Crux from The Boston Globe amps it up against the Catholic Church while crushing truth
It should be no surprise that the new web site operated by the Boston Globe – in this case Crux ("Covering all things Catholic") – has become the latest Internet forum for aging dissidents and other angry critics of the Catholic Church, with the decades-old clergy abuse story always receiving priority treatment. (A recent day on Crux, for example, featured a jaw-dropping 11 stories related to clergy abuse on its home page.)
And apparently Crux's animus against the Church is so fevered that it has resorted to publishing bogus headlines about abuse cases. Witness this headline from Crux on February 24:
From the headline, Crux leads its readers to believe that an abusive priest still has numerous victims roaming the public.
In truth, however, the headline and the actual story do not match at all. Chicago prosecutors actually dropped charges against the ex-priest Daniel McCormack because – and please note this – the accuser did not want to cooperate. There were no "new child sex abuse claims," as Crux's headline misleadingly blared.
And while Crux would likely claim that it was simply relaying a story from the Associated Press, that excuse won't fly. Illinois television station WREX posted the exact same story that Crux published but with the true and accurate headline:
In other words, truth and accuracy have now taken a back seat at the Boston Globe's Crux to reflexively flogging the Catholic Church whenever and wherever it can.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1259PM:
He now claims, as well, that all of the “arrests” were “citizen-arrests” (“based”, of course, “on false accusations”) but that “no laws were broken”. Which raises the questions as to i) why the judge(s) involved did not throw the cases out of court and ii) how any court would have the authority to require a period of mental-health observation if the charges had been thrown out.
He then – if it has escaped his notice – admits to the “mental hospital stays”, claiming i) that they were all, however, of short duration and ii) resulted in “no medications or counseling” because iii) the “doctors understood that I did not have mental illnesses”.
I am not surprised at doctors being ‘unimpressed’ with his issues, since there are clearly more deeply and violently disturbed mental-health cases demanding attention and resources in the world these days. A chronic and low-grade derangement that did not result in actual mayhem would not register high on their scale, no matter how pervasive and deeply-set, especially since the prognosis for recovery would no doubt be very poor.
And you continue on with more of your garbage that "required no further comment". And how deranged must you be, to carry on an in-depth conversation with someone, you claim to possess a "chronic and low-grade derangement", who's "prognosis for recovery would no doubt be very poor". What would that say in regards to your ignorance and level of derangement. At least my convictions were totally based on lies, where your derangement is based on the stupid, twisting, deceiving manipulations, which you have brought upon yourself, with no one else to blame but yours truly.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1259PM:
He then seeks to fall-back on the bit about my not being there and he was there and so he knows and I don’t. (So similar to Abusenik claims that nobody can ‘know’ their allegation because nobody except them was actually there when the alleged act(s) happened.)
This is a sly bit: X says something happened; nobody else was there; therefore nobody can ‘know’ except X. This is nothing more than the enabling dynamic for the old ‘spectral evidence’ bit from witchcraft trial days in post-Reformation times: there is indeed evidence for the claim / but nobody can see it except for the person making the claim / but it’s still valid evidence.
And as for ‘Dan’s reliability as a credible reporter of events, readers may judge as they will.
It hilariass, that you and your cult prefer this same excuse in order to try to convince everyone that your pedophile priests and perverted hierarchy are innocent, because there was no witnesses. Then they're able to deny anything happened and falsely accuse the victims to be liars, like themselves. If that doesn't hold water and they're cornered, with there filth, then they claim statute of limitations, so that makes everything alright. Cowardly, deceiving hypocrites, of which fit in perfectly. servant
That would be "you fit in perfectly", Publyin'
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1259PM:
As for his bleat as to how I can claim that I don’t “mock ‘God’s word’ or ‘the Lord God’: my answer is simple and in the record of my comments: I have never mocked the Bible passages he quoted; I have only pointed out the problems with his interpretations and conclusions – with his material, in short, and not with – as it were – ‘God’s material’.
Of course it is one of the core gambits in the Dan-verse that by wrapping up his own whackeries in actual Scriptural passages, then one cannot – he imagines – doubt his own stuff without doubting Scripture. But that’s a rather silly presumption that just isn’t so, and the very fact that he has made the presumption in the first place is indicative of his whackness.
If Jim and myself "bleat", then it would be appropriate to say that you hee-haw. Although the oink-oink of a lying pig may fit fine, too. Why not go back to wallowing in the mud. Oh! That's right. That's already what you've been doing in this forum. You also have quite the nerve to insinuate anyone to be whacked, after the ignorance you've presented.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1259PM:
And the whole comment concludes with – remarkably – God being quoted as saying that I “will no longer ride this bus”.
The whackery here being that ‘Dan’ is so utterly convinced of the completeness of his imagined direct and total bond with God that anything ‘Dan’ chooses to say is also what God wants to say and can be ‘quoted’ as such.
Thus endeth the lesson provided by his comment here – and an illuminating one it has been.
Let me educate you, Mr. Know It All, when lying hypocrites of your cult, falsely accuse a person, and that person is outnumbered (i.e. 4 thug liars), the police listen to these so-called religious phonies. Believing that these holy people would never lie, they put me on a 5150 hold and on many occasions wouldn't even take a statement from me. 5150 hold- your a danger to others, a danger to yourself, unable to take care of yourself or others. I never hurt myself, never physically hurt another and am just short of a gourmet cook and do all the cooking in my household. So all these added lies of a 5150 hold are piled on to your cult's vicious lies. So who do you think a judge is going to listen to? Turns out the majority of these lying cops were also members of your cult of hypocrites. Don't question or answer me and I'll be able to walk away from all your ignorance.
In regards to the part of the quote that applied to you, was, "You mock My servant, you have mocked Me." Now if you still are supposed to ride in your little yellow school bus, I'm sure it will be alright. However, if you think the bus portion applies to you, I'm sure your kindergarten classmates won't mind if they don't have to listen to your nonsense anymore, on their way to school. And you claim with your deranged mind that others are whacked? What a whack job you're turning out to be! Again, "You mock My servant, you have mocked Me." If you need that translated in Latin so you can understand it, let me know, Mocker.
And on the 24th at 448PM he will circle back to add that he was “placed” (i.e., sent by a court) in the psychiatric wards of “regular hospitals” (plural) and was not sent to a “’mental institutions’ or ‘mental hospitals’” – a distinction, to be sure, but hardly a difference for the matters under consideration here.
