Changes

Then, if people wish to debate your Essay, it can be done on that Essay talk page, rather than clogging up the mainspace article talk page. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]} 14:24, 4 November 2019 (EST)

Then, if people wish to debate your Essay, it can be done on that Essay talk page, rather than clogging up the mainspace article talk page. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]]} 14:24, 4 November 2019 (EST)

:Answer: You should have heeded your own advice here from the beginning and linked your own objections and arguments to an Essay page, instead of persisting in your argument ''ad nihilo'', as you did with your own voluminously redundant '''spamming''' (a term you used for all of my answers to your interminable objections)—instead of limiting your comments on the Talk page to a simple, clearly stated "point-counterpoint" basic doctrinal expression. I stand on the authority of the Bible. My doctrinal position is Catholic precisely because of the Bible. The Catholic Church was not founded in the beginning by anyone other than Jesus. The orthodox catholic Church was not founded by those who disobeyed their leaders, and went out from them, and taught a different gospel than the one they had been given and had received at first, and then claimed (in contradiction of the promises of Jesus) that Jesus had '''''not''''' remained with the Church he had personally founded, claiming that the Holy Spirit was '''''not''''' leading into all truth the shepherding leadership of the guardians of the Church they went out from. The Bible points by the ''irrefutable ordinary evidence of documented history itself'' that the true Church '''''must''''' be the Catholic and Orthodox Church, so that on the infallible basis of the promises of the New Testament in the words of Jesus and Paul and John that she would be led into all truth for ever, '''''therefore, whatever''''' doctrine she [[dogma]]tically proposes for belief '''''must''''' be the truth—a factual, historically-attested conclusion based entirely on the infallible words of the Bible. '''John 14:16-17; 16:12-13; Matthew 28:18-20; 1 John 2:18-19; Galatians 1:6-9,'''  I directed you and the other readers of the Talk page to links that access actual Catholic doctrine solidly rooted in scripture. You spurned it with contempt. You just don't get it. I believe you will not stop. You even tracked me down to continue your mocking contempt here, with a [[Hypocrites|hypocritical]] suggestion that you yourself did not follow (Fallacy of [[Special pleading]] – "''The other form of special pleading involves simply ignoring evidence unfavorable to one's position. One engaged in this form of special pleading concentrates only on one aspect of an issue, or a subset of aspects favorable to the person making the claim.''"). I will not respond again. You have totally convinced me it would be pointless and futile. I have much more important concerns than dignifying your apparently intransigent and unending obstinant persistence against an answer adequately expressed with substantial backing from the Bible and consistently reiterated as true doctrine. I am a Bible apologist, who happens to be Catholic. I know the scriptures. I have access to twenty centuries of Greek linguistic scholarship and Bible scholarship and textual critical analysis that supports the truth of the Bible, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. I stand by them. You dismiss them. Your answers and objections on [[Talk:Infant baptism]] have overwhelmingly characterized you as apparently not knowing the Bible, apparently not knowing the Greek New Testament text, apparently unable to understand the simple, plain and obvious meaning of the abundant texts of accurately translated Bible versions in Greek and English, and when answered with the actual words of scripture that clearly demonstrate to anyone, even an eight-year-old, from the basis of ''sola scriptura'' (scripture interpreting scripture with the words of scripture alone), all cited and quoted in context, that your doctrinal position has no backing and is opposed to the word of God, ''you still persist in contradicting them'''!''''' Seventeen centuries of Christian knowledge and understanding of the Bible regarding salvation and faith and works from the end of the first century through the Reformation into the end of the eighteenth century stand solidly against your opposition to infant baptism, and they utterly reject with one united voice the arguments of the credobaptist "Believer's baptism only" position as "giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared." That is why in the sixteenth century the Anabaptists were condemned by all of the Christian world, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant. I worked in health care, "hands-on", for 42 years after I returned home "back in the world" 1976 to Iowa. My own 91-year-old mother who is astonishingly healthy (''How I know!''), a very astute and intelligent, clear-headed and very well-informed former Lutheran, and later former Baptist, who became Catholic shortly after I did, along with my father, advised me stop responding to your taunts and "puerile" attempts at provocation, to simply let you "rant and rave". You cannot win. [http://biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts%205%3A39 Acts 5:39]. I will not answer any further edits from you. If you do I will not respond. If you disrupt my answer here with inserted commentary as you did on [[Talk:Infant baptism]] I will delete it. I entrust you to God as the One Who will fully deal with you according to His Mercy and Justice. Do not contact me again. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:48, 5 November 2019 (EST)

