Finally getting his long overdue apology: Rev. Xiu Hui 'Joseph' Jiang
The lawyer-funded hate group SNAP has issued a formal apology to St. Louis priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang, whom it had falsely accused of abusing children and maliciously branded a "pedophile."
The apology was released this afternoon by the Archdiocese of St. Louis but first reported by Robert Patrick at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Jeannette Cooperman at St. Louis Magazine.
SNAP's apology reads as follows (emphasis added):
"The SNAP defendants never want to see anyone falsely accused of a crime. Admittedly, false reports of clergy sexual abuse do occur. The SNAP defendants have no personal knowledge as to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang and acknowledge that all matters and claims against Fr. Jiang have either been dismissed or adjudicated in favor of Fr. Jiang. SNAP acknowledges that false claims of clergy sexual abuse injure those clerics falsely accused and the Roman Catholic Church. SNAP apologizes for any false or inaccurate statements related to the complaints against Fr. Joseph Jiang that it or its representatives made which in any way disparaged Fr. Joseph Jiang, Archbishop Robert J. Carlson, Monsignor Joseph D. Pins and the Archdiocese of St. Louis."
As regular readers of this site already know, SNAP's apology caps a long, five-year battle by Fr. Jiang to clear his name and restore his trashed reputation. Along the way:
- Law enforcement dropped all criminal charges against the innocent Fr. Jiang;
- Fr. Jiang discovered his accuser already had a long and sordid legal past;
- A federal judge ruled that SNAP indeed defamed Fr. Jiang and ordered that SNAP reimburse his legal fees, totaling $25,100;
- Another judge ordered one of Jiang's bogus accusers to pay the legal expenses of both Jiang and the Archdiocese of St. Louis, totaling $48,516.84; and
- A jury took mere minutes to swiftly exonerate Fr. Jiang in a two-week civil lawsuit.
Bravo to Fr. Jiang for fighting the good fight for truth and justice.
Then, having deployed his usual haven’t-got-the-time bit (the 5th at 356PM), ‘Dan’ finds some time “to waste” (the 5th at 1016PM):
Not permitting oneself to be detained by ‘Dan’s bit about “serious thought” being “something new to” me, we press on to examine this present example of ‘Dan’s version of “serious thought”.
Yes, sexual crimes against children are “terrible”. That’s a truism and what’s his point here?
He then tries to bolster that with a bit about “the high numbers of victims” – although just how many genuine victims there have been remains to be demonstrated.
And he then tries to bolster that with a mere repetition of all of his other whackeries (about cult, idolatry, and so on).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1016PM:
And then he tries to extricate himself from his oft-repeated sexual focus by claiming he hasn’t really focused so much on the sexual at all.
Instead, he’d like to be seen as having masterfully blended the sexual with the demonstrably whacky stuff about cult, idols, Mary-as-goddess worship, the Eucharistic Host as pagan worship of the solar disc and so on and so forth.
All of which, apparently, passes for “serious thought” in the ‘Dan’-verse.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1101PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ will evade the point at issue (i.e. what does one do about Christians who have sinned) by simply tossing up some pericopes from his pile in regard to how God and Jesus “feel about sin”.
So what’s the point? Of course i) God and Jesus don’t like sin. Yet ii) Jesus gave Peter the power of the keys. How does ‘Dan’ square these two Biblical facts? (Short answer: ‘Dan’ doesn’t square them because he can’t; he’s only got a pile of pericopes and beyond that he can’t think his way out of a paper bag.)
And the same problem applies to the exhortation of Jesus to the woman caught in adultery : “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). How does one derive from this any conclusion such as a) this means the woman will not ever again commit adultery or any other sin and/or b) there is no hope of salvation for her if she ever does commit adultery or any other sin again?
After all – and as he himself has admitted here on this thread – not even ‘Dan’ is sinless. (Or he is sinless, except that sometimes he does commit something because he’s not “perfect” – take your pick.)
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1042AM:
Here, basing himself on some word-play on “requests”, ‘Dan’ presumes that it is just the “obviously plain requests” of God and Jesus that we not sin.
If this bit of ‘Dan’s be true, then God and Jesus apparently think that sin ain’t but a thang and anybody can avoid it anytime they want to for as long as they want to. But – as he himself has admitted on this thread – not even ‘Dan’ can do it (or he can do it, except only partially and sort-of and not-always).
So why does ‘Dan’ “ignore” the “obviously plain requests of God or Christ”?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1042AM:
The general answer, of course, is that God and Jesus know full well that humans – children of Adam and Eve – cannot refrain from all sin because failure to completely fulfill the Image of God in which we are created is an affliction all humans bear from birth. God and Jesus know it (that’s why Jesus gave Peter the power of the keys), the Church knows it, all major Christian thinkers pre-and-post Reformation know it, the evidence of human sinfulness is all around us in human history and affairs, and not even ‘Dan’ can avoid it (as he himself has admitted on this thread).
Thus ‘Dan’s pericopes introduced here are irrelevant; they merely indicate the awfulness of sin and nobody doubts or denies that.
So once again, the relevant question for ‘Dan’ must be: why doesn’t he perfectly fulfill those “obviously plain requests” of God and Jesus? If he can answer that, then he’s on his way to better grasping the mystery of sin in human life. Until then, he will simply continue with his genuinely perverse take on Scripture in this matter.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 1046AM:
Here we simply see – and as so very often – ‘Dan’ trying to evade his whackeries by hiding them under a Scriptural pericope.
As I have pointed out before a number of times, the problems are not in the quoted pericopes but in ‘Dan’s attempt to impose his own take upon them as if that take was somehow included in the actual text of the pericope.
Thus while Matthew 12:33 is indeed “Christ’s word, not ‘Dan’s word” yet there is utterly no mention in the text about Catholicism; that’s why ‘Dan’ (in his comment of Nov. 30th at 444PM) had to add his own bits in parentheses. Thus while the quotation from the text of Matthew is “Christ’s word, not ‘Dan’s word”, yet the parenthetical bits are – not to put too fine a point on it – ‘Dan’s word and not Christ’s word.
This 30th/444PM comment is also the one where ‘Dan’ lost track of where “Christ’s word” ended and ‘Dan’s word began, as readers may recall.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1156PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ will seek to evade the points I raised on the 4th at 931PM by simply clutching his pearls – yet again – and declaiming that he hath “no time to waste” on what he tries to wave-away as “ignorant explanation, stupid nonsense and gibberish”; channeling the late Zsa Zsa Gabor, he doth pronounce his “time” as rahlly rahlly “too valuable”, dahlings, and ‘Dan’ doth prefer to spend it among believers and so on. Thus ‘Dan’ “can’t be bothered”.
Does he practice delivering these lines in front of his bathroom mirror? Does he actually think this ‘can’t possibly be bothered’ bit does anything except further embarrass his performances here? But no doubt the cheering-section resident in that mirror assure him and console him.
