They're at it again!President Obama said: "I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance"
This bill S.909 would more appropriately be called "The Pedophile Protection Act."
The evidence for this extraordinary statement comes directly from debate in the House, when a simple amendment to exempt pedophiles from the protections offered by the bill were rejected.
The Democratic Congresswoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee, reinforced the notion that people can be prosecuted for having a particular belief, she said "We also need to protect those potential victims who may be the recipients of hateful words, or hateful acts, or even violent acts."
Passage of this bill by the U.S. Senate would be reckless and irresponsible not only because of the "chilling effect" it would have on First Amendment-guaranteed rights to free speech, but also because it would provide, for the first time ever, special legal protections for pedophiles and other sexual offenders.
It was exposed as such when an amendment to exclude pedophiles from special legal protections, offered by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was rejected by the Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Florida, admitted from the House Floor that this bill put 547 forms of sexual deviancies listed by the American Psychiatric Association, which he referred to as "all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'isms'" on the same level of elevated protection as "race … religion … gender … or disability."
To protest World Net Daily set up a deal to send letters overnight to all 100 members of the U.S. Senate for a total of $10.95. Would Atheists dare join a fight that Christians are fighting?
In California our failure of a Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed into Law our own Pedophile Protection Act named SB1313 that had a different twist.
Before, California law stated that all persons who regularly come in contact with children as part of their jobs are required to report any instance where there is reason to believe that a child has been molested or abused. This new law would eliminate mandatory reporting for anyone working as a volunteer in any capacity.
SB1313 was introduced and promoted in the legislature by then Sen. Sheila Kuehl, who is openly a lesbian.
Opponents of the bill believed that it was motivated by an investigation that revealed that Planned Parenthood has been contacted by more than 30,000 children in California -- some of them as young as six years old with sexually transmitted diseases -- but has never reported a single instance of abuse to law enforcement.
"This is a reprehensible act by Sheila Keuhl," said Richard D. Ackerman, Vice-President of Legal Affairs for the Pro-Family Law Center in Southern California, "The one common denominator among civilized persons is the ability to rally around the protection of our children. Even one case of unreported abuse has the potential to begin a generational cycle of continuing abuse, and could even result in the death of a child." (About.com)
As a nation, our moral compass will soon be rusted and worthless.
The act does legislate against "sexual orientation bias" but if you read the working definition,
ReplyDelete(1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act), it defines "sexual orientation bias" as "a preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons based on their sexual attraction toward, and responsiveness to, members of their own sex or members of the opposite sex, e.g., gays, lesbians, heterosexuals."
There is no protection for pedophiles or other sexual offenders. So calm down. Have a nice day.
Jill,
ReplyDeletePlease reread the post, you obviously missed the quotes from Sheila Jackson Lee, Rep. Steve King and Rep. Alcee Hastings.
Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to certain types of people. That does not rule out adults attracted to children now does it.
Please show me the distinction in the law that is claiming that necrophilia, bestiality, or Man-Boy Lovers is not a sexual orientation.
Then tell that this group. :7)
Alcee Hastings is wrong and Jill is right!
ReplyDeleteIt's bloody hard to respond without swearing when you yourself posted a link to the gov site where you can look for and read the definition yourself .
"a group of persons based on their sexual attraction toward, and responsiveness to, members of their own sex or members of the opposite sex"
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/14/steve-king/rep-steve-king-claims-federal-hate-crime-law-would/
ReplyDeleteFlute,
ReplyDeleteFine touché, bestiality lovers are on their own. Please correct me if I am wrong but pedophiles still fall under that definition of "a group of persons based on their sexual attraction toward, and responsiveness to, members of their own sex or members of the opposite sex"
Age is not defined, thus Pedophiles are protected under this bill.
???
ReplyDeleteYou're nutty, and I'm willing to bet you didn't even read the damned law you're crying about.
Pedophiles aren't protected any more than anyone else -- the bill is designed to provide a specific means of prosecution when a physical hate crime has taken place. No one's personal creed or sexual preference is being protected or promoted -- people who would harm a person because of their creed or sexual preference, are finding it easier for law enforcement to adequately prosecute and seek a conviction.
If you think this is something else, then let me know, and cite the portion of the bill you think supports your claim. Just do us all a favor, though, and read it before regurgitating paranoid ultra-right-wing drivel.