:Answer: You should have heeded your own advice here from the beginning and linked your own objections and arguments to an Essay page, instead of persisting in your argument ''ad nihilo'', as you did with your own voluminously redundant '''spamming''' (a term you used for all of my answers to your interminable objections)—instead of limiting your comments on the Talk page to a simple, clearly stated "point-counterpoint" basic doctrinal expression. I stand on the authority of the Bible. My doctrinal position is Catholic precisely because of the Bible. The Catholic Church was not founded in the beginning by anyone other than Jesus. The orthodox catholic Church was not founded by those who disobeyed their leaders, and went out from them, and taught a different gospel than the one they had been given and had received at first, and then claimed (in contradiction of the promises of Jesus) that Jesus had '''''not''''' remained with the Church he had personally founded, claiming that the Holy Spirit was '''''not''''' leading into all truth the shepherding leadership of the guardians of the Church they went out from. The Bible points by the ''irrefutable ordinary evidence of documented history itself'' that the true Church '''''must''''' be the Catholic and Orthodox Church, so that on the infallible basis of the promises of the New Testament in the words of Jesus and Paul and John that she would be led into all truth for ever, '''''therefore, whatever''''' doctrine she [[dogma]]tically proposes for belief '''''must''''' be the truth—a factual, historically-attested conclusion based entirely on the infallible words of the Bible. '''John 14:16-17; 16:12-13; Matthew 28:18-20; 1 John 2:18-19; Galatians 1:6-9,'''  I directed you and the other readers of the Talk page to links that access actual Catholic doctrine solidly rooted in scripture. You spurned it with contempt. You just don't get it. I believe you will not stop. You even tracked me down to continue your mocking contempt on my talk page, with a [[Hypocrites|hypocritical]] suggestion that you yourself did not follow (Fallacy of [[Special pleading]] – "''The other form of special pleading involves simply ignoring evidence unfavorable to one's position. One engaged in this form of special pleading concentrates only on one aspect of an issue, or a subset of aspects favorable to the person making the claim.''"). I will not respond again. You have totally convinced me it would be pointless and futile. I have much more important concerns than dignifying your apparently intransigent and unending obstinant persistence against an answer adequately expressed with substantial backing from the Bible and consistently reiterated as true doctrine. I am a Bible apologist, who happens to be Catholic. I know the scriptures. I have access to twenty centuries of Greek linguistic scholarship and Bible scholarship and textual critical analysis that supports the truth of the Bible, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. I stand by them. You dismiss them. Your answers and objections on [[Talk:Infant baptism]] have overwhelmingly characterized you as apparently not knowing the Bible, apparently not knowing the Greek New Testament text, apparently unable to understand the simple, plain and obvious meaning of the abundant texts of accurately translated Bible versions in Greek and English, and when answered with the actual words of scripture that clearly demonstrate to anyone, even an eight-year-old, from the basis of ''sola scriptura'' (scripture interpreting scripture with the words of scripture alone), all cited and quoted in context, that your doctrinal position has no backing and is opposed to the word of God, ''you still persist in contradicting them'''!''''' Seventeen centuries of Christian knowledge and understanding of the Bible regarding salvation and faith and works from the end of the first century through the Reformation into the end of the eighteenth century stand solidly against your opposition to infant baptism, and they utterly reject with one united voice the arguments of the credobaptist "Believer's baptism only" position as "giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared." That is why in the sixteenth century the Anabaptists were condemned by all of the Christian world, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant. I worked in health care, "hands-on", for 42 years after I returned home "back in the world" 1976 to Iowa. My own 91-year-old mother who is astonishingly healthy (''How I know!''), a very astute and intelligent, clear-headed and very well-informed former Lutheran, and later former Baptist, who became Catholic shortly after I did, along with my father, advised me stop responding to your taunts and "puerile" attempts at provocation, to simply let you "rant and rave". You cannot win. [http://biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts%205%3A39 Acts 5:39]. I will not answer any further edits from you. If you do I will not respond. If you disrupt my answer here with inserted commentary as you did on [[Talk:Infant baptism]] I will delete it. I entrust you to God as the One Who will fully deal with you according to His Mercy and Justice. Do not contact me again. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:48, 5 November 2019 (EST)

:::coulda woulda shoulda. Wikis are about collaborative editing. My suggestion is a way for you to preserve your hard wok in full for easy access by the public.

:::coulda woulda shoulda. Wikis are about collaborative editing. My suggestion is a way for you to preserve your hard wok in full for easy access by the public.