Lying James A Donald (NRx Jim) accuses me of being a Socinian, Gary Morgan, and a demon worshiper!

Table of Contents

  1. drunkenness
    1. he wrote
    2. my reply
  2. Jim accuses me of being Gary Morgan!?!
  3. deleted for socinianism
  4. he wrote | socinianism
  5. my reply | you two have fun
  6. also please ban them all
  7. insists sockpuppet | GMorgan divine curse comment
    1. him
    2. me
    3. censored
  8. I repudiate socinianism | he censors, demands different test | forget it, fake!
    1. I wrote
    2. he censors
    3. I reply
  9. new Trinitarian demon worshipper test
    1. he wrote
    2. my reply
  10. Jim declares me demon worshipper; I declare him obsolete
    1. he wrote
    2. my reply
  11. meta

He can't really follow my points about the Bible, and started arguing I was a heretic on drinking.


he wrote

jim says:
2021-06-19 at 11:02

You are still lying. My definition of drunkenness has never changed in this discussion.

Yes it has, you are using the motte and bailey slippery anything means anything definition.

I described male bonding, as men do it. You attacked that as drunkenness and told me the bible condemns it, which is part of the attack on masculinity, marriage, and manliness by first wave feminists.

If it is drunkenness, and the traffic cops would certainly class it as drunkenness, then nothing in the bible condemns it.

jim says:
2021-06-19 at 20:11

The question is, what does the bible mean by drunkenness? The bible clearly approves of social drinking

And it appears to mean, too drunk get to a bed and sleep it off, too drunk too speak engage in conversation which is the purpose of social drinking, too drunk behave in a way that facilitates getting along with other men.

This differs from the current definition, too drunk to drive a car, because the level that ensures that the man you are speaking too is speaking truthfully and frankly is considerably higher than the level at which it is safe for him to drive a car.

By their fruits you will know them. To figure out what is “drunkenness” in this context, you have too look at the consequences.

my reply

It wasn't about your theories, any more than insulting jests and dueling were about your theories. I was criticizing the world's masculine culture. You decided it was a condemnation of your drinking theory. That was bad reading comprehension. Christians have been condemning the world since before you were born, and will continue long after you die.

Since you insist on putting your drinking theory on trial, it is mildly guilty of promoting un-Biblical drunkenness. In Vino Veritas goes too far. Getting too drunk to dissemble is getting drunk. Stories from the Bible make clear that letting one's guard down completely is unwise. Boaz had to suddenly resist a hot woman in his bed. Samson had to throw off the Philistines. Belshazzar had to defend his country.

There should be no glorification of alcohol tolerance. Impairment should be mild enough to shake off at will. Hard liquor and mixed drinks are deprecated if not forbidden.

So to be perfect, probably a reasonable BAC for auto operation is the right standard.

However, given the atomized feral state of postmodern men, crutches such as mild drunkenness are very useful. If the drunkenness is functional, there are more important issues to fix, such as the collapse of Western civilization.

To hear about the benefits of alcohol, ask an alcoholic. The Persians were drunks who cultivated alcohol tolerance like a job qualification. This helped bind together a multicultural empire. Spartans and Israelites lacked the diversity problem.

Any culture in which alcohol tolerance is an important social trait is a drunkard culture, whether it is functional and martial or decadent and degenerate.

The Persians clearly fit that description. There is a definite aspiration towards functional alcoholism, and some serious progress towards that goal. Saying they made a religion of it barely exaggerates.


One reason I want to bind the patrilineages to the land is so that crutches such as drunkenness are unnecessary, because tribal identity is restored. David and Jonathan did not need to get drunk. "Inquire thou whose son the stripling is." Man must remember what he has lost, lest he think life really is as meaningless as it feels today.

posted to https://blog.reaction.la/culture/mate-guarding-game/
[2021-06-20 Sun 16:11]

Jim accuses me of being Gary Morgan!?!

deleted for socinianism

Leo Littlebook says:
2021-06-20 at 08:11
[*socinianism deleted*]

[*socinianism deleted*]

What? My last comment had nothing to do with the Trinity. It was about drunkenness, Persians, and binding patrilineages to the land.

I don't sockpuppet. Gary Morgan has attempted to impersonate me on Vox Populi, though. He's nuts. I skip him.

