Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,139
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 806:
Line 806: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Project 150 Million! Please Participate!: moving VargasMilan's trolling to his talk page!
Hi Vargas. Would you like to participate in Conservapedia's own Project 150 Million: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King It is modeled after Project 100 million of another website. To participate, please share your testimony for Jesus Christ our King. You can be as brief and generic as you wish; even a couple of sentences will do. Please ask others also to sign up on Conservapedia and share their testimony for Christ Our King. The Bible says, a Multitude of People is the King's Honor. So let us work for the Glory and Honor of Christ Our King by winning a multitude of people to Him. Hallelujah! Amen. So be it Lord. 10:16, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
Hi Vargas. Would you like to participate in Conservapedia's own Project 150 Million: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King It is modeled after Project 100 million of another website. To participate, please share your testimony for Jesus Christ our King. You can be as brief and generic as you wish; even a couple of sentences will do. Please ask others also to sign up on Conservapedia and share their testimony for Christ Our King. The Bible says, a Multitude of People is the King's Honor. So let us work for the Glory and Honor of Christ Our King by winning a multitude of people to Him. Hallelujah! Amen. So be it Lord. 10:16, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
== Group project? ==
Dataclarifier, NishantXavier, LiberalTears and IndependentSkeptic are characterized by all agreeing with each other, even though some set up man-traps or pitfalls with an amazing commonality of being fitted to what RobS might do. I don't think RobS would be unable to extract himself if he got caught; I just think he shouldn't have to participate in their stupidity. So keep an eye on these guys, because they might get blocked or double down on what seems to motivate their behavior: a preoccupation with avoiding deferring to RobS at any cost! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 15:23, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
:So apparently I "might get blocked" despite the fact that you actually violate the [[90/10 rule]] (<span class="plainlinks">[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/VargasMilan&offset=&limit=500&target=VargasMilan see Vargas' 500 previous edits here]</span>). —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]'''''</sup> 15:31, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
:So you respond to my mostly valid point with a half-rant [[User_talk:NishantXavier#VargasMilan_responds_to_Liberaltears|here]], and double down by assuming supernatural mind-reading powers to somehow "assume" that I had "malice aforethought". Is this what Andy promoted you to do? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]'''''</sup> 15:39, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
:Also, please quit being harsh on NishantXavier. The latter actually makes more relevant, constructive contributions than you currently do. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]'''''</sup> 15:41, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
::All three of these responses hurt my feelings! I don't even want to talk to you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 16:04, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
:::Then why would you invoke my name? Besides, you literally responded in order to assert that you "don't even want to talk" to me, which is a contradiction. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]'''''</sup> 16:12, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
::::I'm not worried. The Pope hasn't been born yet that can defy the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 16:23, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
:::The latest is an alleged seminary student claims the Holy Spirit is received at baptism. Of course in all his seminary years they never had him study these verses:
:::*''Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.''
:::*''I baptize with water: but....Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.''
:::In conclusion: ''we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places,''
:::like the people who run that seminary. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 16:39, 13 July 2020 (EDT)
Dear Brothers/Sisters/Friends, let's not drag each other down here, but seek ways in which we can lift each other up. That's behaving like true Christians would, as we all profess to be. We are not competitors here, but collaborators, co-operating on an exciting project of Making the World Conservative Again! [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]]<sup>[[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]]</sup> 01:00, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
:That would be impossible, since you are glossing over the fact that I could probably find many examples, from all four of you, where, in discussions, even though you do respond, you respond only to the material that it pleases you to include, while ignoring information that is often even the most relevant. That is a fallacy called ''ignoratio elenchi'', and that you carry it out to the bitter end to me is both weird and irresponsible.
:Having entered the discussion, I'd probably have even met you halfway by answering polite requests for examples or insights as to relevance. But RobS has stated he's willing to suffer along to demonstrate the merits of his positions, and "clearing the deck" of preliminary distinctions to cool down the argument to a level of constructive engagement had been my primary concern, just as, paradoxically, it caused you to drop the argument each time like a hot potato and take up another one, and, as mentioned above, even, at length, the one directly preceding your remarks here!
