Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-09-12T04:22:34Z

Dataclarifier: /* Two tier justice system */ provided links to https://carm.org/donatism and Ex opere operato and ex opere operantis

I set up the debate page with a "Yes" and "No" format, but I will not participate. I have made my view known on other debate pages listed on this debate page under the See also section. May God bless you all. ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:Good. Be a slacker. My response will serve as the response of the community, and if you try this stunt again, I'll pursue getting it deleted with the assistance of RobS. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 22:22, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==The title of this debate is unacceptable==
Neither I nor RobSmith will accept a Debate whose title is based on such a loaded premise. We reject the very notion that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is the same church that "Jesus founded on the a rock" and that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against." [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 22:05, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:The question, as stated, makes little sense, needs to be shortened, and re-phrased.

:My guess is DC wants to use it as another spamfest. Fine. But once the spam is posted here, it should not be allowed to be cut and pasted unto other good faith Debate pages, IMO. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:06, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::Look at the top of this page. He already told us he wouldn't be participating, even though he's the one who set it up. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 23:16, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::He's making a statement. If nobody signs up in a few days, a speedy tag could be hung. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:20, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::So a debate page can be deleted for the sheer reason that no one participates, if such is the case? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:23, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::Good question. I don't know. But if the creator of the page states it was created in bad faith and nobody participates, that certainly would be cause to hang a speedy tag, IMO. It could be defined as nonsense spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:26, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==This is practically the definition of bad faith==
Please end it. --[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:Yes. It's redundant of at least two earlier debates. ''They think by their many words they shall be heard.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:29, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

==IndependentSkeptic==
Dataclarifier may not be willing to participate. I am. At least once. '''First''' the creator ot the page did '''''not''''' state it was created in bad faith. '''Second''' (and I hope '''''finally''''') I posted on the Debate Page what I consider the most devastating response I ever found to the blasphemous garbage-mouth objections posted by VargasMilan and RobSmith against the promises of Jesus Christ and against his Church. I joined because of the Bible, and like Dataclarifier (Michael), I too have found the Catholic Church to be the most biblical Church. It's a Full Gospel Church. '''''Nuff said! Oh Yeah!''''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 08:17, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:This debate will not add anything new that has not already been said on other pages. But if it becomes helpful to save a few more souls in what promises to be another spamfest, so be it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:31, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:Just remember, ''by grace are ye saved'', not spam, distortions, and lies. You're only making the chain heavier of the lost with all your spam postings and convoluted logic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:34, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:As Solomon said, ''much study is a weariness of the flesh''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:35, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::"''By grace are ye saved''". Exactly! '''The ''Catechism'' says the same thing!''' [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', Part Three, Section 1, Chapter 3, article 2: '''Grace and Justification'''] You really ought to read it. The Bible backs it up completely. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:43, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:No it doesn't. The Catechism says ''grace is not grace''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:46, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::You lie! No such text in the ''Catechism''. I've read it. You can't quote box any such passage anywhere in the ''Catechism''.

::Oh, the [[Truth (logic|logic]] is inescapable! Only someone like yourself blinded by [[confirmation bias]] can't see it. Look at [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9%3A39-41&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NIV;NABRE '''John 9:39-41''']. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:56, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:Catechism teaches grace is merited. It's already cited in mainspace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::Not the initial grace of salvation. No one can merit that. ''You just won't admit it.'' That's the teaching of the Catholic Church. That's the teaching of the ''Catechism''. Apart from Christ there is no meriting salvation. Only He saves. Only through Christ can we do anything. Only united to Him can we bear fruit. "For apart from me you can do nothing". We can't do it! Again, look at [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm '''Grace and Justification'''].

::'''You lie about what the ''Catechism'' says.''' But you keep repeating the same lie. '''You''' are spamming [[Falsehood]].

::I will waste no more time with you. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:15, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:If grace is merited, ''grace is not grace''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:The grace of God is essentially the "good news", which is what the term "gospel" is translated into. Catholic catechism denies the good news, i.e. the gospel, and reverts back into law and Judaism. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:09, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:''Ye are like unto whited sepulchers....…'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:25, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
==This page should be locked if the disruptive trolling continues==
[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:44, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

==This page has turned into an incoherent mess==
Replete with Dataclarifier's signature redundant spamming, which IndependentSceptic has now adopted. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:52, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

:The spamming of -1,289 bytes and doubling down with another -2,301 bytes in an edit war [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Have_the_gates_of_hell_prevailed_against_the_church_Jesus_founded_on_a_rock,_when_He_Himself_said_it_could_never_happen%3F_Did_Christ_who_cannot_lie_fail_to_fulfill_his_promise%3F&curid=160783&action=history here marked in red] is making the page incomprehensible. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:53, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

==Mistaken reversion==
My reversion this morning was a mistake by my super-sensitive touch screen. This error has been corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:26, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

== Proposed revision of mainspace Debate page - orderly and organized ==

RobSmith proposed some new additional Rules for this Debate. I cite in particular these, as relevant to a revision of the mainspace page to remove spam, and disruptive insertions into original postings, as vandalism:{{quotebox|'''Rules'''
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*[...]

*[...]

*[...] Spamming is not allowed in either the Protagonist, Antagonist, or Open discussion sections. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*[...]

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user. }}

In support of these I proposed on my talk page an additional rule:{{quotation|
*Original postings are to be left intact. No inserting of commentary or challenge into an original posting made by another user, and thereby disrupting, interrupting or breaking up the flow of the thought or argument of the posting. Any editor can remove it, especially the original posting editor, as an attempt at spamming or vandalism, obscuring the point of the posting. —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Protagonist section must be made in the Antagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Protagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged. —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Antagonist section must be made in the Protagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Antagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged.}}In accordance with these rules proposed by RobSmith and myself I have revised a copy of the Debate mainspace page as follows. (This is not spam. RobSmith said he had unlocked the page. It's still locked. All double-brackets enclosing identifying signatures of users posting comments have been removed from the copy below to preemptively defeat a potential accusation of "forging electronic signatures" on a page the user "never posted to"—meaning this Debate talk page.) --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

== Misleading RobSmith commentary - 1 Kings 11:12-13 "turn away" - and "preacher of the gospel" applied to himself 2Tm 2:7; 2 Co 10:14; 2Tm 5:17-18 ==

Debate page is still locked to prevent editing. Note posted at [View source] states any edit proposed should be first discussed. O.K. I propose the following edit be added right after RobSmith's partial quotation of 1 Timothy 5:18 to "''not muzzle the ox''".
:RobSmith characteristically misleads readers with comments that deflect from the point of the actual context of the reference being made, taking it out of context, in this case deflecting and implying as a mistaken typo the actual reference to 1 Kings 11:12-13 that the kingdom was "''Torn away''". It says{{quotation|Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will '''tear it out''' of the hand of your son. However I will not '''tear away''' all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen. —RSVCE ("'''rend away'''" KJV)}}But RobSmith says "''Torn away''" must be a typo, that it says instead "turn away". The actual text of KJV verse 9 says "''because his heart was turned from''". While there are many different versions of the Bible, '''''none of them''''' says "turn away" in 1 Kings 11:9-13. And not only that, but RobSmith also claims to be a "preacher of the gospel" in accordance with Matthew 28:19, which in the context of the passage was addressed to "the eleven disciples" who were those remaining of the '''[[Twelve Apostles]]''' whom Christ had "ordained"/"appointed" and named as apostles. (Luke 22:29; 6:13). But he refuses to answer and say unequivocally that he is an accredited ordained preacher, making his claim doubtful at best. The term "preacher of the gospel" in the New Testament was applied only to those ordained as preachers of the gospel and like Paul ordained as apostles. {{quotation|'''1 Timothy 2:7''' Whereunto I am '''ordained''' a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, ''and'' lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. —KJV}}{{quotation|'''2 Timothy 1:11''' Whereunto I am '''appointed''' a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. —KJV}}I've already quoted other Bible passages from the New Testament about the apostles ordaining elders as preachers of the congregations in the book of Acts. Paul's additional reference to not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain is RobSmith's answer to the question "Are you an acknowledged ordained preacher?" That's RobSmith's evasive and slanted abuse of scripture ''taken entirely out of context'' as if it is referring to all of the responses of correction on these Debate pages as attempts to "muzzle" him, to "silence" him, to put forth grounds to discredit his right to insist on his own interpretations and applications of the Bible as from God having called him to preach and teach the word, quoting Matthew 28:19, and 1 Timothy 5:18 "''you shall not muzzle the ox''". In fact, St. Paul was citing that passage as applied to himself regarding his rights and the rights of ordained elders (''presbyteroi''/priests) to receive a salary or monetary support ("honor") as an ordained apostle and preacher of the gospel.{{quotation|'''2 Corinthians 11:8-9''' 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages ''of them'', to do you service. 9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all ''things'' I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and ''so'' will I keep ''myself''.}}{{quotation|'''1 Timothy 5:17-18''' 17 Let the '''elders that rule well''' be counted worthy of double honour, especially '''they who labour in the word and doctrine'''. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer ''is'' worthy of his reward. —KJV}}{{quotation|'''1 Corinthians 9:6-18''' 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? 8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. 15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel. —NKJV}}
:RobSmith deceitfully uses the word of God. His interpretations of scripture cannot be trusted. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:04, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
I really think this response edit must for the sake of truth be included on the Debate page, right after RobSmith's quote of 1 Timothy 5:18a (his leaving out of v 15b), which he applies to himself in refusing to answer if he is an accredited ordained "preacher of the gospel". Given his past performance up to this day, I believe he will oppose including it, as an embarrassment to him for making false claims about himself. He has a right to '''[[Witnessing|witness]]''' to the gospel according to his own understanding, but no right to claim to be a "'''preacher of the gospel'''" if he hasn't been acknowledged by any church as "appointed and ordained" a preacher.
--[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 09:53, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:So let me get this straight now, Paul withstood Peter to his face, is ordained by God, but Peter has all authority" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:49, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Peter was ordained by Jesus Christ Himself Who gave to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven to bind and to loose, and heaven confirms his authority, "shall be bound in heaven, shall be loosed in heaven". --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Yet Paul withstood him to his face. Paul was disobedient to God's authority? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::TLDR; this spam seems a little off-point to the Debate question. And talk about deceitful, give me one simple piece of evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace, and we can continue this discussion. One piece of evidence, not a bloc of spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

*''that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit''.

Yes, the '''''fleshly''''' kingdom was ''torn away'' from Solomon.

Yes, Solomon's heart ''turned away'' from the Lord.

The subject under discussion was Solomon's salvation, not his fleshly kingdom. You are spamming above, making a mountain out of a mole hill. I mistakenly thought you were discussing spiritual matters, not fleshly, when I mistakenly referred to you spamming the discussion with fleshly matters as a typo. I should have known better. You have no spiritual discernment. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:14, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:You have a reasonable amount of time to produce evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace in the wilderness, preferably with one or two scriptures in support. Then, in accordance with the agreement we both have with User:Conservative, debates are not supposed to be on talk pages.
:P.S., you exhibited bad faith in (a) violating the Rules you yourself proposed; (b) biased editing in your revised version. For example, the Protagonist position is based upon the law being a curse, while Roman church doctrine is based upon law. You edited out at least four references, along with the supporting evidence and context, to that point. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:31, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Korah's rebellion (Jude 11) is rooted entirely in his perversion of the "good news" gospel statement of God that the whole nation is holy, and Korah's interpretation as a pretext for the perversion of that gospel by rejection of the authority of Moses and Aaron appointed by God as shepherds over the whole people of God— Numbers 16 whole chapter, {{quotation|'''Numbers 16:3''' and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said, '''You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?}}The Protestant Reformation said the same thing. Evidence that you distort scripture still remains. If we are disqualified, so are you. We stand by our proposed edit as a definitive summary. Nothing needs to be added. It's the truth. Good bye. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Was Israel under grace or under law" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:20, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:More bad faith: I never referenced Matthew 28:19. You are trolling. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:Proposal: [[Debate: Who is ordained to preach and teach the gospel?]] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::More bad faith squirming by RobSmith—Mark 16:15 says the same thing as Matthew 28:19. Yep. More of your persistent strategy of misleading distortion in virtually saying that Mark 16:15 ''has nothing to do with'' Matthew 28:19. Anyone who can read can see that it does. They can see that much. We stand by what we said about your abuse and misuse of scripture. Your interpretations and insinuations from the Bible cannot be trusted. You use the Bible deceitfully. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::One says teach, one says preach. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:24, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:'''Is User:RobSmith an acknowledged accredited ordained preacher of the gospel?''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:21, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::I have a ministry. I have been involved in prison ministry and ministry to the homeless for many years. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:26, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Ah-hah. You say you have a ministry. You do not say you were ordained an acknowledged accredited preacher of the gospel. I have a Christian ministry too. But I'm a layman witnessing to the gospel, and so is Dataclarifier, doing what we can, but we are not ordained ministers to preach and teach the gospel as "ambassadors of the Lord" 2 Corinthians 5:20. For understanding clearly RobSmith's strategy of interpreting scripture: See [[Loaded question]], [[Misrepresentation]], [[Putting words in someone's mouth]], [[Confirmation bias]] and [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]]. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::You're full of bull. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::And in my prison ministry, in my part of the country I encounter many Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers who thought they were baptized into salvation as an infant. In prison, they have much time to think about that, and for the first time, be exposed to God's truth and God's word. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:35, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::*'''Psalm 22:6''' - ''Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.''
::I see the wreckage of human lives you create with your catechism and infant baptism. God has called me to clean up the messes you guys make. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:47, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::You are misleading again, by a lying implication. You are actually saying, that these prisoners' ignorance of the faith and their sin is the doctrine of the Church! That is a lie. They chose to be ignorant, to do as they pleased, to rebel against their upbringing, to sin against the preaching of the Church and her holy doctrine, to dishonor their parents and grieve them in spite of their pleading to get out of the gangs and come back to the faith of the holy saints and angels. I know. I've heard them. There are also Catholic prison chaplains, ordained to ministry and reconciliation, who are expert in scripture and are devout followers of Jesus Christ. You suggestively imply that not one of them is in the prisons ministering to Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers by exposing them again to God's truth and God's word of reconciliation and healing that they heard in their parochial schools and at Mass. You impugn their ministry. Your deceitful interpretations of the word of God are misleading them away from the fullness of truth into a distortion of the truth of the Bible, the same Bible which led me and Dataclarifier from Protestantism into the Catholic Church as the most biblical Church on the face of the earth having the Fullness of the Gospel, not a distorted shriveled "withered" part of it—as NishantXavier said, maybe "50%, 80%, or even 90%" '''but not all of the truth revealed by God'''. '''Answer!'''. Are you a fully accredited acknowledged officially ordained preacher of the gospel associated with any recognized established Christian ministry organization, congregation, sect, church, or denomination—or are you conducting your own personal ministry as a layman? '''Don't ignore the question! Are you a legitimately ordained minister of the gospel? You say you were raised Catholic. You claim to ''be'' catholic''' (small "c"). '''Are you a Catholic? ''Are you an ordained Catholic preacher of the gospel?'' Don't try to squirm out of answering with a direct "yes" or "no".''' Dataclarifier and I are sure we know the answer (so does his mother). --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::(ec) I have witnessed miracles of changed lives. The gangbangers, like me, were instructed from an early age '''''not''''' to read the bible, '''''not''''' hear instruction from the bible, and were taught that they already had been adopted into God's family and received the Holy Ghost at infant baptism. (What you say about Catholic prison ministries is irrelevant to what we are discussing here). These gangbangers tell me, without solicitation, that they had been lied to by the Roman church and their parents.
::::*''Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness''
::::This verse is meaningless to someone who is told they have already been adopted into God's family as an infant. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 12:18, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'')
:::As always, misleading and false. They, like you, were taught from the Bible in their religion classes—''unless they refused to listen, even running away to go join a gang''. That teaching from the Bible in religion class by the sisters and brothers and priests was and is the pedagogy of the parochial schools since the beginning of the 19th century, so they ''were'' taught the Bible as the word of God and the whole faith of the Church as established by God with authority. Private reading leads to private interpretation. That's dangerous. It can lead to destruction and being led into error by lawless men (those who twist the doctrines of the scriptures and lean on their own understanding), and into falling from '''''security in holding to the faith by the knowledge of Jesus Christ''''', as Peter warned (2 Peter 1:20–2:3; 3:15-18). The devil quotes scripture too. That's why they were told not to read the Bible (for themselves). But anyone who really wants to know the truth will finally find it, just as we did, in the Catholic Church, and find the way of holiness by "partaking of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-11—''read it!''). And anyone among us who leads a sinner back from the error of his way will save a soul from death. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:40, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::'''''Stop continually provoking more debate on this talk page''. This is not the place. You locked the page to prevent more debate, but you perpetuate it here. <big>You have our answer. That should have been enough!</big> But you continue to spam more distortions and misrepresentations that beg for correction. You just won't let it lay down and rest. You just have to have the [[Last wordism|Last word]] with more unjustified [[libel]] and misquoting scripture out of context. And I quote: "At worst, it''' [having the last word] '''reflects a lack of personal responsibility or bullying, which is a characteristic of wrongdoing or sinfulness."''' '''''Enough!''''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 

We add that both Dataclarifier and I independently made inquiries and found that without exception '''a Bible was provided as a fundamental required teaching resource at every desk in <big>every</big> parochial school''', and in the religion classes the teachers and students together read from both it and the catechism. Problem was, some students didn't care and were not interested, too bored with school to listen. So, they felt no need to hunger and thirst after righteousness. Not the Church's fault, nor their teachers'. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 13:27, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 
:What a farce! The 7th & 8th grade classrooms I and my brother attended at St. Thomas Aquinas school did not have ''any'' bibles until my father donated two with inscriptions dedicated to my dead mother. They may still be there, and have probably never been opened since the day they were dedicated more than 50 years ago. Neither did the grade 1-6 classrooms me and my 3 older brothers went through have a single bible, and probably still don't. Likewise, the larger bible my father donated to St. Mary's school in Burlington, Wisconsin is probably still the only bible in the entire school, which included a high school. And my mother who taught there knew nothing of the bible outside Catholic doctrine, and certainly never conducted a bible class. I had to learn it after she was dead.
:Likewise, in the town I live now, where I am involved with several homeless ministries, Catholic Charities is right across the street from the Baptist Rescue Mission. The Baptists give out bible's of all sizes like candy in Spanish and English, whereas you can't find a bible within the four walls of the Catholic ministry if your life dependent on it. Don't give me this crap that Catholics teach or respect the bible. They don't. They fear the bible, as rightly they should. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:01, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Let me guess where you and Dataclarifier, two adult converts, got your information about bibles in Catholic schools - a Catholic website! [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'')
:::Nope. We got it from former Catholics in our own city who'd always lived there. When we discovered they had once been Catholic we asked pointed questions about it, and they admitted they'd had Bibles in their parochial schools. But they weren't interested in reading it. It was boring. So, we got first hand info from people who'd actually been there. Not from online Catholic websites! Others who'd gotten away from the Church and become Protestants and then returned because they read the Bible more carefully, also said they weren't interested in the Bible in school, but came back when they felt they should read it. They said it was the Holy Spirit. So were some of the former inmates of prisons of Anamosa and San Quentin. When they read the Bible they were converted from their evil past, really repented, and became Catholic, they said because of the Bible. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:43, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::Having been born, raised, and baptized Catholic, and around them my entire life, I can say, you were lied to. But that's okay, they can confess, "I lied X number of times" without enumerating or going into specifics about what they lied about and to who. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::And this raises a good point: the penitent sinner can go to confession to cleanse their own soul, but no consideration is given to the party done an injury. That's a little self-serving, don't you think, what Catholic doctrine teaches? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:56, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::::For example, a liar gets off with three Hail Marys, but you go around looking like a fool for life having believed him. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:59, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

===a bible in Catholic schools===
These statements,
{{quotebox|...without exception '''a Bible was provided as a fundamental required teaching resource at every desk in <big>every</big> parochial school''', and in the religion classes the teachers and students together read from both it and the catechism.....they weren't interested in reading it. It was boring...."}}
are certainly very interesting and revealing. "required teaching resource at every desk....teachers and students together....weren't interested in reading it. It was boring."

The Bible was boring. Hmmm, what possibly could be of more interest? sin? pride? The teachers evidently were pretty incompetent in that they didn't make students read a "required teaching resource".
*''Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness'',
but the Roman Catholic teachers couldn't even secure this blessing for these baptized children, cause "it was boring". Evidently the blessings of God were boring for the teachers, as well. Who needed any more blessings from God? They were already baptized. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:29, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

You never mentioned the numbers of criminals and gangbangers with Protestant Bible-believing backgrounds in prison '''who relied on being saved by faith alone''', who were told that there is therefore now no condemnation for all eternity for any sin they might commit, past, present, and future, "because they were in Christ and freed from the law of sin and death", and gave testimony and were baptized, and later '''rebelled against their parents, the Bible, and forgot what they had been taught by their pastors in their churches''', and now in prison have come back to the Bible. "But they were saved!" (Once). And they're from all races, Hispanic, White, Black, Brown, Red. '''Protestants! Fundamentalists!''' (Once upon a time). I know about all this, because I was Disciples of Christ, and Dataclarifier was a fundamental Baptist. And we both "got away with sin" for too long, until we read more of the Bible and saw that we couldn't rely for our eternal salvation on the fact once and for all that we had professed Jesus Christ as our own personal Savior. Both of us have committed jailable offenses worthy of long terms in prison that no one else knows about. (Difference is, we got away with it, but '''no more'''.) That's no different than what you said about those Hispanic Roman Catholics baptized as babies. Other prisoners guilty of horrible acts have been once saved, and did what they did '''anyway!''' Look at the news about so many privileged white kids growing up in Bible-believing homes and churches in their youth who threw it all off to commit in secret monstrous crimes of passion and corruption, but got caught later and brought shame to their families, and grief to the innocents they preyed on, and their families. So much for [[Eternal security (salvation)]]. Your blaming Catholicism and Infant Baptism for their gang raping activities is a crock. Oh, if you're wondering: We each did our own independent interviewing of former Catholics by ourselves long before we ever met each other, like about 30-40 years ago. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:24, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:There's plenty of them - Protestants. Most who received the word as a child have a conscience and more easily convicted of sin. Roman Catholics, by contrast, have a longer road to travel, first having to unlearn all the garbage they were taught. So it begins with having a pure, genuine ''hunger and thirst for righteousness'', which conflicts with being brainwashed that they don't need it cause they were already baptized as an infant.
:So at what point is the righteousness of Christ imputed? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:45, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::''It also conflicts with being brainwashed by once saved always saved.'' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Well that's left to each to ''work out your own salvation with fear and trembling''. At least hearers receive the Good News of being ''freed from the curse of the law.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:52, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::"''At what point''"? '''I've already told you!''' By the washing of water with the word. He saved us by the water-washing of regeneration. Baptism saves you now. His righteousness is imputed to us by his grace. And also when we're brought back from the error of our way. When we confess our sins. He is faithful and just to forgive us. And again, His righteousness is imputed to us by his grace. Read the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church''. Look at all the scripture cited in it. The correct understanding and interpretation of the Bible according to the mind of Christ is explained in it. Repent and come to the truth. --I/S and DC --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:59, 4 September 2020 (EDT) We're done here. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:02, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::We've debunked that bullrot a thousand times. You loose Christ when you take a crap after communion. So his righteousness has to be re-imputed again through the wash, rinse repeat cycle of sin, confession, communion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:04, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 

:::::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Any further comments and rebuttals by RobSmith is going to be only repetitive '''[[spam]]''' adding nothing new to the discussion. He is a perfect example of someone who absolutely must have the '''[[Last wordism|Last Word]]'''. You have been warned. "'''''He'll be Back!'''''" We're done. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:20, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::::"''take a crap''" Crude as ever. False. Consistent [[misrepresentation]] and [[ignorance]]. The presence of Christ passes from the [[Host (Communion)|Host]] into the body and soul of one who has devoutly received Communion the moment the Host dissolves and ceases to be the form of bread. We eat his flesh and drink his blood as he promised in John 6:32-58. We actually "partake of the divine nature" by receiving Christ Himself in Holy Communion (2 Peter 1:3-11). He remains in the body and soul of the communicant who receives Him, unless they deliberately cast Him out by mortal sin "unto death". But they can be restored by sincere repentance, and devout purpose of amendment to not sin again if possible, and confess their sin to one entrusted with the message of reconciliation as the ambassador of Christ who is authorized in Christ to absolve and forgive the eternal punishment of sin, as explained more completely in the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' citing abundant passages of scripture about the biblical doctrines of Sacramental Eucharist and Sacramental Penance and Reconciliation. '''A fundamental principle''' of evaluating and discerning any such interpretation of Catholic [[doctrine]] and [[dogma]], like this one, or any interpretation that makes the Church appear to be absurd, or evil, or brings reproach on the Church by [[libel]] or [[scandal]] and [[falsehood]], is not Catholic doctrine but [[error]] based on [[falsehood]]s unworthy of belief. Do not rely on '''enemies''' of Catholicism to tell the truth about Catholic belief and practice. '''Almost the whole entirety of what RobSmith has been saying and implying about the Catholic Church and Catholic doctrine and dogma and the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is a lie. He is not telling you the truth.''' We know this. Because we know both the Bible '''''and''''' the Catechism. And what he's been saying is not actual Catholicism. As Bible Christians who know the Bible we know this for a fact. We checked for ourselves what Catholicism ''actually'' teaches, not what people ''say'' is Catholic teaching but the actual stuff, straight from the source, without misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies by people who are not Catholic or have a grudge against the Catholic Church and hate its spiritual authority as substantiated by the Bible. From this we know that the preaching of the Church is the doctrine of God. Because it's biblical. To speak against the doctrine of the Church and sin against it is to speak against the Bible and sin against it and to speak against the Holy Spirit, Almighty God, with us for ever guiding us into all the truth for ever and sin against Him, is to sin against God. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:38, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::::::"authorized in Christ to absolve and forgive the eternal punishment of sin" - we've debunked ''the mediator other than Christ'' B.S. several times. When will you admit either you, God, or the Roman church is a liar with this claim? Repent! [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:40, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::::::"''take a crap''", hey sorry. ''I am all things to all people, that by all means I might save some'' while carrying out the commandment of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to preach to those in prison. But I suspect you find those parts of the bible "boring", too. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:21, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::::(ec) Hey, I asked a simple question. Is the righteousness of Christ imputed during the Eucharist?

:::::This stuff gets pretty confusing pretty quickly. Catholic doctrine says the Holy Spirit is given to infants at baptism -before the righteousness of Christ is imputed?

:::::C'mon, give it your best shot. None of this junk passes the smell test of scripture. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:I/S says, "We checked for ourselves what Catholicism ''actually'' teaches, not what people ''say'' is Catholic teaching but the actual stuff, straight from the source, without misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies by people who are not Catholic or have a grudge against the Catholic Church and hate its spiritual authority as substantiated by the Bible. From this we know that the preaching of the Church is the doctrine of God."
::Then answer two simple questions:
::#Was Paul in rebellion against God since he withstood Peter to his face?
::#When do you receive Christ? Before or after you receive the Holy Spirit?
:::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:09, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::(ec) I was not taught the Bible in 8 years of religion classes - I was taught catechism. And so were they in jail. As young people, me and the prisoners in the ministry felt no need to ''hunger and thirst after righteousness'', since catechism taught us we were already adopted into God's family, and only had to follow church law to maintain it. None of this is biblical.
:::''Ye are of your father the devil.'' Repent.
:::Above, once again, you practice [[pride]] and [[idolatry]]:
:::I/S: "sin against the preaching of the Church".
:::The Church is not God.
:::The correct understanding would be, "the preaching of God", "the preaching of Christ", "the preaching of the Gospel". But you glory in men (the church), not God. You and DC have made that abundantly clear over months. It is the sin of idolatry and a manifestation of pride. A rejection of God, a lack of faith, and disobedience. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 13:08, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

== Apart from the Debate: something related to seriously think about ==

A story is told about St. Francis of Assisi. There was, during St. Francis’ time, a priest who was
a '''[[scandal]]''' to his parish. He was living with a woman in sin and nothing could convince the wayward priest to change his ways. He tried to change. He had faith in Jesus Christ, but the sinful habit of sex outside of marriage had a strangle hold on the priest. The parish decided to take action so one night they went to the priest’s house carrying torches and clubs ...they would convince the priest to change his ways one way or another. After pounding on the door, the wayward priest appeared and St. Francis stepped forward to confront him. Both the priest and the mob thought that Francis would verbally chastise him but, to the surprise of all, the holy St. Francis fell to his knees before the fallen priest. Francis took the priest’s hands and kissed them...“'''Sinner or no'''.” Francis said, “'''I kiss the hands of this man whom God has gifted with the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ...The hands of the one who has the power to forgive sins in God’s name.'''” The wayward priest fell to his knees too and began to sob uncontrollably. '''The scandalous priest there, kneeling with the saint, repented of his sins and turned his life back over to Christ.''' The priest who had believed he was defeated by his sexually scandalous life, found victory that night. The parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner.

Borrowed from another source.

There are weeds among the wheat today and now, as even way back then, and will be in the future. Let both grow together until the harvest. God is longsuffering and not willing that any should perish. All are called to repentance and and to living a holy life in purity and good deeds of charity and mercy in the very image of God who is love. 2 Peter 3:8-18 and James 5:19-20; Acts 17:30-31. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:So he used the woman and tossed her on the ash heap? Is that church teaching? What does God say about that? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:51, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:And then a lynch mob was gonna beat the devil out of him to enforce God's law. Sheeesh. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:53, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:*'''Romans 2:23-25''' - '''''You who boast in the law dishonor God''' by breaking the law. For, as it is written, '''“The name of God is blasphemed''' among the Gentiles '''because of you.'''''
:No wonder we have a [[feminist]] movement today that blames Christianity and the patriarchy for oppression. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:57, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:So what about the woman? What happened to the woman? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:59, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:Yes, Francis here is an example of God's grace. But church law is still a curse, ''per'' God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:03, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:Who provided love, care, and sustenance to the woman after '''church law''' was enforced? Did she end up working as a hooker after the church required she to be tossed out? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:01, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:*'''2 Samuel 3:16''' - ''But she said to him, “No, my brother, for '''this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did''' to me.” But he would not listen to her.''
:While Francis did express the grace and forgiveness of God, your "saintly" story is sorely unimpressive telling us only half. And the point of this half-story is sorely mistaken, grievous, and wrong. You're preaching church law again. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:11, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:::When the woman herself saw that "''the parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner''", her heart too was stricken and melted along with the parishioners, and she fell down and repented, and confessed that she had seduced the priest, and she received absolution, and from that moment in sorrow for her sins turned her life over to Christ and lived apart, dedicating herself to a life of poverty and prayer for sinners in penance and fasting and chastity in reparation to Christ for her sins. The Poor Clares ministered to her needs along with some of the parishioners of the town. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:14, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
::::(1) Huh? "in reparation to Christ for her sins". Seriously, you haven't a clue what the gospel is. ''Unless I wash you, you aren't clean'' {John 13:8) You're preaching [[pride]] again, as if your reparations make you acceptable to God, as if Christ died for nothing.
::::(2) This parish sounds more like a village in the [[Islamic State]]. But it makes no difference. ''All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse.'' It makes no difference to God if that law is the Pentateuch, the Koran, or Catechism. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:27, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
::::"reparation to Christ" - you have the gospel of grace exactly backwards. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 21:28, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Now in the [[Original sin]] article DC writes:
:::*"as representative head of the whole body of humanity chose '''to suffer the penalty for all human sin as an atonement (full reparation) for its offense, in him all of mankind making atonement'''";
:::Okay, that's good. Nothing wrong with that. A bit wordy, but nothing wrong with it. Now where, pray tell, in the scripture does it say we have to repay Christ? Nowhere. You got that B.S. from catechism. ''If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins'' PERIOD No reparation PERIOD No 3rd party mediator PERIOD [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 01:20, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
::::See [https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_Confession_of_Sins_required_for_the_Forgiveness_of_Sins Debate: Is Confession of Sins required for the Forgiveness of Sins?] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:07, 11 September 2020 (EDT)

::::And I got news for you, God meant for men and women to be together. "dedicating herself to a life of poverty". Yah right. Why do women sell themselves on the street? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:33, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

===Two tier justice system===
But the real point of DC's story is that a priest living in mortal or venereal sin doesn't loose his magic abracadabra powers and the [[Holy Spirit]], unlike mere laymen. God is kinda like the [[Mueller team]] or the Obama DOJ; McCabe, Strzok, Comey ''et al'' can lie their butts off but scum like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn bare the brunt of God's wrath. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:21, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

This whole thing is screwed up, start to finish. First, the whole parish never heard of the mercy and grace of God, and think beating a fornicator with a club is doing God's business. Sounds like Islam. Killing an infidel non-believer, an enemy of God and the people of God, is doing God a favor.

Secondly, let's imagine a priest commits a [[mortal sin]], a sin unto death, like [[murder]]. (A) Does he still have the power of transubstantiation? (B) Does he still have the Hoy Spirit? (C) Would you wanna receive confession or communion from him? (D) Even if he refused to repent, do you think God still hears his 3rd party mediation for your sins?

Let's carry it a step farther; (E) Let's imagine a pope blasphemes the Holy Spirit. Does he still have infallibility? Can he still turn bread and wine in to the body and blood of Christ? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:33, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

:See [https://carm.org/donatism '''Donatism''', by Matt Slick - CARM Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (carm.org)] and '''[[Ex opere operato and ex opere operantis]]''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:22, 12 September 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-09-12T03:08:49Z

Dataclarifier: /* Apart from the Debate: something related to seriously think about */

Talk:Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-09-12T03:07:45Z

Dataclarifier: /* Apart from the Debate: something related to seriously think about */

I set up the debate page with a "Yes" and "No" format, but I will not participate. I have made my view known on other debate pages listed on this debate page under the See also section. May God bless you all. ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:Good. Be a slacker. My response will serve as the response of the community, and if you try this stunt again, I'll pursue getting it deleted with the assistance of RobS. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 22:22, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==The title of this debate is unacceptable==
Neither I nor RobSmith will accept a Debate whose title is based on such a loaded premise. We reject the very notion that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is the same church that "Jesus founded on the a rock" and that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against." [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 22:05, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:The question, as stated, makes little sense, needs to be shortened, and re-phrased.

:My guess is DC wants to use it as another spamfest. Fine. But once the spam is posted here, it should not be allowed to be cut and pasted unto other good faith Debate pages, IMO. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:06, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::Look at the top of this page. He already told us he wouldn't be participating, even though he's the one who set it up. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 23:16, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::He's making a statement. If nobody signs up in a few days, a speedy tag could be hung. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:20, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::So a debate page can be deleted for the sheer reason that no one participates, if such is the case? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:23, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::Good question. I don't know. But if the creator of the page states it was created in bad faith and nobody participates, that certainly would be cause to hang a speedy tag, IMO. It could be defined as nonsense spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:26, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==This is practically the definition of bad faith==
Please end it. --[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:Yes. It's redundant of at least two earlier debates. ''They think by their many words they shall be heard.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:29, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

==IndependentSkeptic==
Dataclarifier may not be willing to participate. I am. At least once. '''First''' the creator ot the page did '''''not''''' state it was created in bad faith. '''Second''' (and I hope '''''finally''''') I posted on the Debate Page what I consider the most devastating response I ever found to the blasphemous garbage-mouth objections posted by VargasMilan and RobSmith against the promises of Jesus Christ and against his Church. I joined because of the Bible, and like Dataclarifier (Michael), I too have found the Catholic Church to be the most biblical Church. It's a Full Gospel Church. '''''Nuff said! Oh Yeah!''''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 08:17, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:This debate will not add anything new that has not already been said on other pages. But if it becomes helpful to save a few more souls in what promises to be another spamfest, so be it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:31, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:Just remember, ''by grace are ye saved'', not spam, distortions, and lies. You're only making the chain heavier of the lost with all your spam postings and convoluted logic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:34, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:As Solomon said, ''much study is a weariness of the flesh''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:35, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::"''By grace are ye saved''". Exactly! '''The ''Catechism'' says the same thing!''' [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', Part Three, Section 1, Chapter 3, article 2: '''Grace and Justification'''] You really ought to read it. The Bible backs it up completely. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:43, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:No it doesn't. The Catechism says ''grace is not grace''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:46, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::You lie! No such text in the ''Catechism''. I've read it. You can't quote box any such passage anywhere in the ''Catechism''.

::Oh, the [[Truth (logic|logic]] is inescapable! Only someone like yourself blinded by [[confirmation bias]] can't see it. Look at [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9%3A39-41&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NIV;NABRE '''John 9:39-41''']. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:56, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:Catechism teaches grace is merited. It's already cited in mainspace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::Not the initial grace of salvation. No one can merit that. ''You just won't admit it.'' That's the teaching of the Catholic Church. That's the teaching of the ''Catechism''. Apart from Christ there is no meriting salvation. Only He saves. Only through Christ can we do anything. Only united to Him can we bear fruit. "For apart from me you can do nothing". We can't do it! Again, look at [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm '''Grace and Justification'''].

::'''You lie about what the ''Catechism'' says.''' But you keep repeating the same lie. '''You''' are spamming [[Falsehood]].

::I will waste no more time with you. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:15, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:If grace is merited, ''grace is not grace''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:The grace of God is essentially the "good news", which is what the term "gospel" is translated into. Catholic catechism denies the good news, i.e. the gospel, and reverts back into law and Judaism. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:09, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:''Ye are like unto whited sepulchers....…'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:25, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
==This page should be locked if the disruptive trolling continues==
[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:44, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

==This page has turned into an incoherent mess==
Replete with Dataclarifier's signature redundant spamming, which IndependentSceptic has now adopted. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:52, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

:The spamming of -1,289 bytes and doubling down with another -2,301 bytes in an edit war [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Have_the_gates_of_hell_prevailed_against_the_church_Jesus_founded_on_a_rock,_when_He_Himself_said_it_could_never_happen%3F_Did_Christ_who_cannot_lie_fail_to_fulfill_his_promise%3F&curid=160783&action=history here marked in red] is making the page incomprehensible. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:53, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

==Mistaken reversion==
My reversion this morning was a mistake by my super-sensitive touch screen. This error has been corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:26, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

== Proposed revision of mainspace Debate page - orderly and organized ==

RobSmith proposed some new additional Rules for this Debate. I cite in particular these, as relevant to a revision of the mainspace page to remove spam, and disruptive insertions into original postings, as vandalism:{{quotebox|'''Rules'''
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*[...]

*[...]

*[...] Spamming is not allowed in either the Protagonist, Antagonist, or Open discussion sections. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*[...]

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user. }}

In support of these I proposed on my talk page an additional rule:{{quotation|
*Original postings are to be left intact. No inserting of commentary or challenge into an original posting made by another user, and thereby disrupting, interrupting or breaking up the flow of the thought or argument of the posting. Any editor can remove it, especially the original posting editor, as an attempt at spamming or vandalism, obscuring the point of the posting. —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Protagonist section must be made in the Antagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Protagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged. —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Antagonist section must be made in the Protagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Antagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged.}}In accordance with these rules proposed by RobSmith and myself I have revised a copy of the Debate mainspace page as follows. (This is not spam. RobSmith said he had unlocked the page. It's still locked. All double-brackets enclosing identifying signatures of users posting comments have been removed from the copy below to preemptively defeat a potential accusation of "forging electronic signatures" on a page the user "never posted to"—meaning this Debate talk page.) --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

== Misleading RobSmith commentary - 1 Kings 11:12-13 "turn away" - and "preacher of the gospel" applied to himself 2Tm 2:7; 2 Co 10:14; 2Tm 5:17-18 ==

Debate page is still locked to prevent editing. Note posted at [View source] states any edit proposed should be first discussed. O.K. I propose the following edit be added right after RobSmith's partial quotation of 1 Timothy 5:18 to "''not muzzle the ox''".
:RobSmith characteristically misleads readers with comments that deflect from the point of the actual context of the reference being made, taking it out of context, in this case deflecting and implying as a mistaken typo the actual reference to 1 Kings 11:12-13 that the kingdom was "''Torn away''". It says{{quotation|Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will '''tear it out''' of the hand of your son. However I will not '''tear away''' all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen. —RSVCE ("'''rend away'''" KJV)}}But RobSmith says "''Torn away''" must be a typo, that it says instead "turn away". The actual text of KJV verse 9 says "''because his heart was turned from''". While there are many different versions of the Bible, '''''none of them''''' says "turn away" in 1 Kings 11:9-13. And not only that, but RobSmith also claims to be a "preacher of the gospel" in accordance with Matthew 28:19, which in the context of the passage was addressed to "the eleven disciples" who were those remaining of the '''[[Twelve Apostles]]''' whom Christ had "ordained"/"appointed" and named as apostles. (Luke 22:29; 6:13). But he refuses to answer and say unequivocally that he is an accredited ordained preacher, making his claim doubtful at best. The term "preacher of the gospel" in the New Testament was applied only to those ordained as preachers of the gospel and like Paul ordained as apostles. {{quotation|'''1 Timothy 2:7''' Whereunto I am '''ordained''' a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, ''and'' lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. —KJV}}{{quotation|'''2 Timothy 1:11''' Whereunto I am '''appointed''' a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. —KJV}}I've already quoted other Bible passages from the New Testament about the apostles ordaining elders as preachers of the congregations in the book of Acts. Paul's additional reference to not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain is RobSmith's answer to the question "Are you an acknowledged ordained preacher?" That's RobSmith's evasive and slanted abuse of scripture ''taken entirely out of context'' as if it is referring to all of the responses of correction on these Debate pages as attempts to "muzzle" him, to "silence" him, to put forth grounds to discredit his right to insist on his own interpretations and applications of the Bible as from God having called him to preach and teach the word, quoting Matthew 28:19, and 1 Timothy 5:18 "''you shall not muzzle the ox''". In fact, St. Paul was citing that passage as applied to himself regarding his rights and the rights of ordained elders (''presbyteroi''/priests) to receive a salary or monetary support ("honor") as an ordained apostle and preacher of the gospel.{{quotation|'''2 Corinthians 11:8-9''' 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages ''of them'', to do you service. 9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all ''things'' I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and ''so'' will I keep ''myself''.}}{{quotation|'''1 Timothy 5:17-18''' 17 Let the '''elders that rule well''' be counted worthy of double honour, especially '''they who labour in the word and doctrine'''. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer ''is'' worthy of his reward. —KJV}}{{quotation|'''1 Corinthians 9:6-18''' 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? 8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. 15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel. —NKJV}}
:RobSmith deceitfully uses the word of God. His interpretations of scripture cannot be trusted. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:04, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
I really think this response edit must for the sake of truth be included on the Debate page, right after RobSmith's quote of 1 Timothy 5:18a (his leaving out of v 15b), which he applies to himself in refusing to answer if he is an accredited ordained "preacher of the gospel". Given his past performance up to this day, I believe he will oppose including it, as an embarrassment to him for making false claims about himself. He has a right to '''[[Witnessing|witness]]''' to the gospel according to his own understanding, but no right to claim to be a "'''preacher of the gospel'''" if he hasn't been acknowledged by any church as "appointed and ordained" a preacher.
--[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 09:53, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:So let me get this straight now, Paul withstood Peter to his face, is ordained by God, but Peter has all authority" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:49, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Peter was ordained by Jesus Christ Himself Who gave to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven to bind and to loose, and heaven confirms his authority, "shall be bound in heaven, shall be loosed in heaven". --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Yet Paul withstood him to his face. Paul was disobedient to God's authority? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::TLDR; this spam seems a little off-point to the Debate question. And talk about deceitful, give me one simple piece of evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace, and we can continue this discussion. One piece of evidence, not a bloc of spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

*''that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit''.

Yes, the '''''fleshly''''' kingdom was ''torn away'' from Solomon.

Yes, Solomon's heart ''turned away'' from the Lord.

The subject under discussion was Solomon's salvation, not his fleshly kingdom. You are spamming above, making a mountain out of a mole hill. I mistakenly thought you were discussing spiritual matters, not fleshly, when I mistakenly referred to you spamming the discussion with fleshly matters as a typo. I should have known better. You have no spiritual discernment. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:14, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:You have a reasonable amount of time to produce evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace in the wilderness, preferably with one or two scriptures in support. Then, in accordance with the agreement we both have with User:Conservative, debates are not supposed to be on talk pages.
:P.S., you exhibited bad faith in (a) violating the Rules you yourself proposed; (b) biased editing in your revised version. For example, the Protagonist position is based upon the law being a curse, while Roman church doctrine is based upon law. You edited out at least four references, along with the supporting evidence and context, to that point. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:31, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Korah's rebellion (Jude 11) is rooted entirely in his perversion of the "good news" gospel statement of God that the whole nation is holy, and Korah's interpretation as a pretext for the perversion of that gospel by rejection of the authority of Moses and Aaron appointed by God as shepherds over the whole people of God— Numbers 16 whole chapter, {{quotation|'''Numbers 16:3''' and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said, '''You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?}}The Protestant Reformation said the same thing. Evidence that you distort scripture still remains. If we are disqualified, so are you. We stand by our proposed edit as a definitive summary. Nothing needs to be added. It's the truth. Good bye. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Was Israel under grace or under law" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:20, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:More bad faith: I never referenced Matthew 28:19. You are trolling. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:Proposal: [[Debate: Who is ordained to preach and teach the gospel?]] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::More bad faith squirming by RobSmith—Mark 16:15 says the same thing as Matthew 28:19. Yep. More of your persistent strategy of misleading distortion in virtually saying that Mark 16:15 ''has nothing to do with'' Matthew 28:19. Anyone who can read can see that it does. They can see that much. We stand by what we said about your abuse and misuse of scripture. Your interpretations and insinuations from the Bible cannot be trusted. You use the Bible deceitfully. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::One says teach, one says preach. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:24, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:'''Is User:RobSmith an acknowledged accredited ordained preacher of the gospel?''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:21, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::I have a ministry. I have been involved in prison ministry and ministry to the homeless for many years. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:26, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Ah-hah. You say you have a ministry. You do not say you were ordained an acknowledged accredited preacher of the gospel. I have a Christian ministry too. But I'm a layman witnessing to the gospel, and so is Dataclarifier, doing what we can, but we are not ordained ministers to preach and teach the gospel as "ambassadors of the Lord" 2 Corinthians 5:20. For understanding clearly RobSmith's strategy of interpreting scripture: See [[Loaded question]], [[Misrepresentation]], [[Putting words in someone's mouth]], [[Confirmation bias]] and [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]]. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::You're full of bull. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::And in my prison ministry, in my part of the country I encounter many Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers who thought they were baptized into salvation as an infant. In prison, they have much time to think about that, and for the first time, be exposed to God's truth and God's word. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:35, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::*'''Psalm 22:6''' - ''Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.''
::I see the wreckage of human lives you create with your catechism and infant baptism. God has called me to clean up the messes you guys make. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:47, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::You are misleading again, by a lying implication. You are actually saying, that these prisoners' ignorance of the faith and their sin is the doctrine of the Church! That is a lie. They chose to be ignorant, to do as they pleased, to rebel against their upbringing, to sin against the preaching of the Church and her holy doctrine, to dishonor their parents and grieve them in spite of their pleading to get out of the gangs and come back to the faith of the holy saints and angels. I know. I've heard them. There are also Catholic prison chaplains, ordained to ministry and reconciliation, who are expert in scripture and are devout followers of Jesus Christ. You suggestively imply that not one of them is in the prisons ministering to Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers by exposing them again to God's truth and God's word of reconciliation and healing that they heard in their parochial schools and at Mass. You impugn their ministry. Your deceitful interpretations of the word of God are misleading them away from the fullness of truth into a distortion of the truth of the Bible, the same Bible which led me and Dataclarifier from Protestantism into the Catholic Church as the most biblical Church on the face of the earth having the Fullness of the Gospel, not a distorted shriveled "withered" part of it—as NishantXavier said, maybe "50%, 80%, or even 90%" '''but not all of the truth revealed by God'''. '''Answer!'''. Are you a fully accredited acknowledged officially ordained preacher of the gospel associated with any recognized established Christian ministry organization, congregation, sect, church, or denomination—or are you conducting your own personal ministry as a layman? '''Don't ignore the question! Are you a legitimately ordained minister of the gospel? You say you were raised Catholic. You claim to ''be'' catholic''' (small "c"). '''Are you a Catholic? ''Are you an ordained Catholic preacher of the gospel?'' Don't try to squirm out of answering with a direct "yes" or "no".''' Dataclarifier and I are sure we know the answer (so does his mother). --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::(ec) I have witnessed miracles of changed lives. The gangbangers, like me, were instructed from an early age '''''not''''' to read the bible, '''''not''''' hear instruction from the bible, and were taught that they already had been adopted into God's family and received the Holy Ghost at infant baptism. (What you say about Catholic prison ministries is irrelevant to what we are discussing here). These gangbangers tell me, without solicitation, that they had been lied to by the Roman church and their parents.
::::*''Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness''
::::This verse is meaningless to someone who is told they have already been adopted into God's family as an infant. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 12:18, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'')
:::As always, misleading and false. They, like you, were taught from the Bible in their religion classes—''unless they refused to listen, even running away to go join a gang''. That teaching from the Bible in religion class by the sisters and brothers and priests was and is the pedagogy of the parochial schools since the beginning of the 19th century, so they ''were'' taught the Bible as the word of God and the whole faith of the Church as established by God with authority. Private reading leads to private interpretation. That's dangerous. It can lead to destruction and being led into error by lawless men (those who twist the doctrines of the scriptures and lean on their own understanding), and into falling from '''''security in holding to the faith by the knowledge of Jesus Christ''''', as Peter warned (2 Peter 1:20–2:3; 3:15-18). The devil quotes scripture too. That's why they were told not to read the Bible (for themselves). But anyone who really wants to know the truth will finally find it, just as we did, in the Catholic Church, and find the way of holiness by "partaking of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-11—''read it!''). And anyone among us who leads a sinner back from the error of his way will save a soul from death. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:40, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::'''''Stop continually provoking more debate on this talk page''. This is not the place. You locked the page to prevent more debate, but you perpetuate it here. <big>You have our answer. That should have been enough!</big> But you continue to spam more distortions and misrepresentations that beg for correction. You just won't let it lay down and rest. You just have to have the [[Last wordism|Last word]] with more unjustified [[libel]] and misquoting scripture out of context. And I quote: "At worst, it''' [having the last word] '''reflects a lack of personal responsibility or bullying, which is a characteristic of wrongdoing or sinfulness."''' '''''Enough!''''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 

We add that both Dataclarifier and I independently made inquiries and found that without exception '''a Bible was provided as a fundamental required teaching resource at every desk in <big>every</big> parochial school''', and in the religion classes the teachers and students together read from both it and the catechism. Problem was, some students didn't care and were not interested, too bored with school to listen. So, they felt no need to hunger and thirst after righteousness. Not the Church's fault, nor their teachers'. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 13:27, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 
:What a farce! The 7th & 8th grade classrooms I and my brother attended at St. Thomas Aquinas school did not have ''any'' bibles until my father donated two with inscriptions dedicated to my dead mother. They may still be there, and have probably never been opened since the day they were dedicated more than 50 years ago. Neither did the grade 1-6 classrooms me and my 3 older brothers went through have a single bible, and probably still don't. Likewise, the larger bible my father donated to St. Mary's school in Burlington, Wisconsin is probably still the only bible in the entire school, which included a high school. And my mother who taught there knew nothing of the bible outside Catholic doctrine, and certainly never conducted a bible class. I had to learn it after she was dead.
:Likewise, in the town I live now, where I am involved with several homeless ministries, Catholic Charities is right across the street from the Baptist Rescue Mission. The Baptists give out bible's of all sizes like candy in Spanish and English, whereas you can't find a bible within the four walls of the Catholic ministry if your life dependent on it. Don't give me this crap that Catholics teach or respect the bible. They don't. They fear the bible, as rightly they should. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:01, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Let me guess where you and Dataclarifier, two adult converts, got your information about bibles in Catholic schools - a Catholic website! [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'')
:::Nope. We got it from former Catholics in our own city who'd always lived there. When we discovered they had once been Catholic we asked pointed questions about it, and they admitted they'd had Bibles in their parochial schools. But they weren't interested in reading it. It was boring. So, we got first hand info from people who'd actually been there. Not from online Catholic websites! Others who'd gotten away from the Church and become Protestants and then returned because they read the Bible more carefully, also said they weren't interested in the Bible in school, but came back when they felt they should read it. They said it was the Holy Spirit. So were some of the former inmates of prisons of Anamosa and San Quentin. When they read the Bible they were converted from their evil past, really repented, and became Catholic, they said because of the Bible. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:43, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::Having been born, raised, and baptized Catholic, and around them my entire life, I can say, you were lied to. But that's okay, they can confess, "I lied X number of times" without enumerating or going into specifics about what they lied about and to who. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::And this raises a good point: the penitent sinner can go to confession to cleanse their own soul, but no consideration is given to the party done an injury. That's a little self-serving, don't you think, what Catholic doctrine teaches? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:56, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::::For example, a liar gets off with three Hail Marys, but you go around looking like a fool for life having believed him. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:59, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

===a bible in Catholic schools===
These statements,
{{quotebox|...without exception '''a Bible was provided as a fundamental required teaching resource at every desk in <big>every</big> parochial school''', and in the religion classes the teachers and students together read from both it and the catechism.....they weren't interested in reading it. It was boring...."}}
are certainly very interesting and revealing. "required teaching resource at every desk....teachers and students together....weren't interested in reading it. It was boring."

The Bible was boring. Hmmm, what possibly could be of more interest? sin? pride? The teachers evidently were pretty incompetent in that they didn't make students read a "required teaching resource".
*''Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness'',
but the Roman Catholic teachers couldn't even secure this blessing for these baptized children, cause "it was boring". Evidently the blessings of God were boring for the teachers, as well. Who needed any more blessings from God? They were already baptized. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:29, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

You never mentioned the numbers of criminals and gangbangers with Protestant Bible-believing backgrounds in prison '''who relied on being saved by faith alone''', who were told that there is therefore now no condemnation for all eternity for any sin they might commit, past, present, and future, "because they were in Christ and freed from the law of sin and death", and gave testimony and were baptized, and later '''rebelled against their parents, the Bible, and forgot what they had been taught by their pastors in their churches''', and now in prison have come back to the Bible. "But they were saved!" (Once). And they're from all races, Hispanic, White, Black, Brown, Red. '''Protestants! Fundamentalists!''' (Once upon a time). I know about all this, because I was Disciples of Christ, and Dataclarifier was a fundamental Baptist. And we both "got away with sin" for too long, until we read more of the Bible and saw that we couldn't rely for our eternal salvation on the fact once and for all that we had professed Jesus Christ as our own personal Savior. Both of us have committed jailable offenses worthy of long terms in prison that no one else knows about. (Difference is, we got away with it, but '''no more'''.) That's no different than what you said about those Hispanic Roman Catholics baptized as babies. Other prisoners guilty of horrible acts have been once saved, and did what they did '''anyway!''' Look at the news about so many privileged white kids growing up in Bible-believing homes and churches in their youth who threw it all off to commit in secret monstrous crimes of passion and corruption, but got caught later and brought shame to their families, and grief to the innocents they preyed on, and their families. So much for [[Eternal security (salvation)]]. Your blaming Catholicism and Infant Baptism for their gang raping activities is a crock. Oh, if you're wondering: We each did our own independent interviewing of former Catholics by ourselves long before we ever met each other, like about 30-40 years ago. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:24, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:There's plenty of them - Protestants. Most who received the word as a child have a conscience and more easily convicted of sin. Roman Catholics, by contrast, have a longer road to travel, first having to unlearn all the garbage they were taught. So it begins with having a pure, genuine ''hunger and thirst for righteousness'', which conflicts with being brainwashed that they don't need it cause they were already baptized as an infant.
:So at what point is the righteousness of Christ imputed? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:45, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::''It also conflicts with being brainwashed by once saved always saved.'' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Well that's left to each to ''work out your own salvation with fear and trembling''. At least hearers receive the Good News of being ''freed from the curse of the law.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:52, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::"''At what point''"? '''I've already told you!''' By the washing of water with the word. He saved us by the water-washing of regeneration. Baptism saves you now. His righteousness is imputed to us by his grace. And also when we're brought back from the error of our way. When we confess our sins. He is faithful and just to forgive us. And again, His righteousness is imputed to us by his grace. Read the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church''. Look at all the scripture cited in it. The correct understanding and interpretation of the Bible according to the mind of Christ is explained in it. Repent and come to the truth. --I/S and DC --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:59, 4 September 2020 (EDT) We're done here. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:02, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::We've debunked that bullrot a thousand times. You loose Christ when you take a crap after communion. So his righteousness has to be re-imputed again through the wash, rinse repeat cycle of sin, confession, communion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:04, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 

:::::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Any further comments and rebuttals by RobSmith is going to be only repetitive '''[[spam]]''' adding nothing new to the discussion. He is a perfect example of someone who absolutely must have the '''[[Last wordism|Last Word]]'''. You have been warned. "'''''He'll be Back!'''''" We're done. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:20, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::::"''take a crap''" Crude as ever. False. Consistent [[misrepresentation]] and [[ignorance]]. The presence of Christ passes from the [[Host (Communion)|Host]] into the body and soul of one who has devoutly received Communion the moment the Host dissolves and ceases to be the form of bread. We eat his flesh and drink his blood as he promised in John 6:32-58. We actually "partake of the divine nature" by receiving Christ Himself in Holy Communion (2 Peter 1:3-11). He remains in the body and soul of the communicant who receives Him, unless they deliberately cast Him out by mortal sin "unto death". But they can be restored by sincere repentance, and devout purpose of amendment to not sin again if possible, and confess their sin to one entrusted with the message of reconciliation as the ambassador of Christ who is authorized in Christ to absolve and forgive the eternal punishment of sin, as explained more completely in the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' citing abundant passages of scripture about the biblical doctrines of Sacramental Eucharist and Sacramental Penance and Reconciliation. '''A fundamental principle''' of evaluating and discerning any such interpretation of Catholic [[doctrine]] and [[dogma]], like this one, or any interpretation that makes the Church appear to be absurd, or evil, or brings reproach on the Church by [[libel]] or [[scandal]] and [[falsehood]], is not Catholic doctrine but [[error]] based on [[falsehood]]s unworthy of belief. Do not rely on '''enemies''' of Catholicism to tell the truth about Catholic belief and practice. '''Almost the whole entirety of what RobSmith has been saying and implying about the Catholic Church and Catholic doctrine and dogma and the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is a lie. He is not telling you the truth.''' We know this. Because we know both the Bible '''''and''''' the Catechism. And what he's been saying is not actual Catholicism. As Bible Christians who know the Bible we know this for a fact. We checked for ourselves what Catholicism ''actually'' teaches, not what people ''say'' is Catholic teaching but the actual stuff, straight from the source, without misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies by people who are not Catholic or have a grudge against the Catholic Church and hate its spiritual authority as substantiated by the Bible. From this we know that the preaching of the Church is the doctrine of God. Because it's biblical. To speak against the doctrine of the Church and sin against it is to speak against the Bible and sin against it and to speak against the Holy Spirit, Almighty God, with us for ever guiding us into all the truth for ever and sin against Him, is to sin against God. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:38, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::::::"authorized in Christ to absolve and forgive the eternal punishment of sin" - we've debunked ''the mediator other than Christ'' B.S. several times. When will you admit either you, God, or the Roman church is a liar with this claim? Repent! [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:40, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::::::"''take a crap''", hey sorry. ''I am all things to all people, that by all means I might save some'' while carrying out the commandment of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to preach to those in prison. But I suspect you find those parts of the bible "boring", too. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:21, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::::(ec) Hey, I asked a simple question. Is the righteousness of Christ imputed during the Eucharist?

:::::This stuff gets pretty confusing pretty quickly. Catholic doctrine says the Holy Spirit is given to infants at baptism -before the righteousness of Christ is imputed?

:::::C'mon, give it your best shot. None of this junk passes the smell test of scripture. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:I/S says, "We checked for ourselves what Catholicism ''actually'' teaches, not what people ''say'' is Catholic teaching but the actual stuff, straight from the source, without misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies by people who are not Catholic or have a grudge against the Catholic Church and hate its spiritual authority as substantiated by the Bible. From this we know that the preaching of the Church is the doctrine of God."
::Then answer two simple questions:
::#Was Paul in rebellion against God since he withstood Peter to his face?
::#When do you receive Christ? Before or after you receive the Holy Spirit?
:::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:09, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::(ec) I was not taught the Bible in 8 years of religion classes - I was taught catechism. And so were they in jail. As young people, me and the prisoners in the ministry felt no need to ''hunger and thirst after righteousness'', since catechism taught us we were already adopted into God's family, and only had to follow church law to maintain it. None of this is biblical.
:::''Ye are of your father the devil.'' Repent.
:::Above, once again, you practice [[pride]] and [[idolatry]]:
:::I/S: "sin against the preaching of the Church".
:::The Church is not God.
:::The correct understanding would be, "the preaching of God", "the preaching of Christ", "the preaching of the Gospel". But you glory in men (the church), not God. You and DC have made that abundantly clear over months. It is the sin of idolatry and a manifestation of pride. A rejection of God, a lack of faith, and disobedience. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 13:08, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

== Apart from the Debate: something related to seriously think about ==

A story is told about St. Francis of Assisi. There was, during St. Francis’ time, a priest who was
a '''[[scandal]]''' to his parish. He was living with a woman in sin and nothing could convince the wayward priest to change his ways. He tried to change. He had faith in Jesus Christ, but the sinful habit of sex outside of marriage had a strangle hold on the priest. The parish decided to take action so one night they went to the priest’s house carrying torches and clubs ...they would convince the priest to change his ways one way or another. After pounding on the door, the wayward priest appeared and St. Francis stepped forward to confront him. Both the priest and the mob thought that Francis would verbally chastise him but, to the surprise of all, the holy St. Francis fell to his knees before the fallen priest. Francis took the priest’s hands and kissed them...“'''Sinner or no'''.” Francis said, “'''I kiss the hands of this man whom God has gifted with the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ...The hands of the one who has the power to forgive sins in God’s name.'''” The wayward priest fell to his knees too and began to sob uncontrollably. '''The scandalous priest there, kneeling with the saint, repented of his sins and turned his life back over to Christ.''' The priest who had believed he was defeated by his sexually scandalous life, found victory that night. The parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner.

Borrowed from another source.

There are weeds among the wheat today and now, as even way back then, and will be in the future. Let both grow together until the harvest. God is longsuffering and not willing that any should perish. All are called to repentance and and to living a holy life in purity and good deeds of charity and mercy in the very image of God who is love. 2 Peter 3:8-18 and James 5:19-20; Acts 17:30-31. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:So he used the woman and tossed her on the ash heap? Is that church teaching? What does God say about that? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:51, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:And then a lynch mob was gonna beat the devil out of him to enforce God's law. Sheeesh. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:53, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:*'''Romans 2:23-25''' - '''''You who boast in the law dishonor God''' by breaking the law. For, as it is written, '''“The name of God is blasphemed''' among the Gentiles '''because of you.'''''
:No wonder we have a [[feminist]] movement today that blames Christianity and the patriarchy for oppression. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:57, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:So what about the woman? What happened to the woman? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:59, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:Yes, Francis here is an example of God's grace. But church law is still a curse, ''per'' God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:03, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:Who provided love, care, and sustenance to the woman after '''church law''' was enforced? Did she end up working as a hooker after the church required she to be tossed out? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:01, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:*'''2 Samuel 3:16''' - ''But she said to him, “No, my brother, for '''this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did''' to me.” But he would not listen to her.''
:While Francis did express the grace and forgiveness of God, your "saintly" story is sorely unimpressive telling us only half. And the point of this half-story is sorely mistaken, grievous, and wrong. You're preaching church law again. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:11, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:::When the woman herself saw that "''the parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner''", her heart too was stricken and melted along with the parishioners, and she fell down and repented, and confessed that she had seduced the priest, and she received absolution, and from that moment in sorrow for her sins turned her life over to Christ and lived apart, dedicating herself to a life of poverty and prayer for sinners in penance and fasting and chastity in reparation to Christ for her sins. The Poor Clares ministered to her needs along with some of the parishioners of the town. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:14, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
::::(1) Huh? "in reparation to Christ for her sins". Seriously, you haven't a clue what the gospel is. ''Unless I wash you, you aren't clean'' {John 13:8) You're preaching [[pride]] again, as if your reparations make you acceptable to God, as if Christ died for nothing.
::::(2) This parish sounds more like a village in the [[Islamic State]]. But it makes no difference. ''All who rely on the works of the law are under a curse.'' It makes no difference to God if that law is the Pentateuch, the Koran, or Catechism. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 20:27, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
::::"reparation to Christ" - you have the gospel of grace exactly backwards. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 21:28, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Now in the [[Original sin]] article DC writes:
:::*"as representative head of the whole body of humanity chose '''to suffer the penalty for all human sin as an atonement (full reparation) for its offense, in him all of mankind making atonement'''";
:::Okay, that's good. Nothing wrong with that. A bit wordy, but nothing wrong with it. Now where, pray tell, in the scripture does it say we have to repay Christ? Nowhere. You got that B.S. from catechism. ''If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins'' PERIOD No reparation PERIOD No 3rd party mediator PERIOD [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 01:20, 11 September 2020 (EDT)
::::See [[https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_Confession_of_Sins_required_for_the_Forgiveness_of_Sins|Debate: Is Confession of Sins required for the Forgiveness of Sins?]] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:07, 11 September 2020 (EDT)

::::And I got news for you, God meant for men and women to be together. "dedicating herself to a life of poverty". Yah right. Why do women sell themselves on the street? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:33, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

===Two tier justice system===
But the real point of DC's story is that a priest living in mortal or venereal sin doesn't loose his magic abracadabra powers and the [[Holy Spirit]], unlike mere laymen. God is kinda like the [[Mueller team]] or the Obama DOJ; McCabe, Strzok, Comey ''et al'' can lie their butts off but scum like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn bare the brunt of God's wrath. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:21, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

This whole thing is screwed up, start to finish. First, the whole parish never heard of the mercy and grace of God, and think beating a fornicator with a club is doing God's business. Sounds like Islam. Killing an infidel non-believer, an enemy of God and the people of God, is doing God a favor.

