Vindicated AGAIN: A jury swiftly exonerates falsely accused priest Rev. Xiu Hui 'Joseph' Jiang
A civil jury in Missouri took merely minutes to decide what many of us have already known for a long time: that Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and the Archdiocese of St. Louis are completely innocent of wild charges related to sex abuse of a teenage girl.
To illustrate how clear it was to the jury that the charges against Rev. Jiang were ridiculous: The jury was given the case at 12:30pm. And even with the staggering anti-Catholic atmosphere in the St. Louis area, and even though the trial's arguments and testimony took a full two weeks, the jury returned its exonerating verdict by 3pm, and that included a lunch break.
More lunacy from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Crappy journalism:
Joel Currier of the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Yet if one were to get their information from the local St. Louis Post-Dispatch – who has a well-established track record of animus against the Catholic Church – a reader missing the headline would barely even understand that a jury had cleared Fr. Jiang.
The Post-Dispatch's Joel Currier – whose rottenness in reporting the Catholic Church abuse story needs to be noted – spent much of his article about the jury's exoneration actually regurgitating the crazy accusations against the innocent priest that a jury had already determined were phony.
In truth, Currier neglected a number of very important facts in the case of Fr. Jiang:
- the teenage accuser originally did not even support suing Fr. Jiang in the first place;
- law enforcement dropped charges against Fr. Jiang after determining the case was completely bogus, a fact which Currier relegated to the very last sentence of his warped article;
- a federal judge ruled last August that the lawyer-funded hate group SNAP defamed Fr. Jiang by falsely accusing him of being a pedophile and ordered that Jiang be compensated for his legal expenses;
- the accuser was represented by tort lawyer Ken Chackes, a close collaborator and financial supporter of SNAP;
- the accuser wildly claimed that the abuse somehow happened in a family room at the very same time that seven other family members were present;
- the accuser never suffered from "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" as claimed.
In truth, this entire case stunk from its very beginning. Bravo to Fr. Jiang for fighting back against his false accusers and the haters at SNAP.
It should also be noted that while media outlets all across Missouri went berserk years ago trumpeting the bogus accusations against Fr. Jiang far and wide, the same media has largely been mute in reporting the news of the jury's swift and clear decision exonerating the priest. Same as it ever was.
FINALLY, AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL PRIESTS: The lesson from the Fr. Jiang case is this: Never, ever, ever become too emotionally or personally involved with any family other than your own. It does not matter that you "baptized every member" and/or "officiated every wedding." We have seen this all too often. That family whom you thought were "like family" could become your worst nightmare. Don't say no one ever warned you. Remember:
"Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.
"But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts …" (Matthew 10:16-17a).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1005PM:
But why – given the large number of allegants who participated in settlement-cases – weren’t more of these cases brought to trial?
I would propose a scenario: a tortie – having considered the facts of the allegation – confers with his/her client and, as is standard procedure, gives an assessment of the legal options and says something like this: ‘We can go to trial and all you might get is a guilty verdict, or we can skip all that uncertainty and time and effort and simply go the ‘forced settlement’ route, where you’ll be pretty sure of getting a whole pile of money with no questions asked’.
What do you suppose might have been the outcome of such a proposal when posed to an allegant?
Or just maybe the victims weren't as greedy as the hierarchy of your church, and didn't feel that the holier than thou cult, which they had been brainwashed to be so pure and holy, could handle such bad publicity. Just maybe they were more forgiving than the creeps of your cult. At least you realize that they just might get a guilty verdict. To bad there wasn't more of that, so the guilty would be exposed, instead of hidden in a cloak of secrecy. I'll be waiting for one of your longwinded, dumb excuses of how there was no secrecy. Convince yourself.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1005PM:
But if ‘Dan’ is trying to base his “excommunication” threat on the 1962 Instruction (which we have covered here several times, including just recently) then his bit here is groundless: the Instruction imposed canonical silence on the participants in any formal Church judicial proceedings, but not before the initiation of such proceedings. This was to prevent any rush to judgment against either the accused or the accuser.
But any violation of canonical secrecy that triggered ‘automatic excommunication’ (that could be lifted only by the Pope) was reserved only for the clerics involved in conducting the canonical process.
Yeah! Everything is groundless, except your ignorance, nonsense and stupidity.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1005PM:
Turning to the pericope ‘Dan’ proffers from the Gospel of John: it was precisely to counter this tendency of fear-of-publicity that the 1962 Instruction – as I have said – required canonical silence, so that witnesses and accused could speak freely.
But I would also note that in this pericope, the parents say to the authorities: “Question him yourselves”. Which is precisely what the canonical procedures seek to implement. (But of course, in these days of Victimist legal theory, you can’t question the accuser because that would be to ‘re-victimize the victim’. Autre temps, autre moeurs.)
The only "fear-of-publicity" came from your corrupt cult and it's fear of being exposed for all the evil, lying, pedophile creeps that ran rampant among young innocent boys. Nasty sickos.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1005PM:
Here ‘Dan’ assures ‘Spiderman 44060’ that ‘Dan’ doth “read the Bible daily”.
That’s as may be, but the real key here is ‘with what stance’ does one go and “read the Bible daily”?