And on the 24th at 452PM he will circle back again to insist that in any case “they” (being the instances where he was sent by a court for observation) “were all” (plural) “based on absolute lies” (and we have only ‘Dan’s credibility for that claim and readers may judge as they will).
He doesn’t want to play this game anymore (who could be surprised?) and thus he tries to put an end to it all with his “That’s period” bit (as oddly structured grammatically as it is).
Not “period”, I would say.
Does it console you to constantly correct those who don't agree with your nonsense? Does this make you feel full of great wisdom? Here's another one of those quotes from the Word which you can claim inappropriate, for the umteenth time.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:22
"Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them. Proverbs 26:12
Explain to us again, how God's Word does not apply, you mocking fool. servant
On the 24th at 1127AM JR will demonstrate his incapacities once again:
Apparently relying on nothing more than the fact that the core particle ‘muse’ is contained in both the words “bemused” and “amusement” he presumes that both words mean the same thing.
Thus his concluding epithet recoils on him, as so very often.
You've made it pretty clear, that you're not happy unless you're criticizing, correcting or demeaning another. Does this make you feel like you're really a man, or do you in reality don one of those lacy, girly vestments of your cult? Strange how you put yourself out there as being so wise, and yet not smart enough to keep your mouth shut when it pertains to mocking God's Word or the power of His Spirit. Laughable, that you are.
Desperate now to have something to pick at, ‘Dan’ will again try to create something more convenient for himself: I didn’t claim all of his material (or all of his “bits”) required no further comment, just a particular bit under consideration in that particular comment.
That reality wouldn’t have been any use to him so – had you been waittttingggg forrrr itttt? – he tries to create a more useful ‘reality’ for himself. Which appears to be a long-standing habit with him.
On then to ‘Dan’s comment of the 26th at 5PM:
After repeating his “required no further comment” bit, he will now deploy the familiar gambit of I’m Not/You Are: he is not “deranged”, I am.
And how am I “deranged”? I am “deranged” because I “carry on an in-depth conversation with someone [I] claim to possess a ‘chronic and low-grade derangement’” with only a weak prognosis.
‘Dan’ here is – slyly – far too complimentary too himself. I don’t see any “in-depth conversation” in my exchanges with him. Rather, as I have said in comments here, I am sustaining and continuing an examination of particular type of mind and mentality that most readers don’t often get a chance to encounter or engage.
Nor would I characterize any of his material and the points he tries to make as being in any way “in-depth”, except as grist for the aforesaid examination.
And the rest of his comment then trails off into epitheticals built upon the foundation of sand he put forth at its beginning.
Maybe then I was wrong. I didn't realize you were having an "in-depth conversation" with yourself. Like previously stated, and the more you respond, "What a whack job your turning out to be!" Let me correct that one, too. You've been whacked since the beginning of your "in-depth conversation[s]" with yourself. You can find consolation in this- When talking to yourself, at least then you can say someone is listening who really cares what you have to say. Unfortunately, not many of us do. Back at you, Mocker, of all that is truth. servant
P.S. Psychos don't make good psychiatrists. You have no right, with your ignorance, to examine or assess anyone's mentality, although you would be a great lifetime study for yourself to analyze. Maybe you can start with the 'anal' part, and work your way down.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 512PM:
Once again, finding the actual “conversation” to be uncongenial and not-useful to him, ‘Dan’ will try again to create a more congenial ‘reality’ for himself here: I have not at any time tried to make the “excuse” that since there are no witnesses then all accused clergy and hierarchy are “innocent”.
I have simply pointed out that – in both law and rational inquiry and assessment – a lack of witnesses opens up a clear and substantial question as to evidence. And that with all of the a) motivation for potential gain while b) running (at present) little risk of having one’s claims seriously examined, and c) given the well-established tort-attorney strategies and d) the many larger and deeper political and cultural interests involved … then there remains a probability and perhaps not a small one that the Stampede is not all it’s cracked up to be.
There you go again with your "in-depth" garbage dump of excuses and assessments that no one besides you, really needs to hear. It's always someone else's fault, surely not the fault of your pedophile priests and perverts. You forgot to blame the media. You're really slippin'.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 512PM:
And using ‘Dan’s own ‘reasoning’ here: if there are no witnesses, then anyone so inclined could whomp up a story to suit his/her purposes.
And – to repeat yet again – the Statute of Limitations is a legal principle in effect whether any Party claims it or not. And since the Statute is in place for a very good reason (i.e. that evidence or potential evidence degrades over time and after that time becomes unreliable even if it still exists) then it is a remarkably wise and prudent principle that is enshrined in the Statute.
Could ‘God’ be this uninformed and irrational and/or slyly duplicitous? Or is it just ‘Dan’?
IF YOUR CULT HAD ANY CHRISTIANS AMONG THEM AT ALL, THEY WOULD CONFESS THEIR MALFEASANCE AND BE TRUTHFUL ABOUT THEIR SINFUL PERVERSIONS AND NOT HIDE UNDER THEIR DRESSES AND CLAIM THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. PROBLEM IS THAT THEY'RE FAR FROM BEING HONEST AND TRUTHFUL AND HAVE YET TO REALIZE THAT THE LORD GOD KNOWS ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE IN SECRET AND CAN'T WAIT FOR JUDGMENT DAY TO REWARD THEM FOR THEIR DESPICABLE, DECEPTIVE LIVES AND LIES. SERVANT
P.S. KNOW YOUR GOING TO CRITCIZE MY USING CAPS, BUT MY CAPS LOCK KEY JUST BUSTED. THE LORD DOES WORK IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS, AND TIMELY, ALSO.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 521PM:
He will riff on “bleat” and then build his epitheticals on it.
Nor does he bother to give any actual examples of what he asserts is my “ignorance”.
When you get to the bottom of ‘Dan’s barrel, this is what you get.
All your posts are "actual examples' of your "ignorance".
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 26th at 549PM:
Here we are simply treated to a repetition of his various bits in which the school staff lie and the police (perhaps on the basis of what they themselves observed?) agree that something is wrong with ‘Dan’s actions … but of course it’s all “lies”.
But he then reveals even more interesting bits: he was considered a danger to himself and/or others. But, of course, that was all lies.
He is, however, “a gourmet cook” or close to it (and, we recall, wrote a 50-page term-paper on evolution in the eighth-grade). Are we then to imagine that almost-gourmet cooks couldn’t possibly be a “danger”?