Secondly, let's imagine a priest commits a [[mortal sin]], a sin unto death, like [[murder]]. (A) Does he still have the power of transubstantiation? (B) Does he still have the Hoy Spirit? (C) Would you wanna receive confession or communion from him? (D) Even if he refused to repent, do you think God still hears his 3rd party mediation for your sins?

Let's carry it a step farther; (E) Let's imagine a pope blasphemes the Holy Spirit. Does he still have infallibility? Can he still turn bread and wine in to the body and blood of Christ? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 23:33, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

User:LT/mail

2020-09-11T00:25:23Z

Dataclarifier: /* I saw your edit my talk page */

<big><big><big><big><center>'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Liberaltears/mail&action=edit&section=new Click here to post a new message]'''</center></big></big></big></big>

<div style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

=== Please read this ===
The editor using the [[User:Liberaltears]] will be checking this message area. You can leave a message in the message area below.

If you want to provide feedback concerning content created using the User: Liberaltears account at Conservapedia, please use the talk pages of the respective articles.

If you need assistance sooner, there is a list of Conservapedia administrators [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop HERE]
</div>
 

__TOC__

Hi Liberal Tears. I saw the page: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_Senate_predictions. Let me know if you would like to collaborate on similar predictions for the presidential election - state by state, we can look at the best polls and simulate electoral college totals.

God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:03, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

:That does sound like a great idea! Do you want to start the page for the presidential election predictions by state? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:14, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

I'd love to, LT. Though I'm not sure what would be the right title? Shall I call it, "Conservapedia:Unofficial 2020 Presidential election predictions"? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:25, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

:That's a great suggestion, and I would personally remove the capitalization for "Presidential". --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:29, 14 May 2020 (EDT)
:Also, since the presidential election is technically one election divided in 51 (fifty states plus DC), I would remove the "s" from "predictions". --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:31, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

Great! It's done: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_presidential_election_predictions this is going to be an exciting project! I hope it's good to start off with. If we need to make any editions, and for future additions, I hope we can make it there. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:35, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

== Post your message below ==
Liberaltears, I set up your talk page in a way that will prevent vandalism to your talk page and I locked it.

You can see what I did at: [[User talk:Liberaltears]].

If you didn't like what I did, you can get an admin to revert it.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:33, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Liberal Tears, I'm going to create a Table (first in Excel, then later, if it is good, we'll add it to the article) with Columns "State, Electoral college votes, 2016 result, 2016 popular vote tally, projected 2020 result, projected 2020 popular vote tally". Do you think that is workable? If you have an email id, I will share it with you on Excel when it is done. And if you like it, I will make the table here in the article. Thoughts? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:45, 14 May 2020 (EDT)
:Sorry for not responding earlier. So I'm not exactly sure about having it shared to me via Excel, do you think you can mention your thoughts on the project talk page? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 23:19, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

No worries. I'll post it there when it's done. God Bless [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:15, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:Alright. And God bless you too! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 11:19, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi. Can you take a look at the page? I got popular vote, electoral vote data for 2016 for all 50 states. I just filled in for 10 states. Do you want me to fill for the remaining forty? I believe the final tally was 307-230. So once 2016 is done, we'll do for 2020 similarly based on projections. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 13:53, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:I saw your edits, and they seem great! About the remaining forty, I may perhaps do some, as my focus is largely on the Senate elections. Unfortunately, I have some other problems at the moment, and it may be harder to do as much CP editing as I usually do as of right now. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 14:02, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hey, thanks for the quick reply. Glad you like it; I can finish the 50, no problem, if that's cool with you. I have all the data on my computer. You can edit it afterward for any corrections. For the next 50, the 2020 predictions, when you're free next time, we can put our heads together. Based on the cumulative polling, we can arrive at the closest projections possible, drawn from the latest data. Thanks for all your efforts, I've seen many of the great articles you've authored or edited for Conservapedia. The election can be so close, you never know. A Presidential election may be won by a single state. Then think how glad we'll be on Nov. 3rd for all our efforts! Similarly a single seat more in the senate may give us the key vote necessary for very important legislation. Our liberal friends will weep, and we will laugh, when it comes to that! [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 14:14, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi again LT. Have you any thoughts or data on how we can estimate likely numbers of the electorate in each state? Last time it was close to 140 Million, this time they say it'll be over 155 million nationwide. I'll finish filling in some of the college votes for states in some time. Since most are winner take all, that's relatively easier to project, at least in states where there is a clear majority. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 12:38, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, I dunno much about estimating the hard numbers. I'm not entirely sure where to gather the data on voter registration, and I tend to focus more on the general likeliness of certain states to vote either [[Republican]] or [[Democrat]] based on the incumbent officeholders, their popularity, enthusiasm, etc, their opponent(s), as well as trends and polling. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 13:43, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

No worries. I'm sure we'll get there in the end. We have 5 1/2 months to spur interest and hopefully have an impact on voter turnout. I think turnout will be key for Repbulicans this time. I'll be adding a bit more to the article from time to time. This is a liberal site, but it mentions the likely increase in turnout in 2020: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/2020-election-voter-turnout-could-be-record-breaking/591607/ Some 10 million voters voted for a third party candidate who had no chance of winning. We should try to discourage that by emphasizing that that is foolish. If Trump wins anything like 80 million votes overall, I'm sure he will pull through successfully. Dems are worried many new voters will vote for him.

One possible method of proceeding would be seeing what polls were saying last election around this time. If they indicated roughly the same numbers we see now, and the ratio of voters in the state was e.g. 60% Trump, we can estimate it will be around the same. The net increase in voting population for each state will have to be factored in. Those are just some preliminary thoughts to proceed, we'll figure out the number-crunching as we go on. God bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 14:00, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Hello again. Made three important changes thus far, on California, Texas and Ohio. Also computed provisional totals with Trump at 74 and Biden at 55 (California) with 7 states computed so far. Arizona is still uncertain, and is a toss-up as you mentioned in the comment. We'll get down to more exact predictions later on, combining everything from support, enthusiasm, expectation etc. Let's try to fill the easier states with clearer outcomes first. I'll be continuing and let you know if anything in particular comes up or I have any question. Hope you are well. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:52, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

Hello Liberal Tears. Hope you are well. Been busy with other things for a while, but just updated the numbers for Oklahoma, not based on a poll, but based on the massive enthusiasm for the Trump Rally there. I think Trump will carry the state with great ease, especially in light of 2016 numbers. Also, I was thinking - it's estimated there will be a 10% increase in turnout overall in 2020, close to around 150 million votes overall. So, as a beginning strategy for estimating numbers in each and every state, do you think starting out with 10% increases on 2016 numbers for both candidates would be a good way to begin? If you agree, please let me know. I can do it on Excel and will copy it to Conservapedia after that. God Bless.

By way of example, if Trump got 1 million votes and Clinton 400 K in a state, we will project, if all else is same, Trump 1.1 M and Biden as 440 K. Progressive adjustments will be made to the number after that, in light of new data, if polling or enthusiasm etc suggsts it is required.[[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 22:38, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

:Good analysis, NishantXavier! In regards to your question about voter turnout, I suppose adding 10% is a good place to start, though I don't know too much about projecting such. To make good predictions on that, I would really attention to primary turnout numbers, as I've mentioned in an example [[Talk:Main_Page#Two_important_highlights...|here]]. By the way, can you also see if you can add any good analyses to [[Conservapedia:Unofficial 2020 Senate predictions|this prediction page]] as well if you have time? While there are certain things I can catch up on right now, I don't exactly have the sufficient time to add major updates yet, and it may take two weeks before I finish up some annoying tasks I'm occupied with currently. Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 22:59, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

Hi again Liberal Tears. I changed the 1 million thing since it didn't materialize; it was a liberal prank. Anyway, analyzing the primaries is a great suggestion. Would you happen to have primary information in a readily accessible source? I will definitely take a look, and try to improve, the predictions for the Senate elections too when I have time. I'm closely following the Senate races and as we know they were very important for the Supreme Court. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 00:31, 22 June 2020 (EDT)

:For all primary election information this year, I recommend using [https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/ this (browse to the bottom of the page for state by state)], although I should note the only problem is that no hard number of votes are given for unopposed candidates. Also, about the Senate races, here are five quick "pop quiz"-style questions if you want to answer them for fun:

# Which Democrat-held seat is nearly guaranteed to flip?
# Why might [[John Hickenlooper]] lose the upcoming [[Democrat]] primary in vying to challenge [[Cory Gardner]]?
# Why is [[Steve Daines]]' seat vulnerable despite running for re-election in a solid red state?
# Who are the mainstream Democrats cheering on to challenge [[Mitch McConnell]]?
# Should current polling with low sample sizes be absolutely trusted? (Hint: they were wrong in 2016)

:—[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 00:59, 22 June 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears. I've completed 13 States and plan to do about 2-3 states daily. So I should be finished in another 12-18 days if I keep up to that; maybe by the end of the month. The polls are a little tricky for some of the reasons you mention. I think rally size in the state and "enthusiasm" of voters recorded in the polls may be better gauges. For e.g. there is a huge enthusiasm gap between Trump and Biden in some states. Anyway, I plan to have delegates for all 50 states awarded based on projections by Aug 3 so we have 3 months to see how it pans out. Arriving at final numbers for each state will be a little more difficult; but I will begin with adding 10% and then use some of the suggestions you mentioned as well. We'll see how that goes. That should be done by next month end. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:30, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
:Okay, thank you NishantXavier! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 12:23, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Hello again Liberal Tears. Congratulations to you on all your hard work for Conservapedia, and for being promoted! You truly deserve it! I really pray for great things for Conservapedia in the years to come, that OUr Good Lord Jesus will use this Encyclopedia mightily for His Cause, to promote the Gospel and the Conservative worldview, throughout the world.

Anyway, just wanted to congratulate you, and to note that, since I also can now use the other time as well, I should be able to complete 5 states a day. So in about 5-6 days now (quite the increase from the 12-18 earlier!) I should be completing all 50 states, and then we can discuss further on the improvements you suggested and any change of delegates as well.

Hope all is well.
In Jesus and Mary,
Nishant Xavier. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:41, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

:Thanks NishantXavier, and congratulations in regards to your promotion as well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 01:45, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears! Btw, I completed 30 states! So it looks like we're ahead of schedule. I should be able to do 40 tomorrow, and complete it the day after that. So we were thinking of Aug 3rd, but now it'll be done by July 13th. That's good. I wanted to ask your opinion on the Arizona poll. It sounds like good news. Do you think it suggests President Trump has a solid ground game in the state? Poll: https://d2pggiv3o55wnc.cloudfront.net/oann/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Arizona-OANN-June-28-2020-v3.pdf [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:23, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
:Hi NishantXavier, nice job on your work for the predictions! And thanks for reminding me about that Gravis/[[OANN]] poll, I'm thinking about potentially doing an essay on thoroughly analyzing it sometime. I've seen most of the data there, and I unfortunately have some high suspicions due to the low sample size, high margin of error at ±4.3%, and under-sampling of 2016 Hillary voters. However, I think there were several parts they probably got right; for one, the 2016 [[Gary Johnson]] voters may be more inclined to vote for Trump this year. Also, some interesting side notes:

:*if Republicans are doing this well with Asian voters, then no wonder the Democrats are panicking and resorting to desperate race-baiting tactics amidst the [[CCP pandemic]], such as whining over jokes like "kung flu"
:*If McSally actually wins a majority of the black vote, it will become much harder for Kelly to win the general election
:*unlike what liberals are spewing in mocking the poll simply because they see "OANN", the latter group only paid for it to be conducted by Gravis Marketing
:*there is a chance that Sen. McSally may lose the Republican primary in early August because her opponent there is telling voters that she's somehow a swampy [[establishment]] "RINO"

:—[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 11:51, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears, thanks for the feedback. As an Asian who has worked for American companies, I know many Indian-Americans who support Trump. "President Trump is incredibly grateful for the widespread support he has received from the people of India and from millions of Indian-Americans across the United States. https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-is-grateful-for-indian-americans-support-white-house-309041 I think most Americans of whatever background are attracted by the proposition of Making America Great Again and not attracted by the opposition's policies.

I'm at 34 states now, hope to finish 40 by end of today. Can I ask, how is the Senate election predictions coming along? Are there 33 Senate seats up for election this year, if I recall right?

Also, another thing, I want to start a Project Page for Conservapedia's own "Project 100 Million" i.e. websites dedicated to winning 100 million souls for Christ over the next decade. Network 211, on which Conservapedia has reported, has one such plan. But we have had more page visits than they do! If they can do it, then we can and will too! [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:14, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

With 50 state results, and 33 Senate seats, let's aim to get at least 80% correct results! We'll then have some 65 entries for Conservapedia proven right! Will be difficult, as that is a high target, but it can be done. Let's get to work and be motivated to complete this, rejoicing on election day when the race is over, and the results turn out well by God's Grace. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:34, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

:Hi NishantXavier, I unfortunately will not be able to get to any updates on the Senate/House elections until I get out of the way some tedious work I currently have to be occupied with in my life. I already got one rather annoying part done, and there are two parts left that I need to finish. That's why for now, I have mostly worked on some other topics throughout [[CP]] here and also went on talk pages somewhat too much. I know that there's obviously the Senate election in [[Colorado]] that I need to update since it's now after the primary, as well as primaries for House elections in many states. If you have the time right now, do you suppose you could add updates for the unofficial Senate predictions page [[Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_Senate_predictions|here]]? It's fine if you don't, it's just that right now hasn't been the best time for me to get to those. Also, about the number of Senate elections, there are 33 normal elections and two special elections (one in [[Arizona]] and one in [[Georgia]]). Thank you and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 11:35, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears. I've finished 46 out of 50 states. Trump is winning 325 to 188 XD. So that's awesome. I just have to complete a few others. 2 are liberal states. I'll complete them today or tomorrow. So we have ample time after that. I finished 4 or 5 of the Senate seats. Do you think we should try to predict the primary winner; I believe Susan Collins' opponent will be decided on 14th. For two others, I have. I'll have to think about this and decide whether to do so or not on this third later. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks and God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 00:24, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

:So for Maine in the Democrat primary, the party establishment has hand-picked [[Sara Gideon]], so she's most likely going to win by a large margin over the other candidates. When it comes to primaries for the Senate elections, it's important to remember that the two big ones to watch for are the ones for Alabama (which is tomorrow, and will decide whether Sessions or Tuberville is the nominee to face Doug Jones) and Arizona; for the latter, I made [[Talk:Main_Page#McSally_primary_challenger|this relevant post here]], which unforunately no one else responded to. Hope this helps, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 00:52, 14 July 2020 (EDT

Right, LT. One other thing. Can you tell me how to add a user box, "this user has more than 500 edits. I tried adding yours, but I think it automatically took the number 2500 instead of 500. Does every 500 have a different userbox or will the same suffice? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 08:46, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

:Sorry for not responding to this sooner. So with the way I used that userbox, you start with <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|</nowiki></code>. Then enter in the word for the color you want the left cell to be. So if you want a gray color like I did for the one on my user page, then add <code><nowiki>gray|</nowiki></code>, and you should now have <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|</nowiki></code>. Next, specify the color you want for the right cell. Assuming that you want it to be white as I did for mine, it should now look like this: <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|white|</nowiki></code>. Next, add in the text you want to appear on the left side, add another vertical bar (no space needed), and finally add in the text you want to appear on the right side. So it seems that you want your userbox to be <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|white|500+|This user has made over 500 edits to [[Conservapedia]].}}</nowiki></code> Hope this helps NishantXavier! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 14:31, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears. I added it as 750. Thanks for your help on all this. I also saw the improvements to the Senate election predictions page. Looks great. I'm almost done with the presidential election, just some finishing touches remain. Then we can really get down to analyzing both the mainstream media projection and arrive at Conservapedia's own projection for each state in the presidential and senate election races. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 17:40, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
:Alright, awesome! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 17:46, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

All 50 states done in presidential election! Please review and see if anything needs to be added. Senate elections are next. We should be done in 3 to 4 days for those as well. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:01, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
:Alright, I just reviewed what you did for the presidential election predictions by state, and they seem great! I would note that Nevada and New Hampshire have a strong chance of favoring Trump this time around; Trump only barely lost New Hampshire in 2016, and with Republican [[Chris Sununu]] being the governor of the state and holding a high popularity there, that could potentially carry Trump over the finish line. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 10:43, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

== Project 150 Million Souls for Christ the King in the next 10 to 15 years ==

Hi Liberal Tears. On Conservapedia, we now have a project: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King dedicated to sharing our testimonies for Christ our King. We would like thousands of people to sign up on Conservapedia and share their testimony - it can be a brief testimony, however long or short; from a few sentences to several paragraphs - and it would be great if longstanding members could give their support to this project. Andy approved of the project and asked me to create the page, as I did. Could you help us? The Bible tells us the day is coming one day when every knee will bow and acknowledge Jesus as King. And Christ Our Lord also tells us that everyone who confesses Him before men, He Himself will confess before His Father in heaven, so that we will be saved, because Jesus our Advocate pleads for us. Kindly consider giving your testimony. Thank you. In Our Lord Jesus, Nishant X. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 07:20, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
:Hi NishantXavier, I added my story [[Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King#Liberaltears.27_story|here]]. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 12:23, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS!! Really, I'm so grateful to you, Liberal Tears, and I'm sure Our Lord Jesus is as well. May Our Good Lord amply and richly reward you for your courageous testimony for Him, with every abundant blessing in this life, and with life everlasting in the world to come in eternity. God Bless you. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 17:42, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

:You're welcome, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 17:46, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thanks for reverting the latest string of rubbish. I was again distracted, and slow on the draw. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:53, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

:Yep, no problem! I just went one by one, clicked on the "View history" for all the vandalized pages, found the revisions just prior to being vandalized by the troll, and simply published those. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 18:10, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

==That Catholic vs Protestant argument on the talk pages is OVER==
All discussions have been properly moved to the [[https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Does_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F debate page]]. The discussion has calmed down and become more orderly. You're the one who keeps picking at scabs. I stopped talking about getting night editing rights when Andy finally responded, you're the one who keeps bringing it up, let it go already. Stop playing the victim, the Catholics have done just as much pushing and have been just as argumentative, and so have you, stop playing innocent. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:47, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

==Dataclarifier does a kamikaze dive==
Jesus said, ''Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.'' DC thinks it's Peter. So, no. Knowledge and understanding are still two different things. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 01:24, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:Are you still going to try rebuking Dataclarifier? Your harshness towards him at times probably didn't do much good, and I can't help but wonder if you ever used the same sleazy strawman tactics against him as you did towards me. Now there's a possibility he may never come back, and I may as well just be sad, lonely, and depressed for the rest of my life.
:And here's something I don't believe I've ever fully mentioned before: I stumbled upon this site around over a year ago, thought it was really cool, and wanted to participate. Then fast forward to when 1990'sguy pretty much left early this year, and I thought that I ought to try editing much more where I could. As I did more and more, I realized that this was the best thing giving me a sense of meaning in a life I was getting more and more miserable in. After trying to understand the disputes between you and Dataclarifier, I felt that he might've been treated unfairly and harshly, especially noticing your harshness at times. After NishantXavier was engaging in discussions, especially after he posted a link on his user page to a [[OnePeterFive]] webpage, I saw the increasing contempt some editors here had for him over strongly Catholic viewpoints. And after going through a pathetic while in the past few weeks, I hope everyone else is satisfied; I'm certainly not. I'll still stay on this site to contribute good content, but I'll be more inclined to just be a sad and bitter guy from now on. I've dealt with more nonsense than I could handle at all over the past few years, and I'm now probably hitting a long-term low point in life. If you profess to be a Christian, then I hope you can try to understand some of my problems; not many in my life were sympathetic, unfortunately. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 01:44, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:Oh, and just in case, please don't issue a block over this. I'm now always becoming apprehensive on whether I'll get blocked or not over certain comments some assistant sysops may not like. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 01:50, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::My harshness? Everytime I cited the Bible, he told me I'm going to hell. Get your facts straight. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:04, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::I think you have trouble with the English language. You have made the claim, no less than 4 or 5 times, that people "selectively" use the Bible to condemn pedophilia. If there is support for pedophilia within the Bible, I think you need to ante up those scriptures, or just plain shut up and stop making stupid, spurious accusations. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:10, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Alright, I should've specified when you were harsh (asides from disputes with Dataclarifier). I remember one time you threatened to delete one of Progressingamerica's pages (finding the exact diff will be hard, since it was a few months ago), calling it "bull" and something along the lines of commie propaganda. And there was [[Talk:DIAN|this time]] as well when you initially marked one of my pages for a speedy deletion before I explained my points clearly. Can you please quit being extremely uncivil and using strawman attacks? As I've said, I might be hitting a long-term low point in life, and the last thing I need to read on my mail page is a repetition of the same smear you used. Since you profess to be a Christian, I'm puzzled (or perhaps maybe not) at your choosing of engaging in attacks over showing the type of compassion that God would want to see more of in this world. It's frankly sad to see so many editors here throw me under the bus for defending myself against lies; I don't know if I should even be surprised or not, as so many have betrayed me in my life. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 11:50, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Well, duh. Are your criticizing negotiation and consultation now? Do prefer unilateral action without consultation? Posting comments and consulting with others is kinda how the process works, sheesh.

::::As you reach this low point, remember, the ''Lord is nigh unto them who are of a broken heart'' (Ps 34:18). ''A broken heart thou wilt not despise'' (Psalm 51:17, easy to remember 17x3=51). God has guaranteed he will not reject us when everyone else has. It is our pride - original sin - that inhibits repentance. This is the problem with Roman Catholic doctrine, it teaches your pride was washed away with infant baptism. I know, I've been there. Me and all my brothers, as well. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:54, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::God didn't reject me before? Prior to this month, here's basically what happened in my life: I had tedious nonsense to deal with, and was really losing my long-term patience. Every time I just wanted to take a real break, it felt like I was getting cursed with short-term bad luck (like accidentally knocking down my pencil sharpener and creating a mess on the floor); it seemed to me as if I was supposed to just "gag and get it done" when I could barely think straight. The reason I would lose my long-term patience was because, growing up, I had always maintained some sense of objective-based integrity, and that was really tested in middle school as well as early high school. If you didn't grow up in an era filled with profanity and pornography glamorized as part of "maturity", then consider yourself much, much more luckier than I was. After losing good friends from elementary school because of how out-of-touch and nasty they got and seeing what had happened to peers as they became more cold-hearted and deceptive really had broke me on the inside. Realizing the self-recognizable nature of objective morality and that it comes to people's minds as they move from barbaric animal instincts to rational, civilized thinking was what eventually brought me from atheism to Christianity, but there's still a long way. And while some things in my life may strongly point towards it, I don't know how much God has done to reach out towards me. Too many times I've felt all alone, too many times being only able to rely on what I can salvage of the last bit of courage left in myself. I'm sorry if I sound selfish saying all this, given so many in the world who live far worse than I do. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 12:19, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::::You need to stand on the rock of Christ. God says, ''Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock.'' That was DC's problem, he insisted the rock was a man - Peter, not Jesus Christ. God is not the author of confusion. He has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, love, and a sound mind. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:58, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

==You are invited to continue our sharing the Gospel of Salvation==
Dataclarifier evidently found our discussion ''a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense'' (1 Peter 2:8) and removed it. [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&curid=160561&diff=0&oldid=1675214] We can continue it here if you like. [[User_talk:RobSmith#The_Gospel_of_Salvation]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:16, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

==Reply==
Hi, in response to earlier, I can only say that I don't know exactly how it works. For the most part, it just does. There may be some specific way in which it goes, but it has not been clearly disclosed in any detail. So all I can say is that it generally works itself out eventually. Once in awhile though, the process seems to just stop for some. I can't say why for sure, although typically I have my suspicions for each case. I don't think timing has much to do with it, but perhaps a little in some cases. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:25, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:Thank you for replying, DavidB4! It just seems to me that some are vastly luckier than others, which ends up being a disappointment for those who work hard but aren't noticed as much. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 16:55, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Dataclarifier update: new Debate page==

Evening "LT" (sounds like military casual nickname for "lieutenant"!). Thanks for your prayers. I just set up another Debate page for others to participate in. For myself and IndependentSkeptic, we just don't have the energy any more. Just take a look at it, but don't get involved unless you really feel you should. We feel we shouldn't be obligating our friends in any way–it's just not fair. The title of the debate already implies the only possible answer.
:*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
Peace be with you. We are well, just feeling old. I still lift light dumbbells for exercise. My mother is 93 and amazingly alert. She says, "Just don't say that "O" word. ("Old"). Stay safe buddy. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:33, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you Dataclarifier! Since I don't want to lose contact with you, do you you suppose you can email NishantXavier for now, and once I get a good chance to email him, I can get in direct contact with you? This way, you don't need to publicly post your email anywhere or register it here if you don't want to, as he has posted his email information [[User_talk:NishantXavier/Archive_1#Follow_me_on_Twitter|here]] and [https://onepeterfive.com/author/nxavier/ here]. God Bless, it's great to hear you guys are doing well, and thank you for posting here! Also, I'm really honored to hear that my nickname almost sounds like a military ranking position! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 22:51, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
::''10-4'' LT. We'll just post here. By the way, already got a hot response on the Debate page and its Talk page. Do you know why some metal wires get hotter than others? ''Resistance''. John 3:19-21. The truth can really burn. Peace be with you. Amen. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:::Great to hear about that debate page! And can you please consider my proposal on emailing NishantXavier for now? If there's a way to contact you privately, then we can keep in touch if you decide to permanently leave CP anytime soon. I really ask you consider it, as I'd hate to ever be left alone not knowing how you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are doing. There's just something about you and your contributions here that leaves a special mark inside me that I can't forget and always think about, and it would be very sad if I one day lose all means of talking to you. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:17, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's the Holy Spirit Himself using me in my contributions, the effect of the Holy Sacrament of Confirmation by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop representing the whole Body of Christ Himself that makes the mark inside you. Not I but Christ in me. Loneliness Prescription Rx: Pray the recommended prayers of the Church to God the Holy Spirit, especially "O God, Who by the light of Thy Holy Spirit didst instruct the hearts of Thy faithful people, grant that we may be truly wise and ever rejoice in His consolations and power, through Christ Our Lord. ''Send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.''" Or this one: "Lord, please console me." Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church daily, Knowing Jesus is by your side as you read in the very room with you lovingly watching you read it, until you've read it cover to cover seven times. Attend daily Mass, in person, or online EWTN live 0700, 1100, 1800, or 2300 hrs CST/CDT. Open the Bible and read one whole book of the scriptures simply because it is holy, or if it's long, one-third or one half of one. But before you do any reading, get quiet, close your eyes and ask Jesus to be present to you, and let him touch your soul. "O Jesus, as I cannot now receive Thee in holy Communion, I beg You to come spiritually into my heart, and make it your own forever. Never, never let me ever be parted from you, my Lord and my God. I love you, my Jesus." Finally, if the nearest Catholic Church to you offers Adoration, go and kneel in silent adoration (wearing a protective mask). I suggest beginning with the prayer of St. Thomas Aquinas, whispered quietly or mouthed in silence (mentally only){{quotation|O Godhead here in hiding / Whom I do adore / masked by these bare shadows / shape and nothing more / See, O see before You / here lies low a heart / lost, all lost in wonder / at the God thou art / Seeing, touching, tasting / are in Thee deceived / What says trusty hearing / That shall be believed / What God's Son says truly / take for truth I do / Truth Himself speaks truly / or there's nothing true ! }}Also at least one Hail Mary, said thoughtfully, from the heart, not recited, but addressed directly to her about every 3 hours, and once before bed and once upon rising. Peace be with you and all whom you love and care about. ''Semper fidelis ! '' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:02, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Thank you very much for the advice if I go to a Catholic church anytime soon, but can you please answer regarding about possibly using email as a means for contact in the long run? I haven't got a complete answer on that, and it's really important to at least know how you're doing from time to time. God Bless, and thank you for wishing me well, as always! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 00:08, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::We won't be using email. We've had lots of trouble from junk mail and simply delete it, some days up to 500 emails you wouldn't believe. So I guess you'll have to be content for now that you can post something either at my talk page or on Dataclarifier's, since we're in the same house, and we will get back to you here on your own talk page. God bless. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 09:24, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ah, I see what you mean about junk mail and excessive spam that piles up. If you'd prefer I talk to you and D.C. for now on your talk pages, then I suppose that's the best (and only) idea for now. God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 10:34, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Dataclarifier just now blanked his talk page as promised at the end of the week. He'll check it once a month for any messages that might be left there. After posting this message to you here, I will do the same on my talk page if it's not already blank, and I'll check it end of every month. Regarding your offer above, we would both prefer you post your communications to us on my talk page. May your own sweet and powerful guardian angel and the Holy Spirit of Almighty God and His Son give you healing and peace and consolation through the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Our Lord and God. Amen. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 19:08, 29 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you IndependentSkeptic, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 19:11, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

== Re M.A. Mendoza ==

Hi there.

I, like many other God fearing conservatives were disappointed and surprised with Mendoza, yet, I wanted to show the bias on Wikipedia. Nishidani who wrote the same silly stuff, is a 14 years veteran on Wikipedia. It seems.
I'm going to remove the content from Ann Mary Mendoza, if you feel it isn't neccessary. If you reconsider, please let me know.
God bless.[[User:LaMarina|LaMarina]] ([[User talk:LaMarina|talk]]) 18:00, 28 August 2020 (EDT)
:Hi LaMarina, I made a reply to this message on your talk page. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Friday, 18:06, 28 August 2020 (EDT)

== Your proposed posting to an alternative Catholic-oriented site ==
::'''Liberaltears''', the site recommended by you as one that "'''''seems''''' [to you] a more Catholic-oriented alternative to Conservapedia" opposes Catholic doctrine regarding the Pope, the Magisterium, and the authority of the ''Ecumenical Councils'' of [[Council of Trent|Trent]] through [[Second Vatican Council|Vatican II]]. As for feeling that "debating other editors here" gets "nowhere", you totally miss the fact that a firm defense of the truth of the doctrine of the Church on Conservapedia is not for the purpose "winning" a debate or getting people ignorant of the actual doctrine to admit they were in error (perhaps misinformed by others who did not really know what they were talking about, or perhaps reaching erroneous conclusions on their own based on a badly uninformed reading of the Bible without knowledge of what the original language texts really say by not knowing that some words are not metaphors but only literal in meaning—like ''trogon'' in John 6 "eat, chew, gnaw, crunch my flesh"). Conservapedia "welcomes all points of view" ''officially'', but too often some of the Sysops/administrators are hostile even to the point of violating Conservapedia standards in order to ridicule, insult, and drive the Catholic contributors away by a vigorous vendetta against Catholicism, by using insults and outrageous misrepresentations based on [[Confirmation bias]], making Conservapedia more and more Protestant than it was ten years ago (''according to Dataclarifier''—he says it was more friendly then). Occasionally postings and contributions have been utterly deleted as being intolerable spamming with "irrelevant Catholic garbage". But most of the time not, just being treated with bullying contempt and hostility instead. "Catholics not wanted" is the hidden message. And it's pervasive. Much of what Dataclarifier has contributed has survived almost intact. My own brief contribution to some of the articles on the popes, and what I did adapting the Harmony of the Gospel conservative version to audio read aloud, has apparently been left untouched. So, if what I've edited or contributed to Conservapedia does in fact convince anyone that the actual Catholic doctrine of the ''Catechism'' is from the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through them leading into all the truth, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Dataclarifier says he was too zealous for the Church when he first entered, and that Father Nelo Leto asked him, "Were you talking with anyone when you decided to become Catholic?" and he said, "No." And Father Leto said, "Then why don't you let the Spirit do his work? I don't really think He needs your help." So, whether or not it "gets nowhere" is moot, because after I finish up with the Debate on whether the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded or not, both Dataclarifier and me will retire from Conservapedia for the most part. He didn't want to "butt heads" with anti-Catholics on that Debate page but just wanted to see what would happen. When I looked at it I couldn't stand the fact that no one was defending the Church and the "No, it hasn't happened" section was empty. As I said, he didn't want to participate, but I sure did! And so it's reached a point where there's no point to it. '''Conservative''' wanted Debate pages to be organized with straightforward "Yes" and "No" sections, each one presenting a particular side of the the Debate and leaving it at that. But it got bogged down and obscured by constant interruptions of inserted opposing comments and insults and scriptures cited again and again and contradictions with scriptures cited in opposition to other scriptures again and again and each side denounced by the other as posting "irrelevant spam intended to obscure the purpose of the debate and deflect it into other issues not relevant to the stated topic of the debate in violation of the rules of the debate" (''whew, that's a mouthful''). OK that brings us to today. I will go ahead this afternoon with what I recommended ("24 hours after making the Recommendation) and revise the layout of the Debate page,
::*getting rid of unnecessary repetitious "spam" and disruptive insertions into contributing users' arguments that chopped them up by cutting and interrupting their text at multiple places above the contributing user's signature line and essentially obscuring the point being made,
::*and moving comments "yay" to the now named "Protagonist" section, and comments "nay" to the now-named "Antagonist" section of the Debate. That should streamline the whole page.
::If it's promptly reverted afterward I won't be at all surprised, even if the revised layout '''''is''''' according to the form Conservative insisted should be maintained for a debate page. If it is, I won't stick around to contest it. A reversion would only prove that revision of the page into the form of a fair debate clearly stated without obscuring the topic is unacceptable to someone. '''''Nuff said!''''' (too much!) --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Oh, alright then. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Monday, 16:09, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
===Update: hospitalization===
This morning Dataclarifier's mother was admitted to Mercy Hospital because of severe nausea and weakness and lightheadedness near to fainting and almost passing out beginning 3 AM. When asked if she needed to go to the ER, she finally decided to have the EMT's called. She was admitted 6:30 AM for 2-days' observation. No visitors. Phone calls allowed once a day. We'll keep in touch with her nurse by phone, and her as well. When she's released, we'll bring her home. Would appreciate your prayers. Meanwhile, stay safe. Look at my last entry my Talk page ["Frequent purging of junk this page"]. God bless. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:54, 2 September 2020 (EDT) Just got a call from the doctor on staff. Her CAT scan showed nothing obviously wrong. All her lab work showed nothing seriously wrong. Thank God! They're going to keep her under observation to see if any cause was overlooked. She wasn't in any pain during all this. Just frightened by what happened. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:12, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
:Sorry to hear about what had happened to D.C.'s mother. I'll definitely send my prayers today; given the seriousness of what initially was going on, I genuinely apologize for not seeing this message sooner. Thank you for telling me, and may the Lord protect her! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 14:49, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
====Update: home from hospital====
D.C.'s mother discharged about 1:50 PM. Diagnosis inner-ear disorder. The small stones inside the cochlea that change position with movement to stimulate the "hairs" inside the inner ear for orientation of balance were not functioning properly, causing dizziness and nausea. She's had a history of motion-sickness in darkened movie-theaters and during airflight. This is worse in its effect. But it's not life-threatening, unless she falls. Prescription for alleviation of the symptom. We brought her home. Meanwhile will check my talk page once a day after dealing with our emails at home computer. God Bless. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 16:38, 3 September 2020 (EDT)
:Well, it's good to hear that she's been discharged from the hospital, and I'm sorry if she isn't all well yet. I'll continue sending my prayers, and I wish her the best! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 16:45, 3 September 2020 (EDT)
::The three of us thank you together. God bless. May God be with you. ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 23:19, 3 September 2020 (EDT) Mrs. Mullin, and Dataclarifier.
:::You're welcome! And how's D.C.'s mother doing at the very moment? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Friday, 23:32, 3 September 2020 (EDT)
::::Asleep.
::::Dataclarifier recommends you add the following link (with audio) to your "Favorites" file so you can pray with the whole Church in worship of God at night, before dawn, morning, at midday, and in the evening before or after sunset. '''https://divineoffice.org/''' —God Bless. Good night. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 01:13, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::Okay, thank you for replying, IndependentSkeptic! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Friday, 01:17, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

== Political Cartoons==
Not gonna lie, you're pretty much a role model to me. May we collaborate to expand the [[political cartoon]] page? There is a lot of great potential there, such as Garrison, Ramirez and the McCoys. I also think it'd fit your name pretty perfectly.--[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:10, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
:I'm honored to hear that! About expanding the political cartoon page, that sounds like a great idea; do you want to start off with it, then maybe I can add on to the article in your preferred style? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 23:15, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
::I've collected what I believe to be the best of the best over quite some time. I would like for you to give whatever your discretion sees fit, be it commentary and especially formatting, as I yield to your seniority. Are more private communications allowed here, or shall I simply post the compilation right here?--[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:22, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
:::The whole thing, admittedly going back a while. Or not, sorry.
https://imgur.com/a/CGdgKXM
--[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:26, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
::::Is that link correct? I clicked on it, but only saw a blank screen. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 23:47, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::There's a thunderstorm going on where I am. My ability to edit this is a small miracle. That link should've led to 5/43 comics I intended to upload.--[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:50, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
::::::Is the content in the link only accessible from a private account or can it be seen by anyone publicly? Also, about uploading (correct me if I'm wrong), are you referring to uploading them as files to CP here? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 23:55, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::::It's public, and keeps failing after five or so, regardless of my order. I don't know how to upload pictures to CP directly- that would certainly help.
This should finally work. https://imgur.com/a/dyaECV0[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 00:05, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
:Hmm, I'm still getting a blank screen when opening the link. By the way, about uploading images to CP, that requires either the "Upload" or "Administrator" tag; the good news is that I was very fortunate to be promoted to "Upload" abilities by Andy today, so if you ever want any work of yours to be uploaded here, I'll likely be able to do it. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 00:19, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
::That's pretty great for you! That link actually does work- I tried Ctrl+F5 (force-reloading) a few times, and yeah, it's there. I have no artistic works of my own to upload, but I shall remember the offer. If I have to submit pictures to upload to the site individually, how do I?--[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Thank you! About the link, I did try force-reloading with Ctrl+F5 a couple times, but it didn't work, and I'll try again sometime else. And about submitting images to upload, I believe you're looking for [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] ([[CP:IUR]]). Also, I need to head to sleep right now, and I'll likely be back in around six to seven hours. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 00:45, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

hey liberaltears! I saw you updating the leftist violence in the Trump era page! I love it! I'm currently working on a project to catalog all of the instances of black lives matter protests turning violent throughout the summer. I want to combat that fake report that 93% of protests are peaceful

anyway I was wondering if you would already have any of this cataloged or if you'd be interested in helping? I'm also working on a political violence map but right now I want to catalog every instance of black lives matter violence to see what the true percentage is..

lemme know! {{unsigned|Mikephshdj}}

:Since I'm listing [[BLM]] violence in [[Left-wing violence in the Trump era (2020)|this page]], it's technically cataloged with other specific topics. It's important to note that when getting the information, I mainly use the [[Gateway Pundit]] since they report on incidents very quickly, though I do also use [[Breitbart]] and [[Townhall]]; this means that I'm likely to catch up on most news but maybe not all. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier's mother be all well!]]''''' Sunday, 21:53, 5 September 2020 (EDT)

==I saw your edit my talk page==
We are all right. I donated some of my dumbbell free weights to the Boys and Girls Club of America here in Des Moines 30# to 60#, and kept the 3# through 25# weights and my incline-decline exercise bench with leg curl and extension attachment with plates. The representative was delighted!

I read your edit and ignored RobSmith's posting, and then deleted the page content, as I said I would. Peace be with you. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:12, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

:THANK YOU VERY MUCH for replying on my user mail page here, Dataclarifier! It's great to hear that you guys are alright, and I was worried for a little while that you and I.S. may have permanently left already. God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier's mother be all well!]]''''' Thursday, 14:27, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

Addendum: I posted the following on the Debate Talk page Have the gates of hell...

A story is told about St. Francis of Assisi. There was, during St. Francis’ time, a priest who was
a scandal to his parish. He was living with a woman in sin and nothing could convince the wayward priest to change his ways. He tried to change, but the sinful habit of sex outside of marriage
had a strangle hold on the priest.
The parish decided to take action so one night they went to the priest’s house carrying torches
and clubs ...they would convince the priest to change his ways one way or another. After
pounding on the door, the wayward priest appeared and St. Francis stepped forward to confront
him. Both the priest and the mob thought that Francis would verbally chastise him but, to the
surprise of all, the holy St. Francis fell to his knees before the fallen priest. Francis took the
priest’s hands and kissed them...“Sinner or no.” Francis said, “I kiss the hands of this man whom
God has gifted with the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ...The
hands of the one who has the power to forgive sins in God’s name.” The wayward priest fell to
his knees too and began to sob uncontrollably. The scandalous priest there,
kneeling with the saint, repented of his sins and turned his life back over to Christ. The priest
who had believed he was defeated by his sexually scandalous life, found victory that night. The
parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they
witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:12, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

In case you're wondering about the woman, I added on the Debate Talk page what Paul Harvey calls "the rest of the story":
:When the woman herself saw that "''the parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner''", her heart too was stricken and melted along with the parishioners, and she fell down and repented, and confessed that she had seduced the priest, and she received absolution, and from that moment in sorrow for her sins turned her life over to Christ and lived apart, dedicating herself to a life of poverty and prayer for sinners in penance and fasting and chastity in reparation to Christ for her sins. The Poor Clares ministered to her needs along with some of the parishioners of the town.
I'll get back in a month or so. ''Pax vobis''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

Talk:Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-09-11T00:14:34Z

Dataclarifier:

I set up the debate page with a "Yes" and "No" format, but I will not participate. I have made my view known on other debate pages listed on this debate page under the See also section. May God bless you all. ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:Good. Be a slacker. My response will serve as the response of the community, and if you try this stunt again, I'll pursue getting it deleted with the assistance of RobS. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 22:22, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==The title of this debate is unacceptable==
Neither I nor RobSmith will accept a Debate whose title is based on such a loaded premise. We reject the very notion that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is the same church that "Jesus founded on the a rock" and that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against." [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 22:05, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:The question, as stated, makes little sense, needs to be shortened, and re-phrased.

:My guess is DC wants to use it as another spamfest. Fine. But once the spam is posted here, it should not be allowed to be cut and pasted unto other good faith Debate pages, IMO. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:06, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::Look at the top of this page. He already told us he wouldn't be participating, even though he's the one who set it up. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 23:16, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::He's making a statement. If nobody signs up in a few days, a speedy tag could be hung. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:20, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::So a debate page can be deleted for the sheer reason that no one participates, if such is the case? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:23, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::Good question. I don't know. But if the creator of the page states it was created in bad faith and nobody participates, that certainly would be cause to hang a speedy tag, IMO. It could be defined as nonsense spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:26, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==This is practically the definition of bad faith==
Please end it. --[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:Yes. It's redundant of at least two earlier debates. ''They think by their many words they shall be heard.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:29, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

==IndependentSkeptic==
Dataclarifier may not be willing to participate. I am. At least once. '''First''' the creator ot the page did '''''not''''' state it was created in bad faith. '''Second''' (and I hope '''''finally''''') I posted on the Debate Page what I consider the most devastating response I ever found to the blasphemous garbage-mouth objections posted by VargasMilan and RobSmith against the promises of Jesus Christ and against his Church. I joined because of the Bible, and like Dataclarifier (Michael), I too have found the Catholic Church to be the most biblical Church. It's a Full Gospel Church. '''''Nuff said! Oh Yeah!''''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 08:17, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:This debate will not add anything new that has not already been said on other pages. But if it becomes helpful to save a few more souls in what promises to be another spamfest, so be it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:31, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:Just remember, ''by grace are ye saved'', not spam, distortions, and lies. You're only making the chain heavier of the lost with all your spam postings and convoluted logic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:34, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:As Solomon said, ''much study is a weariness of the flesh''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:35, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::"''By grace are ye saved''". Exactly! '''The ''Catechism'' says the same thing!''' [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', Part Three, Section 1, Chapter 3, article 2: '''Grace and Justification'''] You really ought to read it. The Bible backs it up completely. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:43, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:No it doesn't. The Catechism says ''grace is not grace''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:46, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::You lie! No such text in the ''Catechism''. I've read it. You can't quote box any such passage anywhere in the ''Catechism''.

::Oh, the [[Truth (logic|logic]] is inescapable! Only someone like yourself blinded by [[confirmation bias]] can't see it. Look at [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9%3A39-41&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NIV;NABRE '''John 9:39-41''']. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:56, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:Catechism teaches grace is merited. It's already cited in mainspace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::Not the initial grace of salvation. No one can merit that. ''You just won't admit it.'' That's the teaching of the Catholic Church. That's the teaching of the ''Catechism''. Apart from Christ there is no meriting salvation. Only He saves. Only through Christ can we do anything. Only united to Him can we bear fruit. "For apart from me you can do nothing". We can't do it! Again, look at [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm '''Grace and Justification'''].

::'''You lie about what the ''Catechism'' says.''' But you keep repeating the same lie. '''You''' are spamming [[Falsehood]].

::I will waste no more time with you. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:15, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:If grace is merited, ''grace is not grace''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:The grace of God is essentially the "good news", which is what the term "gospel" is translated into. Catholic catechism denies the good news, i.e. the gospel, and reverts back into law and Judaism. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:09, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:''Ye are like unto whited sepulchers....…'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:25, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
==This page should be locked if the disruptive trolling continues==
[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:44, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

==This page has turned into an incoherent mess==
Replete with Dataclarifier's signature redundant spamming, which IndependentSceptic has now adopted. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:52, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

:The spamming of -1,289 bytes and doubling down with another -2,301 bytes in an edit war [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Have_the_gates_of_hell_prevailed_against_the_church_Jesus_founded_on_a_rock,_when_He_Himself_said_it_could_never_happen%3F_Did_Christ_who_cannot_lie_fail_to_fulfill_his_promise%3F&curid=160783&action=history here marked in red] is making the page incomprehensible. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:53, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

==Mistaken reversion==
My reversion this morning was a mistake by my super-sensitive touch screen. This error has been corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:26, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

== Proposed revision of mainspace Debate page - orderly and organized ==

RobSmith proposed some new additional Rules for this Debate. I cite in particular these, as relevant to a revision of the mainspace page to remove spam, and disruptive insertions into original postings, as vandalism:{{quotebox|'''Rules'''
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*[...]

*[...]

*[...] Spamming is not allowed in either the Protagonist, Antagonist, or Open discussion sections. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*[...]

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user. }}

In support of these I proposed on my talk page an additional rule:{{quotation|
*Original postings are to be left intact. No inserting of commentary or challenge into an original posting made by another user, and thereby disrupting, interrupting or breaking up the flow of the thought or argument of the posting. Any editor can remove it, especially the original posting editor, as an attempt at spamming or vandalism, obscuring the point of the posting. —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Protagonist section must be made in the Antagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Protagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged. —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Antagonist section must be made in the Protagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Antagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged.}}In accordance with these rules proposed by RobSmith and myself I have revised a copy of the Debate mainspace page as follows. (This is not spam. RobSmith said he had unlocked the page. It's still locked. All double-brackets enclosing identifying signatures of users posting comments have been removed from the copy below to preemptively defeat a potential accusation of "forging electronic signatures" on a page the user "never posted to"—meaning this Debate talk page.) --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

== Misleading RobSmith commentary - 1 Kings 11:12-13 "turn away" - and "preacher of the gospel" applied to himself 2Tm 2:7; 2 Co 10:14; 2Tm 5:17-18 ==

Debate page is still locked to prevent editing. Note posted at [View source] states any edit proposed should be first discussed. O.K. I propose the following edit be added right after RobSmith's partial quotation of 1 Timothy 5:18 to "''not muzzle the ox''".
:RobSmith characteristically misleads readers with comments that deflect from the point of the actual context of the reference being made, taking it out of context, in this case deflecting and implying as a mistaken typo the actual reference to 1 Kings 11:12-13 that the kingdom was "''Torn away''". It says{{quotation|Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will '''tear it out''' of the hand of your son. However I will not '''tear away''' all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen. —RSVCE ("'''rend away'''" KJV)}}But RobSmith says "''Torn away''" must be a typo, that it says instead "turn away". The actual text of KJV verse 9 says "''because his heart was turned from''". While there are many different versions of the Bible, '''''none of them''''' says "turn away" in 1 Kings 11:9-13. And not only that, but RobSmith also claims to be a "preacher of the gospel" in accordance with Matthew 28:19, which in the context of the passage was addressed to "the eleven disciples" who were those remaining of the '''[[Twelve Apostles]]''' whom Christ had "ordained"/"appointed" and named as apostles. (Luke 22:29; 6:13). But he refuses to answer and say unequivocally that he is an accredited ordained preacher, making his claim doubtful at best. The term "preacher of the gospel" in the New Testament was applied only to those ordained as preachers of the gospel and like Paul ordained as apostles. {{quotation|'''1 Timothy 2:7''' Whereunto I am '''ordained''' a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, ''and'' lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. —KJV}}{{quotation|'''2 Timothy 1:11''' Whereunto I am '''appointed''' a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. —KJV}}I've already quoted other Bible passages from the New Testament about the apostles ordaining elders as preachers of the congregations in the book of Acts. Paul's additional reference to not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain is RobSmith's answer to the question "Are you an acknowledged ordained preacher?" That's RobSmith's evasive and slanted abuse of scripture ''taken entirely out of context'' as if it is referring to all of the responses of correction on these Debate pages as attempts to "muzzle" him, to "silence" him, to put forth grounds to discredit his right to insist on his own interpretations and applications of the Bible as from God having called him to preach and teach the word, quoting Matthew 28:19, and 1 Timothy 5:18 "''you shall not muzzle the ox''". In fact, St. Paul was citing that passage as applied to himself regarding his rights and the rights of ordained elders (''presbyteroi''/priests) to receive a salary or monetary support ("honor") as an ordained apostle and preacher of the gospel.{{quotation|'''2 Corinthians 11:8-9''' 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages ''of them'', to do you service. 9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all ''things'' I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and ''so'' will I keep ''myself''.}}{{quotation|'''1 Timothy 5:17-18''' 17 Let the '''elders that rule well''' be counted worthy of double honour, especially '''they who labour in the word and doctrine'''. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer ''is'' worthy of his reward. —KJV}}{{quotation|'''1 Corinthians 9:6-18''' 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? 8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. 15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel. —NKJV}}
:RobSmith deceitfully uses the word of God. His interpretations of scripture cannot be trusted. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:04, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
I really think this response edit must for the sake of truth be included on the Debate page, right after RobSmith's quote of 1 Timothy 5:18a (his leaving out of v 15b), which he applies to himself in refusing to answer if he is an accredited ordained "preacher of the gospel". Given his past performance up to this day, I believe he will oppose including it, as an embarrassment to him for making false claims about himself. He has a right to '''[[Witnessing|witness]]''' to the gospel according to his own understanding, but no right to claim to be a "'''preacher of the gospel'''" if he hasn't been acknowledged by any church as "appointed and ordained" a preacher.
--[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 09:53, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:So let me get this straight now, Paul withstood Peter to his face, is ordained by God, but Peter has all authority" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:49, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Peter was ordained by Jesus Christ Himself Who gave to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven to bind and to loose, and heaven confirms his authority, "shall be bound in heaven, shall be loosed in heaven". --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Yet Paul withstood him to his face. Paul was disobedient to God's authority? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::TLDR; this spam seems a little off-point to the Debate question. And talk about deceitful, give me one simple piece of evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace, and we can continue this discussion. One piece of evidence, not a bloc of spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

*''that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit''.

Yes, the '''''fleshly''''' kingdom was ''torn away'' from Solomon.

Yes, Solomon's heart ''turned away'' from the Lord.

The subject under discussion was Solomon's salvation, not his fleshly kingdom. You are spamming above, making a mountain out of a mole hill. I mistakenly thought you were discussing spiritual matters, not fleshly, when I mistakenly referred to you spamming the discussion with fleshly matters as a typo. I should have known better. You have no spiritual discernment. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:14, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:You have a reasonable amount of time to produce evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace in the wilderness, preferably with one or two scriptures in support. Then, in accordance with the agreement we both have with User:Conservative, debates are not supposed to be on talk pages.
:P.S., you exhibited bad faith in (a) violating the Rules you yourself proposed; (b) biased editing in your revised version. For example, the Protagonist position is based upon the law being a curse, while Roman church doctrine is based upon law. You edited out at least four references, along with the supporting evidence and context, to that point. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:31, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Korah's rebellion (Jude 11) is rooted entirely in his perversion of the "good news" gospel statement of God that the whole nation is holy, and Korah's interpretation as a pretext for the perversion of that gospel by rejection of the authority of Moses and Aaron appointed by God as shepherds over the whole people of God— Numbers 16 whole chapter, {{quotation|'''Numbers 16:3''' and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said, '''You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?}}The Protestant Reformation said the same thing. Evidence that you distort scripture still remains. If we are disqualified, so are you. We stand by our proposed edit as a definitive summary. Nothing needs to be added. It's the truth. Good bye. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Was Israel under grace or under law" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:20, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:More bad faith: I never referenced Matthew 28:19. You are trolling. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:Proposal: [[Debate: Who is ordained to preach and teach the gospel?]] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::More bad faith squirming by RobSmith—Mark 16:15 says the same thing as Matthew 28:19. Yep. More of your persistent strategy of misleading distortion in virtually saying that Mark 16:15 ''has nothing to do with'' Matthew 28:19. Anyone who can read can see that it does. They can see that much. We stand by what we said about your abuse and misuse of scripture. Your interpretations and insinuations from the Bible cannot be trusted. You use the Bible deceitfully. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::One says teach, one says preach. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:24, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:'''Is User:RobSmith an acknowledged accredited ordained preacher of the gospel?''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:21, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::I have a ministry. I have been involved in prison ministry and ministry to the homeless for many years. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:26, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Ah-hah. You say you have a ministry. You do not say you were ordained an acknowledged accredited preacher of the gospel. I have a Christian ministry too. But I'm a layman witnessing to the gospel, and so is Dataclarifier, doing what we can, but we are not ordained ministers to preach and teach the gospel as "ambassadors of the Lord" 2 Corinthians 5:20. For understanding clearly RobSmith's strategy of interpreting scripture: See [[Loaded question]], [[Misrepresentation]], [[Putting words in someone's mouth]], [[Confirmation bias]] and [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]]. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::You're full of bull. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::And in my prison ministry, in my part of the country I encounter many Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers who thought they were baptized into salvation as an infant. In prison, they have much time to think about that, and for the first time, be exposed to God's truth and God's word. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:35, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::*'''Psalm 22:6''' - ''Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.''
::I see the wreckage of human lives you create with your catechism and infant baptism. God has called me to clean up the messes you guys make. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:47, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::You are misleading again, by a lying implication. You are actually saying, that these prisoners' ignorance of the faith and their sin is the doctrine of the Church! That is a lie. They chose to be ignorant, to do as they pleased, to rebel against their upbringing, to sin against the preaching of the Church and her holy doctrine, to dishonor their parents and grieve them in spite of their pleading to get out of the gangs and come back to the faith of the holy saints and angels. I know. I've heard them. There are also Catholic prison chaplains, ordained to ministry and reconciliation, who are expert in scripture and are devout followers of Jesus Christ. You suggestively imply that not one of them is in the prisons ministering to Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers by exposing them again to God's truth and God's word of reconciliation and healing that they heard in their parochial schools and at Mass. You impugn their ministry. Your deceitful interpretations of the word of God are misleading them away from the fullness of truth into a distortion of the truth of the Bible, the same Bible which led me and Dataclarifier from Protestantism into the Catholic Church as the most biblical Church on the face of the earth having the Fullness of the Gospel, not a distorted shriveled "withered" part of it—as NishantXavier said, maybe "50%, 80%, or even 90%" '''but not all of the truth revealed by God'''. '''Answer!'''. Are you a fully accredited acknowledged officially ordained preacher of the gospel associated with any recognized established Christian ministry organization, congregation, sect, church, or denomination—or are you conducting your own personal ministry as a layman? '''Don't ignore the question! Are you a legitimately ordained minister of the gospel? You say you were raised Catholic. You claim to ''be'' catholic''' (small "c"). '''Are you a Catholic? ''Are you an ordained Catholic preacher of the gospel?'' Don't try to squirm out of answering with a direct "yes" or "no".''' Dataclarifier and I are sure we know the answer (so does his mother). --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::(ec) I have witnessed miracles of changed lives. The gangbangers, like me, were instructed from an early age '''''not''''' to read the bible, '''''not''''' hear instruction from the bible, and were taught that they already had been adopted into God's family and received the Holy Ghost at infant baptism. (What you say about Catholic prison ministries is irrelevant to what we are discussing here). These gangbangers tell me, without solicitation, that they had been lied to by the Roman church and their parents.
::::*''Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness''
::::This verse is meaningless to someone who is told they have already been adopted into God's family as an infant. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 12:18, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'')
:::As always, misleading and false. They, like you, were taught from the Bible in their religion classes—''unless they refused to listen, even running away to go join a gang''. That teaching from the Bible in religion class by the sisters and brothers and priests was and is the pedagogy of the parochial schools since the beginning of the 19th century, so they ''were'' taught the Bible as the word of God and the whole faith of the Church as established by God with authority. Private reading leads to private interpretation. That's dangerous. It can lead to destruction and being led into error by lawless men (those who twist the doctrines of the scriptures and lean on their own understanding), and into falling from '''''security in holding to the faith by the knowledge of Jesus Christ''''', as Peter warned (2 Peter 1:20–2:3; 3:15-18). The devil quotes scripture too. That's why they were told not to read the Bible (for themselves). But anyone who really wants to know the truth will finally find it, just as we did, in the Catholic Church, and find the way of holiness by "partaking of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-11—''read it!''). And anyone among us who leads a sinner back from the error of his way will save a soul from death. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:40, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::'''''Stop continually provoking more debate on this talk page''. This is not the place. You locked the page to prevent more debate, but you perpetuate it here. <big>You have our answer. That should have been enough!</big> But you continue to spam more distortions and misrepresentations that beg for correction. You just won't let it lay down and rest. You just have to have the [[Last wordism|Last word]] with more unjustified [[libel]] and misquoting scripture out of context. And I quote: "At worst, it''' [having the last word] '''reflects a lack of personal responsibility or bullying, which is a characteristic of wrongdoing or sinfulness."''' '''''Enough!''''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 

We add that both Dataclarifier and I independently made inquiries and found that without exception '''a Bible was provided as a fundamental required teaching resource at every desk in <big>every</big> parochial school''', and in the religion classes the teachers and students together read from both it and the catechism. Problem was, some students didn't care and were not interested, too bored with school to listen. So, they felt no need to hunger and thirst after righteousness. Not the Church's fault, nor their teachers'. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 13:27, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 
:What a farce! The 7th & 8th grade classrooms I and my brother attended at St. Thomas Aquinas school did not have ''any'' bibles until my father donated two with inscriptions dedicated to my dead mother. They may still be there, and have probably never been opened since the day they were dedicated more than 50 years ago. Neither did the grade 1-6 classrooms me and my 3 older brothers went through have a single bible, and probably still don't. Likewise, the larger bible my father donated to St. Mary's school in Burlington, Wisconsin is probably still the only bible in the entire school, which included a high school. And my mother who taught there knew nothing of the bible outside Catholic doctrine, and certainly never conducted a bible class. I had to learn it after she was dead.
:Likewise, in the town I live now, where I am involved with several homeless ministries, Catholic Charities is right across the street from the Baptist Rescue Mission. The Baptists give out bible's of all sizes like candy in Spanish and English, whereas you can't find a bible within the four walls of the Catholic ministry if your life dependent on it. Don't give me this crap that Catholics teach or respect the bible. They don't. They fear the bible, as rightly they should. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:01, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Let me guess where you and Dataclarifier, two adult converts, got your information about bibles in Catholic schools - a Catholic website! [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'')
:::Nope. We got it from former Catholics in our own city who'd always lived there. When we discovered they had once been Catholic we asked pointed questions about it, and they admitted they'd had Bibles in their parochial schools. But they weren't interested in reading it. It was boring. So, we got first hand info from people who'd actually been there. Not from online Catholic websites! Others who'd gotten away from the Church and become Protestants and then returned because they read the Bible more carefully, also said they weren't interested in the Bible in school, but came back when they felt they should read it. They said it was the Holy Spirit. So were some of the former inmates of prisons of Anamosa and San Quentin. When they read the Bible they were converted from their evil past, really repented, and became Catholic, they said because of the Bible. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:43, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::Having been born, raised, and baptized Catholic, and around them my entire life, I can say, you were lied to. But that's okay, they can confess, "I lied X number of times" without enumerating or going into specifics about what they lied about and to who. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::And this raises a good point: the penitent sinner can go to confession to cleanse their own soul, but no consideration is given to the party done an injury. That's a little self-serving, don't you think, what Catholic doctrine teaches? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:56, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::::For example, a liar gets off with three Hail Marys, but you go around looking like a fool for life having believed him. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:59, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

===a bible in Catholic schools===
These statements,
{{quotebox|...without exception '''a Bible was provided as a fundamental required teaching resource at every desk in <big>every</big> parochial school''', and in the religion classes the teachers and students together read from both it and the catechism.....they weren't interested in reading it. It was boring...."}}
are certainly very interesting and revealing. "required teaching resource at every desk....teachers and students together....weren't interested in reading it. It was boring."

