KNOCKOUT! Falsely accused St. Louis priest Rev. Joseph Jiang fights SNAP – and wins!
In a monumental victory for truth and justice in the Catholic Church abuse story, a federal judge has ruled that the lawyer-funded group SNAP indeed defamed St. Louis priest Rev. Xiu Hui "Joseph" Jiang and conspired to falsely claim the priest of child sex abuse.
In her ruling, the judge sanctioned SNAP, its national director David Clohessy, and its "outreach director" Barbara Dorris and ordered them to pay for Fr. Jiang's attorney fees and expenses.
[**Court docs: Click to read the federal judge's ruling against SNAP (pdf)**]
SNAP national director
David Clohessy
The abuse claims were outlandish from the beginning. The accuser "had made previous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse" and already had a reputation of being "a serial exaggerator to the point of being 'delusional.'"
Meanwhile, one of the accuser's parents had a "history of making unfounded claims against the Catholic Church for monetary gain" and had a long record in the civil court system, with at least 2 liens and 16 judgments against him.
SNAP's willful contempt
Throughout the legal process, SNAP repeatedly and willfully defied a federal judge's orders to hand over important documentary evidence in the case. Then, as we reported just a few weeks ago, the group proceeded to orchestrate a fraudulent media campaign about the case.
So when U.S. District Court Judge Carol E. Jackson issued her ruling this week, she really let SNAP have it, concluding:
- "SNAP defendants' refusal to comply with the Court's discovery orders has been willful and in bad faith";
- "SNAP defendants conspired with one another and others to obtain plaintiff's conviction on sexual abuse charges and that they entered into this conspiracy due to discriminatory animus against plaintiff based on his religion, religious vocation, race and national origin";
- "SNAP defendants' public statements about plaintiff (Fr. Jiang) were false and they did not conduct any inquiry into the truth or falsity of these public statements, but instead made these statements negligently and with reckless disregard for the truth."
To punish SNAP for its recklessness, Jackson ordered that SNAP "pay the reasonable expenses, including plaintiff's attorney's fees, caused by their failure to comply with the Court's orders."
Kudos to Fr. Jiang for his victory for truth and justice.
simply retreats under some form of smoke screen to evade having to back up his bit.
Thus, on the 17th at 740PM – facing my points about the problems with ‘repressed memory’ – he merely starts laughing as he heads for the exit, piously declaiming that he’ll “wait and see” what courts and legislators and so on have to say.
Readers are welcome to conduct their own assessment, and I proffer here the following link:
http://www.fmsfonline.org/?ginterest=RecoveredMemoriesInTheCourts
This article only goes up to 1999, but indicates that even by that time the theory was in trouble with the courts. Since that time there have been no significant reversals in that clear trend of which I am aware.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 157PM:
Marvelously, he opens by presenting what he apparently thinks is a “well-formulated question”, which grammatically turns out to be a statement and not a question. Who can be surprised?
He then seeks to prove that he is not deranged but simply is just another “Christian ‘with the Mind and Will of God’”.
But that fails for several reasons.
First, the ordinary Christian does not presume him/herself to be as directly in-touch with God and God’s Mind and Will as ‘Dan’ has always – and vividly – demonstrated here. So ‘Dan’ (contrary to his sly self-characterization here) is no ordinary Christian.
I was joking about a "well-formulated question" and did present that as such, but if you claim it's a statement about yourself than so be it. Anyone who professes to be a true Christian should be following and have the "mind of Christ". I don't "presume" to be in touch with God, I am in touch with Him because I try to live and follow His teachings. I am no "ordinary Christian", because I'm not like the phony, so-called religious hypocrites, who claim to follow Him, but only in word, and not in truth or actions, like you and your cult.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 157PM:
Second, ordinary Christians are aware that they are not perfect ‘receivers’ of God’s Word nor perfect ‘implementers’ of God’s Will. We have never seen such humility in ‘Dan’s religious-theological pretensions.
And, indeed, we could not ever see such since it is abyssally vital to the success of ‘Dan’s personal cartoon that he (or He) be so perfect in his self-identification with the Divine as to be for all practical purposes invulnerable to criticism or objection across the board.