The points I made remain.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 5th at 1209AM where once more he pronounces something “Hilariass” (and ‘Dan’ isn’t rather too focused on sexual stuff …).
To evade the point about his idolizing the Bible ‘Dan’ merely tosses up his usual 3×5 bits about Catholic “idolatry” and so on and so forth. And then declaims about the structure of “God’s True Church” – which, it would appear, consists of ‘Dan’, the wonderland crew in his bathroom mirror, and maybe a couple-three others equally invisible.
And now for something not-completely different we turn to JR’s of the 5th at 110PM:
Apparently glomming onto the recent discussion of Roman officials JR digs into his knowledge bin for whatever he might have about early-Imperial Rome and he comes up with – had you been waittttingggg forrrrr ittttttt? – Monty Python’s Life of Brian.
Although it is also noteworthy that he isn’t really up on English (it would be “Biggus Dickus”, since without the ‘c’ that ‘i’ would be long) and he is surely not competent in either Latin or anatomy (the term would be ‘Gluteus Maximus’).
But – just like ‘Dan’s takes on the Bible – JR’s stuff is only tossed up to be believed, not to be examined. To examine his stuff would be to ‘victimize’ the poor thing.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 5th at 110PM:
Anyway, perhaps there is some point in his comment?
Well, a few bits declaiming about the Crucifixion and we can take JR’s word for it all, but of course.
Then – apparently having come across this 3×5 in his own plop-pile – JR goes on a bit about “the Decline of Western Christianity” and – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – he tries to do so by going on about Trump, or rather something about “Trump’s America” anyway, based on who-knows-what.
And then – scraping the bottom of his conversational and ‘knowledge’ barrel (as if that has ever stopped him before) – he tries to whomp up a class-based deconstruction of my use of the colloquialism “doncha” (as in doncha-see or doncha-know). Oh, and my use is – we can take JR’s knowledgeable word for it – a “boring redundantcy”. JR is ever so knowledgeable, doncha know?
But at least we are spared any of JR’s frequent scatology – which perhaps is supposed to induce us to think that maybe JR isn’t the type that often deploys it.
Dan, on the 7th, gives us an education in bigotry. He lays it all out…his modus operandi in action. His responses can be put into three different boxes. The first box is to imply that all Catholics are simply gullible. Example…. he suggested that Padre Pio would regularly go to the local store to buy acid… to pour into his wounds. Yikes! Ouch! Strangely, over the 50 years, nobody noticed? But then we are all stupid? Box #2 is to ignore material, such as ignoring the numerous doctors who examine the monk over the years. Box #3 is to say we are liars and deniers. E g…. when I say… that neither myself, my wife, or her friends, ever personally heard rumours of child abuse. And that the narrative first came to light from the media. All that goes into box #3. So good'old Dan, with his magical boxes, can refute anything we say.
Malcolm, First I'm a catholic hater, now I'm a bigot, so what's next, I'm on a witch-hunt. You're ridiculous! I said and will repeat. I do not hate "gullible" catholics. I hate false teachings that are unbiblical and taught as if they were the truth. FALSE! I hate idol-worship. I can't stand pedophiles and perverts destroying innocent childrens lives. I think they're disgusting and I have no respect for anyone making excuses for their horrible deeds. I hate liars, just like my Father in heaven hates compulsive liars. You just don't get it? Padre PeeHole claimed a stigmata in the wrong location. I'm saying, if it is a true stigmata and not caused by acid, then it would have to be a sign or wonder from the devil, because if God gave him the stigmata it would be in the right location, above the wrist. You got that yet? It doesn't matter how many doctors examined him. It's in the wrong location so it has to come from evil power, not a Godly stigmata. As far as all of you never hearing rumors of child abuse, maybe you're a bit naive, but I wouldn't call you a liar because of that. Just saying that 6 out of 8 of the priests in my church of my youth were child molesters, plus the gym teacher and one other priest was a womanizer. Glad you were in the only pure catholic diocese that ever existed. So I don't know what you mean by "magical boxes", I believe in truth and fact, something you excusers seem to know nothing about.
And Malcolm, Why is it that you have no problem with publiar refuting everything I say?, and adding his ridiculous outlandish lies on top of it. He's one of your fellow catholic deceivers and liars, so that makes it OK? Hypocrisy at it's best!!
I witnessed this prayer on catholic TV - EWTN. This is heresy against everything Biblical, anti-God, antiChrist and obvious worship of your false goddess, the "Queen of Heaven".
1) "Majestic Queen of Heaven and Mistress of the Angels, thou didst receive from God the power and commission to crush the head of Satan; 2) wherefore we humbly beseech thee, send forth the legions of heaven, that under thy command, they may seek out all evil spirits, engage them everywhere in battle, curb their insolence, and hurl them back into the pit of hell. 3) "Who is like unto God?" 4) O good and tender Mother, thou shalt ever be our hope and the object of our love. 5) O Mother of God, send forth thy holy Angels to defend me and drive far from me the cruel foe. Holy Angels and Archangels, defend us and keep us.
1) Majestic – as in "Your Majesty", and your going to let puliar tell you that it's not worship? The one given the power to crush the head of Satan was our Savior, Jesus Christ, not Mary.
2) God or Jesus has command over the legions of heaven and the power against evil spirits, to "hurl them back into the pit of Hell", never Mary.
3) "Who is like unto God?" Jesus possibly, and absolutely never Mary, a simple human being, but placed by "the church" on manmade pedestals of idolatrous worship.
4) Catholic answer to the question, "Who is like unto God?" - "O good and tender Mother, thou shalt ever be our hope and the object of our love." God and Jesus is our hope and the object of our love. Replacing God and Jesus with the virtues of Mary. Despicable blasphemy!
5) Unwarranted power given to the false goddess, "Queen of Heaven" to send forth Angels and Archangels. "Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about visions they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind." Col. 2:18 They carry on about visions of Fatima, Lourdes, etc., and false stigmatas they've witnessed on liars and charlatans.
Catholics – Once again, don't allow yourselves to be deceived by the lies and liars of your church. They are the epitome of evil and want to see your soul destroyed in Hell. They only love your money and your children and babies they can rape and molest. Be not fooled.
You have no proof for any of your beliefs. And because you have no proof for anything you say exists or existed yet we have proof that fleas have digestive systems but as for dieties nothing.
