Dalrock the closet Catholic in disguise?

I always used to wonder why the blogger Dalrock was silent when the frequent celibate Catholics who infest his site, used to make comments that defended “mother church”

As a born again believer in Christ, I found it extremely offensive why Dalrock never pulled up the outright doctrinal errors being promulgated on his site, or why he never challenged them when they were going off on their little pro Catholic rants defending Mariolatry, the Eucharist, salvation by works, enforced celibacy, etc

 

Now I know why……It’s because Dalrock is a Roman Catholic!! so of course he allows Catholics to post on his blog, why wouldn’t he, he is one of them. The insidious thing though, is that Dalrock doesn’t come out and confess that he is a Catholic, he sneakily hides that fact, in order to not scare off his Protestant supporters

This wicked undermining of the faith once delivered unto the saints Jude 1:3 is why we have to be extra diligent to watch out for subversives like Dalrock who have wormed their way into blogs and Christian sites, in order to contend for the faith and defend it against the blasphemous harlotry of the Roman Catholics with their Mariolatry, their teaching that salvation is by works, Popery, the blasphemous of the Eucharist, the doctrine of Devils by promoting celibacy etc etc

man couple people woman
Photo by Gratisography on Pexels.com
Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Dalrock the closet Catholic in disguise?

  1. Dear Brother:

    Nope, have to strongly disagree with you on that one….free speech in order to be truly free can have NO limits on it, with the caveat that the one who believes in free speech accept that there is consequences to free speech sometimes

    Well, if I identified you as “John Smith,” of Topeka, Costa Rica, and commenced to telling all your neighbors that you were a wife-beater and zoophile, and if my speech caused the loss of friends and income, I think you’d have standing to sue me into silence (and penury). Libel/slander/etc. is an example of speech which isn’t (and ought not be) free, and that’s a reasonable limit, in my view.

    Do you have an argument to the contrary? If so, I’d be interested.

    I really think that the American model is valuable. In my own country, goofballs are regularly penalized by the state for having silly ideas (holocaust revisionism, conspiracies, etc.) This is a model that the U.S. doesn’t want to follow, but which it probably will (albeit through corporate power, rather than state violence.)

    Like

    1. Hi @Boxer

      I don’t know why, but I fished your comment out of spam?
      Stupid WordPress

      You present a good argument, and a conundrum. The sad reality is, in order to have free speech which is truly free, we have to expect that unfortunately it will be abused, like the examples you gave. I guess it’s like the ole addage, who is watching the watchers?, who gets to decide what to censor when it comes to free speech etc
      There are no easy answers i suppose, for free speech to be truly honored, we even have to allow that someone will be falsely slandered one day based on their use of free speech. And NO, it’s not fair at all, but society will always work best under free speech than to start censoring everything it deems “objectionable”

      Liked by 1 person

  2. In my earlier comment here, I quoted IB’s statement as to why she moderates my comments. From my perspective, I don’t think she likes them because she doesn’t like to hear the actual truth when it differs from what she believes … from anyone, but especially from me. In other words, she moderates or deletes my comments because they often express disagreement with her. I consider her moderation behavior to be essentially equivalent to what you describe of Dalrock. In a similar vein, while I consider Dalrock’s blog to often border on a mutual admiration society, IB’s blog is mutual admiration on steroids.

    Like

    1. @OKRickety

      That’s it you’re banned and blocked

      Lol, just kidding!!……..Love what you said about Dalrock’s blog being a mutual admiration society….Dalrock has got his pampered head stuck so far up his ass he couldn’t find it with a 50,000 watt torch even if he tried
      It’s hard to judge what is going on between you and IB without knowing all the facts….was it a doctrinal position you clashed over?

      Doesn’t the fact that I can still see your comments on IB’s blog defeat your argument?…..I’m not being contentious here, just curious, because when you’re in moderation over at that faggot Dalrock’s blog, you will never get to see your comment and nor will anyone else see it….It is completely invisible, and it will never see the light of day, if you don’t grease up to and flatter him and his beliefs 1,000,000,000 % to the letter, and even then, it might take weeks or months to show up, as he scrutinizes you with an electron microscope

      Dalrock is such a pathetic coward for doing that , he makes the most sissified, effeminate homo look like the toughest MMA fighter on earth

      Like

  3. ‘For e.g do you know how I know that @insanitybytes22 is a “real” Christian?, The answer is simple really, ….it’s because she allows others in here to comment on her threads, it proves she is open to respectful dialogue, and it proves that she is open to other people’s opinions and views, and with that comes the risk of being “reproved” if wrong, and she is to be commended for that’

    Your belief about IB’s handling of comments on her blog is not correct, unless you consider my comments to be disrespectful (if you consider that to be the case, then I abandon my argument). In her own words to me:

    “In years of blogging, I still only moderate two people. One is you, another is a rabid atheist. What you both do is wallow in bitterness and pour accusations on me, and constantly attack and abuse me and other people.”

    ColorStorm then showed acceptance of moderation by chiming in with:

    “Need I remind you that WP seems to think moderation is a valuable tool?”

    Note: The reason I posted this here rather than on IB’s blog is because it is extremely likely that she would not have allowed it through her moderation. I have had that happen many times.

    Why? I believe that IB’s moderation (and deletion) of my comments on her blog clearly demonstrates that is unwilling to be reproved, respectfully or otherwise.

    Like

    1. @OKRickety

      Apparently it was a WordPress issue and it has been resolved now

      But going back to your concern….was there a reason that insanitybytes22 moderates or deletes your comments?