So under the weight of all these “lies” (from the staffers, the police, previous misadventures that might be in the record for the judge’s perusal) then whom is the judge is going to believe? Oh, and it turns out “the majority of the police” were Catholics. Well, that pretty much clinches it then, to ‘Dan’s mind.
So, you see, if I didn’t know all that, then the only conclusion ‘Dan’ can draw – out of such mental resources as remain available to him – is that I am ‘ignorant’.
Readers may consider these interesting bits as they will.
"HEE HAW, HEE HAW, HEE HAAAWWWWW"
The reason I had mentioned that "the majority of these lying cops were also members of your cult of hypocrites", was for the fact that I've been realizing that maybe more rampant among catholics than pedophiles and perverts, may be the fact that they're plagued with a slew of liars, of which you also qualify. I do so appreciate the fact that you're finally realizing that your cult is full of liars (i.e.- "school staff lie and police", "of course it's all 'lies' " and "of course, that was all lies"). And by the way, all your added lies in regards to my "misadventures" and your poor assessments regarding my mentality, are all prime "examples" of your "ignorance" and nonsense. Does it console you now that I'm pointing out and answering your questions for you, 'cause you're way too "ignorant" to figure out your own shortcomings. Got an Easter prophecy (is this grammatically correct, snarky?), that fits you perfectly, but I'm hesitant to post it, because all you know how to do is mock God's Spirit and Word, rather than learn from it. Happy Easter Egghead.
Egghead def.- a highly educated person who may not know much about real life (syn. nerd)
Egghead def. by Wiki- person considered too out-of-touch with ordinary people and too lacking in realism [truth], common sense, virility, etc. (syn. Eggheaded geek troll)
Publiar says, "Are we to imagine that almost-gourmet cooks couldn't possibly be a "danger"?
Oh yeah! I can make one heck of a "danger"ous cyanide pie, and Jim can get his wish of dancing on your coffin, maybe to one of those ghastly gregorian chants. Bunch of creeps.
I wasn't bragging of my talents. I was only saying that a 5150 hold would be invalid because I don't qualify for those accusations. Won't you please just go away or not respond, so I don't have to waist my time with your persistent nonsense or ignorance.
On the 26th at 611PM ‘Dan’ will give us an assertion in quotation marks that bears no reference indications for any Book of the Bible.
It is a very convenient assertion for both his purposes here and for the overall cartoon that he has constructed for himself: if you “mock” (meaning, in the Dan-verse, question or point out problems with) the servant of God (which title and authority ‘Dan’ has awarded to himself) then you “mock” God.
We’ve been over all this before: it’s his blanket ‘007’ status, awarded to him by himself, which (in his mind, anyway) puts his material beyond any doubt or question. In this instance, ‘Dan’ has apparently put up his assertion in quotation marks because – we are to believe – it is a statement made by God to ‘Dan’ which ‘Dan’ is passing along. Ovvvvvv coursssssse.
But the rest of the comment then derails itself into an extended riff on a “little yellow school bus” and “kindergarten” students and … readers may consider what’s going on here as they may.
And then the comment concludes by derailing itself in another direction with epithets of the I’m Not/You Are and “mocker” variety.
Prophecy is new revelation from the Lord and doesn't necessarily have any "reference indications for any Book of the Bible". Seems like you could use a little sharpening done to your theology and Biblical principles. Sorry, but we haven't gotten to that lesson yet. You're forgiven, now go say ten hail marys and stick your head back in the sand, where it belongs.
On the 26th at 632PM ‘Dan’ will merely whine that he doesn’t like being “corrected”, which ‘correction’ is being done – he is sure – just because he doesn’t “agree with [my] nonsense”.
But in the comment of mine to which this bit was put up as a response, I didn’t ‘correct’ anything; I simply pointed out just what he had – no doubt unintentionally – revealed about his Now Yes/Now No court-ordered mental evaluation stays.
And the oddly structured grammatical bit (i.e. “That’s period”) wasn’t corrected; rather, I noted it because when you start to see a mind lose control of its grammar, you are starting to see a mind lose control of its material.
And wasn’t there something in Scripture about not calling people “fool”? Or does ‘Dan’s (self-awarded) 007 status exempt him from it?
Like previously stated, you could use quite some sharpening to your theology and Biblical principles, and let me add interpretation skills. The Scripture verse is Matthew 5:22
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council: and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." Matthew 5:22
I'm flattered and surprised that you would consider me to be a brother, but I must say I'm sorry, because it is written not to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion has light with darkness? —2 Cor 6:14
Based on this fact that you're not my brother and you're a mocker and scoffer of my Lord and God, I would be exempt and be able to call you the "fool" that you are. Just calling them as I see them, a spade by any other color, would still be a spade. And capable of shoveling your sxxt and burying it where it belongs. Service from the servant "OO7" (God-awarded)
P.S. That lesson was on the house. But go bow down and say ten hail marys, just for the heck of it, her fake statue will appreciate your nonsense and ignorance. Maybe she'll reward you with extra coal for the fire.
On the 27th at 843AM ‘Dan’ will try his tea-leaves: to him, anyway, it is “pretty clear” that I am “not happy” unless I am “criticizing, correcting, or demeaning another”.
Actually, I am not happy about it at all; it is not at all pleasant to have to engage his material on a sustained basis.
There is some inescapable humor, however, in his effort to spin himself as a ‘victim’ here, when his own rants against the Church and clergy and Catholics are so vividly vituperative.
He, however, wasn’t going for anything like a self-revelation. He was actually trying the gender-bendy route, impugning – had you been waittttingggg forrrrr ittttt? – my masculinity or manhood. Has he been reading too much of JR’s material or has he come to this gambit all on his own? (Or did ‘God’ tell him to try it?) It seems something of a common gambit with Abuseniks, when they don’t have much else.
I have “put myself out there” (perhaps he meant ‘here’) as nothing at all. I have simply put my thoughts up, with no assertions that would manipulate or demand of readers their immediate acceptance of my thoughts. Does a lot of Abusenik material look ‘not-wise’ or ‘unwise’ in comparison? If so, then whose problem is that?
On the 27th at 1254PM, trying somehow to salvage his “in-depth conversation” bit, ‘Dan’ will try a different contortion: I was having “an ‘in-depth conversation’ with myself”. As I said, I wasn’t having a conversation at all; I was conducting an assessment of material that ‘Dan’ chose to put up. And he doesn’t like being assessed. And I can see why. But that’s his problem, not mine.
