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.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1230AM:
Which results (verse 17) in the dragon giving up on trying to destroy her and instead waging war “against the rest of her offspring” (italics mine). Which clearly indicates that all humankind or certainly all believers in Christ are “her offspring” and thus – not to put too fine a point on it – that she is their mother (or, surely, ‘Mother’ is justified here).
So that’s where ‘Dan’s 12th Chapter of Revelation takes us.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 13th at 1235AM:
Here, apparently on the (grossly mistaken) presumption that his exegesis of the passages just discussed has established his much-man creds in the Scripture department, ‘Dan’ settles down to something he’s much more practiced at, i.e. spouting his usual talking-points larded with epithets.
Nor does his weasel-like “P.S.” – trying to distinguish with mock piety between “the real Mary, mother of Christ” and “your false goddess ‘Queen of Heaven’” and so on – do anything but fall flat on its face. Because readers will quickly recall that Mary is referred to in verse 1 of Chapter 12 as being “a great sign … a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (italics mine).
Getting extremely tired of teaching you the Bible, when it's obvious that your Bible illiterate.
Many don't even believe that Rev 12:1 refers to Mary whatsoever. They say it refers to the church, and not your cult, but the gathering of God's faithful. Again, His church, not a manmade building at all, but a spiritual gathering of believers, and most definitely not lying hypocrites. How can I expect a heathen to understand Biblical Truth? servant of the Lord
Dan, You make me laugh. Are you shocked if you are on a farm and watch horses shtup? You think humans aren't animals. We are. You don't like public sex don't go where it happens. I don't go to church or read the Bible because I don't like bullshit.
Yes I do think I'm better than your God and smarter and more loving. I've never given children cancer or AIDs. Your God does.I didn't figure out a penalty for his son to pay that required blood shed and death. He did. According to you.
Your imaginary friends require my belief in order to reaffirm yours. Funny how phantoms work. And as far as demons go who's crueler than humans? Your phantom, that you imagine, tells you demons exist.
I don't know how you've become so confused and twisted, maybe listening to publiar's garbage. God didn't kill His Son, evil Romans did along with unbelieving Jews. Whenever you witness death on earth, you better believe God isn't responsible, but evil idol-worshipping man who bears the blame. I know your answer. What about natural disasters? God ends the lives of the wicked and takes the innocent, especially children, to a paradise that is much better than this fallen earth. Don't believe it, well that's your choice. I choose to believe and I'm far from stupid, and anything but delusional, as the habitual publiar insists on slandering.
P.S. Why do you think "the false Church" has trophies of Christ mutilated and bloodied in their temples? They like to display and marvel at the evil conquests of their Roman ancestors.
How do you and peewee take turns matching me with you two, when the both of you are a perfect match. We have a lying catholic deceiver matched with the I don't realize I'm still catholic and deceived. You have the heathen, goddess worshipping mocker of God coupled with the heathen slanderer of anything Godly. One thinks he's his own god and knows the Bible better than God and one thinks he's "smarter and more loving" than God. What disgustingly sick egos the two of you possess. Actually I believe both of you are "demon" possessed.
Jim, "[I] make you laugh[?]" No, animals naturally having sex doesn't bother me. Gay human beings who should know better is disgusting. Actually it was just men exposing their junk with rainbow powder and glitter. How gay and queer. Believe me, I never went near the Castro again. Key word, I was "invited" by my ex-girlfriend and three of her female friends. Some queer grabbed my butt. Why don't you all keep to your own kind and it'd be nice if you all went back into the closet?
It's total ignorance for you to think that I require your belief in order to reaffirm mine. My belief needs no reaffirmation, and surely you coming to your senses would be of benefit to yourself, not me. From what I've heard from the two of you, I don't need God to prove to me that "demons exist", you two are prime examples. You're both in for a rude awakening. And Jim, I always thought atheists claim that they were the intelligent ones, but you sure have proven that to be wrong. servant
P.S. You know Jim, you can come back home to "the Church" if you like, you just can't have sex as a gay. How stupid! Pedophiles telling you you can't have sex. I guess they give themselves "speshull" dispensation. Now that's hilarious and really makes me laugh!
You must have had a good butt. Seems like it went to your head.
Hey Jim, Since you blame God for killing 6 million children yearly, can you explain to me why man has the right to kill almost 7 times that amount, (forty million baby fetuses), yearly? And now God is to blame for AIDs and cancer, diseases caused by man's poor decisions, chemicals or medications? When you can answer these questions, then I'll probably be able to prove to you that God exists, when you absolutely refuse to believe all the proof of His existence manifest right before your very eyes.
If God is everywhere he is in everything every animal and every human. So it's God's will that some of them(him) want to terminate their pregancies. Babies are born with terrible defects or are born in famines or have hereditary diseases? Man's not in charge of those things. you claim your God is all powerful so it must be him that's sharing all the horror. How so very loving!
Dan, you have found some kind of power in being God's little side kick. You picked a pretty flimsy diety, as are they all, to bank on. Hell you've moved in bag and baggage. The one thing we both know about P is he's not really religious. He fails to follow the tenants of his faith.
Ignorance not worth a response. You're scaring me now, Jim. You been listening to publiar so long that you're starting to speak the same stupid nonsense. Maybe you might want to try worshipping Mary and you'll have the whole package.
You went to the Castro and then have the balls to say "keep to your own kind" (God bless Steven Sondheim)? Anita you were on the Jets Turf. You took your chances and you got what you wanted which was to be outraged.
Maybe you have trouble relating to this, but I told you, I was "invited" to the event by four pretty fine girls. In my twenties you could have probably invited me to Hell, if you told me there were going to be some fine women there. At the time I had no clue where the girls were going, so how could I go there looking to be outraged. Once I was there, they didn't fail to outrage me. Garbage was all over the place, both human and trash, and bathrooms had guys urinating in the sink. I thought I was in Hell. We stayed a whole half hour. DISGUSTING!!