Creation is the proof. The Universe is proof. The miracle of an earth sustaining life is proof. The miracle that man in their greed has done just about everything to destroy God's earth and yet it still exists, is proof. The fact that there's a food chain among humans, animals, reptiles, fish, birds and insects, that works in utter perfection for thousands of years is proof. The fact that you have a choice to decide between good and evil is proof. The fact that God predicted in His Word every good and evil culture, sometimes thousands of years before they even existed is proof. Do you know any human who has the psychic ability to accomplish that? Most psychics are more psycho than psychic. All of His predictions have and shall come to pass for both the wicked and the good. He says in the last days a light shall shine in the darkness and everything done in secret shall be exposed. First gays out of the closet, then priestly pedophiles and pederasts, then Christian pastors who preached against homosexuality, ended up having their own homosexual affairs, sometimes with minors behind their wives backs, politicians, now Hollywood elite perverts, news reporters, anchormen and even the elite owners. Open your eyes Jim. Everything He has predicted is coming to pass. His final blows will be against all the false churches of hypocrisy, unrepentant hypocrites and Armageddon, the last battle between good and evil before Judgment Day. Live to see that day and I believe that will make a believer out of you. Problem is then it will be too late.
Actually Christian pastors should not be capitalized, because they are only frauds and charlatans and there is nothing Christian or Christ-like about them.
Dan, Dan, sheer and utter nonsense. You are entitled to believe in anything you want but the Thomas Aquinas nonsense (i.e. the universe proves God exists) proves nothing.
6 million children die every year from diseases created by your god in whose image and likeness we are supposedly made. Now why would a God of Love do that to innocent children and their families?
And if he was an all knowing God why wouldn't he be able to predict a future? He, according to your discription, is a jumped up future predictor of a world he supposedly controls. What good does that do anybody? Why no warning in the Tsunami for a quarter of a million people who died?
And you would have us Gay people back in the closet? What has my sex life got to do with you? Mind your own business.
Why would your god have to deliver blows to anything? He skipped the Middle passage, the Tsunami and the Shoah, plus he kills 6 million children every year. Judging by "his" actions and inactions, your God's a demon.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 6th at 11PM:
In the matter of my sequence of comments summarizing the key facts from the Longenecker article ‘Dan’s best shot is that they are “longwinded”.
Further evading the rather substantive gravamen of the Longenecker points, ‘Dan’ then riffs on about “unbelief”, although he has to work a bit to avoid saying outright that I am only an unbeliever in regard to the ‘Dan’-verse dreck.
He then tries to bring it home with the rather silly point that since I had posted the link to the article, there was no need for my “longwinded explanation”.
But there was a reason, and actually two. First, to summarize the ten points and give readers a quick overview. Second, to put such rather telling points right here in front of the Abuseniks and see what they would do with them (I suspected they would try to evade the actual points).
First off, Airhead, as I told Malcolm, I have no problem with the Shroud, because I believe it is authentic. I even used it as proof of where Padre Pio's nail holes should have been placed if they were in the proper location, above the wrists. My point that you had to give one of your usual "longwinded explanation[s]" to prove your ignorance was unnecessary because anyone interested could go to the website you posted. The ten points were already summarized and didn't need to be plagiarized.
In regards to your "unbelief". I said you were a believer, only problem is you're a believer in all the wrong things, goddess worshipper. And I guess you're wrong again, because I must not be an Abusenik since I didn't "try to evade the actual points" whatsoever. I must say that I have no problem with them at all, I just didn't need them repeated by you, Mr. Know-It-All.
On then to JR’s of the 7th at 954AM:
Here JR – defending his cartoons in his own way, but not so different from his peapod mate – merely declares the Shroud to be “a fraud”.
Why would (the 1987 testers) have taken samples “from a patch that was obviously done later”? The Longenecker article didn’t say that the patch was ‘obvious’; this is a (convenient and self-serving) assumption of JR’s. Did the 1987 team not realize the history of the Shroud and its damage? Was the patch not so obvious? Were the testing methods of that era not as precise and capable as the tests of today? Did, for that matter, the team not want to find an older date?
All of these questions would need to be answered before anyone could legitimately declare “The Shroud is a fraud”. But rational analysis and legitimate conclusions are not JR’s preferred modus operandi.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 7th at 954AM:
And he even tosses up a howler: the image is now demonstrated not to have been painted. But JR merely tosses up a bit that “some believe” it was painted – by Michelangelo, no less. The 2013 tests have removed that possibility from rational consideration. But again, JR is not in the rational-consideration business. Nor, for that matter, is the Stampede, where if you can just get people to ‘believe’ then you have somehow prevailed.
And JR then puts up a second howler as if to reinforce the first: it is “empirical truth” that “God is a fraud and Jesus never existed”. Those assertions are not in any way “empirical truth”; they are merely JR’s self-serving presumptive cartoon assertions, flowing from no evidence but rather from the cartoons in JR’s head.
As for who here is a “con artist” and has pulled of a “swindle”, readers may judge as they will.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 7th at 1112PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ merely repeats yet again that he “never said ‘credible’ is the equivalent of ‘proven’”.
But he evades completely point I made in my comment of the 7th at 313PM, i.e. the logical consequences of his own statement: either ‘credible’ is the same as ‘proven’ or it isn’t. Which is it?
And here – as I have said – ‘Dan’ simply evades answering that key question by bleating that he never said “credible is the equivalent of proven”. But the entire point of his comment of the 5th at 339PM requires that he presume that “credible is the equivalent of proven”. Either he thinks that is true or else his comment of the 5th at 339PM makes no sense at all. So – again – which is it?
Instead of answering, ‘Dan’ riffs on about how he is victimized (by – of course – having his material actually examined and assessed). Which ‘victimization’ – had you been waitttinggg forrr ittttt? – then platforms his typical evasion, i.e. that he will therefore “ignore” the question.
If I never said nor meant that "credible was equivalent to proven", then anyone with an ounce of brains would realize that I didn't believe that "credible" meant "proven". At the same time, I not buying your deceiving catholic definition of what "credible" means either. I don't know why I should assume you have an ounce of brains, when you don't even know the difference between Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, two different artists. And yet you'll criticize our grammar, but not that of your brainwashed cronies. Remember, one drew The Last Supper and one drew "the Churches" final and eternal destination, Hell, right at the proper level, so the cardinals could pick the next pope to lead them into the fire and brimstone. servant of the God of Judgment, and it ain't gonna be pretty.
That would be, "I'm not buying your deceiving catholic definition … either".
On to ‘Dan’s of the 8th at 1154AM:
Here he proffers what he says is a “prayer” he saw on some Catholic TV channel, which prayer he doth pronounce, declare and declaim to be “heresy against … “ and so on and so forth.
But his Mary-as-goddess bit is undermined straight-away, in the first phrase of the prayer: Mary “didst receive from God the power and commission” (italics mine).
Thus Mary is not a goddess; she was given a “power and commission” by God.
Thus she remains a human being who has been given such “power” as she has from God, to be used for His “commission”. And all the rest of the prayer flows from that “power and commission” given to Mary by God.
Thus too then, ‘Dan’s attempt to parse the entire prayer to his own purposes in his comment of the 8th at 1232PM fails because his core presumption was utterly undermined in the prayer’s very first phrase.
Catholicism is a reactionary system. The world is wrong we are right say the Catholics, and everyother 2 bit theses on the planet. Catholicism as demoed by P is a no no no no no no no proposition. All outsiders bad! You must believe such and such to be an insider.