Does one approach the text with humility and – especially as time goes on in this laudable practice – with an increasing knowledge and competence and insight? Or does one simply rummage through the pages like a rioter rummaging through a rock pile looking for the best prospective missile to toss?
Are we talking the same humility that your pedophile and perverted priests and bishops approached the Bible. Did they have the same "knowledge and competence and insight" that you have? That explains why they became such disgusting creeps, taking advantage of innocent little boys. Did they use their power and pride to show their victims what wonderful, holy and humble snakes they were. And I believe you excusers are just as guilty and possibly pedophiles yourselves. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1005PM:
Curiously, one must wonder just what religious polity – what ‘church’ – in existence would or does fill ‘Dan’s requirements as he claims to find them in Scripture? Does he actually have a ‘church’ to which he belongs? (I mean – besides ‘The Church of One of the ‘Dan’-verse, The Honorable And Truthy Servant ‘Dan’ Presiding’ … ?)
I doubt there is any religious polity that fills the bill here. ‘Dan’s game, rather, is to merely plop-toss at the Catholic Church, which has provided the most handy and convenient target for him, especially since his assorted aggressions have resulted in his legal and psychiatric misadventures. Like playing with blocks, his use of pericopes here can provide literally a lifetime of endless play and satisfaction as he assembles them into his various preferred rants and diatribes.
And ‘Dan’ – we recall – doesn’t have any “Spiritual building” (or any believing community, either). He’s just got that bathroom mirror and the Fax Machine From The Beyond plugged into the wall socket nearby.
And ‘Dan’ concludes – pitch-perfect and marvelous – with a God’ll-getcha threat.
It seems that Spiderman’s Spidey Senses are working well enough indeed.
And we return to more of the childish, ignorant mocking. Can't wait until God removes your tongue from your nasty, mocking mouth.
And Spidey's Senses are working as well as your Alice in Wonderland cartoons, Mad Hatter.
On the 25th I said…. "Anyway… if the assault was so serious then why didn't the parents go to the police?" And on the 27th Dan came back with some familiar excuses Asserting that the parents often were not told by the alleged victims, and he suggested reasons. Well whatever the reason, it does raise a question with the common accusations against Bishops. E.g…."Why didn't they do something?" My question is… ..how would the Bishop know?. If the boy didn't tell parents, then it's not plausible that he would have gone to the chancery, and told the Bishop? . What about the alleged perpetrator?. Is it likely he told his colleagues, or told his boss, the Bishop?. Dream on! The perp wanted to be respected by his peers, and his boss…surely! Yet in some mysterious way the Bishop was still expected to act?. Well…. he would have to have been a mind-reader.
Are you trying to tell us that only catholic excuses are rational? You guys sure have plenty.
Lucy welcome, now can you explain to me how it is you call me a fake and a hater. Is it because I'm trying to lead the lost from following a false religion, that will not bring them to the heaven they're being promised. Am I wrong to try to awaken those who have been deceived by a group of compulsive liars, teaching heresies.
I would appreciate your not praying for me. I surely do not need prayers from idol-worshippers, who think their repetitive prayers and babble to their false goddess Mary, is going to seal their place in heaven. And I have no idea what "Feel the sting." is supposed to mean, because God and my savior Jesus Christ have removed all my sting. Lean on God's Word, and try not to listen to the teachings of a corrupt, apostate religion. They care not for your soul.
We have a bunch from ‘Dan’; I’ll go through them as they appear on the screen; some of them are pretty much just ‘Dan’s attempt at a zingy come-back and I won’t bother with those.
On thus to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 143PM:
Here ‘Dan’ gives us a nicely vivid demonstration of how certain types go about making accusations: he repeats allegations mentioned in news articles as if they were facts and he neglects to mention that the legal proceedings occasioned by those allegations did not succeed (and not because of any statute-of-limitations issue either).
And having tossed up that pile, ‘Dan’ slyly tries for even better plop: whereas in his first “You catholics are aware” sentence he merely repeated the failed allegations. In the second he simply tosses in some of his own rant as if it were as ‘factual’ as the prior “you catholics are aware” material.
I might say that readers may wish to consider ‘removing their blinders’ in regard to ‘Dan’, but I think that suggestion – at this point – would simply be bringing coals to Newcastle.
Down then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 206PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to finesse the problems with his Mary-being-worshipped bit, as he tried to piggy-back it on the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible (DRV) from the 16th century.
He doesn’t actually try to tackle the problems with his DRV example. Instead he tries to spin the problem as if it has two sides.
Thus, he goes for this bit: i) formal Church doctrine and teaching says one thing, but ii) Catholics “have picked up along the line some other truth”.
But ‘Dan’ has not only not demonstrated that many (or any) Catholics actually hold to the 16th century DRV version, but he has also not provided any examples here since I asked him for such when he first made the claim that many Catholics hold to the DRV.
In other words, the second of the two sides here isn’t actually a demonstrated side at all, except in ‘Dan’s preferred cartoon.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 206PM:
So much for the main “substantial problem” that ‘Dan’ claims to exist.
Then he tosses in – yet again – his familiar baloney about “Mary having attributes similar to Christ” and all the rest. All of which has been dealt with before here, even on this thread and readers can go back over it if they wish.