For you Dan. Just in case the Lord isn't keeping you up to date.
https://www.ranker.com/list/has-the-bible-changed/jacob-shelton?utm_content=inf_84_3514_2&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pd_inf&utm_campaign=SE&tse_id=INF_712763e0da8211e7b926579f881108d6
Can't pull up the website because of an old computer. Probably not terribly interested anyway in seeing a website claiming how the Word has been changed. Wouldn't doubt you're into all these conspiracies on the web, also. I've read too many versions to accept the lies of deceivers and hypocrites, let alone haters or mockers of God and His Word.
"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." John 8:47
God is so confident in His power and strength, that He has no problem with dealing with the lies, liars, demons or offspring of the devil. He's far from the "pretty flimsy deity" that you and publiar think you can mock, challenge and deny. Right now the both of you think you're getting away with cursing, mocking and slandering His name, but there will come a time when you regret every nasty word that's come from your lips. Like I've said, "You're both in for a rude awakening".
It's no conspiracy. it's fact, real history. Who did the devil mate with to have off spring? Why does the devil have male genitalia? Does God? if so why? The only use for genitalia aside from pleasure is procreation. Who are God and the Devil fking besides mankind? Where are the ladies? No need for genitalia without ladies. I mean God JC and the Holy Ghost seem to be having a pretty gay love fest. And Mary's still a virgin, poor kid
Did you really think this was worth posting, Jim?
Great to be "not of God" a real break from stupid.
I'm writing this down. no sounds are coming from my mouth.
I'm, like God himself, silent.
Listen if God isn't big enough to take a litte attack from his creation then fuck 'im.
We are the ones who have to live and die not him. He gets to control everything and never dies or grow old. And he can have what ever he wants when he wants. That's nice work if you can get it.
Hey if you couldn't handle the Castro on Halloween then you would have never survived Army boot camp. No stalls. you shat as a group. Tete auTete.
Well it seems in your attempt at conversion of the rest of us, there's just You, God and his word. So it's really just you and God. Seems kind of lonely but for your rather, according to you, unprovable friend. You seem to be alone. So we have you and someone you talk to and worship who just happens to be not there. Tell me what that looks like to you objectively.
Does it make you feel special maybe even loved?
I can see wanting to be loved is a great thing. Few people get it. So they imagine, with the help of shysters, a big pile of love when they die. If they live according to certain patriarchal laws. Laws that seem just made for mortal men to benefit from. Those same laws even supported slavery so they also supported property holders.
Dan did you go to college? What other books than the Bible have you read and more importantly why did you read them?
Pub hasn't slandered God or taken his name in vain here but I rarely read P so maybe he has. He has not acted as a Christian here. Nor will he.
You have Dan on 2 levels . First you're decent,when you arn't mouth piecing for the Lord or the Word. P is never decent.
Secondly you are very Christian when it comes to judging others the one thing Jesus said not to be. I know i know It's not you doing the judging it's God. Only you do all the talking about his judging me for one.
Anyway both you and P have that, our way or Satan's highway, routine going. "My religion's right and your's is wrong. is what you are both saying." No headlines there. Old news.
So I'm left with judgement day. I'm supposed to quake in fear about that and the eternal fire that awaits unrepentant lil me. Well I don't. It doesn't scare me anymore. Why? Because you've no proof that hell exists. (Aside from between P's ears. and humans' brutality)
U see Dan, P doesn't give a rat's ass if I'm saved. You do. And I'm not worried because there is literally nothing on this earth then would give any scientific credability at all to there being an afterlife to worry about.
That not then in my last sentence.
I’ll go down this sequence of ‘Dan’s comments in the order they appear on the site.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1153PM. I had raised seven points in regard to his claim of “stigmata” and then of “invisible stigmata”.
As usual, he opens with epithets. But will he then demonstrate or explicate rationally what in my comments qualifies as “ignorance and stupidity”? Let’s get some popcorn and see.
First, ‘Dan’ will try to go for this: since there is no “stupid list” as to “what verifies a true stigmata”, then who’s to say he didn’t have one? Well … you’d first need the visible wounds and ‘Dan’ never had those, as I had pointed out. If there is no verifiable criterion for the term and phenomenon of ‘stigmata’, then any whackjob could merely claim having had one – but that’s rather obvious at this point.
Second, he tries to go for this: I wasn’t there so how could I know ‘Dan’ didn’t have stigmata? Well, in the absence of anything visibly stigmatic, then it comes down to taking ‘Dan’s word for it … and – really – who could reasonably do that? Also, since ‘Dan’ wasn’t there when Jesus was crucified, then how would ‘Dan’ know for sure that the pain in ‘Dan’s wrists was anything like the pain that Jesus endured?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1153PM:
Third, from the Catholic point of view, the phenomenon of the stigmata is taken to be a visible sign of participation in the sufferings Christ since one experiences not simply the visible signs of the wounds but also the experience of the pain (in the hands, wrists, feet and side, it would have to be pointed out).
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/what-is-the-stigmata.html
http://www.catholic.org/saints/stigmata/
The Church has traditionally required demonstration that the person also had lived a life of heroic virtue, in order to strengthen the bond between a) the symbolism of the stigmata with b) the sign of God’s grace (thus demonstrating that the stigmata were not some diabolic trick “to cause some spiritual frenzy and lead people astray”).
‘Dan’s little story doesn’t seem to rise to anything the Church would recognize as stigmata. However, one might say that ‘Dan’ has experienced stigmata according to the precepts of the church-of-‘Dan’ (i.e. whatever ‘Dan’ claims is and must be accepted-as God’s own truth) – for whatever that might be worth.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1153PM:
It can come as a surprise to no rational reader that ‘Dan’ “never had a reason to question what happened to” him; ‘Dan’ never seems to have a reason to question any of his own stuff.
As for his further story about the wondrous effect his claim of stigmata (which nobody could see, as even he noted) had on others, readers may consider the scenario as they will.
Saying that he doth know that “what [he] experienced wasn’t normal” is probably about as close to some genuinely worthwhile bit of truth as ‘Dan’ has ever come. A pity he didn’t consider that point further.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 1153PM:
As for ‘Dan’s reasons for adjudging this polity or congregation as “not practicing what they preached” (i.e. “they all went for donuts and coffee afterwards”) … readers may judge as they will. Apparently on stigmata Wednesday they were “moved to tears” and yet on another Wednesday subsequent to that, and after a “24 hour fast”, they … went for donuts and coffee. The horror! Perhaps they didn’t invite ‘Dan’ as guest of honor in light of his divinely-indicated speshulness.