And the comment goes on, riffing on something like me talking-to myself.
However, there’s a “P.S.” – as so often. And as so often, it winds up being a bit useful. “Psychos” (now that he has broached the term himself) don’t make good ‘servants’, especially when they have wrapped themselves up in the aura of the divine.
And I have as much “right” to voice – and explain – my assessments and opinions as he does to put up his opinions about the Church and clergy and Catholics. But – who can be surprised? – ‘Dan’ doesn’t like it at all when the light he has tried to weaponize against his favorite bugbears is turned on him. Even when it is his own admissions that create the fuel for that light.
And he concludes with another of those queasy scatological adolescent epithets that is fascinated with various body-parts. Did ‘God’ tell him to say that? Or is it just ‘Dan’ revealing himself here?
At any rate, assuming he has some knowledge of anatomy, working one’s way “down” from the “anal” would lead one simply to the legs, and he appears to have lost control of his imagery here. But the epithet was – of course – too much for him to pass up.
Maybe I need to draw you a picture so you might better understand. When I said, " 'anal' part and work your way down", I wasn't talking anatomically, but rather commenting on the direction you seem to be heading. I'm just not allowed to say what I would like to, because that would be against my Father's Word, and I respect His Word. Unlike ignorant mockers.
Who declared you to be the psychological assessor of everyone and everything. If your assessments were based on truth, that would be one thing. But instead you tell fairy tales and stretch the truth into what is beneficial to your sick agenda. As you whimper, "I have as much "right" to voice – and – explain my assessments and opinions as he has to put up his opinions about [our cult]." Are you the self-declared "007" assessor and so that authorizes you to twist the truth and make up any stories you wish in order to demean or destroy one's reputation, even when it pertains to God. I believe that was Satan's role also. When I voice my opinion of your cult, it's based on all too well exposed facts, not on slander. The church of my youth had over 50% pedophile and pervert rate among it's priests, and as an altar boy I personally witnessed their greed and drunkenness. Fortunately, as a public school kid, I wasn't around them long enough, to have suffered the perversions of their cult. I really don't believe you have any right to consistantly demean and slander the children that were molested, unless you've walked in their shoes. For you to do so as you have is utterly preposterous and uncalled for. Like I've said, "Might be time to take a serious look into your own backyard." The secrets of the extent of your cult's crimes are just beginning to be exposed, and it's lawyers do everything they can do to prevent that exposure. The scourge your cult has done to all that is decent and pure in a society is disgusting and terribly too widespread for anyone to defend, in any rational sense. I would guess, one who has the gall to mock the Creator would also feel he has the God given right to assess and slander anyone he wishes. Keep up the good work, mocker of all that is truth.
Yeah. I see I misspelled consistently. That's cause I'm illiterate and mentally challenged and clinically projecting all my ills on others. When I look in the mirror, I'm actually pretty satisfied with what I see and can say, I can lie down in peace and rest in the reassurance of my God.
And on the 27th at 106PM he reveals himself further: principles of law and rational inquiry are simply “excuses” to him. But he does have this cartoon he’s put together, and he can’t be letting “excuses” get in the way of it.
And on the 27th at 108PM he will try to dodge any need to back up his assertions by simply declaring – or reporting to us ‘God’s declaration – that “all [my] posts are ‘actual examples’ of [my] ‘ignorance’”.
While I have found very many of his posts examples of this and that infelicity on his part, I have gone to great lengths to explicate my assessments – basing them on the material he himself has proffered.
And on the 27th at 118PM he will try to make some sense – as it were – of his “gourmet” comment: he denies that he was “bragging” (although I never wrote that he was); he was merely pointing out that a “5150 hold for mental observation” … “would be invalid because I don’t qualify for those accusations”.
Ah.
And his evidence for the assertion that he doesn’t qualify for being the subject of a “5150 hold for mental observation” … ? Why, as always, his evidence is because he says so. Or perhaps ‘God’ has already told him that he isn’t a “psycho” and doesn’t qualify for a “5150 hold for mental observation” – and who could argue with ‘God’? Yes, that must be it. Problem solved and only the “ignorant” would think otherwise. Ovvvv coursssssssse.
He would be better advised to follow his own advice in this matter: if he is a “psycho” (and reasonable folk can have various opinions as to that) then he wouldn’t make much of a psychiatrist in assessing (and clearing) himself.
"HEE HAW, HEE HAW, HEEEEEE HAAAAWWWWWWW!!!"
Using that catholic "abusenik stampede bit" again, "I'M NOT/YOU ARE". I'm the whiny little peewee troll and he's always picking on our holy, poor, pedophile cult of big hypocrites.
Recess is over, and time to educate you once more, that you might stop your nonsense and ignorance. I was twice accused falsely by clergy or their staff of saying I want to kill them. Other times I was accused of starting a fight with them, when it was them who came off their property to come after me. Other times they lied saying I screamed obscenities at their children, when I truly just greeted them and told them to have a nice day. These accusations were ridiculous and they know darn well what will get a person in trouble. These reasons are why I was put on a 5150 hold. You come along and add to these lies with, I accosted, harrangued and several other unfair lies against me. This is why I can truthfully call you and your fellow cult members habitual liars, because this is the absolute truth. Not as you again wrongly claim, "Why, as always, his evidence is because he says so." So like I've already said, unlike you and your cult's cronies, when I label you lying 'fool's, it's not slander, it's basically just fact. God and Scripture is never against truth. Stop your nonsense and ignorance!!
On the 28th at 220AM ‘Dan’ now explains some of his stuff.
He had mentioned the bit about the majority of police being Catholic (and therefore “hypocrites”) because – doncha see? – he has been “realizing” that “maybe” there are a whole lot more “liars” among Catholics than he had previously imagined.
Thus – doncha see? – Catholics are “liars” about God’s Word and Will and (by amazing coincidence) they are also “liars” about his being a “psycho” (to use his own hardly inapt term here). A very neat little piling of his little blocky-blocks indeed.
And then the rather juvenile attempt to quote my material as if I myself admitted same. Bottom of the barrel here and what else has he got, really?
Thus again we see that in the ‘Dan’-verse, if he doesn’t want to hear it, then it’s all “lies” (however histrionically typed and emphasized).
Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 220AM:
Oh, and in addition to being “lies”, anything ‘Dan’ doesn’t want to hear is also nothing more than “prime ‘examples’” of “ignorance and nonsense”. Basically, a re-run of the old I’m Not/You Are gambit.
And he also considers epithets of various types and mere counter-assertions and so on to be “answering your questions for you”. A ‘comeback’ is not an answer to a question, as I have tried to tell him; neither is simply tossing up a bunch of what the fundies like to call ‘proof-texts’ from Scripture.
And in a marvelous example of clinical projection, he adds an epithet far more dangerous in the recoil: “because you’re way too ‘ignorant’ to figure out your own shortcomings”. (Actually, and revealingly, ‘Dan’ tries a childish grammatical form of ‘because’, i.e. “’cause’”. Does the childish form work more effectively here? What is his sustained fascination with childish forms and imagery?)
Continuing with my comments on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 220AM:
But it’s Easter time now, and this provides him with yet another opportunity for epithet: we get a sustained riff on ‘eggs’, as in “Egghead”.
As to who (isn’t highly educated but) “may not know much about real life” … perhaps ‘Dan’ would like to take this thought of his to the nearest mirror and work with it. He needn’t take on so portentous a project as “real life” in its totality, but rather might simply consider the “real” and “truth” as it applies to himself (or Himself).
And, really, I’m not about to agree with his slyly self-congratulatory and self-promoting bit about himself being characterizable as one of the “ordinary people”.
But that “troll” bit is curious. Back in the day, early grade-school kids might well have read a story called – if memory serves – ‘The Three Billy-Goats Gruff’, wherein the three would be walking along toward a little bridge, and there was a “troll” hiding under the bridge, ready to pounce upon them. (Or, in the variant reading from the ‘Dan’-verse: ready to deliver to them ‘a beautiful prophecy’.)
Thank you for realizing that I'm extraordinary. Thanks to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I'm fortunate to know what living the life of a true Christian is really about. Not putting on a big, dog and phony show of my goodness, but living a life that doesn't represent anything close to God's chosen people, like your ridiculous cult. servant
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 250AM:
Here he will try to whomp something up in regard to whether “almost gourmet-cooks” could “possibly be a ‘danger’”.
He will try to work this in with JR’s equally queasy stuff (about ‘dancing on coffins’), although one might consider the panoply of edged-tools of which cooks would have a ready supply. Although the poisoned-pie bit is indeed an attention-getter; one thinks of those old fairy tales of witches and their poisoned foods with which they lure the unsuspecting travelers in the deep woods.
And – alas – he doesn’t think much of “those ghastly gregorian chants” (sic). I would strongly disagree: properly done, the Gregorian chant is a powerful and profoundly expressive musical form. But let’s chalk this one up to ‘opinion’ and leave ‘Dan’ to his own musical preferences, such as they may be.
And then, from the archetypal troll under the bridge, we get the marvelously apt recoiling epithet: “creeps”. He still doesn’t grasp the “real” dynamics of clinical projection.
For someone claiming I have a "sustained fascination with childish forms and imagery?", you sure have quite the fondness for fairy tales and fantasies, and also remembering them in great detail. Is it possible that you're one of those catholic fairy "creeps" that is still reading those stories to your young male prospects and the reason they're so vivid in your memory. We prefer you not trolling on this forum, creepy peewee.
On the 28th at 524PM ‘Dan’ will demonstrate a few more of the blocks that he has used to make his little house for himself: “Prophecy is a new revelation from the Lord” so it doesn’t have to come as a Biblical quote.
Neato. Of course, the problem is: how to distinguish i) actual and genuine “prophecy … from the Lord” from ii) any whackjob’s eructations dressed up in Biblical or ‘God’ bits to parasitically garner the authority that the eructations surely wouldn’t have on their own. (Which was a problem immediately created by the Protestant Reformation, especially at its more low-church and populist levels.)
‘Dan’s solution to that problem, of course, is that he has awarded himself (or Himself) 007 status so there is – in terms of his cartoon here – no difference at all between his eructations and the Mind and Will of God.
And then this cartoon construction is itself raised to ‘theological’ status as “theology and Biblical principles”.
And the epithetical conclusion, of course.
Love your use of low-church, because by definition I have no desire to follow your stupid "liturgical patterns, and does not make use of developed ritual, ceremony, or worship accouterments like vestments". Or as 'Dan' would describe, phony creeps parading around in dresses making you think they're something special with their arrogant worthless titles. Jesus Christ had no use for the rituals and ceremonies of the Pharisees and religious hypocrites, and no one who claims to " 'believe' in Christ' would either. See reply to next comment.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 6PM:
Here he will try to say that the Scriptural pericope only relates to a “brother” and he is “flattered” and so forth.
But – doncha see? – St. Paul then says that it doesn’t apply (or so ‘Dan’ reads the Pauline passage) to “unbelievers” so that avoids, neatly, his tossing around the epithet “fool”.
But Paul was referring to those who don’t ‘believe’ in Christ (and I do) and ‘Dan’ is trying to make it work for himself here by presuming that if you don’t ‘believe’ ‘Dan’ then you don’t believe God and Christ and the Bible and so forth. And that’s where this whole bit of his here fails.
Very easy for someone to claim they " 'believe' in Christ" with their mouth, but that would be an impossibility for a practicing member of your idolatrous cult, which worships thousands of false gods and goddesses. Let alone the worship of the "Queen of Heaven" and think she's the mother of God, your salvation, mercy, life, sweetness and hope. Add to that your insistent mocking of God and His Holy Spirit, with your poor excuses that your mocking me, and we'll all believe your added lies of how you " 'believe' in Christ". Slither back where you came from, MOCKER.
On the 28th at 611PM he will then say that he wasn’t speaking anatomically when he used the term “anal” “but rather commenting on the direction you seem to be heading” – whatever that may mean.
While he may like drawing certain types of ‘pictures’ for himself, he hasn’t quite resolved his problem here. And it can stay up just where it was put.
But then he refers to God (presumably) as “my Father” – and that gets close to the heart of the problem: God is “our” Father, not just ‘Dan’s. But that would expose ‘Dan’s whole cartoon here, constructed precisely to give him his own personal and private daddy-god who will beat up everyone who disagrees with ‘Dan’. And thus ‘Dan’ weaponizes ‘God’ for his own purposes.
He might well have had a hard (if brief) time of it in Calvin’s Geneva.