Continuing down the list we come to ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 722PM:
For ‘Dan’, any possibilities or actual facts that screw up his cartoons are merely “poor excuses and false theories” – which is itself merely an assertion, as usual, with no demonstration or explication. (But – doncha see? – if ‘Dan’ already knows what his cartoon knows, then what else could anything be, if it contradicted the cartoon?)
And then he riffs on for the rest of that first paragraph and no surprises there.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 722PM:
He then raises the example of a Marie Collins, who recently resigned from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors which ‘Dan’ incorrectly characterizes as an investigative agency when it has actually been established as an “advisory body” to the Pope assigned to “propose initiatives” “for the purpose of promoting local responsibility in the particular Churches for the protection of all minors and vulnerable adults”.
Readers may wish to consult the official Vatican document establishing the Commission by entering into a search engine the title “Chirograph of His Holiness Pope Francis for the Institution of a Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors”.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 722PM:
My own thoughts on this resignation are – and always have been – that there was always a high probability that appointing ‘survivors’ and activists was ultimately going have a poor outcome.
The activists (presuming – for the purposes of this discussion – their ‘survivor-hood’) were by the nature of their interests going to want to use their appointment both as a public platform and an organizational lever for creating more vigorous and vivid prosecutions (and generating lots more ‘stories’ for the media in the process).
But the Commission by its very nature and establishing-statutes was always going to be – as noted above – an advisory group that would propose general directives that the Pope might issue to the Bishops who were Ordinaries of their dioceses.
This creates a situation where you have – as it were – a few individual racehorses harnessed to a large team pulling a heavy wagon. Which is not how racehorses go about doing their thing.
Frustration was pretty much guaranteed from the get-go.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 29th at 722PM:
Nor can we ignore the fact that the Church is – in many cartoon versions – considered to be something like a dictatorship (perhaps similar to the USSR under Stalin or Hitler controlling the various Gauleiters) wherein the Boss can reach out and touch any subordinate underling because they are all merely placeholders fro that Boss.
This isn’t how the Church is structured.
Nor is it like a military organization wherein the general-in-chief can issue absolute orders to all the subordinate generals.
But it is precisely this cartoon conception that has helped fuel the Stampede and certainly lubricates the excitements of many fundies.
This is to cover all your previous May 1st comments up to this point. Do you really believe all of the ignorance and nonsense you spew in this forum? The Vatican and the Curia thought they would place a couple of victims on the Commission, so it would appease the public that they really were going to be transparent and accountable. Problem is the victims they thought they could use as puppets ended up exposing the corruption going on among hierarchy in your deceivingly wicked cult. They are not a dictatorship like the "USSR under Stalin or Hitler", because they are much worse. They are definitely a deceiving dictatorship, putting on a face as being the One True, Holy and Pure catholic church, when really they are the gathering of disgusting liars, thieves, perverts, pedophiles, idolators and hypocrites, you being a card carrying member. Truly God's definition of wolves in sheep's clothing.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1033PM (responding to my comment of the 28th at 441PM):
Clearly, ‘Dan’ is much irritated by my noting the incoherences in his story (“Look you flaming idiot”.)
In order to further his cartoon he now claims that “once you’re falsely accused by priests, nuns and corrupt cops, you’re as good as guilty in the courts eyes [sic[“. Really? In California? Nowadays?
And did they all get together and dream this thing up? Or was it simply that there more than enough to convince the police to lock him up and a court to send him for psychiatric evaluation? And multiple times, to boot.
And again: it is illogical and incoherent to imagine or expect that the witnesses and police and courts would be under any obligation to “show ‘forgiveness and mercy’” if the basis of ‘Dan’s misadventures was merely their “lies”. If ‘Dan’ had – as his deceitful cartoon would have it here – done nothing wrong, then on what basis does he claim a right to “forgiveness and mercy”? How can you be innocent and still complain that you weren’t shown “forgiveness”? If you had committed no offending act, then on what basis could any “forgiveness and mercy” be given?
I was pointing out that not only were they compulsive liars, they don't even show forgiveness and mercy like they claim. Phonies, just like you. Quit playing your manipulating stupid games. You're not as clever as you think you are. Just a legend in your own mind. Hypocrite!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1033PM:
‘Dan’ doth “label” people as he does because he has to because he is indentured to his self-serving and self-exculpating excuses in order to preserve his FDS which itself was created by him to evade his own admittedly disturbing personal reality and issues.
And he tries to bring the performance home by preemptively bleating that his bit here isn’t a “rant”, but rather is merely a true ‘description’.
Readers may judge as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 30th at 223AM:
He doesn’t like my pointing out his misspellings. Perhaps he should not misspell so much. (Hint: misspelling doesn’t mean much to ‘Dan’ because it’s only “worldly wisdom” and serious prophets can’t be bothered with such stuff.)
And the rant goes on.
Lucy, you better watch out, the grammar police are gonna getcha. He knows how to spell useless, because he's been called that so often. You're probably alright. He doesn't ever correct his catholic cronies or groupies. I wouldn't be so quick to criticise another's spelling when you can't even spell 'for', @ 3:13pm, hypocrite.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1049PM:
Excuses aren’t explanations, he brays. (We recall that anything that screws up his cartoons are merely “excuses”.)