The planet loses 6 million children yearly due to hunger and disease and your dear God's will
He breeds us that he may slaughter us. What a guy! And we are supposed to admire this contraption of a colossus ? Why?
How do you find blame in a Creator who is all perfection and holiness, who even gave up His only Son for sinners just like you. You blame God for the evil greed, corruption and wickedness of man. Man is responsible for their own death or destruction. Those who believe in Him shall NEVER die. Your disbelief is becoming quite annoying. I hope God isn't as annoyed as I am.
Jim, "the Church" has amassed billions and quite possibly trillions over the years to build their golden palaces and bishops mansions, in some of the very locations where children starve to death. They sometimes made bedfellows with the very leaders that restricted donations and food from reaching the poor and hungry, while they paraded in their precious satin robes or three piece suits. Yes, I'm blaming the so-called christian churches also. For decades they've been sending missionaries to these places to claim they were bringing the gospel to these heathen nations. In God's Word He says to first take care of the necessities of someone poor or hungry. No, their aim was to build big temples or mega churches and feed their gluttonous selves, while serving hotdogs and beans to the poor as a front to drum up more and bigger donations. Then they turned around and raped and molested the children, were killed and then worshipped and adored as martyrs. What con jobs, the whole bunch of them. And you think you're going to blame God for this evil done in high places. Wake up Jim.
P.S. And I would hope since you're pointing your finger at others, that you're doing your share in your area to help the poor and homeless. If we all did something for our fellow man, just maybe we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in. We can't depend on these hypocrites for any help or kindness. It's just a show of false humility and worthless words of concern. It was all written about them two thousand years ago, and you still think it's not the truth?
I don't care if you are annoyed Dan and I could care even less if your imaginary friend is annoyed. you and P have no proof that God exists. God is your premise therefor you must provide the proof of both him and an afterlife and too that either of your religions are correct even if there was a god and an afterlife. Your premise requires your proof.
You have "undermined" nothing, Deceiver. Mary, your "Queen of Heaven" was never given the "power and commission" to crush the head of Satan. Most versions say "He shall", "it shall (her seed)" or "they shall (Mary's offspring)", crush or bruise the head of Satan. I found one version that states that "she shall crush thy head", surprise, surprise, it's misinterpreted in the catholic Douay-Rheims Bible. Well there's the proof, their bibles can twist, manipulate and deceive as well as the hypocrites that believe and profess "the cults" deceptions.
Publiar once again has "undermined" nothing except to expose more of his own ignorance and stupidity. My description of the prayer being disgusting idolatry, goddess worship, antiGod, antiChrist and heresy against God's Word still stands. servant of the One True God
On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1248AM:
Here he continues with his riff on “proof” (following up on his clearly confused use of “empirical” in his post of the 7th at 954AM).
But if we follow along with the riff, then we can point out that JR has no “proof” that God does not exist.
Which simply goes to demonstrate that the entire issue is beyond the power of the purely material and this-worldly to determine ‘empirically’ one way or the other.
You claim "he" exists. Your claim; your need to prove. I know you can not. You know you can not. All the rest is your fantasy.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1259AM:
Moving beyond the opening epithetical, we have ‘Dan’ claiming that he doth believe in the Shroud. That might seem curious until we realize that ‘Dan’ thus is trying to use the Shroud to demonstrate that Padre Pio’s wounds are fake since they are in the wrong place.
I’ve never been a fan of the Padre Pio phenomenon and it’s not an article of faith for Catholics.
But ‘Dan’s knowledge of anatomy – had you been waitttinggg forrrr ittttt? – is a bit off indeed. The eight carpal bones of what we commonly call the wrist (e.g. the place where you wear a wristwatch) are actually based in the heel of the palm; thus the anatomical wrist (as opposed to what we can call the colloquial wrist) is actually the heel of the palm. Strictly speaking, in terms of anatomy, we wear wristwatches on the lower forearm.
The conjunction of those eight carpal bones would be sufficient to bear the weight of a man’s body (for a while, anyway) which is why competent Roman crucifixion practice would have used that locus for the nails.
Thank you, Dr. Know-It-All. The wrist is the joint between hand and bones of the forearm. That's where the nails were located. I would know because I had a real stigmata 30 years ago and the location was right at the joint and not in the center of the palm. I was reluctant to mention that because I know what a douchebag prick you can be, and I know what an immature response I'll get from you. There was first a sharp pain in my right wrist which proceeded to both wrists, in the last church I attended and left on my own accord. I did not have any holes or blood. Quit your attempts at trying to make me look dumb, because I will never be as dumb as one who mocks God, His Son, His Word, and His chosen. servant
P.S. You may not be a big fan of the padre peehole phenomenon, but it sure seems to be a stumbling block and source of misguided faith for deceived catholic followers like Malcolm.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 1259AM:
This is supported by the fact that there is no image of the thumbs on the Shroud: driving a nail into that conjunction would injure the Median nerve, turning the thumbs inward.
And readers might also recall that Jesus said to Thomas “put your finger here, and see my hands … “ (Luke 24:39-40).
As to ‘Dan’s further bit about my having “plagiarized” the Longenecker article, clearly ‘Dan’ is not clear on the concept of plagiarism (or probably can’t afford to be, since it would make a hash of his plop-tossing at this point): I identified and linked-to the Longenecker article, and then summarized his ten major points.
In fact, in my comment of the 4th at 227PM, I said “The Longenecker article lists the facts that indicate the impossibility of the Shroud’s being a medieval artifact:” – that colon indicates that what will follow are those “facts” that the article “lists” and that is precisely what I put up, enumerating the points one through ten.
Nothing worth responding to. The article explained it fine and was in no need of added ignorance.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 128AM:
Here – as best can be determined – he is trying to wiggle out of his self-created problem by now proffering that “if [he] never said not meant that ‘credible was the equivalent to proven” … then (apparently; his point is conveniently and slyly a bit foggy here) rational readers “would realize that [he] didn’t believe that ‘credible’ means ‘proven’”.
Well, then, his original comment must – as I have said – therefore be meaningless. Either ‘credible’ means ‘proven’ or it doesn’t. There really isn’t any other alternative, logically and rationally.
But wait, there’s more. In a nicely vivid demonstration of his slyness, ‘Dan’ now claims that he is “not buying [my] … definition of what ‘credible’ means either”.
At this point, of course, rationality would require that he then explain exactly what this implied third alternative of his actually would be. But he precisely does not do that, instead moving quickly on to epitheticals based on his unexplained third alternative.
So ‘Dan’ seems to claim that he has some other alternative … but he’s not going to explain what it is. Or else ‘Dan’ has no other alternative, but he just needs to somehow weasel out from the problem he has created for himself.