Getting deeper into your immaturity with more cartoons, baby building blocks and more childish mockery of God (i.e. daddy-god). You get creepier by the minute.
You insist there's a problem with me saying, "my Father", previously claiming the same with me saying "my Lord" or "my God". Moses sang in Exodus 15:2, "This is my God". David sang in Psalm 18:2, …my God, my rock, Thomas claims in John 20:28, "My Lord and my God!"
So once again, your poor assessment of my material backfires, based on your lack of knowledge and interpretation of Spiritual truths. Saying "my Father" in no way claims exclusivity for myself alone, for He is God to all "His chosen", which unfortunately would exclude you and your cult of liars and perverts. He has never in Biblical history been the God of idolaters and pagan worshippers of false gods and goddesses. It was quite a try, but again, your claims of my being wrong is actually your failure. Wrong again, Mocker of truth.
Once again, your obsession with "cartoons" turns out to be another of your "fairy tales".
On the 29th at 611AM ‘Dan’ will now try to get out from under his psychological issues by impugning my material instead: what right do I have to “be the psychological assessor of everyone and everything”?
First, I don’t try to be “be the psychological assessor of everyone and everything”; I am only going with the material about ‘Dan’ that ‘Dan’ himself provided.
Second, since his psychological issues have been played so great a part in his variously-related misadventures and also – I have demonstrated – in his assorted assertions and claims that constitute the basis for his comments on this site, then those issues are most certainly a legitimate part of the considerations to be made.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 611AM:
He will then slyly try to neutralize all that by claiming that I “tell fairy tales and stretch the truth into what is beneficial to [my] sick agenda”. Which a) is a pretty concise description of his own game plan and b) tries to reduce my points to merely ‘stretching the truth’. But the conclusions I draw from the points he makes are right there in his own material, which he neither wants to see nor have anyone else see. That won’t work, although if it doesn’t work, then his whole cartoonish enterprise is exposed.
And my points are put up for readers to consider. They are not propounded assertively as Gospel truth, such that disagreeing with them will result in the wrath of any deity descending upon the “mockers”.
Nor do I think I can do anything worse to ‘Dan’s “reputation” than his own material has done, especially in regard to his misadventures. And as far as his “reputation even when it pertains to God” is concerned … he refers here to his presumptive claim that he is somehow especially “the Chosen” of God who doth “prophesy”and he has hardly established those claims, for any number of reasons already considered at length here in prior comments and on prior threads.
Publiar nows informs us that his points "are not propounded assertively as Gospel truth". Truthfully, most of your points are far from anything anyone could call truth. We'll leave it up to God to decide the wrath your mockery deserves. Sounds like you have something to look forward too, Mr. Mocker. You don't think you "can do anything worse to 'Dan's reputation". I guess you mean any worse than you already have with your added lies. How can you continue to repeat and add to your lies and make such a claim. Oh, I forgot that you're one of the hypocritical catholic liars of your cult of deceivers and creeps.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 611AM:
Nor does he merely “voice [his] opinion of [the Catholic] cult” … he has made numerous assertions and claims as if they were fact (and “prophecy”, if you wish), such that if any persons disagree then they are “mocking God”.
But then – marvelously – in an attempt to somehow buttress all that, he will come up with yet more assertions, this time about his own youthful time in the Church (apparently).
And he then – had you been waitttttttttingggggggg forrrrrrrrrr itttttttttttttttt? – tries to head for the Victim-y high ground by sniffing and harrumphing that I do “demean and slander the children that were molested”. He proffers no accurate quotations from my material to justify that accusation and since such quotations do not exist in my material, that’s no surprise. But he had to do something there to distract readers.
His own verbal accosting of children? Why that was just “a beautiful prophecy” twisted by “lies” and lies and more lies on the part of adult onlookers and staffers and police and judges. Ovvvvv courssssssssse.
On the 29th at 636AM he will use that kiddy “cause” again, and the rest of that sentence is best taken as accurate and he should, as I said, consider it carefully.
But he reports himself (or Himself) “actually pretty satisfied with what [he sees]”. I have no doubt of that, which is why I opined that the psychiatrists would have realized that there was a poor prognosis.
Oh yeah, that's why I was released, sometimes that first day, with never a need for follow-up treatments. My assessment of you is that you're an extremely delusional liar with a poor prognosis from the Almighty. Repent while you still have a chance.
And then he tries a predictable and familiar gambit: it is not he but rather I who has “a sustained fascination with childish forms and imagery”.
I am merely commenting on the material that he has put up; the “childish forms and imagery” come from his own imagery (think of the “yellow school bus” and the “kindergarten” and “peewee” and so forth, let alone actually going to a schoolyard fence and verbally accosting the children there).
What ‘Dan’ is trying here is akin to claiming that since firefighters have such a sustained concern for fires, then they set fires and ‘like’ fires and thus are simply uniformed pyromaniacs.
My task is to refute inaccurate Stampede assertions, as the task of firefighters is to extinguish fires.
It’s ‘Dan’ who keeps setting the fires.
You think your repetitive lies of me accosting children, along with other multiple lies isn't 'publiar' setting fires. I think you might work on extinguishing your own fires, the coals are being stoked while you speak. Habitual lying, mocking hypocrite. The only task I see you capable of is twisting truth, deceiving and demeaning innocent people. Pants on fire, liar!
Publiar, Since you believe this to be my word and not prophecy from the Lord God, you have my permission to ignore the teaching, probably would be of no benefit to deaf ears, anyway. For everyone else, this prophecy was given on Easter Sunday, 2016.
"Why do you celebrate Me as the darkness in the world? You give me this holiday, but you still don't want to believe in Me at all. You celebrate My death, when I died on the cross, instead of My light, showing you that I AM still alive in the spirit and glowing brightly. You give all kinds of gifts, but My precious gifts will always be those coming from the heart. That is My faith, hope, and love, you can share with anybody, at anytime in life. You say it is very important that you go to church on this day. Don't you realize, My church is all over the world, and you can see My creations everywhere, to enjoy them in peace and silence. Not in a place where there is phony and false people that seem to think they're great, and want to impress everyone and look good. I give you the freedom to go into the woods or anywhere else on earth, if you wish to talk to Me. You don't need anyone else except Me, to make it into heaven." This is the Word Of the Lord
On the 29th at 523PM ‘Dan’ will try to dispose of the fact that I believe in Christ by pooh-poohing that it is “very easy for someone to claim” such belief. But that such belief “would be an impossibility for a practicing member of your cult”. Well that solves his problem with his “fool” comment, at least in his own mind anyway, for whatever that’s worth.