This, he says, triggered his hypocrisy alert and we all know how he “can’t stand deceiving hypocrites” and – marvelously – he has discovered the same sort of ‘hypocrisy’ in “every false church” (i.e. all of them).
Does that sound familiar to me? Why yes it does: as I have said before, ‘Dan’ has failed in every polity he has ever gotten involved in, and in order to prevent the thought that it was his own failure, he has glommed onto (his ridiculously elastic definition of) ‘hypocrisy’ in others as his universal excuse.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1213AM:
Here ‘Dan’ borrows a JR-gambit: a bit of scatology to distract from the weakness of his point.
I had said that there have been notably few actual trials for all the Stampede brouhaha of the past 35 years. ‘Dan’ simply asserts that this is not so – because not his mirror but his “ass” tells him so. Readers may consider and judge as they will. Perhaps I have been wrong in using the bathroom mirror imagery; perhaps ‘Dan’s excitations issue from that other source he has mentioned here. If so, I wouldn’t claim to be surprised.
And then he backtracks: even if what I said is “so”, then “it’s only because” … and on about the Church and Catholics. ‘Dan’ really doesn’t know and couldn’t be bothered anyway. He has his cartoons and he’s happy merely tossing them around.
He should recall that one has to be capable of some careful assessment, since it’s not only messages from God that come out of his … posterior.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1231AM:
This is ‘Dan’s response to my points about his Revelations-12 pericopes and commentary.
He’s “getting so extremely tired”, dahlings, doncha see? Since “it’s obvious that [I am] Bible illiterate”.
And in what way am I that? Does he demonstrate some failure on the part of my exegesis? He does not.
He merely bleats that “many” “don’t even believe that Rev 12:1 refers to Mary whatsoever”. Well, the crowned woman of verse 1 is also the woman in verse 2 who was pregnant and suffering birthpangs. What are we to make of that?
And ‘Dan’ himself took that woman’s further experience of fleeing into the desert after her son was “caught up to God” (verse 7) as indicative that Mary didn’t conquer the dragon/Devil. What are we to make of that?
But I am asking exegetical questions. ‘Dan’ is in the cartoon business. You see the problem.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 16th at 1231AM:
And there’s another bit of weirdness: ‘Dan’ now is not taking a literalist stance toward the Bible at all. He is now hiding behind the symbolic approach to the Biblical text, i.e. that this X in the text actually stands for some other Y.
And actually not a Y, but a special subset of a Y: thus “the woman” of the actual text i) “refers to the church” but only if that means ii) a special preferred sense of “church” that means not the Catholic Church but “the gathering of God’s faithful” (whatever that may mean; but with ‘Dan’ that’s not going to be a very large bunch at all, perhaps just ‘Dan’ and some invisible others).
Whatever fundie theologians came up with this bit that ‘Dan’ has scarfed like a packrat would have to belong to some “manmade” religion that ‘Dan’ has already written-off in favor of his own church-of-‘Dan’.
What we do know is this: whatever “spiritual gathering of believers” this bunch might be, ‘Dan’ is not going to be able to get along with them, will sooner rather than later declare them “deceiving hypocrites” of a “manmade religion”, and will keep banging the table for attention at his Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.
"On to Dan." On to JR."
I guess that "on to" as used by Pliar means many things. 2 at least.
1. is that he's a busy fighter/ analyst for the Lord. Defending the rock that is "the church" (Dan you also fit this description, different rock of course.)
2. That he is handling things for the church and for the oppressed Catholics. He's a very busy person don't cha know. He's knocking both Dan and I down point by point. the problem is Pliar invents our points. They are not what we say. They are what he says we say. You do that often enough and it works on people. Humans are very logical. the problem is the false premises they use as a foundation for honest logic. Name it. Padre Pio's magic hands wrists (toenails)? The Virgin's abilities to intercede or not. The shroud of Turin. Jesus on a tortilla. Life after death. All hornswagle. All just believed in. No real proof required. (Life is so fucked for believers that a happier place at the end of living ,to them, seems "finally! a just reward for their/our suffering." Logic evaporates into childish wishes. )
Now the Defender of the Faith P compares Dan to the Mad Hatter or a guest at his party.
He who is without sin cast the first stone. P. What is more mad than your behavior here?. All you do is tear at your fellowman like a rabid dog. You've insulted every person who opposes you here. Degraded us. You've attacked from hiding. Like the coward you are. That's Christian behavior? Of course it isn't. When Christians attack how like Jesus are they? (That's my first book title "When Christians attack," subtitle you aren't killed with their love.These fuckers are armed to the teeth.
If Dan has religious hysteria, which he seems to have. No offense Dan you are "driven". How different is that than some pillar sitter in Egypt in early Christianity? Or St. Francis preaching To the birds? Or a Pilar inventing a picture of himself as the defender of a church that's being attacked by fake victims. Another of his premises that hasn't been proven and never will be.
Dan is obviously very close to God and God's will. He tells us what that will is daily. He sees that as his mission to the needy.
So coming to TMR is like going through the looking glass with Alice. Up is down, Black is White. Truths are lies and lies truth. Where P's the nontransforming caterpillar pretending to be wise , pompous and wise, but dont cha know real down to earth. while simply blowing smoke.
P will now say that what I say is nonsense. He always does and it's never true.
I'll answer the questions that pertain to me, Jim. First off, sorry Jim to disappoint you, but my life is pretty damn good and I'm having a great time living it, yet still looking forward to eternity too. I've never sat on pillars, soap boxes, milk crates or preached in public squares. I do talk with others about the saving power of the Lord, while enjoying my retirement and the enjoyable things I do on daily basis. I enjoy the communication with those who challenge my beliefs, as much as being thrilled with those who accept the Lord's truths.
I must state that I am very different than any of the fairytale saints of "the Church", including saint frank. I believe these are made-up stories that confuse people and force them to believe that there's a slew of these great people with spectacular false visions, stigmatas and dreamed-up "heroic virtues" (publiar quote), contrived in order to con the weak of mind into believing in their false cult. "Deceiving others while being themselves the most deceived."