"the Church" said accusations against the perverts and pedos were "credible". That's period!
credible def, – trustworthy, believeable, worthy to be trusted or believed
Try to deceive with your version and your catholic definition all you like. You'll only deceive and fool the brainwashed and gullible followers of you and your cult. servant
P.S. Once again the only "problem" lies with you and your compulsive lying and twisting of truth.
On then to JR’s of the 9th at 1121PM:
Here JR will simply toss up some bit from one of his own pile of 3x5s: “Catholicism is a reactionary system”. Whatever that might mean is anybody’s guess, and before considering it one would have to wonder what relevance it has to the present material under discussion.
But it was a ploppy-bit JR had hanging around in the pile and he’ll toss it up – along with the other notations from the card.
Exactly how I demonstrate that Catholicism is a “no … proposition” is anybody’s guess. JR’s own assorted efforts certainly have their gross and abyssal problems, and I have certainly pointed those problems out at length. But from a) having his own stuff questioned to b) “Catholicism” being a “no …. proposition” … is a leap only possible for a mind innocent of rationality and coherence, to say the least.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 157AM:
I didn’t claim to ‘undermine’ anything; ‘Dan’s own chosen text undermined his position, and at the very outset.
But then he pulls another sly and deceptive move: from a) discussing the actual text that he himself selected and upon which he based his assorted plop-tossy bits he suddenly and quietly shifts to b) his own cartoon, i.e. that “Mary … was never given the ‘power and commission’ to crush the head of Satan”.
And ‘Dan’ doth know this … how? (Short answer: he doth know because his bathroom mirror told him so.)
And “most versions” … of what? This prayer that he selected as his demonstration text?
Perhaps he meant versions of the Bible.
publiar, you put on such airs of intelligence, and yet at times act so dumb, and have to be fed pablum like a baby. Anyone half familiar with the Bible would realize that crushing the head of Satan would refer to Gen 3:15. Then you show how intelligent you are because you were able to figure that out four wasted sentences later, and didn't even have to find that in the reflection of your toilet. Your ignorance has no limits.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 157AM:
Let’s go with that idea: ‘Dan’ meant versions of the Bible.
Those versions would all go back to Genesis 3:15 and the precise question is whether the text states that “he” or “she” is the one who “will strike at your [i.e. the serpent’s] head. (A secondary question is whether “seed” is taken in the singular, i.e. an individual offspring, or in the plural, i.e. all of humankind, the children of Eve.)
The original Hebrew is non-specific as to gender, so it could be “he” or “she” or “it”. Jerome, in his Vulgate translation into Latin, relying on the Septuagint translation of the Jewish Bible into Greek, opted for the masculine; other Church Fathers opted for the feminine, which wound up appearing in the Douay-Rheims Catholic version put forward in response to the English King James Version in the Reformation era.
So the original language of the text of Genesis 3:15 doesn’t distinguish gender.
Try to confuse readers by proposing a "secondary question" that has no bearing on what I claim. I'm claiming in no way, and in almost every version except catholic interpretations of Gen 3:15 was Mary ever given the "power and commission" by God to crush the head of Satan. And I could care less what catholic "Church Fathers" contribute to misinterpreting Biblical truth, anymore than I would accept your perverted interpretations.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 10th at 157AM:
There is also the passage from Revelation 12:1-5, referring to “a woman clothed with the sun” who appears against the dragon (identified as “the ancient serpent” in Rev 12:9, 14-15, and in 20:2). Since the woman here is opposed to “the ancient serpent”, then Revelation’s text here can only mean that this woman is – to put it far too mildly – on the side of good.
She is also “heavy with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth” (Rev 12:2). Here the text seems to take care to make explicit that this woman is human, since she is both pregnant and having a painful delivery.
From these points based on the Biblical texts it becomes clear that the Catholic conception of Mary’s role in God’s salvific plan comports with the Scriptural texts.
And very little – if anything – of ‘Dan’s ranting cartoons “still stands”, except in his own ranting (yet ever so sly) cartoon delusions.
"God's salvific plan" according to "Scriptural texts" details Mary only as the virgin mother who would have God's Son. All she was was His mother and plays no other part in God's Plan of Salvation. Christ died for our sins, and needed no help from His mother to accomplish that task, other than her being His mother. For the catholic church to pervert and pollute that fact by placing her on a pedestal and giving her any credit in God's Salvation Plan is blatant idolatry, antiGod and antiChrist blasphemy. To add all the rest of the antiBiblical stupidity as to her immaculate conception, assumption, sinless, ever virgin nonsense is ignorance and evidence that "the Church" preaches a false gospel and is one of the worst deceiving cults in the world. Your church and your cartoons are the only "Cartoon Time" show playing in this forum. servant of the God of Truth, Love and Honesty
P.S. You may want to try acquiring some of those qualities, instead of being such a catholic liar.
On then to the most recent string of ‘Dan’ bits.
On the 11th at 1002PM ‘Dan’ evades the point I made, i.e. that the major bones (necessary to support the weight of a crucified human body) are all to be found in the heel of the palm; a glance at any skeletal representation of that part of the anatomy will demonstrate that what is commonly called the wrist is almost a blank space when it comes to bones, and bones are the only anatomical parts capable of supporting the weight.
But wait. There’s more. ‘Dan’ now reveals, reports, and asserts that once upon a time, “30 years ago” (prepare yourselves … ) he “had a real stigmata”. Thus saith ‘Dan’.
And he hasn’t given us this revelation heretofore?
But wait. There’s more. He’s got an answer to that: he knew “what a douchebag prick” I can be, and he didn’t want to invite “an immature response” from me (“douchebag prick” being in ‘Dan’s mind not at all an “immature response”).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1002PM:
But wait. There’s more. It turns out that he actually only had “a sharp pain” in his wrists, and didn’t actually have any “holes or blood”. It would appear that the ‘Dan’-verse definition of “stigmata” is as unreliable as the ‘Dan’-verse definition of “prophecy” (and “truth” and “Truth” and “Biblical truth” and knowledge” and “ignorance” and so on and so forth).
But wait. There’s more. We are then told – rather fuzzily – that this happened “in the last church [he] attended” and that he “left of [his] own accord”. Does this mean that he got pains in his wrists and left a service of his own accord or does this mean that his “stigmata” experience wasn’t given the respectful recognition he expected and thereupon he left that congregation or polity … ?
Who knows and at this point what difference could it possibly make?
And to no one's surprise and right on cue, the "douchebag prick" attacks with his usual ignorance and stupidity, to deny the stigmata I experienced was true. On top of that he wants to use this as an excuse to claim my definition of "prophecy" and "truth and Truth and Biblical Truth and knowledge and ignorance" is unreliable. Apparently my definition of those words are correct, especially in regards to publiar's ignorance, because I researched today a stigmata without blood or injury and it's referred to as an "invisible stigmata". Not only that fact, but I also had it in the right location, 1 cm from the wrist and not in the center of the palm, which would be approximately two inches from the douchebags claim of the nail placement in the carpal bone area. So apparently the "douchebag prick" is wrong as usual with his false assessments and rude claim of an "only-sorta-stigmata". Your insults and nasty comments are what drives others to threaten your life, because you're an insistent lying creep up from the depths of Hell. Servant of the Lord of Truth, Biblical Truth and knowledge beyond your understanding, you ignorant Jackass.
