he doth “promise to murder” somebody who either is or isn’t a human being (again with this bit)?

    Alas – bleatheth he further – he is supposed to be a “monster” for little itty-bitty thingies like that.

    But then – shifting gears (and Wigs) with thoughtless abandon – he manfully (but, of course, not monster-fully) doth declaim that he doth “excuse [himself] from nothing” … which has been his game for a very very long time.

    His animadversion on “trolls” appears to JR only in the projectile and not in the recoil. Who could see JR as a troll by any stretch of the imagination? Who indeed?

  104. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1055AM:

    Then he buckles down to another familiar gambit: he works up some insinuation as to why ‘Dan’ (in today’s episode) is “loathing” him. JR is just a poor truthy heroic thing sorely bethumped by “loathing” – doncha see? He always is and always has been – and he simply ‘cawn’t think why’ (one recalls the Gilbert and Sullivan piece built around that same bleat).

    And then – shifting gears and Wigs yet again – JR proffers his styling of Andrew Jackson u proposes to me ‘let’s have a duel’. Well, JR, we have been having a duel for years here – and your aim seems rather off, does it not?

    Isn’t this the core JR? If you don’t agree with him then he’s gonna getcha you betcha, and as violently as he can manage it. it’s what he does.

  105. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 9th at 1055AM:

    And then he charges me with having “slaughtered the English idiom” – have I indeed?

    And – marvelously – this equates in his mind to a justification for murder (it’s ‘slaughter’, doncha see?).

    And he heads for the wings with his age-old bit against me (and now extended to ‘Dan’) about being “hired hands”. Into such un-truthy bits he retreats for consolation. Good for JR.

    My best wishes to ‘Malcolm’ and ‘Ken W’ for making (at least for the purposes of today’s performance) JR’s “just other people” list. Though I wouldn’t put too much reliance on the security of that status.

  106. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 119PM:

    One will have to do a bit of hunting on the liberal-leaning CruxNow site for the article, but the key document is a list put up by the Diocese of Erie, PA.

    This is the link to that document: http://www.eriercd.org/policyupdate.htm

    As always, it is worthwhile to note that one rarely if ever sees such lists put forward by other organizations. Nor – human sinfulness being what it is – am I surprised that there may well be some (one might even say ‘must be some’) genuine cases.

    But I would make the following observations taken from the text of the site linked-to above:

    The list of 34 persons includes both priests and laypersons; 20 of them are already dead; the list includes females as well as males.

    The still-living priests had been removed from ministry and the lay-persons from Diocesan employ; the site is actually – among other things – intended to warn prospective employers.

    • Dan says:

      Let's not try to change the facts there publiar. There were 34 credible accusations against priests and another 17 accusations against lay persons. Always along with your excuses and denials. must you attempt to minmize the number of creeps in your catholic cult.

  107. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 119PM:

    The Diocese states that only “some” of the accused were actually accused of direct sexual abuse.

    The Diocese further states that the allegations have been found to be “credible in the Diocese’s judgment” – and regular readers here may recall the definition-of-‘credible’ problem that has figured largely in this type of case for decades now.

    The Diocese further states that some of its findings were made merely “out of an abundance of caution rather than because of specific abuse that was perpetrated”.

    More significantly, he Diocese further states that many of the cases “cannot be investigated fully” and “can neither be proved or disproved”.

    And – the most significant conceptual element, I would say – is that the actual definition of “abuse” underlying this list has been expanded to include “sexual, physical, emotional and neglectful”.  So we are – as so often in this type of case – left with no connection between a specific individual and the particular type of ‘abuse’ of which s/he  – in the judgment of the Diocese – was found to be “credibly accused”.

  108. Publion says:

    Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 119PM:

    The earliest noted death of a priest on the list was 1970 and at least one of the priests was accused after his death.

    Of the 34 priests 3 are currently “under active investigation by law enforcement”; of these one has apparently been so long departed from the ministry that his current address is no longer in the files.

    Thus readers are strongly invited to consider the document and formulate their assessments.

    I would point out that ‘Dan’s effort here to somehow present this as the conclusive fulfillment of all his usual scare-visions is hardly valid.

    • Dan says:

      And as usual, we can always count on the publiar to minimize, define terms to his corrupt liking (i.e. credible), and defend the malfeasants of his false religion. Whether catholic priests or catholic lay people, we can always depend on his many excuses and denials, telling us the facts aren't really truly facts. And in his twisted thinking he can always insinuate that dead priests are no longer guilty priests. Thank Heavens that God made a Hell, so they have a place to go directly when they die. I wouldn't want to see them without a warm cozy home. How's that for a 'valid' "scare-vision", publiar, maybe they'll be able to prepare you a room downstairs?

  109. Mary says:

    Funny! Perhaps Shakespeare can perform next. Lol I gotta have some humor! It is a survival mechanism. Cheers!

  110. Publion says:

    I left out a few and I’ll deal with them now. I’ll go down the list as they appear on the site.

    Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    Apparently having decided that his opening-with-epithet is too much of a giveaway, ‘Dan’ here tries a Wig, the Wig of Sober and Knowledgeable Competence. Thus he hums that he “was unaware of the theological controversies associated with the phrase “Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church”. Quite nicely put, in terms of style and diction and the pericope is even accurately quoted.