As for mandatory reporting of possible child abuse, I love your idiocy. I really do. You are actually bitching that 30,000 possible cases of child abuse may not have been investigated, while at the same time you openly endorse pro-child-abuse agencies such as the HSLDA and ParentalRights.org.
You seem to be begging Planned Parenthood to fulfill their state-mandated obligation to report possible child abuse, while forgetting that these allegations of possible child abuse separate parents from children for indefinite periods of time. Have you forgotten that you side against agencies which file such reports, or CPS itself, when they actually seek to remove a child from apparent abusive households?
You're full of crap, Dan. You just want something to bitch about, and you'll happily devour anything that remotely resembles a crumb. You're a textbook example of the term, reactionary. You don't for a moment bother to think, and reflect on the repercussions and/or implications of your knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) reactions.
Next time you feel like ranting about something like this, try getting your information from the source, rather than some pre-packaged right-wing jizz-fest. Read the bills, look up all the three-syllable words, and, where appropriate, follow the references to past laws. Engaging in an act of pedophilia is outlawed in all fifty states, and these laws don't change that in the slightest. These laws merely allow for easier prosecution of individuals who assault others based on the belief that the beaten person may be a pedophile (or may otherwise deviate from sexual "norms"). Even if a particular person is a pedophile, perhaps even a level-3 sex offender, actively seeking out such an individual specifically to assault them because of that conviction is illegal, and rightly deserves a special category -- as a hate crime.
You wasted a post. Minus one intarwebz for you.
--
Stan
Illinois Family Institute has issued a correction admitting that they "mistakenly stated that the American Psychiatric Association’s actual definition of 'sexual orientation' includes paraphilias. The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classifies 'sexual orientation' as heterosexual, homosexual, and bi-sexual. The 547 mental disorders called 'paraphilias' specifically involve non-human objects, physical pain, or unwilling partners as in pedophilia. IFI apologizes for the error
ReplyDeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to go with "you never read it." This bill does not deal with speech. It deals with physical attack. Perhaps the speech you're talking about is "we're sure this guy's a pedophile but he say he ain't. Let's tie him up and drag him 40 miles behind our truck."
Stan,
ReplyDeletewhile at the same time you openly endorse pro-child-abuse agencies such as the HSLDA and ParentalRights.org.
Wow that is rich for even you. Thanks for the comedy.
Personal Failure,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that update. In my haste I did miss that.
So, am I merely "regurgitating paranoid ultra-right-wing drivel" or am I just late to the conversation?
Apparently the "drivel" invoked a change in the conversation, or a clarification, so that is a good thing...
Someone said in a discussion thread: "Now for S 909. I have no sympathy for pedophiles. The legal system, to an extent, does. They are allowed to serve their time and be released into society. The amendment in question would have exempted them from being an identified group targeted by hate crimes. It did not in any way provide for people preventing an act of child abuse to be charged with a hate crime. It would have allowed for people who targeted released sex offenders with violent crime to be exempt from being charged with a hate crime."
ReplyDeleteYou do know there are good citizens looking out for the well being of our children that follow these sick individuals and keep close tabs on them? They catch one of them in the act and for doing so the go to jail for ten years? That is justice?
Rape a child, face the stoning or at the very minimum harassment and rebuking.
My point is these laws are not being set in place for justice. What about the Good Samaritan ruling? Now if I help someone out of a burning car (real case) and they break their leg in doing so, they can sue me?
Like I told others, go ahead and find the most slimy, bottom dwelling, scum sucking Lawyer you can find because I will still attempt to save a life. I cannot sit idly by like the new ruling requires.
If I find a child being raped, and get nailed with a hate crime, I will do my 10+ years as a badge of honor.
Stand up for something!
Dan:
ReplyDelete"They catch one of them in the act and for doing so the go to jail for ten years? That is justice?"
Source for the example? That would be actually catching him in the act. Not being "good people" by burning down any home in which he takes up residence. Not hounding him at any job he gets (say, janitor at an industrial building) so that he gets fired.
The fact is that I am quite sure that any released prisoner is already under police surveilance. The police would catch any act. These "good people" of yours are engaged in criminal activity. They are stalking and harrassing. I operate on the principle that stalking and harrassment is wrong. That these people say their target is a pedophile is not their reason. It is an excuse. If there were no pedophiles, these people would find someone else to stalk and harrass.
RE: HSLDA and ParentalRights.org
ReplyDeleteWow that is rich for even you. Thanks for the comedy.