      Like

      1. “It’s hard to judge what is going on between you and IB without knowing all the facts….was it a doctrinal position you clashed over?”

        There have been multiple causes. Sometimes doctrinal, but probably most often IB claiming to know what was truly meant by me or by others (she contends she has the gift of discernment). In almost all cases, trying to argue with her is like boxing the wind. She moves the goalposts, avoids answering direct questions (especially when she knows doing so would make her position untenable), and even creates her own definitions of words. It is my suspicion that she has done this on many blogs and that she has sometimes been banned (e.g. Dalrock and Doug Wilson) as a result.

        “Doesn’t the fact that I can still see your comments on IB’s blog defeat your argument?”

        No, it doesn’t. First, let’s make a clear distinction between banning, blacklisting, whatever and moderating. In the former, you cannot comment. In the case of moderation, the blogger (in this case, IB) makes the choice to allow or not each and every comment.

        IB has me on moderation. Sometimes she will allow a comment through. So, for example, IB allowed my one comment, but she deleted my later comment replying to ColorStorm. In other words, she is censoring my comments, and only allows them when it suits her fancy. From my perspective, there is little effective difference between Dalrock’s control of commenting and IB’s version. You strongly condemn Dalrock for controlling the comments on his blog, but you praise IB for what you think she does (I argue that you do not know what IB really does, especially on the blogs of others).

        Here is the key question you have to answer for yourself: I know that I have often expressed disagreement, but have my comments to IB been excessively unacceptable?

        IB has the right to control commenting on her blog. Since she does do this, it is gross hypocrisy on her part to complain that any other blogger does the same on their blog.

        “… if you don’t grease up to and flatter him and his beliefs 1,000,000,000 % to the letter, and even then, it might take weeks or months to show up, as he scrutinizes you with an electron microscope”

        That hasn’t been my experience. He does not censor my comments and I certainly have expressed disagreement with him. For example, see this post (If You Only Knew Wilson …) and you will find that he did not appreciate my comments on that occasion (and probably others).

        Liked by 1 person

      2. @OKRickety

        I find your reasoning both sound and logical, and I am not able to refute it. I give credit where it is due, and you present a solid argument…..with 1 caveat
        You personally might not have had trouble with your comments on Dalrock’s blogs, but you are certainly in the minority

        I and many others have found that dealing with Dalrock’s blog is akin to dealing with a very close knit cult, where everyone is an outsider and held with the deepest suspicion, until he finally takes you out of moderation, and in a lot of others that I know, that is never

        I never knew you from a bar of soap OKRickety, yet I never held you in moderation once, and I never will. To me, that is the greatest cowardly act a cult member can do, and to then censor, delete/ban comments takes it to new levels of vile hypocrisy that turns my stomach, especially from so called “Christians” and the far right, because they out of all groups on this earth boast how they are for free speech, and anti censorship, whilst castigating the far Left’s insane lunacy for being against free speech in the same breath!!

        My strict NO MODERATION, no censorship of people’s comments is a principle I stand by and employ it wherever I go, whether it be YouTube, or WordPress or Twitter

        As for me and IB, she has assured me she will never delete/ban my comments or put me in moderation, so until that day occurs, if it ever occurs, I will stay on her blog, but if she starts censoring me I will be gone in a flash never to return….This is not being disrespectful towards her, because my dealings with her have been so positive and friendly, it’s more of a case of me standing by my convictions on moderation, which I have towards EVERYONE
        I’m truly sorry that your experience of IB has not been a positive one….she seems pretty reasonable, maybe she will take you out of moderation one day?

        As for me and YOU, I have not found your comments objectionable at all, and even if I did, I still wouldn’t ban you, …….but from what I’ve seen so far, you argue concisely, and respectfully of others, and that is commendable, and like I said above, I wasn’t able to debate your sound logic in your last comment

        Like

      3. necron48,

        Thank you for the kind words. I do not desire to be disrespectful of others, but it is sometimes difficult to avoid.

        As to your position on moderation, I appreciate it but I would have no issue with you deciding to do so on a limited basis. In my opinion, free speech has limits.

        I greatly doubt IB will ever take me out of moderation. That’s the consequence of my choice to vehemently disagree with her. I expect she would also moderate you, regardless of any promises she has made, if you ever consistently and strongly disagree with her.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. @OKRickety

        “I expect she would also moderate you, regardless of any promises she has made”

        Haha, we shall see lol

        “In my opinion, free speech has limits”

        Nope, have to strongly disagree with you on that one….free speech in order to be truly free can have NO limits on it, with the caveat that the one who believes in free speech accept that there is consequences to free speech sometimes

        Other than that, glad to have you around on my blog! and you and others will NEVER be censored in here

        Like

      5. I was wrong to say free speech has no limits. That is logically inconsistent.

        I suppose I think speech should be relatively free, having reasonable limits. Of course, the definition of reasonable is subjective. I am at a loss currently as to how I think it should be defined.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. @OKRickety

        “I was wrong to say free speech has no limits.”

        I wish people would stop spouting illogical nonsense like this. Free speech has no limits in and of itself. As soon as you limit it, it becomes worthless. As Boxer noted:

        “we must all realize that free expression is meaningless if it does not entail freedom from consequences.”

        When speech infringes on other higher or similar priority rights, only then may there be consequences. But these will not and cannot be consequences for speech itself, but for whatever other right has been violated. Examples include acts of physical violence and words that precipitate physical violence.. I make the argument for that here.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s