Religion is totally based on lies and fabrications, where my beliefs are based on Biblical fact, my own experiences with evilness, both within and without, and my attempt to tell the truth as much and as often as possible. I can't judge or condemn anyone, for but by the grace of God go I. All I can do is warn the lost, the confused, the deceived and the hurting that their is a way out, and I'll do my best to lead you to that peace. I'm human and never think that I have all the answers, but I do have a testimony for lost sinners. At one time I can say that I was one of the worst. If He could free me, then I know He could free just about anyone, except deceivingly wicked hypocrites. I don't believe they have a chance at repentance, until they can come out into the light and open themselves up to the truth. Just don't see that happening.
May I add that I don't see the wicked, lying deceivers changing, because as we've seen in this forum, it's apparent that they just enjoy living and promoting their lies and deceptions way too much. Problem is that they have yet to fool the Lord Almighty, even though they think they have.
Not sure which of the two of you, I would rather not even respond to. Jim's sexual filth or publiars stab at comedy. You're such an ignorant "ass", and your stupid comedy is as bad as your lying assessments and Biblical misinterpretations. Oh! I left the church because they must not have offered me any donuts. At times you display the IQ of a donut hole. They were a church of hypocrites, not practicing what they preach. A Wednesday "24 hour fast" would mean the whole day of Wednesday. You wouldn't go into the kitchen for donuts and coffee at 7pm on the day of the fast. I know the catholic church has all these stupid rules for a false fast, that really isn't fasting at all, but that's no reason not to understand that 24 hours is the amount of hours in a full day. Not surprised that I'd have to explain that to a mocking fool. The rest of your nonsense and stupidity is just not worth responding to. Like I told you, "I really don't need your consent, opinion, ignorance or stupidity." You have displayed enough of that to last a lifetime.
"Sexual filth"? Ohhhhh, fuck off, Dan!
Dan the guy who goes along with women to the Castro on Halloween. I'm sure your intentions were highly unsexual that night.
Yeah Jim, your post on Dec.17 @ 11:02pm, you don't see as "sexual filth"? Just because you can't accept belief in the Creator or His Son, doesn't give you the right to say disgustingly filthy things in regard to them. So you top it off with telling me to f-off. Nice. You are one respectable human being, and atheists and homosexuals must be proud that you represent them.
"He should recall that one has to be capable of some careful assessment, since it's not only messages from God that come out of his … posterior."
And you're under the impression that this statement is not mockery of God. You're one sick delusional hypocrital phony, publiar, and you and your assessments ain't worth shit.
Dan, I am coming from both a Catholic and a heavily born again religous Protestant background, both sides very religous. As was I as a child. And I do and have read much outside the Bible. Sorry you haven't Dan. Believe me there are far better books.
Would you be upset if I mock Santa Claus or the Easter bunny? No of course not.
That's all your God is to me. He is a fraud a lie. What's pissing you off is that I told the truth about the Trinity being an all male love fest. What else is it? Your god is no more above mockery than are Odin or Ball or Zeus. You don't believe they existed but you believe your god does. Well I don't. So my mocking what's not there is just nothing to me. I know I'm supposed to respect peoples faith. But I don't. I find it all rather sad and silly and above all dangerous. Religious people have a tendency to kill. They have a very long track record on that. Eons of death thanks to belief in a God of Love.
"Disgustingly filthy things"? Making love is disgusting and filthy to you. Why? because it's all male? Who cares? You don't want to fkmen? Don't. See that was easy.
I didn't invent the Trinity the church did. They chose it to be an all male being. They say the Holy Ghost is the love between the father and son. The very fruition of a male to male love becomes a "bird" a ghost, a spirit equal to both pere y fis in the godhead. That's the Trinity. Makes sense to you? Well not to me. And I have the right to feel that way as you have the right to believe what you want. But you don't have the right to control or edit what I say about what you believe. Just as i can't edit or control you. I will tell you calling love filthy and disgusting is very odd. You, like an imperialist soldier for an evil empire, are fighting for an oppressive god. And people like me get to tell you out loud and as often as you push him that no one's there. Just YOU and YOUR judgements.
Dan you are a bright guy, certainly not spiritually, what a shame you didn't read more.
Having for the moment lost interest in going slappy-slap with his peapod mate – hardly surprising since they are so nicely matched – JR (the 18th at 1040PM) decides to liven things up for himself by putting up another laundry list of his stuff concerning me.
He opens with a scatological implication regarding my phrase “on to”; his mind generally runs in that direction and at that level, so nothing surprising there.
He calls me “Pliar” but hasn’t ever come up with any lies.
As to his first numbered point (Am I a “busy fighter/analyst for the Lord” and so on?): I don’t like Stampedes, large and consistently bruited inaccuracies and whackeries, and – as demonstrated in JR’s stories – non-credible things so very similar to the many “impossible things” JR (and his podmate ‘Dan’) would have us believe before breakfast every day.
Impossible things like God, you mean? There's the biggest lie you push daily. God himself and with no proof ever.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1040PM:
As to his second numbered point: I don’t present or style myself as anyone “handling things for the church and for oppressed catholics”. It is the podmates who do that: JR is the self-styled go-to guy for all things truthy and victim-y and SNAP-py and handling things for oppressed victims, while ‘Dan’ is the self-styled “servant” bringing the ‘Dan’-verse version of things to oppressed (and deceitful and hypocritical and lying) Catholics. Thus their respective shticks.
But then JR hits upon a genuine fact: I take their material point by point and proffer my analysis. That’s not how the podmates want things to go: we are supposed to i) take their material as already true and indisputable and ii) consider them both right and very clever and heroically truthy folk.
I'm impressed. You almost got that right. Although the oppressed are the brainwashed and gullible followers of the cult, while the "deceitful and hypocritical and lying" refer to you and the catholic hierarchy. Don't forget that your also deceptive and denying pedophiles and perverts. servant
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1040PM:
But then JR somewhat contradicts himself – as so often happens when he’s trying to spin one of his webs – by claiming that I actually ‘invent’ the points. I don’t; what I find in their points is there to begin with; it’s just that they don’t even know the points that lie within their own material; they have a cartoon vision of their own cartoonish material … and so they are so often surprised when their own stuff blows up in their face.