Much more to the point here: mere epithets and assertions aren’t explanations.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1051PM (responding to mine of the 28th at 445PM):
In light of the demonstration as to the groundless-ness of his bit about the 1962 Instruction, he merely tries to create a false position for himself, i.e. that “everything is groundless”.
No, only a whole lot of ‘Dan’s stuff is groundless. And he’s the one who picked the material he put up.
And he lards it all with epithets. Epithets aren’t explanations either.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 28th at 1058PM (responding to mine of the 28th at 450PM):
Here ‘Dan’ will simply try to change the subject.
Apparently what he’s going for here is this: let’s not talk about ‘Dan’s brassy perversions of Scripture and let’s instead focus on ‘Dan’s preferred cartoon of “pedophile and perverted priests and bishops”.
And he goes on riffing from there.
Strange how you think the "pedophile and perverted priests and bishops" of your cult is some kind of cartoon. I don't think it's very funny to the many thousands of innocent victims whose lives and families were destroyed from the creeps of your cult. You're disgusting. servant
Readers may also have noticed that ‘Dan’ hasn’t answered my point about whether any church or polity is sufficiently Scriptural Christian to satisfy his requirements.
He is sly to do so; I doubt there is one. Which goes to my point that for him all this Biblical judging of religions – Catholic or otherwise, although the Catholics seem to be the prime target at this point – is simply a demented form of playing with blocks and tossing them.
By the way, publyin', "about whether any church or polity is sufficiently Scriptural Christian to satisfy his requirements. This would be based on God's requirements, not mine. According to God's Word and how the catholic church interprets and follows that Word, then that would definitely disqualify your church as being anything close to Scripturally Christian. If you don't understand that by now, then I'm sure God will be more than happy to explain it to you on Judgment Day. Don't say I didn't try to warn you, because I have in so many ways. servant
That question has been answered so many times. If you can't figure it out, not my problem. People in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones. Your cult is as demented as they come. Quit being such a cry baby. My poor picked on catholic cult of creeps. You are a joke, peewee.
On the 2nd at 247AM we see that ‘Dan’ either cannot or will not allow himself to see the problem with his “forgiveness and mercy” bit.
After first larding in an epithetical (and, of course, undemonstrated and of course usefully revealing) bit about “compulsive liars”, he simply repeats his “forgiveness and mercy” bit – thus evading the vital question: just what did ‘Dan’ do that required any “forgiveness and mercy” in the first place … ?
But there’s a manipulative method in the madness here: what ‘Dan’ is really going for is the tossing of his ploppy bit about Catholics being “phonies”, even though his mind can’t really sort out how even Catholics are supposed to show “forgiveness and mercy” to a (self-declared) innocent.
And he concludes with another epithet that apparently came to mind: from the self-declared and self-asserted and self-proclaimed “Servant” he doth – with sublime obliviousness – claim that somebody else is “a legend in your own mind”.
My bit as to "compulsive liars" is because you and your fellow catholics are habitual liars. One last time – a) I was falsely accused of saying I wanted to kill somebody. Never happened. b) Accused of trespassing when it never happened c) Falsely accused of screaming obscenities at young catholic children, scared them and made many cry. Never happened. d) Accused of telling little children "Jesus is dead". Never said. e) Accused by you of accosting, haranging and harrassing school kids. And you weren't even there to witness anything, and yet think you know how things went down. Ridiculous lies. These reasons are why you, your hierarchy, cops, school staff and dumb sheep are compulsive and habitual liars. Let me clarify – by dumb sheep I mean the wicked, blind followers of your cult, who wish to believe there was little or no abuse in the church, but most especially those who insist on making excuses to enable the creeps to continue in their nasty, disgusting lusts.
Once I suffered these cruel lies and slander, the lying creeps weren't satisfied that I spent the night in jail, but came to court, adding to their vicious lies to get the hardest sentence against me. Too bad that most of the time they didn't succeed in their evilness. Like I said, they could have shown remorse for what they falsely accused me of, but showed no "forgiveness or mercy" towards me for the things they had slandered. Maybe if you weren't so into your Cartoon Time, you would be able to comprehend what I'm saying. I believe you do, but show pleasure in being a total jackass. So you will reap what you sow. Hypocrite!!
On the 2nd at 259AM ‘Dan’ will now – and yet again – try to create something so that he will have something to toss plop at: the “cartoon” to which I was referring (on the 1st at 325PM) is not the (undemonstrated) claim about a profusion of “pedophile and perverted priests and bishops” but rather the “cartoon” of ‘Dan’ deploying it as if it were demonstrably accurate and true.
It’s not so “strange” how ‘Dan’ doesn’t grasp that: if he did then he’d have to confront the essential plop-tossy vacuity of his entire programme and that would indict his FDS and then his head would explode.
And does he proffer any demonstration of his assertion as to “the many thousands of innocent victims”? He does not; he cannot; he hopes he need not. Where would the plop-tossing business be if a tosser had to continually justify the stuff he tosses?
But he satisfies himself with a concluding epithet, which in his mind seems to work well enough.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 310AM:
Here – in response to my second posing of the question as to which, if any, actual religious polity fits his parameters for being authentically Scriptural Christian – he simply evades: “That question has been answered so many times” … he bleats.
It has not. If ‘Dan’ can quote the date-timestamp and thread of the comment(s) where he did answer that, then let him do so. Or else let him answer the question here and now.
