JESUIT DIALOGUES!
Updated 05/09/03: ade easy to print out
The following testimony rendered by CA is the identical testimony given by Pat Darnell, who apostatized from the Adventist Church and from thence started a relentless crusade to destroy it, all covered in claims that she has an insatiable love for Christ. We have been informed that Pat Darnell has published at least one book denouncing Adventism, and that she participates in various internet discussion forums for the purpose of destroying it.
On a popular Adventist discussion forum Pat Darnell was on, we tricked her. While she was attacking Adventism by relentlessly charging her with being "legalistic" and claiming that this legalism excruciatingly tortured her for years and nearly costed her eternal salvation, we posted information on the Pope's recent letter encouraging Sunday observance. The Pope's letter was called, "Dies Domini."
We waited a week in order to confirm what we had known for a long time thence: that Pat Darnell was not just a trained deceiver, but she was and is a Vatican trained deceiver.
The response Pat Darnell gave was as expected. She proceeded to post how Adventists are "paranoid" (they love to use this word against their enemies) about the Pope. She declared that the Pope wasn't trying to institute a Sunday law, but that he was merely telling Catholics that they should make sure that wherever they live, the laws of the land respects their right to keep Sunday.
The problem with this response is that it is the wrong response in light of someone who has committed herself for life to wage a crusade against the "legalism" that tortured her for so long and nearly costed her salvation. The Pope's letter was to support Sunday observance out of respect for the Ten Commandments. Pat Darnell has told us over and over again that it is Adventist respect for the Ten Commandments that makes her do what she can to force everyone to believe that it is legalistic whether or not they disagree. What then should be the response from Pat Darnell, in light of the fact that she was being reminded of her pain and sorrow when we posted about the topic of the Pope's letter? Wasn't she supposed to complain against the aims of the Pope in bringing "legalism" upon zillions of Catholics and obscuring from them, according to her, "The refreshing news of Christ's salvation?"
The Jesuits posting on that forum knew that they were caught, so there was a prolonged period of silence till they figured out what to do. They thence returned stating that, since they're not Catholic, what the Pope does is of no consequence to them, and they don't care about it at all. They had told us that they appeared on the discussion forum we were on to, out of love, save as many readers as possible there by letting them know about the love of Christ. By the statement they just made, they were saying that they didn't care that maybe some billions of Catholics were being destroyed by the legalism of their very renowned leader, but they were on our forum (and everywhere else) in order to save Adventists and everybody else.
This unique revelation where Pat Darnell and the entire Evangelical movement were caught and found to be workers for the Papacy, are described in another link connected with the Jesuit Infiltration page called, "MILESTONE DISCOVERED."
There was yet another problem with that statement. As they were over the space of time revealing to us what we must do, it just so happens that we were told that we should forget our doctrine, accept Christ, join with the other churches (under Rome was intentionally left out) and just dance and sing in love to him 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. They boldly revealed that they were ecumenical and globalistic. When Pat was told that she was a globalist, she did not even deny it. She wrote back a number of times to quote John 3:16 as saying that "God so loved the globe. . ." She was trying to say that God was also a globalist just like her. You have to understand what globalists are in order to figure out what is being sad here.
Hitler, Castro, Stalin, Mussolini, all the animalistic dictators of our time and all those who murdered the saints throughout the Protestant Reformation and the Dark Ages, were globalists. The Jesuits are a globalist organization. Their theme is that the world must be conquered, ultimately for one man to rule, and that no means must be spared in the accomplishment of this aim. Those who oppose the motion must be destroyed.
The problem was that in saying that since they are not Catholic, what the Pope says doesn't concern them, they were saying that they were sectarian. An ecumenical person is not supposed to make such a statement, for his mind is always on that ONE church (the bible talked about) that must be under Rome, (which the bible DID NOT talk about). What was the reason for them not caring that dangerous heresy was being pushed on zillions of Catholics as they term it, just because they were not Catholic? And what was their response when they were re-informed that they were not Adventists either? To this day they just shout out that since they're not Catholic, they don't care what the Pope says, and that we can just keep going on looking for Jesuits under every leaf while entertaining our "conspiracy theories."
Therefore, while reading the following, please focus on these points and look on her words very carefully:
1. Is the person here a despot? How can we tell?
2. Is she here to have discussion? Or is she here to do what she can to make sure others adopt her views while claiming she is here to discuss, and others should have changeable views.
3. Will her posts show us that her views are changeable? Will she demonstrate that she respects others who think differently? Or is her agenda to make her views dominate?
By CA on Saturday, October 23, 1999 - 10:21 pm:
Don,
I, too was raised in the Catholic church, though our family was not devout in the least; I refer to that upbringing as "secular Catholic". *grin* I also spent time in the SDA church, and even during the time I spent out of it, my whole understanding of "all things Christian" was completely dictated by SDA doctrine. Only recently have I begun to comprehend not only the grace of God, but how deep (and how very subtle and holy-seeming) were the deceptions I imbibed while in the SDA church. I am still attempting to ascertain how many of these were actually present in SDA teaching and how many were the product of my own perception of that teaching. I do know that toward the end, in desperation to be rid of sin, I supped at some rather unwholesome tables -- tables featuring a poisoned feast of perfectionistic conscience-whipping and EGW used as a cudgel to torment oneself with -- tables which, while not SET by the SDA institution herself, are nevertheless tolerated within her hallowed halls. Still, they are tables for which the blame thereof perhaps cannot be fairly laid at her doorstep.
All these things have given me several occasions on which I have been struck by the similarities between the two which you noted. The cliquish insider-dealings of hierarchy, the presence of written and oral "church tradition" accepted as authoritative not only through the writings of Ellen White, but also through the pervasive subculture of typical interpretation thereof. What I have not noticed from the SDAs is the same level of openness to growth and change as evidenced in Catholicism with Vatican II and subsequent events. Although this is NOT necessarily a BAD thing ... I recall when I first learned about Vatican II at the age of twelve (years AFTER the fact, I hasten to add; I'm not quite a dinosaur yet!), I remember thinking that if they had changed their minds about what's right and wrong, then obviously, they didn't know any better about that than I did, and therefore how could they presume to require I submit my judgment to their own? But there again, that was the thinking of a twelve year old still very much entrenched in concrete thought and the rebelliousness of youth. Since that time, my thoughts and perceptions have grown and changed until I can now appreciate the humility that accompanies the human acknowledgement of not knowing everything and of needing to learn and grow continually. I just wish certain others would recognize this parameter instead of shouting me down as if by mere fact of daring to speak, I presumed to count myself speaking Ex Cathedra. It amazes me they can't recognize the dynamic of projection so present and entwined in their diatribes. And it gives me a chuckle the way they seem to think they are the first to play those age-old games with smoke and mirrors. ;-) But it's insulting that they seem to expect me to be oblivious to it.
Be well.
CA
END
TO THE ADVENTIST BETRAYAL PAGE