But that’s simply because they’re both basically cartoonists, although cartoonists who insist on imposing their cartoons on everyone else who must accept the cartoons as the full and final word.
But as JR says “you do that often enough and it works on people”. Precisely what their shticks seek to achieve. My efforts are directed at illuminating the cartoons with as much reality and logic as can be brought to bear.
Who do you pretend to be Walt Disney? Illuminating cartoons?
As much "as can be brought to bear" by YOU, a no talent, lying sack of shit.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1040PM:
In that same second numbered point JR then tries – yet again – his “false premises” bit. He has never demonstrated anything of mine that can be described as one of those “false premises”, although it is quite possible that he doesn’t know or doesn’t want to know the actual meaning of the term “false premises” in the first place.
I’d say that JR’s idea of “false premises” is anything that isn’t going to further his cartoons.
And if we are to accept this or that bit of either of them as “honest logic” he’ll need to put up an example of such “honest [and accurate] logic”.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1040PM:
And in that same second numbered point we get a revenant echo of his now-familiar ‘proof’ bit (i.e. believers in God cannot prove God’s existence). This-worldly phenomena (such as his own claims of abuse) are subject to the rules of evidence and/or logical probability.
But God – as JR himself notes here – is a matter of ‘belief’, which is something else altogether.
One doesn’t ‘believe’ what has been clearly proven; one can only acknowledge what is clearly proven. Once again, JR merely looks into his sonar scope and declares that a) there are no aircraft in the vicinity and b) aircraft therefore do no exist.
And surely the Stampede (and JR’s own story) was built on the Victimist bit of dogma that one must simply “believe” the stories and that efforts to ‘prove’ them are mere quibbling and excuses and efforts at ‘re-victimizing’.
Princess, The church and it's insurors gave me a million dollars because they didn't believe me? They never said they didn't believe me. The Cardinal sent me a letter as did the head of the Marianist order on the West Coast saying they believed me. Their shrink at my first presentation in the '90's said he believed me. The only one who doesn't believe me is scumbag you. As an individual you may believe whatever you want but when you set out here to smear me and every other victim bar none. I say you are a lying piece of shit. And I would sue you for slander if you dared reveal your name.
As far as whether "aircraft therefore do no exist" (correction not supplied) I have seen an aircraft. The vast majority of living humanbeings have seen aircraft. Many of us have even ridden across the sky in one. No one has ever seen the God who you believe rules us all.
And It's not just evil ol' me who doesnt believe in God, there are millions of us. The fact that more humans believe in a God than don't, proves nothing. What did Lincoln say about fooling people. It's what you try to do every day here and what you religious do daily. You lie.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1040PM:
Then JR – as if he’s just noticed it – bleats huffily about my comparing ‘Dan’ to the Mad Hatter. I’ll stick by my comparison and readers may judge as they will as to its aptness, having read ‘Dan’s stuff.
But why would JR defend ‘Dan’ in this point in the first place? As is usual with JR, there’s a n epithetical method in the madness: JR wants to compare me to the Mad Hatter – doncha see? – and this bit gives him a platform to launch into that “he who is without sin” aria: my material is so illogical – doncha see? – that I have no business pointing out the illogic or such in ‘Dan’s (or – slyly, of course – JR’s) stuff.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1040PM:
And that’s bit is quickly followed by another of JR’s favorite bits: that it’s not “Christian” of me. It’s perfectly Christian to assess the material, which I do at great length.
JR doesn’t like his stuff being shown to be so faulty? Let him put up better material instead of bleating that he’s being “degraded”. It’s a sly and sleazy move of JR’s here: attack Christians and Catholics and then claim that if they point out the gross problems then they are not being “Christian”. Of course, threatening someone at length with death by shotgun isn’t a problem for JR – doncha see? – because … why? Because he’s not a Christian anyway so he can threaten. That sort of thing.
It is never "perfectly Christian to assess the material" by lying, slandering and deceiving others with your ignorance and nonsense. Don't know how you even think you could ever consider yourself a Christian, catholic Son of Satan?
P, Doncha see? You deserve death by shotgun, rope, mob. You've earned it. One can't wait for a nonexistent God to strike you down. God helps those who help themselves.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1040PM:
Then JR will point out that ‘Dan’s “religious hysteria” is really no different from “some pillar sitter in Egypt in early Christianity”. There were only a few such folk back then, and there have been far more intelligent thinkers in early Christianity and since then. The sly effort to reduce Christianity and Catholicism to a bunch of ‘pillar sitters’ and thus to then see no difference between ‘Dan’s deceptive and delusive whackeries and Christian/Catholic thought and belief is nothing short of both sleazy and silly.
Followed by more sleazy invention as JR tries to claim that I have ‘invented’ “a picture of” myself as anything. I have done no such thing; it is JR and ‘Dan’ who have gone and styled themselves as they have.
And JR – unable to make response to the problems pointed out in his material – then tries to change the subject – as so often – to me personally: I am “a coward” for having “attacked from hiding”. I have come right out with very clear and extensive explications of the material that JR and ‘Dan’ have put up. It’s the material and not anything else that is at issue here. JR here is simply “blowing smoke”, as he likes to say.
You absolutely are a "coward" and may I repeat, you are not a Christian anymore than your catholic cult is Christian. They are polar opposites.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1040PM:
And then – major popcorn alert! – JR doth hereby declare, declaim, and pronounce that “Dan is obviously very close to God and God’s will”. And JR would know that … how, exactly? And if ‘Dan’ is supposed to be so close to a “God” that JR insists hasn’t been and can’t be ‘proven’ then … what gross illogic is running JR’s point here?
Wouldn’t the logical point be – if we presume JR’s rational coherence – that ‘Dan’ is “obviously” whacky for believing in a God that cannot be ‘proven’?
But JR isn’t really into ‘logic’. JR is into plop-tossing, just like his podmate, and here it suits his plop-tossing to paint ‘Dan’ as “obviously very close to God” and so on.
And your light-years away from God, but no worries, you're very close to your "Queen of Heaven", and you'll be able to go to her for your mercy, forgiveness and hope. And your journey will take you home to your father, the devil. At least you know you'll be in a warm place. Maybe the glow of Mary's aura can add to the heat.