The Bible was boring. Hmmm, what possibly could be of more interest? sin? pride? The teachers evidently were pretty incompetent in that they didn't make students read a "required teaching resource".
*''Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness'',
but the Roman Catholic teachers couldn't even secure this blessing for these baptized children, cause "it was boring". Evidently the blessings of God were boring for the teachers, as well. Who needed any more blessings from God? They were already baptized. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:29, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

You never mentioned the numbers of criminals and gangbangers with Protestant Bible-believing backgrounds in prison '''who relied on being saved by faith alone''', who were told that there is therefore now no condemnation for all eternity for any sin they might commit, past, present, and future, "because they were in Christ and freed from the law of sin and death", and gave testimony and were baptized, and later '''rebelled against their parents, the Bible, and forgot what they had been taught by their pastors in their churches''', and now in prison have come back to the Bible. "But they were saved!" (Once). And they're from all races, Hispanic, White, Black, Brown, Red. '''Protestants! Fundamentalists!''' (Once upon a time). I know about all this, because I was Disciples of Christ, and Dataclarifier was a fundamental Baptist. And we both "got away with sin" for too long, until we read more of the Bible and saw that we couldn't rely for our eternal salvation on the fact once and for all that we had professed Jesus Christ as our own personal Savior. Both of us have committed jailable offenses worthy of long terms in prison that no one else knows about. (Difference is, we got away with it, but '''no more'''.) That's no different than what you said about those Hispanic Roman Catholics baptized as babies. Other prisoners guilty of horrible acts have been once saved, and did what they did '''anyway!''' Look at the news about so many privileged white kids growing up in Bible-believing homes and churches in their youth who threw it all off to commit in secret monstrous crimes of passion and corruption, but got caught later and brought shame to their families, and grief to the innocents they preyed on, and their families. So much for [[Eternal security (salvation)]]. Your blaming Catholicism and Infant Baptism for their gang raping activities is a crock. Oh, if you're wondering: We each did our own independent interviewing of former Catholics by ourselves long before we ever met each other, like about 30-40 years ago. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:24, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:There's plenty of them - Protestants. Most who received the word as a child have a conscience and more easily convicted of sin. Roman Catholics, by contrast, have a longer road to travel, first having to unlearn all the garbage they were taught. So it begins with having a pure, genuine ''hunger and thirst for righteousness'', which conflicts with being brainwashed that they don't need it cause they were already baptized as an infant.
:So at what point is the righteousness of Christ imputed? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:45, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::''It also conflicts with being brainwashed by once saved always saved.'' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Well that's left to each to ''work out your own salvation with fear and trembling''. At least hearers receive the Good News of being ''freed from the curse of the law.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:52, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::"''At what point''"? '''I've already told you!''' By the washing of water with the word. He saved us by the water-washing of regeneration. Baptism saves you now. His righteousness is imputed to us by his grace. And also when we're brought back from the error of our way. When we confess our sins. He is faithful and just to forgive us. And again, His righteousness is imputed to us by his grace. Read the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church''. Look at all the scripture cited in it. The correct understanding and interpretation of the Bible according to the mind of Christ is explained in it. Repent and come to the truth. --I/S and DC --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:59, 4 September 2020 (EDT) We're done here. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:02, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::We've debunked that bullrot a thousand times. You loose Christ when you take a crap after communion. So his righteousness has to be re-imputed again through the wash, rinse repeat cycle of sin, confession, communion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:04, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 

:::::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Any further comments and rebuttals by RobSmith is going to be only repetitive '''[[spam]]''' adding nothing new to the discussion. He is a perfect example of someone who absolutely must have the '''[[Last wordism|Last Word]]'''. You have been warned. "'''''He'll be Back!'''''" We're done. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:20, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::::"''take a crap''" Crude as ever. False. Consistent [[misrepresentation]] and [[ignorance]]. The presence of Christ passes from the [[Host (Communion)|Host]] into the body and soul of one who has devoutly received Communion the moment the Host dissolves and ceases to be the form of bread. We eat his flesh and drink his blood as he promised in John 6:32-58. We actually "partake of the divine nature" by receiving Christ Himself in Holy Communion (2 Peter 1:3-11). He remains in the body and soul of the communicant who receives Him, unless they deliberately cast Him out by mortal sin "unto death". But they can be restored by sincere repentance, and devout purpose of amendment to not sin again if possible, and confess their sin to one entrusted with the message of reconciliation as the ambassador of Christ who is authorized in Christ to absolve and forgive the eternal punishment of sin, as explained more completely in the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' citing abundant passages of scripture about the biblical doctrines of Sacramental Eucharist and Sacramental Penance and Reconciliation. '''A fundamental principle''' of evaluating and discerning any such interpretation of Catholic [[doctrine]] and [[dogma]], like this one, or any interpretation that makes the Church appear to be absurd, or evil, or brings reproach on the Church by [[libel]] or [[scandal]] and [[falsehood]], is not Catholic doctrine but [[error]] based on [[falsehood]]s unworthy of belief. Do not rely on '''enemies''' of Catholicism to tell the truth about Catholic belief and practice. '''Almost the whole entirety of what RobSmith has been saying and implying about the Catholic Church and Catholic doctrine and dogma and the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is a lie. He is not telling you the truth.''' We know this. Because we know both the Bible '''''and''''' the Catechism. And what he's been saying is not actual Catholicism. As Bible Christians who know the Bible we know this for a fact. We checked for ourselves what Catholicism ''actually'' teaches, not what people ''say'' is Catholic teaching but the actual stuff, straight from the source, without misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies by people who are not Catholic or have a grudge against the Catholic Church and hate its spiritual authority as substantiated by the Bible. From this we know that the preaching of the Church is the doctrine of God. Because it's biblical. To speak against the doctrine of the Church and sin against it is to speak against the Bible and sin against it and to speak against the Holy Spirit, Almighty God, with us for ever guiding us into all the truth for ever and sin against Him, is to sin against God. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:38, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::::::"authorized in Christ to absolve and forgive the eternal punishment of sin" - we've debunked ''the mediator other than Christ'' B.S. several times. When will you admit either you, God, or the Roman church is a liar with this claim? Repent! [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:40, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::::::"''take a crap''", hey sorry. ''I am all things to all people, that by all means I might save some'' while carrying out the commandment of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to preach to those in prison. But I suspect you find those parts of the bible "boring", too. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:21, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::::(ec) Hey, I asked a simple question. Is the righteousness of Christ imputed during the Eucharist?

:::::This stuff gets pretty confusing pretty quickly. Catholic doctrine says the Holy Spirit is given to infants at baptism -before the righteousness of Christ is imputed?

:::::C'mon, give it your best shot. None of this junk passes the smell test of scripture. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:I/S says, "We checked for ourselves what Catholicism ''actually'' teaches, not what people ''say'' is Catholic teaching but the actual stuff, straight from the source, without misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies by people who are not Catholic or have a grudge against the Catholic Church and hate its spiritual authority as substantiated by the Bible. From this we know that the preaching of the Church is the doctrine of God."
::Then answer two simple questions:
::#Was Paul in rebellion against God since he withstood Peter to his face?
::#When do you receive Christ? Before or after you receive the Holy Spirit?
:::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:09, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::(ec) I was not taught the Bible in 8 years of religion classes - I was taught catechism. And so were they in jail. As young people, me and the prisoners in the ministry felt no need to ''hunger and thirst after righteousness'', since catechism taught us we were already adopted into God's family, and only had to follow church law to maintain it. None of this is biblical.
:::''Ye are of your father the devil.'' Repent.
:::Above, once again, you practice [[pride]] and [[idolatry]]:
:::I/S: "sin against the preaching of the Church".
:::The Church is not God.
:::The correct understanding would be, "the preaching of God", "the preaching of Christ", "the preaching of the Gospel". But you glory in men (the church), not God. You and DC have made that abundantly clear over months. It is the sin of idolatry and a manifestation of pride. A rejection of God, a lack of faith, and disobedience. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 13:08, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

== Apart from the Debate: something related to seriously think about ==

A story is told about St. Francis of Assisi. There was, during St. Francis’ time, a priest who was
a '''[[scandal]]''' to his parish. He was living with a woman in sin and nothing could convince the wayward priest to change his ways. He tried to change. He had faith in Jesus Christ, but the sinful habit of sex outside of marriage had a strangle hold on the priest. The parish decided to take action so one night they went to the priest’s house carrying torches and clubs ...they would convince the priest to change his ways one way or another. After pounding on the door, the wayward priest appeared and St. Francis stepped forward to confront him. Both the priest and the mob thought that Francis would verbally chastise him but, to the surprise of all, the holy St. Francis fell to his knees before the fallen priest. Francis took the priest’s hands and kissed them...“'''Sinner or no'''.” Francis said, “'''I kiss the hands of this man whom God has gifted with the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ...The hands of the one who has the power to forgive sins in God’s name.'''” The wayward priest fell to his knees too and began to sob uncontrollably. '''The scandalous priest there, kneeling with the saint, repented of his sins and turned his life back over to Christ.''' The priest who had believed he was defeated by his sexually scandalous life, found victory that night. The parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner.

Borrowed from another source.

There are weeds among the wheat today and now, as even way back then, and will be in the future. Let both grow together until the harvest. God is longsuffering and not willing that any should perish. All are called to repentance and and to living a holy life in purity and good deeds of charity and mercy in the very image of God who is love. 2 Peter 3:8-18 and James 5:19-20; Acts 17:30-31. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:So he used the woman and tossed her on the ash heap? Is that church teaching? What does God say about that? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:51, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:And then a lynch mob was gonna beat the devil out of him to enforce God's law. Sheeesh. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:53, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:*'''Romans 2:23-25''' - '''''You who boast in the law dishonor God''' by breaking the law. For, as it is written, '''“The name of God is blasphemed''' among the Gentiles '''because of you.'''''
:No wonder we have a [[feminist]] movement today that blames Christianity and the patriarchy for oppression. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:57, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:So what about the woman? What happened to the woman? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:59, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:Yes, Francis here is an example of God's grace. But church law is still a curse, ''per'' God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:03, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:Who provided love, care, and sustenance to the woman after '''church law''' was enforced? Did she end up working as a hooker after the church required she to be tossed out? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:01, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:*'''2 Samuel 3:16''' - ''But she said to him, “No, my brother, for '''this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did''' to me.” But he would not listen to her.''
:While Francis did express the grace and forgiveness of God, your "saintly" story is sorely unimpressive telling us only half. And the point of this half-story is sorely mistaken, grievous, and wrong. You're preaching church law again. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:11, 10 September 2020 (EDT)
:::When the woman herself saw that "''the parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner''", her heart too was stricken and melted along with the parishioners, and she fell down and repented, and confessed that she had seduced the priest, and she received absolution, and from that moment in sorrow for her sins turned her life over to Christ and lived apart, dedicating herself to a life of poverty and prayer for sinners in penance and fasting and chastity in reparation to Christ for her sins. The Poor Clares ministered to her needs along with some of the parishioners of the town. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:14, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

===Two tier justice system===
But the real point of DC's story is that a priest living in mortal or venereal sin doesn't loose his magic abracadabra powers and the [[Holy Spirit]], unlike mere mortals or laymen. God is kinda like the [[Mueller team]] or the Obama DOJ, McCabe, Strzok, Comey ''et al'' can lie their butts off but mere scum like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn bare the brunt of God's wrath. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:21, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

User:LT/mail

2020-09-10T18:12:20Z

Dataclarifier:

<big><big><big><big><center>'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Liberaltears/mail&action=edit&section=new Click here to post a new message]'''</center></big></big></big></big>

<div style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

=== Please read this ===
The editor using the [[User:Liberaltears]] will be checking this message area. You can leave a message in the message area below.

If you want to provide feedback concerning content created using the User: Liberaltears account at Conservapedia, please use the talk pages of the respective articles.

If you need assistance sooner, there is a list of Conservapedia administrators [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop HERE]
</div>
 

__TOC__

Hi Liberal Tears. I saw the page: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_Senate_predictions. Let me know if you would like to collaborate on similar predictions for the presidential election - state by state, we can look at the best polls and simulate electoral college totals.

God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:03, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

:That does sound like a great idea! Do you want to start the page for the presidential election predictions by state? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:14, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

I'd love to, LT. Though I'm not sure what would be the right title? Shall I call it, "Conservapedia:Unofficial 2020 Presidential election predictions"? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:25, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

:That's a great suggestion, and I would personally remove the capitalization for "Presidential". --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:29, 14 May 2020 (EDT)
:Also, since the presidential election is technically one election divided in 51 (fifty states plus DC), I would remove the "s" from "predictions". --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:31, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

Great! It's done: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_presidential_election_predictions this is going to be an exciting project! I hope it's good to start off with. If we need to make any editions, and for future additions, I hope we can make it there. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:35, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

== Post your message below ==
Liberaltears, I set up your talk page in a way that will prevent vandalism to your talk page and I locked it.

You can see what I did at: [[User talk:Liberaltears]].

If you didn't like what I did, you can get an admin to revert it.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:33, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Liberal Tears, I'm going to create a Table (first in Excel, then later, if it is good, we'll add it to the article) with Columns "State, Electoral college votes, 2016 result, 2016 popular vote tally, projected 2020 result, projected 2020 popular vote tally". Do you think that is workable? If you have an email id, I will share it with you on Excel when it is done. And if you like it, I will make the table here in the article. Thoughts? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:45, 14 May 2020 (EDT)
:Sorry for not responding earlier. So I'm not exactly sure about having it shared to me via Excel, do you think you can mention your thoughts on the project talk page? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 23:19, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

No worries. I'll post it there when it's done. God Bless [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:15, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:Alright. And God bless you too! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 11:19, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi. Can you take a look at the page? I got popular vote, electoral vote data for 2016 for all 50 states. I just filled in for 10 states. Do you want me to fill for the remaining forty? I believe the final tally was 307-230. So once 2016 is done, we'll do for 2020 similarly based on projections. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 13:53, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:I saw your edits, and they seem great! About the remaining forty, I may perhaps do some, as my focus is largely on the Senate elections. Unfortunately, I have some other problems at the moment, and it may be harder to do as much CP editing as I usually do as of right now. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 14:02, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hey, thanks for the quick reply. Glad you like it; I can finish the 50, no problem, if that's cool with you. I have all the data on my computer. You can edit it afterward for any corrections. For the next 50, the 2020 predictions, when you're free next time, we can put our heads together. Based on the cumulative polling, we can arrive at the closest projections possible, drawn from the latest data. Thanks for all your efforts, I've seen many of the great articles you've authored or edited for Conservapedia. The election can be so close, you never know. A Presidential election may be won by a single state. Then think how glad we'll be on Nov. 3rd for all our efforts! Similarly a single seat more in the senate may give us the key vote necessary for very important legislation. Our liberal friends will weep, and we will laugh, when it comes to that! [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 14:14, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi again LT. Have you any thoughts or data on how we can estimate likely numbers of the electorate in each state? Last time it was close to 140 Million, this time they say it'll be over 155 million nationwide. I'll finish filling in some of the college votes for states in some time. Since most are winner take all, that's relatively easier to project, at least in states where there is a clear majority. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 12:38, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, I dunno much about estimating the hard numbers. I'm not entirely sure where to gather the data on voter registration, and I tend to focus more on the general likeliness of certain states to vote either [[Republican]] or [[Democrat]] based on the incumbent officeholders, their popularity, enthusiasm, etc, their opponent(s), as well as trends and polling. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 13:43, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

No worries. I'm sure we'll get there in the end. We have 5 1/2 months to spur interest and hopefully have an impact on voter turnout. I think turnout will be key for Repbulicans this time. I'll be adding a bit more to the article from time to time. This is a liberal site, but it mentions the likely increase in turnout in 2020: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/2020-election-voter-turnout-could-be-record-breaking/591607/ Some 10 million voters voted for a third party candidate who had no chance of winning. We should try to discourage that by emphasizing that that is foolish. If Trump wins anything like 80 million votes overall, I'm sure he will pull through successfully. Dems are worried many new voters will vote for him.

One possible method of proceeding would be seeing what polls were saying last election around this time. If they indicated roughly the same numbers we see now, and the ratio of voters in the state was e.g. 60% Trump, we can estimate it will be around the same. The net increase in voting population for each state will have to be factored in. Those are just some preliminary thoughts to proceed, we'll figure out the number-crunching as we go on. God bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 14:00, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Hello again. Made three important changes thus far, on California, Texas and Ohio. Also computed provisional totals with Trump at 74 and Biden at 55 (California) with 7 states computed so far. Arizona is still uncertain, and is a toss-up as you mentioned in the comment. We'll get down to more exact predictions later on, combining everything from support, enthusiasm, expectation etc. Let's try to fill the easier states with clearer outcomes first. I'll be continuing and let you know if anything in particular comes up or I have any question. Hope you are well. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:52, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

Hello Liberal Tears. Hope you are well. Been busy with other things for a while, but just updated the numbers for Oklahoma, not based on a poll, but based on the massive enthusiasm for the Trump Rally there. I think Trump will carry the state with great ease, especially in light of 2016 numbers. Also, I was thinking - it's estimated there will be a 10% increase in turnout overall in 2020, close to around 150 million votes overall. So, as a beginning strategy for estimating numbers in each and every state, do you think starting out with 10% increases on 2016 numbers for both candidates would be a good way to begin? If you agree, please let me know. I can do it on Excel and will copy it to Conservapedia after that. God Bless.

By way of example, if Trump got 1 million votes and Clinton 400 K in a state, we will project, if all else is same, Trump 1.1 M and Biden as 440 K. Progressive adjustments will be made to the number after that, in light of new data, if polling or enthusiasm etc suggsts it is required.[[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 22:38, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

:Good analysis, NishantXavier! In regards to your question about voter turnout, I suppose adding 10% is a good place to start, though I don't know too much about projecting such. To make good predictions on that, I would really attention to primary turnout numbers, as I've mentioned in an example [[Talk:Main_Page#Two_important_highlights...|here]]. By the way, can you also see if you can add any good analyses to [[Conservapedia:Unofficial 2020 Senate predictions|this prediction page]] as well if you have time? While there are certain things I can catch up on right now, I don't exactly have the sufficient time to add major updates yet, and it may take two weeks before I finish up some annoying tasks I'm occupied with currently. Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 22:59, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

Hi again Liberal Tears. I changed the 1 million thing since it didn't materialize; it was a liberal prank. Anyway, analyzing the primaries is a great suggestion. Would you happen to have primary information in a readily accessible source? I will definitely take a look, and try to improve, the predictions for the Senate elections too when I have time. I'm closely following the Senate races and as we know they were very important for the Supreme Court. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 00:31, 22 June 2020 (EDT)

:For all primary election information this year, I recommend using [https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/ this (browse to the bottom of the page for state by state)], although I should note the only problem is that no hard number of votes are given for unopposed candidates. Also, about the Senate races, here are five quick "pop quiz"-style questions if you want to answer them for fun:

# Which Democrat-held seat is nearly guaranteed to flip?
# Why might [[John Hickenlooper]] lose the upcoming [[Democrat]] primary in vying to challenge [[Cory Gardner]]?
# Why is [[Steve Daines]]' seat vulnerable despite running for re-election in a solid red state?
# Who are the mainstream Democrats cheering on to challenge [[Mitch McConnell]]?
# Should current polling with low sample sizes be absolutely trusted? (Hint: they were wrong in 2016)

:—[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 00:59, 22 June 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears. I've completed 13 States and plan to do about 2-3 states daily. So I should be finished in another 12-18 days if I keep up to that; maybe by the end of the month. The polls are a little tricky for some of the reasons you mention. I think rally size in the state and "enthusiasm" of voters recorded in the polls may be better gauges. For e.g. there is a huge enthusiasm gap between Trump and Biden in some states. Anyway, I plan to have delegates for all 50 states awarded based on projections by Aug 3 so we have 3 months to see how it pans out. Arriving at final numbers for each state will be a little more difficult; but I will begin with adding 10% and then use some of the suggestions you mentioned as well. We'll see how that goes. That should be done by next month end. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:30, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
:Okay, thank you NishantXavier! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 12:23, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Hello again Liberal Tears. Congratulations to you on all your hard work for Conservapedia, and for being promoted! You truly deserve it! I really pray for great things for Conservapedia in the years to come, that OUr Good Lord Jesus will use this Encyclopedia mightily for His Cause, to promote the Gospel and the Conservative worldview, throughout the world.

Anyway, just wanted to congratulate you, and to note that, since I also can now use the other time as well, I should be able to complete 5 states a day. So in about 5-6 days now (quite the increase from the 12-18 earlier!) I should be completing all 50 states, and then we can discuss further on the improvements you suggested and any change of delegates as well.

Hope all is well.
In Jesus and Mary,
Nishant Xavier. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:41, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

:Thanks NishantXavier, and congratulations in regards to your promotion as well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 01:45, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears! Btw, I completed 30 states! So it looks like we're ahead of schedule. I should be able to do 40 tomorrow, and complete it the day after that. So we were thinking of Aug 3rd, but now it'll be done by July 13th. That's good. I wanted to ask your opinion on the Arizona poll. It sounds like good news. Do you think it suggests President Trump has a solid ground game in the state? Poll: https://d2pggiv3o55wnc.cloudfront.net/oann/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Arizona-OANN-June-28-2020-v3.pdf [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:23, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
:Hi NishantXavier, nice job on your work for the predictions! And thanks for reminding me about that Gravis/[[OANN]] poll, I'm thinking about potentially doing an essay on thoroughly analyzing it sometime. I've seen most of the data there, and I unfortunately have some high suspicions due to the low sample size, high margin of error at ±4.3%, and under-sampling of 2016 Hillary voters. However, I think there were several parts they probably got right; for one, the 2016 [[Gary Johnson]] voters may be more inclined to vote for Trump this year. Also, some interesting side notes:

:*if Republicans are doing this well with Asian voters, then no wonder the Democrats are panicking and resorting to desperate race-baiting tactics amidst the [[CCP pandemic]], such as whining over jokes like "kung flu"
:*If McSally actually wins a majority of the black vote, it will become much harder for Kelly to win the general election
:*unlike what liberals are spewing in mocking the poll simply because they see "OANN", the latter group only paid for it to be conducted by Gravis Marketing
:*there is a chance that Sen. McSally may lose the Republican primary in early August because her opponent there is telling voters that she's somehow a swampy [[establishment]] "RINO"

:—[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 11:51, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears, thanks for the feedback. As an Asian who has worked for American companies, I know many Indian-Americans who support Trump. "President Trump is incredibly grateful for the widespread support he has received from the people of India and from millions of Indian-Americans across the United States. https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-is-grateful-for-indian-americans-support-white-house-309041 I think most Americans of whatever background are attracted by the proposition of Making America Great Again and not attracted by the opposition's policies.

I'm at 34 states now, hope to finish 40 by end of today. Can I ask, how is the Senate election predictions coming along? Are there 33 Senate seats up for election this year, if I recall right?

Also, another thing, I want to start a Project Page for Conservapedia's own "Project 100 Million" i.e. websites dedicated to winning 100 million souls for Christ over the next decade. Network 211, on which Conservapedia has reported, has one such plan. But we have had more page visits than they do! If they can do it, then we can and will too! [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:14, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

With 50 state results, and 33 Senate seats, let's aim to get at least 80% correct results! We'll then have some 65 entries for Conservapedia proven right! Will be difficult, as that is a high target, but it can be done. Let's get to work and be motivated to complete this, rejoicing on election day when the race is over, and the results turn out well by God's Grace. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:34, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

:Hi NishantXavier, I unfortunately will not be able to get to any updates on the Senate/House elections until I get out of the way some tedious work I currently have to be occupied with in my life. I already got one rather annoying part done, and there are two parts left that I need to finish. That's why for now, I have mostly worked on some other topics throughout [[CP]] here and also went on talk pages somewhat too much. I know that there's obviously the Senate election in [[Colorado]] that I need to update since it's now after the primary, as well as primaries for House elections in many states. If you have the time right now, do you suppose you could add updates for the unofficial Senate predictions page [[Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_Senate_predictions|here]]? It's fine if you don't, it's just that right now hasn't been the best time for me to get to those. Also, about the number of Senate elections, there are 33 normal elections and two special elections (one in [[Arizona]] and one in [[Georgia]]). Thank you and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 11:35, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears. I've finished 46 out of 50 states. Trump is winning 325 to 188 XD. So that's awesome. I just have to complete a few others. 2 are liberal states. I'll complete them today or tomorrow. So we have ample time after that. I finished 4 or 5 of the Senate seats. Do you think we should try to predict the primary winner; I believe Susan Collins' opponent will be decided on 14th. For two others, I have. I'll have to think about this and decide whether to do so or not on this third later. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks and God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 00:24, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

:So for Maine in the Democrat primary, the party establishment has hand-picked [[Sara Gideon]], so she's most likely going to win by a large margin over the other candidates. When it comes to primaries for the Senate elections, it's important to remember that the two big ones to watch for are the ones for Alabama (which is tomorrow, and will decide whether Sessions or Tuberville is the nominee to face Doug Jones) and Arizona; for the latter, I made [[Talk:Main_Page#McSally_primary_challenger|this relevant post here]], which unforunately no one else responded to. Hope this helps, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 00:52, 14 July 2020 (EDT

Right, LT. One other thing. Can you tell me how to add a user box, "this user has more than 500 edits. I tried adding yours, but I think it automatically took the number 2500 instead of 500. Does every 500 have a different userbox or will the same suffice? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 08:46, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

:Sorry for not responding to this sooner. So with the way I used that userbox, you start with <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|</nowiki></code>. Then enter in the word for the color you want the left cell to be. So if you want a gray color like I did for the one on my user page, then add <code><nowiki>gray|</nowiki></code>, and you should now have <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|</nowiki></code>. Next, specify the color you want for the right cell. Assuming that you want it to be white as I did for mine, it should now look like this: <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|white|</nowiki></code>. Next, add in the text you want to appear on the left side, add another vertical bar (no space needed), and finally add in the text you want to appear on the right side. So it seems that you want your userbox to be <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|white|500+|This user has made over 500 edits to [[Conservapedia]].}}</nowiki></code> Hope this helps NishantXavier! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 14:31, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears. I added it as 750. Thanks for your help on all this. I also saw the improvements to the Senate election predictions page. Looks great. I'm almost done with the presidential election, just some finishing touches remain. Then we can really get down to analyzing both the mainstream media projection and arrive at Conservapedia's own projection for each state in the presidential and senate election races. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 17:40, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
:Alright, awesome! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 17:46, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

All 50 states done in presidential election! Please review and see if anything needs to be added. Senate elections are next. We should be done in 3 to 4 days for those as well. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:01, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
:Alright, I just reviewed what you did for the presidential election predictions by state, and they seem great! I would note that Nevada and New Hampshire have a strong chance of favoring Trump this time around; Trump only barely lost New Hampshire in 2016, and with Republican [[Chris Sununu]] being the governor of the state and holding a high popularity there, that could potentially carry Trump over the finish line. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 10:43, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

== Project 150 Million Souls for Christ the King in the next 10 to 15 years ==

Hi Liberal Tears. On Conservapedia, we now have a project: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King dedicated to sharing our testimonies for Christ our King. We would like thousands of people to sign up on Conservapedia and share their testimony - it can be a brief testimony, however long or short; from a few sentences to several paragraphs - and it would be great if longstanding members could give their support to this project. Andy approved of the project and asked me to create the page, as I did. Could you help us? The Bible tells us the day is coming one day when every knee will bow and acknowledge Jesus as King. And Christ Our Lord also tells us that everyone who confesses Him before men, He Himself will confess before His Father in heaven, so that we will be saved, because Jesus our Advocate pleads for us. Kindly consider giving your testimony. Thank you. In Our Lord Jesus, Nishant X. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 07:20, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
:Hi NishantXavier, I added my story [[Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King#Liberaltears.27_story|here]]. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 12:23, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS!! Really, I'm so grateful to you, Liberal Tears, and I'm sure Our Lord Jesus is as well. May Our Good Lord amply and richly reward you for your courageous testimony for Him, with every abundant blessing in this life, and with life everlasting in the world to come in eternity. God Bless you. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 17:42, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

:You're welcome, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 17:46, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thanks for reverting the latest string of rubbish. I was again distracted, and slow on the draw. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:53, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

:Yep, no problem! I just went one by one, clicked on the "View history" for all the vandalized pages, found the revisions just prior to being vandalized by the troll, and simply published those. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 18:10, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

==That Catholic vs Protestant argument on the talk pages is OVER==
All discussions have been properly moved to the [[https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Does_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F debate page]]. The discussion has calmed down and become more orderly. You're the one who keeps picking at scabs. I stopped talking about getting night editing rights when Andy finally responded, you're the one who keeps bringing it up, let it go already. Stop playing the victim, the Catholics have done just as much pushing and have been just as argumentative, and so have you, stop playing innocent. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:47, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

==Dataclarifier does a kamikaze dive==
Jesus said, ''Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.'' DC thinks it's Peter. So, no. Knowledge and understanding are still two different things. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 01:24, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:Are you still going to try rebuking Dataclarifier? Your harshness towards him at times probably didn't do much good, and I can't help but wonder if you ever used the same sleazy strawman tactics against him as you did towards me. Now there's a possibility he may never come back, and I may as well just be sad, lonely, and depressed for the rest of my life.
:And here's something I don't believe I've ever fully mentioned before: I stumbled upon this site around over a year ago, thought it was really cool, and wanted to participate. Then fast forward to when 1990'sguy pretty much left early this year, and I thought that I ought to try editing much more where I could. As I did more and more, I realized that this was the best thing giving me a sense of meaning in a life I was getting more and more miserable in. After trying to understand the disputes between you and Dataclarifier, I felt that he might've been treated unfairly and harshly, especially noticing your harshness at times. After NishantXavier was engaging in discussions, especially after he posted a link on his user page to a [[OnePeterFive]] webpage, I saw the increasing contempt some editors here had for him over strongly Catholic viewpoints. And after going through a pathetic while in the past few weeks, I hope everyone else is satisfied; I'm certainly not. I'll still stay on this site to contribute good content, but I'll be more inclined to just be a sad and bitter guy from now on. I've dealt with more nonsense than I could handle at all over the past few years, and I'm now probably hitting a long-term low point in life. If you profess to be a Christian, then I hope you can try to understand some of my problems; not many in my life were sympathetic, unfortunately. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 01:44, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:Oh, and just in case, please don't issue a block over this. I'm now always becoming apprehensive on whether I'll get blocked or not over certain comments some assistant sysops may not like. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 01:50, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::My harshness? Everytime I cited the Bible, he told me I'm going to hell. Get your facts straight. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:04, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::I think you have trouble with the English language. You have made the claim, no less than 4 or 5 times, that people "selectively" use the Bible to condemn pedophilia. If there is support for pedophilia within the Bible, I think you need to ante up those scriptures, or just plain shut up and stop making stupid, spurious accusations. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:10, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Alright, I should've specified when you were harsh (asides from disputes with Dataclarifier). I remember one time you threatened to delete one of Progressingamerica's pages (finding the exact diff will be hard, since it was a few months ago), calling it "bull" and something along the lines of commie propaganda. And there was [[Talk:DIAN|this time]] as well when you initially marked one of my pages for a speedy deletion before I explained my points clearly. Can you please quit being extremely uncivil and using strawman attacks? As I've said, I might be hitting a long-term low point in life, and the last thing I need to read on my mail page is a repetition of the same smear you used. Since you profess to be a Christian, I'm puzzled (or perhaps maybe not) at your choosing of engaging in attacks over showing the type of compassion that God would want to see more of in this world. It's frankly sad to see so many editors here throw me under the bus for defending myself against lies; I don't know if I should even be surprised or not, as so many have betrayed me in my life. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 11:50, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Well, duh. Are your criticizing negotiation and consultation now? Do prefer unilateral action without consultation? Posting comments and consulting with others is kinda how the process works, sheesh.

::::As you reach this low point, remember, the ''Lord is nigh unto them who are of a broken heart'' (Ps 34:18). ''A broken heart thou wilt not despise'' (Psalm 51:17, easy to remember 17x3=51). God has guaranteed he will not reject us when everyone else has. It is our pride - original sin - that inhibits repentance. This is the problem with Roman Catholic doctrine, it teaches your pride was washed away with infant baptism. I know, I've been there. Me and all my brothers, as well. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:54, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::God didn't reject me before? Prior to this month, here's basically what happened in my life: I had tedious nonsense to deal with, and was really losing my long-term patience. Every time I just wanted to take a real break, it felt like I was getting cursed with short-term bad luck (like accidentally knocking down my pencil sharpener and creating a mess on the floor); it seemed to me as if I was supposed to just "gag and get it done" when I could barely think straight. The reason I would lose my long-term patience was because, growing up, I had always maintained some sense of objective-based integrity, and that was really tested in middle school as well as early high school. If you didn't grow up in an era filled with profanity and pornography glamorized as part of "maturity", then consider yourself much, much more luckier than I was. After losing good friends from elementary school because of how out-of-touch and nasty they got and seeing what had happened to peers as they became more cold-hearted and deceptive really had broke me on the inside. Realizing the self-recognizable nature of objective morality and that it comes to people's minds as they move from barbaric animal instincts to rational, civilized thinking was what eventually brought me from atheism to Christianity, but there's still a long way. And while some things in my life may strongly point towards it, I don't know how much God has done to reach out towards me. Too many times I've felt all alone, too many times being only able to rely on what I can salvage of the last bit of courage left in myself. I'm sorry if I sound selfish saying all this, given so many in the world who live far worse than I do. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 12:19, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::::You need to stand on the rock of Christ. God says, ''Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock.'' That was DC's problem, he insisted the rock was a man - Peter, not Jesus Christ. God is not the author of confusion. He has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, love, and a sound mind. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:58, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

==You are invited to continue our sharing the Gospel of Salvation==
Dataclarifier evidently found our discussion ''a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense'' (1 Peter 2:8) and removed it. [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&curid=160561&diff=0&oldid=1675214] We can continue it here if you like. [[User_talk:RobSmith#The_Gospel_of_Salvation]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:16, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

==Reply==
Hi, in response to earlier, I can only say that I don't know exactly how it works. For the most part, it just does. There may be some specific way in which it goes, but it has not been clearly disclosed in any detail. So all I can say is that it generally works itself out eventually. Once in awhile though, the process seems to just stop for some. I can't say why for sure, although typically I have my suspicions for each case. I don't think timing has much to do with it, but perhaps a little in some cases. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:25, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:Thank you for replying, DavidB4! It just seems to me that some are vastly luckier than others, which ends up being a disappointment for those who work hard but aren't noticed as much. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 16:55, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Dataclarifier update: new Debate page==

Evening "LT" (sounds like military casual nickname for "lieutenant"!). Thanks for your prayers. I just set up another Debate page for others to participate in. For myself and IndependentSkeptic, we just don't have the energy any more. Just take a look at it, but don't get involved unless you really feel you should. We feel we shouldn't be obligating our friends in any way–it's just not fair. The title of the debate already implies the only possible answer.
:*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
Peace be with you. We are well, just feeling old. I still lift light dumbbells for exercise. My mother is 93 and amazingly alert. She says, "Just don't say that "O" word. ("Old"). Stay safe buddy. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:33, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you Dataclarifier! Since I don't want to lose contact with you, do you you suppose you can email NishantXavier for now, and once I get a good chance to email him, I can get in direct contact with you? This way, you don't need to publicly post your email anywhere or register it here if you don't want to, as he has posted his email information [[User_talk:NishantXavier/Archive_1#Follow_me_on_Twitter|here]] and [https://onepeterfive.com/author/nxavier/ here]. God Bless, it's great to hear you guys are doing well, and thank you for posting here! Also, I'm really honored to hear that my nickname almost sounds like a military ranking position! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 22:51, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
::''10-4'' LT. We'll just post here. By the way, already got a hot response on the Debate page and its Talk page. Do you know why some metal wires get hotter than others? ''Resistance''. John 3:19-21. The truth can really burn. Peace be with you. Amen. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:::Great to hear about that debate page! And can you please consider my proposal on emailing NishantXavier for now? If there's a way to contact you privately, then we can keep in touch if you decide to permanently leave CP anytime soon. I really ask you consider it, as I'd hate to ever be left alone not knowing how you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are doing. There's just something about you and your contributions here that leaves a special mark inside me that I can't forget and always think about, and it would be very sad if I one day lose all means of talking to you. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:17, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's the Holy Spirit Himself using me in my contributions, the effect of the Holy Sacrament of Confirmation by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop representing the whole Body of Christ Himself that makes the mark inside you. Not I but Christ in me. Loneliness Prescription Rx: Pray the recommended prayers of the Church to God the Holy Spirit, especially "O God, Who by the light of Thy Holy Spirit didst instruct the hearts of Thy faithful people, grant that we may be truly wise and ever rejoice in His consolations and power, through Christ Our Lord. ''Send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.''" Or this one: "Lord, please console me." Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church daily, Knowing Jesus is by your side as you read in the very room with you lovingly watching you read it, until you've read it cover to cover seven times. Attend daily Mass, in person, or online EWTN live 0700, 1100, 1800, or 2300 hrs CST/CDT. Open the Bible and read one whole book of the scriptures simply because it is holy, or if it's long, one-third or one half of one. But before you do any reading, get quiet, close your eyes and ask Jesus to be present to you, and let him touch your soul. "O Jesus, as I cannot now receive Thee in holy Communion, I beg You to come spiritually into my heart, and make it your own forever. Never, never let me ever be parted from you, my Lord and my God. I love you, my Jesus." Finally, if the nearest Catholic Church to you offers Adoration, go and kneel in silent adoration (wearing a protective mask). I suggest beginning with the prayer of St. Thomas Aquinas, whispered quietly or mouthed in silence (mentally only){{quotation|O Godhead here in hiding / Whom I do adore / masked by these bare shadows / shape and nothing more / See, O see before You / here lies low a heart / lost, all lost in wonder / at the God thou art / Seeing, touching, tasting / are in Thee deceived / What says trusty hearing / That shall be believed / What God's Son says truly / take for truth I do / Truth Himself speaks truly / or there's nothing true ! }}Also at least one Hail Mary, said thoughtfully, from the heart, not recited, but addressed directly to her about every 3 hours, and once before bed and once upon rising. Peace be with you and all whom you love and care about. ''Semper fidelis ! '' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:02, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Thank you very much for the advice if I go to a Catholic church anytime soon, but can you please answer regarding about possibly using email as a means for contact in the long run? I haven't got a complete answer on that, and it's really important to at least know how you're doing from time to time. God Bless, and thank you for wishing me well, as always! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 00:08, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::We won't be using email. We've had lots of trouble from junk mail and simply delete it, some days up to 500 emails you wouldn't believe. So I guess you'll have to be content for now that you can post something either at my talk page or on Dataclarifier's, since we're in the same house, and we will get back to you here on your own talk page. God bless. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 09:24, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ah, I see what you mean about junk mail and excessive spam that piles up. If you'd prefer I talk to you and D.C. for now on your talk pages, then I suppose that's the best (and only) idea for now. God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 10:34, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Dataclarifier just now blanked his talk page as promised at the end of the week. He'll check it once a month for any messages that might be left there. After posting this message to you here, I will do the same on my talk page if it's not already blank, and I'll check it end of every month. Regarding your offer above, we would both prefer you post your communications to us on my talk page. May your own sweet and powerful guardian angel and the Holy Spirit of Almighty God and His Son give you healing and peace and consolation through the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus Our Lord and God. Amen. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 19:08, 29 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Thank you IndependentSkeptic, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 19:11, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

== Re M.A. Mendoza ==

Hi there.

I, like many other God fearing conservatives were disappointed and surprised with Mendoza, yet, I wanted to show the bias on Wikipedia. Nishidani who wrote the same silly stuff, is a 14 years veteran on Wikipedia. It seems.
I'm going to remove the content from Ann Mary Mendoza, if you feel it isn't neccessary. If you reconsider, please let me know.
God bless.[[User:LaMarina|LaMarina]] ([[User talk:LaMarina|talk]]) 18:00, 28 August 2020 (EDT)
:Hi LaMarina, I made a reply to this message on your talk page. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Friday, 18:06, 28 August 2020 (EDT)

== Your proposed posting to an alternative Catholic-oriented site ==
::'''Liberaltears''', the site recommended by you as one that "'''''seems''''' [to you] a more Catholic-oriented alternative to Conservapedia" opposes Catholic doctrine regarding the Pope, the Magisterium, and the authority of the ''Ecumenical Councils'' of [[Council of Trent|Trent]] through [[Second Vatican Council|Vatican II]]. As for feeling that "debating other editors here" gets "nowhere", you totally miss the fact that a firm defense of the truth of the doctrine of the Church on Conservapedia is not for the purpose "winning" a debate or getting people ignorant of the actual doctrine to admit they were in error (perhaps misinformed by others who did not really know what they were talking about, or perhaps reaching erroneous conclusions on their own based on a badly uninformed reading of the Bible without knowledge of what the original language texts really say by not knowing that some words are not metaphors but only literal in meaning—like ''trogon'' in John 6 "eat, chew, gnaw, crunch my flesh"). Conservapedia "welcomes all points of view" ''officially'', but too often some of the Sysops/administrators are hostile even to the point of violating Conservapedia standards in order to ridicule, insult, and drive the Catholic contributors away by a vigorous vendetta against Catholicism, by using insults and outrageous misrepresentations based on [[Confirmation bias]], making Conservapedia more and more Protestant than it was ten years ago (''according to Dataclarifier''—he says it was more friendly then). Occasionally postings and contributions have been utterly deleted as being intolerable spamming with "irrelevant Catholic garbage". But most of the time not, just being treated with bullying contempt and hostility instead. "Catholics not wanted" is the hidden message. And it's pervasive. Much of what Dataclarifier has contributed has survived almost intact. My own brief contribution to some of the articles on the popes, and what I did adapting the Harmony of the Gospel conservative version to audio read aloud, has apparently been left untouched. So, if what I've edited or contributed to Conservapedia does in fact convince anyone that the actual Catholic doctrine of the ''Catechism'' is from the guidance of the Holy Spirit working through them leading into all the truth, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Dataclarifier says he was too zealous for the Church when he first entered, and that Father Nelo Leto asked him, "Were you talking with anyone when you decided to become Catholic?" and he said, "No." And Father Leto said, "Then why don't you let the Spirit do his work? I don't really think He needs your help." So, whether or not it "gets nowhere" is moot, because after I finish up with the Debate on whether the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded or not, both Dataclarifier and me will retire from Conservapedia for the most part. He didn't want to "butt heads" with anti-Catholics on that Debate page but just wanted to see what would happen. When I looked at it I couldn't stand the fact that no one was defending the Church and the "No, it hasn't happened" section was empty. As I said, he didn't want to participate, but I sure did! And so it's reached a point where there's no point to it. '''Conservative''' wanted Debate pages to be organized with straightforward "Yes" and "No" sections, each one presenting a particular side of the the Debate and leaving it at that. But it got bogged down and obscured by constant interruptions of inserted opposing comments and insults and scriptures cited again and again and contradictions with scriptures cited in opposition to other scriptures again and again and each side denounced by the other as posting "irrelevant spam intended to obscure the purpose of the debate and deflect it into other issues not relevant to the stated topic of the debate in violation of the rules of the debate" (''whew, that's a mouthful''). OK that brings us to today. I will go ahead this afternoon with what I recommended ("24 hours after making the Recommendation) and revise the layout of the Debate page,
::*getting rid of unnecessary repetitious "spam" and disruptive insertions into contributing users' arguments that chopped them up by cutting and interrupting their text at multiple places above the contributing user's signature line and essentially obscuring the point being made,
::*and moving comments "yay" to the now named "Protagonist" section, and comments "nay" to the now-named "Antagonist" section of the Debate. That should streamline the whole page.
::If it's promptly reverted afterward I won't be at all surprised, even if the revised layout '''''is''''' according to the form Conservative insisted should be maintained for a debate page. If it is, I won't stick around to contest it. A reversion would only prove that revision of the page into the form of a fair debate clearly stated without obscuring the topic is unacceptable to someone. '''''Nuff said!''''' (too much!) --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Oh, alright then. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Monday, 16:09, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
===Update: hospitalization===
This morning Dataclarifier's mother was admitted to Mercy Hospital because of severe nausea and weakness and lightheadedness near to fainting and almost passing out beginning 3 AM. When asked if she needed to go to the ER, she finally decided to have the EMT's called. She was admitted 6:30 AM for 2-days' observation. No visitors. Phone calls allowed once a day. We'll keep in touch with her nurse by phone, and her as well. When she's released, we'll bring her home. Would appreciate your prayers. Meanwhile, stay safe. Look at my last entry my Talk page ["Frequent purging of junk this page"]. God bless. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:54, 2 September 2020 (EDT) Just got a call from the doctor on staff. Her CAT scan showed nothing obviously wrong. All her lab work showed nothing seriously wrong. Thank God! They're going to keep her under observation to see if any cause was overlooked. She wasn't in any pain during all this. Just frightened by what happened. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:12, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
:Sorry to hear about what had happened to D.C.'s mother. I'll definitely send my prayers today; given the seriousness of what initially was going on, I genuinely apologize for not seeing this message sooner. Thank you for telling me, and may the Lord protect her! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 14:49, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
====Update: home from hospital====
D.C.'s mother discharged about 1:50 PM. Diagnosis inner-ear disorder. The small stones inside the cochlea that change position with movement to stimulate the "hairs" inside the inner ear for orientation of balance were not functioning properly, causing dizziness and nausea. She's had a history of motion-sickness in darkened movie-theaters and during airflight. This is worse in its effect. But it's not life-threatening, unless she falls. Prescription for alleviation of the symptom. We brought her home. Meanwhile will check my talk page once a day after dealing with our emails at home computer. God Bless. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 16:38, 3 September 2020 (EDT)
:Well, it's good to hear that she's been discharged from the hospital, and I'm sorry if she isn't all well yet. I'll continue sending my prayers, and I wish her the best! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 16:45, 3 September 2020 (EDT)
::The three of us thank you together. God bless. May God be with you. ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 23:19, 3 September 2020 (EDT) Mrs. Mullin, and Dataclarifier.
:::You're welcome! And how's D.C.'s mother doing at the very moment? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Friday, 23:32, 3 September 2020 (EDT)
::::Asleep.
::::Dataclarifier recommends you add the following link (with audio) to your "Favorites" file so you can pray with the whole Church in worship of God at night, before dawn, morning, at midday, and in the evening before or after sunset. '''https://divineoffice.org/''' —God Bless. Good night. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 01:13, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::Okay, thank you for replying, IndependentSkeptic! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Friday, 01:17, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

== Political Cartoons==
Not gonna lie, you're pretty much a role model to me. May we collaborate to expand the [[political cartoon]] page? There is a lot of great potential there, such as Garrison, Ramirez and the McCoys. I also think it'd fit your name pretty perfectly.--[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:10, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
:I'm honored to hear that! About expanding the political cartoon page, that sounds like a great idea; do you want to start off with it, then maybe I can add on to the article in your preferred style? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 23:15, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
::I've collected what I believe to be the best of the best over quite some time. I would like for you to give whatever your discretion sees fit, be it commentary and especially formatting, as I yield to your seniority. Are more private communications allowed here, or shall I simply post the compilation right here?--[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:22, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
:::The whole thing, admittedly going back a while. Or not, sorry.
https://imgur.com/a/CGdgKXM
--[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:26, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
::::Is that link correct? I clicked on it, but only saw a blank screen. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 23:47, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::There's a thunderstorm going on where I am. My ability to edit this is a small miracle. That link should've led to 5/43 comics I intended to upload.--[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:50, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
::::::Is the content in the link only accessible from a private account or can it be seen by anyone publicly? Also, about uploading (correct me if I'm wrong), are you referring to uploading them as files to CP here? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 23:55, 1 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::::It's public, and keeps failing after five or so, regardless of my order. I don't know how to upload pictures to CP directly- that would certainly help.
This should finally work. https://imgur.com/a/dyaECV0[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 00:05, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
:Hmm, I'm still getting a blank screen when opening the link. By the way, about uploading images to CP, that requires either the "Upload" or "Administrator" tag; the good news is that I was very fortunate to be promoted to "Upload" abilities by Andy today, so if you ever want any work of yours to be uploaded here, I'll likely be able to do it. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 00:19, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
::That's pretty great for you! That link actually does work- I tried Ctrl+F5 (force-reloading) a few times, and yeah, it's there. I have no artistic works of my own to upload, but I shall remember the offer. If I have to submit pictures to upload to the site individually, how do I?--[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 00:29, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Thank you! About the link, I did try force-reloading with Ctrl+F5 a couple times, but it didn't work, and I'll try again sometime else. And about submitting images to upload, I believe you're looking for [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] ([[CP:IUR]]). Also, I need to head to sleep right now, and I'll likely be back in around six to seven hours. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 00:45, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

hey liberaltears! I saw you updating the leftist violence in the Trump era page! I love it! I'm currently working on a project to catalog all of the instances of black lives matter protests turning violent throughout the summer. I want to combat that fake report that 93% of protests are peaceful

anyway I was wondering if you would already have any of this cataloged or if you'd be interested in helping? I'm also working on a political violence map but right now I want to catalog every instance of black lives matter violence to see what the true percentage is..

lemme know! {{unsigned|Mikephshdj}}

:Since I'm listing [[BLM]] violence in [[Left-wing violence in the Trump era (2020)|this page]], it's technically cataloged with other specific topics. It's important to note that when getting the information, I mainly use the [[Gateway Pundit]] since they report on incidents very quickly, though I do also use [[Breitbart]] and [[Townhall]]; this means that I'm likely to catch up on most news but maybe not all. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier's mother be all well!]]''''' Sunday, 21:53, 5 September 2020 (EDT)

==I saw your edit my talk page==
We are all right. I donated some of my dumbbell free weights to the Boys and Girls Club of America here in Des Moines 30# to 60#, and kept the 3# through 25# weights and my incline-decline exercise bench with leg curl and extension attachment with plates. The representative was delighted!

I read your edit and ignored RobSmith's posting, and then deleted the page content, as I said I would. Peace be with you. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:12, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

Addendum: I posted the following on the Debate Talk page Have the gates of hell...

A story is told about St. Francis of Assisi. There was, during St. Francis’ time, a priest who was
a scandal to his parish. He was living with a woman in sin and nothing could convince the wayward priest to change his ways. He tried to change, but the sinful habit of sex outside of marriage
had a strangle hold on the priest.
The parish decided to take action so one night they went to the priest’s house carrying torches
and clubs ...they would convince the priest to change his ways one way or another. After
pounding on the door, the wayward priest appeared and St. Francis stepped forward to confront
him. Both the priest and the mob thought that Francis would verbally chastise him but, to the
surprise of all, the holy St. Francis fell to his knees before the fallen priest. Francis took the
priest’s hands and kissed them...“Sinner or no.” Francis said, “I kiss the hands of this man whom
God has gifted with the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ...The
hands of the one who has the power to forgive sins in God’s name.” The wayward priest fell to
his knees too and began to sob uncontrollably. The scandalous priest there,
kneeling with the saint, repented of his sins and turned his life back over to Christ. The priest
who had believed he was defeated by his sexually scandalous life, found victory that night. The
parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they
witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:12, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

User talk:Dataclarifier

2020-09-10T18:03:44Z

Dataclarifier: deleted content

''This page is left intentionally blank''

Talk:Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-09-10T18:02:12Z

Dataclarifier: /* Apart from the Debate: something related to seriously think about */ corrected odd unexpected discrepancy in boldface emphasis

Talk:Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-09-10T17:59:13Z

Dataclarifier: /* Apart from the Debate: something related to seriously think about */ new section

I set up the debate page with a "Yes" and "No" format, but I will not participate. I have made my view known on other debate pages listed on this debate page under the See also section. May God bless you all. ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:Good. Be a slacker. My response will serve as the response of the community, and if you try this stunt again, I'll pursue getting it deleted with the assistance of RobS. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 22:22, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==The title of this debate is unacceptable==
Neither I nor RobSmith will accept a Debate whose title is based on such a loaded premise. We reject the very notion that the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today is the same church that "Jesus founded on the a rock" and that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against." [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 22:05, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:The question, as stated, makes little sense, needs to be shortened, and re-phrased.

:My guess is DC wants to use it as another spamfest. Fine. But once the spam is posted here, it should not be allowed to be cut and pasted unto other good faith Debate pages, IMO. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:06, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::Look at the top of this page. He already told us he wouldn't be participating, even though he's the one who set it up. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 23:16, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::He's making a statement. If nobody signs up in a few days, a speedy tag could be hung. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:20, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::So a debate page can be deleted for the sheer reason that no one participates, if such is the case? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:23, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::Good question. I don't know. But if the creator of the page states it was created in bad faith and nobody participates, that certainly would be cause to hang a speedy tag, IMO. It could be defined as nonsense spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:26, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==This is practically the definition of bad faith==
Please end it. --[[User:LawfulLibertarian|LawfulLibertarian]] ([[User talk:LawfulLibertarian|talk]]) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:Yes. It's redundant of at least two earlier debates. ''They think by their many words they shall be heard.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:29, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

==IndependentSkeptic==
Dataclarifier may not be willing to participate. I am. At least once. '''First''' the creator ot the page did '''''not''''' state it was created in bad faith. '''Second''' (and I hope '''''finally''''') I posted on the Debate Page what I consider the most devastating response I ever found to the blasphemous garbage-mouth objections posted by VargasMilan and RobSmith against the promises of Jesus Christ and against his Church. I joined because of the Bible, and like Dataclarifier (Michael), I too have found the Catholic Church to be the most biblical Church. It's a Full Gospel Church. '''''Nuff said! Oh Yeah!''''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 08:17, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:This debate will not add anything new that has not already been said on other pages. But if it becomes helpful to save a few more souls in what promises to be another spamfest, so be it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:31, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:Just remember, ''by grace are ye saved'', not spam, distortions, and lies. You're only making the chain heavier of the lost with all your spam postings and convoluted logic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:34, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:As Solomon said, ''much study is a weariness of the flesh''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:35, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::"''By grace are ye saved''". Exactly! '''The ''Catechism'' says the same thing!''' [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', Part Three, Section 1, Chapter 3, article 2: '''Grace and Justification'''] You really ought to read it. The Bible backs it up completely. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:43, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:No it doesn't. The Catechism says ''grace is not grace''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:46, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::You lie! No such text in the ''Catechism''. I've read it. You can't quote box any such passage anywhere in the ''Catechism''.

::Oh, the [[Truth (logic|logic]] is inescapable! Only someone like yourself blinded by [[confirmation bias]] can't see it. Look at [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+9%3A39-41&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NIV;NABRE '''John 9:39-41''']. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:56, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:Catechism teaches grace is merited. It's already cited in mainspace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

::Not the initial grace of salvation. No one can merit that. ''You just won't admit it.'' That's the teaching of the Catholic Church. That's the teaching of the ''Catechism''. Apart from Christ there is no meriting salvation. Only He saves. Only through Christ can we do anything. Only united to Him can we bear fruit. "For apart from me you can do nothing". We can't do it! Again, look at [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm '''Grace and Justification'''].

::'''You lie about what the ''Catechism'' says.''' But you keep repeating the same lie. '''You''' are spamming [[Falsehood]].

::I will waste no more time with you. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:15, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:If grace is merited, ''grace is not grace''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

:The grace of God is essentially the "good news", which is what the term "gospel" is translated into. Catholic catechism denies the good news, i.e. the gospel, and reverts back into law and Judaism. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:09, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:''Ye are like unto whited sepulchers....…'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:25, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
==This page should be locked if the disruptive trolling continues==
[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:44, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

==This page has turned into an incoherent mess==
Replete with Dataclarifier's signature redundant spamming, which IndependentSceptic has now adopted. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:52, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

:The spamming of -1,289 bytes and doubling down with another -2,301 bytes in an edit war [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Have_the_gates_of_hell_prevailed_against_the_church_Jesus_founded_on_a_rock,_when_He_Himself_said_it_could_never_happen%3F_Did_Christ_who_cannot_lie_fail_to_fulfill_his_promise%3F&curid=160783&action=history here marked in red] is making the page incomprehensible. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:53, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

==Mistaken reversion==
My reversion this morning was a mistake by my super-sensitive touch screen. This error has been corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:26, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

== Proposed revision of mainspace Debate page - orderly and organized ==

RobSmith proposed some new additional Rules for this Debate. I cite in particular these, as relevant to a revision of the mainspace page to remove spam, and disruptive insertions into original postings, as vandalism:{{quotebox|'''Rules'''
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*[...]

*[...]

*[...] Spamming is not allowed in either the Protagonist, Antagonist, or Open discussion sections. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*[...]

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user. }}

In support of these I proposed on my talk page an additional rule:{{quotation|
*Original postings are to be left intact. No inserting of commentary or challenge into an original posting made by another user, and thereby disrupting, interrupting or breaking up the flow of the thought or argument of the posting. Any editor can remove it, especially the original posting editor, as an attempt at spamming or vandalism, obscuring the point of the posting. —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Protagonist section must be made in the Antagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Protagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged. —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Antagonist section must be made in the Protagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Antagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged.}}In accordance with these rules proposed by RobSmith and myself I have revised a copy of the Debate mainspace page as follows. (This is not spam. RobSmith said he had unlocked the page. It's still locked. All double-brackets enclosing identifying signatures of users posting comments have been removed from the copy below to preemptively defeat a potential accusation of "forging electronic signatures" on a page the user "never posted to"—meaning this Debate talk page.) --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

== Misleading RobSmith commentary - 1 Kings 11:12-13 "turn away" - and "preacher of the gospel" applied to himself 2Tm 2:7; 2 Co 10:14; 2Tm 5:17-18 ==

Debate page is still locked to prevent editing. Note posted at [View source] states any edit proposed should be first discussed. O.K. I propose the following edit be added right after RobSmith's partial quotation of 1 Timothy 5:18 to "''not muzzle the ox''".
:RobSmith characteristically misleads readers with comments that deflect from the point of the actual context of the reference being made, taking it out of context, in this case deflecting and implying as a mistaken typo the actual reference to 1 Kings 11:12-13 that the kingdom was "''Torn away''". It says{{quotation|Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will '''tear it out''' of the hand of your son. However I will not '''tear away''' all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen. —RSVCE ("'''rend away'''" KJV)}}But RobSmith says "''Torn away''" must be a typo, that it says instead "turn away". The actual text of KJV verse 9 says "''because his heart was turned from''". While there are many different versions of the Bible, '''''none of them''''' says "turn away" in 1 Kings 11:9-13. And not only that, but RobSmith also claims to be a "preacher of the gospel" in accordance with Matthew 28:19, which in the context of the passage was addressed to "the eleven disciples" who were those remaining of the '''[[Twelve Apostles]]''' whom Christ had "ordained"/"appointed" and named as apostles. (Luke 22:29; 6:13). But he refuses to answer and say unequivocally that he is an accredited ordained preacher, making his claim doubtful at best. The term "preacher of the gospel" in the New Testament was applied only to those ordained as preachers of the gospel and like Paul ordained as apostles. {{quotation|'''1 Timothy 2:7''' Whereunto I am '''ordained''' a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, ''and'' lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. —KJV}}{{quotation|'''2 Timothy 1:11''' Whereunto I am '''appointed''' a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles. —KJV}}I've already quoted other Bible passages from the New Testament about the apostles ordaining elders as preachers of the congregations in the book of Acts. Paul's additional reference to not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain is RobSmith's answer to the question "Are you an acknowledged ordained preacher?" That's RobSmith's evasive and slanted abuse of scripture ''taken entirely out of context'' as if it is referring to all of the responses of correction on these Debate pages as attempts to "muzzle" him, to "silence" him, to put forth grounds to discredit his right to insist on his own interpretations and applications of the Bible as from God having called him to preach and teach the word, quoting Matthew 28:19, and 1 Timothy 5:18 "''you shall not muzzle the ox''". In fact, St. Paul was citing that passage as applied to himself regarding his rights and the rights of ordained elders (''presbyteroi''/priests) to receive a salary or monetary support ("honor") as an ordained apostle and preacher of the gospel.{{quotation|'''2 Corinthians 11:8-9''' 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages ''of them'', to do you service. 9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all ''things'' I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and ''so'' will I keep ''myself''.}}{{quotation|'''1 Timothy 5:17-18''' 17 Let the '''elders that rule well''' be counted worthy of double honour, especially '''they who labour in the word and doctrine'''. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer ''is'' worthy of his reward. —KJV}}{{quotation|'''1 Corinthians 9:6-18''' 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? 8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? 14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. 15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel. —NKJV}}
:RobSmith deceitfully uses the word of God. His interpretations of scripture cannot be trusted. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:04, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
I really think this response edit must for the sake of truth be included on the Debate page, right after RobSmith's quote of 1 Timothy 5:18a (his leaving out of v 15b), which he applies to himself in refusing to answer if he is an accredited ordained "preacher of the gospel". Given his past performance up to this day, I believe he will oppose including it, as an embarrassment to him for making false claims about himself. He has a right to '''[[Witnessing|witness]]''' to the gospel according to his own understanding, but no right to claim to be a "'''preacher of the gospel'''" if he hasn't been acknowledged by any church as "appointed and ordained" a preacher.
--[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 09:53, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:So let me get this straight now, Paul withstood Peter to his face, is ordained by God, but Peter has all authority" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:49, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Peter was ordained by Jesus Christ Himself Who gave to him the keys of the kingdom of heaven to bind and to loose, and heaven confirms his authority, "shall be bound in heaven, shall be loosed in heaven". --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:00, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Yet Paul withstood him to his face. Paul was disobedient to God's authority? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::TLDR; this spam seems a little off-point to the Debate question. And talk about deceitful, give me one simple piece of evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace, and we can continue this discussion. One piece of evidence, not a bloc of spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

*''that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit''.

Yes, the '''''fleshly''''' kingdom was ''torn away'' from Solomon.

Yes, Solomon's heart ''turned away'' from the Lord.