I thought you'd appreciate that, but evidently not... I'm tongue-in-cheek calling those organizations pro-child-abuse, because they each seek to protect the "right" of a parent to wield an implement for use in punishing a child. In many cases, the implement is a "rod," and in some cases (such as on ParentalRights.org, where I blogged until I was temporarily banned, before they changed formats), the implement is a cut piece of PVC pipe, used on the bare skin (buttocks and/or legs) of a two-year-old.
Obviously, we're talking about two different classes of abuse, and while I'm somewhat joking on that subject, I'm not joking when I note that if those alleged 30k unreported cases had been reported, a healthy percentage of them would have resulted in children separated from their parents by the CPS, which you steadfastly oppose.
You're guilty of wanting to have your cake, and eat it, too.
RE: Reading the proposed laws about which you're so loudly crying
As Pvblivs and I both said, it is highly doubtful that you've actually read the laws, but if you have, you clearly didn't understand them.
RE: Regurgitation
So, am I merely "regurgitating paranoid ultra-right-wing drivel" or am I just late to the conversation?
You're guilty of the former. If you had bothered to critically assess the statements made by your über-conservative RSS feeds, you would have recognized the distinction regarding paraphilia with respect to sexual orientation. Obviously, the implication that pedophilia would somehow be protected seemed out of place to you, but rather than look into the situation with a critical eye, you instead immediately posted a scathing blog entry on the subject -- a subject about which you were blissfully ignorant.
Even so, however, you've still not actually read the proposed laws -- evidenced by your reactionary responses to date.
Apparently the "drivel" invoked a change in the conversation, or a clarification, so that is a good thing...
No, the drivel is responsible for the confusion. The regurgitation was responsible for spreading the confusion. It was the critical reaction of persons who actually researched the accusations which resulted in the "clarification," which wasn't a clarification at all, but an apologetic retraction. They screwed up, and were caught. Their apology is appreciated, but hollow nonetheless. The mindset which perpetuates uncritical acceptance of all stimuli conforming to preconceived notions of reality is the problem, and it has not yet been addressed.
RE: The discussion thread comment which you completely failed to grasp
You do know there are good citizens looking out for the well being of our children that follow these sick individuals and keep close tabs on them? They catch one of them in the act and for doing so the go to jail for ten years? That is justice?
Learn to read, and to comprehend. You suck at it if the above is what you think the comment or the proposed law states.
The law does not expressly forbid a person from stalking a ex-convict, and speaks nothing to "[catching] on of them in the act." Instead, it seeks to make things easier on the prosecution when such a stalker physically attacks an ex-convict, or suspected felon, specifically because of the status as ex-con, or as suspected felon.
Yes, targeting an individual, or group of individuals, and assaulting them based on that targeting, is criminal.
...
Rape a child, face the stoning or at the very minimum harassment and rebuking.
ReplyDeleteRight. Face the stoning. Rape an unbetrothed woman outside of earshot of any potential passers-by, and you get to marry her after paying $20. Is that the "justice" you crave?
Child molestation is against the law, and those who commit such heinous acts are prosecuted to its full extent. The "stoning" they receive comes in the form of public shame and humility (regardless of its actual effect) and incarceration. Following these, they are further humiliated by being publicly identified, and finding their movements tracked and limited, and their residence/occupation options severely limited. This is the "harassment and rebuking" they must also face. Physically assaulting them, outside the bounds of the law, is vigilantism, and is neither legal nor just. This physical assault is what the law addresses, nothing else.
My point is these laws are not being set in place for justice.
As if you have any recognition for actual justice. If you really think that stalkers should have a right to assault suspected evildoers, then not only do you have a warped sense of justice, but you're also an idiot.
What about the Good Samaritan ruling? Now if I help someone out of a burning car (real case) and they break their leg in doing so, they can sue me?
In the link provided, the plaintiff in the civil case alleges that the "Good Samaritan" pulled her from the vehicle -- which was not burning -- in such a way that she was permanently paralyzed -- not just a broken leg. Perhaps you're mixing examples, but if so you should be more clear.
Regardless, however, the court ruling, allowing the suit to proceed, is correct. The plaintiff will have one hell of a time proving that her removal caused the paralysis, and a harder time still proving that the defendant was acting negligently, much less recklessly.