Too dumb to get sarcasm P?
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 18th at 1040PM:
And JR finally tries to bring the whole performance home with his own bit of I’m Not/You Are: it’s really TMR – doncha see? – that is “like going through the looking glass with Alice”. Not ‘Dan’s assorted bits, not JR’s story or stories and his claims and assertions.
So I won’t “say” that what JR has put up is “nonsense”; I have demonstrated it and explicated it. Again.
Yes, you have "demonstrated"" and "explicated" "nonsense" and let's not forget ignorance, "again" and "again". Great, something we all can agree on.
What you've done is imagined that you've demonstrated and explicated anything about me. Same as you imagine God. So by saying you've demonstrated and explicated my "nonsense" you are and always will be a prefabricator, a liar.
So to the readership. Publion is a liar and Dan is a fantasist. TMR is a pat on the back to other liars. Dan doesn't know he makes God up, by the day; but P knows he's lying and doesn't care.
That's pretty odd to define me as a fantasist, Jim. I consider myself quite the realist. I've never experienced anything I could define as an imagination. I'm not some wild dreamer and place little or no value on dreams, seeing most the time they make no real sense to me. I've never dreamed up fantasies. I saw a definition that it's someone who constantly tells lies about their life. I hate lying and this sounds more like publiar, but he enjoys telling lies about others lives, even when he has no clue what he's lying about. He calls these lies assessments. And finally I never read fiction and have no interest in wasting my time on fake stories or movies. I prefer documentaries and enjoy watching anything involving nature of all types. I would appreciate you and publiar not evaluating myself and what I am or what I've experienced, because apparently you're both way off and simply don't know squat.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 117AM:
Here ‘Dan’ opens his performance by casting himself as the ingénue who simply cawn’t think which one he “would rather not even respond to”. Such are the trials of a ‘prophet’ in the ‘Dan’-verse.
One can only presume that ‘Dan’ has decided to have a go at me, which he does by – had you been waittingggg forrrr ittttt? – epithet about my (never demonstrated) “lying assessments and Biblical misinterpretations”. That a literally-taken Bible wouldn’t need any ‘interpretations’ in the first place is a core point that has always escaped him; as has so much else.
I had only proffered the reason for ‘Dan’s departure from that fasting Bible bunch as a “perhaps”. Absent that surmise though, we are left with this: on the basis of the fact that a church group fasted for 24 hours and then went out for coffee and donuts, ‘Dan’ based his utter rejection of that group on the grounds of the group’s rank “hypocrisy”. And does that make ‘Dan’ look any more rational?
Hey Jackass, I realize you have an obvious problem with reading comprehension, but if you return to the original post on 12/15/17 @ 11:53pm, you'll find that I stated quite clearly that I left the false church, "FOR THIS AND OTHER REASONS, I REALIZED THEY WEREN'T PRACTICING WHAT THEY PREACH." OTHER REASONS would indicate that this was not the only reason why I left the church. Often I feel like I'm talking and explaining to a kindergartener, peewee.
So once again your worthless assessment of a situation you know little or nothing about, leads you into looking like you are the irrational one, dumb and stupid too. And the group may have had some hypocrites, including the pastor, but nothing compared to the deceiving hypocrisy I've witnessed from you and your filthy lying church. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 117AM:
He tries to extricate himself by then adding that their supposed 24-hour fast would include the evening hours when they went out for coffee and donuts.
First, that would all depend on when they began their 24-hour cycle.
But second, in any case the coffee-and-donuts bit hardly seems rationally proportional to the extreme conclusion that ‘Dan’ then drew as to the genuineness of their dedication.
But instead of proceeding down the road his story would have taken him, ‘Dan’ quickly reverts to his 3×5 pile (under the heading of ‘fasting’) and riffs on about Church fasting practices.
Thus ‘Dan’ can position himself as the weary expert who has to explain even the arithmetic of the 24-hour day. The trials and tribulations of God’s own prophet! So wearying, alas!
But the real payoff is in the last sentence: on the basis of his exertions, ‘Dan’ pronounces that he needn’t respond to all the other points (i.e. the ones I put up, not the ones he has created as a diversion). And that’s the key to his entire performance here.
And once again noting your reading comprehension problems, I plainly said they went into the kitchen after Bible study for donuts and coffee. And in your mind you probably believe they all blocked the doorway to prevent me from entering the kitchen. In your attempts to twist everything, including Bible verse, you end up looking like quite the ignorant fool. Maybe you can take a grammar school course on the internet to help you with reading comprehension, because I'm tired of clearing things up for you. It's hard enough for me to teach you Biblical Truth, let alone school you also.
Had I overlooked JR’s of the 17th at 1145PM?
Here JR just cawn’t help himself: he wants to take a swipe at me, but then tries to take two swipes at once: thus he doth “rarely read” my material.
So then, all of his comments regarding my material are based on … what? If it’s not based on reading what I have actually put up, then JR is just self-programmed to toss his own cartoon plop regardless of what’s actually under discussion.
Or else he does read my material … and we get from him the stuff we do as a ‘response’.
Readers may take their pick.
And yet again “scientific credibility” (correction supplied) is only applicable to the physical realm and not to what is often called the metaphysical realm. So – again – JR’s abuse story (or stories) are subject to some form of “scientific credibility”, but the metaphysical is the realm of belief, and not of a this-worldly “scientific credibility” – not that his story/stories manage that to achieve such “scientific credibility” very well in the first place.
You are so predictable.
Metaphysical as in the nonextant?
So Peter Pan and Star Wars and Cinderella and God are all meteaphysical.
As readers will quickly see, there are a number of quickie comments from the peapod twins that require little comment since they rather nicely demonstrate the type of mentalities we are dealing with.
As for the ones that do contain some useful nuggets, I’ll go down the list as the comments appear on the site page.
Thus to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 113PM:
Here ‘Dan’ allows as how he is “very different than any of the fairytale saints” of the Church. Who could conceivably disagree?
However, one might then consider who is more of a ‘made-up story’: assorted Catholic saints or ‘Dan’, the self-styled and self-proclaimed “servant” and so on and so forth … ?