Never, ever did I claim to be perfect, for there was only one perfect human on this earth, and contrary to your cult's belief that that would be mary, no that would be the Son of God. Never said I was "invulnerable" to constructive "criticism", but that would not include your vicious "lies" railed against me.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 157PM:
Third, we see ‘Dan’s lack of humility (and rather profound lack of self-awareness) in his merely declaring or presuming himself (or Himself) to be “the spiritual man” Paul describes in First Corinthians. And his record of comments here certainly provides clear evidence that he is not such a perfect “spiritual man”, but rather is deeply involved in some seriously deranged personal whackness (and I have discussed those instances at length in the record here).
Do you think you're the perfect example of humility, with all your obnoxious correction of other writers simple mistakes or typos? You with your longwinded nonsense, thinking you're "Mr. Know It All", displaying all your worldly, worthless wisdom, while constantly calling others deranged and whacked. At least I don't show some false humility, like the perverts of your cult, claiming to be Godly while secretly raping little children, preferably young boys.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 157PM:
Indeed, in this entire section of First Corinthians (from verses 10 to 16) it is Paul who is establishing himself as being beyond the judgment of the (Greek-oriented, philosophically-grounded) Corinthians: it is Paul’s (profound) experience and knowledge of God through Christ that overrides the merely philosophical speculation of the Corinthians.
So what we have in ‘Dan’s comment here is – had you been waitttinggggg forrrrr ittttttt? – ‘Dan’s ascribing to himself the spiritual depth and profundity of Saint Paul himself. But it is Paul who is “the spiritual man” here, and for ‘Dan’ to try to lasso Paul into ‘Dan’s personal (and oh-so-necessary) cartoon is merely another example of ‘Dan’s quite un-humble derangement.
Never claimed to have the "spiritual depth, experience [or] knowledge of God through Christ" that Paul attained, so for you to make such a claim is both disingenuous and another of your many "lies", of which you seem to have a continuous habit and no problem doing.
Also peewee, Go back to the quote and see, "But 'WE' have the MIND OF CHRIST." So Paul was not only referring to himself, but to any TRUE Christian believers. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 157PM:
So much, then, for ‘Dan’s “poor theology”, which is – as always – hampered, constricted and deranged by his abiding and ever-primary need to somehow shoehorn himself (or Himself) into the Trinity so as to evade or preclude any critical questioning of his own rather vivid difficulties and issues.
As for his (b) point, it makes no sense. He “informed” one and all that it was not he but Christ who wrote his god-gram, which – as I said at the time – merely serves to illustrate my point even more vividly.
Never said I was part of the "Trinity". Another example of one of your disgusting "lies". Never said I wrote the prophecy and informed you that my friend wrote the words down. Because of her brain damage and the fact that she normally writes at 6-8 year old level, thoroughly convinces me that these words of wisdom come from God or Christ. The fact that you can't accept that, would be a testament to your derangement, or at least a failure of Spiritual discernment. And that would explain your consistent mocking of God, Jesus and His Word.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 157PM:
On then to his (c) point:
Here he tries to establish his usual claims about the Church by trying this form of ‘logic’: if the Church weren’t so flawed then he “would have absolutely nothing to point out”.
That would be possibly if modestly accurate if we didn’t also have to factor in the driving force of his personal derangement, such that he simply cannot refrain from his focus lest he have to confront himself and his personal issues in that (already-crowded) bathroom mirror.
I “added” the bit about “lies” and “slander” only to quote his own usual eructations.
And he heads for the exit honking his usual epithets and his concluding cartoon compliment to himself (or Himself).
Your last post is just a repeat of your nonsense and deserves no response. I do have to laugh at the fact that you insist on carrying on a debate with someone you consider "deranged". Maybe your cult can crown you Saint of the Deranged, and add you to their ridiculous list of mediators.
Jim, say the word. If you quit posting, then I surely will. I'm sure we both could find a better use of our time and energy, than wasting it trying to convince a hypocrite liar.
On the 20th at 459PM ‘Dan’ tries to extricate himself from his “well-formulated question” bit by now claiming that he was only “joking”. Ovvvvv coursssssse.
But as he continues trying to extricate himself, he digs himself in deeper:
First, he claims he doesn’t “’presume’ to be in touch with God” – and yet he put up a ‘prophecy’ just recently that he claims didn’t come from him but from Jesus or –take your pick – “the Lord”.