Anyway, I'll just publish my answer and link to it, in a day or so.

posted to https://blog.reaction.la/culture/mate-guarding-game/
[2021-06-21 Mon 10:58]

he wrote | socinianism

jim says:
2021-06-21 at 03:23

[*socinianism deleted*]

What? My last comment had nothing to do with the Trinity. It was about drunkenness, Persians, and binding patrilineages to the land.

Socinians have distinctive theological package and style, which has changed only cosmetically in the last one hundred and fifty years. Your entire package is Socinian, not just your take on Jesus the Jewish community activist.

You don’t have a patrilineage. Socinians invent a new ancient history for their group every time they order a new letterhead, and they order a new letterhead at frequent intervals, far more frequently than they change their offices.

I don’t sockpuppet. Gary Morgan has attempted to impersonate me

Your wrist speaks. (pun intended)

my reply | you two have fun

Well, if you've been responding to me as if I'm a conglomerate with Gary Morgan's dementia posting, that certainly explains why your responses have appeared off topic. I don't think there's any hope of convincing you otherwise, or of getting you to follow my actual points. That's alright, you two are probably of similar age and inflexibility, and should continue your discussion without my input.
[2021-06-21 Mon 12:41]

also please ban them all

Oh hey, if you're convinced that Gary Morgan and his sockpuppets are definitely me, then my answer is please ban them all. Otherwise, if you don't ban them, you're admitting they're not me.

That heretic claims he's writing the next book of the Bible and various other ludicrous and falsified crap. In fact, the very thing that made me break contact with him was some bullshit he posted here about you that I told him to apologize for and retract. He refused, so I cut him off. This was around [2018-11-07 Wed], and he's been mad about it ever since.

[2021-06-21 Mon 12:59]

insists sockpuppet | GMorgan divine curse comment


jim says:
2021-06-21 at 07:09

None of your sock puppets are banned.

All of them are subject to moderation.


Lyin' Jim is lying again. If you've got evidence, let's see it. IP addresses, whatever you've got (nothing).

I'm certainly not going to waste my time being mistaken for a lunatic like Gary Morgan. You two can keep each other company into senility.

This is the comment to Jim that put Gary over the line:

glosoli says:
2018-10-11 at 19:14

My beliefs are entirely biblically founded.
You provide zero evidence to the contrary, and you were the false accuser, the onus is on you, not me.

I will request that you are accursed this evening, Jehovah knows our hearts, you’ll know if the curse is in place when bad things begin to afflict you. At any time, should you decide to repent and choose to publish a full apology in a blog post, I’ll request that the curse be lifted. It’s all in God’s hands now.

He was already in the wrong, which means he called that curse down on his own head. I warned him to apologize and cease all further commenting here; he refused. After that I dropped all association with him, lest I share his curse.

He's done nothing but harass me since, so I owe him zero courtesy. Just skim his site to see how thoroughly that curse has been fulfilled. Although it's chicken and egg whether the dementia came before or after.

posted https://blog.reaction.la/culture/mate-guarding-game/
[2021-06-21 Mon 16:21]


jim says:
2021-06-21 at 09:21

Your script is one hundred and forty years old. Get some fresher material.

Jim deleted my comment and falsely implied it was socinian content. [2021-06-21 Mon 18:05]

I repudiate socinianism | he censors, demands different test | forget it, fake!

I wrote

You can try lying, but I'll just post the full record. May as well do it now, in fact.


Further proof that I'm not Socinian, now that I know what that is via Wikipedia:

In the beginning Jesus was with God, and was God, and all creation was made by him. (John 1)

Adam and Eve were not mortal until they ate the fruit. After that, man is born in original sin.

Jesus' blood purchased our salvation, in the Old Testament sense.

I AM THAT I AM's precise relationship with causality, spacetime, omniscience etc are ineffable. The various relevant Bible verses are an adequate description; additions are superfluous. The development of philosophical vocabulary does not trump the divine inspiration of the Bible's authors. Philosophers who attempt to soar to these heights on abstract wings burn like Icarus in the heliosphere.