And – utterly oblivious to the revelatory power of clinical projection – ‘Dan’ goes after the traditional Catholic saints for “spectacular false visions, stigmatas [sic] and dreamed-up ‘heroic virtues’”. But hath not ‘Dan’ claimed for himself or ascribed to himself all of these things?
And, still marvelously oblivious, ‘Dan’ once again delivers a bit best recited in front of his bathroom mirror: “Deceiving others while being themselves the most deceived”.
NO, Dan "hath not". I have never claimed to have any "spectacular false visions" or "dreamed-up 'heroic virtues'". That's period!
Why is it necessary for you to pile on lie after lie and then deny you're a liar. You are the Son of Satan as the 'pericope' John 8:44 stated, "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires … not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
You are evil and wicked and I will expound more on your lying "virtues" in the other topic.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 113PM:
‘Dan’ then favors one and all with some bits from his Table-talk of the Servant book-to-be: “religion is totally based on lies and fabrications”. ‘Dan’, however, doesn’t have any religion; he just has his “beliefs” which – popcorn alert – “are based on Biblical fact”.
And also on his “own experiences with evilness” … (this would be the Catholics who called the police on him when he was on a tear, which was often).
And – serious major popcorn alert! – ‘Dan’ now doth declare and declaim that “at one time” he “was one of the worst” … sinners, that is. Ummmm – is this the same ‘Dan’ who distinguishes between serious and even “unforgivable” sin and ‘making occasional mistakes’ … ???
As usual, the story changes as the inveterate story-fabricators try to cover up the holes in their stuff.
But wait. There’s more. ‘Dan’ “was one of the worst sinners” but then Jesus did make ‘Dan’ “free” … apparently as in sin-free such that ‘Dan’ is now sinless. Readers may add this to the list of “fairytale” attributes that ‘Dan’ has ascribed to himself. No Catholic saint has ever made such a claim for him or herself (and “heroic virtue” does not mean one leads a totally sinless life; if one were utterly capable of living a sinless life, then one wouldn’t need “heroic virtue” in the first place).
One more time. Catholic lying cowards, just like you publiar, falsely accused and slandered me. Stop your lies, slander and false accusations, creep.
I "was one of the worst sinners" but never claimed to be "sin-free". More of your stupid lies. Though I was a bad sinner, I never ever harmed a child, nor raped, molested or sodomized innocent children, as the hierarchy and members of your disgustingly wicked cult have. You need to read the Word and see that there was sin so disgusting that we were asked not even to pray for those who commit those sins. You can deny all you like but Matthew 18:1-10 would give you a clue. Jeremiah speaks against the sin of idolatry, catholics other favorite sin.
"There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that." 1 John 5:16
"For your gods are as many as your cities … altars you have set up to the shameful thing, altars to burn incense to Baal. Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them; for I will not listen when they call to Me because of their disaster." Jeremiah 11:13-14
And yes, publiar, I know you're going to claim that these words weren't spoken to catholics. It's prophetic. Yes and pathetic. Do you think your cult's idolatry and statue worship is less of a disaster than that of pagan Israel? They were burning incense to and worshipping their their goddess named the "Queen of Heaven" also. Jeremiah chapter 7 and chapter 44. Deny and deceive all you like. Your cult is plagued with worthless idolatry. Do you not know the story of Moses and the Israelites sexual immorality and debauchery. You think your immoral idol-worshipping cult will escape the mighty wrath of the Lord Our God? Good luck if you think so.
On then to JR’s of the 20th at 525PM:
Here we once again see JR’s deployment of the now-classic post-settlement scam: if they paid me, then I must have been telling the truth. The conclusion is not supported by the premise.
Because, to repeat yet again: in the Stampede the torties used a well-oiled corporate litigation strategy whereby you confront a deep-pockets defendant with so many allegations and claims all at once that either the defendant or its insurers decide its less trouble to pay than to bring each allegation and claim to trial. Thereby, the allegations are never subjected to adversarial trial examination.
Also, as JR himself has previously revealed here, in his case it took a while for his attorney to manage getting some money for his story by tacking onto the original 500-plus plaintiff Los Angeles settlement of a dozen or so years ago; his own case – however it was brought some years before – had actually failed to produce the desired payout.
Whatever “letter” he claims was sent to him was probably nothing more than a stock stipulation of the settlement. Most likely, every plaintiff received one, printed from a pre-approved template with the desired boilerplate phrasing.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 20th at 525PM:
At this point who knows what any “psychiatrist” said or whether any “psychiatrist” believed the story. But given the way psychiatry, psychology, clinical social work and other ‘therapy’ types had glommed onto the sex abuse scares and stampedes of the 80s and 90s (I’ll be putting up a sequence on the top thread of this site in a day or two about precisely that point) it’s hardly impossible. And hardly of itself an indication of the credibility or perhaps veracity of JR’s ever-shifting story as we have seen it unfold here over time.
I very much doubt I am “the only one who doesn’t believe” his story/stories. Surely the failure of his first case indicates some other unbelievers. (Although JR also claimed here recently that his first case failed on a mere legal technicality – which he vaguely mentioned in such a way as to make the excuse itself much less than credible.)
Thus I have put up over time here quite a few elements that militate against JR’s credibility in this matter and explicated them at length, and then further pointed out the problems with the assorted additions and changes to his story that JR subsequently made. I don’t “smear”; the mere epithetical characterization without explanation or explication or demonstration is a peapod-twin gambit, not mine.
Continuing with my comment on JR’s of the 20th at 525PM:
JR then tries to evade the point of my several-times repeated ‘sonar’ analogy by taking it literally and declaring that he hath indeed seen actual aircraft in his lifetime.
The point of the analogy, of course, was that JR looked for God with the wrong conceptual equipment (i.e. it wasn’t designed to find God in the first place), couldn’t thereby find God, and therefore pronounces that God doesn’t exist. Sonar – it must yet again be pointed out to him – is designed to find submarines; to find aircraft you need some form of radar; thus if the search method is inapt, then what you are scanning for isn’t going to be found.