P.S. douchebag prick (def.) -
I wanted to define it for you, but all the Urban Dictionary definitions won't come up on my friends older computer. I'm sure you can figure out the meaning or have some clue, Mr. Know-It-All.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1002PM:
And then – with a marvelous lack of self-awareness that approaches the sublime – he doth huffily bleat that I must “quit [my] attempts to make [him] look dumb”.
“Dumb” is the least of the possibilities. Delusional? A “compulsive liar”? These don’t somehow apply even more urgently?
And then what is apparently – to ‘Dan’ mind – not an “immature” epithet in regard to Padre Pio. (And with that “peehole” bit we are not to infer that ‘Dan’ is rather queasily given to the sexual-scatological … ?)
Maybe you're too ignorant to remember, but you're the "compulsive liar". And I only consider him a pompous padre peehole, because like yourself, he's a fraud, liar and deceiver. A lying piece of s__t would be just as appropriate and warranted.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1007PM:
Here he was faced with the points I raised in my comment of the 11th at 240PM, i.e. that i) there are no thumb images on the Shroud (which is consistent with the placing of the nails in the heel of the palm) and ii) that Jesus Himself told Thomas to “see my hands” and iii) that my handling of the Longenecker material was not “plagiarized”.
And how will ‘Dan’ deal with these inconvenient (to his cartoons) points that I raised?
“Nothing worth responding to” he doth declare, declaim and pronounce. Because – doncha see? – “the article explained it fine” (sic) … but then we thus also see that ‘Dan’ isn’t going to be rebutting the points in the article either.
Channeling the late Zsa-Zsa, ‘Dan’ simply cawn’t be bothered – doncha see?
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1015PM:
Here he tries to deal with the “credible” vis-à-vis “proven” problem he created for himself.
First he repeats what nobody denies: that the Church deemed some allegations “credible”.
Then he merely repeats his dictionary-dependent word-play as to what “credible” means. But – again – we are dealing with a legal context here, and if “credible” means that it is “worthy to be trusted or believed” ipso facto, and thus “proven”, then why would there be any need for trials at all?
Also the dictionary alternative of “believable” doesn’t mean “proven”, a) for the same reason as given immediately above and b) because “believable” simply means that something so designated is not unbelievable, which is also not the equivalent of something being “proven”.
And lastly, deeming something “credible” does not, in the legal context, constitute an admission of guilt – which, if ‘Dan’s word-game here is to be accepted, it most certainly would.
There is a "need for trials" so the liars of the catholic cult, it's bishops and lawyers, have the opportunity to make excuses, deceive, deny and lie for the pedophile and perverted creeps who admitted guilt and were considered "credible" by "the church". This way "the church" might be able to weasel out of paying compensation to the victims and protect the sorry reputation of their heathen child molesting cult.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1110PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ tries to evade the point I repeated in my comment of the 11th at 248PM, i.e. that ‘Dan’s own selected text indicates that Mary is not a goddess in her own right since she “was given” her role by God and did not possess such power inherently (i.e. as if she were herself divine).
First, he tries to claim I “put on such airs of intelligence” (all I do is point out the problems with his material, and he doesn’t like the fact that the problems might indeed make him look “dumb”).
Then from the ad hominem to the epithetical: he merely lobs some ploppy epitheticals at my material (“pablum” – perhaps he meant ‘pabulum’).
Then to truisms, i.e. that I didn’t have to point out that the ‘crushing the head of Satan’ pericope was from Genesis 3:15. I did – it certainly clarifies the point for readers who might not be familiar with the pericope – and so what?
And then the rest of the comment trails off with more epithetical and content-less riffing.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1118PM:
Then, still evading the gravamen of the points I raised, he huffs that I “try to confuse readers by proposing a ‘secondary question’”. I noted – in parentheses, which have a distinct grammatical purpose, of course – the “secondary question” simply to give readers an idea of how complex the pericope is, as is true for so many pericopes. But having made that notation, I get down to the primary business at hand – and will ‘Dan’ yet address that?
Here – had you been waitttingggggg forrrrrrrrrrrrr ittttttttttttt? – ‘Dan’ merely repeats his own cartoon and doth declare and declaim, with the clutching of the pearls, that he “could care less” what else there is to be said or has been said over the millennia in regard to the problem.
‘Dan’ has his cartoons – doncha see? – and ain’t nuffin’ else he wants to have to deal with.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1118PM:
And yet – it has to be pointed out – the “Bible truth” is profoundly affected by the Hebrew grammar and its ambiguity.
So if all the subsequent Bible translations and “versions” are dependent on that already mushy ambiguity in the original Hebrew … then whence doth ‘Dan’ get his “Bible truth”? After all, any subsequent translations or “versions” are going to have had to take a position on the gender issue, which the original text did not clarify or clearly determine.
He’s either going to have to rely on a translation or “version” that participates in a) the male or b) the female pronoun (or perhaps even c) the neuter pronoun).
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 11th at 1141PM:
Here ‘Dan’ merely makes assertions about his own cartoon take on Mary’s role in God’s salvific plan. Or perhaps he expects us to take him and his bathroom mirror as credible, as with his only-sorta-stigmata claim.
And he again tosses up the same old point from his 3×5 pile, i.e. that it was “Christ” Who “died for our sins”. Which nobody here has ever denied.
But in doing so he tries thus to evade the core point: in Catholic theology Mary is seen not as the divine effector of human salvation, but merely as an intercessor between humans and Christ (reflecting God’s awareness that humans often feel more comfortable approaching major power-figures through relatives, especially maternal ones).
Nor would I support ‘Dan’s assumption that the entities he encounters in his bathroom mirror are reliably and credibly to be identified as God or Christ.
About the point concerning the pericopes I noted from the Book of Revelation, ‘Dan’ has nothing to declaim. Instead, he merely lards on more of his usual epitheticals. And who can be surprised?
Let me state this simply for the simple minded. Mary can not, could not and will not ever have the "power or commission" to "crush the head of Satan". She was never given by God that power, nor that of an "intercessor", or ever sinless, or immaculately conceived, or assumed into heaven, or supposed to be prayed to with babble (rosary). So keep spreading your lies and misinterpretations of Biblical Truth and claim it's "Catholic theology" so you can add to the Bible insistent lies and falsehoods. You can hide under your "Queen of Heaven's" dress, if that's where fearful lying cowards go because they're afraid of God and Christ, but rest assured that you will not be covered or forgiven by the blood of Jesus. You're a lying fraud and deceiver.