The subject under discussion was Solomon's salvation, not his fleshly kingdom. You are spamming above, making a mountain out of a mole hill. I mistakenly thought you were discussing spiritual matters, not fleshly, when I mistakenly referred to you spamming the discussion with fleshly matters as a typo. I should have known better. You have no spiritual discernment. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:14, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:You have a reasonable amount of time to produce evidence that Korah preached some perverted gospel of grace in the wilderness, preferably with one or two scriptures in support. Then, in accordance with the agreement we both have with User:Conservative, debates are not supposed to be on talk pages.
:P.S., you exhibited bad faith in (a) violating the Rules you yourself proposed; (b) biased editing in your revised version. For example, the Protagonist position is based upon the law being a curse, while Roman church doctrine is based upon law. You edited out at least four references, along with the supporting evidence and context, to that point. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:31, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Korah's rebellion (Jude 11) is rooted entirely in his perversion of the "good news" gospel statement of God that the whole nation is holy, and Korah's interpretation as a pretext for the perversion of that gospel by rejection of the authority of Moses and Aaron appointed by God as shepherds over the whole people of God— Numbers 16 whole chapter, {{quotation|'''Numbers 16:3''' and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said, '''You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the LORD?}}The Protestant Reformation said the same thing. Evidence that you distort scripture still remains. If we are disqualified, so are you. We stand by our proposed edit as a definitive summary. Nothing needs to be added. It's the truth. Good bye. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::Was Israel under grace or under law" [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:20, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:More bad faith: I never referenced Matthew 28:19. You are trolling. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:Proposal: [[Debate: Who is ordained to preach and teach the gospel?]] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 10:44, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::More bad faith squirming by RobSmith—Mark 16:15 says the same thing as Matthew 28:19. Yep. More of your persistent strategy of misleading distortion in virtually saying that Mark 16:15 ''has nothing to do with'' Matthew 28:19. Anyone who can read can see that it does. They can see that much. We stand by what we said about your abuse and misuse of scripture. Your interpretations and insinuations from the Bible cannot be trusted. You use the Bible deceitfully. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:15, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::One says teach, one says preach. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:24, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:'''Is User:RobSmith an acknowledged accredited ordained preacher of the gospel?''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:21, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::I have a ministry. I have been involved in prison ministry and ministry to the homeless for many years. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:26, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Ah-hah. You say you have a ministry. You do not say you were ordained an acknowledged accredited preacher of the gospel. I have a Christian ministry too. But I'm a layman witnessing to the gospel, and so is Dataclarifier, doing what we can, but we are not ordained ministers to preach and teach the gospel as "ambassadors of the Lord" 2 Corinthians 5:20. For understanding clearly RobSmith's strategy of interpreting scripture: See [[Loaded question]], [[Misrepresentation]], [[Putting words in someone's mouth]], [[Confirmation bias]] and [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]]. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 11:37, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::You're full of bull. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:42, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::And in my prison ministry, in my part of the country I encounter many Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers who thought they were baptized into salvation as an infant. In prison, they have much time to think about that, and for the first time, be exposed to God's truth and God's word. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:35, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::*'''Psalm 22:6''' - ''Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.''
::I see the wreckage of human lives you create with your catechism and infant baptism. God has called me to clean up the messes you guys make. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 11:47, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::You are misleading again, by a lying implication. You are actually saying, that these prisoners' ignorance of the faith and their sin is the doctrine of the Church! That is a lie. They chose to be ignorant, to do as they pleased, to rebel against their upbringing, to sin against the preaching of the Church and her holy doctrine, to dishonor their parents and grieve them in spite of their pleading to get out of the gangs and come back to the faith of the holy saints and angels. I know. I've heard them. There are also Catholic prison chaplains, ordained to ministry and reconciliation, who are expert in scripture and are devout followers of Jesus Christ. You suggestively imply that not one of them is in the prisons ministering to Hispanic Roman Catholic gangbangers by exposing them again to God's truth and God's word of reconciliation and healing that they heard in their parochial schools and at Mass. You impugn their ministry. Your deceitful interpretations of the word of God are misleading them away from the fullness of truth into a distortion of the truth of the Bible, the same Bible which led me and Dataclarifier from Protestantism into the Catholic Church as the most biblical Church on the face of the earth having the Fullness of the Gospel, not a distorted shriveled "withered" part of it—as NishantXavier said, maybe "50%, 80%, or even 90%" '''but not all of the truth revealed by God'''. '''Answer!'''. Are you a fully accredited acknowledged officially ordained preacher of the gospel associated with any recognized established Christian ministry organization, congregation, sect, church, or denomination—or are you conducting your own personal ministry as a layman? '''Don't ignore the question! Are you a legitimately ordained minister of the gospel? You say you were raised Catholic. You claim to ''be'' catholic''' (small "c"). '''Are you a Catholic? ''Are you an ordained Catholic preacher of the gospel?'' Don't try to squirm out of answering with a direct "yes" or "no".''' Dataclarifier and I are sure we know the answer (so does his mother). --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::(ec) I have witnessed miracles of changed lives. The gangbangers, like me, were instructed from an early age '''''not''''' to read the bible, '''''not''''' hear instruction from the bible, and were taught that they already had been adopted into God's family and received the Holy Ghost at infant baptism. (What you say about Catholic prison ministries is irrelevant to what we are discussing here). These gangbangers tell me, without solicitation, that they had been lied to by the Roman church and their parents.
::::*''Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness''
::::This verse is meaningless to someone who is told they have already been adopted into God's family as an infant. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 12:18, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'')
:::As always, misleading and false. They, like you, were taught from the Bible in their religion classes—''unless they refused to listen, even running away to go join a gang''. That teaching from the Bible in religion class by the sisters and brothers and priests was and is the pedagogy of the parochial schools since the beginning of the 19th century, so they ''were'' taught the Bible as the word of God and the whole faith of the Church as established by God with authority. Private reading leads to private interpretation. That's dangerous. It can lead to destruction and being led into error by lawless men (those who twist the doctrines of the scriptures and lean on their own understanding), and into falling from '''''security in holding to the faith by the knowledge of Jesus Christ''''', as Peter warned (2 Peter 1:20–2:3; 3:15-18). The devil quotes scripture too. That's why they were told not to read the Bible (for themselves). But anyone who really wants to know the truth will finally find it, just as we did, in the Catholic Church, and find the way of holiness by "partaking of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-11—''read it!''). And anyone among us who leads a sinner back from the error of his way will save a soul from death. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:40, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::'''''Stop continually provoking more debate on this talk page''. This is not the place. You locked the page to prevent more debate, but you perpetuate it here. <big>You have our answer. That should have been enough!</big> But you continue to spam more distortions and misrepresentations that beg for correction. You just won't let it lay down and rest. You just have to have the [[Last wordism|Last word]] with more unjustified [[libel]] and misquoting scripture out of context. And I quote: "At worst, it''' [having the last word] '''reflects a lack of personal responsibility or bullying, which is a characteristic of wrongdoing or sinfulness."''' '''''Enough!''''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:56, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 

We add that both Dataclarifier and I independently made inquiries and found that without exception '''a Bible was provided as a fundamental required teaching resource at every desk in <big>every</big> parochial school''', and in the religion classes the teachers and students together read from both it and the catechism. Problem was, some students didn't care and were not interested, too bored with school to listen. So, they felt no need to hunger and thirst after righteousness. Not the Church's fault, nor their teachers'. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 13:27, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 
:What a farce! The 7th & 8th grade classrooms I and my brother attended at St. Thomas Aquinas school did not have ''any'' bibles until my father donated two with inscriptions dedicated to my dead mother. They may still be there, and have probably never been opened since the day they were dedicated more than 50 years ago. Neither did the grade 1-6 classrooms me and my 3 older brothers went through have a single bible, and probably still don't. Likewise, the larger bible my father donated to St. Mary's school in Burlington, Wisconsin is probably still the only bible in the entire school, which included a high school. And my mother who taught there knew nothing of the bible outside Catholic doctrine, and certainly never conducted a bible class. I had to learn it after she was dead.
:Likewise, in the town I live now, where I am involved with several homeless ministries, Catholic Charities is right across the street from the Baptist Rescue Mission. The Baptists give out bible's of all sizes like candy in Spanish and English, whereas you can't find a bible within the four walls of the Catholic ministry if your life dependent on it. Don't give me this crap that Catholics teach or respect the bible. They don't. They fear the bible, as rightly they should. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:01, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Let me guess where you and Dataclarifier, two adult converts, got your information about bibles in Catholic schools - a Catholic website! [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:07, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'')
:::Nope. We got it from former Catholics in our own city who'd always lived there. When we discovered they had once been Catholic we asked pointed questions about it, and they admitted they'd had Bibles in their parochial schools. But they weren't interested in reading it. It was boring. So, we got first hand info from people who'd actually been there. Not from online Catholic websites! Others who'd gotten away from the Church and become Protestants and then returned because they read the Bible more carefully, also said they weren't interested in the Bible in school, but came back when they felt they should read it. They said it was the Holy Spirit. So were some of the former inmates of prisons of Anamosa and San Quentin. When they read the Bible they were converted from their evil past, really repented, and became Catholic, they said because of the Bible. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:43, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::Having been born, raised, and baptized Catholic, and around them my entire life, I can say, you were lied to. But that's okay, they can confess, "I lied X number of times" without enumerating or going into specifics about what they lied about and to who. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:::::And this raises a good point: the penitent sinner can go to confession to cleanse their own soul, but no consideration is given to the party done an injury. That's a little self-serving, don't you think, what Catholic doctrine teaches? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:56, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::::::For example, a liar gets off with three Hail Marys, but you go around looking like a fool for life having believed him. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:59, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

===a bible in Catholic schools===
These statements,
{{quotebox|...without exception '''a Bible was provided as a fundamental required teaching resource at every desk in <big>every</big> parochial school''', and in the religion classes the teachers and students together read from both it and the catechism.....they weren't interested in reading it. It was boring...."}}
are certainly very interesting and revealing. "required teaching resource at every desk....teachers and students together....weren't interested in reading it. It was boring."

The Bible was boring. Hmmm, what possibly could be of more interest? sin? pride? The teachers evidently were pretty incompetent in that they didn't make students read a "required teaching resource".
*''Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness'',
but the Roman Catholic teachers couldn't even secure this blessing for these baptized children, cause "it was boring". Evidently the blessings of God were boring for the teachers, as well. Who needed any more blessings from God? They were already baptized. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:29, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

You never mentioned the numbers of criminals and gangbangers with Protestant Bible-believing backgrounds in prison '''who relied on being saved by faith alone''', who were told that there is therefore now no condemnation for all eternity for any sin they might commit, past, present, and future, "because they were in Christ and freed from the law of sin and death", and gave testimony and were baptized, and later '''rebelled against their parents, the Bible, and forgot what they had been taught by their pastors in their churches''', and now in prison have come back to the Bible. "But they were saved!" (Once). And they're from all races, Hispanic, White, Black, Brown, Red. '''Protestants! Fundamentalists!''' (Once upon a time). I know about all this, because I was Disciples of Christ, and Dataclarifier was a fundamental Baptist. And we both "got away with sin" for too long, until we read more of the Bible and saw that we couldn't rely for our eternal salvation on the fact once and for all that we had professed Jesus Christ as our own personal Savior. Both of us have committed jailable offenses worthy of long terms in prison that no one else knows about. (Difference is, we got away with it, but '''no more'''.) That's no different than what you said about those Hispanic Roman Catholics baptized as babies. Other prisoners guilty of horrible acts have been once saved, and did what they did '''anyway!''' Look at the news about so many privileged white kids growing up in Bible-believing homes and churches in their youth who threw it all off to commit in secret monstrous crimes of passion and corruption, but got caught later and brought shame to their families, and grief to the innocents they preyed on, and their families. So much for [[Eternal security (salvation)]]. Your blaming Catholicism and Infant Baptism for their gang raping activities is a crock. Oh, if you're wondering: We each did our own independent interviewing of former Catholics by ourselves long before we ever met each other, like about 30-40 years ago. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:24, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
:There's plenty of them - Protestants. Most who received the word as a child have a conscience and more easily convicted of sin. Roman Catholics, by contrast, have a longer road to travel, first having to unlearn all the garbage they were taught. So it begins with having a pure, genuine ''hunger and thirst for righteousness'', which conflicts with being brainwashed that they don't need it cause they were already baptized as an infant.
:So at what point is the righteousness of Christ imputed? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 14:45, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::''It also conflicts with being brainwashed by once saved always saved.'' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (EDT)
::Well that's left to each to ''work out your own salvation with fear and trembling''. At least hearers receive the Good News of being ''freed from the curse of the law.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:52, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::"''At what point''"? '''I've already told you!''' By the washing of water with the word. He saved us by the water-washing of regeneration. Baptism saves you now. His righteousness is imputed to us by his grace. And also when we're brought back from the error of our way. When we confess our sins. He is faithful and just to forgive us. And again, His righteousness is imputed to us by his grace. Read the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church''. Look at all the scripture cited in it. The correct understanding and interpretation of the Bible according to the mind of Christ is explained in it. Repent and come to the truth. --I/S and DC --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:59, 4 September 2020 (EDT) We're done here. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:02, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::We've debunked that bullrot a thousand times. You loose Christ when you take a crap after communion. So his righteousness has to be re-imputed again through the wash, rinse repeat cycle of sin, confession, communion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:04, 4 September 2020 (EDT) 

:::::(''Edit interrupted by Edit conflict'') Any further comments and rebuttals by RobSmith is going to be only repetitive '''[[spam]]''' adding nothing new to the discussion. He is a perfect example of someone who absolutely must have the '''[[Last wordism|Last Word]]'''. You have been warned. "'''''He'll be Back!'''''" We're done. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:20, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::::"''take a crap''" Crude as ever. False. Consistent [[misrepresentation]] and [[ignorance]]. The presence of Christ passes from the [[Host (Communion)|Host]] into the body and soul of one who has devoutly received Communion the moment the Host dissolves and ceases to be the form of bread. We eat his flesh and drink his blood as he promised in John 6:32-58. We actually "partake of the divine nature" by receiving Christ Himself in Holy Communion (2 Peter 1:3-11). He remains in the body and soul of the communicant who receives Him, unless they deliberately cast Him out by mortal sin "unto death". But they can be restored by sincere repentance, and devout purpose of amendment to not sin again if possible, and confess their sin to one entrusted with the message of reconciliation as the ambassador of Christ who is authorized in Christ to absolve and forgive the eternal punishment of sin, as explained more completely in the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' citing abundant passages of scripture about the biblical doctrines of Sacramental Eucharist and Sacramental Penance and Reconciliation. '''A fundamental principle''' of evaluating and discerning any such interpretation of Catholic [[doctrine]] and [[dogma]], like this one, or any interpretation that makes the Church appear to be absurd, or evil, or brings reproach on the Church by [[libel]] or [[scandal]] and [[falsehood]], is not Catholic doctrine but [[error]] based on [[falsehood]]s unworthy of belief. Do not rely on '''enemies''' of Catholicism to tell the truth about Catholic belief and practice. '''Almost the whole entirety of what RobSmith has been saying and implying about the Catholic Church and Catholic doctrine and dogma and the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is a lie. He is not telling you the truth.''' We know this. Because we know both the Bible '''''and''''' the Catechism. And what he's been saying is not actual Catholicism. As Bible Christians who know the Bible we know this for a fact. We checked for ourselves what Catholicism ''actually'' teaches, not what people ''say'' is Catholic teaching but the actual stuff, straight from the source, without misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies by people who are not Catholic or have a grudge against the Catholic Church and hate its spiritual authority as substantiated by the Bible. From this we know that the preaching of the Church is the doctrine of God. Because it's biblical. To speak against the doctrine of the Church and sin against it is to speak against the Bible and sin against it and to speak against the Holy Spirit, Almighty God, with us for ever guiding us into all the truth for ever and sin against Him, is to sin against God. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:38, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

::::::::"authorized in Christ to absolve and forgive the eternal punishment of sin" - we've debunked ''the mediator other than Christ'' B.S. several times. When will you admit either you, God, or the Roman church is a liar with this claim? Repent! [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:40, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::::::"''take a crap''", hey sorry. ''I am all things to all people, that by all means I might save some'' while carrying out the commandment of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to preach to those in prison. But I suspect you find those parts of the bible "boring", too. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:21, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::::(ec) Hey, I asked a simple question. Is the righteousness of Christ imputed during the Eucharist?

:::::This stuff gets pretty confusing pretty quickly. Catholic doctrine says the Holy Spirit is given to infants at baptism -before the righteousness of Christ is imputed?

:::::C'mon, give it your best shot. None of this junk passes the smell test of scripture. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 15:50, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:I/S says, "We checked for ourselves what Catholicism ''actually'' teaches, not what people ''say'' is Catholic teaching but the actual stuff, straight from the source, without misrepresentations, falsehoods and lies by people who are not Catholic or have a grudge against the Catholic Church and hate its spiritual authority as substantiated by the Bible. From this we know that the preaching of the Church is the doctrine of God."
::Then answer two simple questions:
::#Was Paul in rebellion against God since he withstood Peter to his face?
::#When do you receive Christ? Before or after you receive the Holy Spirit?
:::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 16:09, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

:::(ec) I was not taught the Bible in 8 years of religion classes - I was taught catechism. And so were they in jail. As young people, me and the prisoners in the ministry felt no need to ''hunger and thirst after righteousness'', since catechism taught us we were already adopted into God's family, and only had to follow church law to maintain it. None of this is biblical.
:::''Ye are of your father the devil.'' Repent.
:::Above, once again, you practice [[pride]] and [[idolatry]]:
:::I/S: "sin against the preaching of the Church".
:::The Church is not God.
:::The correct understanding would be, "the preaching of God", "the preaching of Christ", "the preaching of the Gospel". But you glory in men (the church), not God. You and DC have made that abundantly clear over months. It is the sin of idolatry and a manifestation of pride. A rejection of God, a lack of faith, and disobedience. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Free Kyle!]] 13:08, 4 September 2020 (EDT)

== Apart from the Debate: something related to seriously think about ==

A story is told about St. Francis of Assisi. There was, during St. Francis’ time, a priest who was
a '''[[scandal]]''' to his parish. He was living with a woman in sin and nothing could convince the wayward priest to change his ways. He tried to change. He had faith in Jesus Christ, but the sinful habit of sex outside of marriage had a strangle hold on the priest. The parish decided to take action so one night they went to the priest’s house carrying torches and clubs ...they would convince the priest to change his ways one way or another. After pounding on the door, the wayward priest appeared and St. Francis stepped forward to confront him. Both the priest and the mob thought that Francis would verbally chastise him but, to the
surprise of all, the holy St. Francis fell to his knees before the fallen priest. Francis took the
priest’s hands and kissed them...“'''Sinner or no'''.” Francis said, “'''I kiss the hands of this man whom
God has gifted with the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ...The
hands of the one who has the power to forgive sins in God’s name.'''” The wayward priest fell to
his knees too and began to sob uncontrollably. '''The scandalous priest there, kneeling with the saint, repented of his sins and turned his life back over to Christ.''' The priest who had believed he was defeated by his sexually scandalous life, found victory that night. The parish that had given up on the wayward pastor and wanted vengeance found victory too as they witnessed Christ’s mercy melt the heart of a hardened sinner.

Borrowed from another source.

There are weeds among the wheat today and now, as even way back then, and will be in the future. Let both grow together until the harvest. God is longsuffering and not willing that any should perish. All are called to repentance and and to living a holy life in purity and good deeds of charity and mercy in the very image of God who is love. 2 Peter 3:8-18 and James 5:19-20; Acts 17:30-31. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 10 September 2020 (EDT)

User talk:Dataclarifier

2020-08-29T23:00:58Z

Dataclarifier: reposted note "This page is left intentionally blank"

''This page is left intentionally blank''

User talk:Dataclarifier

2020-08-29T22:58:56Z

Dataclarifier: end of the week - blanked my own talk page as promised - will check and delete from time to time, about once a month, end of the month

User talk:NishantXavier

2020-08-27T06:17:17Z

Dataclarifier: /* Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical? */

{{greeting
|username=DavidB4
|sig=--[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:46, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
}}

__TOC__

[[User talk:NishantXavier/Archive 1|User talk:NishantXavier Archive 1]]

== Please keep the Catholic/Protestant issues on debate pages and encyclopedia articles ==

Gentelemen, please keep the Catholic/Protestant conflicts on civil debate pages using well-organized debate pages. Have your arguments on those pages be as logical and well-supported as possible.

Please have encyclopedia articles dealing with Protestant/Catholic/Eastern Orthodox issues be as objective as possible. And please have their talk pages be as constructive as possible.

NishantXavier, please have your debate pages have a "Yes" section and a "No" section. Please see my reformatting of your latest debate page at: [[Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:34, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

:All right. I will. - NishantXavier

::NishantXavier, please indent your dialogues with other users using colons and remember to sign all of your comments. I have noticed that I have had to indent your comments using colons because you did not due this. Thanks.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:50, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

:::Ok. I missed to do it above. I did it now. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 10:55, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

::All this excludes me cause I'm not interested in church debates. I want neutral scriptural debates. Still waiting for these knowledgeable purveyors of God's truth to engage at [[Debate: Explain the apparent inconsistency between Ex. 33:11 and Jn. 1:18]] to establish their ''bona fides'' and authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:56, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:::RobS, you can make your scriptural arguments on debate pages. You can put scriptural resources/arguments on Conservapedia's Christianity encylopedia pages (and have the talk pages of those articles be as constructive as possible).

:::Please keep the conflict off of NishantXavier's talk page.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

::::I'm being baited into being a called an "anti-Catholic zealot" or bigot. Discussing church, rather than bible, only facilities such a set up. Bible discussions are neutral. While someone may cite a Catholic or Protestant scholar as the basis for their personal understanding of a scripture, the focus remains on illuminating scripture verses itself, and not needless emotional attachments to institutions. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:21, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
If your successfully being baited, there is one sure way to end this problem. Stop allowing yourself to be baited. Ultimately, you choose what to respond to and what not to respond to.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:In the meantime, please try to stay off of NishantXavier's talk page and instead direct your efforts to creating debates pages and creating encyclopedia content.

:Websites with strong web traffic have quality, user friendly content that is well-organized.

:Search engines rarely give top rankings to wiki User talk pages. Why? Because they are typically a mismash of various topics and tend to be less informative. Conservapedia could use more search engine traffic. Creating debate pages and creating encyclopedia content will do that.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:31, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Moving your announcement of your Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025 article ==

I moved your announcement of your creation of "[[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025|Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]]" to its talk page.

The article you created lacked a [[Eastern Orthodox]] view of the event so I added this view to the article.

You know there is tension between you and RobSmith which is something I am attempting to tamp down.

Please stop using your talk page in a manner that is bound to increase the temperature of the aforementioned conflict. You must know that using your talk page to promote the Catholic view of the primacy of the Catholic Church is not going to decrease the conflict, but increase it. Thank you.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:Feel free to create a debate page about the [[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]] issue if you wish to debate non-Catholics about this matter. You can do so here: [[Debate: Will there be a Third Ecumenical Nicene Council in 2025?]] (see my commments below) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

::I did some initial investigation of this proposed gathering in Nicea in 2025.

::Even a Jesuit website indicates: "The Vatican has not issued a formal statement on the patriarch’s revelation, presumably because it emerged in a private conversation between him and the pope. But, pressed for clarification by journalists, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., described Bartholomew’s idea as “very beautiful and significant”; he presented it as an agreement “to hold a joint commemoration of the first ecumenical council held in Nicea in 325 AD.” He recalled that Bartholomew was the first to propose the idea for the recent meeting in Jerusalem commemorating the historic encounter Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI in 1964. He emphasized, however, that the patriarch actually spoke about “a gathering” at Nicea, and did not characterize it as an ecumenical council."[https://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/nicea-ecumenical-council-not-likely]

::The National Catholic Reporter indicated in 2014: "Vatican: Too early to confirm 2025 Orthodox-Catholic summit".[https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-too-early-confirm-2025-orthodox-catholic-summit]

::In a 2014 article entitled ''Nicea III in 2025'', the American Catholic journal Commonweal indicates: "The exact nature of the planned meeting at Nicea (now Iznik, Turkey) is not known. But how could it be, over a decade in the future?"[https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/nicea-iii-2025]

::So it seems to me that the Catholic Church has not yet determined what the nature of the potential 2025 meeting will be. We don't even know if the meeting will occur.

::In light of the above, I moved the article to essay space.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:::It is now at: [[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:20, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

All right. Essay format is fine. And I know there is some uncertainty about the format, but Fr. Mark White and others, as was mentioned, are convinced it will be a Third Nicene Council. At any rate, it will certainly be an ecumenical gathering to which all Christians are invited to commemorate Nicaea. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 21:02, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:In the future, you have to separate what you want to be true, from what is a fact. I know you want there to be a meeting and you want it to be ecumenical, but there is no certainty that either will happen.

:Remember, encyclopedias are meant to deal mainly with facts and not opinions. And when encyclopedias do endeavor to document opinions of various parties, they clearly state they are the opinions of a certain party or parties. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:57, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

All right. I tried to give the perspectives of various persons on the upcoming events. Some, like Fr. White more recently, consider it a Council; others, like Fr. Lombardi, said in 2014 that it was yet unsure what kind of meeting it would be. I read the updated essay. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 23:53, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Inviting Collaboration for articles on Popes; and on Christianity in every country ==

Non-debate topic. There have been about 266 Popes from [[Saint Peter]] and [[Pope Linus]] through [[Pope Benedict XVI]] and [[Pope Francis]]. I believe only about 10 to 20 articles so far have been created for these 266 men. So that means the scope and future potential of over 200+ future articles remains. I invite collaboration on this matter from all interested conservative posters here at Conservapedia, Catholic and non-Cath alike.

Or if someone prefers, there are over 200 countries in the world. 205. The Christianity by Country Category has just over 10 countries: https://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Christianity_by_Country So again there is scope here for research on nearly 200 future articles. Again, I invite all interested collaborators, Catholic or non-Catholic, as well as Christian or even conservative non-Christian, to work on this one. We can keep track of Global Christianity. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 21:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Links to the current ongoing debates: On Existence of Purgatory, on Church Authority etc ==

Existence of Purgatory: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_there_a_Purgatory_before_Judgment_Day
Christ's Church Authority: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Does_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F

== Greatest Evangelists of the 20th Century: Pope John Paul II, Abp. Sheen, Billy Graham, Reinhard Bonnke ==

I want to do an Article or Essay on the Greatest Evangelists of the 20th century, whether Catholic or Evangelical. [[Fulton Sheen|Abp. Sheen]] and [[Billy Graham]], who were also good friends, are two obvious names. [[Pope John Paul II]] and [[Reinhard Bonnke]] were two other great Evangelists for Christianity. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 06:33, 27 July 2020 (EDT.

== Quick note about your request to give my Christian testimony ==

:I did as you requested in terms of giving my Christian testimony. It is at: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King#User:_Conservative.27s_testimony

:Sincerely, User: Conservative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:32, 2 August 2020 (EDT)

Wow, Thanks a Lot, Conservative! I just read it, it looks really great! Thank you. Heaven rejoices when anyone of us gives our testimony for Christ our King!

About your life journey, I also liked Josh McDowell's general apologetics for Christianity. If you're interested specifically in Bible Prophesy, you may like this article: https://www.conservapedia.com/Prophesies_Fulfilled_by_Christ I added a list of about 25 specific prophesies, showing they were fulfilled only in Jesus Christ Our Lord and God, the Promised Jewish Messiah: '''"Some probability estimations'''

If we assume there is a 0.0001 (0.01%) chance or probability of a person fulfilling one of these prophesies by accident, what would be the probability that that person could fulfill all these prophesies? It would be at least (1/10^4)^25=1/10^100 i.e. 0.00[99 zeros]1. This incredibly low number would be the likelihood that one born in Bethlehem could be worshiped as God in every Gentile country, that one born of a Virgin would be recognized as Light of the Nations, that one born of the House of David would be God in the Flesh, that the Son of Man would be served by all tribes, that He could offer His Life as a Ransom or Sacrifice for many, and Institute a Perpetual Priesthood with a Perpetual Offering of this Mystical Sacrifice, and so on. The probability, or certainty, that He Who did this is truly God and the Messiah is = 1-(1/10^100) = (almost) 1. In other words, it is virtually certain.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Prophesies_Fulfilled_by_Christ

== Question ==

Hi NishantXavier, I've got an important question. Since I unfortunately haven't set up an email for my CP account, I can't send an email to any other users who have done so. Can you see if you can contact either Dataclarifier or IndependentSkeptic? While I definitely pray for them every day, I'd really hope to be able to stay in touch with them (at least from time to time) in some way to make sure that everything's okay for them (seeing as IndependentSkeptic specified his fourth most previous edit as his last one). Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 12:34, 4 August 2020 (EDT)
:Our whole household has just settled down for our mid-afternoon "retirement" naps, so before I did, I looked in on NishantXavier's page, and saw your Question. I believe no email can be sent to me from CP. As far as I remember, I never set up an accessible email for my own CP account, unless submitting my email address was originally a privacy-protected requirement of CP for legitimacy at the time I first created my account; I don't remember. At the beginning of my involvement with CP I encountered about a hundred Captcha challenges over a period of about 3 months before finally my edits were taken as a sign of legitimate activity in good faith on CP, and my contributions of created articles were later welcomed by Andy Schlafly as valuable. But that beginning was over 7 years ago. My own computer tech, a friend who helped me set up my home station, advised me 14 years ago never to divulge my email address to any public-access online site as protection against both troll harassment and vicious hacking, and to never use my computer for banking and filing personal important data; and I also a few years ago discovered online a tip on how to constantly change my IP address:
::turn off your computer, disconnect the modem, unplug from the power source or turn off the power-strip (surge-protector) for 25 minutes, then plug-in/turn on the power, reconnect the modem, turn on the computer, and when the screen comes up, do a restart: the IP address that appears when you log on to the same or another site will be completely different.
::Only the region of the country or the city you post from will be traceable by ordinary means. Hackers will be a different animal. That's why some form of firewall and malicious edit protection from malware, spyware, computer viruses, etc. is imperative.
:I too have an important request. Please: don't use NishantXavier's talk page as a ready chat room for contact with me and IndependentSkeptic (and my elderly mother, 93). He was recently asked by another user to ask me for a response, and he honestly said he couldn't, since I was unavailable. Now you know why. (By the way, FYI, my name is Michael Paul Heart: IndependentSkeptic's name is Delwayne Royd Mullin.)
:I will "pop-in", as he put it, about every 3 months to look at this page. I appreciate your concern, Liberaltears, and yours, NishantXavier. We all do. Meanwhile, I suggest you both do what Father Nelo Leto said to me in 1985 about my concern for my former New Age acquaintances: pray for them, and let the Holy Spirit deal with them, and leave it at that: you can trust Him to know what He's doing. Use that advice in your present concern for us. Be at peace and content yourself with that, at least. He is a living God, not a dead concept of human belief and [[wishful thinking]].
:Right now, it's August. I'll "pop-in" again in November. I wish you well in your studies. ''Pax vobis''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:32, 4 August 2020 (EDT)

::Thank you very much for replying, Dataclarifier! I understand your concerns with not wanting to converse on any talk pages here; I posted this section here after simply being too pessimistic earlier today wondering if I may never be able to get in contact with you again, especially after I had finished a load of tedious work and was becoming very lonely with a life I couldn't exactly enjoy much for the past while now. I initially wanted to tell you something important, but I suspect that doing so will get me blocked by one of the anti-Catholic editors on this site ([https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALiberaltears see block log here]). God Bless, and I hope your eyesight may be restored fully if not so already! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 19:12, 4 August 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears. My email address is on my [https://onepeterfive.com/author/nxavier/ One Peter Five page]. Anyone who wishes can also follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/Xavier_DMercy Are you on Twitter? If so, we can catch up there. Or else if you have any other platform to remain in touch, I'm all ears. I'm happy D/C and I/S will pop in from time to time. I'm happy to meet the people and team here and I hope we all stay in touch. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 02:05, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:Hi NishantXavier, I unfortunately don't have a Twitter account. I don't know if I'll be able to find a good way to send you an email, if anytime soon at all. By the way, did you notice that I was blocked by Shobson20 over the past two weeks? The previous block has been lifted though. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 11:04, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
::Didn't he put, ''Go and sin no more'' in the edit summary? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:29, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Hi Liberal Tears, I'm sorry to hear that. I can vouch that you have made many important edits. However, I also hope we can all agree to no public criticism of moderators. If we have a disagreement, it may be best to take it up with the individual in private. I think that's the best way that CP will work for all. Anyway, I've been away for a bit myself. Just coming back. Hope we can all work together constructively and peaceably in future. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:05, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Awesome to see that you're back, NishantXavier, and thanks for replying! About the disputes with Shobson20 a few weeks ago, the good news is that the tension has mostly evaporated after we had found common ground in disdain for a series of server errors here on CP as well as combating vandals. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 01:44, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

Awesome to hear that, Liberal Tears. Peace and Grace and God's Blessings be upon you and upon all of us here at CP. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:47, 22 August 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 01:53, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate Page on Holy Communion - is it literally the Body and Blood of Christ, or just a bare empty symbolic reminder==

Debate Page at: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Holy_Communion_the_True_Body_and_Precious_Blood_of_Jesus_Christ#1_Cor_11:23-30_To_partake_unworthily_is_to_become_guilty_of_the_Blood_of_Christ._Impossible_if_symbolic

Three Texts from Our Lord Jesus and St. Paul are considered. More later. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 03:45, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

== Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical? ==

Is there anything you can contribute to this debate? [[Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?]] I've contributed what I could. Is there more you could add? Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:05, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

Apologies to all. I've been away, busy in other things. I hope to get back to posting more on Conservapedia in the days to come. I'll take a look at the debate. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:03, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

All right, Data Clarifier. I posted a brief section in the above debate. It is so clear to us. Unfortunately, our separated brethren need some help in seeing it. But it is plain in the Scriptures that we can fall from Grace through mortal sin, and be restored back by Confession of sins. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:27, 22 August 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you. I just set up another Debate page for others to participate in. For myself and IndependentSkeptic, we just don't have the energy any more. Just take a look at it, but don't get involved unless you really feel you should. We feel we shouldn't be obligating our friends in any way–it's just not fair. The title of the debate already implies the only possible answer.
:*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
:Peace be with you. We are well, just feeling old. I still lift light dumbbells for exercise. My mother is 93 and amazingly alert. She says, "Just don't say that "O" word. ("Old"). Stay safe buddy. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:25, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:By the way, already a hot angry response has appeared on the Debate page and its Talk page. Do you know why some metal wires get hotter than others? ''Resistance''. John 3:19-21. The more they resist the hotter they get. The truth can really burn. They need compassion, and they need the truth, even if it seems harsh as Jesus had compassion on the Sadducees and scribes and Pharisees by warning them of the truth of their hypocrisy and of God's forgiveness and mercy and judgment and wrath. We need to do as you have been doing, and persistently, and calmly, and unapologetically, always give a reason for the hope we have in the integrity of Christ and the holy scriptures. Sad that it makes them angry, but it can have a salutary effect on sinners to call them back from the error of their way if they are seeking truly to do the will of the Father. James 5:19-20; Matthew 7:21-23. Peace be with you. Amen. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::If you think they're angry now, wait until I potentially create an essay along the lines of "Essay:Why Dataclarifier is one of Conservapedia's Greatest Editors"! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:25, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:::Please don't; it's too easy to take a quarter of a million of his own bytes and spam the page to argue in the negative, since he's pioneered and set a precedent that style of debate as acceptable. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:41, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It really burns, doesn't it. I told you it would. I was right. You need to rethink your position. May God have mercy on you. I include a petition for you at the prayers of the faithful at almost every Mass. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 02:16, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate Page on Confession: Is Confession of Sins required for the Forgiveness of Sins==

Page Here: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_Confession_of_Sins_required_for_the_Forgiveness_of_Sins

User talk:NishantXavier

2020-08-27T06:16:24Z

Dataclarifier: /* Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical? */

{{greeting
|username=DavidB4
|sig=--[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:46, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
}}

__TOC__

[[User talk:NishantXavier/Archive 1|User talk:NishantXavier Archive 1]]

== Please keep the Catholic/Protestant issues on debate pages and encyclopedia articles ==

Gentelemen, please keep the Catholic/Protestant conflicts on civil debate pages using well-organized debate pages. Have your arguments on those pages be as logical and well-supported as possible.

Please have encyclopedia articles dealing with Protestant/Catholic/Eastern Orthodox issues be as objective as possible. And please have their talk pages be as constructive as possible.

NishantXavier, please have your debate pages have a "Yes" section and a "No" section. Please see my reformatting of your latest debate page at: [[Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:34, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

:All right. I will. - NishantXavier

::NishantXavier, please indent your dialogues with other users using colons and remember to sign all of your comments. I have noticed that I have had to indent your comments using colons because you did not due this. Thanks.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:50, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

:::Ok. I missed to do it above. I did it now. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 10:55, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

::All this excludes me cause I'm not interested in church debates. I want neutral scriptural debates. Still waiting for these knowledgeable purveyors of God's truth to engage at [[Debate: Explain the apparent inconsistency between Ex. 33:11 and Jn. 1:18]] to establish their ''bona fides'' and authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:56, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:::RobS, you can make your scriptural arguments on debate pages. You can put scriptural resources/arguments on Conservapedia's Christianity encylopedia pages (and have the talk pages of those articles be as constructive as possible).

:::Please keep the conflict off of NishantXavier's talk page.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

::::I'm being baited into being a called an "anti-Catholic zealot" or bigot. Discussing church, rather than bible, only facilities such a set up. Bible discussions are neutral. While someone may cite a Catholic or Protestant scholar as the basis for their personal understanding of a scripture, the focus remains on illuminating scripture verses itself, and not needless emotional attachments to institutions. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:21, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
If your successfully being baited, there is one sure way to end this problem. Stop allowing yourself to be baited. Ultimately, you choose what to respond to and what not to respond to.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:In the meantime, please try to stay off of NishantXavier's talk page and instead direct your efforts to creating debates pages and creating encyclopedia content.

:Websites with strong web traffic have quality, user friendly content that is well-organized.

:Search engines rarely give top rankings to wiki User talk pages. Why? Because they are typically a mismash of various topics and tend to be less informative. Conservapedia could use more search engine traffic. Creating debate pages and creating encyclopedia content will do that.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:31, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Moving your announcement of your Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025 article ==

I moved your announcement of your creation of "[[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025|Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]]" to its talk page.

The article you created lacked a [[Eastern Orthodox]] view of the event so I added this view to the article.

You know there is tension between you and RobSmith which is something I am attempting to tamp down.

Please stop using your talk page in a manner that is bound to increase the temperature of the aforementioned conflict. You must know that using your talk page to promote the Catholic view of the primacy of the Catholic Church is not going to decrease the conflict, but increase it. Thank you.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:Feel free to create a debate page about the [[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]] issue if you wish to debate non-Catholics about this matter. You can do so here: [[Debate: Will there be a Third Ecumenical Nicene Council in 2025?]] (see my commments below) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

::I did some initial investigation of this proposed gathering in Nicea in 2025.

::Even a Jesuit website indicates: "The Vatican has not issued a formal statement on the patriarch’s revelation, presumably because it emerged in a private conversation between him and the pope. But, pressed for clarification by journalists, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., described Bartholomew’s idea as “very beautiful and significant”; he presented it as an agreement “to hold a joint commemoration of the first ecumenical council held in Nicea in 325 AD.” He recalled that Bartholomew was the first to propose the idea for the recent meeting in Jerusalem commemorating the historic encounter Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI in 1964. He emphasized, however, that the patriarch actually spoke about “a gathering” at Nicea, and did not characterize it as an ecumenical council."[https://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/nicea-ecumenical-council-not-likely]

::The National Catholic Reporter indicated in 2014: "Vatican: Too early to confirm 2025 Orthodox-Catholic summit".[https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-too-early-confirm-2025-orthodox-catholic-summit]

::In a 2014 article entitled ''Nicea III in 2025'', the American Catholic journal Commonweal indicates: "The exact nature of the planned meeting at Nicea (now Iznik, Turkey) is not known. But how could it be, over a decade in the future?"[https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/nicea-iii-2025]

::So it seems to me that the Catholic Church has not yet determined what the nature of the potential 2025 meeting will be. We don't even know if the meeting will occur.

::In light of the above, I moved the article to essay space.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:::It is now at: [[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:20, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

All right. Essay format is fine. And I know there is some uncertainty about the format, but Fr. Mark White and others, as was mentioned, are convinced it will be a Third Nicene Council. At any rate, it will certainly be an ecumenical gathering to which all Christians are invited to commemorate Nicaea. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 21:02, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:In the future, you have to separate what you want to be true, from what is a fact. I know you want there to be a meeting and you want it to be ecumenical, but there is no certainty that either will happen.

:Remember, encyclopedias are meant to deal mainly with facts and not opinions. And when encyclopedias do endeavor to document opinions of various parties, they clearly state they are the opinions of a certain party or parties. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:57, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

All right. I tried to give the perspectives of various persons on the upcoming events. Some, like Fr. White more recently, consider it a Council; others, like Fr. Lombardi, said in 2014 that it was yet unsure what kind of meeting it would be. I read the updated essay. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 23:53, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Inviting Collaboration for articles on Popes; and on Christianity in every country ==

Non-debate topic. There have been about 266 Popes from [[Saint Peter]] and [[Pope Linus]] through [[Pope Benedict XVI]] and [[Pope Francis]]. I believe only about 10 to 20 articles so far have been created for these 266 men. So that means the scope and future potential of over 200+ future articles remains. I invite collaboration on this matter from all interested conservative posters here at Conservapedia, Catholic and non-Cath alike.

Or if someone prefers, there are over 200 countries in the world. 205. The Christianity by Country Category has just over 10 countries: https://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Christianity_by_Country So again there is scope here for research on nearly 200 future articles. Again, I invite all interested collaborators, Catholic or non-Catholic, as well as Christian or even conservative non-Christian, to work on this one. We can keep track of Global Christianity. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 21:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Links to the current ongoing debates: On Existence of Purgatory, on Church Authority etc ==

Existence of Purgatory: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_there_a_Purgatory_before_Judgment_Day
Christ's Church Authority: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Does_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F

== Greatest Evangelists of the 20th Century: Pope John Paul II, Abp. Sheen, Billy Graham, Reinhard Bonnke ==

I want to do an Article or Essay on the Greatest Evangelists of the 20th century, whether Catholic or Evangelical. [[Fulton Sheen|Abp. Sheen]] and [[Billy Graham]], who were also good friends, are two obvious names. [[Pope John Paul II]] and [[Reinhard Bonnke]] were two other great Evangelists for Christianity. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 06:33, 27 July 2020 (EDT.

== Quick note about your request to give my Christian testimony ==

:I did as you requested in terms of giving my Christian testimony. It is at: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King#User:_Conservative.27s_testimony

:Sincerely, User: Conservative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:32, 2 August 2020 (EDT)

Wow, Thanks a Lot, Conservative! I just read it, it looks really great! Thank you. Heaven rejoices when anyone of us gives our testimony for Christ our King!

About your life journey, I also liked Josh McDowell's general apologetics for Christianity. If you're interested specifically in Bible Prophesy, you may like this article: https://www.conservapedia.com/Prophesies_Fulfilled_by_Christ I added a list of about 25 specific prophesies, showing they were fulfilled only in Jesus Christ Our Lord and God, the Promised Jewish Messiah: '''"Some probability estimations'''

If we assume there is a 0.0001 (0.01%) chance or probability of a person fulfilling one of these prophesies by accident, what would be the probability that that person could fulfill all these prophesies? It would be at least (1/10^4)^25=1/10^100 i.e. 0.00[99 zeros]1. This incredibly low number would be the likelihood that one born in Bethlehem could be worshiped as God in every Gentile country, that one born of a Virgin would be recognized as Light of the Nations, that one born of the House of David would be God in the Flesh, that the Son of Man would be served by all tribes, that He could offer His Life as a Ransom or Sacrifice for many, and Institute a Perpetual Priesthood with a Perpetual Offering of this Mystical Sacrifice, and so on. The probability, or certainty, that He Who did this is truly God and the Messiah is = 1-(1/10^100) = (almost) 1. In other words, it is virtually certain.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Prophesies_Fulfilled_by_Christ

== Question ==

Hi NishantXavier, I've got an important question. Since I unfortunately haven't set up an email for my CP account, I can't send an email to any other users who have done so. Can you see if you can contact either Dataclarifier or IndependentSkeptic? While I definitely pray for them every day, I'd really hope to be able to stay in touch with them (at least from time to time) in some way to make sure that everything's okay for them (seeing as IndependentSkeptic specified his fourth most previous edit as his last one). Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 12:34, 4 August 2020 (EDT)
:Our whole household has just settled down for our mid-afternoon "retirement" naps, so before I did, I looked in on NishantXavier's page, and saw your Question. I believe no email can be sent to me from CP. As far as I remember, I never set up an accessible email for my own CP account, unless submitting my email address was originally a privacy-protected requirement of CP for legitimacy at the time I first created my account; I don't remember. At the beginning of my involvement with CP I encountered about a hundred Captcha challenges over a period of about 3 months before finally my edits were taken as a sign of legitimate activity in good faith on CP, and my contributions of created articles were later welcomed by Andy Schlafly as valuable. But that beginning was over 7 years ago. My own computer tech, a friend who helped me set up my home station, advised me 14 years ago never to divulge my email address to any public-access online site as protection against both troll harassment and vicious hacking, and to never use my computer for banking and filing personal important data; and I also a few years ago discovered online a tip on how to constantly change my IP address:
::turn off your computer, disconnect the modem, unplug from the power source or turn off the power-strip (surge-protector) for 25 minutes, then plug-in/turn on the power, reconnect the modem, turn on the computer, and when the screen comes up, do a restart: the IP address that appears when you log on to the same or another site will be completely different.
::Only the region of the country or the city you post from will be traceable by ordinary means. Hackers will be a different animal. That's why some form of firewall and malicious edit protection from malware, spyware, computer viruses, etc. is imperative.
:I too have an important request. Please: don't use NishantXavier's talk page as a ready chat room for contact with me and IndependentSkeptic (and my elderly mother, 93). He was recently asked by another user to ask me for a response, and he honestly said he couldn't, since I was unavailable. Now you know why. (By the way, FYI, my name is Michael Paul Heart: IndependentSkeptic's name is Delwayne Royd Mullin.)
:I will "pop-in", as he put it, about every 3 months to look at this page. I appreciate your concern, Liberaltears, and yours, NishantXavier. We all do. Meanwhile, I suggest you both do what Father Nelo Leto said to me in 1985 about my concern for my former New Age acquaintances: pray for them, and let the Holy Spirit deal with them, and leave it at that: you can trust Him to know what He's doing. Use that advice in your present concern for us. Be at peace and content yourself with that, at least. He is a living God, not a dead concept of human belief and [[wishful thinking]].
:Right now, it's August. I'll "pop-in" again in November. I wish you well in your studies. ''Pax vobis''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:32, 4 August 2020 (EDT)

::Thank you very much for replying, Dataclarifier! I understand your concerns with not wanting to converse on any talk pages here; I posted this section here after simply being too pessimistic earlier today wondering if I may never be able to get in contact with you again, especially after I had finished a load of tedious work and was becoming very lonely with a life I couldn't exactly enjoy much for the past while now. I initially wanted to tell you something important, but I suspect that doing so will get me blocked by one of the anti-Catholic editors on this site ([https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALiberaltears see block log here]). God Bless, and I hope your eyesight may be restored fully if not so already! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 19:12, 4 August 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears. My email address is on my [https://onepeterfive.com/author/nxavier/ One Peter Five page]. Anyone who wishes can also follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/Xavier_DMercy Are you on Twitter? If so, we can catch up there. Or else if you have any other platform to remain in touch, I'm all ears. I'm happy D/C and I/S will pop in from time to time. I'm happy to meet the people and team here and I hope we all stay in touch. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 02:05, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:Hi NishantXavier, I unfortunately don't have a Twitter account. I don't know if I'll be able to find a good way to send you an email, if anytime soon at all. By the way, did you notice that I was blocked by Shobson20 over the past two weeks? The previous block has been lifted though. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 11:04, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
::Didn't he put, ''Go and sin no more'' in the edit summary? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:29, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Hi Liberal Tears, I'm sorry to hear that. I can vouch that you have made many important edits. However, I also hope we can all agree to no public criticism of moderators. If we have a disagreement, it may be best to take it up with the individual in private. I think that's the best way that CP will work for all. Anyway, I've been away for a bit myself. Just coming back. Hope we can all work together constructively and peaceably in future. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:05, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Awesome to see that you're back, NishantXavier, and thanks for replying! About the disputes with Shobson20 a few weeks ago, the good news is that the tension has mostly evaporated after we had found common ground in disdain for a series of server errors here on CP as well as combating vandals. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 01:44, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

Awesome to hear that, Liberal Tears. Peace and Grace and God's Blessings be upon you and upon all of us here at CP. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:47, 22 August 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 01:53, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate Page on Holy Communion - is it literally the Body and Blood of Christ, or just a bare empty symbolic reminder==

Debate Page at: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Holy_Communion_the_True_Body_and_Precious_Blood_of_Jesus_Christ#1_Cor_11:23-30_To_partake_unworthily_is_to_become_guilty_of_the_Blood_of_Christ._Impossible_if_symbolic

Three Texts from Our Lord Jesus and St. Paul are considered. More later. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 03:45, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

== Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical? ==

Is there anything you can contribute to this debate? [[Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?]] I've contributed what I could. Is there more you could add? Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:05, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

Apologies to all. I've been away, busy in other things. I hope to get back to posting more on Conservapedia in the days to come. I'll take a look at the debate. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:03, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

All right, Data Clarifier. I posted a brief section in the above debate. It is so clear to us. Unfortunately, our separated brethren need some help in seeing it. But it is plain in the Scriptures that we can fall from Grace through mortal sin, and be restored back by Confession of sins. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:27, 22 August 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you. I just set up another Debate page for others to participate in. For myself and IndependentSkeptic, we just don't have the energy any more. Just take a look at it, but don't get involved unless you really feel you should. We feel we shouldn't be obligating our friends in any way–it's just not fair. The title of the debate already implies the only possible answer.
:*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
:Peace be with you. We are well, just feeling old. I still lift light dumbbells for exercise. My mother is 93 and amazingly alert. She says, "Just don't say that "O" word. ("Old"). Stay safe buddy. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:25, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:By the way, already a hot angry response has appeared on the Debate page and its Talk page. Do you know why some metal wires get hotter than others? ''Resistance''. John 3:19-21. The more they resist the hotter they get. The truth can really burn. They need compassion, and they need the truth, even if it seems harsh as Jesus had compassion on the Sadducees and scribes and Pharisees by warning them of the truth of their hypocrisy and of God's forgiveness and mercy and judgment and wrath. We need to do as you have been doing, and persistently, and calmly, and unapologetically, always give a reason for the hope we have in the integrity of Christ and the holy scriptures. Sad that it makes them angry, but it can have a salutary effect on sinners to call them back from the error of their way if they are seeking truly to do the will of the Father. James 5:19-20; Matthew 7:21-23. Peace be with you. Amen. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::If you think they're angry now, wait until I potentially create an essay along the lines of "Essay:Why Dataclarifier is one of Conservapedia's Greatest Editors"! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:25, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:::Please don't; it's too easy to take a quarter of a million of his own bytes and spam the page to argue in the negative, since he's pioneered and set a precedent that style of debate as acceptable. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:41, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It really burns, doesn't it. I told you it would. I was right. You need to rethink your position. May God have mercy on you. I include a petition for you at the prayers of the faith at almost every Mass. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 02:16, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate Page on Confession: Is Confession of Sins required for the Forgiveness of Sins==

Page Here: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_Confession_of_Sins_required_for_the_Forgiveness_of_Sins

Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-08-27T06:06:00Z

Dataclarifier: typo omission, one letter, from "Joh" to "John"

<center>''This is a non-denominational exchange of ideas intended to bring about a greater understanding of the Bible.'' ''All views are welcome.''</center>

'''Texts:'''
*'''Matthew 16:13-19''' 13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say ''that thou art'' John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed ''it'' unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter ["a rock"]. and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heave: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
*'''John 14:16-17''' 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 ''Even'' the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
*'''John 16:12-15''' I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, ''that'' shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew ''it'' unto you.
*'''Ephesians 2:18-22''' For through him we both [the Uncircumcision and the Circumcision] have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner ''stone''. <be> In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
*'''1 Timothy 3:14-15''' 14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
*'''1 Timothy 4:1-2''' 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
*'''Hebrews 13:7''' 7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of ''their'' conversation.
*'''Hebrews 13:17''' 17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that ''is'' unprofitable for you.
*'''2 Peter 3:17''' Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know ''these things'' before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
*'''1 John 2:18-19''' 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would ''no doubt'' have continued with us: but ''they went out'', that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

'''Rules'''
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.
----

==Yes, the gates of hell have prevailed against the church Jesus built on a rock so that it committed the [[Great Apostasy]], and therefore Jesus obviously either was powerless to keep his promise or he lied.==

You don't even understand the expression "gates of hell". Jesus said what he meant in an unusual way, probably to make it lively to the imagination.

He meant he had the devil on the run and in stronghold after stronghold (of the devil's) and in city after city (of the devil's), he and his disciples were ''breaking through, besieging'' the gates of hell ''to rescue the sinners inside'', so "the gates of hell" were taking a beating, being broken, knocked over, bent and dented all over the place, passed through and its city's inhabitants rescued!

You're not in a position to know; you could mount an attack against a devil's stronghold anytime you want, but you try to abuse Conservapedia instead, and then because your attitude is so passive, you don't see that knowledge of ''anyone'' being rescued from Satan counts as his gates not prevailing and instead feel the need for ''us!'' to tell you what amounts to, in your ignorance, asking if it's even still happening or not! Newsflash!: ''Wherever'' those gates are being smashed into by groups of Christians of every stripe, the gates of hell are ''already'' failing to prevail!

The "Church" is not an "institution"; look what happens to people like you who think it is! Once again, you are completely wrong!

[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 22:16, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

The [[Catechism of the Catholic Church]] in sum essentially reads,
*''We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for '''we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves'''

*'''2 Corinthians 13:1''' - ''This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.''
*'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''
Official Roman Catholic teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), which supplants the bible in authority (Catholic teaching believes God's word is "evolving"), says
*'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>

==No, the gates of hell have never prevailed against the church Jesus built on a rock so that it never committed [[apostasy]] from the faith, because Jesus remains with the church always to the end of the world, and the Spirit of truth is with the church for ever leading into all the truth as Jesus promised, and Jesus is God Who cannot lie.==

==See also==
*[[Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?]]
*[[Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?]]
*[[Debate: Is the Magisterium infallible?]]
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]
*[[Debate: Infant baptism]]
*[[Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day]]
*[[Debate:Is Holy Communion the True Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ]]
*[[Salvation: declarational salvation and ontological salvation]]
*[[Ex opere operato and ex opere operantis]]
*[[Eternal security (salvation)]]
*[[Antinomianism]]

[[category: Debate]]

User talk:Dataclarifier

2020-08-27T05:59:09Z

Dataclarifier: /* Important message */

== Moved the Dataclarifier/RobS discussion ==

I moved the Dataclarifier/Robs discussion to this page:

*[[Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?#Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical|Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical]]

Please put the content where it will benefit readers of the wiki and not on user talk pages.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 10:42, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for preserving the content of the dispute by moving it to the Debate Talk page. If no one blanks this User:Datclarifier Talk page by the end of this week I will blank it myself. Again, thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

== Important message ==

Hi Dataclarifier, there's something important I ought to ask you: can you frequently keep a lookout on [[Special:RecentChanges]] and/or [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|my user contributions page]]? That way, if anyone else ever unjustly blocks me, perhaps you can unblock me in case it may happen to be an abuse of power by any of the sysops/assistant sysops? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:32, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:I cannot take on that task. I myself had no one to do that for me as far as I know. I was never blocked for any reason before RobSmith and VargasMilan started doing it to me. I just had to be patient and wait. I took it as an opportunity and offered up a patient endurance of waiting for the expiration of the block each time in reparation for my past sins of making the Lord wait for me to respond to him and leave paganism, witchcraft and sorcery, and also in reparation for RobSmith, VargasMilan, and Shobson20 (he never blocked me, as far as I remember). I also offered up the periods of frustrated waiting, in solidarity with Jesus' own patient sacrifice of his life, passion, painful death on the cross for the salvation of sinners and the relief of the poor souls in purgatory according to the will of the Father. I regard that kind of suffering on Conservapedia as part of my own purging in justice. It's not pleasant. But God is pleased with our enduring patiently the opposition of sinners (Hebrews 12:3-14). As things stand now, here at Conservapedia, I seriously doubt that RobSmith or other anticatholics like himself would allow me to unblock you more than once before imposing a block on me for daring to do so as an interference of their will. Now, that would not bother me now, since I'm no more able to contribute. But my unblocking you would only aggravate and abrade the blocker's passion against you and involve you in a reactive [[Troll]] act of retribution against yourself, making a bad situation far worse. I did block RobSmith and VargasMilan each once [eternal] to make a point that they were violating Conservapedia and unjustly blocking me and others, but I had no illusion that any block of them would last very long. If you really want to go ahead and try it (I really don't recommend it), go to the View history of any page that the one blocking you has contributed to, note the '''(block/unblock)''' option on the electronic signature contribution line of the edit summary, click that, and select the duration of the block you want to impose beginning with a block duration of 10 minutes up to a year or more and eternity. Be sure to include the reason you are blocking the user/contributor. ''Be assured that it will be taken as an incendiary outrage against the offending blocker personally and involve you in what RobSmith has called a "Flame war" that you cannot win'', since he has the heavy artillery of his "bully pulpit" position as a Sysop/Administrator with greater seniority and ranking in the Conservapedia community than you have. While I was blocked, I could not activate any function on Conservapedia, and could not "unblock" myself. During the period of the block, I was rubber-stamp invited to discuss the block with the blocker or one of the other members of Andy Schlafly's Sysops/Administrators. Neither Andy nor anyone else responded (Andy once responded that a block of me was unjust, but he was not the one who removed it), and I could not post a message on any of their talk pages while the block was imposed. I had to wait. That's what I recommend. Remember how when Paul and Barnabas met with violent resistence, they simply went elsewhere. Conservapedia is not vital to anyone's Christian witness. ''Intercessory prayer '''is'''''. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all good things shall be added to you. So my counsel is "incurable endurable" and be patient for the Lord's sake and the sake of the health of your soul. Depression is an attack when it is not a physiological imbalance. You will know which it is when you quietly and calmly say to the depression, "I belong to Christ. Lord Jesus, please console me"—if it suddenly disappears, then it was a spiritual attack, and you can helplessly in your weakness rely on Jesus or one of His Chief Ministers, Saint Michael, or Saint Joseph Terror of Demons, to defend you. That is how you resist the Devil and he will flee from you—by humbly remaining faithful to Christ and the Church and resting in the fact that you are Catholic and the Blessed Virgin Mary is your tender, loving, and powerful mother in the Church united to her Son in the Body of Christ. That's the great thing about being a devout Catholic in knowing that you are united to the whole community of believers praying, serving, worshiping, living as one redeemed humanity with one heart in Christ our Lord in heaven on earth and in purgatory preparing for everlasting glory. If it doesn't disappear, then you probably have a physiological imbalance that a compassionate physician can deal with, with proper medication, diet, and counselling where necessary. Read Sirach 38:1-15. I wish you well. Make a copy of this for yourself before this page is blanked. If you post a message here requesting a response I will blank it from this page and respond on your own talk page. But for now this is OK. In Jesus, Mary and Joseph, with all the saints and angels you are never alone. Sit in silence once a day and bask silently in that knowledge, love Jesus with all your heart, and at the end of that time give God thanks for all the good he has done for you. Amen. Peace be with you. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:18, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
::Is it possible to have you and I.S. alternate between checking on my user contributions page frequently just to be sure? It really had stung me those two times I got blocked because no one had unblocked me despite them being at least somewhat unjustified, given my contributions to the CP mainspace. I'm not sure if you had noticed them, especially the second one, because for that, I got blocked right after you replied to a comment of mine, and I thus couldn't respond to that one. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 01:33, 27 August 2020 (EDT)
:::No, I had not noticed because I almost never look at anyone's contribution page. I really do understand your reaction, though. My own indignation at being unjustifiably blocked was like hot fire or acid in my chest. But I did nothing in reprisal when the blocks expired. I turned to prayer and in a few minutes, no more than an hour, it went away, and when the block expired I resumed editing, but not always right away. It was really amusing to come back to the computer not knowing a block had been imposed and find that only one minute remained of what had been intended to be a 3-hour punishment by RobSmith. The fact that you were blocked right after I replied to a comment of yours is a warning illustration of exactly what I meant when I said it would cause more difficulty here on Conservapedia against you if I unblocked you. Think about it! It would be a bad idea, only accomplishing nothing. "Strong bulls of Bashan surround me, they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion." Psalm 22. We cannot take on the task of checking frequently just to be sure. Trust in the Lord. Keep faith with Him. He will not abandon you. "But each must bear his own burden"—Paul. Right now I need to get some sleep. We were up all night last night trying to repair the medium-tone copper ringing wind chimes for our porch after a wind-storm broke one of the slender cords suspending the tubular bells of the chimes. I replaced the cord with 40-pound test fishing line. Threading it was a pain. Took four and half hours of struggling but finally it was done! As for this page, I will blank it at the end of this week if no one else has already done so. I wish you well. Be at peace. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:59, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

User talk:Dataclarifier

2020-08-27T05:27:20Z

Dataclarifier: /* Important message */

User talk:Dataclarifier

2020-08-27T05:24:04Z

Dataclarifier: /* Important message */

== Moved the Dataclarifier/RobS discussion ==

I moved the Dataclarifier/Robs discussion to this page:

*[[Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?#Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical|Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical]]

Please put the content where it will benefit readers of the wiki and not on user talk pages.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 10:42, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for preserving the content of the dispute by moving it to the Debate Talk page. If no one blanks this User:Datclarifier Talk page by the end of this week I will blank it myself. Again, thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

== Important message ==

Hi Dataclarifier, there's something important I ought to ask you: can you frequently keep a lookout on [[Special:RecentChanges]] and/or [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|my user contributions page]]? That way, if anyone else ever unjustly blocks me, perhaps you can unblock me in case it may happen to be an abuse of power by any of the sysops/assistant sysops? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:32, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:I cannot take on that task. I myself had no one to do that for me as far as I know. I was never blocked for any reason before RobSmith and VargasMilan started doing it to me. I just had to be patient and wait. I took it as an opportunity and offered up a patient endurance of waiting for the expiration of the block each time in reparation for my past sins of making the Lord wait for me to respond to him and leave paganism, witchcraft and sorcery, and also in reparation for RobSmith, VargasMilan, and Shobson20 (he never blocked me, as far as I remember). I also offered up the periods of frustrated waiting, in solidarity with Jesus' own patient sacrifice of his life, passion, painful death on the cross for the salvation of sinners and the relief of the poor souls in purgatory according to the will of the Father. I regard that kind of suffering on Conservapedia as part of my own purging in justice. It's not pleasant. But God is pleased with our enduring patiently the opposition of sinners (Hebrews 12:3-14). As things stand now, here at Conservapedia, I seriously doubt that RobSmith or other anticatholics like himself would allow me to unblock you more than once before imposing a block on me for daring to do so as an interference of their will. Now, that would not bother me now, since I'm no more able to contribute. But my unblocking you would only aggravate and abrade the blocker's passion against you and involve you in a reactive [[Troll]] act of retribution against yourself, making a bad situation far worse. I did block RobSmith and VargasMilan each once [eternal] to make a point that they were violating Conservapedia and unjustly blocking me and others, but I had no illusion that any block of them would last very long. If you really want to go ahead and try it (I really don't recommend it), go to the View history of any page that the one blocking you has contributed to, note the '''(block/unblock)''' option on the electronic signature contribution line of the edit summary, click that, and select the duration of the block you want to impose beginning with a block duration of 10 minutes up to a year or more and eternity. Be sure to include the reason you are blocking the user/contributor. ''Be assured that it will be taken as an incendiary outrage against the offending blocker personally and involve you in what RobSmith has called a "Flame war" that you cannot win'', since he has the heavy artillery of his "bully pulpit" position as a Sysop/Administrator with greater seniority and ranking in the Conservapedia community than you have. While I was blocked, I could not activate any function on Conservapedia, and could not "unblock" myself. During the period of the block, I was rubber-stamp invited to discuss the block with the blocker or one of the other members of Andy Schlafly's Sysops/Administrators. Neither Andy nor anyone else responded (Andy once responded that a block of me was unjust, but he was not the one who removed it), and I could not post a message on any of their talk pages while the block was imposed. I had to wait. That's what I recommend. Remember how when Paul and Barnabas met with violent resistence, they simply went elsewhere. Conservapedia is not vital to anyone's Christian witness. ''Intercessory prayer '''is'''''. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all good things shall be added to you. So my counsel is "incurable endurable" and be patient for the Lord's sake and the sake of the health of your soul. Depression is an attack when it is not a physiological imbalance. You will know which it is when you quietly and calmly say to the depression, "I belong to Christ. Lord Jesus, please console me"—if it suddenly disappears, then it was a spiritual attack, and you can helplessly in your weakness rely on Jesus or one of His Chief Ministers, Saint Michael, or Saint Joseph Terror of Demons, to defend you. That is how you resist the Devil and he will flee from you—by humbly remaining faithful to Christ and the Church and resting in the fact that you are Catholic and the Blessed Virgin Mary is your tender, loving, and powerful mother in the Church united to her Son in the Body of Christ. That's the great thing about being a devout Catholic in knowing that you are united to the whole community of believers praying, serving, worshiping, living as one redeemed humanity with one heart in Christ our Lord in heaven on earth and in purgatory preparing for everlasting glory. If it doesn't disappear, then you probably have a physiological imbalance that a compassionate physician can deal with, with proper medication, diet, and counselling where necessary. Read Sirach 38:1-15. I wish you well. Make a copy of this for yourself before this page is blanked. If you post a message here requesting a response I will blank it from this page and respond on your own talk page. But for now this is OK. In Jesus, Mary and Joseph, with all the saints and angels you are never alone. Sit in silence once a day and bask silently in the knowledge and at the end of that time give God thanks for all the good he has done for you. Amen. Peace be with you. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:18, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

User talk:Dataclarifier

2020-08-27T05:18:41Z

Dataclarifier: /* Important message */ Dataclarifier response

== Moved the Dataclarifier/RobS discussion ==

I moved the Dataclarifier/Robs discussion to this page:

*[[Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?#Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical|Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical]]

Please put the content where it will benefit readers of the wiki and not on user talk pages.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 10:42, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for preserving the content of the dispute by moving it to the Debate Talk page. If no one blanks this User:Datclarifier Talk page by the end of this week I will blank it myself. Again, thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

== Important message ==

Hi Dataclarifier, there's something important I ought to ask you: can you frequently keep a lookout on [[Special:RecentChanges]] and/or [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|my user contributions page]]? That way, if anyone else ever unjustly blocks me, perhaps you can unblock me in case it may happen to be an abuse of power by any of the sysops/assistant sysops? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:32, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:I cannot take on that task. I myself had no one to do that for me as far as I know. I was never blocked for any reason before RobSmith and VargasMilan started doing it to me. I just had to be patient and wait. I took it as an opportunity and offered up a patient endurance of waiting for the expiration of the block each time in reparation for my past sins of making the Lord wait for me to respond to him and leave paganism, witchcraft and sorcery, and also in reparation for RobSmith, VargasMilan, and Shobson20 (he never blocked me, as far as I remember). I also offered up the periods of frustrated waiting, in solidarity with Jesus' own patient sacrifice of his life, passion, painful death on the cross for the salvation of sinners and the relief of the poor souls in purgatory according to the will of the Father. I regard that kind of suffering on Conservapedia as part of my own purging in justice. It's not pleasant. But God is pleased with our enduring patiently the opposition of sinners (Hebrews 12:3-14). As things stand now, here at Conservapedia, I seriously doubt that RobSmith or other anticatholics like himself would allow me to unblock you more than once before imposing a block on me for daring to do so as an interference of their will. Now, that would not bother me now, since I'm no more able to contribute. But my unblocking you would only aggravate and abrade the blocker's passion against you and involve you in a reactive [[Troll]] act of retribution against yourself, making a bad situation far worse. I did block RobSmith and VargasMilan each once [eternal] to make a point that they were violating Conservapedia and unjustly blocking me, but I had no illusion that any block of them would last very long. If you really want to go ahead and try it (I really don't recommend it), go to the View history of any page that the one blocking you has contributed to, note the '''(block/unblock)''' option on the electronic signature contribution line of the edit summary, click that, and select the duration of the block you want to impose beginning with a block duration of 10 minutes up to a year or more and eternity. Be sure to include the reason you are blocking the user/contributor. ''Be assured that it will be taken as an incendiary outrage against the offending blocker personally and involve you in what RobSmith has called a "Flame war" that you cannot win'', since he has the heavy artillery of his "bully pulpit" position as a Sysop/Administrator with greater seniority and ranking in the Conservapedia community than you have. While I was blocked, I could not activate any function on Conservapedia, and could not "unblock" myself. During the period of the block, I was rubber-stamp invited to discuss the block with the blocker or one of the other members of Andy Schlafly's Sysops/Administrators. Neither Andy nor anyone else responded (Andy once responded that a block of me was unjust, but he was not the one who removed it), and I could not post a message on any of their talk pages while the block was imposed. I had to wait. That's what I recommend. Remember how when Paul and Barnabas met with violent resistence, they simply went elsewhere. Conservapedia is not vital to anyone's Christian witness. ''Intercessory prayer '''is'''. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all good things shall be added to you. So my counsel is "incurable endurable" and be patient for the Lord's sake and the sake of the health of your soul. Depression is an attack when it is not a physiological imbalance. You will know which it is when you quietly and calmly say to the depression, "I belong to Christ. Lord Jesus, please console me"—if it suddenly disappears, then it was a spiritual attack, and you can helplessly in your weakness rely on Jesus or one of His Chief Ministers, Saint Michael, or Saint Joseph Terror of Demons, to defend you. That is how you resist the Devil and he will flee from you—by humbly remaining faithful to Christ and the Church and resting in the fact that you are Catholic and the Blessed Virgin Mary is your tender, loving, and powerful mother in the Church united to her Son in the Body of Christ. That's the great thing about being a devout Catholic in knowing that you are united to the whole community of believers praying, serving, worshiping, living as one redeemed humanity with one heart in Christ our Lord in heaven on earth and in purgatory preparing for everlasting glory. If it doesn't disappear, then you probably have a physiological imbalance that a compassionate physician can deal with, with proper medication, diet, and counselling where necessary. Read Sirach 38:1-15. I wish you well. Make a copy of this for yourself before this page is blanked. If you post a message here requesting a response I will blank it from this page and respond on your own talk page. But for now this is OK. In Jesus, Mary and Joseph, with all the saints and angels you are never alone. Sit in silence once a day and bask silently in the knowledge and at the end of that time give God thanks for all the good he has done for you. Amen. Peace be with you. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:18, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

User:LT/mail

2020-08-27T04:02:35Z

Dataclarifier: /* Dataclarifier update: new Debate page */

<div style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

=== Please read this ===
The editor using the [[User:Liberaltears]] will be checking this message area. You can leave a message in the message area below.