What you fail to see is the fine line justice strives to walk -- that on the one hand, "Good Samaritans," who render reasonable assistance in good faith, are protected, but morons who watch too much E.R., and try to revive an unconscious person by shocking them with exposed wires on a household 110V circuit, are not protected. This case is being allowed to proceed specifically to determine whether or not the defendant was the former, versus the latter.
...I will still attempt to save a life. I cannot sit idly by like the new ruling requires.
If I find a child being raped, and get nailed with a hate crime, I will do my 10+ years as a badge of honor.
Sensationalize much? You're a little bit retarded, aren't you? Did you get a waiver or something to join the Navy, because I thought they had higher standards than that. Marines, I could buy, but Navy?
Seriously.
The "new ruling" does not "require" you to "sit idly by." It has merely allowed a case to proceed which otherwise would not have had the chance. If it does anything, it should serve as a reminder that if you do "attempt to save a life," you'd better have a clue as to what you're doing and why. If you were convinced, like El Dani is, that So-Cal is going up in smoke in a few weeks, and you really want to save lives, why don't you forcibly remove unsuspecting inhabitants from their homes? Do you think that such behavior should be prosecuted, or should it be protected under a "Good Samaritan" clause?
If Lisa Torti was acting in good faith, and rendering reasonable assistance to her friend, then she will be acquitted. If not, she will rightly be found guilty in this civil suit.
Stand up for something!
Have a seat, and catch your breath. You're hyperventilating to the point that you're hallucinating.
--
Stan
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that I am quite sure that any released prisoner is already under police surveillance. The police would catch any act.
Sure just like they caught John Evander Couey? Come on where is the honesty?
If you were honest, you would admit that the police rarely don't stop crimes at all. How many police have you seen stop a robbery or rape? How many police have stopped someone from attacking you? For most people, its zero. Now ask yourself how many times have police harassed you? One of the main things they go after is drugs when there is a big payout for the department.
I have a pedophile neighbor (288a LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS) that deals drugs. He grows massive amounts of pot in his back yard and has people come visit for "10 minutes" throughout the day and night. California decided to make this guy legal so the police will not pursue. He just bought himself a very nice RV and some dirt bikes. There is your justice. Yet another reason to rely on God's Justice and Judgment.
The State is a monstrously inefficient way of handling criminality.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteS.909 would prevent me from watching my pedophile drug dealing neighbor during Halloween to make sure he doesn't hand out candy to unsuspecting kids. If he does, and I say to him not to or warn all the kids parents and we get into a fight of sorts because he gets pissed off that I am doing that... I do the ten years for protecting myself from his aggression. Same for the spanking law. If that same neighbor, who despises me as a Christian BTW, calls CPS and cries that I abuse my kids, they would "attempt" to remove my kids just on his say so. Plus I would have done jail time for following the Bible. (Proverbs 13:24, Proverbs 22:15, Proverbs 29:15)
These laws are being used as weapons here in Cali. but thankfully, like Dani'El pointed out, there are two California's. For now we prevail because we vote and protest and demand to be heard. But don't worry the courts are overruling our voting demands left and right. Prop 8 is a fine example of that.
Thanks for the smiles though.
BTW The car that the person was pulled out of was smoking, for the record. She thought immanent danger was going to happen to her friend and pulled her out. The courts ruled it was fine for her to sue her friend for doing so. Give me a break.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou sound more like Glen Beck every day.
If you were honest, you would admit that the police rarely don't stop crimes at all.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing Pvblivs will happily concede the above, as will I...
I have a pedophile neighbor ... that deals drugs.
If this is true -- if he has a conviction on record -- then he has also served his time, making him no longer a pedophile, unless you have evidence of continued acts of pedophilia on his part. If you do, then you are obligated as a citizen of the state of California to report this activity. If you do not, then you are profiling the guy, and while we may agree he's likely not high on the list for possible babysitters, he is not, legally speaking, a current pedophile.
He grows massive amounts of pot in his back yard and has people come visit for "10 minutes" throughout the day and night.
The First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments come to mind -- the right to peaceably assemble, the protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to due process. Nowhere in your allegations are these rights evidently considered.
California decided to make this guy legal so the police will not pursue.
If he's not running, there's no need to pursue him... I don't know what you mean. They "decided to make [him] legal"? What, his marijuana operation? His pedophilia? Please write more clearly so I can more easily mock you.
S.909 would prevent me from watching my pedophile drug dealing neighbor during Halloween...