Whether ‘Dan’s global assertion here (i.e. that no practicing Catholic could genuinely believe in Christ), taken in conjunction with his bit about the ‘worship’ of “thousands of false gods and goddesses”, is more a sign of mental infelicity, ignorance, or a stunning hubris – or perhaps a combination of all three … readers may decide for themselves.
Well I see your maturing and moving on to "pooh" cartoons. Did you watch those on Romper Room. Our little peewee is growing up. We'll just have to start calling him pee.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 552PM: he tries to work epithetically with my point that I do not attempt to pass off my comments as “Gospel truth” (as he does).
And the comment descends further into the swamps of epithet from there.
You can't pass off your comments as any truth, let alone Gospel truth.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 6PM: he would have us imagine that he was released from his (six?) stays in mental health facilities because he was not at all … unwell.
As I said on a previous comment on this thread: presuming that his claim here is true (perhaps a too-generous presumption but I’ll make it for the purposes of this comment), then psychiatrists faced with the more physically violent and dangerous psychotics of various types would realize that they had a low-grade chronic derangement on their hands, for whom the prognosis would be very poor and upon whom the expenditure of scarce resources would bear little fruit. He might well continue being a public nuisance of some sort, but that of itself would not constitute a serious claim upon their resources.
But – it must be noted – he wound up in such a situation six times – by his own telling – and that fact in and of itself indicates that his “chronic” condition, although low-grade, is deeply seated and not to be put off by police and court action. Who knows how it will all end? The psychiatrists are no doubt hoping he simply remains a public nuisance and one wishes them well, while not expecting the best.
Lies, slander, idiota.
On the 29th at 611PM he tries to evade his actions at the schoolyard fence by simply calling it all “repetitive lies” (his own personal ‘truth’ about the incident, readers may recall, is that it was “a beautiful prophecy”). Readers may judge as they will.
And then – marvelously – he who insists that he is not somehow queasily immured in childhood things caps it all off with “pants on fire” (from the old schoolyard ‘Liar, liar, pants on fire’ jingle).
The truth was "a beatiful prophecy". The reason I was hospitalized was totally based on lies and slander, idiota. Just like your lies and slander, idiota. And the reason I answered with the little nursery rhyme (liar,liar, pants on fire), was so you would understand, little peewee. It related well with your little fireman story.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1013PM: where he will literally deliver a “prophecy”, “given on Easter Sunday, 2016, that he whomped up himself (or Himself) in his capacity as “Chosen” and gourmet prophet.
And I think we can just leave him to it, then.
Didn't I grant you permission to ignore the prophecy, since it would only be falling on deaf ears, anyway. Although, since you couldn't resist, I'll point out for you the words from the Lord that fit you perfectly, seeing that you have quite the reading comprehension problem.
"You give me this holiday, but you still don't want to 'believe' in Me [Christ] at all."
"Not in a place where there is phony and false people that seem to think they're great, and want to impress everyone and look good." (i.e. "wolves in sheeps clothing") Oh, geez, that one absolutely lines up with Biblical Scripture, condemning your pagan cult.
"And as far as the Lord using the words "you celebrate Me as darkness" and "you celebrate My death" and how "I died on the cross", instead of His light and [S]pirit. This describes your cult's worship of the dead in their skeleton rooms, all Hallows Eve, Day of the Dead and most defintely your statues of Christ mutilated and bloodied above your pagan altars. I believe you when you say you "believe in Christ", yeah, the one your roman cult annihilated. Too bad for you that he rose from the dead and is waiting for your Judgment Day.
If any catholics doubt that your church is one of idolatry, I suggest you read Baruch chapter 6, or "The Letter of Jeremiah". No coincidence that this information is predominately found only in catholic versions of the Bible. Read the Bible, and find God's answers to all things.
Catholics, check out your fellow, 'devout' Filipino catholics mutilating their bodies with whips and fake crucifi[ct]ions on Easter sunday, 2016. The church claims to frown upon these acts and yet applaud similar acts of flagellation when performed by their saintly saints (i.e. Saint francis of a sissy, junipero serra, padre peehole, etc. etc.), So what is– Is it wrong unless it's your false proof of holiness and sainthood. Talk about hypocrisy. Wake up, people. Don't let them deceive you and bring you down with them. Trust only in God and His Son.
On the 29th at 1231PM we are to imagine that “recess is over” and now ‘Dan’ is going to buckle down to some serious ‘educating’ (just like he imagines himself to have done at the schoolyard fence and who knows where else).
‘Dan’ doesn’t realize just how much ‘educating’ he’s already done here.
And, to further our education, we get a few more bits: the staff claims he said he wanted “to kill them”. Readers may take any impressions they have already formed of ‘Dan’ from his material and performances here and consider if such a claim by the staff rings true.
And then Lawyer ‘Dan’ harrumphs that it was they “who came off their property to come after [him]”. The scene then becomes more clear: he chose to stand on the public sidewalk, alongside the schoolyard fence with the kids just on the other side, perhaps at recess, and verbally accost the kids (variant ‘Dan’-verse reading: and deliver a “beautiful prophecy” to them). Does the staff’s action seem unwarranted? Would any parent object to the staff trying to stop him or least calm him down?
You have become such an annoying idiot. Look for the key words, "Other times". So this would mean they had nothing to do with the schoolyard false accusations. Man, your reading comprehension is so bad, and now I understand all your immature, childish analogies and cartoons, because it's obvious your brain shut down in second grade. A child would understand what "Other times" means. There was nothing for me to calm down about because for the umteenth time it was "a beautiful prophecy" given by the Lord to the children. Four catholic lying thugs took it upon themselves to twist that, much like you do, giving them an excuse to hit me and show how macho they were, protecting the kids when the kids were in no danger. If that's the kind of violent people that protect children, I would think any parent would have the intellegence to not want them around their children. I've noticed that intellegence isn't much of a prevelant trait among catholics, as you have demonstrated. Liars, pedophiles and perverts seem to be much more prevelant.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1231PM:
And, really, he didn’t “scream obscenities”; he “truly just greeted them and told them to have a nice day”. Readers may take any impressions they have already formed of ‘Dan’ from his material and performances here and consider if ‘Dan’s self-exonerating assertion here rings true.