If you want to provide feedback concerning content created using the User: Liberaltears account at Conservapedia, please use the talk pages of the respective articles.

If you need assistance sooner, there is a list of Conservapedia administrators [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop HERE]
</div>
 

__TOC__

Hi Liberal Tears. I saw the page: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_Senate_predictions. Let me know if you would like to collaborate on similar predictions for the presidential election - state by state, we can look at the best polls and simulate electoral college totals.

God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:03, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

:That does sound like a great idea! Do you want to start the page for the presidential election predictions by state? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:14, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

I'd love to, LT. Though I'm not sure what would be the right title? Shall I call it, "Conservapedia:Unofficial 2020 Presidential election predictions"? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:25, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

:That's a great suggestion, and I would personally remove the capitalization for "Presidential". --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:29, 14 May 2020 (EDT)
:Also, since the presidential election is technically one election divided in 51 (fifty states plus DC), I would remove the "s" from "predictions". --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:31, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

Great! It's done: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_presidential_election_predictions this is going to be an exciting project! I hope it's good to start off with. If we need to make any editions, and for future additions, I hope we can make it there. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:35, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

== Post your message below ==
Liberaltears, I set up your talk page in a way that will prevent vandalism to your talk page and I locked it.

You can see what I did at: [[User talk:Liberaltears]].

If you didn't like what I did, you can get an admin to revert it.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:33, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Liberal Tears, I'm going to create a Table (first in Excel, then later, if it is good, we'll add it to the article) with Columns "State, Electoral college votes, 2016 result, 2016 popular vote tally, projected 2020 result, projected 2020 popular vote tally". Do you think that is workable? If you have an email id, I will share it with you on Excel when it is done. And if you like it, I will make the table here in the article. Thoughts? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:45, 14 May 2020 (EDT)
:Sorry for not responding earlier. So I'm not exactly sure about having it shared to me via Excel, do you think you can mention your thoughts on the project talk page? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 23:19, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

No worries. I'll post it there when it's done. God Bless [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:15, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:Alright. And God bless you too! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 11:19, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi. Can you take a look at the page? I got popular vote, electoral vote data for 2016 for all 50 states. I just filled in for 10 states. Do you want me to fill for the remaining forty? I believe the final tally was 307-230. So once 2016 is done, we'll do for 2020 similarly based on projections. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 13:53, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:I saw your edits, and they seem great! About the remaining forty, I may perhaps do some, as my focus is largely on the Senate elections. Unfortunately, I have some other problems at the moment, and it may be harder to do as much CP editing as I usually do as of right now. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 14:02, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hey, thanks for the quick reply. Glad you like it; I can finish the 50, no problem, if that's cool with you. I have all the data on my computer. You can edit it afterward for any corrections. For the next 50, the 2020 predictions, when you're free next time, we can put our heads together. Based on the cumulative polling, we can arrive at the closest projections possible, drawn from the latest data. Thanks for all your efforts, I've seen many of the great articles you've authored or edited for Conservapedia. The election can be so close, you never know. A Presidential election may be won by a single state. Then think how glad we'll be on Nov. 3rd for all our efforts! Similarly a single seat more in the senate may give us the key vote necessary for very important legislation. Our liberal friends will weep, and we will laugh, when it comes to that! [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 14:14, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi again LT. Have you any thoughts or data on how we can estimate likely numbers of the electorate in each state? Last time it was close to 140 Million, this time they say it'll be over 155 million nationwide. I'll finish filling in some of the college votes for states in some time. Since most are winner take all, that's relatively easier to project, at least in states where there is a clear majority. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 12:38, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, I dunno much about estimating the hard numbers. I'm not entirely sure where to gather the data on voter registration, and I tend to focus more on the general likeliness of certain states to vote either [[Republican]] or [[Democrat]] based on the incumbent officeholders, their popularity, enthusiasm, etc, their opponent(s), as well as trends and polling. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 13:43, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

No worries. I'm sure we'll get there in the end. We have 5 1/2 months to spur interest and hopefully have an impact on voter turnout. I think turnout will be key for Repbulicans this time. I'll be adding a bit more to the article from time to time. This is a liberal site, but it mentions the likely increase in turnout in 2020: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/2020-election-voter-turnout-could-be-record-breaking/591607/ Some 10 million voters voted for a third party candidate who had no chance of winning. We should try to discourage that by emphasizing that that is foolish. If Trump wins anything like 80 million votes overall, I'm sure he will pull through successfully. Dems are worried many new voters will vote for him.

One possible method of proceeding would be seeing what polls were saying last election around this time. If they indicated roughly the same numbers we see now, and the ratio of voters in the state was e.g. 60% Trump, we can estimate it will be around the same. The net increase in voting population for each state will have to be factored in. Those are just some preliminary thoughts to proceed, we'll figure out the number-crunching as we go on. God bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 14:00, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Hello again. Made three important changes thus far, on California, Texas and Ohio. Also computed provisional totals with Trump at 74 and Biden at 55 (California) with 7 states computed so far. Arizona is still uncertain, and is a toss-up as you mentioned in the comment. We'll get down to more exact predictions later on, combining everything from support, enthusiasm, expectation etc. Let's try to fill the easier states with clearer outcomes first. I'll be continuing and let you know if anything in particular comes up or I have any question. Hope you are well. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:52, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

Hello Liberal Tears. Hope you are well. Been busy with other things for a while, but just updated the numbers for Oklahoma, not based on a poll, but based on the massive enthusiasm for the Trump Rally there. I think Trump will carry the state with great ease, especially in light of 2016 numbers. Also, I was thinking - it's estimated there will be a 10% increase in turnout overall in 2020, close to around 150 million votes overall. So, as a beginning strategy for estimating numbers in each and every state, do you think starting out with 10% increases on 2016 numbers for both candidates would be a good way to begin? If you agree, please let me know. I can do it on Excel and will copy it to Conservapedia after that. God Bless.

By way of example, if Trump got 1 million votes and Clinton 400 K in a state, we will project, if all else is same, Trump 1.1 M and Biden as 440 K. Progressive adjustments will be made to the number after that, in light of new data, if polling or enthusiasm etc suggsts it is required.[[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 22:38, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

:Good analysis, NishantXavier! In regards to your question about voter turnout, I suppose adding 10% is a good place to start, though I don't know too much about projecting such. To make good predictions on that, I would really attention to primary turnout numbers, as I've mentioned in an example [[Talk:Main_Page#Two_important_highlights...|here]]. By the way, can you also see if you can add any good analyses to [[Conservapedia:Unofficial 2020 Senate predictions|this prediction page]] as well if you have time? While there are certain things I can catch up on right now, I don't exactly have the sufficient time to add major updates yet, and it may take two weeks before I finish up some annoying tasks I'm occupied with currently. Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 22:59, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

Hi again Liberal Tears. I changed the 1 million thing since it didn't materialize; it was a liberal prank. Anyway, analyzing the primaries is a great suggestion. Would you happen to have primary information in a readily accessible source? I will definitely take a look, and try to improve, the predictions for the Senate elections too when I have time. I'm closely following the Senate races and as we know they were very important for the Supreme Court. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 00:31, 22 June 2020 (EDT)

:For all primary election information this year, I recommend using [https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/ this (browse to the bottom of the page for state by state)], although I should note the only problem is that no hard number of votes are given for unopposed candidates. Also, about the Senate races, here are five quick "pop quiz"-style questions if you want to answer them for fun:

# Which Democrat-held seat is nearly guaranteed to flip?
# Why might [[John Hickenlooper]] lose the upcoming [[Democrat]] primary in vying to challenge [[Cory Gardner]]?
# Why is [[Steve Daines]]' seat vulnerable despite running for re-election in a solid red state?
# Who are the mainstream Democrats cheering on to challenge [[Mitch McConnell]]?
# Should current polling with low sample sizes be absolutely trusted? (Hint: they were wrong in 2016)

:—[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 00:59, 22 June 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears. I've completed 13 States and plan to do about 2-3 states daily. So I should be finished in another 12-18 days if I keep up to that; maybe by the end of the month. The polls are a little tricky for some of the reasons you mention. I think rally size in the state and "enthusiasm" of voters recorded in the polls may be better gauges. For e.g. there is a huge enthusiasm gap between Trump and Biden in some states. Anyway, I plan to have delegates for all 50 states awarded based on projections by Aug 3 so we have 3 months to see how it pans out. Arriving at final numbers for each state will be a little more difficult; but I will begin with adding 10% and then use some of the suggestions you mentioned as well. We'll see how that goes. That should be done by next month end. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:30, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
:Okay, thank you NishantXavier! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 12:23, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Hello again Liberal Tears. Congratulations to you on all your hard work for Conservapedia, and for being promoted! You truly deserve it! I really pray for great things for Conservapedia in the years to come, that OUr Good Lord Jesus will use this Encyclopedia mightily for His Cause, to promote the Gospel and the Conservative worldview, throughout the world.

Anyway, just wanted to congratulate you, and to note that, since I also can now use the other time as well, I should be able to complete 5 states a day. So in about 5-6 days now (quite the increase from the 12-18 earlier!) I should be completing all 50 states, and then we can discuss further on the improvements you suggested and any change of delegates as well.

Hope all is well.
In Jesus and Mary,
Nishant Xavier. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:41, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

:Thanks NishantXavier, and congratulations in regards to your promotion as well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 01:45, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears! Btw, I completed 30 states! So it looks like we're ahead of schedule. I should be able to do 40 tomorrow, and complete it the day after that. So we were thinking of Aug 3rd, but now it'll be done by July 13th. That's good. I wanted to ask your opinion on the Arizona poll. It sounds like good news. Do you think it suggests President Trump has a solid ground game in the state? Poll: https://d2pggiv3o55wnc.cloudfront.net/oann/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Arizona-OANN-June-28-2020-v3.pdf [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:23, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
:Hi NishantXavier, nice job on your work for the predictions! And thanks for reminding me about that Gravis/[[OANN]] poll, I'm thinking about potentially doing an essay on thoroughly analyzing it sometime. I've seen most of the data there, and I unfortunately have some high suspicions due to the low sample size, high margin of error at ±4.3%, and under-sampling of 2016 Hillary voters. However, I think there were several parts they probably got right; for one, the 2016 [[Gary Johnson]] voters may be more inclined to vote for Trump this year. Also, some interesting side notes:

:*if Republicans are doing this well with Asian voters, then no wonder the Democrats are panicking and resorting to desperate race-baiting tactics amidst the [[CCP pandemic]], such as whining over jokes like "kung flu"
:*If McSally actually wins a majority of the black vote, it will become much harder for Kelly to win the general election
:*unlike what liberals are spewing in mocking the poll simply because they see "OANN", the latter group only paid for it to be conducted by Gravis Marketing
:*there is a chance that Sen. McSally may lose the Republican primary in early August because her opponent there is telling voters that she's somehow a swampy [[establishment]] "RINO"

:—[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 11:51, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears, thanks for the feedback. As an Asian who has worked for American companies, I know many Indian-Americans who support Trump. "President Trump is incredibly grateful for the widespread support he has received from the people of India and from millions of Indian-Americans across the United States. https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-is-grateful-for-indian-americans-support-white-house-309041 I think most Americans of whatever background are attracted by the proposition of Making America Great Again and not attracted by the opposition's policies.

I'm at 34 states now, hope to finish 40 by end of today. Can I ask, how is the Senate election predictions coming along? Are there 33 Senate seats up for election this year, if I recall right?

Also, another thing, I want to start a Project Page for Conservapedia's own "Project 100 Million" i.e. websites dedicated to winning 100 million souls for Christ over the next decade. Network 211, on which Conservapedia has reported, has one such plan. But we have had more page visits than they do! If they can do it, then we can and will too! [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:14, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

With 50 state results, and 33 Senate seats, let's aim to get at least 80% correct results! We'll then have some 65 entries for Conservapedia proven right! Will be difficult, as that is a high target, but it can be done. Let's get to work and be motivated to complete this, rejoicing on election day when the race is over, and the results turn out well by God's Grace. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:34, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

:Hi NishantXavier, I unfortunately will not be able to get to any updates on the Senate/House elections until I get out of the way some tedious work I currently have to be occupied with in my life. I already got one rather annoying part done, and there are two parts left that I need to finish. That's why for now, I have mostly worked on some other topics throughout [[CP]] here and also went on talk pages somewhat too much. I know that there's obviously the Senate election in [[Colorado]] that I need to update since it's now after the primary, as well as primaries for House elections in many states. If you have the time right now, do you suppose you could add updates for the unofficial Senate predictions page [[Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_Senate_predictions|here]]? It's fine if you don't, it's just that right now hasn't been the best time for me to get to those. Also, about the number of Senate elections, there are 33 normal elections and two special elections (one in [[Arizona]] and one in [[Georgia]]). Thank you and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 11:35, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears. I've finished 46 out of 50 states. Trump is winning 325 to 188 XD. So that's awesome. I just have to complete a few others. 2 are liberal states. I'll complete them today or tomorrow. So we have ample time after that. I finished 4 or 5 of the Senate seats. Do you think we should try to predict the primary winner; I believe Susan Collins' opponent will be decided on 14th. For two others, I have. I'll have to think about this and decide whether to do so or not on this third later. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks and God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 00:24, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

:So for Maine in the Democrat primary, the party establishment has hand-picked [[Sara Gideon]], so she's most likely going to win by a large margin over the other candidates. When it comes to primaries for the Senate elections, it's important to remember that the two big ones to watch for are the ones for Alabama (which is tomorrow, and will decide whether Sessions or Tuberville is the nominee to face Doug Jones) and Arizona; for the latter, I made [[Talk:Main_Page#McSally_primary_challenger|this relevant post here]], which unforunately no one else responded to. Hope this helps, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 00:52, 14 July 2020 (EDT

Right, LT. One other thing. Can you tell me how to add a user box, "this user has more than 500 edits. I tried adding yours, but I think it automatically took the number 2500 instead of 500. Does every 500 have a different userbox or will the same suffice? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 08:46, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

:Sorry for not responding to this sooner. So with the way I used that userbox, you start with <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|</nowiki></code>. Then enter in the word for the color you want the left cell to be. So if you want a gray color like I did for the one on my user page, then add <code><nowiki>gray|</nowiki></code>, and you should now have <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|</nowiki></code>. Next, specify the color you want for the right cell. Assuming that you want it to be white as I did for mine, it should now look like this: <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|white|</nowiki></code>. Next, add in the text you want to appear on the left side, add another vertical bar (no space needed), and finally add in the text you want to appear on the right side. So it seems that you want your userbox to be <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|white|500+|This user has made over 500 edits to [[Conservapedia]].}}</nowiki></code> Hope this helps NishantXavier! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 14:31, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears. I added it as 750. Thanks for your help on all this. I also saw the improvements to the Senate election predictions page. Looks great. I'm almost done with the presidential election, just some finishing touches remain. Then we can really get down to analyzing both the mainstream media projection and arrive at Conservapedia's own projection for each state in the presidential and senate election races. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 17:40, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
:Alright, awesome! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 17:46, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

All 50 states done in presidential election! Please review and see if anything needs to be added. Senate elections are next. We should be done in 3 to 4 days for those as well. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:01, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
:Alright, I just reviewed what you did for the presidential election predictions by state, and they seem great! I would note that Nevada and New Hampshire have a strong chance of favoring Trump this time around; Trump only barely lost New Hampshire in 2016, and with Republican [[Chris Sununu]] being the governor of the state and holding a high popularity there, that could potentially carry Trump over the finish line. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 10:43, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

== Project 150 Million Souls for Christ the King in the next 10 to 15 years ==

Hi Liberal Tears. On Conservapedia, we now have a project: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King dedicated to sharing our testimonies for Christ our King. We would like thousands of people to sign up on Conservapedia and share their testimony - it can be a brief testimony, however long or short; from a few sentences to several paragraphs - and it would be great if longstanding members could give their support to this project. Andy approved of the project and asked me to create the page, as I did. Could you help us? The Bible tells us the day is coming one day when every knee will bow and acknowledge Jesus as King. And Christ Our Lord also tells us that everyone who confesses Him before men, He Himself will confess before His Father in heaven, so that we will be saved, because Jesus our Advocate pleads for us. Kindly consider giving your testimony. Thank you. In Our Lord Jesus, Nishant X. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 07:20, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
:Hi NishantXavier, I added my story [[Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King#Liberaltears.27_story|here]]. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 12:23, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS!! Really, I'm so grateful to you, Liberal Tears, and I'm sure Our Lord Jesus is as well. May Our Good Lord amply and richly reward you for your courageous testimony for Him, with every abundant blessing in this life, and with life everlasting in the world to come in eternity. God Bless you. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 17:42, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

:You're welcome, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 17:46, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thanks for reverting the latest string of rubbish. I was again distracted, and slow on the draw. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:53, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

:Yep, no problem! I just went one by one, clicked on the "View history" for all the vandalized pages, found the revisions just prior to being vandalized by the troll, and simply published those. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 18:10, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

==That Catholic vs Protestant argument on the talk pages is OVER==
All discussions have been properly moved to the [[https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Does_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F|debate page]]. The discussion has calmed down and become more orderly. You're the one who keeps picking at scabs. I stopped talking about getting night editing rights when Andy finally responded, you're the one who keeps bringing it up, let it go already. Stop playing the victim, the Catholics have done just as much pushing and have been just as argumentative, and so have you, stop playing innocent. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:47, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

==Dataclarifier does a kamikaze dive==
Jesus said, ''Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.'' DC thinks it's Peter. So, no. Knowledge and understanding are still two different things. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 01:24, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:Are you still going to try rebuking Dataclarifier? Your harshness towards him at times probably didn't do much good, and I can't help but wonder if you ever used the same sleazy strawman tactics against him as you did towards me. Now there's a possibility he may never come back, and I may as well just be sad, lonely, and depressed for the rest of my life.
:And here's something I don't believe I've ever fully mentioned before: I stumbled upon this site around over a year ago, thought it was really cool, and wanted to participate. Then fast forward to when 1990'sguy pretty much left early this year, and I thought that I ought to try editing much more where I could. As I did more and more, I realized that this was the best thing giving me a sense of meaning in a life I was getting more and more miserable in. After trying to understand the disputes between you and Dataclarifier, I felt that he might've been treated unfairly and harshly, especially noticing your harshness at times. After NishantXavier was engaging in discussions, especially after he posted a link on his user page to a [[OnePeterFive]] webpage, I saw the increasing contempt some editors here had for him over strongly Catholic viewpoints. And after going through a pathetic while in the past few weeks, I hope everyone else is satisfied; I'm certainly not. I'll still stay on this site to contribute good content, but I'll be more inclined to just be a sad and bitter guy from now on. I've dealt with more nonsense than I could handle at all over the past few years, and I'm now probably hitting a long-term low point in life. If you profess to be a Christian, then I hope you can try to understand some of my problems; not many in my life were sympathetic, unfortunately. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 01:44, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:Oh, and just in case, please don't issue a block over this. I'm now always becoming apprehensive on whether I'll get blocked or not over certain comments some assistant sysops may not like. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 01:50, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::My harshness? Everytime I cited the Bible, he told me I'm going to hell. Get your facts straight. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:04, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::I think you have trouble with the English language. You have made the claim, no less than 4 or 5 times, that people "selectively" use the Bible to condemn pedophilia. If there is support for pedophilia within the Bible, I think you need to ante up those scriptures, or just plain shut up and stop making stupid, spurious accusations. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:10, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Alright, I should've specified when you were harsh (asides from disputes with Dataclarifier). I remember one time you threatened to delete one of Progressingamerica's pages (finding the exact diff will be hard, since it was a few months ago), calling it "bull" and something along the lines of commie propaganda. And there was [[Talk:DIAN|this time]] as well when you initially marked one of my pages for a speedy deletion before I explained my points clearly. Can you please quit being extremely uncivil and using strawman attacks? As I've said, I might be hitting a long-term low point in life, and the last thing I need to read on my mail page is a repetition of the same smear you used. Since you profess to be a Christian, I'm puzzled (or perhaps maybe not) at your choosing of engaging in attacks over showing the type of compassion that God would want to see more of in this world. It's frankly sad to see so many editors here throw me under the bus for defending myself against lies; I don't know if I should even be surprised or not, as so many have betrayed me in my life. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 11:50, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Well, duh. Are your criticizing negotiation and consultation now? Do prefer unilateral action without consultation? Posting comments and consulting with others is kinda how the process works, sheesh.

::::As you reach this low point, remember, the ''Lord is nigh unto them who are of a broken heart'' (Ps 34:18). ''A broken heart thou wilt not despise'' (Psalm 51:17, easy to remember 17x3=51). God has guaranteed he will not reject us when everyone else has. It is our pride - original sin - that inhibits repentance. This is the problem with Roman Catholic doctrine, it teaches your pride was washed away with infant baptism. I know, I've been there. Me and all my brothers, as well. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:54, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::God didn't reject me before? Prior to this month, here's basically what happened in my life: I had tedious nonsense to deal with, and was really losing my long-term patience. Every time I just wanted to take a real break, it felt like I was getting cursed with short-term bad luck (like accidentally knocking down my pencil sharpener and creating a mess on the floor); it seemed to me as if I was supposed to just "gag and get it done" when I could barely think straight. The reason I would lose my long-term patience was because, growing up, I had always maintained some sense of objective-based integrity, and that was really tested in middle school as well as early high school. If you didn't grow up in an era filled with profanity and pornography glamorized as part of "maturity", then consider yourself much, much more luckier than I was. After losing good friends from elementary school because of how out-of-touch and nasty they got and seeing what had happened to peers as they became more cold-hearted and deceptive really had broke me on the inside. Realizing the self-recognizable nature of objective morality and that it comes to people's minds as they move from barbaric animal instincts to rational, civilized thinking was what eventually brought me from atheism to Christianity, but there's still a long way. And while some things in my life may strongly point towards it, I don't know how much God has done to reach out towards me. Too many times I've felt all alone, too many times being only able to rely on what I can salvage of the last bit of courage left in myself. I'm sorry if I sound selfish saying all this, given so many in the world who live far worse than I do. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 12:19, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::::You need to stand on the rock of Christ. God says, ''Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock.'' That was DC's problem, he insisted the rock was a man - Peter, not Jesus Christ. God is not the author of confusion. He has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, love, and a sound mind. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:58, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

==You are invited to continue our sharing the Gospel of Salvation==
Dataclarifier evidently found our discussion ''a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense'' (1 Peter 2:8) and removed it. [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&curid=160561&diff=0&oldid=1675214] We can continue it here if you like. [[User_talk:RobSmith#The_Gospel_of_Salvation]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:16, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

==Reply==
Hi, in response to earlier, I can only say that I don't know exactly how it works. For the most part, it just does. There may be some specific way in which it goes, but it has not been clearly disclosed in any detail. So all I can say is that it generally works itself out eventually. Once in awhile though, the process seems to just stop for some. I can't say why for sure, although typically I have my suspicions for each case. I don't think timing has much to do with it, but perhaps a little in some cases. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:25, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:Thank you for replying, DavidB4! It just seems to me that some are vastly luckier than others, which ends up being a disappointment for those who work hard but aren't noticed as much. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 16:55, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Dataclarifier update: new Debate page==

Evening "LT" (sounds like military casual nickname for "lieutenant"!). Thanks for your prayers. I just set up another Debate page for others to participate in. For myself and IndependentSkeptic, we just don't have the energy any more. Just take a look at it, but don't get involved unless you really feel you should. We feel we shouldn't be obligating our friends in any way–it's just not fair. The title of the debate already implies the only possible answer.
:*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
Peace be with you. We are well, just feeling old. I still lift light dumbbells for exercise. My mother is 93 and amazingly alert. She says, "Just don't say that "O" word. ("Old"). Stay safe buddy. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:33, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you Dataclarifier! Since I don't want to lose contact with you, do you you suppose you can email NishantXavier for now, and once I get a good chance to email him, I can get in direct contact with you? This way, you don't need to publicly post your email anywhere or register it here if you don't want to, as he has posted his email information [[User_talk:NishantXavier/Archive_1#Follow_me_on_Twitter|here]] and [https://onepeterfive.com/author/nxavier/ here]. God Bless, it's great to hear you guys are doing well, and thank you for posting here! Also, I'm really honored to hear that my nickname almost sounds like a military ranking position! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 22:51, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
::''10-4'' LT. We'll just post here. By the way, already got a hot response on the Debate page and its Talk page. Do you know why some metal wires get hotter than others? ''Resistance''. John 3:19-21. The truth can really burn. Peace be with you. Amen. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
:::Great to hear about that debate page! And can you please consider my proposal on emailing NishantXavier for now? If there's a way to contact you privately, then we can keep in touch if you decide to permanently leave CP anytime soon. I really ask you consider it, as I'd hate to ever be left alone not knowing how you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are doing. There's just something about you and your contributions here that leaves a special mark inside me that I can't forget and always think about, and it would be very sad if I one day lose all means of talking to you. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 23:17, 26 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's the Holy Spirit Himself using me in my contributions, the effect of the Holy Sacrament of Confirmation by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop representing the whole Body of Christ Himself that makes the mark inside you. Not I but Christ in me. Loneliness Prescription Rx: Pray the recommended prayers of the Church to God the Holy Spirit, especially "O God, Who by the light of Thy Holy Spirit didst instruct the hearts of Thy faithful people, grant that we may be truly wise and ever rejoice in His consolations and power, through Christ Our Lord. ''Send forth Thy Spirit and they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth.''" Or this one: "Lord, please console me." Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church daily, Knowing Jesus is by your side as you read in the very room with you lovingly watching you read it, until you've read it cover to cover seven times. Attend daily Mass, in person, or online EWTN live 0700, 1100, 1800, or 2300 hrs CST/CDT. Open the Bible and read one whole book of the scriptures simply because it is holy, or if it's long, one-third or one half of one. But before you do any reading, get quiet, close your eyes and ask Jesus to be present to you, and let him touch your soul. "O Jesus, as I cannot now receive Thee in holy Communion, I beg You to come spiritually into my heart, and make it your own forever. Never, never let me ever be parted from you, my Lord and my God. I love you, my Jesus." Finally, if the nearest Catholic Church to you offers Adoration, go and kneel in silent adoration (wearing a protective mask). I suggest beginning with the prayer of St. Thomas Aquinas, whispered quietly or mouthed in silence (mentally only){{quotation|O Godhead here in hiding / Whom I do adore / masked by these bare shadows / shape and nothing more / See, O see before You / here lies low a heart / lost, all lost in wonder / at the God thou art / Seeing, touching, tasting / are in Thee deceived / What says trusty hearing / That shall be believed / What God's Son says truly / take for truth I do / Truth Himself speaks truly / or there's nothing true ! }}Also at least one Hail Mary, said thoughtfully, from the heart, not recited, but addressed directly to her about every 3 hours, and once before bed and once upon rising. Peace be with you and all whom you love and care about. ''Semper fidelis ! '' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:02, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

User talk:NishantXavier

2020-08-27T03:22:53Z

Dataclarifier: /* Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical? */ additional info - a hot angry response to the new Debate page

{{greeting
|username=DavidB4
|sig=--[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:46, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
}}

__TOC__

[[User talk:NishantXavier/Archive 1|User talk:NishantXavier Archive 1]]

== Please keep the Catholic/Protestant issues on debate pages and encyclopedia articles ==

Gentelemen, please keep the Catholic/Protestant conflicts on civil debate pages using well-organized debate pages. Have your arguments on those pages be as logical and well-supported as possible.

Please have encyclopedia articles dealing with Protestant/Catholic/Eastern Orthodox issues be as objective as possible. And please have their talk pages be as constructive as possible.

NishantXavier, please have your debate pages have a "Yes" section and a "No" section. Please see my reformatting of your latest debate page at: [[Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:34, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

:All right. I will. - NishantXavier

::NishantXavier, please indent your dialogues with other users using colons and remember to sign all of your comments. I have noticed that I have had to indent your comments using colons because you did not due this. Thanks.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:50, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

:::Ok. I missed to do it above. I did it now. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 10:55, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

::All this excludes me cause I'm not interested in church debates. I want neutral scriptural debates. Still waiting for these knowledgeable purveyors of God's truth to engage at [[Debate: Explain the apparent inconsistency between Ex. 33:11 and Jn. 1:18]] to establish their ''bona fides'' and authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:56, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:::RobS, you can make your scriptural arguments on debate pages. You can put scriptural resources/arguments on Conservapedia's Christianity encylopedia pages (and have the talk pages of those articles be as constructive as possible).

:::Please keep the conflict off of NishantXavier's talk page.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

::::I'm being baited into being a called an "anti-Catholic zealot" or bigot. Discussing church, rather than bible, only facilities such a set up. Bible discussions are neutral. While someone may cite a Catholic or Protestant scholar as the basis for their personal understanding of a scripture, the focus remains on illuminating scripture verses itself, and not needless emotional attachments to institutions. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:21, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
If your successfully being baited, there is one sure way to end this problem. Stop allowing yourself to be baited. Ultimately, you choose what to respond to and what not to respond to.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:In the meantime, please try to stay off of NishantXavier's talk page and instead direct your efforts to creating debates pages and creating encyclopedia content.

:Websites with strong web traffic have quality, user friendly content that is well-organized.

:Search engines rarely give top rankings to wiki User talk pages. Why? Because they are typically a mismash of various topics and tend to be less informative. Conservapedia could use more search engine traffic. Creating debate pages and creating encyclopedia content will do that.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:31, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Moving your announcement of your Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025 article ==

I moved your announcement of your creation of "[[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025|Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]]" to its talk page.

The article you created lacked a [[Eastern Orthodox]] view of the event so I added this view to the article.

You know there is tension between you and RobSmith which is something I am attempting to tamp down.

Please stop using your talk page in a manner that is bound to increase the temperature of the aforementioned conflict. You must know that using your talk page to promote the Catholic view of the primacy of the Catholic Church is not going to decrease the conflict, but increase it. Thank you.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:Feel free to create a debate page about the [[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]] issue if you wish to debate non-Catholics about this matter. You can do so here: [[Debate: Will there be a Third Ecumenical Nicene Council in 2025?]] (see my commments below) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

::I did some initial investigation of this proposed gathering in Nicea in 2025.

::Even a Jesuit website indicates: "The Vatican has not issued a formal statement on the patriarch’s revelation, presumably because it emerged in a private conversation between him and the pope. But, pressed for clarification by journalists, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., described Bartholomew’s idea as “very beautiful and significant”; he presented it as an agreement “to hold a joint commemoration of the first ecumenical council held in Nicea in 325 AD.” He recalled that Bartholomew was the first to propose the idea for the recent meeting in Jerusalem commemorating the historic encounter Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI in 1964. He emphasized, however, that the patriarch actually spoke about “a gathering” at Nicea, and did not characterize it as an ecumenical council."[https://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/nicea-ecumenical-council-not-likely]

::The National Catholic Reporter indicated in 2014: "Vatican: Too early to confirm 2025 Orthodox-Catholic summit".[https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-too-early-confirm-2025-orthodox-catholic-summit]

::In a 2014 article entitled ''Nicea III in 2025'', the American Catholic journal Commonweal indicates: "The exact nature of the planned meeting at Nicea (now Iznik, Turkey) is not known. But how could it be, over a decade in the future?"[https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/nicea-iii-2025]

::So it seems to me that the Catholic Church has not yet determined what the nature of the potential 2025 meeting will be. We don't even know if the meeting will occur.

::In light of the above, I moved the article to essay space.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:::It is now at: [[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:20, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

All right. Essay format is fine. And I know there is some uncertainty about the format, but Fr. Mark White and others, as was mentioned, are convinced it will be a Third Nicene Council. At any rate, it will certainly be an ecumenical gathering to which all Christians are invited to commemorate Nicaea. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 21:02, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:In the future, you have to separate what you want to be true, from what is a fact. I know you want there to be a meeting and you want it to be ecumenical, but there is no certainty that either will happen.

:Remember, encyclopedias are meant to deal mainly with facts and not opinions. And when encyclopedias do endeavor to document opinions of various parties, they clearly state they are the opinions of a certain party or parties. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:57, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

All right. I tried to give the perspectives of various persons on the upcoming events. Some, like Fr. White more recently, consider it a Council; others, like Fr. Lombardi, said in 2014 that it was yet unsure what kind of meeting it would be. I read the updated essay. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 23:53, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Inviting Collaboration for articles on Popes; and on Christianity in every country ==

Non-debate topic. There have been about 266 Popes from [[Saint Peter]] and [[Pope Linus]] through [[Pope Benedict XVI]] and [[Pope Francis]]. I believe only about 10 to 20 articles so far have been created for these 266 men. So that means the scope and future potential of over 200+ future articles remains. I invite collaboration on this matter from all interested conservative posters here at Conservapedia, Catholic and non-Cath alike.

Or if someone prefers, there are over 200 countries in the world. 205. The Christianity by Country Category has just over 10 countries: https://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Christianity_by_Country So again there is scope here for research on nearly 200 future articles. Again, I invite all interested collaborators, Catholic or non-Catholic, as well as Christian or even conservative non-Christian, to work on this one. We can keep track of Global Christianity. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 21:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Links to the current ongoing debates: On Existence of Purgatory, on Church Authority etc ==

Existence of Purgatory: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_there_a_Purgatory_before_Judgment_Day
Christ's Church Authority: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Does_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F

== Greatest Evangelists of the 20th Century: Pope John Paul II, Abp. Sheen, Billy Graham, Reinhard Bonnke ==

I want to do an Article or Essay on the Greatest Evangelists of the 20th century, whether Catholic or Evangelical. [[Fulton Sheen|Abp. Sheen]] and [[Billy Graham]], who were also good friends, are two obvious names. [[Pope John Paul II]] and [[Reinhard Bonnke]] were two other great Evangelists for Christianity. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 06:33, 27 July 2020 (EDT.

== Quick note about your request to give my Christian testimony ==

:I did as you requested in terms of giving my Christian testimony. It is at: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King#User:_Conservative.27s_testimony

:Sincerely, User: Conservative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:32, 2 August 2020 (EDT)

Wow, Thanks a Lot, Conservative! I just read it, it looks really great! Thank you. Heaven rejoices when anyone of us gives our testimony for Christ our King!

About your life journey, I also liked Josh McDowell's general apologetics for Christianity. If you're interested specifically in Bible Prophesy, you may like this article: https://www.conservapedia.com/Prophesies_Fulfilled_by_Christ I added a list of about 25 specific prophesies, showing they were fulfilled only in Jesus Christ Our Lord and God, the Promised Jewish Messiah: '''"Some probability estimations'''

If we assume there is a 0.0001 (0.01%) chance or probability of a person fulfilling one of these prophesies by accident, what would be the probability that that person could fulfill all these prophesies? It would be at least (1/10^4)^25=1/10^100 i.e. 0.00[99 zeros]1. This incredibly low number would be the likelihood that one born in Bethlehem could be worshiped as God in every Gentile country, that one born of a Virgin would be recognized as Light of the Nations, that one born of the House of David would be God in the Flesh, that the Son of Man would be served by all tribes, that He could offer His Life as a Ransom or Sacrifice for many, and Institute a Perpetual Priesthood with a Perpetual Offering of this Mystical Sacrifice, and so on. The probability, or certainty, that He Who did this is truly God and the Messiah is = 1-(1/10^100) = (almost) 1. In other words, it is virtually certain.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Prophesies_Fulfilled_by_Christ

== Question ==

Hi NishantXavier, I've got an important question. Since I unfortunately haven't set up an email for my CP account, I can't send an email to any other users who have done so. Can you see if you can contact either Dataclarifier or IndependentSkeptic? While I definitely pray for them every day, I'd really hope to be able to stay in touch with them (at least from time to time) in some way to make sure that everything's okay for them (seeing as IndependentSkeptic specified his fourth most previous edit as his last one). Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 12:34, 4 August 2020 (EDT)
:Our whole household has just settled down for our mid-afternoon "retirement" naps, so before I did, I looked in on NishantXavier's page, and saw your Question. I believe no email can be sent to me from CP. As far as I remember, I never set up an accessible email for my own CP account, unless submitting my email address was originally a privacy-protected requirement of CP for legitimacy at the time I first created my account; I don't remember. At the beginning of my involvement with CP I encountered about a hundred Captcha challenges over a period of about 3 months before finally my edits were taken as a sign of legitimate activity in good faith on CP, and my contributions of created articles were later welcomed by Andy Schlafly as valuable. But that beginning was over 7 years ago. My own computer tech, a friend who helped me set up my home station, advised me 14 years ago never to divulge my email address to any public-access online site as protection against both troll harassment and vicious hacking, and to never use my computer for banking and filing personal important data; and I also a few years ago discovered online a tip on how to constantly change my IP address:
::turn off your computer, disconnect the modem, unplug from the power source or turn off the power-strip (surge-protector) for 25 minutes, then plug-in/turn on the power, reconnect the modem, turn on the computer, and when the screen comes up, do a restart: the IP address that appears when you log on to the same or another site will be completely different.
::Only the region of the country or the city you post from will be traceable by ordinary means. Hackers will be a different animal. That's why some form of firewall and malicious edit protection from malware, spyware, computer viruses, etc. is imperative.
:I too have an important request. Please: don't use NishantXavier's talk page as a ready chat room for contact with me and IndependentSkeptic (and my elderly mother, 93). He was recently asked by another user to ask me for a response, and he honestly said he couldn't, since I was unavailable. Now you know why. (By the way, FYI, my name is Michael Paul Heart: IndependentSkeptic's name is Delwayne Royd Mullin.)
:I will "pop-in", as he put it, about every 3 months to look at this page. I appreciate your concern, Liberaltears, and yours, NishantXavier. We all do. Meanwhile, I suggest you both do what Father Nelo Leto said to me in 1985 about my concern for my former New Age acquaintances: pray for them, and let the Holy Spirit deal with them, and leave it at that: you can trust Him to know what He's doing. Use that advice in your present concern for us. Be at peace and content yourself with that, at least. He is a living God, not a dead concept of human belief and [[wishful thinking]].
:Right now, it's August. I'll "pop-in" again in November. I wish you well in your studies. ''Pax vobis''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:32, 4 August 2020 (EDT)

::Thank you very much for replying, Dataclarifier! I understand your concerns with not wanting to converse on any talk pages here; I posted this section here after simply being too pessimistic earlier today wondering if I may never be able to get in contact with you again, especially after I had finished a load of tedious work and was becoming very lonely with a life I couldn't exactly enjoy much for the past while now. I initially wanted to tell you something important, but I suspect that doing so will get me blocked by one of the anti-Catholic editors on this site ([https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALiberaltears see block log here]). God Bless, and I hope your eyesight may be restored fully if not so already! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 19:12, 4 August 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears. My email address is on my [https://onepeterfive.com/author/nxavier/ One Peter Five page]. Anyone who wishes can also follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/Xavier_DMercy Are you on Twitter? If so, we can catch up there. Or else if you have any other platform to remain in touch, I'm all ears. I'm happy D/C and I/S will pop in from time to time. I'm happy to meet the people and team here and I hope we all stay in touch. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 02:05, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:Hi NishantXavier, I unfortunately don't have a Twitter account. I don't know if I'll be able to find a good way to send you an email, if anytime soon at all. By the way, did you notice that I was blocked by Shobson20 over the past two weeks? The previous block has been lifted though. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 11:04, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
::Didn't he put, ''Go and sin no more'' in the edit summary? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:29, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Hi Liberal Tears, I'm sorry to hear that. I can vouch that you have made many important edits. However, I also hope we can all agree to no public criticism of moderators. If we have a disagreement, it may be best to take it up with the individual in private. I think that's the best way that CP will work for all. Anyway, I've been away for a bit myself. Just coming back. Hope we can all work together constructively and peaceably in future. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:05, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Awesome to see that you're back, NishantXavier, and thanks for replying! About the disputes with Shobson20 a few weeks ago, the good news is that the tension has mostly evaporated after we had found common ground in disdain for a series of server errors here on CP as well as combating vandals. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 01:44, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

Awesome to hear that, Liberal Tears. Peace and Grace and God's Blessings be upon you and upon all of us here at CP. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:47, 22 August 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 01:53, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate Page on Holy Communion - is it literally the Body and Blood of Christ, or just a bare empty symbolic reminder==

Debate Page at: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Holy_Communion_the_True_Body_and_Precious_Blood_of_Jesus_Christ#1_Cor_11:23-30_To_partake_unworthily_is_to_become_guilty_of_the_Blood_of_Christ._Impossible_if_symbolic

Three Texts from Our Lord Jesus and St. Paul are considered. More later. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 03:45, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

== Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical? ==

Is there anything you can contribute to this debate? [[Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?]] I've contributed what I could. Is there more you could add? Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:05, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

Apologies to all. I've been away, busy in other things. I hope to get back to posting more on Conservapedia in the days to come. I'll take a look at the debate. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:03, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

All right, Data Clarifier. I posted a brief section in the above debate. It is so clear to us. Unfortunately, our separated brethren need some help in seeing it. But it is plain in the Scriptures that we can fall from Grace through mortal sin, and be restored back by Confession of sins. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:27, 22 August 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you. I just set up another Debate page for others to participate in. For myself and IndependentSkeptic, we just don't have the energy any more. Just take a look at it, but don't get involved unless you really feel you should. We feel we shouldn't be obligating our friends in any way–it's just not fair. The title of the debate already implies the only possible answer.
:*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
:Peace be with you. We are well, just feeling old. I still lift light dumbbells for exercise. My mother is 93 and amazingly alert. She says, "Just don't say that "O" word. ("Old"). Stay safe buddy. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:25, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:By the way, already a hot angry response has appeared on the Debate page and its Talk page. Do you know why some metal wires get hotter than others? ''Resistance''. John 3:19-21. The more they resist the hotter they get. The truth can really burn. They need compassion, and they need the truth, even if it seems harsh as Jesus had compassion on the Sadducees and scribes and Pharisees by warning them of the truth of their hypocrisy and of God's forgiveness and mercy and judgment and wrath. We need to do as you have been doing, and persistently, and calmly, and unapologetically, always give a reason for the hope we have in the integrity of Christ and the holy scriptures. Sad that it makes them angry, but it can have a salutary effect on sinners to call them back from the error of their way if they are seeking truly to do the will of the Father. James 5:19-20; Matthew 7:21-23. Peace be with you. Amen. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate Page on Confession: Is Confession of Sins required for the Forgiveness of Sins==

Page Here: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_Confession_of_Sins_required_for_the_Forgiveness_of_Sins

User:LT/mail

2020-08-27T03:00:45Z

Dataclarifier: /* Dataclarifier update: new Debate page */

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-27T02:50:36Z

Dataclarifier: /* Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical */

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

:Note to reader: see definition of '''[[Spam#In internet culture|"Spam"]]'''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:10, 26 August 2020 (EDT) See [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=1677787&oldid=1677784 '''Diff''' (excess spam removed)] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:21, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Romans 6:14 "ye are not under law" is referring to the "law of Moses". All of Paul's references to "the law" in his writings are references to "the law of Moses". He is not saying "ye are not under authority". Compare Romans 13:1-2; 1 Timothy 4:11; 5:17; Titus 3:1. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:42, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::That's an old Catholic canard. In fact, most of your arguments are old Catholic canards that I've heard a thousand times before. But Romans 2:21-23 refers to stealing and committing adultery. These are aspects of the moral law (Which Jesus re-asserts), not just the ceremonial law. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 10:10, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::God wants people to love and serve him, and love and serve their fellow creatures cause they want to, not cause they are commanded to, or because he has authority. The way Dataclarifier pitches Catholic "authority" sounds exactly like what [[Christopher Hitchens]] calls "a celestial North Korea". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:37, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Law of Moses = Law of God. Is there any other law that parallels or supersedes "the law?" God says the Christian is not under God's law. PERIOD. If you cannot understand this, you are a carnally minded, walking in the flesh, under law, and destined for hell. PERIOD. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:43, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Proposition: When you co-operate with grace, it makes you worthy, but not meriting in place of grace, and you can't merit salvation without grace. True or false? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 10:53, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::I accidently wrote an amphiboly here. I was a little confused, but I didn't have any hidden meaning nor was it central to anything. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 14:02, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::You can't merit grace at all. It's a standing offer. You have a choice to either accept it or ignore it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::But if we make ourselves subject to righteousness, won't we win the crown of righteousness?

::::::I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish; I have kept the faith; all there is to come now is the crown of righteousness reserved for me, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give to me on that Day; and not only to me but to all those who have longed for his Appearing.—(2 Timothy 4:6-8)

:::::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 12:03, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Yes, exactly ''Now the righteousness of God is revealed'' - Romans 3:21. Cut n pasted from the Scofield notes:
{{quotebox|"The righteousness of God is neither an attribute of God, not the changed character of the believer, '''but Christ Himself''', who fully met in our stead and behalf every demand of the law, and who is, but the act of God called imputation Lev 25:50 Jas 2:23, "made unto us . . righteousness" 1Cor 1:30.

"The believer in Christ is now, by grace, shrouded under so complete and blessed a righteousness that the law from Mt. Sinai can find neither fault nor diminution therein. This is that which is called the righteousness of God by faith."--Bunyan. 2Cor 5:21 Rom 4:6 10:4 Phil 3:9 Rom 3:26}}
::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Isaiah 28 - more context===
Perhaps looking at Isaiah chapter 28 will give more context. Verses 1 and what immediately follows puts its finger on pride as the problem. These were the people whose carcasses ''did not'' fall in the wilderness, and entered in. Verse 12 revisits how the word not mixed with faith is what gave them law rather than grace. Then we have a section on the futility of the law (v.13; see also Paul, ''the law was unto me death''), how it cannot save or make one righteous before God. Finally we arrive at the situation of Israel then, and the Roman Catholic church now in verse 15: ''ye have said with hell are we in agreement''. And ultimately the famous prophecy of verse 16, which the "author of confusion" (another title of Satan) has used to blind people's eyes.

{{quotebox|28 '''Woe to the crown of pride''', to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!

2 Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.

3 The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet:

4 And the glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be a fading flower, and as the hasty fruit before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up.

5 In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,

6 And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.

7 But '''they also have erred''' through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; '''they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.'''

8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, '''This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: ''yet they would not hear.'''''

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

15 Because ye have said, '''We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:'''

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.}}
*Verse 15: ''We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:''
:Verse 15 is the position of those who chose law over grace.

*Verse 16: The foundation stone of Roman church doctrine rejects this offer of grace and salvation in verse 16; ''he that believeth shall not make haste'', translated, "stop spinning your wheels with redundant spam." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:44, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank my talk page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A1&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''Titus 3:1'''] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A9-11&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''3:9-11''']--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A4-5&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE 1 Peter 2:4-5]). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::Wow...that's big of you! You lowered the bar so much when you lied to Andy and acted suspiciously like you (and "Xavier") three times were scheming to impale RobS on one of the horns of a hidden dilemma, that simply saying you don't agree with RobS, which was true before the debate was even proposed, seems like a major concession!

::::::::::::Did you ever admit that those things even happened? No, I guess you passed them by without acknowledgement! And certainly without apology. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 06:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::An explanation is still needed for how the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen. Jesus is God Who cannot lie. The antagonist position has not addressed this. I suggest that this issue of the claim of the Reformation that the Catholic Church became Antichrist and the claim of a [[Great Apostasy]] be debated: [[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:54, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Side note===
I use Microsoft 10 with the Edge browser, which has a Read Aloud function. This, together with darkening the screen, is a tremendous ease on your eyes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:I have been using Read aloud from the tools function as appearing on my screen when I click the tools function (mine is three dots top right … ). Currently it is Ctrl + Shift + U. It keeps changing. It used to end with + F, more recently + V. IndependentSkeptic recommended on the article page of his Introduction to Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) audio version the function Ctrl + Shift + F, then revised it to + V, then gave up, recommending use of whatever the reader's computer tools function offers. Other Users have made the same suggestion to me on my talk page. All have been appreciated. God bless you all, open your hearts, and bring you to everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

User:LT/mail

2020-08-27T02:42:25Z

Dataclarifier: revision of placement of my edit - moved it to the bottom of the page

User:LT/mail

2020-08-27T02:33:14Z

Dataclarifier: /* Post your message below */

<div style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

=== Please read this ===
The editor using the [[User:Liberaltears]] will be checking this message area. You can leave a message in the message area below.

If you want to provide feedback concerning content created using the User: Liberaltears account at Conservapedia, please use the talk pages of the respective articles.

If you need assistance sooner, there is a list of Conservapedia administrators [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop HERE]
</div>
 

__TOC__

Hi Liberal Tears. I saw the page: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_Senate_predictions. Let me know if you would like to collaborate on similar predictions for the presidential election - state by state, we can look at the best polls and simulate electoral college totals.

God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:03, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

:That does sound like a great idea! Do you want to start the page for the presidential election predictions by state? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:14, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

I'd love to, LT. Though I'm not sure what would be the right title? Shall I call it, "Conservapedia:Unofficial 2020 Presidential election predictions"? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:25, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

:That's a great suggestion, and I would personally remove the capitalization for "Presidential". --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:29, 14 May 2020 (EDT)
:Also, since the presidential election is technically one election divided in 51 (fifty states plus DC), I would remove the "s" from "predictions". --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 15:31, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

Great! It's done: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_presidential_election_predictions this is going to be an exciting project! I hope it's good to start off with. If we need to make any editions, and for future additions, I hope we can make it there. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:35, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

== Post your message below ==
Liberaltears, I set up your talk page in a way that will prevent vandalism to your talk page and I locked it.

You can see what I did at: [[User talk:Liberaltears]].

If you didn't like what I did, you can get an admin to revert it.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:33, 7 May 2020 (EDT)

Liberal Tears, I'm going to create a Table (first in Excel, then later, if it is good, we'll add it to the article) with Columns "State, Electoral college votes, 2016 result, 2016 popular vote tally, projected 2020 result, projected 2020 popular vote tally". Do you think that is workable? If you have an email id, I will share it with you on Excel when it is done. And if you like it, I will make the table here in the article. Thoughts? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 15:45, 14 May 2020 (EDT)
:Sorry for not responding earlier. So I'm not exactly sure about having it shared to me via Excel, do you think you can mention your thoughts on the project talk page? --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User talk:Liberaltears|Your reminder that Biden committed quid pro joe]]''''' 23:19, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

No worries. I'll post it there when it's done. God Bless [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:15, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:Alright. And God bless you too! --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 11:19, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi. Can you take a look at the page? I got popular vote, electoral vote data for 2016 for all 50 states. I just filled in for 10 states. Do you want me to fill for the remaining forty? I believe the final tally was 307-230. So once 2016 is done, we'll do for 2020 similarly based on projections. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 13:53, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
:I saw your edits, and they seem great! About the remaining forty, I may perhaps do some, as my focus is largely on the Senate elections. Unfortunately, I have some other problems at the moment, and it may be harder to do as much CP editing as I usually do as of right now. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 14:02, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hey, thanks for the quick reply. Glad you like it; I can finish the 50, no problem, if that's cool with you. I have all the data on my computer. You can edit it afterward for any corrections. For the next 50, the 2020 predictions, when you're free next time, we can put our heads together. Based on the cumulative polling, we can arrive at the closest projections possible, drawn from the latest data. Thanks for all your efforts, I've seen many of the great articles you've authored or edited for Conservapedia. The election can be so close, you never know. A Presidential election may be won by a single state. Then think how glad we'll be on Nov. 3rd for all our efforts! Similarly a single seat more in the senate may give us the key vote necessary for very important legislation. Our liberal friends will weep, and we will laugh, when it comes to that! [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 14:14, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi again LT. Have you any thoughts or data on how we can estimate likely numbers of the electorate in each state? Last time it was close to 140 Million, this time they say it'll be over 155 million nationwide. I'll finish filling in some of the college votes for states in some time. Since most are winner take all, that's relatively easier to project, at least in states where there is a clear majority. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 12:38, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, I dunno much about estimating the hard numbers. I'm not entirely sure where to gather the data on voter registration, and I tend to focus more on the general likeliness of certain states to vote either [[Republican]] or [[Democrat]] based on the incumbent officeholders, their popularity, enthusiasm, etc, their opponent(s), as well as trends and polling. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 13:43, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

No worries. I'm sure we'll get there in the end. We have 5 1/2 months to spur interest and hopefully have an impact on voter turnout. I think turnout will be key for Repbulicans this time. I'll be adding a bit more to the article from time to time. This is a liberal site, but it mentions the likely increase in turnout in 2020: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/2020-election-voter-turnout-could-be-record-breaking/591607/ Some 10 million voters voted for a third party candidate who had no chance of winning. We should try to discourage that by emphasizing that that is foolish. If Trump wins anything like 80 million votes overall, I'm sure he will pull through successfully. Dems are worried many new voters will vote for him.

One possible method of proceeding would be seeing what polls were saying last election around this time. If they indicated roughly the same numbers we see now, and the ratio of voters in the state was e.g. 60% Trump, we can estimate it will be around the same. The net increase in voting population for each state will have to be factored in. Those are just some preliminary thoughts to proceed, we'll figure out the number-crunching as we go on. God bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 14:00, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Hello again. Made three important changes thus far, on California, Texas and Ohio. Also computed provisional totals with Trump at 74 and Biden at 55 (California) with 7 states computed so far. Arizona is still uncertain, and is a toss-up as you mentioned in the comment. We'll get down to more exact predictions later on, combining everything from support, enthusiasm, expectation etc. Let's try to fill the easier states with clearer outcomes first. I'll be continuing and let you know if anything in particular comes up or I have any question. Hope you are well. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:52, 17 May 2020 (EDT)

Hello Liberal Tears. Hope you are well. Been busy with other things for a while, but just updated the numbers for Oklahoma, not based on a poll, but based on the massive enthusiasm for the Trump Rally there. I think Trump will carry the state with great ease, especially in light of 2016 numbers. Also, I was thinking - it's estimated there will be a 10% increase in turnout overall in 2020, close to around 150 million votes overall. So, as a beginning strategy for estimating numbers in each and every state, do you think starting out with 10% increases on 2016 numbers for both candidates would be a good way to begin? If you agree, please let me know. I can do it on Excel and will copy it to Conservapedia after that. God Bless.

By way of example, if Trump got 1 million votes and Clinton 400 K in a state, we will project, if all else is same, Trump 1.1 M and Biden as 440 K. Progressive adjustments will be made to the number after that, in light of new data, if polling or enthusiasm etc suggsts it is required.[[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 22:38, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

:Good analysis, NishantXavier! In regards to your question about voter turnout, I suppose adding 10% is a good place to start, though I don't know too much about projecting such. To make good predictions on that, I would really attention to primary turnout numbers, as I've mentioned in an example [[Talk:Main_Page#Two_important_highlights...|here]]. By the way, can you also see if you can add any good analyses to [[Conservapedia:Unofficial 2020 Senate predictions|this prediction page]] as well if you have time? While there are certain things I can catch up on right now, I don't exactly have the sufficient time to add major updates yet, and it may take two weeks before I finish up some annoying tasks I'm occupied with currently. Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 22:59, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

Hi again Liberal Tears. I changed the 1 million thing since it didn't materialize; it was a liberal prank. Anyway, analyzing the primaries is a great suggestion. Would you happen to have primary information in a readily accessible source? I will definitely take a look, and try to improve, the predictions for the Senate elections too when I have time. I'm closely following the Senate races and as we know they were very important for the Supreme Court. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 00:31, 22 June 2020 (EDT)

:For all primary election information this year, I recommend using [https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/ this (browse to the bottom of the page for state by state)], although I should note the only problem is that no hard number of votes are given for unopposed candidates. Also, about the Senate races, here are five quick "pop quiz"-style questions if you want to answer them for fun:

# Which Democrat-held seat is nearly guaranteed to flip?
# Why might [[John Hickenlooper]] lose the upcoming [[Democrat]] primary in vying to challenge [[Cory Gardner]]?
# Why is [[Steve Daines]]' seat vulnerable despite running for re-election in a solid red state?
# Who are the mainstream Democrats cheering on to challenge [[Mitch McConnell]]?
# Should current polling with low sample sizes be absolutely trusted? (Hint: they were wrong in 2016)

:—[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 00:59, 22 June 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears. I've completed 13 States and plan to do about 2-3 states daily. So I should be finished in another 12-18 days if I keep up to that; maybe by the end of the month. The polls are a little tricky for some of the reasons you mention. I think rally size in the state and "enthusiasm" of voters recorded in the polls may be better gauges. For e.g. there is a huge enthusiasm gap between Trump and Biden in some states. Anyway, I plan to have delegates for all 50 states awarded based on projections by Aug 3 so we have 3 months to see how it pans out. Arriving at final numbers for each state will be a little more difficult; but I will begin with adding 10% and then use some of the suggestions you mentioned as well. We'll see how that goes. That should be done by next month end. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:30, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
:Okay, thank you NishantXavier! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 12:23, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Hello again Liberal Tears. Congratulations to you on all your hard work for Conservapedia, and for being promoted! You truly deserve it! I really pray for great things for Conservapedia in the years to come, that OUr Good Lord Jesus will use this Encyclopedia mightily for His Cause, to promote the Gospel and the Conservative worldview, throughout the world.

Anyway, just wanted to congratulate you, and to note that, since I also can now use the other time as well, I should be able to complete 5 states a day. So in about 5-6 days now (quite the increase from the 12-18 earlier!) I should be completing all 50 states, and then we can discuss further on the improvements you suggested and any change of delegates as well.

Hope all is well.
In Jesus and Mary,
Nishant Xavier. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:41, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

:Thanks NishantXavier, and congratulations in regards to your promotion as well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 01:45, 10 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears! Btw, I completed 30 states! So it looks like we're ahead of schedule. I should be able to do 40 tomorrow, and complete it the day after that. So we were thinking of Aug 3rd, but now it'll be done by July 13th. That's good. I wanted to ask your opinion on the Arizona poll. It sounds like good news. Do you think it suggests President Trump has a solid ground game in the state? Poll: https://d2pggiv3o55wnc.cloudfront.net/oann/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Arizona-OANN-June-28-2020-v3.pdf [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:23, 11 July 2020 (EDT)
:Hi NishantXavier, nice job on your work for the predictions! And thanks for reminding me about that Gravis/[[OANN]] poll, I'm thinking about potentially doing an essay on thoroughly analyzing it sometime. I've seen most of the data there, and I unfortunately have some high suspicions due to the low sample size, high margin of error at ±4.3%, and under-sampling of 2016 Hillary voters. However, I think there were several parts they probably got right; for one, the 2016 [[Gary Johnson]] voters may be more inclined to vote for Trump this year. Also, some interesting side notes:

:*if Republicans are doing this well with Asian voters, then no wonder the Democrats are panicking and resorting to desperate race-baiting tactics amidst the [[CCP pandemic]], such as whining over jokes like "kung flu"
:*If McSally actually wins a majority of the black vote, it will become much harder for Kelly to win the general election
:*unlike what liberals are spewing in mocking the poll simply because they see "OANN", the latter group only paid for it to be conducted by Gravis Marketing
:*there is a chance that Sen. McSally may lose the Republican primary in early August because her opponent there is telling voters that she's somehow a swampy [[establishment]] "RINO"

:—[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 11:51, 11 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears, thanks for the feedback. As an Asian who has worked for American companies, I know many Indian-Americans who support Trump. "President Trump is incredibly grateful for the widespread support he has received from the people of India and from millions of Indian-Americans across the United States. https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-is-grateful-for-indian-americans-support-white-house-309041 I think most Americans of whatever background are attracted by the proposition of Making America Great Again and not attracted by the opposition's policies.

I'm at 34 states now, hope to finish 40 by end of today. Can I ask, how is the Senate election predictions coming along? Are there 33 Senate seats up for election this year, if I recall right?