Those are all the main points, repudiated. This is a Polish heresy, so no wonder it's dumb as rocks. Even the name sounds stupid, evoking "ninny".

posted [2021-06-21 Mon 18:06]

he censors

He deleted my answer and wrote:

jim says:
2021-06-21 at 13:15

Take the demon worshipper test.

I reply

I was going to tell you to take a long walk off a short pier, but then I checked, and saw that your demon worshiper test is just this:

Jesus Christ is Lord. Christ was born in Bethlehem, died in Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world.

Which I agree with, and it's short enough not to get up to any theological shenanigans. Vox's is too complicated, IIRC.

You are still intellectually dishonest for deleting my point by point repudiation of the Wikipedia definition of socinianism, which is preserved in unredacted glory here:


new Trinitarian demon worshipper test

he wrote

jim says:
2021-06-21 at 21:55
Uh, because some obvious demon worshipers were strangely able to take that version of the test, I threw in a little more, which seemed to work a whole lot better:

Please affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died in Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.

Which seems to stop a whole lot more people who are piously being holier than me. I am not at all sure why it makes such a big difference, but it does.

my reply

There is no demon worshiper test in the Bible, because it doesn't work. Obviously the televangelists can string any words together without combusting.

This is a confession of faith, which means things one has absolute faith in. It should only contain things the Bible explicitly says.

Three-in-one and fully-God-and-fully-man aren't in the Bible, which means theological shenanigans afoot.

"Fully" is not bad though. "Wholly" would be too far. Jesus might have hybrid DNA, for example. I can't imagine "fully" causing a problem, so fine. Jesus was the original of Adam's imago Dei, so when he became flesh and was born of Mary, it was an already-existent part of his nature.

Which seems to stop a whole lot more people who are piously being holier than me. I am not at all sure why it makes such a big difference, but it does.

You are filtering for disagreeableness and interest in theology. Most argumentative heretics are disagreeable theology buffs. In this case they are right, the Trinity is not an article of faith.

The Trinity is the reasonable default exegesis. Which begs the question, why didn't God just tell us it's three-in-one? It would've saved a lot of wars. I suspect God didn't because three-in-one isn't quite right, and the correct answer is both above our pay grade and beyond our understanding. Anyway the Bible doesn't tell us, so it's not that important.

Of course, the Trinity is extremely important as a sniff test for heresy. There's no end of fools contradicting scripture, and they often screw with the Trinity in the process somehow. I'm fine with using the Trinity to hammer all the wrong answers to the Trinity problem. If there were an answer we could grasp, God probably would've told us.

State churches should exile the priests who invent an answer that doesn't contradict scripture, and kill the ones who do contradict it. One shouldn't risk killing the guy who happened to guess the answer to the big riddle, however unlikely that scenario seems. The Jerusalem priests figured their odds were good and wound up killing Christ.

Anyway, a confession of faith is what one has absolute faith in. I doubt the Trinity is the actual right answer. So I can't confess my faith in three-in-one.

Instead, you should do part 1 confession of faith and part 2, endorsement of orthodoxy: Heretics who diverge from this should be punished. I endorse the orthodoxy of the Trinity.

posted to https://blog.reaction.la/culture/mate-guarding-game/
[2021-06-22 Tue 09:36]


Leo Littlebook says:
2021-06-22 at 01:36
[*failed demon worshiper test*]

Jim declares me demon worshipper; I declare him obsolete

he wrote

jim says:
2021-06-22 at 02:37

In two millenia of debates about the nature of the Trinity, it became obvious that those debating the matter had evil intent, that they were attempting to destroy the cohesion of their enemies, and did not actually care much one way or the other about the unknowable and incomprehensible.

Do honest and decent non trinitarians exist? Obviously. Of course they do. But they don’t lecture me on religion and virtue.

my reply

Nah Jim, you're a liar, and too old for new tricks. I'm happy to make this exchange my official proof of your obsolescence. In due time I'll promote it up to T2 documentation. Thanks for making it easy.

Going around accusing people of being demon worshipers based on a Trinity shibboleth. It's ludicrously unlike anything in the New Testament!

[2021-06-22 Tue 16:08]


Lying James A Donald (NRx Jim) accuses me of being a Socinian and Gary Morgan

[2021-06-21 Mon 18:26]

Publish At: Author:Leo Littlebook

Read more posts by this author

comments powered by Disqus