(Leaving still to be considered: why he would choose to interrupt his walk to engage the children at all.)
About all these claims by the staff ‘Dan’ simply whiffs that they “were ridiculous”. Readers may take any impressions they have already formed of ‘Dan’ from his material and performances here and consider if ‘Dan’s self-exonerating assertion here rings true.
When God gives one of his chosen a prophetic word, you deliver it to whom the Lord desires. I've told you before, Jonah didn't and you know what happened to him (sent in a fishes mouth down into the deepest, darkest depths, for disobedience). And you being the great believer probably thinks that another one of your childish fairy tales. Not surprising.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1231PM:
What “lies” have I come along and put up? Everything is right there in his material as he himself (or Himself) has related it.
But on the basis of his soooo convenient spin that everything that makes him look bad (or “psycho”) justifies his accusation that all Catholics are “habitual liars”, he can “truthfully call” all Catholics “liars” because of that, doncha see?
And in case you didn’t reach the conclusion he wants you to here, he adds “this is the absolute truth”.
Readers may take any impressions they have already formed of ‘Dan’ from his material and performances here and consider if ‘Dan’s self-exonerating assertion here rings true.
And readers may further consider just how ‘truthful’ ‘Dan’ really is.
Show me where I said all catholics are liars, you deceiving hypocrite. Stop your stupidity.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 1231PM:
And thus – doncha see? – when he makes his accusations he’s not lying and it’s not “slander”, doncha see? What it really is – doncha see? – is that his accusations are “basically just fact”. And we have ‘Dan’s truthy word for it.
Oh, and God’s too – doncha see? – because “God and Scripture is never against truth” (sic) and thus, since – doncha see? – ‘Dan’ and God are one, then ‘Dan’ can never be un-truthy.
If you see anything else in his material and performance here, then it’s just “nonsense and ignorance!”.
And he ends with the instruction to “stop”. Really, in light of the florid whackery, how could one do that?
Your "nonsense and ignorance" shows bright and clear, through your insistent mockery of God. I agree, your way to whacked to ever have the intellegence to "stop".
On the 30th at 0128AM ‘Dan’ will then defend his use of “my God”.
Given his (or His) almost-total identification with the Mind and Will of ‘God’, I would say that his (or His) use of “my” was far more heavily freighted then he (or He) suddenly wants it to appear here.
So, once again, ‘Dan’ abyssal ignorance of his own problems demonstrates itself, while simultaneously seeking to get him off the hook.
But wait. There’s more: since- doncha see? – God is only God “to all ‘His chosen’, then ‘Dan’ can “exclude” Catholics. God, therefore, is not actually God for Catholics and apparently doesn’t want to be and doesn’t consider Himself to be (if ‘Dan’ is to be believed).
Well, now, that’s a bit of theologizing. It doesn’t really fit in with any recognizable theology of God and Creation, but – hey – this is the ‘Dan’-verse and anything goes if ‘Dan’ needs it to.
Not obeying the 1st commandment, and worshipping false gods or goddesses is deplorable in the eyes of the Almighty. I've given you several Scripture verses and chapters to show that fact. All you have to respond, sarcastically, is that "they are 'Dan's eructations", when they are truly God's anger with those who refuse to respect and obey Him.. Exhaustingly, here they are again. OLD–Exodus 20:1-6, Isaiah 44, Jeremiah chapter 7 and 44 ("Queen of Heaven" worshippers), Baruch 6, Letter of Jeremiah, NEW– 1 Cor 12:2, 2 Cor 6:16, 1 John 5:21, Revelations 2:14, Rev 2:20, Rev 9:20, Rev 21:8, Rev 22:15
Catholics- I have nothing against catholics that have been tricked, confused and lost in this idolatrous belief system. Don't allow Satan's followers to deceive you and prevent you from knowing the truth, in regards to your pagan false religion. God starts early in the Bible with His disdain for statue worship with Moses (golden calf), and continues all through the book and ends with the condemnation of idol worship in the very last chapter of the Bible. If you prefer to listen to man's words, let alone publiars and perverts, over the All-Knowing God's Word, then there isn't much I can say. My hope is that someday God will help you change your mind.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 128AM:
His major failure here –and it’s a doozy – is to confuse and/or conflate two different elements: a) whether some persons consider the God of Scripture to be their God and b) whether the God of Scripture considers all persons, regardless of whether they believe in Him or not, to be His creations and children.
But ‘Dan’ – for his own troubled purposes – needs an ‘exclud-y’ God and also a vengeful God (at least, vengeful enough to get back at those who think ‘Dan’ is rather deeply unwell).
Tired of explaining everything to you. You think you can twist, manipulate and deceive, in order to dispute the truth, and your father, the devil must be very proud of his child. If "the God of Scripture considers all persons, regardless of whether they believe in him or not, to be His creations and children." Apparently sounds like your back-pedaling in regards to your believing in Christ, and hoping your included despite your unbelief. We are all His creation, obviously, and yet we are not all His children. Christ's words can take it from here.
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matthew 7:13-14
For everyone- The Lord of Creation holds out His hand, inviting all to come and truly know and understand what He's about. He is gentle and kind and wants all to come to know Him in Spirit and in truth. "Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts, don't be stubborn like those who rebelled." Hebrews 3:15 Don't fight against the Lord's truth (Bible), and He will take you places beyond belief. And that's no fairy tale. He promises.
Again we have one of your immature statements, "But 'Dan'- for his own troubled purposes- needs an 'exclud-y' God and also a vengeful God." And what kind of god or goddess does publiar need, one that will always look away and accept you as the liar that you are? You're absolutely wrong, again. Dan needs a God who is true and excludes habitual, unrepentant liars, idolaters, perverts and cowards. Why does 'Dan' need a God like that? Because that is the true God and the God of Bible truth. And again, last words in the Bible.
"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." Revelations 21: 8 And repeated just in case you missed it the first time;
Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood [LIARS]. Rev. 22:15
This is prophecy, and I know you have quite a problem understanding such.– "The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The Lord takes vengeance on his foes and vents his wrath against his enemies. The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by NO means leave the guilty unpunished." Nahum 1: 2-3
You have yet to figure out that habitual liars and unrepentant sinners get to hear the message of God's vengeance, while decent human beings, and especially innocent children get to hear the Lord's message of Love. And ending with your diagnosis that I'm "deeply unwell". My question to you is, "How deep is your well, getting a little hot down there?"