Also, another thing, I want to start a Project Page for Conservapedia's own "Project 100 Million" i.e. websites dedicated to winning 100 million souls for Christ over the next decade. Network 211, on which Conservapedia has reported, has one such plan. But we have had more page visits than they do! If they can do it, then we can and will too! [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:14, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

With 50 state results, and 33 Senate seats, let's aim to get at least 80% correct results! We'll then have some 65 entries for Conservapedia proven right! Will be difficult, as that is a high target, but it can be done. Let's get to work and be motivated to complete this, rejoicing on election day when the race is over, and the results turn out well by God's Grace. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:34, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

:Hi NishantXavier, I unfortunately will not be able to get to any updates on the Senate/House elections until I get out of the way some tedious work I currently have to be occupied with in my life. I already got one rather annoying part done, and there are two parts left that I need to finish. That's why for now, I have mostly worked on some other topics throughout [[CP]] here and also went on talk pages somewhat too much. I know that there's obviously the Senate election in [[Colorado]] that I need to update since it's now after the primary, as well as primaries for House elections in many states. If you have the time right now, do you suppose you could add updates for the unofficial Senate predictions page [[Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_Senate_predictions|here]]? It's fine if you don't, it's just that right now hasn't been the best time for me to get to those. Also, about the number of Senate elections, there are 33 normal elections and two special elections (one in [[Arizona]] and one in [[Georgia]]). Thank you and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 11:35, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears. I've finished 46 out of 50 states. Trump is winning 325 to 188 XD. So that's awesome. I just have to complete a few others. 2 are liberal states. I'll complete them today or tomorrow. So we have ample time after that. I finished 4 or 5 of the Senate seats. Do you think we should try to predict the primary winner; I believe Susan Collins' opponent will be decided on 14th. For two others, I have. I'll have to think about this and decide whether to do so or not on this third later. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks and God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 00:24, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

:So for Maine in the Democrat primary, the party establishment has hand-picked [[Sara Gideon]], so she's most likely going to win by a large margin over the other candidates. When it comes to primaries for the Senate elections, it's important to remember that the two big ones to watch for are the ones for Alabama (which is tomorrow, and will decide whether Sessions or Tuberville is the nominee to face Doug Jones) and Arizona; for the latter, I made [[Talk:Main_Page#McSally_primary_challenger|this relevant post here]], which unforunately no one else responded to. Hope this helps, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 00:52, 14 July 2020 (EDT

Right, LT. One other thing. Can you tell me how to add a user box, "this user has more than 500 edits. I tried adding yours, but I think it automatically took the number 2500 instead of 500. Does every 500 have a different userbox or will the same suffice? [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 08:46, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

:Sorry for not responding to this sooner. So with the way I used that userbox, you start with <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|</nowiki></code>. Then enter in the word for the color you want the left cell to be. So if you want a gray color like I did for the one on my user page, then add <code><nowiki>gray|</nowiki></code>, and you should now have <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|</nowiki></code>. Next, specify the color you want for the right cell. Assuming that you want it to be white as I did for mine, it should now look like this: <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|white|</nowiki></code>. Next, add in the text you want to appear on the left side, add another vertical bar (no space needed), and finally add in the text you want to appear on the right side. So it seems that you want your userbox to be <code><nowiki>{{Userbox|gray|white|500+|This user has made over 500 edits to [[Conservapedia]].}}</nowiki></code> Hope this helps NishantXavier! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 14:31, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears. I added it as 750. Thanks for your help on all this. I also saw the improvements to the Senate election predictions page. Looks great. I'm almost done with the presidential election, just some finishing touches remain. Then we can really get down to analyzing both the mainstream media projection and arrive at Conservapedia's own projection for each state in the presidential and senate election races. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 17:40, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
:Alright, awesome! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 17:46, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

All 50 states done in presidential election! Please review and see if anything needs to be added. Senate elections are next. We should be done in 3 to 4 days for those as well. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 05:01, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
:Alright, I just reviewed what you did for the presidential election predictions by state, and they seem great! I would note that Nevada and New Hampshire have a strong chance of favoring Trump this time around; Trump only barely lost New Hampshire in 2016, and with Republican [[Chris Sununu]] being the governor of the state and holding a high popularity there, that could potentially carry Trump over the finish line. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 10:43, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

Evening "LT" (sounds like military casual nickname for "lieutenant"!). Thanks for your prayers. I just set up another Debate page for others to participate in. For myself and IndependentSkeptic, we just don't have the energy any more. Just take a look at it, but don't get involved unless you really feel you should. We feel we shouldn't be obligating our friends in any way–it's just not fair. The title of the debate already implies the only possible answer.
:*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
Peace be with you. We are well, just feeling old. I still lift light dumbbells for exercise. My mother is 93 and amazingly alert. She says, "Just don't say that "O" word. ("Old"). Stay safe buddy. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:33, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

== Project 150 Million Souls for Christ the King in the next 10 to 15 years ==

Hi Liberal Tears. On Conservapedia, we now have a project: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King dedicated to sharing our testimonies for Christ our King. We would like thousands of people to sign up on Conservapedia and share their testimony - it can be a brief testimony, however long or short; from a few sentences to several paragraphs - and it would be great if longstanding members could give their support to this project. Andy approved of the project and asked me to create the page, as I did. Could you help us? The Bible tells us the day is coming one day when every knee will bow and acknowledge Jesus as King. And Christ Our Lord also tells us that everyone who confesses Him before men, He Himself will confess before His Father in heaven, so that we will be saved, because Jesus our Advocate pleads for us. Kindly consider giving your testimony. Thank you. In Our Lord Jesus, Nishant X. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 07:20, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
:Hi NishantXavier, I added my story [[Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King#Liberaltears.27_story|here]]. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 12:23, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS!! Really, I'm so grateful to you, Liberal Tears, and I'm sure Our Lord Jesus is as well. May Our Good Lord amply and richly reward you for your courageous testimony for Him, with every abundant blessing in this life, and with life everlasting in the world to come in eternity. God Bless you. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 17:42, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

:You're welcome, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]]''''' 17:46, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thanks for reverting the latest string of rubbish. I was again distracted, and slow on the draw. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:53, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

:Yep, no problem! I just went one by one, clicked on the "View history" for all the vandalized pages, found the revisions just prior to being vandalized by the troll, and simply published those. --[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|Just say no to quid pro joe!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Free Roger Stone!]]''''' 18:10, 20 May 2020 (EDT)

==That Catholic vs Protestant argument on the talk pages is OVER==
All discussions have been properly moved to the [[https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Does_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F|debate page]]. The discussion has calmed down and become more orderly. You're the one who keeps picking at scabs. I stopped talking about getting night editing rights when Andy finally responded, you're the one who keeps bringing it up, let it go already. Stop playing the victim, the Catholics have done just as much pushing and have been just as argumentative, and so have you, stop playing innocent. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 16:47, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

==Dataclarifier does a kamikaze dive==
Jesus said, ''Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.'' DC thinks it's Peter. So, no. Knowledge and understanding are still two different things. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 01:24, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:Are you still going to try rebuking Dataclarifier? Your harshness towards him at times probably didn't do much good, and I can't help but wonder if you ever used the same sleazy strawman tactics against him as you did towards me. Now there's a possibility he may never come back, and I may as well just be sad, lonely, and depressed for the rest of my life.
:And here's something I don't believe I've ever fully mentioned before: I stumbled upon this site around over a year ago, thought it was really cool, and wanted to participate. Then fast forward to when 1990'sguy pretty much left early this year, and I thought that I ought to try editing much more where I could. As I did more and more, I realized that this was the best thing giving me a sense of meaning in a life I was getting more and more miserable in. After trying to understand the disputes between you and Dataclarifier, I felt that he might've been treated unfairly and harshly, especially noticing your harshness at times. After NishantXavier was engaging in discussions, especially after he posted a link on his user page to a [[OnePeterFive]] webpage, I saw the increasing contempt some editors here had for him over strongly Catholic viewpoints. And after going through a pathetic while in the past few weeks, I hope everyone else is satisfied; I'm certainly not. I'll still stay on this site to contribute good content, but I'll be more inclined to just be a sad and bitter guy from now on. I've dealt with more nonsense than I could handle at all over the past few years, and I'm now probably hitting a long-term low point in life. If you profess to be a Christian, then I hope you can try to understand some of my problems; not many in my life were sympathetic, unfortunately. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 01:44, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:Oh, and just in case, please don't issue a block over this. I'm now always becoming apprehensive on whether I'll get blocked or not over certain comments some assistant sysops may not like. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 01:50, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::My harshness? Everytime I cited the Bible, he told me I'm going to hell. Get your facts straight. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:04, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::I think you have trouble with the English language. You have made the claim, no less than 4 or 5 times, that people "selectively" use the Bible to condemn pedophilia. If there is support for pedophilia within the Bible, I think you need to ante up those scriptures, or just plain shut up and stop making stupid, spurious accusations. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:10, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Alright, I should've specified when you were harsh (asides from disputes with Dataclarifier). I remember one time you threatened to delete one of Progressingamerica's pages (finding the exact diff will be hard, since it was a few months ago), calling it "bull" and something along the lines of commie propaganda. And there was [[Talk:DIAN|this time]] as well when you initially marked one of my pages for a speedy deletion before I explained my points clearly. Can you please quit being extremely uncivil and using strawman attacks? As I've said, I might be hitting a long-term low point in life, and the last thing I need to read on my mail page is a repetition of the same smear you used. Since you profess to be a Christian, I'm puzzled (or perhaps maybe not) at your choosing of engaging in attacks over showing the type of compassion that God would want to see more of in this world. It's frankly sad to see so many editors here throw me under the bus for defending myself against lies; I don't know if I should even be surprised or not, as so many have betrayed me in my life. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 11:50, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Well, duh. Are your criticizing negotiation and consultation now? Do prefer unilateral action without consultation? Posting comments and consulting with others is kinda how the process works, sheesh.

::::As you reach this low point, remember, the ''Lord is nigh unto them who are of a broken heart'' (Ps 34:18). ''A broken heart thou wilt not despise'' (Psalm 51:17, easy to remember 17x3=51). God has guaranteed he will not reject us when everyone else has. It is our pride - original sin - that inhibits repentance. This is the problem with Roman Catholic doctrine, it teaches your pride was washed away with infant baptism. I know, I've been there. Me and all my brothers, as well. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:54, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::God didn't reject me before? Prior to this month, here's basically what happened in my life: I had tedious nonsense to deal with, and was really losing my long-term patience. Every time I just wanted to take a real break, it felt like I was getting cursed with short-term bad luck (like accidentally knocking down my pencil sharpener and creating a mess on the floor); it seemed to me as if I was supposed to just "gag and get it done" when I could barely think straight. The reason I would lose my long-term patience was because, growing up, I had always maintained some sense of objective-based integrity, and that was really tested in middle school as well as early high school. If you didn't grow up in an era filled with profanity and pornography glamorized as part of "maturity", then consider yourself much, much more luckier than I was. After losing good friends from elementary school because of how out-of-touch and nasty they got and seeing what had happened to peers as they became more cold-hearted and deceptive really had broke me on the inside. Realizing the self-recognizable nature of objective morality and that it comes to people's minds as they move from barbaric animal instincts to rational, civilized thinking was what eventually brought me from atheism to Christianity, but there's still a long way. And while some things in my life may strongly point towards it, I don't know how much God has done to reach out towards me. Too many times I've felt all alone, too many times being only able to rely on what I can salvage of the last bit of courage left in myself. I'm sorry if I sound selfish saying all this, given so many in the world who live far worse than I do. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Thursday, 12:19, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

::::You need to stand on the rock of Christ. God says, ''Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock.'' That was DC's problem, he insisted the rock was a man - Peter, not Jesus Christ. God is not the author of confusion. He has not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, love, and a sound mind. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:58, 6 August 2020 (EDT)

==You are invited to continue our sharing the Gospel of Salvation==
Dataclarifier evidently found our discussion ''a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense'' (1 Peter 2:8) and removed it. [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&curid=160561&diff=0&oldid=1675214] We can continue it here if you like. [[User_talk:RobSmith#The_Gospel_of_Salvation]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:16, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

==Reply==
Hi, in response to earlier, I can only say that I don't know exactly how it works. For the most part, it just does. There may be some specific way in which it goes, but it has not been clearly disclosed in any detail. So all I can say is that it generally works itself out eventually. Once in awhile though, the process seems to just stop for some. I can't say why for sure, although typically I have my suspicions for each case. I don't think timing has much to do with it, but perhaps a little in some cases. --[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:25, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:Thank you for replying, DavidB4! It just seems to me that some are vastly luckier than others, which ends up being a disappointment for those who work hard but aren't noticed as much. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 16:55, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

User talk:NishantXavier

2020-08-27T02:25:12Z

Dataclarifier: /* Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical? */

{{greeting
|username=DavidB4
|sig=--[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 16:46, 16 April 2020 (EDT)
}}

__TOC__

[[User talk:NishantXavier/Archive 1|User talk:NishantXavier Archive 1]]

== Please keep the Catholic/Protestant issues on debate pages and encyclopedia articles ==

Gentelemen, please keep the Catholic/Protestant conflicts on civil debate pages using well-organized debate pages. Have your arguments on those pages be as logical and well-supported as possible.

Please have encyclopedia articles dealing with Protestant/Catholic/Eastern Orthodox issues be as objective as possible. And please have their talk pages be as constructive as possible.

NishantXavier, please have your debate pages have a "Yes" section and a "No" section. Please see my reformatting of your latest debate page at: [[Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:34, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

:All right. I will. - NishantXavier

::NishantXavier, please indent your dialogues with other users using colons and remember to sign all of your comments. I have noticed that I have had to indent your comments using colons because you did not due this. Thanks.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:50, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

:::Ok. I missed to do it above. I did it now. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 10:55, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

::All this excludes me cause I'm not interested in church debates. I want neutral scriptural debates. Still waiting for these knowledgeable purveyors of God's truth to engage at [[Debate: Explain the apparent inconsistency between Ex. 33:11 and Jn. 1:18]] to establish their ''bona fides'' and authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:56, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:::RobS, you can make your scriptural arguments on debate pages. You can put scriptural resources/arguments on Conservapedia's Christianity encylopedia pages (and have the talk pages of those articles be as constructive as possible).

:::Please keep the conflict off of NishantXavier's talk page.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

::::I'm being baited into being a called an "anti-Catholic zealot" or bigot. Discussing church, rather than bible, only facilities such a set up. Bible discussions are neutral. While someone may cite a Catholic or Protestant scholar as the basis for their personal understanding of a scripture, the focus remains on illuminating scripture verses itself, and not needless emotional attachments to institutions. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:21, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
If your successfully being baited, there is one sure way to end this problem. Stop allowing yourself to be baited. Ultimately, you choose what to respond to and what not to respond to.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:24, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:In the meantime, please try to stay off of NishantXavier's talk page and instead direct your efforts to creating debates pages and creating encyclopedia content.

:Websites with strong web traffic have quality, user friendly content that is well-organized.

:Search engines rarely give top rankings to wiki User talk pages. Why? Because they are typically a mismash of various topics and tend to be less informative. Conservapedia could use more search engine traffic. Creating debate pages and creating encyclopedia content will do that.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:31, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Moving your announcement of your Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025 article ==

I moved your announcement of your creation of "[[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025|Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]]" to its talk page.

The article you created lacked a [[Eastern Orthodox]] view of the event so I added this view to the article.

You know there is tension between you and RobSmith which is something I am attempting to tamp down.

Please stop using your talk page in a manner that is bound to increase the temperature of the aforementioned conflict. You must know that using your talk page to promote the Catholic view of the primacy of the Catholic Church is not going to decrease the conflict, but increase it. Thank you.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:Feel free to create a debate page about the [[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]] issue if you wish to debate non-Catholics about this matter. You can do so here: [[Debate: Will there be a Third Ecumenical Nicene Council in 2025?]] (see my commments below) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

::I did some initial investigation of this proposed gathering in Nicea in 2025.

::Even a Jesuit website indicates: "The Vatican has not issued a formal statement on the patriarch’s revelation, presumably because it emerged in a private conversation between him and the pope. But, pressed for clarification by journalists, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., described Bartholomew’s idea as “very beautiful and significant”; he presented it as an agreement “to hold a joint commemoration of the first ecumenical council held in Nicea in 325 AD.” He recalled that Bartholomew was the first to propose the idea for the recent meeting in Jerusalem commemorating the historic encounter Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI in 1964. He emphasized, however, that the patriarch actually spoke about “a gathering” at Nicea, and did not characterize it as an ecumenical council."[https://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/nicea-ecumenical-council-not-likely]

::The National Catholic Reporter indicated in 2014: "Vatican: Too early to confirm 2025 Orthodox-Catholic summit".[https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-too-early-confirm-2025-orthodox-catholic-summit]

::In a 2014 article entitled ''Nicea III in 2025'', the American Catholic journal Commonweal indicates: "The exact nature of the planned meeting at Nicea (now Iznik, Turkey) is not known. But how could it be, over a decade in the future?"[https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/nicea-iii-2025]

::So it seems to me that the Catholic Church has not yet determined what the nature of the potential 2025 meeting will be. We don't even know if the meeting will occur.

::In light of the above, I moved the article to essay space.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:::It is now at: [[Essay: Third Ecumenical Nicene Council 2025]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:20, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

All right. Essay format is fine. And I know there is some uncertainty about the format, but Fr. Mark White and others, as was mentioned, are convinced it will be a Third Nicene Council. At any rate, it will certainly be an ecumenical gathering to which all Christians are invited to commemorate Nicaea. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 21:02, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:In the future, you have to separate what you want to be true, from what is a fact. I know you want there to be a meeting and you want it to be ecumenical, but there is no certainty that either will happen.

:Remember, encyclopedias are meant to deal mainly with facts and not opinions. And when encyclopedias do endeavor to document opinions of various parties, they clearly state they are the opinions of a certain party or parties. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:57, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

All right. I tried to give the perspectives of various persons on the upcoming events. Some, like Fr. White more recently, consider it a Council; others, like Fr. Lombardi, said in 2014 that it was yet unsure what kind of meeting it would be. I read the updated essay. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 23:53, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Inviting Collaboration for articles on Popes; and on Christianity in every country ==

Non-debate topic. There have been about 266 Popes from [[Saint Peter]] and [[Pope Linus]] through [[Pope Benedict XVI]] and [[Pope Francis]]. I believe only about 10 to 20 articles so far have been created for these 266 men. So that means the scope and future potential of over 200+ future articles remains. I invite collaboration on this matter from all interested conservative posters here at Conservapedia, Catholic and non-Cath alike.

Or if someone prefers, there are over 200 countries in the world. 205. The Christianity by Country Category has just over 10 countries: https://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Christianity_by_Country So again there is scope here for research on nearly 200 future articles. Again, I invite all interested collaborators, Catholic or non-Catholic, as well as Christian or even conservative non-Christian, to work on this one. We can keep track of Global Christianity. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 21:10, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

== Links to the current ongoing debates: On Existence of Purgatory, on Church Authority etc ==

Existence of Purgatory: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_there_a_Purgatory_before_Judgment_Day
Christ's Church Authority: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Does_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F

== Greatest Evangelists of the 20th Century: Pope John Paul II, Abp. Sheen, Billy Graham, Reinhard Bonnke ==

I want to do an Article or Essay on the Greatest Evangelists of the 20th century, whether Catholic or Evangelical. [[Fulton Sheen|Abp. Sheen]] and [[Billy Graham]], who were also good friends, are two obvious names. [[Pope John Paul II]] and [[Reinhard Bonnke]] were two other great Evangelists for Christianity. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 06:33, 27 July 2020 (EDT.

== Quick note about your request to give my Christian testimony ==

:I did as you requested in terms of giving my Christian testimony. It is at: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King#User:_Conservative.27s_testimony

:Sincerely, User: Conservative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:32, 2 August 2020 (EDT)

Wow, Thanks a Lot, Conservative! I just read it, it looks really great! Thank you. Heaven rejoices when anyone of us gives our testimony for Christ our King!

About your life journey, I also liked Josh McDowell's general apologetics for Christianity. If you're interested specifically in Bible Prophesy, you may like this article: https://www.conservapedia.com/Prophesies_Fulfilled_by_Christ I added a list of about 25 specific prophesies, showing they were fulfilled only in Jesus Christ Our Lord and God, the Promised Jewish Messiah: '''"Some probability estimations'''

If we assume there is a 0.0001 (0.01%) chance or probability of a person fulfilling one of these prophesies by accident, what would be the probability that that person could fulfill all these prophesies? It would be at least (1/10^4)^25=1/10^100 i.e. 0.00[99 zeros]1. This incredibly low number would be the likelihood that one born in Bethlehem could be worshiped as God in every Gentile country, that one born of a Virgin would be recognized as Light of the Nations, that one born of the House of David would be God in the Flesh, that the Son of Man would be served by all tribes, that He could offer His Life as a Ransom or Sacrifice for many, and Institute a Perpetual Priesthood with a Perpetual Offering of this Mystical Sacrifice, and so on. The probability, or certainty, that He Who did this is truly God and the Messiah is = 1-(1/10^100) = (almost) 1. In other words, it is virtually certain.

https://www.conservapedia.com/Prophesies_Fulfilled_by_Christ

== Question ==

Hi NishantXavier, I've got an important question. Since I unfortunately haven't set up an email for my CP account, I can't send an email to any other users who have done so. Can you see if you can contact either Dataclarifier or IndependentSkeptic? While I definitely pray for them every day, I'd really hope to be able to stay in touch with them (at least from time to time) in some way to make sure that everything's okay for them (seeing as IndependentSkeptic specified his fourth most previous edit as his last one). Thanks! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 12:34, 4 August 2020 (EDT)
:Our whole household has just settled down for our mid-afternoon "retirement" naps, so before I did, I looked in on NishantXavier's page, and saw your Question. I believe no email can be sent to me from CP. As far as I remember, I never set up an accessible email for my own CP account, unless submitting my email address was originally a privacy-protected requirement of CP for legitimacy at the time I first created my account; I don't remember. At the beginning of my involvement with CP I encountered about a hundred Captcha challenges over a period of about 3 months before finally my edits were taken as a sign of legitimate activity in good faith on CP, and my contributions of created articles were later welcomed by Andy Schlafly as valuable. But that beginning was over 7 years ago. My own computer tech, a friend who helped me set up my home station, advised me 14 years ago never to divulge my email address to any public-access online site as protection against both troll harassment and vicious hacking, and to never use my computer for banking and filing personal important data; and I also a few years ago discovered online a tip on how to constantly change my IP address:
::turn off your computer, disconnect the modem, unplug from the power source or turn off the power-strip (surge-protector) for 25 minutes, then plug-in/turn on the power, reconnect the modem, turn on the computer, and when the screen comes up, do a restart: the IP address that appears when you log on to the same or another site will be completely different.
::Only the region of the country or the city you post from will be traceable by ordinary means. Hackers will be a different animal. That's why some form of firewall and malicious edit protection from malware, spyware, computer viruses, etc. is imperative.
:I too have an important request. Please: don't use NishantXavier's talk page as a ready chat room for contact with me and IndependentSkeptic (and my elderly mother, 93). He was recently asked by another user to ask me for a response, and he honestly said he couldn't, since I was unavailable. Now you know why. (By the way, FYI, my name is Michael Paul Heart: IndependentSkeptic's name is Delwayne Royd Mullin.)
:I will "pop-in", as he put it, about every 3 months to look at this page. I appreciate your concern, Liberaltears, and yours, NishantXavier. We all do. Meanwhile, I suggest you both do what Father Nelo Leto said to me in 1985 about my concern for my former New Age acquaintances: pray for them, and let the Holy Spirit deal with them, and leave it at that: you can trust Him to know what He's doing. Use that advice in your present concern for us. Be at peace and content yourself with that, at least. He is a living God, not a dead concept of human belief and [[wishful thinking]].
:Right now, it's August. I'll "pop-in" again in November. I wish you well in your studies. ''Pax vobis''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:32, 4 August 2020 (EDT)

::Thank you very much for replying, Dataclarifier! I understand your concerns with not wanting to converse on any talk pages here; I posted this section here after simply being too pessimistic earlier today wondering if I may never be able to get in contact with you again, especially after I had finished a load of tedious work and was becoming very lonely with a life I couldn't exactly enjoy much for the past while now. I initially wanted to tell you something important, but I suspect that doing so will get me blocked by one of the anti-Catholic editors on this site ([https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALiberaltears see block log here]). God Bless, and I hope your eyesight may be restored fully if not so already! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 19:12, 4 August 2020 (EDT)

Hi Liberal Tears. My email address is on my [https://onepeterfive.com/author/nxavier/ One Peter Five page]. Anyone who wishes can also follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/Xavier_DMercy Are you on Twitter? If so, we can catch up there. Or else if you have any other platform to remain in touch, I'm all ears. I'm happy D/C and I/S will pop in from time to time. I'm happy to meet the people and team here and I hope we all stay in touch. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 02:05, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:Hi NishantXavier, I unfortunately don't have a Twitter account. I don't know if I'll be able to find a good way to send you an email, if anytime soon at all. By the way, did you notice that I was blocked by Shobson20 over the past two weeks? The previous block has been lifted though. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Wednesday, 11:04, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
::Didn't he put, ''Go and sin no more'' in the edit summary? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:29, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Hi Liberal Tears, I'm sorry to hear that. I can vouch that you have made many important edits. However, I also hope we can all agree to no public criticism of moderators. If we have a disagreement, it may be best to take it up with the individual in private. I think that's the best way that CP will work for all. Anyway, I've been away for a bit myself. Just coming back. Hope we can all work together constructively and peaceably in future. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:05, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Awesome to see that you're back, NishantXavier, and thanks for replying! About the disputes with Shobson20 a few weeks ago, the good news is that the tension has mostly evaporated after we had found common ground in disdain for a series of server errors here on CP as well as combating vandals. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 01:44, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

Awesome to hear that, Liberal Tears. Peace and Grace and God's Blessings be upon you and upon all of us here at CP. God Bless. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:47, 22 August 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you, and God Bless! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Saturday, 01:53, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate Page on Holy Communion - is it literally the Body and Blood of Christ, or just a bare empty symbolic reminder==

Debate Page at: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Holy_Communion_the_True_Body_and_Precious_Blood_of_Jesus_Christ#1_Cor_11:23-30_To_partake_unworthily_is_to_become_guilty_of_the_Blood_of_Christ._Impossible_if_symbolic

Three Texts from Our Lord Jesus and St. Paul are considered. More later. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 03:45, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

== Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical? ==

Is there anything you can contribute to this debate? [[Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?]] I've contributed what I could. Is there more you could add? Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:05, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

Apologies to all. I've been away, busy in other things. I hope to get back to posting more on Conservapedia in the days to come. I'll take a look at the debate. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:03, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

All right, Data Clarifier. I posted a brief section in the above debate. It is so clear to us. Unfortunately, our separated brethren need some help in seeing it. But it is plain in the Scriptures that we can fall from Grace through mortal sin, and be restored back by Confession of sins. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 01:27, 22 August 2020 (EDT)
:Thank you. I just set up another Debate page for others to participate in. For myself and IndependentSkeptic, we just don't have the energy any more. Just take a look at it, but don't get involved unless you really feel you should. We feel we shouldn't be obligating our friends in any way–it's just not fair. The title of the debate already implies the only possible answer.
:*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
:Peace be with you. We are well, just feeling old. I still lift light dumbbells for exercise. My mother is 93 and amazingly alert. She says, "Just don't say that "O" word. ("Old"). Stay safe buddy. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:25, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate Page on Confession: Is Confession of Sins required for the Forgiveness of Sins==

Page Here: https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_Is_Confession_of_Sins_required_for_the_Forgiveness_of_Sins

Debate:Is Holy Communion the True Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ

2020-08-27T01:35:54Z

Dataclarifier: /* See also */ added link to Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

This page is to debate the question (Q) Is Holy Communion the True Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ? The possible answers are (1) Yes, Holy Communion or the Holy Eucharistic (Greek for Thanksgiving) Sacrifice is indeed a Memorial Offering and is truly Communion with the Holy Body and Real Blood of Jesus Christ Our Lord and God, our King and Savior. And (2) No, Holy Communion is only a symbolic reminder, or the Last Supper is only symbolic.

== Yes, Holy Communion is the True Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ==

===User:Nishant Xavier===

====Jn 6:48-58 Our Lord is the Living Bread. His Flesh is True Food. His Blood is True Drink. ====

Our Lord Jesus plainly enough declares that (1) He is the Living Bread Who came down from Heaven (2) That He will give His Flesh to eat as the Life of the World (3) That unless we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood we have no life in us (4) That whoever eats His Flesh will have everlasting Life.

'''Jn 6:48:''' ''I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the Living Bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the Bread that I will give is My Flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us His Flesh to eat?''

''53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My Blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.''

====1 Cor 10:16-18 The Bread and Chalice which is Blessed is Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ ====

St. Paul the Apostle plainly teaches that the Bread that is blessed is the Communion of the Body of Christ. In like manner, the Chalice of Blessing that is blessing is the Communion of the Blood of Christ. St. Paul the Apostle makes the comparison, do not they who eat of the Sacrifices partake of the Altar in Israel? For they eat the flesh of the lambs and thereby partake of the sacrifice. We eat the Flesh of Christ, the Lamb of God, and thereby partake of His Paschal Sacrifice. There is no Supper without Sacrifice. We partake of His Body and His Blood because He sacrificed It for us.

'''1 Cor 10:16''' ''The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?''

====1 Cor 11:23-30 To partake unworthily is to become guilty of the Blood of Christ. Impossible if symbolic ====

St. Paul the Apostle once more reiterates that (1) Holy Communion is the True Body and Blood of Christ, as proved by the Words of Institution. Our Lord did not say "This is a bare and empty symbol of my body", but rather "This is My Body" and "This is the Chalice of My Blood". (2) St. Paul says those who drink unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (literally: of slaying Jesus and being responsible for His Blood). This is simply impossible if Holy Communion is only a symbol, and proves infallibly that it is literally the real Body and real Blood of Jesus Christ Our Lord. (3) St. Paul says a man must examine his conscience before eating and drinking. That is why Catholics have Confession before Communion. (4) St. Paul says whoever eats without discerning the Lord's Body eats unworthily. This proves that eating without faith in the Real Presence is unworthy. We must discern the Lord's Body literally means we must recognize the Lord's True Body is set before us, and not recognizing it is a grave sin (5) St. Paul mentions that several of the Corinthians are sick and have been subject to chastisement by the Lord because they did not observe all this rightly.

'''1 Cor 11:23''' ''For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.''

''27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.''

== No, Holy Communion is only a symbolic reminder ==
===User:RobSmith===
To receive communion in the Roman Catholic church, one must be in a "state of grace". Here the sin, confession, absolution, communion, wash, rinse, repeat cycle is doctrine. Grace is meted out in short measure. The scripture says however,
*'''Romans 5:17''' - ''For if by one man's offence [Adam] death reigned by one; much more '''they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.'''''
When we pass from death to life - ''born again''<ref>John 3:3</ref> - we have received an ''abundance of grace''. We don't need to be "refueled", so to speak.

''Christ died once for all''.<ref>1 Peter 3:18</ref> He separated us from our sins ''as far as he east is from the west.''<ref>Psalm 103:12</ref> ''If any man sin we have an advocate with the Father.''<ref>1 John 2:1</ref> We don't need to pay the last farthing cause ''Christ has made us free from the law of sin and death''.<ref>Romans 8:2</ref> We have been resurrected from death to life.<ref>John 5:4. Note, Jesus is speaking in the present tense, and not of a future event after death of the flesh.</ref> We don't need an intermediary to grant us absolution in the confessional booth to "restore us to grace" because we have direct access into the Holy of Holies through our Advocate with the Father. This is the ''abundance of grace'' we have already received and now possess ''in Christ''.

Grace is not meted out bit-by-bit at "the box and the rail".<ref>The confessional booth and the communion railing</ref>

====My body is meat indeed====
*'''John 6:53,55''' - ''Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you....55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.''
*'''John 6:60''' - ''This is an hard saying; who can hear it?''
:Hebrews chapter 10 is one place this doctrine is expounded. Excerpted:
{{quotebox|4 '''''For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.''' 5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.....10 By the which will '''we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever,''' sat down on the right hand of God;....14 For '''by one offering he hath perfected for ever''' them that are sanctified....18 Now '''where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;...'''''}}
*'''John 6:63''' - ''It is the spirit that quickeneth [gives life]; '''the flesh profiteth nothing''': the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.''

:Comment: ''the flesh profiteth nothing'' cancels out ''my body is meat indeed'' ("meat" as understood by the carnal mind). Jesus is simply saying that his body and blood is an acceptable sacrifice to God for the sins of the world. We of course know how this all ends, with Christ's body and blood being offered as an acceptable sacrifice; the hearers and followers when he spoke this had no idea what he was talking about. Hence their confusion.

====1 Cor. 10 - ''behold Israel after the flesh''====
Above we have from the protagonists an extensive reading from John 6:48-58 addressed to ''Israel after the flesh'', and leaves out the spiritual context Jesus applies from verses 60-64. This is quite common in Roman Catholic doctrine, and more evidence of their Pharisaical tradition. Again, in 1 Corinthians 10 Paul clearly is speaking of examples (verse 6), examples which some of our Catholic brethren have struggled with in these Debates, for example, ''Was the gospel preached to Israel in the wilderness?'' which is clearly corroborated, again in the opening verses:
{{quotebox|''Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were '''all baptized''' unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did '''all eat the same spiritual meat;''' 4 And did '''all drink the same spiritual drink:''' for '''they drank of that spiritual Rock''' that followed them: '''and that Rock was Christ.'''''<ref>1 Cor. 10:1-4</ref>}}
A ''spiritual Rock''. Hmmm, elsewhere Roman protagonists argue that spiritual rock is not Christ, but Peter.
*'''Verse 6''' - ''Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.''
*'''Verse 9''' - ''Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.''
More evidence the gospel was preached to Israel in the wilderness and Christ was with them.''
*'''Verse 11''' - ''Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.''

Again, '''''examples'''''. Why was Israel overthrown in the wilderness? Because they did not mix the word with faith.

*'''Verse 15''' - ''I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.''

*'''Pr. 9:10''' - ''The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.''
*'''1 Cor. 1:19''' - ''I will destroy the wisdom of the wise [carnal wisdom], and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.''
*'''1 Cor. 2:12-14''' - ''Now '''we have received''', not the spirit of the world, but '''the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given''' to us of God. '''Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth,''' but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. '''But the natural man''' [carnal mind] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
*'''1 Cor. 3:19''' - ''For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.''
*'''James 1:5''' - ''If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.''

[[Transubstantiation]] lacks the wisdom of God, and is based upon the wisdom or understanding of men. It is wholly the teaching of the natural man and carnal mind that has not experienced the new birth or spiritual birth, and new life in Christ.

====''unworthily''====
Fortunately for carnal believers, there may be a loophole. Christ says, ''Do this in memory of me''. He doesn't say, "Do this to restore you to a 'state of grace' until the metabolic processes expel out into the draught my presence".

I would encourage students to study the ordinances of the [[Passover]] (''when I see the blood I will pass over'').

==See also==
*[[Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?‎‎]]
*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
*[[Debate: Does the Magisterium have authority over the Bible, or does the Bible have authority over the Magisterium?‎‎]]
*[[Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day‎‎]]
*[[Debate: Infant baptism]]
*[[Debate: Explain the apparent inconsistency between Ex. 33:11 and Jn. 1:18]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Debate]]

Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day

2020-08-27T01:34:41Z

This debate page is to explore the questions (1) is there a Purgatory? (2) what does the Bible mean when it speaks of those who are saved through fire? (3) what does the Bible mean when it speaks of a spiritual prison, from which souls were delivered, and out of which they do not go till they pay the last farthing? <ref>https://onepeterfive.com/purgatory-saved-fire/</ref>

Since the Bible says, "Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God." (Heb 12:14) and "There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb." (Rev 21:27), we know that (1) we are to pursue and peace and especially holiness, or sanctity, without striving for which no one will see the Lord and (2) that anything defiled, however little, cannot enter the Kingdom of God without being purified first. In light of 1 Cor 3:15, Catholics believe that those who neglected Baptism and Confession in this life, good works and penance, who did not suffer well for love of God, will need to go through Purgatory.

__TOC__

== Yes. There is a purgatory ==

=== User:NishantXavier ===

==== The First Proof: Direct Proof from 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 ====

1 Corinthians 3 is perhaps the most direct proof in Sacred Scripture of purgatorial fire and merits. According to Catholic doctrine, bad works are penalized by God: bad Christians, whose works are burned up, will therefore suffer loss and be saved only through fire. This is Purgatory and their bad works or sins are why Purgatory is necessary. This doctrine is plainly taught by St. Paul the Apostle.

1 Cor 3:[13] Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. [14] If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

What could possibly be clearer? The bad Christian is saved only through fire because of his bad works. The good Christian receives a reward from the Lord on that Day because of his good works. This text clearly shows that good works done with faith in Christ are necessary post-justification and contribute to the soul’s sanctification. If performed, they entitle us by God’s Grace to a heavenly reward, because God is so Good. But if neglected, they demand punishment, because God is Holy.

St. Basil the Great teaches: “I think that the noble athletes of God, who have wrestled all their lives with the invisible enemies, after they have escaped all of their persecutions and have come to the end of life, are examined by the prince of this world; and if they are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained. If, however they are found unwounded and without stain, they are, as unconquered, brought by Christ into their rest.” <ref>[Homilies on the Psalms 7:2]</ref>

==== The Second Proof: The Prison of Spirits St. Peter speaks of: ====

St. Peter the Apostle twice proves Purgatory when he speaks of a mysterious Prison of Spirits, in which the Gospel was preached, and from which souls can be delivered. Now, this cannot refer to Heaven, for Heaven is not a Prison. But neither on the other hand can it refer to Hell, for there is no deliverance from Hell. It necessarily follows therefore that this constitutes proof of some third intermediate state between Heaven and Hell, which Holy Mother Church aptly calls as Purgatory.

1 Pet 3:[18] “Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, [19] In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:” and “1 Pet 4:[6] For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit.

Bp. Challoner justly comments on 1 Pet 3:19, “See here a proof of a third place, or middle state of souls: for these spirits in prison, to whom Christ went to preach, after his death, were not in heaven; nor yet in the hell of the damned: because heaven is no prison: and Christ did not go to preach to the damned.”

==== The Third Proof: The Lord Jesus mentions the same Prison: ====

Mat 5: [23] If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; [24] Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. [25] Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison [26] Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

St. Cyprian eloquently argues based on this prison, "It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord.” <ref>[Letter 51]</ref>

Tertullian interprets: “Now the friendly understanding you will have to carry out must arise from your observance of the contract: you must never think of getting back any of the things which you have abjured, and have restored to him, lest he should summon you as a fraudulent man, and a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge (for in this light do we read of him, in another passage, as ‘the accuser of the brethren,’ or saints, where reference is made to the actual practice of legal prosecution); and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation?” <ref>A Treatise on the Soul, 35</ref>

Once more: a prison from which souls can be delivered is neither Heaven nor Hell proper. But a spiritual prison from which prisoners depart when they have paid the last farthing is precisely such an imprisonment in an intermediate state.

==== The Fourth Proof: Our Lord speaks of lesser stripes in punishment: ====

Luk 12:[46] “The lord of that servant will come in the day that he hopeth not, and at the hour that he knoweth not, and shall separate him, and shall appoint him his portion with unbelievers. [47] And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. [48] But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.”

This follows the Old Testament requirement:

Deut 25:[2] And if they see that the offender be worthy of stripes: they shall lay him down, and shall cause him to be beaten before them. According to the measure of the sin shall the measure also of the stripes be:

Now, those who are beaten eternally have their lot with the unbelievers. But those who sinned in ignorance will deserve less stripes i.e. non-eternal or only temporal punishment. Hence, it follows that these souls will ultimately be liberated.

St. Augustine persuasively states: “But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come.” <ref>(City of God 21:13)</ref>

Another related proof comes from Our Lord saying that some sins are forgiven in this world, while implying some others could be forgiven in the world to come. (Mat 12:32). As the Catholic Encyclopedia shows, St. Augustine was one to make this argument. And Pope St. Gregory, the Great Dialogist, was another. We will quote the latter here. To the question “Whether there be any Fire of Purgatory in the next life”, the Saintly Pope answers in the affirmative, saying, “we must believe that before the day of judgment there is a Purgatory fire for certain small sins: because our Saviour saith, that he which speaketh blasphemy against the holy Ghost, that it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.66 Out of which sentence we learn, that some sins are forgiven in this world, and some other may be pardoned in the next: for that which is denied concerning one sin, is consequently understood to be granted touching some other. But yet this, as I said, we have not to believe but only concerning little and very small sins, as, for example, daily idle talk, immoderate laughter, negligence in the care of our family (which kind of offences scarce can they avoid, that know in what sort sin is to be shunned), ignorant errors in matters of no great weight: all which sins be punished after death, if men procured not pardon and remission for them in their lifetime” <ref>Dialogues, Book 4, Chapter 39: Whether there be any Purgatory etc?</ref>

==== The Fifth Proof: St. Paul prays for his departed Christian friend Onesiphorus: ====

St. Paul offers a final simple proof: “The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain:” [2 Tim 1:16]. Now, it is manifest in the text, and not infrequently admitted even by Protestant commentators, that Onesiphorus was a departed Christian, whose works of mercy St. Paul calls to mind.

St. Thomas admirably argues: “Now there is no need to pray for the dead who are in heaven, for they are in no need; nor again for those who are in hell, because they cannot be loosed from sins.”<ref>https://www.newadvent.org/summa/7001.htm</ref> This magnificent proof of St. Thomas is a final proof of Purgatory.

St. Chrysostom comments: “Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf.” <ref>[St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Phillipians, 3.]</ref>

There are other Biblical references to "spirits of the just made perfect" (Heb 12:23) which implies they undergo a process of purification to become perfect. There is also a reference in the Doctrine of Christ to His having made "purgation of sins" after His Death, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high." (Heb 1:3). If Our Lord made purgation of sins, then there is a Purgatory where these sins were purged by Him. Again, in Jn 15:2, it is said the Father purges every branch in Christ that bears fruit, that it may bear more fruit: "Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." (Jn 15:2). Branches who die are purged by God in Purgatory.

==== Conclusion: Purgatory is Real. Good News, you can avoid it! ====

When Our Lord spoke of His Sacred Body and Precious Blood being offered up for the “remission of sins”, the promised remission applies in an exemplary manner to the Church Suffering, the faithful departed. Holy Mass exceeds by far the sacrifices of the old law and more wondrously liberates the suffering souls in Purgatory. Many who could never have been liberated by the sacrifices of the righteous Maccabees, even if those sacrifices had been offered till the end of time, already have been or will be liberated according to the plan of God before the end of time. How grateful then we should be to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to offer! How blessed to know there is a Purgatory! They who do not believe in Purgatory have no good hope of escaping it. Those of us who believe and confess that there is a Purgatory can easily, if we co-operate with God’s Grace, avoid going there.

God and Mary have revealed, with Church Approval, a [https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/ Life Offering]. Jesus and Mary have promised all who offer their lives, all their Masses and Communions, good works, prayers and sacrifices, to Jesus and Mary, for the salvation of souls, that they can avoid Purgatory and go straight to Heaven.

==== Addendum: Bible verses on heavenly reward for good works ====

'''Rom 2:7''' ''"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11For there is no respect of persons with God."''

'''2 Pet 1:5''' ''"And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."''

'''Rev 2:9''' ''"I know thy works...10...be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. 11He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."''

'''Rev 2:16''' ''"Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. 17He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it."''

'''Rev 2:26''' ''"And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. 28And I will give him the morning star. 29He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."''

The passage in Heb 10:26-31 cited by Vargas Milan and discussed by Rob Smith is further evidence that "if one sins willfully after having received the knowledge of the Truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins". This shows sins committed after conversion are punished more severely by God. Sometimes they are punished in this life, and sometimes, if not undergone in this life, that penalty for sin will have to be undergone in Purgatory. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 10:47, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

One can easily avoid Purgatory if one frequently goes for Confession and frequently receives the Precious Blood that washes sins in Holy Communion. If one doesn't do these two things, one cannot avoid Purgatory. There is Grace upon Grace for those who love God and keep His Commandments in His Church. If people separate and want to do their own thing, then it's going to be very difficult for them, in light of all the above verses, to avoid Purgatory.

==== 2 Maccabees clearly teaches Purgatory and sacrifices for the departed ====

'''2 Macc 12:[43]''': ''And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, [44] (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) [45] And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. [46] It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.''
:All this is refuted in the dialogue between God and Satan in the Book of Job. Satan tells God that the only reason Job serves God is cause God is paying Job with blessings. Satan insults God and tells him Job is God's paid prostitute. That's what you are doing here by quoting Maccabees. And it gets worse. God is fairly clear - not only can he not be bought, he can't be bargained with either. Salvation is on God's terms.
:*"sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead,"
:Your works are filthy rags. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:16, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

Praying for the departed is good and holy and pious and righteous. If you don't pray for the departed, after knowing you should, you commit sin. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 22:29, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

This is why, when Our Lord instituted the Perpetual Sacrifice of His Body and His Blood as the everlasting Memorial Sacrifice for the remission of sins, He said, '''Mat 26:[26]''': ''"And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."'' thus leaving the Sacrifice of His Body and His Blood to His Church as an everlasting memorial Sacrifice to be offered for the remission of the sins of all, including the departed, who ''"had great grace laid up for them"'' but still nevertheless needed the remission of sins, for we ''"pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins".''

St. Paul prays for Onesiphorus personally to find Mercy from the Lord on Judgment Day: "[16] The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: [17] But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. [18] The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest." [2 Tim 1:16-18] [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 22:30, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:It doesn't say he's dead. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:52, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

=== Independent Skeptic ===
(''The following text was moved here by Conservative from its context on NishantXavier's talk page''.) Those in purgatory are present with the Lord, but in justice they are temporarily deprived of the [[Beatific vision]], and their grief at not ''fully'' choosing to please him by their works (Rom 2:6-11) torments them like fire as all their imperfections like wood, hay, or chaff are burned but they themselves are saved (1 Cor 3:15), because Christ died for their sins and by the power of his blood in the fire of his love commands they be purified, as the church teaches "the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire" (Matt 3:12). Jesus commanded, "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches" "Obey the elders". You say "Don't listen to the church" "Don't listen to what the Spirit says to the churches" "Don't obey the elders" "Don't listen to the traditions". Paul himself commands keeping the oral and written traditions and to '''''keep away''''' from any brother who is not in accord with the tradition delivered (2 Thes 2:15; 3:6). The tradition includes what scripture commands: "Listen to the church" "Listen to what the Spirit says to the churches" "Obey the elders who watch over your souls". It '''''doesn't''''' say they will live impeccable, sinless lives (1 John 1:8-10). NishantXavier and Dataclarifier focused on God and his word with lots of scripture supporting the authority of the church and the church doctrine of purgatory that purifies the church. You insist they don't know the scriptures. You say I don't know what the church is. The Church is the '''one''' body of Christ, "which he purchased with his blood" "and "gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be '''holy''' and without blemish", as "the pillar and foundation of the truth", with one Head ''and'' one shepherd to "feed his sheep" with guardians the Holy Spirit has made to feed the church of God which he purchased with his own blood, leading into all truth forever (John 14:16-17; 16:12-13). "'''''Everyone''''' will be salted with '''fire'''" (Mark 9:49). "Those who went out, were not of us." (antichrist) 1 John 2:18-19. You clearly persist in denying what scripture says. It is clearly evident who gave you authority to contradict the scriptures and the church and the words of Christ. You won't even listen to Conservative. He said to do your debating on the debate pages (see below [''on NishantXavier's talk page'']), and you still persist in doing it here [''on NishantXavier's talk page'']. If any one deserves to be blocked, it's you, for your defiance and your rejection of his reasonable counsel as a brother Christian, and your clearly evident incivility and violation of Conservapedia ethics and standards of reasonable editing. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 02:27, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
:Don't try to flush away Rob's spiritual victories with a torrent of personal attacks just because it affects you. Are we supposed to feel sorry for you and grant you moral supremacy simply because you convey a sense of anger? How do we know, even if we assume it's real and not an imposture designed to give yourself an advantage in being persuasive, your anger is not in actuality the consequence of self-inflicted acts and not really Rob's actions at all? How do we know it doesn't follow from bad faith and instead of wanting to marshal your abilities to solve a spiritual problem, you resent having to recast your arguments in the light of contrary evidence and so only do it in a half-hearted way as if to say you're immune to responsibility for that sort of labor?

:And since RobS can do it well, couldn't we assume further and suppose that you are mocking the usefulness of Rob's ability by the inversion of not only not organizing your explanations around the relative importance of its ideas, but in actuality not even around ideas at all, but instead around the delivery of personal attacks under the silly premise that RobS somehow presents a unique threat? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 13:29, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

Don't be taken in by the teaching that once you are saved you will never be punished for sin (Once Saved Always Saved). The Bible says Christian believers are rebuked and chastised and punished. Don't be taken in by the teaching that salvation by the blood of Christ is falsely invalidated by the chastisements of God inflicted by him for their good on those who are in fact undeniably saved by faith in him through the sacrifice of Christ once for all. You need to look at the Bible's teaching that Christians saved by the blood of Christ are painfully rebuked, chastised, and actually punished for sins committed after justification, to correct their course during life and to purify them in justice after death, but that they are also '''''not''''' condemned to the everlasting punishment of hell (and after hell, the lake of fire Rev. 20:14-15).

Purging (purgation, purification) by fire is mentioned in the Bible, while ''sola scriptura'' by scripture alone is never mentioned. Verses accepted by both Protestants and Catholics include:
*'''Malachi 3:3''' he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver (''by fire'')
*'''Zechariah 13:8-9''' I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried (''by fire''): they shall call me by name, and I will hear them.
*'''Revelation 21:27''' nothing unclean shall enter it (''heaven'')...but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.
I hope that no one believes that anyone dies clean of all faults. That's a fantasy. "Lord cleanse me from my hidden faults" '''Psalm 19:12'''. How can you confess real faults you are unaware of, faults that really do offend God? Purgation is a ''process'' of cleansing those who are already eternally saved before they are finally allowed to enter heaven. —''Article'' [https://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/purgatory-is-not-in-the-bible/ '''Purgatory is not in the Bible! Answers to Common Objections VI, seriation''', by Scott Eric Alt - ''To Give a Defence'' (patheos.com)]
*'''1 Peter 4:12-19''' Do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you...For it is time for judgment to begin with God's household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?" So then, those who suffer according to God's will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.
*'''Hebrews 12:1-2''' My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens/chastises everyone he accepts as his son. Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live!
*'''Romans 8:18-28''' We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. —''Article'' [https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-pain/ '''Bible Verses About Pain''', by BibleStudy Tools Staff (biblestudytools.com)]
Look at '''1 Corinthians 3:15''' again (saved as by fire), and '''2 Timothy 2:21''' If anyone purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.

Sin has consequences, even when we repent and are forgiven for these sins. Look at
*'''Hebrews 12:6''' (the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every one whom he receives) and '''Proverbs 3:11-12''' (My son, do not despise the LORD's discipline or be weary of his reproof , for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights) and '''2 Samuel 12:13-14''' Then David exclaimed to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord!" Nathan replied to David, "Yes, and the Lord has forgiven you your sin. You are not going to die. Nonetheless..." David was punished, the "man after God's own heart".
God does forgive our sins when we repent of them and confess them to him. But this does not mean that there are no painful consequences for our sins. —''Article'' [https://bible.org/question/im-little-confused-about-hebrew-126-what-does-it-mean-when-it-says-lord-will-punish-yet-als '''I'm a little confused about Hebrew 12:6. What does it mean when it says "the Lord will punish", yet also, "when you ask for foregiveness it is forgotten"? (bible.org/question)]

I want to add:
*'''1 Corinthians 11:27-32''' That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened/chastised so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
*The case of the young man who chopped off his own hand to impress his gang with his reckless courage and forceful resolve to instill in them fear of his brutality while he was on drugs, and afterward became a Christian and repented with all his heart, contradicts the error that the Blood of Christ removes all residual temporal punishment for sin. He was forgiven his sins and truly saved from hell, but he still suffered the consequences of the folly of the sin of chopping off his own hand for the rest of his life.
*'''Romans 8:1''' There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. It is God who purifies, as he says in '''John 15:2''' Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
The Bible itself teaches that there is a fire that saves that is not of hell but of his love, that God painfully reproves, rebukes, chastises and punishes those whom he loves, those who are eternally saved by the blood of Christ, so that nothing unclean will enter heaven, and, freed of every stain remaining of the consequence of their sins, they will forever rejoice in God's mercy and forgiveness by the blood of Christ. The purifying punishment of purgatory does not cancel the saving blood of Christ but purifies "those who are (being) perfected" (Greek New Testament) precisely '''''because''''' of their faith in the saving blood of Christ which delivered them from the wrath of God that condemns unrepentant sinners and the ungodly to the punishment of eternal hell and the lake of fire. God purges and purifies them '''''because''''' of the sacrifice of Christ, without whom there is no forgiveness of sins. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:18, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

:And you have one more discrepancy: If baptism "now saves you", why is it later after purgatory? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:31, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
::Minor ''post''-baptismal ''venial'' sins (committed after baptism) that have not been confessed are mercifully purged away through the precious blood of Christ by our God, "a consuming fire" '''Deuteronomy 4:24-31; Hebrews 10:29'''. The Christian is thus "saved, yet as by fire". Major ''post''-baptismal ''mortal'' sins (committed after baptism) that have not been confessed before death condemn the soul to hell and then to the lake of fire. There are sins not unto death, and there are sins unto death '''1 John 5:14-17'''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 07:18, 31 July 2020 (EDT) See '''1 John 1:9''' (''context verses'' 7-10) "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us ''our'' sins, and to '''cleanse us from all unrighteousness'''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 07:28, 31 July 2020 (EDT) '''Mortal sins''' are (1) '''major''' evil acts or omissions (2) committed with knowledge and '''awareness''' of their evil at the moment they are committed (3) '''without any coercion or compulsion either internal or external'''. If any one of these three factors is missing the sin is not mortal (deadly) but venial (not deadly). This is based on what the Bible says in '''1 John 5:14-17''', ''which includes the [[intercession]] of Christians for those who sin, that they might have life.'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 08:00, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

::*"8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: ''it is'' the gift of God: "9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. "10 For we are his workmanship, '''created in Christ Jesus unto <big><big>good works</big></big> which God hath before ordained that <big><big>we should walk in them</big></big>.''' Ephesians 2:8-10
::*"'''Therefore to him that <big><big>knoweth</big></big> to do good, and doeth ''it'' not, to him it is sin'''." James 4:17 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 08:48, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
::*"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and '''<big><big>not by faith alone</big></big>'''." James 2:24. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:08, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

::::You need to make the whole Word your [[mantra]], not just one or two verses, like '''''gates of hell''''' or '''''Thou art Peter'''''. You sound like Elizabeth Clare Prophet ([https://youtu.be/pDBgbUmMt3o beginning at 2:22]) but I suspect you're too lazy to perform the work (necessary as you say for salvation) of getting God's Word inside you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:35, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, NishantXavier and IndependentSkeptic and I have cited ''more'' than "just one or two verses" on this page, as anybody with eyes to see can see. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:41, 31 July 2020
::::::Everytime we get into the Bible, and God's Word raises specific points that conflict with ''your'' doctrine, you blow a fuse, cannot respond, and fall back on the '''''gates of hell''''' mantra. Prior to a week ago, it was your '''''Thou art Peter and upon this rock''''' mantra. Then it was an '''''authority''''' mantra. Months ago it was '''''baptism saves you now''''' mantra and a '''''go forth baptizing''''' mantra.
::::::I asked from day one, What is salvation? What is the grace of God? What is the Gospel of Grace? You've never shown any interest in these subjects, which presumably you'd have to know before you "go forth baptizing". Instead, all you preach is a gospel of wrath and excommunication for not accepting the "authority" of men, rather than God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:10, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::(EDT) '''And''' we have the whole Word in all 73 books of the Bible, in the Eucharist, in the Church, in the Holy Spirit in the Magisterium leading into all truth for ever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:46, 31 July 2020 (EDT) '''The very fact''' that we have so easily cited such an abundance of scripture here demonstrating the truth of this doctrine of salvation and the truth of the invincible authority of the Church established by God shows that we have got God's Word inside us. No beginner could have done this. We are conversant with the Word, the whole Word. We love the Bible. The Bible is why we are Catholic. The Bible testifies to the Church as the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:57, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::There is one more issue that probably needs its own subhead, and that is, you cannot hide behind Roman church doctrine. It is your doctrine now, having swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:22, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::My own mother, who joined the Catholic Church after me, reminded me that when a couple at the Senior Center, who were staunchly anti-catholic—and condemned her for being Catholic—that when they said to her, "All those Catholic monks ever did was sit in their cells", she said to them, "If it wasn't for those "''Catholic monks''" copying the scriptures for centuries, you wouldn't even ''have'' a Bible." She said they had nothing to say, and they never criticized her for being Catholic again. I strongly recommend a book I read when I was wondering if the Catholic Church might be the one: [http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm "'''''Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church''''', by the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham"]. The author pointed out that if the Church had wanted to get rid of the Bible by destroying all copies and manuscripts and substitute false doctrine it had plenty of opportunity to do it for 1500 years, but she never did. Instead she faithfully preserved it and copied it consistently by hand, word for word, up to the invention of the printing press, and the first work that the inventor Gutenberg printed on his press was the whole Catholic Bible. Variations in hand-written manuscript copies are very few, and scriptural scholars have established that we have the true Bible today, thanks to the dedicated work of Catholic monks under the sponsorship of the Church. Church doctrine includes the whole Bible. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:31, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::::This gets tiresome. We've been over this dozens of time on dozens of pages. It is I who respects and has admiration for the work of those monks. It is you who tears up their work and throws it in the trash, together with your Magisterium who likewise have done the same. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 19:47, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::If I "tore up their work and threw it in the trash" I wouldn't have a copy. I have the whole Greek Bible, the whole Hebrew Bible, the whole Latin Vulgate, the Douay-Rheims Challoner Bible, the whole King James Version with apocrypha, and the modern Catholic Bible with notes. I have read them, and continue to read them. All of these versions in the original languages and in English translation have the same identical scriptural doctrine of the inspired Word of God that all authority is established by God and whoever resists what God has established resists the ordinance of God. All of these versions in the original languages and in English translation Protestant and Catholic have the doctrine • that Jesus built his church upon the rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; • that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets as a temple of God in the Holy Spirit; • that the church is the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth; • that through the church the mystery of God hidden from the foundation of the world is revealed; • that God has appointed in the church elders as guardians of the church he purchased with his own blood to feed the whole flock of the Lord; • that we are to obey those who have the rule of leaders over us who watch over our souls; • that to them God has entrusted the ministry of reconciliation in the stead of Christ, God as it were speaking by them; • that we are not saved by faith alone; • that we are not to be led astray by those ignorant and unstable persons who twist the scriptures to their own destruction, the scriptures being of no private interpretation; • that those who went out from us are antichrists, who defy authority and will not obey every human institution (''of men'') and speak ill of the glorious ones and cause divisions, worldly people devoid of the spirit, loud-mouthed boasters, grumblers, malcontents, following their own passions, denying the Spirit who is with us for ever leading us into all truth, who preach a different gospel than the one delivered by the apostles and handed down together with the traditions we are to keep, not all things having been written with paper and ink by them. '''All of this is in the Bible''', as we have shown on this page, and on other pages. You find this tiresome. We never tire of witnessing to the truth of the scriptures so faithfully preserved and handed down to us. If you had respect and admiration for the work of those monks, you would listen to what they preserved so faithfully for us, on whom the end of the ages has come. May God give you sight to see what you evidently do not see, and hearing to hear what you evidently do not hear. We see and hear and obey what God has ordained for our salvation in the blood of Jesus Christ alone by his mediation together with the intercessory prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the angels and saints in the church interceding for us with Christ in the Holy Spirit to God the Father that we and you might be preserved body soul and spirit and saved at last to praise him forever. Amen. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:39, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You don't have to tell me what's in the bible, I already know it. Knowing it and believing it are two different things. You don't believe Christ died once for all. You don't believe to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. You don't believe in the saving grace of God. And most importantly, you don't understand what salvation is, or even have an interest to learn.
::::::::::Your doctrine is a collection of mantras, all contradictory one to another. You think that by repeating them over and over again, it'll get you into God grace, along with jumping through a bunch of other hoops. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:59, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

===User:Dataclarifier===
::''The following poll was moved here by RobSmith. It was originally posted immediately below RobSmith's poll at the bottom of the page. See [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate%3A_Is_there_a_Purgatory_before_Judgment_Day&diff=1672768&oldid=1672704 '''Diff'''.] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 06:44, 31 July 2020 (EDT) He disputes the added "Reminder" as a way of "changing the rules after the fact". --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 06:55, 31 July 2020 (EDT)—See [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate%3A_Is_there_a_Purgatory_before_Judgment_Day&diff=1673029&oldid=1673024 '''Diff'''.]
===="I will build my church"====
*'''Matthew 16:18''' I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; '''and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'''.
*'''1 Timothy 3:15''' But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in '''the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth'''.
*'''1 John 2:18-19''' Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, '''even now are there many antichrists'''; whereby we know that it is the last time. '''They went out from us, but they were not of us'''; for if they had been of us they would ''no doubt'' have continued with us: but ''they went out'', that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Hmmm. The debate over purgatory is clearly based on whether the gates of hell have prevailed against the church Jesus built on rock as the pillar and ground of the truth.

C'mon RobSmith! Tell me this is true! Just a simple "Yes" or "No". Don't give me any exceptions, exemptions, explanations or anything else. Just post up here and say "Yes, the word of God is true".

======Poll: Vote yes or no======
Vote Yes or No if the above four verses of the Bible are true.

:<s>Umm, there are only three verses cited which I voted upon. I think you may have made a [[Freud]]ian slip and considered your comments and thoughts in your head as the Word of God. Don't worry. [[Muhammad]], [[Joseph Smith]], Gregory, Innocent III, Boniface VIII, Callixtus III, Pius IX, Pius XII and others all made the same mistake.</s> Never mind. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:32, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

======Yes, it's true======
* Amen. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:13, 30 July 2020 (EDT)
* <s>Amen. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 08:39, 30 July 2020 (EDT)</S> changing the rules after the fact. Typical.

======No, it's a bunch of malarkey quoted out of context bla bla bla....======
 
Remember: If you vote "Yes" you affirm the whole doctrine of the Church as the truth (which includes purgatory, and the whole canon of 73 books of the Bible). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:55, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
:Man (i.e. the church) does not save. God does. You are preaching a Satanic doctrine. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:49, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
::See [https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Body-Of-Christ,-The-Church '''22 verses about BODY OF CHRIST, THE CHURCH''' (bible.knowing-jesus.com)]. According to the Bible: Salvation '''''is''''' by the blood of Christ in the Church. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:02, 31 July 2020 (EDT) [https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Body-Of-Christ,-The-Church The '''same article'''] lists (without comment): 1 Corinthians 12:27; Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12; Ephesians 4:4; Colossians 1:24; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 5:23; John 2:19-22; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:19; 1 Corinthians 10:16-17; Ephesians 4:15-16; 1 Corinthians 12:25-26; Ephesians 4:25; Ephesians 5:29-30; Colossians 3:15; Romans 12:12-31; Ephesians 4:11-13. I would add along with these 1 Timothy 3:15 "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, '''the pillar and ground of the truth'''." The truth includes purgatory, as shown abundantly and irrefutably on this page above by the whole context of the whole Bible. Obviously not a Satanic doctrine. What "the pillar and ground of the truth" teaches must be the truth, since Jesus Himself promised the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:31, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
:::According to the Bible, salvation is by the blood of Christ. But that makes no difference to you, cause you deny ''both'' salvation ''and'' the redeeming blood of Christ with your doctrine of Purgatory. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 17:53, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
::::According to the Church, salvation is by the blood of Christ alone. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::Now you're lying to my face. You've spent days defending Purgatory and denying salvation ''and'' the blood of Christ.

:::::Seriously, you need to stop worshiping men and the church and begin worshiping God, and giving ''Him'' the respect and reverence due. But you never, ever ever preach that. All you preach is a devotional guide to the "authority" of men, not God. Oh, you'll add it as an afterthought when you're called on it. But you always always always return to church church church. This is a Satanic grip on you, that you cannot distinguish between the authority of God and the authority of men. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:34, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::This is blatantly evident. You do not dispute the [[Magisterium]] has the authority to make cannibalism, fornication, adultery, and murder an acceptable and pleasing sacrifice to God. This is '''EXACTLY''' what '''YOUR''' doctrine teaches. And the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Magisterium's authority. We've all heard it enough times from your mouth. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:41, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::Since the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth led forever into all truth by the Spirit of truth she cannot and never will make the abominations of cannibalism, fornication, adultery, and murder an acceptable and pleasing sacrifice to God. Be careful that you do not go too far and say the Holy Spirit in the Church as the temple of God guiding into all truth forever is unclean (see Matthew 12:31-32). According to the Church, salvation is by the blood of Christ alone. You say her doctrine is Satanic. It has been guaranteed by the word of Christ that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", "the pillar and bulwark of the truth". Since she is so, all her doctrine and dogma is truth. We appeal to you by the mercies of God, come home. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:12, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::See, you don't know the Bible. The Holy Spirit is given to individual believers, not to a collective entity by birthright. ''Ye are of your father the devil''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:50, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::You've said twice in your last two postings, "salvation is by the blood of Christ alone" after making reams of postings telling people that their sin is upon their own head in Purgatory. You are blinded. I'm getting ready to just walk away from your lies and lying to my face. It's insulting. Fortunately, I'm a Christian saved by grace, and learned to be patient with my fellow man, believers and non-believers. But I am not here to listen to you repeatedly throwing lies in my face. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:11, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Careful analysis of the arguments of RobSmith and other like-minded anti-Catholic [[polemic]]ists ["''This is '''EXACTLY''' what '''YOUR''' doctrine teaches''"], when compared to what the actual teaching of Catholicism is and what the Bible actually says about the Church, reveals a common strategy of using the [[Straw man fallacy]], [[Misrepresentation]], the [[Loaded question]], [[Putting words in someone's mouth]], [[Slander]], [[Calumny]] and [[Libel]], backed up by [[Specious reasoning]], [[Casuistry]], [[Sophistry]], the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and anti-Catholic [[Bigotry]], animated by a deep [[Enmity]] and [[Prejudice]], enforced by an eagerly acquired [[Confirmation bias]] in arguing against the Church (''that he says he was raised in''), all of which can blind any one to the truth of what the Church ''truly'' teaches, to avoid seeing the truth of what he has rejected. What RobSmith has repeatedly said the Catholic Church teaches is not in fact what the Catholic Church actually teaches. He has drawn his own erroneous and inaccurate conclusions about a fictitious Catholic Church of his own imagining, conclusions which have nothing to do with actual Catholic doctrine and dogma about the sacred truth of salvation through the precious blood of Jesus on the Cross by the fullness of truth in the Bible which must be rightly understood by [[Apostolic tradition]] according to the [[discernment]] of the [[Magisterium]] guided by the Holy Spirit preserving both Scripture and us from distortions and errors.