:[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 04:53, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
::This inability to stay on point is a sign of shallow faith in what increasingly looks like a shallow faith that is hard to defend. But never mind. There are reams and reams of unresolved historical debates to draw on and recycle, and continue to ignore teaching the Word of God to young children and church members, as has become the Roman Church's official doctrine. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 17:34, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
I am all for constructive discussion in a structured manner. When 10 points are made, it's a little difficult if we object that only 8 are replied to, while 2 are omitted. Btw, I also asked a question that was unanswered. But leave that. Whatever topic we want to debate/discuss, let's create a debate page on that (it's not like we have space constraints; no, we are free from those) and then focus that debate only on that topic. An example could be the Sacraments. Another e.g. on what Evangelicals believe and what Catholics believe. One could be one Once Saved, Always Saved etc. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]]<sup>[[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]]</sup> 08:07, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
:I think I'll leave it in Rob's capable hands to treat your behavior in whatever way he sees fit. I've provided him what evidence I could, and, after all, he's the one you targeted with your abuse of propositional speech in presenting what you called a key doctrinal statement in the form of a sentence that made use of double meanings. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 08:50, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
::NX: "Structured manner"! HA!. I asked about the meaning of ''Christ died once for all'' and why the need for repeated sacrifices. (A) You never responded. (B) You created an entirely pointless discussion on purgatory. (C) You created a subhead with my name accusing me of unBiblical representations, and asserted that sacrifices of praises are somehow analogous to [[transubstantiation]]. None of this is constructive.
::In fact, if you want to prove any evidence of good faith, you can go back and rename that subhead and remove my name. Til then, we have little in good faith to negotiate. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 17:16, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
I think there is no need to be on the defensive when no one is attacking you. Question: Are you Catholic or Evangelical, Vargas Milan? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]]<sup>[[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]]</sup> 09:03, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
:Let's take the term "evangelism" for example. I remember a time when "evangelical" and "evangelism" were dirty words in the Roman Church. Now you push a reform idea that "evangelism" is to fulfill the "great commission" ("great commission" defined as being under bondage to the papacy). I'm sure 90%+ of people who identify as "evangelicals" do not see your idea of "evangelism" that way, at all. In fact, they probably are angry about your hijacking and corrupting the meaning of the term they use to differentiate themselves from the papacy which has a long history of misinterpreting scripture. This is just the latest chapter. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 16:16, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
===Let's talk about the Holy Spirit===
NX: Let's talk about the Holy Spirit, and tell us why or where you got the doctrinal idea that an infant receives the Holy Spirit at baptism? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 17:41, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
:Here's a typical "structured" debate:
:Rob: Show evidence infants receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.
:Roman believer: Well Catholics believe .....
:Rob: That's not what I asked. I asked to show evidence from God's mouth that infants receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.
:Roman believer: Well the pope said....
:Rob: Show evidence from God's mouth that God ever appointed a group of cardinals to elect a spokesman.
:Roman believer: Well Jesus said "Thou art Peter...."
:Rob: Show evidence God ever empowered a body to vote to elect His spokesman. There is no biblical precedent for that.
:Roman believer: You're going to hell for failing to abide by the dictates of men who appointed themselves as God's spokesman.
:Rob: But that is not what God says.
:Roman believer: Man decides what God says.
:Rob: Ok, thanks. I think we understand each other now.
[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 17:55, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
I removed your name since you asked. This above question has already been answered, from St. Peter in the Bible, many times. Protestants are doctrinally mistaken in their denial of Baptismal Regeneration; just as Sadducees were doctrinally mistaken in their denial of the Resurrection.
""Acts 2:38 - St. Peter declares that the Spirit is promised to the Baptized!
To one of the most important questions in soteriology, the basic question, "what must we do to be saved?" (Acts 2:37), St. Peter the Apostle, on the day of Pentecost, speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, did not declare Baptism merely symbolic and inefficacious, but said, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ '''for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."'''
This statement is clear. They were to repent of their unbelief. They were to be baptized in the Name given by the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins. And when they did this, they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. These statements of the Chief Apostle, given the Keys to open the Kingdom of God to unbelievers, by, among other things, declaring its mysteries (Mat 16:19), show to us that Baptism truly regenerates the soul. It has efficacy, as the same St. Peter the Apostle would later write, "by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet 3:21). That means Baptism effects something. It is not just a bare and empty sign. It effects the resurrection of the believer from sin and death to grace and life." https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Does_Baptism_regenerate_or_is_it_symbolic%3F#Acts_2:38_-_St._Peter_declares_that_the_Spirit_is_promised_to_the_Baptized.21 [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]]<sup>[[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]]</sup> 18:39, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
:Roman Catholics are doctrinally mistaken that a religious ceremony performed on them as an infant makes them children of God just as the Pharisees were doctrinally mistaken that circumcision made them children of Abraham. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 19:32, 16 July 2020 (EDT)