Then a second attempt at evasion: if we can’t “figure it out” then that’s not his problem. But if he had answered it, then nobody would have to try to “figure it out” – as even ‘Dan’s statement here seems to realize.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 310AM:
And then an attempt at distraction, using the old I’m Not/You Are bit yet again: it is Catholicism (and not ‘Dan’, doncha see?) that is “demented”.
And then another attempt at distraction, this time using the epithetical mode: by posing the question I am “being such a cry baby”. That’s a whopper and a logical doozy even by the standards of the ‘Dan’-verse. Especially coming from the I-was-victimized-by-Catholics crybaby-extraordinaire.
But he’s desperate here. And from going deeper into the rabbit hole, he’s now just circling the drain down there.
Glad you find it "logical" that you're "being such a cry baby." I was wondering why I haven't run into you, since I'm "circling the drain", but of course your more at sewage level or deeper. Demented catholic crybaby snake-extraordinaire. servant of the One True God
One of the advantages – as I have mentioned before – of continuing to hold ‘Dan’s material up to the light is that readers can observe and educate themselves into the many sly gambits that – especially in the internet age – pass for ‘answers’ and ongoing analysis or exchange.
So thus on to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 231AM:
He is faced with quite a bit of material, and quite a few issues have been raised (my comments of the afternoon of the 1st at 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 323, 324, 325, and 326).
And how will he deal with all that problematic (for his cartoon) material?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 231AM:
Why, it’s all so easy-peasy: he merely slyly and evasively seeks to wave it all away with epithet cast in the form of a question: Do I “really believe all of the ignorance and nonsense” that I “spew in this forum”?
As so very often, ‘Dan’ asks questions that would far better be addressed to himself (or Himself) in the bathroom mirror (but cannot be addressed in that “forum” lest his head explode).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 231AM:
But wait – it gets even better (in the sense of more revealing).
‘Dan’ simply fills out the mechanism by which – as I had said – the Vatican’s appointment of activists was almost certain to create frustrations. Yes, I would say that public relations had a great – and far too great – a role in the appointments.
But I had said that the problem of frustrations was going to arise simply because a) activists are of a different temperament from advisors and b) the Commission was clearly designed to be advisory.
What ‘Dan’ slyly does then is to manipulatively insert here his bit about the Church not really being “transparent and accountable”. But that doesn’t hold water: the activists and the Vatican would have both been familiar with the official and published defining parameters of the Commission from the get-go.
The real problem was that the activists took on the job figuring that they could either a) change the entire nature of the project or b) give themselves a publicity-friendly excuse for getting out if they failed to achieve (a). Which, in the event, is precisely what has happened.
What you must mean by the Vatican's "official and published defining parameters of the Commission" and the "nature of the project", was that anyone on the committee was to comply with Vatican and hence the Curia, to conceal and keep secret the horrible crimes of bishops and priests against innocent victims. Not having any wish to truly clean up their mess, become transparent and accountable, but instead stick with the deception that things have changed. Absolutely despicable and yet not at all surprising. Business as usual. Corrupt catholicism at it's best and worst.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 231AM:
Thus the” victims” didn’t somehow refuse to fit into some sly and covert Vatican plan and then ‘heroically expose’ it. Rather, they accepted their appointments as members of an advisory panel, tried to turn the whole project into some form of activism suitable for their own purposes, and then departed when they failed in that gambit, under the cover of a claim that they had been hoodwinked all along.
And what does ‘Dan’ then do about the uncongenial fact that the Church is not structured like a dictatorship? Why he merely doth declaim and proclaim – on the basis of nothing he has presented – that the Church is much worse than the USSR or the Third Reich.
And he rants on predictably from there.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 840PM:
The problem confronting ‘Dan’ in this episode is that he cannot name any religious polity that actually does – in his (or His) estimation – fulfill Scriptural Christian parameters and requirements.
Which way, then, to twist in order to evade that problem?
Easy –peasy: ‘Dan’ merely doth piously bleat that such a judgment “would be based on God’s requirements, not [‘Dan’s]”.
That sounds nice.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 840PM:
But this is the ‘Dan’-verse and this is ‘Dan’ … so the alert reader must always be prepared for the operations of ‘Dan’s FDS.
And – sure enough – the FDS quickly asserts itself: ‘Dan’ – but of course – just happens to have an inside track to the very Mind, Word, and Will of God. So …. ‘Dan’s judgments (as embodied in the assorted elements of his cartoon) are God’s judgments … doncha see?
And his scheduled rant continues on from there.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 2nd at 840PM:
And the whole sundae is topped off – but of course – with another God’ll-getcha threat.
Which is itself then glazed with a self-glorifying bit casting ‘Dan’ as the prophet-unheeded.
Along the lines of what I have said on this site previously, what we are seeing here is merely a childish revenge-fantasy indulged, and masquerading as ‘prophecy’ through the thick larding of Scriptural pericopes that ‘Dan’ can toss around but cannot defend or explain, because his interpretations are absolutely dependent upon the queasy bubbling stew of his own revenge-driven presumptions.
With all the lies that have been thrown at me from the creeps of your cult, I would have every right to seek revenge. But my faith in my Creator informs me that revenge belongs to Him.
"Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
I shall wait patiently for Babylon Rome to meet it's just rewards. servant of a Just God
On the 3rd at 148PM we have ‘Dan’ trying yet again to deal with the problems he has created for himself with his narrative of his legal and psychiatric misadventures.
First, merely – and yet again – the assertion that he used the term “compulsive liars” because – had you been waitttingggggggggg forrrrrrr itttttttttt? – “you and your fellow catholics are habitual liars”. In other words, ‘Dan’ seems to think that since “habitual liars” is a different wording from “compulsive liars” then the former term can serve as a reason for the latter term.
But this is merely wordplay again. ‘Dan’ is basically claiming that he said A on the basis of A, which is no reason (or reasoning) at all. And he has never demonstrated the factuality of either of the terms; he has nothing here except his own cartoon presumption, so necessary to fill the indenture to his FDS.
And we see once again that the only way for ‘Dan’s stuff to make sense is to first jump down the rabbit hole of his presumptions; if you aren’t standing in ‘Dan’s rabbit-hole then nothing will make any sense. And since ‘Dan’ is stuck in the rabbit hole and cannot get out of it to stand anywhere else, then he’s (happily, for himself) never going to have to see that problem.
Here ‘Dan’ stands; he can do no other. A curiously resonant if deformed example of Luther’s stance.
And we'll take the word of a compulsive liar, telling us there is no factuality to his cult being plagued with habitual and compulsive liars, him being one of the worst.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 148PM:
Which also gives us a revealing insight into why ‘Dan’ cannot name any religious polity (except for his own Church-of-‘Dan’) that passes muster: on some level he realizes that any polity he joins is going to quickly realize the depth of his derangement and he will be seen for what he is; thus – on the basis of protecting his own FDS from the inevitable consequences of his derangement – he can accept no religious polity or community; it’s a preemptive evasion of what will happen if he starts up in the midst of any religious polity or community.
If any religious polity or community notices his derangement, then he must avenge himself upon them by tossing his entire pile of Scriptural 3x5s at them, claiming the (delusional) authority of God to do so.
This game can go on and on – and it will give him something to do.
True Christians dwell not in idol-worshipping manmade churches. God and Christ aren't there, and we're not there. God shares not His Spirit or wisdom with those who bow down to false gods or goddesses. If you were able to understand or interpret the Lord's Word, then you would be well aware of that. Any religion that thinks there manmade rules and regulations supersede those of God's Holy Inspired Word, will definitely be teaching the false gospel the apostles warned us about. So keep thinking that you must follow your false Catechism, thinking humans can be infallible or sinless, and I'll stick to my Father's Truth and Word. For you to label me deranged, demented, dellusional or deformed in my beliefs in God and His Word, is just downright wicked and comes from the depths of hell. Is this how your Catechism has taught you to treat others? servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 148PM:
And thus – yet again – he merely repeats his claims about being “falsely accused” and then of myriads of folk having conspired together just to make him ‘look bad’, as another Abusenik liked here to say.
Marvelously, he demonstrates with utter obliviousness that each of those “false” accusations he ticks off in his (a), (c), and (e) are things that he has done here in this forum, with the possible exception of having addressed “school kids” here.
Then – with equal obliviousness – the old claim that none of us were “even there to witness anything”. Ah, but we have witnessed ‘Dan’ here at great length and what has been seen here is much the same thing that he tries to claim was “false” there.
One wonders where – admitting a certain sly deceptiveness that seems native to him – ‘Dan’s mental limitations end and the necessary contortions required by his FDS begin.
Show me catholic liar where I said I wanted to kill you. Although you act like an infant, I thought I was dealing with an adult, who has spewed all kinds of ignorance and stupidity at me. You deserve everything I've said about you and your hierarchy of idolators and creeps.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 148PM:
Thus his “reasons” here fail rather vividly and utterly.
And we are left – in the first paragraph – with his now-usual reversion to “nasty, disgusting lusts”, now revealingly deployed against all Catholics … which strongly suggests one of ‘Dan’s ‘issues’ for which the FDS was developed in the first place.
The liar claims "nasty, disgusting lusts" was "deployed against all Catholics". False! It was said of those "making excuses to enable the creeps to continue in their nasty, disgusting lusts." The publiars ploy is to make all catholics believe I hate them. I can't stand the deceptions of an evil religion that has brainwasahed believers into thinking they are the One True Church. Nothing further from the truth of God and His Gospel. "Deceiving others while being themselves deceived."
"Indeed, all who live godly lives in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and imposters go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived." 2 Tim 3:12-13
I'll let you correct my typo, brainwasahed. You're a perfect example of brainwashed catholic.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 148PM:
And the second paragraph thus swings into one of his usual victim-y, pearl-clutching performances.
Yet he has never justified his accusation of lack of “remorse” because he has not only (a) not proffered any evidence that the accusations that got him arrested were “false” and “lies” but also because (b) everything we have seen of him on this site tends to strongly support the accuracy of the claims about the actions he took that got him arrested.
And – since it is no doubt outlined in red-ink on a 3×5 in his pile – he continues to toss in the bit that he should have been shown “forgiveness and mercy” even though he has just completed a performance claiming – yet again – that he was totally innocent.