No, anti-voyeurism laws take care of that...
...to make sure he doesn't hand out candy to unsuspecting kids.
I'm guessing the kids, on Halloween, are not unsuspecting of his offer of candy, which is not necessarily sinister, and certainly not illegal. I have to ask, though, on what authority do you seek "to make sure" he does or does not do anything? If he is legally prohibited from contact with children, or handing out candy on Halloween, then a simple call to the authorities will resolve the situation nicely. If he is not so restricted, then your 'warnings' are potentially libelous, and if you take action to forcibly prevent him from dispensing candy, you would be guilty of a number of crimes, possibly including violation of S.909, were it enacted at the time.
If he does, and I say to him not to...
Which is your right to do, as it would be his right to tell you to get bent...
...or warn all the kids parents...
...which is also legal, provided you are not committing libel...
...and we get into a fight of sorts...
Why would you get into a fight "of sorts," or any fight at all?
...because he gets pissed off that I am doing that... (ellipsis Dan's)
You're not that familiar with fighting, are you? Unless you're alleging that this guy wants to fight you, he will much more likely seek to ignore you, or to seek legal recourse for possible libel. It is highly unlikely that, due to your provocation and aggression, he would actively seek a violent resolution, but if he did, and you had indeed provoked him as you seem to be describing, then you'd be guilty of picking a fight, and possibly guilty of assault -- even without S.909.
I do the ten years for protecting myself from his aggression.
Let me get this straight. You allege he's a pedophile, you actively advertise this allegation, you seek to prevent children and/or parents from accepting his offered candy on Halloween, but he is the one who is exhibiting aggression?
...
Get real. According to the text of the law, if you assault him, specifically because of your perception of his sexual preference(s), then you would be guilty of this hate crime, and subject to a maximum of 10 years and a fine. If you kick his ass following his attack on you, then while you may find yourself eventually prosecuted (likely in a civil suit) for this crime -- due in no small part to your statements here, if nothing else -- you would most likely, provided there were corroborating witnesses to your side of the story, be exonerated.
ReplyDeleteRead the damned bill. The law would only apply in the case of physical assault, where the assault was specifically due to your perception of his sexual preference(s).
Same for the spanking law.
What?! What is the "same"?
If that same neighbor, who despises me as a Christian BTW, calls CPS and cries that I abuse my kids, they would "attempt" to remove my kids just on his say so.
This is highly improbable. First, it's not the "same" as your claims regarding his alleged pedophilia and your warnings on Halloween. Second, if he truly despised you as a Christian, one would think he'd long ago have tried precisely what you here claim, and would be telling us how your kids had been removed from your care, rather than alleging that he is so powerful that a single phone call would send CPS running to take your kids. Third, you don't get to complain that people aren't filing enough child abuse reports, and then bitch that when those reports concern your kids, the outcome should somehow differ.
Plus I would have done jail time for following the Bible.
Nice wishful thinking. That's pride and selfishness, and you know it. You want god's official combat patch, because you think it will prove you more pious, or something. Of course, there are plenty of proscriptions in the bible, which, if followed, would rightly land one in jail. Stalking and then assaulting a suspected pedophile, while not exactly in the bible, is nonetheless something for which you should be punished, even if you are right, and the guy is a pedophile. You just don't get to attack people based on allegations.
BTW The car that the person was pulled out of was smoking, for the record.
For the record? Do you have some source other than the one you linked earlier, because that source only says that Torti testified that there was smoke -- it says that no corroborating testimony was to be had. Since the car didn't explode, and didn't burst into flames, I'd guess she just thought she saw smoke, and overreacted. Since the article also states that she tossed Van Horn next to the car...
She thought immanent danger was going to happen to her friend and pulled her out.
...then if she thought immanent danger was at hand, she didn't get Van Horn far enough away.
The courts ruled it was fine for her to sue her friend for doing so.
Yes, it is fine. Judgment has not been passed on Torti's guilt or innocence in this civil case, just Van Horn's right to claim negligence. You really are hell-bent on sensationalizing the crap out of this thing, aren't you?
Give me a break.
Heh. What would you say, Dan, if you were heating a pizza in your oven, but there was something on the element, or you left it in too long, and the oven began smoking, causing your smoke detector(s) to go off? Should I be protected, do you think, for tossing a chair through your window, grabbing you, and tossing you outside? Should you be eligible to sue me for damages either to the window, or to your self?