Second, he then claims that he is indeed “in touch with” Christ because he – ‘Dan’, that is – doth “try to live and follow His teachings”. So, then, anyone who merely doth “try” to follow the teachings of Christ is ipso facto a) in touch with Christ and b) so closely in touch with Christ that such an anyone can pass on written missives from Christ.
Third, he pronounces that he is no “ordinary Christian” since – prepare yourselves – most such “ordinary Christian[s]” are “phony, so-called religious hypocrites”. …. But, ovvvv courssssse, not ‘Dan’.
The playbill continues on the 20th at 504PM:
Here ‘Dan’ clutches all his pearls and doth declaim that “Never, ever” has he claimed “to be perfect”.
He is welcome, then, to share in just what ways he doth see himself as imperfect in his efforts to follow the teachings of Christ. The record here certainly indicates that ‘Dan’ resists any criticism or questioning, so he’s going to have to give some examples.
He then – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – quickly tries to change the subject to one of his preferred eructations, about Mary.
And let’s just save some time and dispose of what he claims to have “said” and “never, ever said”: his own material includes the various presumptions I have noted, whether he has “said” them or not.
And he tries to get out from under that problem by asserting that my criticism isn’t “constructive” (a term he has slyly added on his own, for his own convenience) … so – had you been waitttingggg forrrr ittttt? – my material doesn’t count and he doesn’t have to deal with it.
The show continues on the 20th at 514PM:
He then tries to change the subject again, by making it sound as if I have claimed to be “the perfect example of humility” – although he provides no quotes from my material, since none exist. I claim perfection in nothing; I just question what seems questionable.
But this gives him a lead-in to riff epithetically on my material and no surprises there.
‘Dan’ – however – is correct that I consider him “deranged” and whacky. And I have explained my conclusions in that regard at great length, using ‘Dan’s own material.
He then goes on about “false humility”, but since he hasn’t got anything in my material to work with on that score, he simply (and slyly) switches focus to – as best can be seen here – priests, whom he characterizes in a general and convenient (to his cartoon) sort of way, apparently hoping that some vivid description will distract readers from his own issues.
On the 20th at 522PM we once again get some of his “never said” denials, which gambit I have addressed above.
Either ‘Dan’ has compared himself or identified-himself with Paul as “the spiritual man” or he hasn’t – and his comment is in the record for examination.
And if he wishes to be taken at his word here that he does not have the spiritual depth of Paul, then where does he get off making the assertions he does? (Short answer: if he doesn’t have the spiritual depth of Paul, ‘Dan’ does have a very close connection to Christ – such that Christ sends him text to be put up.
Readers may consider as they might which is more indicative of whackness.
On the 20th at 610PM ‘Dan’ points out that since Paul said “we” (i.e. “But we have the mind of Christ”) then … what?
That would depend on a) who this “we” is and b) whether ‘Dan’ is part of that “we” in any sense other than that ‘Dan’ has assigned himself that status. Surely, Paul does not imply here (or anywhere else) that any Christian can receive clear and direct and specific textual missives from Christ, no matter how “true” (scream-caps omitted) a Christian that person might be.
We continue then to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 537PM:
Once again, just another “never said” bit as has been dealt with above.
This time though – and had you been waitttinggggg forrrr ittttttt? – we are now informed that while the ‘prophecy’ was from Christ, yet ‘Dan’ did not write it. (Well, duh, it came – did it not? – from Christ.)
But ‘Dan’ then introduces some “friend” who (merely) “wrote the words down”. So what? ‘Dan’ claims to have received a textual missive, specifically worded, from Christ. That ‘Dan’ had to have a third party actually do the typing or writing-down (for whatever reasons) is irrelevant; and that although – get this – the friend has “brain damage” and she “normally writes” at an early-grade-school level, yet the fact that the “friend” came up with so sterling and mature a written ‘prophecy’ is more than enough proof for ‘Dan’ that it’s “from God or Christ”.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 537PM:
And yet on the basis of this crockpot of hash, ‘Dan’ then asserts that “the fact that [I] can’t accept” that this brain-damaged person is channeling “God or Christ” thus “would be a testament to my derangement”. And thus he has piled his little (and queasily dubious) blocks for his own convenience.