In regards to your Revelations chapter 12 quotes I ignored, and you insist I answer to, I'll make you even look more stupid than you already are. Look again at the chapter 12:6, "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God … ? And then, verse 7, "Michael and his angels fought against the dragon … " v.9) "And the great dragon was cast out" of heaven and "he was cast out into the earth …". v.14 "And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness …". Finally, v.16, "And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth."
So read the whole chapter. Michael fought against the dragon, and in verse 10, "And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down …". So salvation and strength comes from God and Christ, and Mary is fleeing into the wilderness, and with the help of God and His earth escaping the dragon. She's not interceeding or "crushing the head of Satan" whatsoever. She is fleeing. Stop your lying and deceiving, Son of Satan.
And you're under the impression that your "immature" ignorance in regards to your constant obsession with accusing me of finding "God or Christ" or "dieties" in my bathroom mirror is an example of maturity. You don't believe that this equates to filthy mocking of God and Christ. You may find your goddesses face in the reflection of your toilet bowl, but God and Christ is found in the heart, soul and mind of a Christian, but understanding your lack of Biblical knowledge and immaturity, I'm not surprised you think you find them in your bathroom. Maybe you should inform "the Church" of your vision of Mary. Maybe they can sell bottles of your toilet water, seeing that they sell everything else, even the souls their followers. servant
P.S. This criticism is not against the real Mary, mother of Christ, but against your false goddess, "Queen of Heaven", worshipped, adored and revered by your idolatrous cult.
Corrections – "deities" and "they sell everything else, even the souls [of] their followers."
I can only speak from my own experiences: I am a Catholic woman who loves the gift of her faith and who owes a great debt to the many good priests, religious, and lay people who have encouraged me on my earthly journey. I have written and spoken out in defense of clergy and of the Catholic faith in the past. I wish the Rev. Jiang all the best in his healing, which will require him to forgive those who have wronged him.
I need to do the same: to heal and forgive the priests in the Church who have wronged me. The following is just one example of what I have experienced in my life's journey.
This past year I brought a complaint to our Chancery re a priest who had been counseling me. He violated the trust and established ethics of the relationship. This created severe impact but he threatened me if I were to file a report.The Chancery received my narrative and follow up letters but refused to respond. Their silence has indicated that it is OK to abuse, threaten and harm and that the Church has no accountability… I have seen this before.
Does Mediareport exist to nip at the heels of SNAP? I am not associated with them -at least not yet. All this to say, there are two sides to these issues. In our human journey to the Eternal City, some will suffer the indignity and horror of false accusations, while others suffer the same – of Church-covered abuse. Yet both sides deserve respect, due process, and justice. I did not receive that from the Church, so now I must trust in God alone for healing. May all falsely accused be vindicated -and may all those abused by the Church be victors, not victims, in the end!
Leah, I'm all for forgiveness, except when the modus operandi of a religion's hierarchy is to sexually "abuse, threaten and harm" innocent children and then lie, make excuses, deny or refuse as you say to respond, then it just might be time you look closely into the Bible and see if your religion is living up to the qualifications required by God the Father. These crimes are systemic in the church, and though they claim that they're changing, it's just another of their many lies. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me." Problem is they've been fooling followers for centuries with their lies and deception, but now the jig is up. They are becoming exposed and yet they're still throwing all their lying excuses at us, thinking everyone is as gullible and stupid to accept their lies and perversions like previous generations. The game is over, the light is shining in the darkness and the blood sucking vampires are losing their shield of protection. "We won't be fooled again!"
P, you evil toad, comparing men to women seems to be an insult in your sad little book of how idiots insult people. I'm honored to be compared to women. They have so very very few massmurderersin their ranks. Unlike us males. They also don't molest children on the whole; save for serving kids religious horse dung as fact.
Better correct "deities" before the grammar police catches it.
Hey Jim, I actually get along fine with most gay people. If you're asking me to lie to you and tell you your immoral lifestyle is just fine and not a death sentence, well I'm sorry. Homosexuality is a sin just like many other sins. If you think it's fine parading under the banner of Gay Pride, then yes, I would have a problem with that. Pride of all types disgusts the Lord. "The LORD detests those who are proud; truly they will not go unpunished." Proverbs 16:5 I spent 56 years as a native of SF. Forty years ago, I was invited to Halloween in the Castro and witnessed the most disgusting public show of sexual immorality and nasty filth I've ever seen in my life. Would I like to see some of them go back in the closet? Oh! Yeah! Don't try to convince me how loving and wonderful your group is. Add atheism to your lifestyle and I would have to assume there's a few "demon"s that have deceived you. You're right. It's "your own business" if Hell sounds like a good place for you to end up. It's my business to let you know, if I care about you at all, that it just ain't gonna be pretty. The party will be over. AIDs was a warning, just like other sexually transmitted diseases warn anyone living an unhealthy lifestyle. Blame God for everything, since you think you're better and smarter than He. In the end you'll answer to Him, like we all will, and maybe He can have answers for your questions? I'd be careful if you think you're more loving, forgiving, fair or just than He is. I think you're in for a big surprise.
We proceed to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1116PM:
Here, lubricated by the usual epitheticals, ‘Dan’ doth bleat with pearl-clutching, huffy outrage that I “deny the stigmata [he] experienced was true”.
My point was precisely that the pains in his wrists were – not to put too fine a point on it – not stigmata at all in the first place. And my further point was that we are provided with yet another instances of ‘Dan’ rather abyssal definition-deficiency, for which I proposed other instances as well. Readers may consider as they will.
But wait. There’s more. ‘Dan’s done some ‘research’ – doncha know? – and claims to have discovered the term “invisible stigmata”.
First, while there have been a few Catholic mystics who demonstrated visible stigmata and then asked God to permit the pain of such wounds without the pride-inducing (they thought) visibility of the phenomenon (St. Catherine of Siena and St. Catherine de’ Ricci come to mind), yet what we have with ‘Dan’ is a stigmata that was “invisible” to begin with and never assumed visible form.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1116PM:
But that instantly leads to, second, the question as to how one actually could possibly distinguish between a) totally “invisible stigmata” (i.e. they had never assumed visibility in the first place) and – not to put too fine a point on it – b) merely claimed but non-existent stigmata.
Nicely, then, ‘Dan’ brings us into ‘repressed memory’ and ‘pain’ territory, where there is no way to distinguish between i) the reality of the claim and ii) the non-veracity of the claim. The Stampede surely made a bundle of this sort of thing.
And thirdly, such “invisible stigmata” are supposed to inflict all of the pain that Christ’s crucifixion wounds inflicted, though without the visible physical wounds. But a) ‘Dan’ didn’t first have visible stigmata and b) a pain in the wrists doesn’t really rise to the excruciating level of wounds inflicted by crucifixion.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1116PM:
Fourth – and as ‘Dan’ himself admits here – it was only after my comment that ‘Dan’ went and “researched today” this phenomenon that apparently and miraculously visited him decades ago.