Totally innocent of their lies and your stupid lies.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 148PM:
Does nobody here, nor I myself, “comprehend” his position? That – given the requirements of maintaining his FDS – can only mean that I “show pleasure in being a total jackass” – wheeeeeee!
Nobody comprehends his narrative because it is logically and conceptually incomprehensible.
But if ‘Dan’ allowed himself to realize that then his head would explode.
COMPREHEND def. – according to the Bible – impossible for lying hypocrites to comprehend
"Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." John 8:47
See how easy the Bible is to understand.
"But they refused to hearken, and shrugged the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear." Zech. 7:11
"Make the heart of these people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn to me and be healed." Isaiah 6:10
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 3rd at 432PM:
Here he simply consoles himself by amassing a bunch of the points he doesn’t like and tossing them in his typical I’m Not/You Are way.
Having nothing else to use, he simply picks up stuff from others and throws it as if it were his own.
Again, I’ll go down the list as they appear on the site, and the mere ‘come-back’ stuff need not detain us, being revelatory enough on its own.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 608AM:
‘Dan’s problem here is that his claim of the Commission being ‘investigative’ is clearly demonstrated to be false once one reads the actual formal enabling document, which makes clear that the Commission was intended to be “advisory” from the get-go.
How to evade or distract-from this problem?
For the likes of ‘Dan’ this is easy-peasy: all the words actually mean – had you been waitingggg forrr itttt? –is that Committee members had to take their orders from the Vatican and thus “conceal and keep secret” and on and on with the usual bits.
Thus the Cartoon can continue and ‘Dan’s head needn’t explode.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1056PM:
Here ‘Dan’ jumps in with both feet and now declaims that a) “with all the lies” that he has had directed at him then b) he “would have every right to seek revenge”.
In regard to (a), we are back to the “lies” bit again, although there is no evidence to support the claim and quite a bit of ‘Dan’s stuff here to strongly indicate otherwise.
In regard to (b), while ‘Dan’ piously bleats that vengeance is the Lord’s – how nice – yet ‘Dan’ has to find a channel for his revenge-driven agenda somehow, which problem he resolves by simply kicking the revenge can down the road by insisting that God’ll-getcha-all and he shall “wait patiently” for that.
But were he more ‘patient’, he might not have tried to jump-start the divine plan by aggressing against all those folks as he did. But then his deep, vengeance-‘justified’ personal violence would have to be faced and curbed, and if he tried that then his head would explode.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1123PM:
How will he deal with his inability or refusal to name any actual religious polity that would satisfy his Scriptural Christian requirements?
Here he reverts to an evasive gambit, trying to distract by pronouncing – on no authority but his own mock-papal claims – that “true Christians dwell not [note the stab at mimicking Biblical style] in idol-worshipping manmade churches”.
In the first place, this is simply a rehash of his already discredited “idol-worshipping” and “manmade” bits (are any religious buildings … not “manmade”?).
In the second place, if “true Christians” don’t have religious buildings then who can be a “true” Christian? (Hint: only ‘Dan’, whose bathroom with its séance mirror and fax-machine doesn’t count as a religious edifice of any sort.) So, when you get right down to it, only ‘Dan’ is one of the “true Christians” and perhaps is even the only true Christian. And we’re right back down the rabbit-hole of his FDS.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1123PM:
These faux-papal pronunciamentos continue as to “God and Christ” not being in religious edifices and then the bit about “false gods and goddesses”.
If we were down in the rabbit-hole with ‘Dan’, circling the drain of his FDS, then we “would be well aware of that”.
And the whole bit goes on as scheduled. The result being that we merely get a handy compendium of the skein or hash of bits that ‘Dan’ has stitched together in order to justify (in his own mind, at least) the Church-of-‘Dan’-in-the-‘Dan’-verse.
And he concludes by once more seeking to spin himself as the faithful-prophet-unheeded and not at all as some demented whacko with deep violence issues who has glommed onto God and Scripture as the ultimate masquerade costume. And – not to put too fine a point on it – the ultimate sheep’s-clothing.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 4th at 1145PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will simply clutch the old pearls and declaim “Ridiculous lies”. (Explaining things to ‘Dan’ is like trying to explain to Norma Desmond that her career is long long past its sell-by date.)
He said – on the 3rd at 148PM – by way of ‘clarification’ on his rant about all those who apparently are supposed to have conspired against him that “by dumb sheep I mean the wicked, blind followers of your cult” … that would clearly indicate all Catholics.
But even if we prescind from that statement, we are left with ‘Dan’ claiming that all those who are supposed to have conspired against him and lied about him are “in their nasty, disgusting lusts”. Which makes even less sense. Or are we to imagine that all of those who are supposed to have conspired against him and lied about him are somehow also enmeshed “in their nasty, disgusting lusts”.
‘Dan’ appears to see “nasty, disgusting lusts” everywhere … and that more probably reveals not that all Catholics are sunk “in their nasty, disgusting lusts” but that ‘Dan’ seems to have – on top of a violence issue – a “nasty, disgusting lusts” issue.
No wonder his indenture to his FDS is so very fixed: his head might explode twice-over.
And on the 5th at 1214AM we get a nicely vivid example of ‘Dan’s FDS operating on a pericope to work its own purposes:
We move quickly beyond ‘Dan’s silly effort to mimic the authority of a dictionary in defining “comprehend” according to his own – not to put too fine a point on it – “lusts”.