And now to ‘Dan’s of the 20th at 552PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will borrow a shtick from ‘Kris’: he just has “to laugh”.
And then tries this: why would I carry on “a debate” with someone I “consider ‘deranged’”?
Well, that’s easy. I don’t consider this a debate (because ‘Dan’ is in all probability quite deranged). Rather, I use the material he puts up to demonstrate to readers the type of mentalities and characters that are nesting in the Stampede.
And then and then: ‘Dan’ will head for the wings with this bit: he suddenly calls upon “Jim”, who need only “say the word” and – the horror! – ‘Dan’ will “quit posting”. Which is specious on its face, since ‘Dan’ can stop putting his stuff up any time he wants to. This whole shout-out to “Jim” is merely another catty ‘just entre nous’ that we see from time to time when Abuseniks have nothing better.
How little have any known of the mind of God by natural power! And the apostles were enabled by his Spirit to make known his mind. In the Holy Scriptures, the mind of Christ, and the mind of God in Christ, are fully made known to us. It is the great privelege of [true] Christians, that they have the mind of Christ revealed to them by his Spirit. They experience his sanctifying power in their hearts, and bring forth good fruits in their lives."
No p, I do not expect you to understand or get this, for it would take a spiritually minded person to comprehend things of the Spirit. For anyone to consider another deranged, because the Spirit has been freely given to them, they receive prophetic messages from God or because they are far from ashamed to live or quote the Lord's Word, I have to say I feel very sorry for that person. After all, the organized religious hypocites of Christ's day, considered Christ and his followers to be crazy and questioned their sanity. Far be it from me to expect different, than the lies, slander and accusations that they had to field. servant
I would like to comment on the offer I made to Jim. I could care less about your use of "catty just entre nous" BS, or whatever stupid phraseology you think you can use to show your ignorance. As long as Jim is here to give his atheistic point of view, I feel it only fair that someone gives a Christian or Godly perspective, in order to offset your lukewarm perspective of I don't know what to call it, but by no means is it Christian in any form. My guess is it's some form of catholic hypocrisy, which means to twist, lie, falsely accuse and slander, in any way, in order to demean and destroy an opponents truth. And I don't think anyone leaving this forum, would contribute to any positive change to your ignorance and nonsense, otherwise I would have left a long time ago.
Oh Great Lying Saint of the Deranged, Your garbage and nonsense of the 21st doesn't even deserve a response. I'll let another explain it to you, but doubt it will do you any good.
Matthew Henry Commentary on 1 Cor 2:16 – "God has revealed true wisdom to us by his Spirit. The apostles were not guided by worldly principles. They had the revelation of these things from the spirit of God … These things they declared in plain, simple language, taught by the Holy Spirit, totally different from the affected oratory or enticing words of man's wisdom. The natural man, the wise man of the world, receives not the things of the Spirit of God.The pride of carnal reasoning is really as much opposed to spirituality, as the basest sensuality. The sanctified mind discerns the real beauties of holiness, but the power of discerning and judging about common and natural things is not lost. But the carnal man is a stranger to the principles, and pleasures, and acting of the Divine life. The spiritual man only, is the person to whom God gives the knowledge of his will. (cont.)
On the 21st at 1006AM, confronted with more material than he can handle, ‘Dan’ once again opens with epithet, followed by – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr itttttt? – a huffy declamation to the effect that my material doesn’t deserve a response.
Having said that, he proceeds to put up a response.
Well, it’s actually not his response – perhaps he really can’t wrap his mind around theological and Scriptural stuff after all.
So he simply tosses up another quotation, this time not from Scripture, but from a Bible commentator (Matthew Henry, a late-17th century Evangelical Protestant minister, in whose work there is a tendency to give vent to anti-papism by associating the Pope with the anti-Christ and so forth).
Thanks 'Mr. Know It All", for the history lesson on Matthew Henry. I've really enjoyed his interpretation of the Bible and Spiritual wisdom, but to hear that he had a "tendency to give vent to anti-papism by associating the Pope with the anti-Christ", gives greater credence to his opinions. Although I prefer to think of popes as anti-Christs, not just associated with the anti-Christ.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1006AM:
Readers may consider the Henry material as they will. The key point is the one that isn’t in it: whether or not ‘Dan’ is rightly to be equated-with and identified-as one of those with a “sanctified mind”. Otherwise, the Henry material is rather irrelevant to the issues at hand here.