    In terms of content … let’s see about that. Let’s see how ‘Dan’ runs with it.

    He doesn’t – actually. Instantly, he merely repeats his bit about all the “Rock verses in the Bible” – which, as I pointed out in a recent comment on this thread, are not relevant to the Great Commission pericope, when they are applicable at all.

    The “theological controversies” we have recently dealt with here on this site aren’t actually very widespread in the general Scripture world at all. Rather, they are the result of ‘Dan’s own whacky efforts to put over the idea that Jesus was referring to Himself when he said “and upon this rock”.

  111. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    Well then, perhaps he will get around to addressing the “theological controversies” now.

    Nope. He quickly moves on to something else, about his being “never taught by the fundies”. Note the sly and deceptive switcheroo here: I never said he was “taught” by fundies; I said he lifted most of this stuff from them.

    And – in another nice little demonstration of how all he’s got is his pile of 3x5s, which – when challenged – he can only repeat: he once again tries to run the old “out of context” bit. But as I said in prior comments, the “context” is precisely that of Jesus telling the Disciples of Peter’s special status and thus it is ‘Dan’ who is trying to wrench the pericope out of its context, for his own purposes and agenda.

    Thus – again – while Jesus is surely the Ultimate or Prime “Rock” upon which His church will be founded, yet what we have in the Great Commission is Jesus (and it can hardly be unknowingly) deliberately and formally and clearly i) declaring Peter to be a (subordinate, if you will) “rock” upon whom the church will be built for its journey through human (and Providential) history and then – even more stunningly – ii) assigning to Peter the power to “bind and loose sins” … which is a power never before conceived as anything but divine and never ever before assigned to a human being by the Divine.

  112. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    And there’s a method to the madness here: ‘Dan’ thus tries to run this slyly deceptive bleat: it’s all a matter of ‘disagreement’ – doncha see? – so we’ll just have to ‘agree to disagree’ (as they used to say in the ‘70s). As if ‘Dan’s bit were sufficiently coherent and credible and faithful to the text so as to enjoy the status of a valid interpretive possibility.

    But then he turns and steps on his own proposal by instantly tossing out that he will agree to disagree … but even so any interpretation here but his is “your catholic misinterpretation” and thus “totally ignorant”.

    Whereas JR is an adept at the Victim-Wig, ‘Dan’ is an adept of the Mature-Scriptural-Competence Wig … although, as we have often seen, neither maturity nor Scriptural competence are demonstrably emplaced in his repertoire. Wigs and poses and the repetition of the usual bits, larded with epithet – that’s about all there is to these performances.

    • Dan says:

      Once again in a poor attempt to twist and manipulate statements I've made, just as he has manipulated Biblical verse to his liking, publiar oinks, "he will 'agree to disagree' ". I will never agree with a blatant liar, whether catholic liar or any other liars.

  113. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    And he tries to ground that whackness with the further bit that all he – the poor but mature and Scripturally-competent thing – can do is “go by what is Biblical” (which is a code word for what is ‘Dan’s preferred and necessary view of any pericope). As I have said, while a) the texts he quotes can be characterized as “Biblical” yet b) what he tries to do with them cannot withstand any level of actual Biblical analysis at all.

    We will be here for a very long while if we try to compile a list of what ‘Dan’ doth “fail to see” (nice mimicry of scholarly diction, though).

  114. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    And then and then he tries to dispose of that ever-pesky “bind and loose sins” element in the Great Commission pericope.

    He simply cawn’t “see” how Jesus giving Peter that (stupendous and unique and – not to put too fine a point on it – previously-considered-divine) power can ground any sense of the uniqueness of the authority contained in Peter’s Great Commission. Of course, ‘Dan’ tries to evade that core and profound theological point by simply tossing up a typical fundie cartoon scare-vision of “triple crowned” and so forth. Wheeeee.

  115. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 9th at 1229AM:

    And he then tries to further bolster that whackery – in a highly familiar fundie way – by merely retreating to another pericope (about ‘call no one father’ – previously discussed on this thread). But we have already seen the problems with that pericope on this thread – and ‘Dan’ has evaded any actual substantive response to those problems.

    And let us dispose of another bit of mimicry: ‘Dan’ doth not “dispute” in any scholarly or intellectually competent sense. Rather, he merely bleats and bawls No-No-No while tossing up this or that pericope that never does manage to introduce any grounds for his “dispute” but rather simply – not to be too repetitive – yields another No-No-No (perhaps with decisive and conclusive stamping of the feet loudly).

  116. Publion says:

    And we have commenter ‘Mary’ back on the 10th at 829PM where  – in case the possibility hadn’t already occurred to readers – she’s really just into the sort of ‘drive-by’ commenting that one sees in the lower precincts of the internet.

    But she’s reeely reeeely stressed out – doncha see? – and life has victimized her to the point where she needs a “survival mechanism” and thus such a level of commenting is justified … doncha see? We have seen this type of self-justification before here.

    And if you don’t see that, she’ll just toss that snarky “Cheers!” into your face and keep on keeping on. She’s just here for ‘Mary’ and nothing else. If you’re not into her personal soap-opera you can change the channel.