::::::::As for myself, as I've already said, when I found out what the Catholic Church ''actually'' teaches, instead of the [[Falsehood]]s that very sincere people in error had ''told'' me she teaches (''not knowing they were in error''), I discovered that the Catholic Church is actually the most biblical Church on the face of the earth, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, proclaiming salvation by the precious blood of Jesus Christ alone, in her scriptures and sacraments and worship and doctrine and [[Catechesis|catechetical instruction]] and good works and prayers. Jesus is Lord of all in his body the Church going forth and making disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching all that he has commanded. And Lo'''!''' He is with the Church always, leading us into all truth even to the end of time. Amen. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:12, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::You've given countless illustrations where the Magisterium cancels, contradicts, and overrides the Bible. In any dispute between the Bible and the Roman Catholic church, you come down on the side of Magisterium over the Word of God, claiming the Magisterium cannot be wrong. Look at the Magisterium's track record. God says don't communicate with the dead. The Magisterium says it's okay. God says Christ died once for all. The Magisterium says your blood is upon your own head. God says don't make vane repetitions. Vane repetitions is the basis of your faith.
:::::::::There is no doubt, under the very doctrine preached by YOU, not the Magisterium, that if the Magisterium taught cannibalism and murder were acceptable sacrifices to God, that you would say "Sieg Heil" and march off to preach to all nations that cannibalism and murder are acceptable offerings to God. This is because you have abandoned God and his Word and replaced it with an idol - the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
:::::::::You are devoid of spiritual understanding and discernment. You've become a danger to yourself and others. And you cannot blame the Roman Catholic Church for abandoning the responsibility you have to yourself at this point. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:35, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::::This is really about infallibility and not purgatory at all, isn't it?
::::::::It's one thing to cling to a source of interpretation slavishly, but shouldn't we on the other hand put our interpretations in a good light so new believers don't stumble on the way of learning to do what God requires? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 23:58, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::The doctrine of purgatory according to RobSmith is not the doctrine of purgatory according to the Catholic Church. What RobSmith has said '''''is''''' the Catholic doctrine of purgatory '''''is not''''' the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. This is evident from the citations of the Bible about purgatory in ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' and the Catholic interpretation of those scriptures by the authentic Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' explains this in detail using '''scripture''', beginning at '''[http://scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1029 paragraph 1029]. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]]'''--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:03, 1 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::DC: Nobody cares, not even the sinners in Purgatory, of which there are none.
:::::::::::VM: That's right. The Debate is straying all over the map. I think it's time to wind this one down and start a new one on another topic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:23, 1 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::VargasMilan, God bless you! Every seeker of truth who has the Bible can read for themselves what it says plainly, simply, clearly about the authority of the Church. That's why so many citations of the scriptures have been posted here about purgatory and the authority of the Church to clarify the true meaning of scripture and to teach the truth forever. It's just as Jesus said: "'''Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or ''whether'' I speak of myself.'''" John 7:16-17. It's the same with the Church. Those who truly will to do God's will will '''''know''''' if the doctrine of the Church Jesus founded on a rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, is true. I suppose there will always be someone who will not hear what the Spirit says to the churches and neglect to hear the church. To this Jesus said, "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." Let those that are blind leaders of the blind go their way and fall into a ditch. We must not weary of speaking the truth of God. We will all give account of ourselves to God. (Romans 14:1–15:6). ''Pax vobis'' Semper fidelis --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:24, 1 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Too bad the doctrine of the Roman church is not the doctrine of him who sent Jesus. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:36, 1 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Oh, but it is. The Bible says so. Jesus sent by the Father built his church on rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is the pillar and foundation of the truth, led into truth forever by the Spirit of truth. The doctrine of the Roman church is therefore guaranteed by Christ and the Bible to be the doctrine of him who sent Jesus. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:56, 1 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::Bull-malarkey. There is no word "magisterium", "catechism". or "purgatory" in the Bible. You wanna talk about [[Putting words in someone's mouth]]? Look at what your Magisterium does to [[God]]! [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 01:03, 1 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::This is [https://youtu.be/jSCJnRjlYZc what you sound like.] God did not create your mouth or hands to serve him in the manner you do and preach. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 01:08, 1 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::There also is no word "Trinity", "Bible", "rapture", "protestant", "catholic", "orthodox". The term "scripture alone" is not in the Bible. "Faith alone" appears only in James 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works and '''not''' by faith alone." "Reformation" appears only once, in Hebrews 9:10 regarding the cessation of the Jewish sacrifices of the Mosaic law in the temple (context Hebrews 9:6-14). Because a term does not appear in the Bible is no proof that these words represent false doctrine or Satanic teachings.--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:34, 1 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::I couldn't agree more. Perhaps you've found the subject for our next Debate. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:30, 1 August 2020 (EDT)

====Proofs that condemnations of Catholic doctrine are false====
Read [http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/w.bible.htm '''Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham'''] and the [https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm '''''Catechism of the Catholic Church''''']

Reverend Graham says in his Introduction:
:“IF all were true that is alleged against the Catholic Church in her treatment of Holy Scripture, then the proper title of these papers should be [not] ‘How we got', but 'How we have not got the Bible'. The common and received opinion about the matter among non-Catholics in Britain, for the most part, has been that Rome hates the Bible-that she has done all she could to destroy it—that in all countries where she has held sway she has kept the Bible from the hands of the people—has taken it and burned it whenever she found anyone reading it. Or if she cannot altogether prevent its publication or its perusal, at least she renders it as nearly useless as possible by sealing it up in a dead language which the majority of people can neither read nor understand. And all this she does, (so we are told), because she knows that her doctrines are absolutely opposed to and contradicted by the letter of God's written Word—she holds and propagates dogmas and traditions which could not stand one moment's examination if exposed to the searching light of Holy Scripture. [...]

:“The Protestant account of pre-reformation Catholicism has been largely a falsification of history. All the faults and sins that could possibly be raked up or invented against Rome, or against particular bishops or priests, were presented to the people of this unhappy land, and all her best acts misconstrued, misjudged, misrepresented, and nothing of good told in her favour. She has been painted as all black and hideous, and no beauty could be seen in her. Consequently people came to believe the tradition as a matter of course, and accepted it as history [...]

:“But nowadays many are enquiring—Is it really so? Are we sure of our facts? Are we not building up mountains of abuse and calumny on a false suppositon? Just as all have come to know that the sun, as a matter of fact, does not rise or set but stands still, that there never was a Pope Joan but his name was John, that monasteries and convents are homes of learning and sanctity and charity, and that no Catholic ever pays or ever could pay a single farthing to get his sins remitted—and all this through the spread of knowledge and education and enlightenment and study—so also I venture to think that people will now be rightly considered ignorant and blameworthy, and at the least behind the times, if they do not learn that the notion I have alluded to above about the Catholic Church and the Bible is false and nonsensical—historically false and inherently nonsensical. By a calm consideration of the facts of history and a mind open to conviction on genuine evidence, they will be driven by sheer force of honesty to the conclusion that the Catholic Church, so far from being the monster of iniquity that she is painted, has in very truth been the parent, the author and maker under God, of the Bible; that she has guarded it and defended it all through the ages, and preserved it from error or destruction; that she has ever held it in highest veneration and esteem, and has grounded her doctrines upon it; that she alone has the right to call it her book; that she alone possesses the true Bible and the whole Bible, and that copies of the Scriptures existing outside of her pale, are partly incorrect and partly defective, and that whatever in them is true, is true because derived from her who alone possesses the Book in its fulness and its truth. If they were Catholics, they would love God's Holy Word more and more; they would understand it better; they would adore the Divine Providence that took such a wise and sure means of preserving and perpetuating it; and they would profoundly admire the Catholic Church for her ceaseless vigilance, untiring zeal, and unswerving fidelity to the commission entrusted to her by Almighty God.”

The '''''Catechism of the Catholic Church''''' represents the actual doctrine of the Church. Condemnations of the doctrine are examples of [[straw man argument]]s, based on [[misrepresentation]] and [[specious reasoning]], which are all demonstrably [[falsehood]]s of [[error]]. People who have read it have come to believe the actual truth of the doctrine is perfectly biblical. They have found the [[Catholic Church]] in all its forms to be the most biblical Church on earth.

Keep in mind that what people say about Catholic doctrine is not necessarily true. Keep in mind that the scandal of bad and sinful behavior does not invalidate doctrine. Keep in mind that [[hypocrites]] are found in every Christian denomination. Their bad example has never proved that [[Christianity]] itself is false.

===="''By their fruits ye shall know them''": The Fruits of Catholicism====
"''By their fruits ye shall know them''". All of the excellent and praiseworthy benefits of Western Civilization are the '''fruit''' of the tree of the Catholic Church and the doctrine of her magisterium leading into all the truth. See [https://www.deseret.com/2011/12/28/20240742/commentary-history-shows-contributions-of-catholic-church-to-western-civilization '''Commentary: History Shows Contributions of the Catholic Church to Western Civilization'''] —major contributions to Science, Astronomy, Medicine, establishment of Universities, Hospitals and care centers for the elderly, women and children and orphans, charitable institutions for the poor (all unknown in the pagan world), Christian missionaries sent to pagan lands, converting them from ignorance to knowledge of Jesus Christ, and preserving the Bible. In addition, the Catholic Church has produced by the grace of God men and women eminent for their holiness and goodness and devotion to Jesus Christ, as the direct fruit of her doctrines and sacraments. Even non-Christians have admired their example, and praised even many of her popes and bishops as saintly examples of Christian goodness to follow. They have even died as martyrs of the Lord for their faith in Jesus Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:02, 9 August 2020 (EDT) [https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/saints/10-influential-saints-and-their-legends.aspx '''10 Influential Saints and Their Legends'''] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:55, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

===Exhibit D: Picture of purgatory===

[[File:Dante's Purgatory b&w.jpeg|300px]]

This picture clearly shows that purgatory is actually ''in'' heaven.

According to Dante, believers wear a "yoke" as they march upward. It seems to me if Jesus Christ ''saves'' us, He might not save us from a yoke, if the yoke is our responsibility.

Narrative and visual representations can sometimes help us understand hypothetical constructs and other ideas unclear to the mind's eye.

[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 23:30, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
*''Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.''
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:45, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
:If you ever wanted to repeat a mantra as St. Germaine and Dataclarifier are fond of, use that one : ''Learn of me, my yoke is easy and my burden light. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:48, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
::The yoke of the Church is the yoke of Christ. I have found it in every detail easy to bear. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:29, 1 August 2020 (EDT) In the Roman Catholic Church I have found rest unto my soul, and the glorious fullness of the meaning of the whole Bible. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:12, 1 August 2020 (EDT)

Yet, there are a not discountable group of people who find themselves quite sensitive to the yoke of Christ. You have both sought a doctrine that is sufficient for ''all'' occasions, so please listen to Dante who talks about these.

CANTO X

While I was delighting myself with looking at the images of such great humilities, and for their Maker's sake dear to see: "Behold," murmured the Poet, "on this side many people, but they make few steps; they will put us on the way to the lofty stairs." My eyes which were intent on gazing, were not slow in turning toward him in order to see novelties, whereof they are fain.

I would not, indeed, Reader, that thou be diverted from thy good purpose, through hearing how God wills that the debt be paid. Heed not the form of the suffering; think on what follows; think that, at the worst, beyond the Great Judgment it cannot go!

I began, "Master, that which I see moving toward us does not seem to me to be persons, but what I know not, I am so at loss in looking." And he to me: "The heavy condition of their torment bows them to earth, so that my own eyes at first had contention with it. But look fixedly there, and disentangle with thy sight that which is coming beneath those stones; already thou canst discern how each is stricken."

O proud Christians, wretched and weary, who, diseased in vision of the mind, have confidence in backward steps, are ye not aware that we are worms born to form the angelic butterfly, which flies unto judgment without defence? Wherefore does your mind float up aloft, since ye are as it were defective insects, even as a worm in which formation fails?

As to support ceiling or roof, by way of corbel, a figure is sometimes seen joining its knees to its breast, which out of the unreal gives birth to a real distress in him who sees it, thus fashioned did I see these, when I gave good heed. True it is, that they were more or less upon their backs; and he who had most patience in his looks, weeping, appeared to say: "I can no more."

CANTO XI

"O Thou Almighty Father! who dost make 
The heavens Thy dwelling, not in bounds confined, 
But that, with love intenser, there Thou view'st 
Thy primal effluence; hallow'd be Thy name: 
Join, each created being, to extol 
Thy might; for worthy humblest thanks and praise 
Is Thy blest Spirit. May Thy kingdom's peace 
Come unto us; for we, unless it come, 
With all our striving, thither tend in vain. 
As, of their will, the Angels unto Thee 
Tender meet sacrifice, circling Thy throne 
With loud hosannas; so of theirs be done 
By saintly men on earth. Grant us, this day, 
Our daily manna, without which he roams 
Through this rough desert retrograde, who most 
Toils to advance his steps. As we to each 
Pardon the evil done us, pardon Thou 
Benign, and of our merit take no count. 
'Gainst the old adversary, prove Thou not 
Our virtue, easily subdued; but free 
From his incitements, and defeat his wiles. 
This last petition, dearest Lord! is made 
Not for ourselves; since that were needless now; 
But for their sakes who after us remain."

Thus for themselves and us good speed imploring, 
Those spirits went beneath a weight like that 
We sometimes feel in dreams; all, sore beset, 
But with unequal anguish; wearied all; 
Round the first circuit; purging as they go 
The world's gross darkness off. In our behoof 
If their vows still be offer'd, what can here 
For them be vow'd and done by such, whose wills 
Have root of goodness in them? Well beseems 
That we should help them wash away the stains 
They carried hence; that so, made pure and light, 
They may spring upward to the starry spheres.

"Ah! so may mercy-temper'd justice rid 
Your burdens speedily; that ye have power 
To stretch your wing, which e'en to your desire 
Shall lift you; as ye show us on which hand 
Toward the ladder leads the shortest way. 
And if there be more passages than one, 
Instruct us of that easiest to ascend: 
For this man, who comes with me, and bears yet 
The charge of fleshly raiment Adam left him, 
Despite his better will, but slowly mounts." 
From whom the answer came unto these words, 
Which my guide spake, appear'd not; but 'twas said: 
"Along the bank to rightward come with us; 
And ye shall find a pass that mocks not toil 
Of living man to climb: and were it not 
That I am hinder'd by the rock, wherewith 
This arrogant neck is tamed, whence needs I stoop 
My visage to the ground; him, who yet lives, 
Whose name thou speak'st not, him I fain would view; 
To mark if e'er I knew him, and to crave 
His pity for the fardel that I bear. 
I was of Latium; of a Tuscan born, 
A mighty one: Aldobrandesco's name 
My sire's, I know not if ye e'er have heard. 
My old blood and forefathers' gallant deeds 
Made me so haughty, that I clean forgot 
The common mother; and to such excess 
Wax'd in my scorn of all men, that I fell, 
Fell therefore; by what fate, Siena's sons. 
Each child in Campagnatico, can tell. 
I am Omberto: not me, only, pride 
Hath injured, but my kindred all involved 
In mischief with her. Here my lot ordains 
Under this weight to groan, till I appease 
God's angry justice, since I did it not 
Amongst the living, here amongst the dead."

Listening I bent my visage down: and one 
(Not he who spake) twisted beneath the weight 
That urged him, saw me, knew me straight, and call'd; 
Holding his eyes with difficulty fix'd 
Intent upon me, stooping as I went 
Companion of their way. "O!" I exclaim'd, 
"Art thou not Oderigi? art not thou 
Agobbio's glory, glory of that art 
Which they of Paris call the limner's skill?"

"Brother!" said he, "with tints, that gayer smile, 
Bolognian Franco's pencil lines the leaves. 
His all the honour now; my light obscured. 
In truth, I had not been thus courteous to him 
The whilst I lived, through eagerness of zeal 
For that pre-eminence my heart was bent on. 
Here, of such pride, the forfeiture is paid. 
Nor were I even here, if, able still 
To sin, I had not turn'd me unto God. 
O powers of man! how vain your glory, nipt 
E'en in its height of verdure, if an age 
To lord it over painting's field; and now 
The cry is Giotto's, and his name eclipsed. 
Thus hath one Guido from the other snatch'd 
The letter'd prize: and he, perhaps, is born, 
Who shall drive either from their nest. The noise 
Of worldly fame is but a blast of wind, 
That blows from diverse points, and shifts its name, 
Shifting the point it blows from. Shalt thou more 
Live in the mouths of mankind, if thy flesh 
Part shrivel'd from thee, than if thou hadst died 
Before the coral and the pap were left; 
Or e'er some thousand years have past? and that 
Is, to eternity compared, a space 
Briefer than is the twinkling of an eye 
To the heaven's slowest orb. He there, who treads 
So leisurely before me, far and wide 
Through Tuscany resounded once; and now 
Is in Siena scarce with whispers named: 
There was he sovereign, when destruction caught 
The maddening rage of Florence, in that day 
Proud as she now is loathsome. Your renown 
Is as the herb, whose hue doth come and go; 
And his might withers it, by whom it sprang 
Crude from the lap of earth." I thus to him: 
"True are thy sayings: to my heart they breathe 
The kindly spirit of meekness, and allay 
What tumours rankle there. But who is he, 
Of whom thou spakest but now?" "This," he replied, 
"Is Provenzano. He is here, because 
He reach'd with grasp presumptuous, at the sway 
Of all Siena. Thus he still hath gone, 
Thus goeth never-resting, since he died. 
Such is the acquittance render'd back of him, 
Who, in the mortal life, too much hath dared." 
I then: "If soul, that to life's verge delays 
Repentance, linger in that lower space, 
Nor hither mount, (unless good prayers befriend), 
Or ever time, long as it lived, be past; 
How chanced admittance was vouchsafed to him?"

"When at his glory's topmost height," said he, 
"Respect of dignity all cast aside, 
Freely he fix'd him on Siena's plain, 
A suitor to redeem his suffering friend, 
Who languish'd in the prison-house of Charles; 
Nor, for his sake, refused through every vein 
To tremble. More I will not say; and dark, 
I know, my words are; but thy neighbours soon 
Shall help thee to a comment on the text. 
This is the work, that from these limits freed him."

CANTO XII

WITH equal pace, as oxen in the yoke, 
I, with that laden spirit, journey'd on, 
Long as the mild instructor suffer'd me; 
But, when he bade me quit him, and proceed, 
(For "Here," said he, "behoves with sail and oars 
Each man, as best he may, push on his bark,") 
Upright, as one disposed for speed, I raised 
My body, still in thought submissive bow'd.

Now who among the smug will be first to speak? Don't bother answering; there is no room.

Purgatory or not, be careful lest you find these yoked souls receiving their salvation ahead of you!

[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 03:08, 1 August 2020 (EDT)

:I've made half hearted attempts to read Dante in the past without much success. So I'm dependent on what commentators have said. Coming from a Catholic background I can say many Catholics think that there is some connection between ''Purgatorio'' and official Catholic doctrine, but there really is not. Using Protestant idioms, ''Purgatorio'' represents that phase in a Christian walk between being "babes in Christ" or a "carnal Christian", where a certain purging of old habits and sin occurs before receiving the Holy Spirit (see "twinkling of an eye", above.)

:First comes sincere repentance, then the "babes in Christ" and "carnal Christian" phase. This occurs here in the flesh on this earth. And Dante is speaking in spiritual terms. This is what Dante means by ''Purgatorio''. Eventually some, not all, receive the anointing of the Holy Spirit and move on to ''Paradiso''.

:Excerpt:
:*"I am Omberto: not me, only, pride Hath injured [pride, what Augustine calls original sin and Paul says "while we were yet in sin"], but my kindred all involved In mischief with her. Here my lot ordains Under this weight to groan, till I appease God's angry justice [repentence, not a stretch in the joint in the after life], since I did it not Amongst the living [being born again], here amongst the dead ["while we were yet dead in sin"]."....
:*Here, of such pride, the forfeiture is paid. Nor were I even here, if, able still To sin [sinning willfully, not by habit], I had not turn'd me unto God.

:Again, coming from a Catholic background, most Protestants do not recognize that Dante is more of a pre-Reformation preacher of the Gospel than a doctrinal advocate of what 200 years later became "the Roman Catholic Church". This represents more of the cultural divide between Northern Europe and the Latin world. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:34, 1 August 2020 (EDT)

----

==No. Purgatory doesn't exist. The concept of purgatory is unbiblical ==
:*'''John 5:4''' - ''Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me '''has eternal life.''' He '''does not come into judgment''', but has passed from death to life.''<ref>https://biblehub.com/john/5-24.htm</ref>

Note: Eternal life begins now, present tense. ''Now is the day of salvation.''<ref>https://www.biblehub.com/esv/2_corinthians/6.htm</ref> Most importantly for the Christian believer, salvation means being saved from judgement. No Christian believer who has been spiritually born - ''passed from death to life'' - shall come into judgement. Judgement is reserved only for sinners who are ''already'' condemned.<ref>https://biblehub.com/john/3-18.htm</ref>
:*'''John 3:18''' - ''Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe '''is condemned already''', because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.''
Sinners go straight to hell. There is no pit stop in Purgatory before Judgement, and no hope of sharing eternal life with God. Hence. we can see from these words of Jesus alone, that Roman Catholic doctrine does not preach the good news of salvation from the scripture.

===User:RobSmith===
The non-biblical teaching of a "Purgatory" rejects the sufficiency of Christ's blood sacrifice to purge all sin.<ref>Colossians 1:20</ref> Denying the sufficiency of Christ's blood is tantamount to denying the [[divinity]] of Christ.<ref>Matthew 26:28</ref>

Furthermore, the Bible teaches for the believer,
{{quotebox|To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.<ref>2 Corinthians 5:7</ref>}}
There is no middle phase of purgation. Jesus told the thief on the cross,
{{quotebox|This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.<ref>Luke 23:43</ref>}}
The thief did not undergo any last communion or extreme unction.

The Debate question itself is absurd and exposes errant doctrine; [[salvation]] means to be saved from judgement. Only lost sinners shall face judgement and the wrath of God. The Debate question itself exposes the fact that the Roman Catholic church and Roman Catholic gospel do not preach salvation.

====Challenge for RobS:====

:Interpret this passage from Hebrews, 10:26-31, about the dangers of apostasy. Do these consequences always take place while on this present earth?

:"If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them. There will be left only the dreadful prospect of judgement and of ''the raging fire'' that is to ''burn rebels'' (Isaiah 26:11). Anyone who disregards the Law of Moses is ruthlessly ''put to death on the word of two witnesses or three'' (Deut. 17:6); and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats ''the blood of the covenant'' which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the Spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment. We are all aware who it was that said: ''Vengeance is mine; I will repay'' (Deut. 32:35-36). And again: ''The Lord will judge his people''. It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

:[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Friday, 23:30, 24 July 2020 (EDT)

::You've selected one of the most difficult passages of the Christian gospel to interpret. On the face of it, verses 26 apparently put's to rest the notion of [[once saved, always saved]]. Verse 27 apparently speaks of the present earth, in the flesh of a believer; this may be the most revealing part of the passage. It may be possible for a person to be saved by grace, yet have no joy in it, a reversion back to being a carnal believer. This reopens the question of whether "carnal Christians" are Christians at all. And also the question if the Holy Spirit - the Spirit without measure - can be taken away. It somewhat describes Solomon in his old age, yet this book is one of the most important books of the new covenant.

::Verse 28 then speaks of law, not grace, so again the doctrine of OSAS is called into question. But verses 29, 30, and 31, particularly beginning with ''"anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats ''the blood of the covenant'' which sanctified him as if it were not holy"'' onward, IMO, explicitly condemns the promulgators of the doctrine of Purgatory, and other teachers since who willfully ignore the Word of God. The language sounds as if it is directly addressed to church teachers, and not necessarily just at lowly believers with poor judgement and understanding.

::What I'm saying here is, the teachers of the doctrine of Purgatory will be held to account in manner more harshly than just someone who receives it as doctrine. Other scriptures support this position. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:14, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

:This will take some more reflective thought on my part, more reflection and more thought; nobody can say you didn't take the bull by the horns. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 00:26, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

::Me too. Actually, I've been reflecting on it for about 35 years already. But just now, reading the translation you provided, all 5 verses could be talking about someone who has "been given knowledge of the truth", yet never "received" it the spiritual sense. Someone who heard the "knowledge of the truth", and rejected it from the gitgo out of a rebellious heart or spirit. There's really no way to take the same message of God's mercy and grace and re-package it to make it more appealing. Then all of it makes sense. Me, and many others, I think have always broken these 5 verses down into two or three clauses discussing law and grace, spirit baptism, etc. I may have to look at these verses again in a few other translations and see if what I see now appears there. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:42, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

::IOWs, these verses don't talk about someone who has ''"tasted the good word of God"'' as in chapter 6. I don't know. I'll have to look closer. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:50, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

====Purgatory is a doctrine of wrath, not grace====
In addition to denying the sufficiency of Christ's blood and divinity of Christ, Purgatory further negates the good news of the Gospel of grace and turns God's word into a Gospel of Wrath.

The Roman Catholic Church does not preach a Gospel of Grace. In fact, beginning very early in life, the Roman church hammers a doctrine of Judgement into a child's head. Children are taught all will face Judgement on a Judgment Day. This is apparent from how this Debate Question is phrased. This doctrine of Judgement and God's wrath obscures the doctrine of [[salvation]].

Salvation is in this life, and continues into the next; Roman doctrine teaches salvation is to be pursued in an after life. "Eternal life" is viewed entirely in fleshly or carnal terms - it begins after the death of the flesh. This is a non-biblical doctrine. Eternal life is available to anyone right now, and is guaranteed after the death of the flesh.

It is for this cause that Roman Catholics, particularly those fed on Roman doctrine early in life, have such difficulty understanding salvation. It is something far off and inaccessible in this life. Purgatory is one more obstacle to finally reaching Roman catholic perception of salvation. In fact, the bible teaches us salvation means being spared God's wrath and Judgement. Only sinners face Judgment. Those under the blood (''When I see the blood, I will passover'') are saved. Purgatory convinces you that you are a sinner who will die in sin and face Judgement. The doctrine of Purgatory is an anti-Gospel. It is anti-God's grace and mercy. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:20, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

====Inquiry for comment on historical basis: Apocrypha====

Premises for purgatory seem to appear in the Apocrypha. Of course, this is before the Good News about the Resurrection.

:II Maccabees, 12:43-46 (The sacrifice for the fallen), "[A]fter this he took a collection from them individually, amounting to nearly two thousand drachmae, and sent it to Jerusalem to have a sacrifice for sin offered, an altogether fine and noble action, in which he took full account of the resurrection. For if he had not expected the fallen to rise again it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead, whereas if he had in view the splendid recompense reserved for those who make a pious end, the thought was holy and devout. This was why he had this atonement sacrifice offered for the dead, so that they might be released from their sin."

[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 11:32, 25 July 2020 (EDT)
::It appears in these verses that money, not the blood of Christ is offered for atonement - a pretty Satanic idea. What? Do you (rhetorically speaking) think you can bribe God? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 17:44, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

:::Hey! The money for the sin offering was to pay for sacrificial animals! Are you trying to give me a hard time? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 20:45, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

::::Oh, so the blood of barnyard animals is of equal value to the blood of Jesus Christ. What are you trying to do, push Roman Catholic doctrine on me now? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

:::What I got out of it was that historically, it was a doctrine that existed, so at least, which might not amount much to you given your recent comments, the Catholics didn't make it up out of whole cloth.

:::"When all sins have been forgiven, there can be no more sin offerings."—Hebrews 10:18.

:::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Saturday, 21:00, 25 July 2020 (EDT)

====Christ died once for all====
The Bible teaches,
*'''1 Peter 3:18:''' ''For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,''
*'''Romans 6:10:''' ''For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.''

The Roman church teaches a false doctrine that the believer sins, confesses, receives communion, is restored to grace, sins, confesses, receives communion, is restored grace, rinse, wash, repeat throughout their entire life. If the sinner gets hit by a bus crossing the street on his way to confession for his latest sins, or gets hit by a bus between his last confession and on the way to communion, too bad, you may or may not be saved and will have to do a stretch in Purgatory. This teaching is beyond ludicrous; it caricatures God as wrathful and not full of abundant mercy and grace. It is truly Satanic, denying the mercy and grace of God, the divine nature of Jesus' holy blood, the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice, if not the divinity of Christ himself. It flatly denies the Gospel of Grace and scripture itself. The Roman church teaches that it has "authority" above the Word of God.

And the Roman church attempts to deceive you by perverting and misusing the Word of God. The simple fact remains - the Roman church rejects God's Word in favor of its own decrees and perverts the scripture when it uses it.

:Yes, "he brings us to God" either directly to heaven or through the purifying purge of purgatory and into heaven. It is Christ in any case who brings us to God. Those in purgatory are already saved. Those in purgatory are '''''guaranteed''''' of going to heaven and being brought by Christ to God.

:You badly [[Misrepresentation|misrepresent]] the Church's teaching on confession. She teaches that if you confess your sins he is faithful and just to forgive you your sins. Not only that, but the very intention of going to confession and not making it because of death from being hit by a bus, is sufficient for God to absolve those sins the poor shmuck intended to confess. He is not willing that any should perish. Refer to "Baptism of desire". It applies also to confession, when the intention to confess was unavoidably made impossible. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:57, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

[promoted by VM] Of course God didn't put the "baptism of desire" loophole there, man did. In the sales profession we say there are only two motivating factors to get people to part with their money - fear and greed. In biblical matters, none of this applies. The Roman church however teaches if you confess to a priest, and toss a nickel in the bucket for penance, you are half way back to God's abundant saving grace. However, Christian believers have a great high priest with access to the Father; we don't need a man - a sinner - to absolve us. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:05, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

:It is through the High Priest Christ Jesus that the Catholic and Orthodox priests absolve sins in his name, not in their own name by their own authority, but by his own established authority alone in his body the church. "Where two or three are gathered (the priest and the confessant) there am I among them." Jesus absolves through the ministry of reconciliation he entrusted to them 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. "Listen to the church", "he who has ears let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches". The ancient churches east and west have always taught the baptism of desire. They "received it, not as the word of man, but as it really is, the word of God." "Listen to the church". --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:17, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

::And you yourself in these postings deny that God has removed our sins as far as the east is from the west; you claim God only takes it so far, and the sinner has to do the rest himself in Purgatory. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:23, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

:::The fatal death-dealing disease is removed as far as the east is from the west, but the patient being cured must endure a period of recovery from the leftover effects of the disease. If the patient foolishly contracts a minor strain of the disease again by careless exposure to it the cure is applied again, and recovery is faster. But if the recovered patient deliberately defies the doctor, the tragedy of death is almost guaranteed (Hebrews 6:4-8), unless the more vigorous effort of reapplying the one infallible cure is made to effect a healing which the chief physician has prescribed ("the ministry of reconciliation"). It is still Christ who does it to the soul through the ministry of his body, the church. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 16:09, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

::[Promoted by VM] No scripture there, I see. When will you stop spinning your wheels claiming that you believe the Bible and then turn around and deny it? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:37, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

::And your latest kick, "Listen to the church", is about as big a perversion of the scripture you have engaged in. Nowhere are believers commanded to "listen to the church"; the church is told to hear what the Spirit says to the church, which you obviously have never done. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump
2Q2Q]] 16:48, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
:::"''Nowhere are believers commanded to <nowiki>'listen to the church'</nowiki>''?"

:::The '''Bible''' commands believers to listen to the church.

:::'''Matthew 16:18-19; 18:17-18; Acts 20:28-31; Romans 13:1-1; 1 Corinthians 12:4-30; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Timothy 3:14-15; Titus 3:10-11; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:1-6; 2 Peter 1:19–2:4; 3:14-18; 1 John 2:18-19; 2 John 9-12; 3 John 13-14; Jude 8-23; Revelation 2:7,11,17,26; 3:6,13,22'''.

:::These have always been my answer to anyone who challenges me as a former Conservative Baptist Bible Christian to show where in the Bible are written the doctrines of the Catholic Church. These passages (''and more'') are why Dataclarifier became a Catholic ''Bible-apologist'', and why, from what he showed me, I too believed what the Bible says and "''listened to the Church''" and embraced the Catholic Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth, including all of its dogmas which include the dogma of purgatory and regenerative baptism and confession of sins for absolution by priests to whom the ministry of reconciliation has been entrusted and the power to reject "''an heretick''". Nowhere does the Bible promise that the leaders of the Church will lead impeccably holy lives totally free of sin, only that the doctrine will always be true, by the Holy Spirit with us forever, leading into all truth. It does promise that signs and wonders and miracles will accompany those who believe, Mark 16:15-18. That has been true from the first Christian century to now. Not everyone has that gift of miracles (1 Corinthians 12:29-30), but as one body of Christ the Catholic Church has always had that witness from then to this present day. Historically the Protestant Reformers had no such evidence of credibility from God as evidence to show the divine approval of their mission. So much for ''sola scriptura''. By ''sola scriptura'' by itself division is sown. With authorized authority unity is maintained. "Listen to the church" "Listen to the churches" "Obey the elders who have the rule over you"—the Protestant Reformers didn't. Neither do you. It's as simple as that. It's because of the Bible that I firmly believe that the Catholic Church teaches the truth of the Doctrine of Christ.

:::Nuff said. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 17:41, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

::[promoted by VM] The first problem you have is you do not understand [[salvation]]. Only people who reject Christ will face Judgement Day. Read the Debate question. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:45, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

::If you are born in the spirit as Jesus says (''ye must be born again''), there is no Judgement Day and there is no Purgatory. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:47, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

:::I asked Dataclarifier what proofs he had from scripture that led him as a fundamental Bible believer to know the Catholic Church had to be the one true Church.

:::He said '''Matthew 16:18; John 14:16-17 and 16:13; Hebrews 13:17; 1 John 2:18-19; and Galatians 1:6-9'''. "I will build my church and '''the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'''"; "I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you '''for ever. even the Spirit of truth''', whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you"; "When the Spirit comes, '''he will guide you into all truth'''"; "'''Obey your leaders and submit to them'''; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account"; "even now there are '''many antichrists'''" (''so he said he stopped worrying about who was the antichrist'')—"'''they went out from us''', but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us"; "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed".

:::He said, "I looked for a church that was not founded by someone who disobeyed those who were over him in the Lord, who went out from the church, and taught a doctrine different from the church he left. According to all the history I found, the only one that qualified, was the Catholic Church. The Orthodox Churches had acknowledged that Constantinople was first in dignity AFTER Rome. That has to do with authority. So there was only one logical conclusion. All the others had refused to accept her authority and disobediently departed from the Roman Catholic Church and taught a different doctrine. So the Catholic Church had to be the one. And therefore whatever the Roman Catholic Church taught as doctrine had to be guaranteed to be the truth. When I compared what the early church fathers taught with the Bible, there was no real conflict. They based all their teachings on what is in the Bible and what the disciples of the apostles had traditionally taught and handed down as their interpretation of the Bible, led by the Spirit of truth—''forever''. Therefore the Protestant Reformers were wrong, according to the Bible and the testimony of history. It turned out that all of the Protestants who join the Catholic Church have come to the same conclusion, and for the same reasons. It's like a mathematical formula, all based on the Bible. The Catholic Church was not founded by those who disobeyed those over them and went out and taught a different doctrine."

:::I gotta admit, the sheer simplicity of Dataclarifier's reasoning is brilliant! (''He says he can't take credit for it—it's in the Bible''.) I came up with 20 Bible references. He had basically only ''THREE''! Whatever the authority of the Catholic Church teaches dogmatically as the Doctrine of Christ '''''must''''' be true, ''or Jesus broke his promises'' '''Matthew 16:18; John 14:16-17; 16:13'''; ''together with'' '''1 John 2:18-19'''. It turns out that all adult converts to the Catholic Church have come to the same biblical conclusion: the invincibly incorruptible divine authority of the one undivided Church, true salvation by the gift of eternal life and removal of sins through the washing of regenerative water baptism, the partaking of the divine nature of God in the eucharist of Christ's body and blood as food for eternal life, confession and absolution of sins, the sacraments of confirmation, anointing of the sick, monogamous marriage, no divorce allowed, the priesthood, the canon of the whole Catholic Bible (73 books), the [[magisterium]], sacred tradition not of man handed down from the apostles, [[apostolic succession]], purgatory, miracles, the intercession of saints, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the rosary, [[papal primacy]]—all guaranteed by the promises of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Bible.

:::You can't go wrong with that! May God give you light to see it. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 21:07, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
::::Big deal; Dataclarifier is not the first human being to be deceived. You've all tossed God and the Bible overboard to worship an institution and doctrines made up and governed by men. ''Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free''.

::::'''Luke 4:8:''' ''And Jesus answered him, “It is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’”''

::::and all you guys ever say is "church church church church" and "church authority." You have the Bible in your lap; read that and toss out all that excess Roman church junk. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 21:35, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
:::[promoted by VM] We did read it. We still read it. The Bible as the infallible word of God is what led us to acknowledge the complete worship of the one true God who divinely established the church firmly on a rock to lead us all infallibly into all truth so that we know the truth that sets us free from sin and away from false religion to worship the one Lord our God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and serve only him in spirit and in truth in the way that he himself ordained, in and through the church as the holy dwelling place of his Spirit and the household of God, the pillar and ground of the truth, that he purchased for himself with his blood as his body and his bride and appointed elders as shepherds to feed the whole flock of his people. There is salvation in no other. The Bible as the inspired infallible word of God supports the teaching authority of the Church and her doctrine and sacraments as the guarantee of salvation in Jesus Christ alone by the power of his blood and the truth of his doctrine. The Church preserved the Bible and serves it. Without the Church you wouldn't even have a Bible. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 22:17, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
::::'''Bzzzt. Wrong.''' You were doing good up to this point: "the church as the holy dwelling place of his Spirit". The Holy Spirit of God dwells in the individual believers. The believers in fellowship with one another bring the Holy Spirit into a church. You got it bass-ackwards. You think somehow the church imparts the Holy Spirit to members. The church is not God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:09, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

::::You've fallen into a trap. You're not seeking God or salvation, you are seeking "the one true church", in your own words which you repeat often.

::::''In the beginning was the Word....'' is all the authority you or I need to interpret the scriptures. You don't need, and God never intended, someone else to do it for you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 26 July 2020 (EDT)

::Let's talk about miracles for a moment. A miracle is not pulling a rabbit out of your hat. A miracle is imparting the words of salvation to a non-believer and lost sinner, and bringing them to Christ. A miracle is getting up at 4:00 in the morning (which I've done) to feed the homeless when it's 10 degrees outside. A miracle is visiting those in prison. I'd never do these things on my own or for my own benefit. The only reason I can come up with is, because God told me to do it, and it's a miracle that I obeyed. I've witnessed these miracles and those with hungry bellies, or lonely and lost in jail, will attest to it, as well. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:42, 26 July 2020 (EDT)
:A miracle is a visible act of God that cannot be explained normally and scientifically that points unmistakably to the reality of God: raising the dead, healing the incurably sick and the maimed who could not otherwise be made whole, giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the mute, sudden new restoration of healthy limbs replacing those that were amputated or lost by accident or surgery or disease (legs, arms), weapons of violence suddenly rendered inoperative in attacks on believers, sudden multiplication of food, all other documented cases of otherwise unexplainable good physical benefits that have occurred beyond any doubt of their reality. Who have you physically healed in this way by the power of God? I belong to a unified Catholic Church indwelt by the Holy Spirit forever leading into all truth that heals by the power of God, from the first century to the present day.

:You say "''In the beginning was the Word... is all the authority you or I need to interpret the scriptures.''" If that was true, then the Bible could be made to seem to say or justify anything anyone wants ([[Cafeteria Christianity]]), "because the Bible says so". The New Testament warns that the scriptures can be distorted and misused by unstable and ignorant persons to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-18). Qualified teachers and interpreters are necessary, and not all are teachers (1 Corinthians 12:28). Take a look at the article '''''[[sola spiritu]]'''''. The One Holy Spirit of truth could not produce the conflicting doctrines of the differing Protestant churches and individuals who say they only need the Bible, whose multiple interpretations of scripture conflict and contradict, but the Holy Spirit according to the promise of Christ guides a unified understanding of the meaning of the scriptures through "faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Timothy 2:2). That's why the Bible says to "Obey those who have the rule over you and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls" Hebrews 13:17.

:It is not the individual believers who bring the Holy Spirit into the Church, but the one body of the whole Church itself since the day of Pentecost is the permanent dwelling place and temple of the Holy Spirit Who is given to the members of the one body of Christ as individuals for the benefit of all the whole body (1 Corinthians 12:4-30).

:'''Ephesians 2:19-22; 4:4-5''' "in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place (''not places'') of God in the Spirit"

:'''1 Corinthians 3:16-17''' "Do you not know that you (''collective plural "you"'') are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you (''collective plural "you"'') ?; '''6:17,19-20''' v.17 "but he who is united to the Lord becomes one Spirit with him"

:'''2 Corinthians 3:18; 6:16'''

:'''Colossians 1:18-19'''

:'''John 14:17''' "even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you (''collective plural "you"'') know him, for he dwells with you (''collective plural "you"''), and will be in you (''collective plural "you"'')."

:'''Revelation 11:1''' "Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there".

:'''Hebrews 3:6; 12:22-24''' v.3:6 "Christ was faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house (''not houses'') if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our hope"—"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a '''judge''' who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel. '''See that you do not refuse him who is speaking.''' For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape if we reject '''him who warns from heaven.'''"

:'''1 Timothy 3:15''' "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

:'''1 Peter 2:5''' "and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house (''not houses''), to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."

:--[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 03:26, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

:See this article [https://www.godswordforyou.com/thoughts/74-thoughts-on-the-church/469-7-the-church-the-dwelling-place-of-god.html '''The Church - The Dwelling Place of God'''] --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 03:29, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
::Bingo. That's what I just said. "A miracle is a visible act of God that cannot be explained normally and scientifically" like me getting up 4:00 AM in the dead of January to feed the homeless. The rest of your post (TLDR) seems to be back on your "true church" kick.

::Bottomline: You cannot defend your Satanic doctrine of Purgatory from the Bible. Your only defense is the "The Roman Church said it, I believe it." God says your Purgatory doctrine is a lie of Satan. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 08:29, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

::None of the scriptures you cite refute what I said, "The believers in fellowship with one another bring the Holy Spirit into a church." And you have provided no scriptural evidence to support your allusion (paraphrasing myself) "the church imparts the Holy Spirit". That's your big flaw. God gives the Holy Spirit to individual believers. The church is not God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:38, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

Nice proofs from Independent Skeptic. That the Church in every age has prayed for the faithful departed is a sufficient proof of Purgatory. In Maccabees, we read even the Jewish people before Christ's Incarnation did the same. In the Fifth Proof, I showed above that St. Paul also did. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 06:28, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
:Your Maccabees quote denies the blood of Christ and says God can be bribed. That's Satanic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 08:33, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
::But... [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 11:41, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

=====Can the faithful be unrepentant?=====

:::The rule of Blessèd Benedict prescribes a step-wise approach to repentance. This somehow seems less miraculous than all at once. On the other hand there are step-wise models for charity, other virtues and evangelism by Jesus and others in other parts of the New Testament. And the devotée does ''choose'' an approach (a drawing nearer).

:::I can think of one where steps seem to be implied. First the illness (John 8:34-35):

::::I tell you most solemnly,
::::everyone who commits sin is a slave.
::::Now the slave's place in the house is not assured,
::::but the son's place is assured.
::::So if the Son makes you free,
::::you will be free indeed.

:::Therefore Jesus seems to imply a remedy, depending on what you expect (Luke 17:7-10):

::::Which of you, with a servant ploughing or minding sheep, would say to him when he returned from the fields, "Come and have your meal immediately"? Would he not be more likely to say, "Get my supper laid; make yourself tidy and wait on me while I eat and drink. You can eat and drink yourself afterwards"? Must he be grateful to the servant for doing what he was told? So with you: when you have done all you have been told to do, say, "We are merely servants: we have done no more than our duty."

:::And the Holy Apostle (Romans 6:17-19):

::::You were once slaves of sin, but thank God you submitted without reservation to the creed you were taught. You may have been freed from the slavery of sin, but only to become "slaves" of righteousness. If I may use human terms to help your natural weakness: as once you put your bodies at the service of vice and immorality, so now you must put them at the service of righteousness for your sanctification.

:::So what happens to the vice in the form of habits of the soul? Does some of it go away immediately and some of it remain ''potentially''? What if you can't name it? Can we be dead to a sin we can't identify? This seems to demand not only humility but hope as well. Otherwise, is this an act by sin, if sin were like a person, able to place us in a wash, rinse, repeat situation?

:::If you are a slave to doing what God requires is it like an apprenticeship or even like a lifetime learning experience? In Hebrews 3:14, "We shall remain co-heirs with Christ only if we keep a grasp on our first confidence right to the end."

:::I need a new word. Maybe the faithful to Christ's Passion and promise can be ''non-repentant'' only until we see our hope as needing to and able to incorporate another fold of our faith. Then a choice approaches. If we don't choose does it pass on to our next lifetime?

:::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 07:17, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

=====Christian walks=====

::::Wow. did you ever open up a can of worms. Paul says, ''I beat my body black and blue and bring it under subjection'' so yes, it is an ongoing process.

::::I'm going to try to answer two questions here. I/S and Dataclarifier are hung up over the role of the church. You're asking about the narrow path. And the [[Cafeteria Christianity]] article has similar problems involving both these questions. We must recognize that a person's Christian walk is unique. Being a Christian is a process of growth. We begin as ''babes in Christ''; some, if not most, begin as carnal, awaiting the Holy Spirit. Some never progress beyond being ''babes in Christ'' or still ''yet carnal''. God's design is for us to move ''Onward, to perfection''. So the scripture can have different meanings and be understood differently to the same person over time; likewise it can be understood differently by different people at the same time, depending on their position and walk with Christ. ''I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase''. One role of the church is for believers at different points in their walk with Christ is to share their experiences with others in fellowship to help bring them to perfection or maturity. Hence the importance of trying the spirits.

:::I/S and DC's basic argument is for a one size fits all, non-biblically based doctrine. It doesn't work - except for those who are permanently labeled "carnal" Christians. It inhibits, if not outright discourages, their spiritual growth as believers.

::::Back to VM's question: the Word is a seed, going back to Isaiah, ''So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please''. This is echoed by Jesus, ''A sower went out to sow seed....'' DC and I/S couldn't be more wrong, the seed or word of God is received differently by different people depending on their maturity. The Roman Catholic faith has attempted to standardize the word by ignoring the teaching of the word in churches, replacing the word of God with man made church doctrine. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:17, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

::::It's difficult to address Nishant's claim of Purgatory based on 1 Corinthian's chapter 3, because that chapter is addressed to carnal Christians, i.e. those who are not "spiritually born" as Jesus commanded in John chapter 3. A carnal believer who tries to build a spiritual doctrine is fatally flawed. He has to receive spiritual baptism first, then we can discuss 1 Corinthians chapter 3.

::::So how do carnal Roman believers address this problem? They load up on non-biblical doctrine such as the book of Maccabees which denies the blood and divinity of Christ completely and says God is a pimp who can be bought. In their spiritual blindness they dig a pit deeper for themselves by misleading others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:49, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

::::The word of God is a seed:

::::'''1 PETER 1:23 NKJV:''' ''having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,''

::::If you haven't been born again, the seed has not taken root. The Roman church does not sow the seed, it sows church doctrine, as is readily apparent in these discussions. The Roman church doctrine strangles the seed.

::::'''Luke 8:7:''' ''And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.''
:::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:47, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::*The Church Jesus built on a Rock cannot be overcome by Satan: "''the gates of hell shall not prevail against it''" Matthew 16:18.

:::::*The Church has the keys of the kingdom of heaven with the authority to bind and to loosen: "''whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven''" Matthew 16:19; 18:18

::::::*The Holy Spirit is with the Church for ever, leading into all truth: "''to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth...he will guide you into all the truth''" John 14:16-17; 16:13

:::::*Obedience to the leaders who rule is commanded: "''Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls''" Hebrews 13:17

:::::*Those who left the Church are antichrist because they are not of the Church: "''even now many antichrists have come...They went out from us, but they were not of us''" 1 John 2:18-19

:::::*The antichrists set up divisions, they reject authority, revile the saints and angels, and are devoid of the Spirit: "''defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones...scoffers, following their own ungodly passions. It is these who set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit''" Jude 8,18-19 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:54, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

====Christ died once for all (cont'd)====

::This must be a misunderstanding. The sacrifice described has a misleadingly vague name, like "original sin" does (it's not in the Bible as far as I know, and it describes vice not sin), or "electro-motive force" (describes energy not force). A sin offering was only for inadvertent mistakes made in performance of rituals, or "ritual faults". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 12:29, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

::But thank you for your response above to my inquiry. I am applying my attention to it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 12:33, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

::::"Original sin" is basically what [[Augustine]] describes - [[pride]]. Pride is thinking you're something you're not, like Satan thinking he was God and rebelling against him. Pride is rejecting God and God's word, like the prodigal son, and thinking you can find your own way in life without God's guidance, like Adam and Eve.

::::Satan said ''I will exalt myself''; Jesus said ''Not my will but Thy will.''

::::'''Proverbs 6:16-17:''' ''16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:'' and No.1 on the list is: ''17 A proud look.''

::::Absalom, like Satan, wanted to appoint himself King, and was tossed into a bottomless pit. Pride is ''worshipping and serving the creature more than the Creator.'' Teachers like Augustine thumbnailed this teaching by labeling it "original sin". To clarify further, the original sin began with Lucifer, and not with Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve joined the creature's rebellion against the Creator. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:34, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

::::A final word: the Roman Church is prideful - it abandons God's word because it thinks it knows better than God what is necessary for salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:06, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for this informative digression. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 00:26, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::And thank you for adding context to the Book of Maccabees. I perused it once many years ago, and it wasn't even over the issue of Purgatory, it was over background material on the sect of Zealots if I recall. While some commentaries call zealots 'terrorists' in the Western Roman sense, warriors in the Hebrew idiom makes more sense. Today they'd probably be called a [[national liberation movement]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:27, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

=====Christian walk 1=====

:::::"'''upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'''" Matthew 16:18. The Church defends the Bible as the word of God. The Holy Spirit is with the Church for ever leading into all truth. All of the Church's [[dogma|dogmatic teachings]] are true. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:27, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
::::[Promoted by VM] DC, you're getting redundant again, and thus far you haven't been able to shed any light on scripture without bringing in non-scriptural evidence. Try to stick to the subject under discussion. We're discussing Purgatory. Purgatory refutes the Gospel of Grace and the divinity of Christ. You're only response is, "but that is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches", to which we evidently are in agreement then. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:34, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::Matthew 16:18 '''''is''''' scriptural evidence. So is this: "'''the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth'''" 1 Timothy 3:15 "'''the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord'''" Ephesians 2:19-21 "'''the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'''" --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:18, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::The topic is purgatory, taught as truth by the pillar and bulwark of the truth, the church of the living God. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:21, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::"'''And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.'''" 2 Peter 1:19-21 "'''which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You, therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.'''" 1 Peter 3:16-17 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

::::[https://youtu.be/t0BGf0Aj-lg This cracks me up! ''a bunch of made-up weird stuff that makes me want to lobotomize myself with a pair of rusty hedge clippers'']. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:50, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

====Christ died once for all, part 3 and Christian walk 2====

:::Okay. The sin was for inadvertent ritual faults, including outside the temple, that the warriors committed because they died before they were able to make a sin offering.

:::Martin Luther didn't like this book, but these verses seem to deserve commendation rather than censure, all things being equal, because the writer said they hoped in a resurrection of the dead!

:::Jesus said the patriarchs were alive, but they weren't living on earth, apparently, so these verses don't do too badly, do they? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 14:09, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

::::Man, you got a habit of throwing a nasty breaking slider pitch, but I don't think I've struck out yet. I'm going to revert back to what I said about carnality (and this ties in somewhat with I/S/ doctrine of "baptism of intent" or whatever they call it).

::::Clearly Paul speaks of people who ''are yet carnal'' sitting in Christian church pews. Most Protestant teachers and preachers I've encountered call them "carnal Christians" which sounds like an oxymoron. This goes to the heart of what I think you mean by the faithful being unrepentant. Here I turn to 1 Corinthians 15, of which so much can be said in this discussion. (Verses 1 & 2 read, ''Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, '''unless ye have believed in vain'''.'' Is this what you mean by the faithful being unrepentant? If so, they likely can't be considered "the faithful".)
{{quotebox| 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: {''ye must be born again'')...

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body....

52 In a moment, '''in the twinkling of an eye''', at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.}}
::::Verse 52 is usually taught as some future event, but I can't say so definitely from context. It may be speaking of baptism of the Holy Spirit. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:56, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

:::Why do I say 1 Cor. 15:52 may not be speaking of the same events as in 1 Thes. 4:16 ("''For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.''")? Compare these two verses side-by-side:

:::'''Romans 6:6:''' - ''Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that '''the body of sin might be destroyed''', that henceforth we should not serve sin.

:::'''1 Corinthians 15:44:''' - ''It is sown a natural body; '''it is raised a spiritual body'''. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.''

:::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:11, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

::(ec) We shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye. That sure sounds like spirit baptism to me. And I couldn't even tell you when it happened to me, just that it did happen. And I've known and seen others as well that got off the road to destruction and became spirit filled believers. At some point in the twinkling of an eye they reversed course. And many of them as well can't put their finger on the moment in time it happened, but it did happen. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:22, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

=====Interpreting Scripture on purgatory=====

::[promoted by VM] We have cited '''2 Maccabees 12:45; 1 Corinthians 3:12-15; Matthew 16:18; 18:17-18; John 14:16-17; 16:13; Romans 13:1-2; Ephesians 2:19-21; 1 Timothy 3:15; Titus 3:10-11; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 3:13-17; 1 Peter 5:5-6; 2 Peter 1:19-21 and 2 Peter 3:16-17; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 8,18-19 and Revelation 2 and 3 and Revelation 22:18-19'''.

::This ''''''is''''' scriptural evidence for the biblical doctrine of purgatory: the doctrine is not of Satan. The teaching of the Bible is clear about the infallible Church having the established authority of God as an institution to teach the biblical doctrine of purgatory: the Bible is true: the word of the Lord is the law of the Lord. ''Listen to the word of the Lord: listen to the church: listen to what the Spirit says to the churches''. "'''If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination'''" Proverbs 28:9. That's the teaching of the Bible itself on the authority of the Church as the pillar and bulwark of the truth to teach purgatory as a doctrine of the Bible revealed as truth by God. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 15:19, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

:::No you haven't. When your argument is, "I believe scripture, plus a lot of other stuff", that automatically nullifies your "I believe scripture" statement. You're peeing in the wind. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:24, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
::::Scripture points '''''directly''''' to all the "other stuff" taught by the authority of the doctrine of the Church whatever it teaches, as demonstrated by the scriptures cited above. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 15:30, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::So you are not an [[originalist]] or [[strict construction]]ist. Rather you believe in a [[living Constitution|living bible]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 19:28, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
::::"'''upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'''" Matthew 16:18. The Church defends the Bible as the word of God. The Holy Spirit is with the Church for ever leading into all truth. All of the Church's [[dogma|dogmatic teachings]] are true. You just don't accept the truth of the scriptures. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 15:33, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::God says 2 + 2 = 4, and no addendum by God or man can change that. If you really want to have a discussion about the Bible and whatever beliefs you derive from it, you can't bring in extra-biblical material or evidence. This is simple logic. If you think the Bible supports your position, you need to argue better than just Matt 16 & 18 {you've heard the arguments refuting this a thousand times). And you can't bring in non-biblical subjects such as "purgatory", "great commission", "papal authority", etc etc etc. If you cannot do this from scripture, your whole foundation, doctrine, and argument is faulty. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:43, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
::::[Promoted by VM] '''"Better than" Matthew 16:18''', several of us cited 2 Maccabees 12:45; 1 Corinthians 3:12-15; Matthew 16:18; 18:17-18; John 14:16-17; 16:13; Romans 13:1-2; Ephesians 2:19-21; 1 Timothy 3:15; Titus 3:10-11; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 3:13-17; 1 Peter 5:5-6; 2 Peter 1:19-21 and 2 Peter 3:16-17; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 8,18-19 and Revelation 2 and 3 and Revelation 22:18-19. If Jesus founded one church, not many, and it is the pillar and bulwark or foundation of the truth, as he said, then the teaching of that one church must be the truth, and those who "went out from" the church are antichrist who oppose the doctrines of the truth that Jesus guaranteed to be truth. Purgatory is included in the truth taught by the church he founded as the pillar and bulwark of the truth, along with the doctrine to obey the leadership of the church. It's simple logic. You have to do away with these parts of scripture cited here above to refute what the Bible infallibly says about the church Jesus founded on a rock and about those who will not listen to the church Matthew 18:17-18. The whole foundation, doctrine, and argument is based entirely on the Bible as the word of God, which includes the scriptures cited here above. The Great Commission '''''is''''' in the Bible: Matthew 28:18-20. The infallible church teaches subjects such as "purgatory", "great commission", "papal authority", etc etc etc, guaranteed by the promises of Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it as the pillar and foundation of truth whose leaders we are commanded to obey. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:18, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

::::'''The very fact''' that anyone sees any kind of necessity to comment on and interpret scripture apart from its clear and plain and simple meaning is proof that ''[[sola scriptura]]'' is '''''not''''' sufficient. The moment you claim "this is what scripture means" you disprove the Protestant invention of ''sola scriptura'' and deny that scripture is all-sufficient. On the very principle RobSmith has repeatedly cited—"''scripture alone''" sola scriptura, "''argue from scripture alone''", "''prove it from scripture without any additions''"—'''''on the basis of that principle alone''''' (which is not in the Bible) he shouldn't have been making '''''any''''' argument or commentary at all. He doesn't rely on scripture alone: he himself '''adds''' to the word of God by his own anti-Catholic interpretive commentary. That fact undercuts his argument. It's self-refuting. His own arguments and reasoning and commentary is his own personal addition to the word of God.

::::Protestants and fundamentalists (''I was one of them'') who have read for themselves the plain, simple, clear meaning of the scripture by itself—''scriptures testifying to the infallibility and truth of the church Jesus established on a rock by his authority, and the fact that those who went out of her do not have the gospel or the Spirit of the Lord''—have taken scripture "at its word", plainly, simply and clearly, and joined themselves to the Catholic Church.

::::It takes reasoning '''''added''''' to the word of God the Bible to insist that these plain verses cited here above do '''''not''''' mean what in fact they say. The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church the pillar and foundation of truth and defender of the Bible and all that the Bible itself says about the Church. The one church Jesus founded teaches the truth. Others disobeyed their leaders, departed and went out from her and taught a different gospel. All of them added their own doctrines, interpretations. and commentaries to the Bible, invalidating ''sola scriptura''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:47, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::Right here. You are not talking about Bible teaching, you are talking about church teaching. And you further seem to draw a distinction between Bible and scripture. In your mind, Bible means "catechism" and "scripture" means "Bible." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:23, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::Look at the duplicity of Dataclarifier's argument:

:::::*"The very fact that anyone sees any kind of necessity to comment on and interpret scripture apart from its clear and plain and simple meaning is proof that sola scriptura is not sufficient.

:::::*"It takes reasoning '''''added''''' to the word of God the Bible to insist that these plain verses cited here above do not mean what in fact they say."

:::::And of course he tops it off with an ''ad hominem'' alleging I'm the anti-Christ. Dataclarifier ceased arguing in good faith a long time ago. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:57, 27 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::Where exactly did I explicitly say or allege that '''RobSmith''' is the antichrist? I never did. I have ever and always specified what scripture says. Produce the quote that you say says I allege that you are the antichrist. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:57, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

::::::Why in God's name would you see yourself as the one that scripture identifies with the antichrist? I cited scripture about the antichrist. Why do you think you could possibly qualify in any way with what scripture says about the antichrist? I never said you are the antichrist. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 02:08, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

::::::These are the only verses according to '''Strong's concordance''' that have the term "'''antichrist'''" (King James Version):
::::::*'''1 John 2:18''' "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye heard that '''antichrist''' shall come, even now are there many '''antichrists'''; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us"

::::::*'''1 John 2:22''' "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is '''antichrist''', that denieth the Father and the Son."

::::::*'''1 John 4:3''' "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that ''spirit'' of '''antichrist''', whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world."

::::::*'''2 John 7''' "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an '''antichrist'''."

::::::--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 02:28, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

::::::Look at this link: [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Antichrist/ '''Bible Verses About Antichrist'''] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 02:36, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

::::::'''RobSmith''': In what way have these verses been applied to you personally? What possible reason do you have for thinking that they can, ''or could ever'', apply to you? I don't see it. I have scrolled up and down this page ''and others''. I used the tool "find on page". I didn't find anywhere that I said you are the antichrist. Yet you are absolutely sure that I did. Why? What is it that makes you feel so sure that I did? --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:02, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::*'''1 John 2:22''' - ''Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? ''
:::::*'''1 Peter 3:18:''' - ''Christ died once for all.''

:::::[promoted by VM] Your Purgatory doctrine is the Doctrine of the Anti-Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 07:29, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::*"The very fact that anyone sees any kind of necessity to comment on and interpret scripture apart from its clear and plain and simple meaning is proof that sola scriptura is not sufficient" - Dataclarifier.
::::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 07:37, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::*"It takes reasoning added to the word of God the Bible to insist that these plain verses cited here above do not mean what in fact they say" - Dataclarifier
:::::*'''1 Corinthians 1:19''' - ''For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.''
:::::Who you gonna believe, God or your lying eyes? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 07:53, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

::::::I believe the testimony of the word of God in the Bible that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church Jesus founded on a rock (Matt 16:18). I believe the testimony of the word of God in the Bible that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). I believe the testimony of the word of God in the Bible that the Holy Spirit is with us for ever guiding into all truth (John 14:16-17; 16:13). I believe the testimony of the word of God in the Bible that all authority is from God and whoever resists the authority resists what God has appointed (Rom 13:1-2). I believe the testimony of the word of God in the Bible that we are to obey our leaders who watch over our souls (Heb 13:17). I believe the testimony of the word of God in the Bible that the elders of the church are those who take heed to themselves and all the flock in which the Holy Spirit has made guardians, to feed the Church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:17,28). I believe the testimony of the word of God in the Bible that the Church is the household of God (1 Tim 3:15) built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Eph 2:19-22). I believe the testimony of the word of God in the Bible that whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God (1 John 4:15). The creeds of the Catholic Church confess that Jesus is the Son of God. I'm "gonna believe" God's testimony in the word of God in the Bible. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:41, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::[Promoted by VM] But you don't believe the divine blood of Jesus was enough to purge your sins, which kinda nullifies the rest of your misinterpreted claims about believing God and his Word. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:48, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::
::::::I believe 2 Maccabees 12:45; '''1 Corinthians 3:12-15''' (''purging fire''); Matthew 16:18; 18:17-18; John 14:16-17; 16:13; Romans 13:1-2; Ephesians 2:19-21; 1 Timothy 3:15; Titus 3:10-11; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 3:13-17; 1 Peter 5:5-6; 2 Peter 1:19-21 and 2 Peter 3:16-17; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 8,18-19 and Revelation 2 and 3 and Revelation 22:18-19 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:58, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::[Promoted by VM] You must be a [[Cafeteria Christian]], by your own admission. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:06, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::'''''"saved by fire"''''' 1 Cor 3:1-15

:::::Again, ''where did I ever say you are the antichrist?'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:08, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::I believe '''all''' of the Bible, which includes all the verses I cited above. '''"saved by fire"'''. Again, '''''where did I ever say you are the antichrist?''''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::*''Our God is a consuming fire.''

:::::::[promoted by VM] Even with 1 Cor. 3:12 you misread the scripture. It says "as by fire" which has a different meaning from "by fire". What a shame to throw your life and salvation away on such nonsense.

:::::::You reject the Grace of God and the blood of Jesus. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::::It was an accidental typo omission. I mean what the scripture says—'''''all''''' of scripture. Again, '''''where did I ever say you are the antichrist?''''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:33, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::[promoted by VM] (ec3x) The blood of Christ is an accidental omission you preach to homeschoolers. Don't tell that to me, explain that to God.
:::::::Above you post 1 Cor 3:1-15; did you actually read verse 1-3?
{{quotebox|1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?}}
:::::::Looks like you forgot these two scriptures:
:::::::*''Ye must be born of the spirit''
:::::::*''To be carnally minded is death.''