And while at this point one might easily wonder if ‘Dan’ isn’t a great deal more “carnal” than he cares or dares admit, there is an even deeper point: that the worldliness and – if you wish – ‘carnality’ exhibited by ‘Dan’ is not of the more obvious kind, but rather is based in his own clinging to psychologically deranging gambits and habits that cannot but prevent serious and genuine ‘spiritual’ development and ‘Dan’ will thus long remain a “natural” or “carnal” or non-“spiritual” man.
Because ‘Dan’s whole purpose and project is a carnal and worldly one: not to promote the work of the Spirit but rather to continually sustain and play-out this cartoon of his in order to achieve his own personal purpose of evading his own rather substantive personal issues. ‘Dan’ is all about ‘Dan’ and the Spirit doesn’t enter into it, except to be used and manipulated by ‘Dan’ for his own purposes.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1006AM:
This – as may have already occurred to some readers – creates a double-layered derangement: first, there are the issues that have created the cartoon, and second there are the consequences of having constructed and of maintaining the cartoon designed to evade those issues.
And – considering now the Henry text in ‘Dan’s comment of the 21st at 1034AM – readers must also consider ‘Dan’s further manipulative effort: adding for his own convenience and purposes the word “true” in brackets to Henry’s text.
This is vitally necessary for the maintenance of ‘Dan’s personal – and we might now say carnal or non-spiritual – cartoon: the cartoon is based on the premise that while there may be many who claim to be Christians, yet ‘Dan’ is one of the few “true” (or as he would put it, “TRUE”) Christians.
If ‘Dan’ didn’t add this bit to Henry’s text, then readers might take-away from reading Henry’s text here merely the thought that Henry propounds: that all Christians, to the extent of their capacities, are able to participate in the “mind of God” through the apostles’ being gifted by the Spirit to know (to the extent any human being ever can) the “mind of God”.
But if readers were to read only Henry’s text (minus ‘Dan’s sly and manipulative addition) then ‘Dan’s cartoon would collapse, because that cartoon is based on ‘Dan’s need to evade his own issues by insisting upon ‘Dan’s own personal and so-speshull status, which – it clearly appears – is intended to rank ‘Dan’ somewhere up there with the apostles (meaning Christian ministers, Henry would seem to say) or perhaps even the Apostles themselves (meaning the Twelve).
Newsflash to publyin' and all false christians – There is only one type of real Christians and that would be 'TRUE' Christians. And you're under the impression that you are in the group of "all Christians", even though you rate at around zero "capacit[y]". Are you under the impression that mockers of God, qualifies one as Godly. I presume that's why you think it's righteous to make excuses for pedophiles and perverts.
And by the way, a lying christian wouldn't qualify you to being Christian, either!!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1034AM:
If the cartoon works, then ‘Dan’ becomes immune to any criticism or objection whatsoever, since whatever he says (or does) surely and genuinely and ‘truly’ and unassailably issues forth from “the mind of God”.
Neat, but deranged – and manipulatively so.
And with the quotation from Henry concluded, ‘Dan’ then grants himself a victory lap, pronouncing that he doth “not expect [me] to understand or get this” … because – had you been waittttinggggg forrrr ittttt? – “it would take a spiritually minded person to comprehend the things of the Spirit”.
First, ‘Dan’s assessment of my being “spiritually minded” can stay right up where it was put, and second, what it takes to understand ‘Dan’s cartoon and its workings is simply that a reader be somewhat clinically-minded.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1034AM:
And we see yet again his sly and manipulative effort to induce readers to presume that “the Spirit has been freely given to” him. While the Spirit seeks to pour out his gifts to any and all Christians, yet that gift is going to have a rather hard go of it, trying to establish itself in the welter of manipulative cartoon evasions that perfuse all of ‘Dan’s material because they perfuse his mind.
Clutching his pearls, ‘Dan’ then professes – with a rather obvious insincerity – that he doth “feel very sorry for” any person who cannot see what ‘Dan’ sees (through his cartoon god-goggles). I can only suggest that he weep not for me, but for himself.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 1034AM:
And he then tries to wrap up the show by tossing up that old saw that will be familiar to many experienced clinicians: they thought Jesus was crazy, too.