Fifth, even ‘Dan’ notes that his ‘pain’ was sited “1 cm from the wrist” (italics mine).
And sixth, I did not say the “center of the palm”; I said the heel of the palm, which – anatomy again – is not the same site.
And lastly, we see – charmingly – that ‘Dan’ seems quite content with his “douchebag prick” epithet and apparently cawn’t think why anyone would consider it “immature”. That’s what a nice immature delusional system will do for you.
But wait. There’s more. It’s because of all this that ‘Dan’ understands why my comments “drive others to threaten your life” – doncha see? ‘Dan’ – we recall – doesn’t threaten anybody with his own vengeance; he only mouths God’s vengeance. Because “nasty comments” legitimately do ‘drive’ otherwise rational and veracious folk to threaten somebody’s life – doncha see?
And publiar returns with another fine display of ignorance and stupidity, and since the truth offends him, I'll refrain this time from calling the "douchebag prick" a "douchebag prick".
He's under the impression that if he can come up with some stupid list of what verifies a true stigmata, then he can claim mine wasn't real. You see, only the phony charlatans of "the false Cult" can have a true stigmata. First off, as with all your piss-poor assessments of things that have happened to me, you weren't there and you did not experience the pain. It was very painful, but I never claimed it matched Christ's pain. Secondly, it was in the proper place, close to the carpal bones, 1 cm from the wrist, and as I stated, not in the center of the palm like the lying heathens of your cult experience. Third, I never claimed you said it was in the "center of the palm". Fourth, I never had a reason to question what happened to me and that was why I researched to verify it, to prove your questioning wrong. Fifth, I really don't need your consent, opinion, ignorance or stupidity. I know that what I experienced wasn't normal and it brought many young people in the church, (20 to 30 year olds), to tears and over to speak to me. They couldn't see any stigmata, but must have experienced something unexplainable themselves. Sixth, this was not the reason I left the church. The pastor announced one Sunday that we would all do a 24 hour fast on Wednesday to get closer to the Lord. When they finally talked me into going to their Bible study the next Wednesday, they all went in for donuts and coffee afterwards. For this and other reasons, I realized they weren't practicing what they preach. I can't stand deceiving hypocrites, and for similar reasons I left every false church, led by deceivers, liars and hypocrites. Sound familiar, publiar?
And where did you come up with the rule that the pain must "rise to the excruciating level of wounds inflicted by crucifixion". Oh! I see. You think you and your church of phonies make the rules? Problem is, not even the gullible brainwashed of your cult follow all your manmade rules. Please try not to put your ignorance on display daily. servant of the Truth
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1252AM:
Here – apparently following up on his “P.S.” from his immediately prior comment – ‘Dan’ will bleat and claim that he had verily wanted to define “douchebag prick” for me – for whatever purpose his mind considers worthwhile.
But – in the internet age’s version of ‘the dog ate my homework’ – ‘Dan’ doth proclaim that it was an “older computer” that he was using and … he couldn’t access the site with the definitions. Ovvvv courssssse.
And there we have it. He's back oinking like a douchebag prick. Truth hurts, doesn't it!
Well, then, on to ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1133PM:
Here, ‘Dan’ continues to try to extricate himself from the conceptual and legal point that if his bit about ‘credible’ being a synonym for ‘proven’ be taken as valid, then there would be no need for any legal trials at all.
‘Dan’s evasion here is to simply focus on abuse-trials and then to swing into – had you been waittttinggg forrr ittttttttttt? – his usual epithetically-larded fever-visions about “liars of the catholic cult” and so on.
First, I had noted the profound and universal consequences of his ‘position’ for all legal trials.
Second, there haven’t really been that many trials anyway, as I noted in several recent comments on this particular topic.
My ass there hasn't been many trials. And we're supposed to take an insistent liar's word for it. And if that's so, it's only because you lying and denying weasels wouldn't come clean. And many times you got off scot-free on SOLs. Other times the creeps died before trial. Thousands and possibly way more were settled out of court in secrecy in order to protect the sacred name of your pedophile and perverted cult. How many times do we have to repeat this before you come clean to all the filth of your cult? SOLs don't relate to innocence. When so-called Godly leaders of cults, molest and sexually abuse innocent children, then they are the worst kind of perverts, for they did their nasty crimes under the umbrella of godliness. SICK CREEPS.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1230AM:
Here he doth state at the outset “Let me state this simply” – so this should be good.
And what does he then go and “state … simply”? Merely a repetition of his baseless and undemonstrated assertion that “Mary can not [sic], could not and will not ever have the ‘power or commission’ to ‘crush the head of Satan’”, followed by several further assertions along the same line.
And how does ‘Dan’ ‘know’ that? Not from any Biblical pericope he has proffered here. As I said in a recent prior comment, he must have gotten this bit from his bathroom-mirror séances (although the stuff he gets from those séances apparently isn’t supposed to qualify him as a prime candidate for “a lying fraud and deceiver”.
Don't try your I'm Not/You Are bit on us again. You're the "lying fraud and deceiver".
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1230AM:
Then ‘Dan’ will say a bit about the pericopes from the Book of Revelation that I discussed.
He is huffy because I “insist” that he “answer to” those pericopes. I didn’t “insist”; I put them up and he hadn’t (heretofore) made any answer and I noted that fact. Why so huffy? Had he planned on evading them?
So what do we get from ‘Dan’ then? He merely quotes further verses from the chapter – none of which do anything to contradict the key verses I discussed, i.e. verses 1 and 2. Thus, ‘Dan’ has merely evaded the key verses under consideration – which apparently had been his plan all along.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1230AM:
And then we get a familiar old ‘Dan’-dodge: he merely exhorts one and all to “read the whole chapter”.
First, I had specifically been discussing the first and second verses; they are – after all – “in the Bible”.
Second, those verses I discussed clearly indicate a) the very special status of b) a very human woman. Both of which points ‘Dan’ has consistently denied as being un-Biblical and perhaps “heretical” (to what belief system, except the delusionary and plop-tossy ‘Dan’-verse system …?).
Third, the “dragon” had sought to kill the child she brought forth (verse 4) and then, her son having been born and “caught up to God and his throne” (verse 5), she “fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God that there she might be taken care of” (verse 6).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1230AM:
The material ‘Dan’ tries to focus on only comes after that sequence of verses 1 through 6 is completed and the text moves on to another scenario altogether: ‘Then war broke out in heaven “ and so on (verses 7 and subsequent).
What is the point? That Michael and the angels threw the dragon out of heaven? That doesn’t seem to resolve anything since the dragon came back to earth and attempted to destroy the woman, but could not (at one point she sprouted wings (“was given the two wings of the great eagle”, verse 14) and the dragon failed to destroy her despite various efforts noted in verses 15 and 16, due to the rather impressive help she was given by God.