As to Lincoln’s immortal dictum: I’m one of the people whom JR hasn’t been able to fool with his stuff and stories. And I very much doubt I’m the only one.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 19th at 1120PM:
Here ‘Dan’ first tries to extricate himself from his donuts-denunciation by claiming that there were also “other reasons” why he proclaimed that religious group hypocritical and so on.
And yet the only ‘reason’ he saw fit to actually give in a comment was the donut bit. What other specific ‘reasons’ does he have that might justify his rather extreme reaction and condemnation of the group?
That they weren’t “practicing what they preached”? What, specifically, might that mean? Perhaps that they refused to recognize the very voice and mind of God when it was ranting right in front of them … ?
And would that same ‘reason’ account for his departure and denunciation of all the other religions or polities he tried and then of all religions whatsoever? Except, of course, the cult of ‘Dan’.
You expect me to give you all the details of why I left churches, so you can add your nasty lying opinion and stupid ignorant assessments. You think you'll get more fuel for your fire, but the only one to burn is going to be you.
Hey I only want to kill the sob. I wouldn't have him burning for eternity. I told you I was nicer than God.
Burning for eternity is a person choice. God doesn't make people burn for eternity. People make that decision themselves by the way they live. The Lord God says He wishes that all would turn from their sins, for he gets no pleasure in seeing anyone destroyed. Sorry Jim, but it's impossible for you to be more caring, loving or forgiving than He is. Good try anyway.
The more P posts the more the lies mount up. A veritable Everest of mendacity. He's trotted out all his lies on to the field here. He shits them out. smears them around and declares himself victorious. Only one of many problems with him doing that to me is that I have the money. Not the church not the insurors, and not him. Me, I do. The victim got a compensation for damages done. That's all one need know in my case. So if as P says my story's wrong or ever changing. (It's not; but P just repeats his lies over and over) Why isn't the church suing me for fraud? Instead they said they were very sorry and agreed that I had been injured and did compensate me. Those are all the facts on my case. No P's only case is to say that I was not the victim not the harmed but in fact a thief. What proof does he have? None. he makes up stories. possibilities not actual facts. Will he stop? NEVER. He hasn't the skill to do anything else but lie.
He lies about Dan. He lies about me. If another victim or pro victim rolled through TMR he'd lie about them. My parents said you'll be judged by your actions and the company you keep. Who are the people who keep company with P on this site? They might wish to take my parents words to heart, assuming they possess hearts. and check themselves on who they are hanging with. I didn't ask P to be here. But here he lites year after year. Feigning superiority. Dong what ever he can to harm people through lies. Pathetic.
Doing
My first case didn't fail. It was about statutes of limitation. Those statutes were overturned when it became widely known that the church had been passing on pedophiles to new innocent Catholic children. That the church was in fact a criminal enterprise regarding what it did to it's own children. That's how I recieved some justice thanks to a secular govt.
Imagine what would have happened if the church ran the govt. Your fantasy churchopia whould appear benevolent as more and more people /children would suffer to make the church appear if not perfect close to it.
I said church when I should have said your priestly caste and it's rulers.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 126AM:
He bleateth with outrage that he hath never claimed to have done any of that stuff – well, except for the stigmata which he seems to have slyly left out since he has indeed claimed that (or what remains of that claim after you have made subtractions of visible imprints and so on).
He styles himself as the oh-so-speshull guy to whom God tells stuff that God doesn’t tell to any other religious group. I call that claim “spectacular” and “false”; although I’ll grant “visions” might better be replaced by something like ‘self-serving delusions’, although even that won’t quite cover it because as whacko as ‘Dan’ seems very much to be, yet he seems at times to know just what he’s slyly doing.
I've previously informed you that most of the prophecies I've shared were my friends. And yes, God wouldn't share His gift of the Holy Spirit with any "religious group" of lying despicable hypocrites. So when you have nothing but ignorance, you revert back to mocking God and those who are blessed with His Spirit. As the Lord says in Psalm 37:12,13 -
"The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them. The Lord just laughs at the wicked, for He sees their day of judgment coming."
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 216AM:
Here he simply claims yet again that all of his trouble with police and his psychiatric stays were merely the result of “Catholic, lying cowards” and he didn’t do nuffin’. Ovvvvvv courssssssssssse.
And once again trying to connect dots his prior stories didn’t take into account ‘Dan’ now assures us that he was “a bad sinner” but he “never harmed a child” and so forth. Well, readers have ‘Dan’s word for it, as for all his stuff and they may consider as they will.
But is he not “sin-free” now since he has somehow been speshully-deputized by the committee that holds court in his bathroom mirror? Or is he still a “sinner”, actively as well as merely conceptually?
Followed by more mocking.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 216AM:
And he’s going to have to put up some scriptural support for what appears to be his claim that “there was sin so disgusting that we asked not even to pray for those who commit those sins”. First, that there is Scriptural basis for such a claim as to such “sin” and second, that such a sin involves anything along the spectrum from ‘molesting’ to ‘raping’ children. If ‘Dan’ is right, then Stalin, Hitler, Mao and the whole crowd can rest easy.
And he now slyly retreats from his previously proffered pericope (Matthew 18:1-10) and quickly changes the subject to “idolatry”. Although we are not supposed to notice that the pericope from Jeremiah that ‘Dan’ has selected refers to “your gods”. What relevance can this have to Christians, unless ‘Dan’ considers the Trinity as several gods or – tah dahhhhh – we are back to his bit about Mary being divine and a goddess like, say, Astarte or some such.
No worries, child molesters, sodomists, liars and idolaters of your cult can share the fate of "Stalin, Hitler, Mao and the whole crowd". As the Word says, "Wide and easy the road to Hell and many shall follow it's wicked path."
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 22nd at 216AM:
And then we are given a rather nice example of ‘Dan’s basic conceit: under the legitimate Scriptural rubric of “prophecy” ‘Dan’ will now toss up his usual stuff about Catholic “idolatry” and “statue worship”, all of which has been addressed on this site on recent threads.
Is the ‘cult of ‘Dan’ “plagued by worthless idolatry of ‘Dan’s oh-so-very-speshull status as the Mind and Mouth of God? Inquiring minds will want to know, as the saying goes.
And we're back to more mocking from the lying deceiving hypocrite. Mock on, loser.