He quotes from the eighth chapter of John: “Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God”.
From this he instantly heads for the ‘Dan’-verse conclusion “see how easy the Bible is to understand”.
But this pericope doesn’t establish in any way that ‘Dan’ either belongs to God or hears what God says.
For all we know – and there is a mountain of his material to support this – ‘Dan’ belongs not to God but to his FDS and what he hears is not God but rather the instructions of his FDS as it pursues its agenda of keeping him from having to actually deal with his issues and his actions.
‘Dan’ is as much a genuine Christian prophet as Norma Desmond was still a famous film star with a busy career in the eidesis of “Sunset Boulevard”.
And all the readers in this forum are to trust a compulsive liar, idolator, goddess worshipping, mocker of God and His Word, excuser and enabler of pedophile perverts to judge who may be a "genuine Christian prophet". You're absolutely a deceiving and manipulating creep, willing to present any ignorance and stupidity in order to besmirch and demean an opponent in hopes that others will accept your nonsense as if it's the truth. There are some seriously brainwashed catholics who back up your garbage and lies on this forum. I have no desire to do this dance with the rest of the trash you presented today.
"Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." This is the very reason why you think you can mock God, Jesus, His Holy Spirit, His prophetic Word and His servant. You can't even imagine the price you will pay for your uncontrolable mocking tongue. I have never come across such an ignorant catholic. servant of the One and Only God and Father
Well, with so much on the table ‘Dan’ – one might think – has a lot to deal with. But one of the things a nice tight FDS will get you is the ability to make your problems and issues disappear (so often, as in ‘Dan’s case, by blaming them on somebody or everybody else).
Thus the performance of the 6th at 159AM:
First, we get a stage-setting string of ‘Dan’s usual preferred epithets (and readers can choose as they may which is the more entertaining: the “compulsive liar” bit or the “idolator” bit).
Then a sly and deceptive distraction: the question on the table isn’t the judging of who in the whole world might be a “genuine Christian prophet”. Rather, the question is whether ‘Dan’ is a “genuine Christian prophet” or just some deceptive and manipulative whackjob who costumes his self-serving dreck in Scripture. Readers, of course, may judge as they will.
It's so stupid and idiotic of you to claim I have "problems and issues" that I'm "blaming… on somebody or everybody else". The lies put upon me are as real as your repetitive compulsive lies. When will you stop with your ignorance? You may think it's "entertaining" to be a "compulsive liar" or "idolator", but I find it not very humorous. I doubt that God finds your disgusting act terribly funny either, after all he listed it among the 6 or 7 reasons that will send a person into Hell's fire. Do you think that will be entertaining and funny too? Maybe Satan will be amused with your entertainment.
You may want to find your own material. I've been calling you a "deceptive and manipulative whackjob" for quite some time and you have not failed in fitting the bill. As far as calling myself a prophet goes, I clarified that as meaning teacher. I have received about 25 prophecies, where my roomate has gotten over 1000 in the last 7 years. I've explained to you the fact that there is nothing self-serving in trying to teach hypocrites like yourself.
In regards to your "ignorance and stupidity" there is nothing I'm trying to "evade or avoid". I would like to "evade and avoid" your "ignorance and stupidity" except it's apparent that you insist on piling on more of it daily. It's basically all of your lying assessments with which you attack any opponent. Suffer the consequences I've had to endure from the lies of your cult members and I don't believe you would think it's funny and entertaining for some idiot to come along and deny or make light of those truths.
You claim that " God, Jesus, His Holy Spirit, His Prophetic Word" – all greatly worthy of respect and reverence", yet you show disrespect by mocking His power and Word and prefer to revere, adore and honor your dead, sinning human, Queen of Heaven goddess. We'll let God decide whether 'Dan' is His servant or "nothing of the sort". Surely that will not be decided by any lying mocking hypocrite, especially you.
And where did you learn to squeal like a pig? Was that from Deliverance, taught by your hierarchy or something you picked up while "wallowing in the mud" (2 Peter 2:22). servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 159AM:
Then more epithets, which are then followed by the attempt to characterize whatever ‘Dan’ doesn’t like and wants to evade and avoid as “ignorance and stupidity”.
Nor could I ever make ‘Dan’ look any worse than his own material reveals him to be.
But all this has a purpose: to lead up to the huffy, pearl-clutching harrumph to the effect that ‘Dan’ doth “have no desire to do this dance … today”. So thus ‘Dan’ – to his own satisfaction, anyway – lets himself off the hook. Neato, but it’s now rather too obvious a gambit.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 159AM:
Then – as so often – the sly and deceptive attempt to conflate God and Scripture with ‘Dan’s own stuff (to “God, Jesus, His Holy Spirit, His prophetic Word” – all greatly worthy of respect and reverence – ‘Dan’ slyly slides in “His servant” – meaning ‘Dan’, who is nothing of the sort).
And he wraps it all up with – had you been waittinggggg forrrr itttttt? – another God’ll-getcha-all threat. But – doncha see? – if ‘Dan’ says God’s gonna do it, then it isn’t violent – it’s just prayer and holiness and truth, cuz that’s what ‘Dan’s all about. Wheeeeee.