Figure it out, buddy. You're wrong about the laws, just like you're wrong about damned near everything else you post.
--
Stan
Er, this is a bit off-topic, but I just wanted to say hi to everyone. Dan: sorry I haven't been posting here for a while, but I've been very busy with mundane concerns. I'm still looking forward to meeting you this summer. I'll be at my brother's in El Sobrante from June 30 to July 15. If you are going to be in the Bay Area any time during those two weeks, let's get together. Lunch is on me.
ReplyDeleteThis invitation goes to anyone else here as well.
cheers from sunny stressful Vienna, zilch
Hey Zilch, I hope everything is going well for you. Welcome back
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDeleteFine, I just want to make things clear that these scenarios that I was throwing out was to merely to make a point. In reality I leave the neighbors alone, so they leave me alone. I am friendly and say Hi all the time. When I have witnessed to them in the past they got angry at me, they even ripped up my gospel tracts very angrily, but other then that we leave each other alone. I also don't want it to look like I worry about such things, because I don't. I gave it all to God long ago and I have moved on. I did read somewhere that convicted pedophiles cannot pass out candy or interact with children for any reason. (the example of my argument)
All is well and peace is the predominate atmosphere from my family and surroundings. The real troublesome gang moved away from us and down the street so I do not have to deal with meth labs and shootings and such so all is calm.
I failed to make my point to you and I guess that is OK for now. We can agree to disagree. You have game, I will give you that. Until we meet again…..
Thanks, Dan. Another off-topic question: what's your take on Dani'el's prediction of the destruction of California before the end of 2009? If it does not come to pass, will your opinion of Dani'el change? Will you consider him a false prophet, or a non-Christian, or perhaps still a Christian, but simply mistaken? Just curious.
ReplyDeleteAs you and Dani'el both know, I'm concerned about him, and I think you are too. And as I've also said, I don't really care about his (or your, for that matter) beliefs, as fun as it is to argue about them, but I do care about you as people, and I do care what you do that affects other people and the world, because while I don't live (as far as I know and believe) in your world of God and Jesus, I do live in the same world of people and culture that you do, so what you do affects me.
Sorry for the arrogation of this thread to my nefarious purposes.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteSo basically you are asking that if Dani'El's prophecy does not come to fruition, would it be a false prophetic vision?
Um, Yes.
He did his best within the realm of prophecy, and being wrong about something is not just a mistake he can overlook. He can't make himself be a prophet, no one can. There are just some who are. I am sure he would be perfectly happy in teaching about spiritual matters, and hope to continue doing so, but he would have to admit it and be through with making any kind of predictions, lest he risk his soul.
Now lets flit the scenario. What happens to you if he is indeed right? Would you consider his prophecy a calling to you from Christ? Would you bow to Christ with such concrete evidence?
I believe Dani'El and his prophetic vision and relish in his sincerity. I have no reason to doubt him at this moment. That fruit has not matured yet. As long as Dani'El is honest with himself afterward he will be fine in Christ. All is not lost until someone is unrepentant before their death. So all hope is still intact for even you Zilch.
You may not even be concerned, but you will be here for the last couple of days of his prophecy. Was it planned that way? Did you avoid June for that reason?
Keep in mind that I'm concerned about you more then Dani'El. If he is saved in Christ he has nothing to fear, he will be fine in the afterlife...
flit = flip
ReplyDeleteUh, no, Dan, I did not "avoid" coming to California in June because of Dani's prophecy. Hard as it may be for you to believe, there are other factors that determine when I can or cannot be in this place or that. I do have a real life outside the discussions we have here, including a family and work. Until I see brimstone, Dani's prophecy is pretty far back on my list of deciding factors for my travel plans.
ReplyDeleteMuch higher up on that list is the prospect of meeting you and Dani. I'll keep you informed. Cheers from cool Vienna, zilch
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteEasy there kitty cat,...Meeeow!
My psych 101 tells me that when people get angry and defensive at questions I pose, its usually a sign that I struck a vital nerve.
No?
There is no need for defensive posturing in our blossoming relationship, I was merely asking and poking fun. Just noticing the timely coincidence that is all. It will not ease me holding you down and performing a fire branding exorcism on your ass when we meet. We must rid that angry evil from that huggable bear of ours. :7)
No offense intended or taken, Dan. I'm looking forward to your tender mercies.
ReplyDelete