But the representatives of the “organized religious” types of the Gospels thought Jesus was wide of the mark theologically. ‘Dan’ – as I have always pointed out – is primarily deranged not in a theological sense but in a clinical sense. His material is best viewed not through the lens of theology but rather of pastoral psychology.
But – as we see here – there is indeed that now-familiar abiding method to ‘Dan’s madness: on the basis of his cartoon, he can assume the pearl-clutchy , victim-y pose of one who shares in the apostolic fate of being, like Jesus, considered crazy by those who don’t know any better.
Thus the baloney in ‘Dan’s sandwich.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 502PM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try to evade my point about his catty little shout-out to JR by riffing on about how ‘Dan’ was simply trying to ‘give’ “a Christian or godly perspective” to the atheist JR.
But in the comment to which I was referring (the 20th at 552PM), ‘Dan’ did nothing of the sort, but simply shouted-out to JR that he (‘Dan’) would be ready to “quit posting” and JR “need only give the word”.
There is nothing of any “Christian or godly perspective” in that whatsoever; it is merely ‘Dan’s catty little gambit, as I said.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 502PM:
And we see again ‘Dan’s cartoon manipulation: either my or JR’s (it isn’t quite clear from what ‘Dan’s phrasing here) material is “some form of catholic hypocrisy” which – had you been waittttingggg forrrr itttttt? – is merely meant to “twist, lie, falsely accuse and slander” in order to “destroy an opponent’s truth” (correction supplied).
To which I would simply point out that ‘Dan’s “truth” is a cartoon-truth designed to evade the actual truth about ‘Dan’: he is, for a number of reasons, deranged and has chosen Scripture and the authority of God to both a) evade that uncongenial truth personally and to b) impose that evasion on others.
He can conduct his personal interior life as he may, but since his agenda of imposing that evasion on others involves his various eructations about the Church and Catholicism generally – as well as doing no small damage to the integrity of the Spirit’s work among humans – then I will speak out against it.
His concluding sentence – while grammatical – makes no sense. How could “anyone leaving this forum” contribute to making “any positive change” and in what way has that possibility resulted in ‘Dan’s not leaving the site “a long time ago”? But perhaps in his own mind this bit platforms more epitheticals, and that was his only purpose in the first place.
And what can we say about your "cartoon manipulation", trying to place your issues on JR. If I'm talking of "catholic hypocrisy" and one who would "twist, lie, falsely accuse and slander", then that would without doubt be the perfect description of you. I love how you just attempted to "twist" and "falsely accuse" JR of these traits. Proof positive of your "cartoon manipulations". Are you sure when your accusing me, that you're not looking at yourself in your "bathroom mirror". Though I don't know how someone with your lying disposition would even be able to look at himself in the mirror. Maybe time you tried. servant
To sum up – I didn't feel like commenting on all your ignorance and nonsense, so I thought I'd end with this. I questioned myself as to why I don't leave this forum. Truthfully, I think I've begun to enjoy hearing what kind of comical stupidity you'll invent next. And do you think if you mention enough times, deranged, cartoon or some form of manipulate, in regards to me, you'll be able to convince readers, or are you just trying to convince yourself, in order to excuse your own issues. Regarding your accusation as to my "various eructations about the church and catholicism generally – as well as doing no small damage to the integrity of the Spirit's work among humans." And are you deceived enough to think that your mocking, lying and making excuses for perverts, somehow brings glory to God and His Spirit? To answer your eructations claim, I'll let the Lord field that one, because I know how much you enjoy Scripture.
"For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has NO inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." Ephesians 5:5-6 I don't know why you are so offended with me quoting Scripture for you, when God describes you and your cult often in His Word. servant
Making the point again: the similarity in the performances proffered by the Abuseniks and by ‘Dan’ consists in this: both of these sets require an initial core and crucial presumption that is not – and cannot – be demonstrated or proven, but rather which must be taken as accurate and true and veracious with no questions asked nor doubts expressed.
Thus for the Abuseniks it is the fact of the genuineness of their ‘victimization’ and for ‘Dan’ it is the oh-so-speshull relationship with (fill in the blank) such that ‘Dan’s material (being merely the channeling of the mind of God) is and must be beyond question or doubt.