:::::::Are ye not carnal? By your own admission, your understanding of Purgatory is based upon your carnal mind, which you even cite the scripture to support. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:44, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:::Provide quote, please—''where did I ever say you are the antichrist?'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:41, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
:'''RobSmith''', you really do need to hear what the Spirit says to the churches and ''listen to the Church'' which is the body of Christ built into the temple of God in the Spirit which is the household of God the pillar and bulwark of the truth built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets led into all the truth by the Holy Spirit forever by submitting and obeying the leaders who watch over our souls and elders of the church made guardians to feed the flock the church the Lord purchased with his own blood whose authority is established by God against which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

:'''NishantXavier''' has provided all the scriptural evidence necessary beginning at the top of this Debate page, and from these same scriptures from the first century to the present day the teaching authority of the one Church Jesus founded on a rock has established the truth of purgatory as divinely revealed by God. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 15:18, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
::You're being redundant again again again again. You're flowery pious language cannot hide the Satanic message - the blood of Jesus is of no use and a person's blood is upon their own head. I'd pray, "May God have mercy on your soul" for misleading children, but you know what the scripture says,
::*''whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.''

::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:54, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

=====Christian walk 2, part 2=====

:My question was a thought experiment. I didn't know what the answer would be when I posed it, but I put the bold lines of ideas together while drawing in bible verses hoping everybody could either add ideas or comprehension that I hadn't or shift minor ideas to look at them in a different perspective than a series of proofs and refutations if they wanted.

:It didn't occur to me until the end to come up with a neutral term to describe what might be carried over to the next life, but along the way I remembered your idea about sacraments carrying us about and saw a mirror image of sin doing that too in the form of unstructured problems, so I thought it might be justified.

:Such problems are a reality, even if it's not fun to think of landmines being in a person's soul, but for even for the novitiate there may be a point where their eyes glaze over from working at odds with themselves.

:But starting with "carnal Christians", I managed to attract more than food for thought, but rather quite a banquet! I hope I didn't have a discouraging attitude, but maybe it's better to charge at the center of the idea even if you miss, or a subject like purgatory can cloud the atmosphere or make the ground sink if you're not careful. Or not. Probably've seen too much riot footage. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Monday, 16:38, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

::The difference between [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]] essentially is a debate over the [[resurrection]]. The question, is that resurrection bodily or spiritual? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 19:45, 27 July 2020 (EDT)

====Christ died once for all, part 4====

Judaism taught prayers for the departed, as the Maccabees shows. St. Paul taught it in 2 Timothy 1, as shown in the fifth proof. Only those who confess their mortal sins are forgiven them. If there is no confession, as said in 1 Jn 1:7-10, there is no forgiveness. If one confesses and is forgiven, one avoids hell. If one receives the Body and Blood of Jesus well in Holy Communion, one can avoid Purgatory. Loving God and neighbor, the Two Great Commandments of Christ, are necessary. Some people don't want to obey Christ as King, they don't want to actually follow His teaching, on loving God with your whole heart, and loving your neighbor as you love yourself. hence, they fight against Christ's Teaching. Purgatory is proved (1) by 1 Cor 3:13-15 mentioning the fire through which we are saved, by (2) St. Peter mentioning in 1 Pet 3:18-19 and 4:6 the prison where spirits are temporarily imprisoned, to whom Christ preached after His death. (3) by Our Lord Himself mentioning this same prison as one out of which no one goes until he pays the last farthing. (4) By Our Lord Jesus speaking of those who receive lesser stripes, which cannot refer to eternal punishment, and therefore proves the temporal punishment of purgatory. (5) By the Maccabees and by St. Paul praying for Onesiphorus, his departed Christian friend. Five Solid Proofs. Clear as crystal. Those who deny Purgatory are opposing the Lord and the Apostles, and indeed God and His OT Prophets as well. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 09:43, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
:*'''2 Macc 12:43:''' - "he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead"
:*'''John 2:16:''' - ''Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.''
::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

As proved from St. Paul, prayers for the departed are a Judeo-Christian Apostolic Tradition: "St. Paul offers a final simple proof: “The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain:” [2 Tim 1:16]. Now, it is manifest in the text, and not infrequently admitted even by Protestant commentators, that Onesiphorus was a departed Christian, whose works of mercy St. Paul calls to mind.
:::An even better proof is in verse 18 "'''The Lord grant unto him''' [Onesiphorus] '''that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day'''" 2 Timothy 1:18.
::::Context: "for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found ''me''. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day" 2 Timothy 1:16-18.
:::Here, it is plainly evident that Paul is not speaking about the living survivors of the members of the House of Onesiphorus, but about Onesiphorus himself. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:28, 30 July 2020 (EDT)
::::I corrected my error, there is no evidence from the context of that passage that Onesiphorus is dead. The past tense implies Onesiphorus is on the road somewhere and was separated from his household who were back home, presumably in Ephesus. I repent of my error when I posted "survivors" on this page, which is the only mistake I made thus far that I know of. My apologies. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:09, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

St. Thomas admirably argues: “Now there is no need to pray for the dead who are in heaven, for they are in no need; nor again for those who are in hell, because they cannot be loosed from sins.”[7] This magnificent proof of St. Thomas is a final proof of Purgatory.

St. Chrysostom comments: “Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf.” [8] [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:02, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:Bizarre. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:54, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

The Prophets teach prayers for the departed, as Maccabees shows. The Apostles teach prayers for the departed, as St. Paul shows, regarding Onesiphorus. The Church Fathers teach prayers for the departed, as St. Chrysostom shows. The medieval scholastics like St. Thomas taught it. All Christendom for over 1500 years unanimously taught it. Only after Martin Luther did some fall into confusion as to the necessity of praying for the faithful departed. We pray for the faithful departed to be loosed from their sins, just as God has taught us in His Word to do. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 11:02, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
:Son, you're gonna burn in hell if you don't repent. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:15, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:If you cannot read Paul is speaking about the living <s>survivors</s> members of the House of Onesiphorus, you are spiritually blind. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:46, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
::"'''''if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an [[Paganism|heathen man]] and a [https://biblehub.com/topical/p/publican.htm publican]'''''"—"'''''know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth'''''"—"'''''upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'''''"—"'''''Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that ''is'' unprofitable for you.'''''"

::Therefore the interpretation of the Church is the true interpretation of the scriptures. The Church teaches the truth that purgatory is grounded in the divinely inspired revealed holy scriptures of the word of God as a merciful reality for those who are saved by the blood of Christ to prepare them for heaven. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:18, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

::'''NishantXavier''' is referring to '''''[[Sensus fidelium]], [[Sensus plenior]], [[Sensus Christianorum]]'''''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:27, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
:::That's not going to keep you out of hell for denying to these little ones the salvation Christ purchased with his own blood. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 17:36, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
::::This teaching does not deny little ones the salvation Christ purchased with his own blood. Those in purgatory are already eternally saved by the blood of Christ. Their sins have been entirely removed. They are being purified and perfected.

::::[[Discernment]] of the truth is guaranteed by the scriptures: '''Matthew 18:13; 1 Timothy 3:15; Matthew 16:18; Hebrews 13:17''' (''quoted above'') "'''That we ''henceforth'' be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, ''and'' cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive'''" Ephesians 4:14. It is by "the pillar and ground of the truth" that we know the truth of God. Therefore the interpretation of the Church is the true interpretation of the scriptures. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:16, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::No, your teaching denies the redemptive blood of Jesus. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:57, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::Denying salvation in the blood of Christ is the same as denying the divinity of Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:59, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::As I said before, I say it again: "''Those in purgatory are already eternally saved by the blood of Christ. Their sins have been entirely removed. They are being purified and perfected.''"--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:36, 30 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::DC: Put your money where your mouth is. Go down and vote below. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 01:39, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::::DC: This is a test of your faith. Go down and [[Debate:_Is_there_a_Purgatory_before_Judgment_Day#Poll:_Vote_yes_or_no|take the poll]]. Remember, ''whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.'' - Matt. 10:33. I don't think the Magisterium has nullified that passage. Time to stand up like a man. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 01:51, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::::DC: Are you going to deny the Word? ''And the Word was made flesh....''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 01:58, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::Denying the established authority of the Church that God has established is the same as denying the divinity of Christ and his authority. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:50, 31 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::'''RobSmith''': You also, put your money where your mouth is. Come up, vote in the companion poll. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:50, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::::'''RobSmith''': This is a test of your faith. C'mon, [[Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day#"I will build my church"|'''take this poll'''.]] Christ established the Church. Remember, ''whoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do what I say?'' - Matt. 10:33; Luke 6:46. I don't think the Magisterium has nullified that passage. Time to stand up like a man. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:50, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::::'''RobSmith''': Are you going to deny the Word? ''And the Word was made flesh....''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:50, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::::Remember: ''the Word made flesh established the Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, the house of God, which is the Church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth, and many antichrists have come, who went out from us because they all are not of us.'' If you vote "Yes" you affirm the whole doctrine of the Church as the truth (which includes purgatory, and the whole canon of 73 books of the Bible). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 01:50, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

::::::::We've had this debate before. And that was underhanded, changing the rules after I voted. But I see you have yet to affirm Christ and the Word of God before men in my poll. Tsk tsk tsk. Are you ashamed of Christ? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 02:08, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

====Jesus and the moneychangers====
It's an old event from the bible people have probably heard many sermons on, including Marxist anti-capitalist sermons. But it's true significance is too often overlooked. And it relates directly to the citation from Maccabees used to support purgatory.

The scenario: When the Law was given, a man who sinned was instructed to take a sheep from the flock and present it at the door of the temple. A few millennia later when most Israelites were urban dwellers in Jerusalem, very few had flocks. So the priests allowed a farmers market in the temple where city-folk could purchase a sheep from a sheep-raiser. Of course the priests collected a piece of the action in the form of rent or a percentage for each sheep sold. IOWs, the more the people sinned, the more sheep were sold. That's why Jesus got mad. And his anger was at the priests more than the sheep sellers. He essentially said "You got it all wrong! Your job as priests is to teach the people to avoid sin, not profit from it!"

This was Luther's objection over indulgences - the same issue. How did the Roman church respond? They rejected the gospel of Jesus in the same way the Pharisees did. And they doubled down; they took a book that was never even Jewish holy scripture and made it the basis of their law. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:44, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:No, you failed to understand. The persons who paid for the goats had no connection to the priests, but wanted to express some scrupulous consideration for the warriors' well-being to show they risked death to honor God, not to have an opportunity for lucre as if they were merely mercenaries. You already touched on (above), correctly, the idea of resurrection the proto-pharisees had, and how it was not the same as the Christians', but which was still a redeeming feature that motivated the Holy Apostle Paul to repeat efforts to persuade the Pharisees ("Brothers, I am a Pharisee and the son of Pharisees. It is for our hope in the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial." [Acts 23:6]) Do you think if the priests had eaten some of the goat-meat, it would be some luxury? The sin offering was prescribed in the earliest chapters of Leviticus, not as an innovation by Hellenic- or Roman-occupied Jerusalem.

:And, I repeat, "sacrifice for sin" or "sin offering" is a misleading name that stood for inadvertent ritual faults. The version way up on this page uses "sacrifice for sins" which is even more confusing. The sacrifice for sin is described in Lev. 4:1-5:13, 6:24-30. The "sacrifice for sin" is declared unnecessary due to Christ's sacrifice in a wordplay of Heb. 10:18, "When all sins have been forgiven, there can be no more sin offerings." That is, "sin offerings" is one phrase. This polite dismissal in Hebrews only emphasizes the fact that knowledge of this is hardly necessary for salvation, an assessment of a type of Scripture, which, by the way, that Rob and I explicitly agreed upon some months back.

:It's such a misleading phrase that that Today's English Version reads "Offerings for unintentional sins"; The ''New Jerusalem Bible'' uses a ''footnote'' "the sacrifice for sin expiates ritual faults against the {{sc|Lord}}", a version which has an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat from 1966, and reads in Lev. 4:22—

::When a leader sins and inadvertently does one of the things forbidden by the commandments of the {{sc|Lord}} his God, thus rendering himself guilty...

:What no one brought up is whether Jesus himself ''ended'' the purgatory described. But IndependentSkeptic has become very dependent on DataClarifier's sensitivity towards whether he is approaching a time where he must defer to you in any matter and pretends to leave if he is.

:That's fine. All of their contributions can be added to the Purgatory article as counterexamples or used however you see fit, and, as if they were in debtor's prison, the income of their argumentive property can be used to benefit Conservapedia until the last dollar of their debt of insolence is paid for. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 23:41, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:By the way, as shocked as I was by your ending, I really enjoyed the way you told that story. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 05:47, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

::A menstruous woman was denied admission to the temple during the period of her cleansing. She had to pay a readmission fee. That's not just a ritual failure. And there was even a sliding scale introduced. If you fell below the poverty line and couldn't afford a sheep, two turtle doves would do. What am I getting wrong here? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 08:42, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

:::In Egypt you could be denied admission if a menstrous woman ''looked'' at you. Trump said he'd make "deals" with the poor who couldn't afford medical treatment. Does that mean all he thinks about is profit? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 09:09, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
::::To the question of Trump, I'd say it means Trump would demand some ''quid pro quo'' or responsibility from beneficiaries of government programs, and not build the image of government as Sugar Daddy. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:17, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::Rather than think of a counter-example, let me try to piece together Scripture of what I think is your underlying concern:
::::Ezekiel 20:25—"I even gave them laws that were not good and observances by which they could never live."

::::Romans 7:8-10—"But it was this commandment that sin took advantage of to produce all kinds of covetousness in me, for when there is no Law, sin is dead."

::::"Once, when there was no Law, I [in the person of mankind] was alive; but when the commandment came, sin came to life and I died...."

::::Romans 5:20—"When law came, it was to multiply the opportunities of falling..."

::::Acts 15:10—"It would only provoke God's anger now, surely, if you imposed on the disciples the very burden that neither we nor our ancestors were strong enough to support?"

::::But...

::::Romans 7:12—"The law is sacred, and what it commands is sacred, just and good."

::::John 7:17—"[T]he Law was given by Moses...."

::::But again...

::::Hebrews 7:19—"[T]he Law could not make anyone perfect...."

::::Answer to 1. These are ceremonial precepts that didn't give grace, but as noted as "observances by which they could never live", by fulfilling them a person confessed themselves a sinner. It goes on: "And I polluted them [in the sense of scandal: showed them to be polluted] with their own offerings, making them sacrifice their first-born [although through substitution]; which was to punish them,..."

::::Answer to 2. The law was "deadly" as the "collision point" not the cause, because imperfect (without giving grace to wield its commandments or prohibitions without error). So sin, through men, "took" advantage and died, the advantage was not "given", in the verse 11 repetition: "because sin took advantage of the commandment to mislead me, and so sin, through that commandment, killed me," and finally to verse 12 above.

::::Answer to 3. That is, sin all the more than while pagans, because an object being forbidden becomes more grievous to reach, and perversely more enticing when forbidden. But the forbidding not evil for the reasons in the answer above.

::::Answer to 4. Commitment to the law without grace wasn't enough to fulfill the law itself that didn't provide it. Romans 9:16—"In other words, the only thing that counts is not what human beings want or try to do, but the mercy of God."

::::As Psalm 119:32—

:::::"I run the way of your commandments,
:::::Since you have set me free."

::::That is, my heart, by giving me grace and charity.

::::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 12:22, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

:::So, although not law, a concept of purgatory in some circles must've been current at the time of Christ and just before, which Nishant has alluded to. Then ''circa'' 1500s the Roman church adopted it as official doctrine. But it wasn't official doctrine before Luther, although the Roman church was preaching it. Roman Catholics and Protestant scholars can probably agree on this timeline, although I personally have never really devoted any study to this question. I've just absorbed bits of understanding as a disinterested lurker over many years. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]

::These verses are really as broad as possible supporting the Old Law in refutation of that early heresy, [[Marcionism]], and maintaining that the Old Law was ''good''. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 22:20, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

====Drop kick me Jesus, through the goal posts of life====
What would be the point of [https://youtu.be/F0aXi6tYU_w praying this prayer] if Christ can't get you there? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 17:44, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:Some people's foolish over-demotion has made parts of the conversation unreadable, and nobody has corrected it. I will do it, but in exchange you have to tolerate my posting Psalm 103. I am especially interested in stanza 5 in context.

:Psalm 103: God is Love

::1.Bless the {{sc|Lord}}, my soul,
::bless his holy name, all that is in me!
::Bless the {{sc|Lord}}, my soul,
::and remember all his kindnesses:

::2.in forgiving all your offences,
::in curing all your diseases,
::in redeeming your life from the Pit,
::in crowning you with love and tenderness,
::in filling your years with prosperity,
::in renewing your youth like an eagle's

::3.The {{sc|Lord}}, who does what is right,
::is always on the side of the oppressed;
::he revealed his intentions to Moses,
::his prowess to the sons of Israel.

::4.The {{sc|Lord}} is tender and compassionate
::slow to anger, most loving;
::his indignation does not last for ever,
::his resentment exists a short time only;
::he never treats us, never punishes us,
::as our guilt and our sins deserve.

::5.No less than the height of heaven over earth
::is the greatness of his love for those who fear him;
::he takes our sins farther away
::than the east is from the west.

::6.As tenderly as a father treats his children,
::so the {{sc|Lord}} treats those who fear him;
::he knows what we are made of,
::he remembers we are dust.

::7.Man lasts no longer than grass,
::no longer than a wild flower he lives,
::one gust of wind, and he is gone,
::never to be seen there again;

::8.yet the {{sc|Lord}}'s love for those who fear him
::lasts from all eternity and for ever,
::like his goodness to their children's children,
::as long as they keep his covenant
::and remember to obey his precepts.

::9.The {{sc|Lord}} has fixed his throne in the heavens,
::his empire is over all.
::Bless the {{sc|Lord}}, all his angels,
::heroes mighty to enforce his word,
::attentive to his word of command.

::10.Bless the {{sc|Lord}}, all his armies,
::servants to enforce his will.
::Bless the {{sc|Lord}}, all his creatures
::in every part of his empire!

::Bless the {{sc|Lord}}, my soul.

::''And you yourself in these postings deny that God has removed our sins as far as the east is from the west; you claim God only takes it so far, and the sinner has to do the rest himself in Purgatory. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:23, 26 July 2020 (EDT)''
:::''The fatal death-dealing disease is removed as far as the east is from the west, but the patient being cured must endure a period of recovery from the leftover effects of the disease. If the patient foolishly contracts a minor strain of the disease again by careless exposure to it the cure is applied again, and recovery is faster. But if the recovered patient deliberately defies the doctor, the tragedy of death is almost guaranteed (Hebrews 6:4-8), unless the more vigorous effort of reapplying the one infallible cure is made to effect a healing which the chief physician has prescribed ("the ministry of reconciliation"). It is still Christ who does it to the soul through the ministry of his body, the church. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2020 (EDT)''
::''No scripture there, I see. When will you stop spinning your wheels claiming that you believe the Bible and then turn around and deny it? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:37, 26 July 2020 (EDT)''

:IndependentSkeptic ''did'' use Scripture, but didn't follow through. Is there a better [definition of the] inner meaning we can get to when we compare that stanza to the other stanzas or to the rest of the stanza the psalmist writes within the sweeping motions the psalmist uses to encourage the reader? Is it part of a proof or disproof that we would understand better if we knew what the full message was? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 18:14, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
:::And VM found more evidence to refute Purgatory in verse 4:
:::*''he '''never''' treats us, '''never punishes us, as our guilt and our sins deserve.'''
:::Of course, you know the answer to that, "the Magisterium has disannulled the word "never" and "never" doesn't mean never." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:01, 28 July 2020 (EDT)
::::It's true what the Bible says, "''he '''never''' treats us, '''never punishes us, as our guilt and our sins deserve.'''''" Instead, His punishments are far '''milder''' than what we deserve, because he is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9). But you ignore the fact that the Bible teaches that God disciplines, rebukes, and chastises his own children, every one saved and adopted by him through the precious blood of Jesus, and that it is God's painful punishment of those he loves who have offended him in some way that is not utterly fatal, and that his painful punishments of discipline, rebuke and chastisement are his correction of those who sin but don't sin any deadly sin "unto death", the death that is the second death in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15). '''1 John 5:16-17''' shows that there are deadly sins (deserving eternal fire) and sins that are not deadly, from which we are "saved as by fire" (1 Corinthians 3:12-15) (deserving temporary fire). Not all punishments are the same intensity, and not all who are guilty are guilty to the same degree (Luke 12:47-48 "''beaten with few stripes''"; John 19:11 "''the greater sin''"). If we '''confess''' our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins ('''1 John 1:5-10'''). The Bible plainly says God disciplines us as a Father, and that His disciplines are painful— "5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening [''chastisement''] of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: "6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth [''chastises''], and <big><big>'''scourgeth'''</big></big> every son he receiveth. "7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? "8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, '''then are ye bastards, and <big><big>not</big></big> sons'''. "9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave ''them'' reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live? "10 For they verily for a few days chastened ''us'' after their own pleasure, but he for ''our'' profit, that ''we'' might be partakers of his holiness. "11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless '''afterward''' it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. "12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; "13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. "14 '''Follow peace with all ''men'', and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.''' —Hebrews 12:5-14 KJV (''bold emphasis added'') As for the Magisterium, she has never disannulled "never". She teaches that "never" '''does''' indeed actually mean "'''never'''"—God never punishes his children as they deserve according to strict justice (hell and the second death), but rather instead according to his mercy. Fathers punish their own children for their offenses in some way without ceasing to love them: they don't punish them with death. He disciplines, rebukes and chastises painfully those whom he receives as sons "for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness". And if our works are burned up, we ourselves who are children of God are still saved as by fire. If we are not punished with chastisements, then we are bastards and not sons. We can be forgiven in this world or '''in the world to come''' for all sins, all except for the sin of [[blasphemy]] against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32) --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 12:35, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::Well that certainly cleans things up. Christ died once for all , except you still have to do time in purgatory for the sins Christ did not die for. But then it's not really you doing time in purgatory for the leftover sins Christ either did or didn't die for, it's God not giving it to you with both barrels for what you really deserve cause evidently Christ died for nothing. Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:27, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
::::If Christ had not died for the sins of the whole world, there would be no purgatory at all, only hell, and after hell the lake of fire. Those in purgatory have been saved by the precious blood of Christ and because of his unmerited salvation are being purified from every leftover defect of the damage of sin and the remaining vestiges of their unrecognized and unintended addiction to minor worldly attachments by the refining fire of God's love in preparation for their triumphant entrance into heaven. They are "being made perfect" through the blood of the cross. Purgatory is a mercy. It's like the remaining withdrawal from drug addiction after the removal of the deadly drug by purifying the blood and system of the former addict. Relapses can occur. Paul warns believers redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus to not fall back into sin. But even they who weren't careful enough can still be purified. Those in purgatory now see clearly what their lack of total commitment costs, but God is still merciful through the atonement of the cross. They don't go to hell and into the lake of fire. They spend time in rehabilitative recovery, and when completely clean are released from treatment and therapy. I learned this analogy from Dataclarifier's work in health care. And from former addicts who became devout Catholics. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:07, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

:::'''I/S:''' Go up and read what I added to the [[Debate:_Is_there_a_Purgatory_before_Judgment_Day#Purgatory_is_a_doctrine_of_wrath.2C_not_grace|Catholic gospel of wrath]] last night, cause you certainly preached it right here right now this morning. So, after this presentation on physical abuse and torture, I'm going to ask why you cannot understand these two verses which are key to salvation:
:::*''shall we not much rather be in subjection unto '''the Father of spirits''' and live?
:::*''the natural man '''receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God''': for they are foolishness unto him: '''neither can he know them''', because they are spiritually discerned.''

:::Incidentally, I'm holding off on a discussion of time reckoning for a disembodied spirit in Purgatory. Time reckoning certainly is a natural and fleshy concept that would make impossible for the natural man to grasp the idea of eternal life. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:54, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
::::Purgatory is a temporary spiritual state outside of time and space. It isn't physical torment, but spiritual, like the pain of intense regret and the reality of the grief of temporary deprivation of the fullness of joy in the presence of God. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' explains this in detail using '''scripture''', beginning at '''[http://scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1029 paragraph 1029]. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]]''' ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 14:10, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::I am going to dissect further into your posting here, cause I think it shows a natural mind struggling to understand the spiritual mind.
:::I/S says: "The Bible plainly says God disciplines us as a Father, and that His disciplines are painful—", then goes into a litany of scriptures;
:::"9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live?" [Where does it say the Father of spirits chastisements would be painful or physical? In fact, the implication is quite the opposite]
:::"10 For they [fathers of our flesh] verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure, but he [the Father of spirits] for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. [corroborates what I just said above. The Father of spirits chastisement is motivated by, and brings about a different result than the chastisement by the fathers of our flesh. The spiritual teaching here is that while the chastisements of our earthly and heavenly fathers are comparable, they are not analogous].
:::So, I ask the question: Why would someone find chastisement from the Father of spirits difficult or painful when the rewards are so rich and abundant? The answer is [[pride]], as best illustrated in John chapter 8, when the Jews felt they were entitled to being called God's children by virtue of circumcision, it was theirs by birthright. Even Peter had trouble sitting down to eat with unwashen gentiles. Jesus said, "No", you must be spiritually born again to be called a child of God. In I/S and Dataclarifier's case, they are holding onto what they perceive as a spiritual birthright given to the Roman Catholic Church, as if it were God's Covenant with [[Abraham]]. They ignore Jesus's command for a second birth, a spiritual birth, and claim [[infant baptism]], like [[circumcision]], gives them spiritual birth and entitlement. It doesn't. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:45, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
::::"''Why would someone find chastisement from the Father of spirits difficult or painful when the rewards are so rich and abundant?''" You ignored verse 6 "he chasteneth and '''scourgeth'''", and verse 11 "no chastening '''for the moment''' seemeth to be joyous, but '''grievous'''". I said "intense grief". Have you ever experienced '''intense''' grief? It's '''very''' painful. Have you ever been '''scourged''' as Jesus was scourged? It was incredibly painful. And what father's correction is not painful to bear? It hurts, sometimes very deeply. To discover that your works were bad and merit destruction is painful beyond words. So God's discipline, rebuke, and chastisement is painful to bear. You are still "saved, yet as by fire". --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 17:05, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::That's exactly the point: to the proud sinner God's chastisement is grievous; to the repentant sinner it's a relief and the beginning of a new life. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 17:16, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::*''Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For '''my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.'''''
::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 17:20, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::"'''For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth [''chastises''], and <big><big>'''scourgeth every'''</big></big> son he receiveth.'''" Scourging is painful. A scourge is not a yoke. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 17:24, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::*''if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
::::Sure, its scourging if you want to hang onto your old sin. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 17:31, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::Listen to the Church. Then you will have rest for your soul. She is the Body of Christ Himself. Listen to him. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 17:38, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
::::(ec) Ooww, Word of God too much for you, again, so you have to fall back on worshipping the church.
::::Revisiting verse 9 from the 1 John text, the word "rather" is where the contrast is drawn between the painful chastisement of our earthly fathers, and the ''my burden is light'' of Jesus. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 17:44, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::The word of God says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Therefore the doctrine of the Church, which includes all of the word of God, is the truth of God. You will find rest for your souls. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 17:53, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
::::Okay, so you can't discuss or argue scripture and fall back on worshipping men and the church. You were close to finding spiritual life above, but your postings in todays segment are so riddled with contradictions, I would not know where to begin. Let's take this one, for example: "'''temporary''' spiritual state '''outside of time'''". Wow. Don't answer here now. Save it for when we create a subheading to address that particular question.
::::IMO, once again you proved today the truth of God's Word,
::::*''For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.''
::::Once you stop hiding behind the fig leaf of Roman church doctrine and the Magisterium, and make a commitment to Christ rather than the church, God probably actually can use you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:11, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

::My apology, Vargas. I thought the self-evident plain and simple meaning of the scriptures I cited on the principle of ''sola scriptura'' was sufficient. It should have been, for anyone who believes what the Bible says for itself. But it is now abundantly apparent that the plain meaning of the Scripture is not sufficient. Appreciate what you said here. Thanks. Thanks also to NishantXavier and my buddy Dataclarifier for their above comments on Scripture about the consistent doctrine of the Christian Church regarding purgatory. Those who undergo purification have already been saved by the blood of Christ alone and are "saved as by fire" when their defects, leftover when sins have been removed, are purged away and they are perfected. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 18:30, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry. What I had meant was, a better (as in clearer) definition so the readers can understand better, not that you were looking in, or had reached, the wrong place. I corrected what I wrote above. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 18:51, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

::::I just want to add that back when I was seriously looking at the Baptist church as the true church, I was really shocked to find out from the Bible itself that there are actually ''different degrees of sin!'', some more serious than others, in '''John 19:11''' "'''he that delivered me unto thee hath the <big><big>greater sin</big></big>'''" (''oh, wow!''), and in 1 John 5:16-17 "'''All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death'''". I never forgot it. It sure wasn't Baptist teaching. From that, I later grasped the Catholic doctrine of venial sins that are not the same as deadly mortal sins. Look at verse 16: "'''If any man see his brother sin a sin ''which'' is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.'''" Reminds me of prayers for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sins. The Church does this through pleading the blood of Jesus. It didn't take long for the Bible to persuade me that the Catholic Church was true. Later being with Dataclarifier cinched it for me. God bless you. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 19:19, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

::::The other one that got me was the clear statement of Peter that "'''''even'' baptism doth also now save us'''" 1 Peter 3:21, "'''Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and ''of'' the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God'''" John 3:5, "'''Not by any works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy <big>he saved us, by the <big><big>washing</big></big></big> of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost'''" Titus 3:5. The Baptists said that baptism doesn't save, but Peter says it does! The Baptists said that "regenerative baptism" is a doctrine of the devil. But Jesus says you cannot enter the kingdom of God without being born again (Greek "regenerated") by baptism—"born of water and ''of'' the Spirit"! Same thing with 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 "saved as by fire"! Anyway, I finally accepted the Catholic Church is true because of what's in the Bible and taking the Scripture as meaning exactly what it says according to its simple, plain and clear words ''sola scriptura''. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 19:51, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

::::I loved especially the parts of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' which teaches that we are saved and justified by the blood of Jesus Christ alone. Look it up! --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 19:56, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::For the umteenth time, these Roman Catholics are like [[Mormon]]s; they are not seeking salvation in Christ and God's grace; they are seeking "the true church". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:29, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

::::(ec) You said that before RobS, but I have to admit he seemed to say something quite close to that plainly in this case. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 20:42, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::They are like Jews in John chapter 8 who say, ''we be not born of fornication, Abraham is our father''. They essentially say "Peter is our papa". They are not interested in truth, Christ, salvation, grace, or spiritual matters. Like circumcision, they think infant baptism makes them heirs of God's promises. Jesus says, ''ye are of your father the devil''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:35, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::It's pretty obvious from this debate they are not interested in (a) Bible, (b) the precious blood of Jesus; (c) the divinity of Christ; (d) truth; (e) the grace of God, or (f) salvation. They are willing to toss all that in the trash to hold onto "the one true church". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:48, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

::::::The one true Church is the body of Christ himself teaching the truth of the doctrine of salvation through the precious blood of Christ alone by the grace of God as shown in the scriptures of the whole complete Bible that the one true Church defends as truth.

::::::The doctrine of the ''[[Catechism of the Catholic Church]]'' cites the truth of the Bible by references on every page and urges Christians to read the Bible with devotion. It teaches the whole Bible doctrine of the precious blood of Jesus, the divinity of Christ, truth in the inward parts of the heart and truth outwardly in the virtues of moral honesty and integrity in behavior and good works, that salvation is by the grace of God alone who commands us to do good works in his name, and the authority of the Church to preach and to teach all of these Bible truths. I as a former fundamentalist have more and more found the Catholic Church to be the most biblical Church on the face of the earth, the pillar and foundation of the truth, having the established authority by God, by comparing scripture with scripture and the doctrines of the Church in the light of scripture. There is no division of contradiction between the Lord and the Bible and the doctrines of the Church he built. If there were, I would have found it by now.

::::::The Catholic Church was not founded by those who disobeyed their leaders, went out from the church they had been in, and taught a different doctrine from the one that they had been taught by the church that they left.

::::::[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=6&article=4742 Liberals delight in seeing contradictions in the Bible]. Critics of the doctrine and authority of the Church delight in seeing contradictions of the Church in the Bible. In any case, all of these deny that the Church is of God and that the Church is the dwelling place of God in the Spirit and that God the Father through the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit offers through the ministry of the Church the free unmerited gift of salvation by the precious blood of Jesus. And yet it is the Bible that testifies to the Church as sent by God as the source of salvation from Him, just as Jesus Christ was sent by the Father, as the Savior of the world. Jesus is in the Church. The Church is his body, the Bride of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit of truth. To hold to the Church is to hold to Christ and to proclaim His Doctrine of salvation through the precious blood of Christ alone. That's the teaching of the Church Fathers. That's the teaching of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church''. There is even a devotional '''Litany of the Precious Blood of Jesus''' proclaiming salvation by the precious blood of Jesus. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 01:18, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::It doesn't teach "the precious blood of Jesus and the divinity of Christ" if it teaches Purgatory; rather it makes a mockery of itself. C'mon, this isn't rocket science. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 08:26, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::5.No less than the height of heaven over earth
:::::::::is the greatness of his love for those who fear him;
:::::::::he takes our sins farther away
:::::::::than the east is from the west.
::::::::What happens if you lose your filial fear (choked by the thorns)? What form do you think purgatory would take? Until your heart could shine like the sun? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 09:35, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's often cited how Jesus' was the first to call God, 'Father', which the Pharisees thought presumptuous and blasphemous deserving of capital punishment. God was viewed as a God of wrath, approachable only by the high priest behind the veil. Jesus evidently was the first or only one to take verse 6 (''As tenderly as a father treats his children'') and say, 'no, this is not a metaphor, it is literally true'. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:46, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::Why would liberals delight in seeing contradictions in the Bible, generally? If they are liberal Christians but loyal ones, wouldn't they feel even ''more'' conflicted by an apparent contradiction because they get entangled by the lesser spiritual capacities of their mind? Or by liberal do you mean disloyal? If the latter, that's a rather safe position you're taking. Who does that help? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 03:09, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

::::I'm going to make a charitible assumption that Independent Skeptic has some image of Protestants that makes him want to avoid them. Maybe he thinks he has something to lose. Sometimes when "it's not what you think", you have clearer ideas, and it "works out to the good" and you can work together again, like Joseph and his family. Orthodox belief can carry you for a while, but it's not what the priests I've listened to actually counsel. Instead they say "We ''use'' doctrine [among other sources]", "The devotion of Protestants leads them to understand the Bible even better than Catholics typically do" or "Yes, follow your conscience and to educate it [diligently by all means] is what devotion is about." And once again some Protestant denominations small and large don't hold to ''Sola Scriptura''—unless by that he just means nonbelief in papal infallibility. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 23:03, 28 July 2020 (EDT)

:::::Thank you for your assumption. However, my parents were Protestant, I was raised Protestant, I later joined the Baptist church and argued against Catholicism as of the devil. I understand the Protestant and fundamentalist view. But being raised to believe wholeheartedly in the Bible, I found discrepancies between Protestant and fundamentalist doctrine and the Bible. So I kept looking for a true Bible church. I finally found it in the Catholic Church. It's because of the Bible I became Catholic and accepted Catholic doctrine as entirely biblical, including the doctrine of purgatory, as I have already testified, above. Soon afterward, my own parents became Catholic, because of what I showed them the Bible says. And they had read the Bible every day! After seeing for two years the change it made in my own life, my mother said to my dad, "Honey, have you found anything in our son's church that is against the Bible?" He said, "Nope!" —May God bless you! -- [[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 01:47, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for sharing that. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 02:14, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:::::You know what the Bible says,''If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee''. Protestants are just a bunch of liberals who have twisted the meaning. Thank God nowhere does God command us to exercise spiritual discernment and we have the Magisterium to do our thinking for us. The Roman church sticks to the plain simple meaning of the text. Anybody with eyeballs yet must be a [[Cafeteria Christian]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 08:22, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
::::::Yes, seriously, thanks for noticing what I didn't catch on to. He's a little non-responsive. He could have tried to turn the contradictions you mentioned on this page into counter-examples, but I guess he felt like resting in his glittering generalities, or something. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 09:45, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
Gentlemen, you are very confused on what the word Protestant means.

Here is definition of the word "Protestant" from the Webster-Merriam dictionary: "a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church."[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protestant]

Therefore, if you are a Christian and not a Catholic or a member of the [[Eastern Orthodox]] branch of Christianity, you are a Protestant (using the broad definition of the word Protestant).

IndependentSkeptic, a fundamentalist is a Protestant. You are confused about the definition of fundamentalist and/or Protestant.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 14:44, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:I was using a parallelism. There are Protestants and there are Protestants who are [[Fundamentalism|fundamentalists]]. I was raised a Protestant. When I became a fundamentalist I was still a Protestant. While all fundamentalists are Protestant, not all Protestants are fundamentalist. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 17:05, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

::Miraculous experiences are often accepted by Protestants as revealed truth too. But Conservative is right about the confusion; Nishant asks if people are Catholic or Evangelical, which is some kind of either-or logical defect. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 18:07, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

=====Maccabees and Mormons=====
Catholics and Orthodox tend to emphasize the importance of Apostolic Succession in the Churches; Evangelicals and Protestants typically do not. The Churches with Apostolic Succession have always prayed for the faithful departed. It is a 2000 year old practice. The Orthodox do it just as much as we Catholics do. So we didn't invent it. Maccabees also was in the Scriptural Canon of Pope St. Damasus in the Fourth Century. It has always been considered a part of Scripture. It is also a Jewish historical work and bears witness to Apostolic Tradition and the Jewish practice. If it had said "prayers for the dead are unprofitable and useless", Protestants would be quoting from it. But in actual fact, it called them good and pious. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 22:27, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:Gotta love your logic. Cannibalism is a 2,000 year old practice. So is fornication, adultery, and murder. We should petition the Magisterium to change the ordinances of God on these too, huh? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:46, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
::Cannibalism, fornication, adultery, and murder are condemned by the Church. Purgatory is not condemned but taught as truth by the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 02:25, 30 July 2020 (EDT)
:::Yes, but the Magisterium certainly has the power and authority to make cannibalism, fornication, adultery, and murder not only acceptable and pleasing to God, but requisite for salvation. ''Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:08, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

Faithful Israelites prayed for the departed. You have deviated from the Faith. To be truly faithful, you must pray for the faithful departed, just as the Maccabees did, just as St. Paul did, just as the Orthodox Churches do, just as the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church does. --[[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 23:02, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

:Alright, let's be clear on two facts, which are being conflated.
:(1) Prayers '''TO''' the dead, which is often requisite in the [[canonization]] process, is [[necromancy]] and forbidden by scripture.
:(2) Prayers '''FOR''' the dead, while not expressly forbidden, will not influence God's final judgement. All they amount to is the person expressing [[hope]] that the deceased may have found [[salvation]] '''''in this life'''''.
:And if the person praying has not found salvation, his/her prayers are moot. And if the person who is still alive has found salvation, they likely know better, that God has already passed judgement on sinners, and has already assured the place of his people. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:06, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

:So if you have not found salvation, you can pray '''FOR''' the dead till your blue in the face, and it won't amount to a hill of beans. But it's not sinful. By contrast, asking the late Pope John Paul II to do a miracle for you is Satanic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:15, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

Notice how you deny the Word of God. Sacred Scripture says, ''"It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."'' while you claim ''"Prayers '''FOR''' the dead, while not expressly forbidden, will not influence God's final judgement"''.
----

::Your response just got clipped in half because of your cynical use of sliding the subject of a second sentence with a ''positive'' connotation into the predicate of a first sentence with a ''doubtful'' and ''contention'' connotation. You're not here to cause "collisions", and you're not here to start fights.

::''On the the contrary'', the sins referred to in Maccabees 2 are ''ritual faults''. This is the ''third'' time I've said this. Such ritual faults, expiated by "sin offerings" are '''no more''' according to Hebrews 10:18—

:::When all sins have been forgiven, there can be no more sin offerings.

::so the dead will not ''need'' to be loosed from ''these kinds of sins'', prayers or otherwise.

::which will again be the ''third'' time I have written this.

::And if Christ descended into hell and led out the righteous dead to heaven, where is the basis that the effectiveness of prayers for the dead are proven by this proof text? Maybe they only apply to the dead in ''hell'', not purgatory. And the dead that are in hell now are not the righteous that Christ led out, but unrepentant, evidently. This only shows it in the case of ritual faults (already forgiven for the faithful), and there's doubt the text you used can be translated as "prayers".

I will say something else. I think the claim that NishantXavier, DataClarifier and IndependentSkeptic are independent people has been thrown into strong doubt.

Why, besides all their other similarities, would they all just ''happen'' use either the same "old doctrine" or the same outdated Douay texts? RobS mentioned in passing DataClarifier was fixated on pre-Vatican II doctrine in passing, of which I'm entirely disinterested (and to possibly place weight on personal sentiments, uninterested), and now that quality is showing up among the newcomers!

Please spare us, and drop the charade. We're not obliged to work three (or four?) times as hard because you feel like faking consensuses or doing other things to turn split identities to your advantage. Trust me, everyone has better things to do than participate in the stupidity of phony consensuses. We'll survive without them. Some "debate", huh?

You're certainly not going to get any credit with God if you're going to maintain a silly way of evangelizing, are you?

And why is this Apocryphal writing being teed up about prayers of the dead, now, after it was used earlier as prooftexts about Purgatory?

I guess you don't notice what you actually do, but instead of reading and discussion, all your energies seem to be devoted to bending the course of ostensive devotional reading around anomalies of Scriptural and Deutercanonical Scriptural interpretation that a devoted and conscientious learner doesn't really care about!

"Oh! How about that! An amphiboly!"

"Yes, but what kind?"

"...Uh...aren't we gathering material for an article about doctrinal terms, not sophistical refutations?"

"Let's discover those refutations by accident!"

"Oh, look at the time!"

''The Truth remains. Praying for the dead is holy and wholesome, good and pious, so that they can be loosed from sins. Asking the Saints in Heaven to pray for us is another matter, and the Book of Revelation shows us Angels and Saints in Heaven offering up prayers like incense. Just like you ask your pastors to pray for you, we ask the Angels and Saints to pray for us, knowing we are One Body in Christ. If you don't pray for the departed, God will ask you why you neglected to perform that Work of Mercy one day. It is a good and holy thought to do so, and therefore all Christians are bound to. --[[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 23:16, 29 July 2020 (EDT)''

::The above needs to be re-written. The premise has been refuted for the ''third'' time, and you, or your designated representative, will have to use a ''different'' premise, attempt a refutation or be called out for ''spamming''. Thank you. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Thursday, 05:52, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

----
::"One Body in Christ". Are you in Christ? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 02:23, 30 July 2020 (EDT)
:Go back to school, and by that I don't mean Catholic seminary. You are not citing scripture. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:19, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

:Son, I don't know how old you are, but you're falling into the big trap many Catholic proselytizers fall into: they assume non-Roman Catholic Christian believers are just as ignorant of scriptures as most of the Roman Catholic laity is. The Roman church does not rely on the bible for teaching, and rather uses catechism. And I suspect many higher-ups in ages past, as well as now, think people will believe any old line of <s>crap</s> <s>junk</s> <s>stuff</s> <s>reasoning</s> doctrine so long as it sounds flowery, pious, and holy. Son, this is how Satan operates. Deceit and deception is his game. Don't assume non-Roman Catholics do not know God's Word; and you're going to have just as much luck with that Book of Maccabees as 19 year old LDS 'elders' have with the Book of Mormon. But as [[P.T. Barnum]] said, "There's a sucker born every minute", and maybe you can find somebody who never heard any of God's word to peddle your tripe to. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:34, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

I am citing Scripture, but Luther took it out of your Bible, so you don't have it. Maccabees was in the fourth century Canon of Scripture approved by the Catholic Church. It has always been recognized as Scripture, along with the other 72 books. But Revelation itself teaches neo-Sadducees that the Angels and Saints in Heaven are alive, not dead, and that they are praising the Lord and offering up prayers for those on Earth. This Book of Revelation is also denied by those who don't know the Word of God, or have fallen into the error of neo-Sadduceeism, of denying the departed in Christ are alive in Him. --[[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 23:37, 29 July 2020 (EDT)
:"departed in Christ" Were they in Christ before or after they departed? Are you in Christ? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 02:23, 30 July 2020 (EDT)
2 Macc 15:12 "What he saw was this: Onias, the former high priest,* a noble and good man, modest in bearing, gentle in manner, distinguished in speech, and trained from childhood in all that belongs to excellence, was praying with outstretched arms for the whole Jewish community.b
13 Then in the same way another man appeared, distinguished by his white hair and dignity, and with an air of wondrous and majestic authority.
14 Onias then said of him, “This is a man* who loves his fellow Jews and fervently prays for the people and the holy city—the prophet of God, Jeremiah.” http://www.usccb.org/bible/2maccabees15

Rev 8:4 "The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel." http://www.usccb.org/bible/revelation/8 --[[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 23:41, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

:Go dig up Luther's grave and spit on it, if you think that will do any good. I heard that same garbage in 1959 in Catholic school and they've soften it now as I understand.

:Bottomline: God's word is truth. Stick that catechism in the trash. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:42, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

:Stop and think for a minute: If the Roman Catholic Church had begun teaching you the Bible at age 5, rather than why Martin Luther was wrong for calling their bluff 500 years ago, it would have saved you decades, if not a lifetime, of wondering in the wilderness where your carcass will fall cause you do not mix the gospel with faith. And you never have even recieved the Gospel of Grace from the Roman church. You only hear a gospel of wrath where the blood of Christ is insufficient for your salvation, and your blood is upon your own head. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:19, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

:So long as you look the other way, like the unbiblical [[Assumption of Mary]], the canonization of saints, vane repetitions like the Hail Mary which you know Christ explicitly condemns, you miss out on hearing the good news of salvation. This is precisely what Satan wants. What a coincidence. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:19, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

WE pray for the dead as God taught. You despise the dead as Luther taught. We'll see whom God approves on Judgment Day. Hint: It's the Church. [[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]][[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]] 23:51, 29 July 2020 (EDT)

=====in Christ=====
:*'''Romans 8:1''' - ''There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.'' That's me. I'm in Christ Jesus. Are you in Christ Jesus? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:17, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

Hmmm, I must be among the lost. Here's the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
:*'''Romans 5:9''' - ''being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.'' No Judgement. No Purgatory. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:39, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

C'mon Dataclarifier! C'mon IndependentSkeptic! C'mon NishantXavier! Tell me this is true! Just a simple "Yes" or "No". Don't give me any exceptions, exemptions, explanations or anything else. Just post up here and say "Yes, the word of God is true".

======Poll: Vote yes or no======
Vote Yes or No if the above two verses of the Bible are true.
======Yes, it's true======
*Amen. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:50, 30 July 2020 (EDT)

======No, it's a bunch of malarkey quoted out of context bla bla bla....======
 

*'''''And the Word was made flesh....'''''
*'''''Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father'''''

====A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump====
The Roman church not only has abandoned bible teaching in favor of catechism, it teaches catechism and other doctrines as if it were the Word of God. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. A little sin infects the whole body. A little false doctrine contaminates the whole church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:20, 31 July 2020 (EDT)

===User:Karajou===
====Final words====
As to the worship and/or veneration of the saints:
:3. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
:4. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"
:5. "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
:6. "And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:3-6) God Himself said you're not authorized to do it.
As to prayers for the dead:
:1. "For all this I considered in my heart even to declare all this, that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God: no man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them."
:2. "All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not: as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath."
:3. "This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead."
:4. "For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion."
:5. "For the living know that they shall die: '''''but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.'''''"
:6. "'''''Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.'''''" (Ecclesiastes 9:1-6) God is saying here that once you're dead, it's game over. No amount of praying will ever help your soul.
Isiah stating the obvious about praying for the dead:
:19. "And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? ''for the living to the dead?''"
:20. "To the law and to the testimony: '''''if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them'''''." (Isaiah 8:19-20)
And what did Jesus Christ say about the dead?
:57. "And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest."
:58. "And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head."
:59. "And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father."
:60. "Jesus said unto him, ''Let the dead bury their dead'': but go thou and preach the kingdom of God."
:61. "And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house."
:62. "And Jesus said unto him, '''''No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.'''''" (Luke 9:57-62)
As to "purgatory", there is no mention of such a place anywhere within the Bible. Christ spoke of both Heaven and Hell multiple times, with Hell being the place to avoid at all costs. If purgatory exists, Christ would have said so; but the doctrine asserts that purgatory is some sort of middle-ground. With Christ, there is simply no middle-ground at all; you're either with Him or you're not, and even he said as much:
:14. "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;"
:15. "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot."
:16. "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Revelation 3:14-16)
Christ ended that sin problem once and for all, so no purgatory:<ref>https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/what-does-the-bible-say-about-purgatory/</ref>
:1. "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." (Romans 8:1)
Our salvation is based not on works, but what Christ did on the cross, which means no purgatory:
: "…we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." (Titus 2:13-14)
:"…the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." (1John 1:7)
:"…he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1John 1:9)
:"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (1John 2:2)
:"…because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 10:14)
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 12:28, 1 August 2020 (EDT)

==See also==
*[[Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?]]
*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
*[[Debate: Is the Magisterium infallible?]]
*[[Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?]]
*[[Debate: Infant baptism]]
*[[Debate: Explain the apparent inconsistency between Ex. 33:11 and Jn. 1:18]]
*[[Debate:Is Holy Communion the True Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ]]

==References==

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate: Does the Magisterium have authority over the Bible, or does the Bible have authority over the Magisterium?

2020-08-27T01:33:43Z

<center>''This is a non-denominational exchange of ideas intended to bring about a greater understanding of the Bible.'' ''All views are welcome.''</center>

Matthew 16:18-19 reads:
*''And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.''

The Roman Catholic [[Magisterium]] has used these scriptures to proclaim for itself spiritual authority over interpretation of the [[Bible]]. The debate question is: Does the Magisterium have authority over the Bible, or does the Bible have authority over the Magisterium?

No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

==The Roman church has authority over scripture==
====Contentions over Bible authority vs Church authority: What the Bible says about it====

I'll address the primary issue I addressed on the purgatory debate page—
*"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Greek '''''rock'''''], and upon this rock I will build my '''<big><big>church</big>; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it</big>'''. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and '''<big>whatsoever</big> thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and <big>whatsoever</big> thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven'''." 
*"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in '''the house of God, which is the <big>church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth</big>'''." 
*"'''Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves:''' for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that ''is'' unprofitable for you." [...] 
*"'''Submit yourselves to <big>every ordinance of man</big> for the Lord's sake:''' whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using ''your'' liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. '''Honour all ''men''. <big>Love the brotherhood. Fear God</big>. Honour the king.'''" 
*"We have also a '''more sure word of <big>prophecy</big>; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed''', as unto '''a light that shineth in a dark place''', until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this '''first, that <big>no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation</big>'''. For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but '''holy men of God spake''' ''as they were'' moved by the Holy Ghost. [...] [...][...]
(Texts from the King James Version: '''Matthew 16:18-19; 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 13:17; James 2:24; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 2 Peter 1:19–2:2; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 17-19''') [Ed. note: James 2:4, 2 Peter 2:1-2, 1 John 2:18-19, & Jude 17-19 were removed as off topic to the subject of authority of the Magisterium.]

On a rock Jesus built his church, and '''the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the <big>truth</big>'''. Therefore, according to ''the Bible itself'', it is impossible that the church could ever teach what is not the truth. This is simply the doctrine of the Bible about the church, and it is simply the same as the Catholic doctrine about the church. Therefore according to the Bible the doctrine of the church is the truth taught by the Holy Ghost. Nowhere does the Bible teach that the leaders and members of the church will all live impeccable lives free of all sin. Bad example, like that of Judas, does not invalidate the truth of the doctrine of the church.

I stand with the Bible just as every professing Bible-believer should. It's the Word of God. Amen. Period. The end. <ref>[https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate%3ADoes_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F&diff=1673524&oldid=1672045 Retrieved from Authority Forever debate --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2020 (EDT)]</ref>

=====Question from RobSmith=====
You cite 1 Peter 2:13 "''Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man''"; are ordinances of the Magisterium from man or God? 

======Answer from IndependentSkeptic ( 01:01, 3 August 2020 (EDT) )======
Your question is a [[Loaded question]]. I consulted Dataclarifier. I believe we have an answer (two actually, if you wish to be exact): (1) If a person believes the institution/ordinance of the church's magisterium has divine authority from God because Jesus built his church on rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, because the church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth, as the Bible says—then the Bible-believer is obligated to submit to its every [[doctrine]] and [[dogma]] as the truth. (2) If a person believes the institution/ordinance of the church's magisterium has only the earthly authority of men, being by now an established governing authority on earth, and there is "''no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God''", and if the magisterium of the church is the institution/ordinance of men—then the Bible-believer is obligated to submit to the institution/ordinance of the magisterium of the church in its every doctrine and dogma.
:''Therefore'':
:*if the ordinances of the Magisterium are from God the Bible commands that you submit;
:*if the ordinances of the Magisterium are from man the Bible commands that you submit;
:*if the Bible as the infallible Word of God says there is no power/authority but of God: the powers/authorities that be are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisteth the power/authority, resisteth the ordinance of God: therefore they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation (and the Bible does say it)—then Bible-believers who resist the ordinances of the established power/authority of the magisterium of the church shall receive to themselves damnation.
:The Bible also commands: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that ''is'' unprofitable for you."<ref>See [https://biblia.com/bible/esv/matthew/16/18-19 Matthew 16:18-19]; [https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1_timothy/3/15 1 Timothy 3:15]; [https://biblia.com/bible/esv/romans/13/1-2 Romans 13:1-2]; [https://biblia.com/bible/esv/hebrews/13/17 Hebrews 13:17]</ref>
'''So'''—we propose a counter-question: Is the Bible the Word of God? Will you obey the Word of God? We'll leave it at that for you to answer. We're just asking the simple question. We don't intend to stay and debate it since this is our final post on leaving Conservapedia. For us the answer seems obvious, so we won't be checking back for your response. We hope you have an answer, for the benefit of people who read this page. Peace be with you. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 01:01, 3 August 2020 (EDT)

======Refutation: 1 Peter 1:13 and 2 Peter 1:20 do not support Roman Catholic Magisterium======
:Yes, we can see how 1 Peter 2:13-17 can be understood to refer to a [[theocratic]] form of government, combining both civil and spiritual authority (i.e., no [[separation of church and state]]), as Israel once was under Saul, David, Solomon, and their successors. But we also have this bitter pill to swallow - the testimony of [[Nebuchadnezzar]] recorded in the [[Book of Daniel]]:
:*''This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent '''that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.'''''<ref>Daniel 4:17</ref>
:Given this scripture, [[papal primacy]] is nothing to boast of.<ref>"Boasting" is a subject Paul covers extensively in Romans and is relevant to this Debate. You cannot boast of the law and of being a child of God because you were baptized as an infant anymore than a Jew can boast of the law and being a child of God because they were circumcized as an infant. Certain elements of repentance and faith are necessary. Paul goes on in Romans, "God is not a respecter of persons", which applies to Peter, the Apostolic succession, and the Magisterium. In this series of Debates, to respond to all questions of faith and scripture by citing the authority of Magisterium, is boasting. </ref> When Jesus said ''Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church'', there actually was a separation of civil authority from religious authority, between the Roman occupying force and the Pharisees. At Jesus' ascension, let's look at Acts 1:2-6:
{{quotebox|''after that he through the Holy Ghost had '''given commandments unto the apostles''' whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 6 When they therefore were come together, '''they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?'''''}}
:There is much here, but lets glean a few specifics: the Apostles who witnessed his Resurrection, etc., were still of a "carnal mind", looking for restoration of the Kingdom as it was under David, forgetting that Jesus said ''my kingdom is not of this world''. They had not received the Holy Spirit yet.
:So yes, I do believe the Bible in its entirety - that the "basest of men" can refer to the [[Apostolic succession]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 03:10, 3 August 2020 (EDT)

:And a brief comment: the question, "are ordinances of the Magisterium from man or God?" is no more of a loaded question than when Jesus asked, ''was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?'', of which we'll have more to say (Luke 4:2-8) as we move into a discussion of the Holy Spirit. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 3 August 2020 (EDT)

:And a final comment on the circular reasoning of your response: the initial defense of Magisterium reads,
:*''no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation''; yet your response is
:*If a person believes from man....
:*If a person believes from God....
:And the prophecy we are speaking of is, Who is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, Christ or Peter? Christ was promised by prophecy in scripture, Peter was not.
:It should be noted, the defense of Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18, ''Thou art Peter...'', using 1 Peter 1:20 ''no scripture is of private interpretation'', is the same author who in the next breath encourages private interpretation: "If a person believes A", or "If a person believes B" to arrive at the same conclusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:14, 3 August 2020 (EDT)

::Answer: It is totally irrelevant exactly ''when'' there actually was a visible separation of civil authority from religious authority in history and ''when'' there actually was a visibly coordinated cooperation of civil authority obediently submitted to orthodox catholic Christian religious authority in history. The Church has always had the religious authority ordained and established by God (for there is no authority except from God) and whoever resists the authority resists what God has ordained, and those who resist shall incur judgment ("damnation" KJV), ''because''''':''' Jesus Himself said on this '''rock''' I will build my '''church''', and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, through which the mystery of God hidden from the foundation of the world is revealed, the '''one''' body of Christ (not many), the church of the living God which he purchased with His own blood, the temple of God in the Spirit, with us forever, leading into all the truth, obeying the command to be obedient to the leaders who watch over our souls, the church in which God appointed the elders as guardians to take heed to themselves and to feed the flock of the Lord, and keep the traditions delivered to them whether by word of mouth or by letter (whether oral or written), who have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever they loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, but those that went out were antichrists who despised authority and separated themselves and set up divisions, worldly persons devoid of the Spirit, antichrists who went out and taught another gospel and another Christ that it might be made manifest that they were not of us.
::Every Bible-believing Christian who has read the Bible and is familiar with its text recognizes these passages immediately. The Bible itself commands us to obey the leaders who watch over our souls (Heb. 13:17), to submit to every institution of men for the Lord's sake and to submit to the elders (1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6), because their established authority in the church is ordained and established by God (Rom. 13:1-2). This is not private interpretation. If the authority is of God, we are commanded to submit and obey. If the authority is of men, we are commanded to submit and obey. In either case, we are commanded to submit and obey. It's what the Bible says, clearly, plainly and simply, according to the Word of the Lord. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:40, 7 August 2020 (EDT)

::For the benefit of readers who need to check for themselves as the Beroeans did in Acts 17:10-12, the above chapter-and-verse passages are: Romans 13:1-2; Matthew 16:18; 1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 2:21-22; John 14:16-17; John 16:13; Hebrews 13:17; Acts 20:28 (''again''); '''2''' Thessalonians 2:15; Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 8; Jude 19; John 2:18-19 (''again''); Galatians 1:6-7; '''2''' Corinthians 11:4; Hebrews 13:17 (''again''); 1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Peter 5:5-6; Romans 13:1-2 (''again''); 1 Peter 5:5-6 (''again''). Compare John 8:43; John 8:47. Let me point out that in Ephesians 2:19-20 the household of God (''which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth'' 1 Timothy 3:15) is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone (supporting the whole foundation); and that the new Jerusalem has '''twelve foundations''', and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (but the Lamb is not one of the twelve foundations, Revelation 20:16); and that the living '''stone''' is joined by living '''stones''' built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:4-5). There is no contradiction in Jesus saying to Peter (= "rock"), "you are a '''rock''', and on this '''rock''' I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". Since scripture cannot contradict scripture, "and the scripture cannot be broken", because God "cannot deny himself", there is no contradiction in the Bible saying Jesus is the rock foundation supporting Peter and the apostles and prophets as the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and that Peter is the rock on which he built his church as He Himself said according to the Greek grammar of what he said which points to Peter not Jesus. The foundation of the church is firm as rock, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 7:24. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 05:50, 7 August 2020 (EDT)

::The Greek of the New Testament indisputably shows that Peter is the rock, not Jesus: '''πέτρος''' Greek '''Petros''' as an appellative: thou art a '''rock''', Aram. '''<big>כֵּיפָא</big> ''kepa'''''. The form '''ὁ πέτρος''' is likewise common among classical writers, and that not merely in the sense of a stone, as everywhere in Homer in contradistinction to '''πέτρα''' Greek '''petra''' (see Duncan, p. 937, ed. Rost, and Buttmann, Lexil. II. p. 179), but also as meaning a '''rock''' (Plat. Ax. p. 371 E: '''Σισύφου πέτρος'''; Soph. Phil. 272, O. C. 19, 1591; Pind. Nem. iv. 46, x. 126). Jesus declares Peter to be a '''rock''' on account of that strong and stedfast faith in himself to which, under the influence of a special revelation from God, he had just given expression. According to '''John 1:43''', however, Jesus conferred the Grecized form of the name '''Cephas ''Kepas''''' Aram. '''<big>כֵּיפָא</big> ''kepa'' rock''' upon him at their very first interview (according to '''Mark 3:16''', somewhat later); but our passage '''Matthew 16:18''' is not to be understood as simply recording the giving of the name, or the giving of it for the second time. It is rather intended to be taken as a record of the declaration made by Jesus, to the effect that '''Simon''' was in reality all that the name, conferred upon him, ''implied''. Consequently our passage is in no way inconsistent with that of '''John 1:43''' just referred to, which could only have been the case if the words used had been '''σὺ κληθήσῃ Πέτρος'''.

::'''καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ''' The Greek emphasis is on '''ΤΑΎΤῌ ταύτῃ''', which points to Peter (not to Jesus, as Augustine would have us suppose), and to be understood thus: '''on no other than on this rock'''. —''retrieved from'' '''https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-18.htm''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 05:56, 7 August 2020 (EDT)

::In 1 Corinthians 3:10 '''Paul''' says that '''he''' is the one who laid the foundation: "According to the commission of God given to me, like a skilled '''master builder I laid a foundation''', and another man is building upon it." ''But in the next verse he says'', "For no other foundation can any man lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus." This is true! But a literalist would see in these two verses an absolute contradiction. Consider this: no man can lay the foundation of the church Jesus built; only God can lay the foundation, and Jesus is God ''and'' man. ''But Revelation says there are "twelve foundations"'', not "''one''". A literalist would see in these two statements an absolute contradiction in the Bible: ''how can there be twelve when there is only one?'' The '''twelve foundations''' of the new Jerusalem are not laid by man (human beings) but are laid only by God and man. A literalist would see in the one foundation and the twelve foundations a contradiction. The foundation of the apostles and prophets is laid by God the Spirit: "because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men '''moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God'''." 2 Peter 1:21. The rock of salvation laid a foundation of rock that is twelve foundations chosen. The first was Peter, "a rock". One of them was "a devil" John 6:70-71. But this did not invalidate the word of the Lord. Afterward, the Eleven, led by Peter, chose another, guided by God: Matthias. The apostolic office was empty but then a successor was chosen by lot, just as the apostolic office of Peter vacated by death is filled by lots cast by the elders of the church from that day to this. The foundation of the twelve foundations of the church was built by the foundation (''the same foundation that Paul laid, which is Christ Jesus''), and laid by Him on a foundation of '''a rock-''Petros''''', the first of twelve foundations He laid, and was built up into a house of living stones by the living stone as a dwelling-place of God in the Spirit, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There is no contradiction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 07:45, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
:The Apostle chosen by men was rejected; the Apostle chosen by God - Paul, became the twelfth Apostle - proving once again that God did not pass His divine sovereignty, that He reserves to Himself, to men. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:58, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
::Matthias was not rejected. Acts 1:23-26 "''and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles''". At least 25 apostles are mentioned in the Bible. [https://www.peace.org.au/apostolic/the-apostolic-revelation/how-many-apostles-are-mentioned-in-the-bible#:~:text=This%20brings%20the%20total%20to%2025%20confirmed%20apostles,selection%20of%20the%20canon%20of%20the%20New%20Testament. '''How Many Apostles are Mentioned in the Bible?''' (peace.org)] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:21, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
:It was entirely a work of men, not of God. This is clear from the text. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:59, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
::"'''And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all ''men'', shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.'''" The college of cardinals makes the same prayer in their discernment of voting for who will be the next pope: "'''Thou, Lord, who knows the hearts of all ''men'', show which of these men thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship.'''" It was a work of God, in answer to their prayer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:10, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
:Well, I guess Paul was just lucky number 13 then, huh? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:50, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
:Question: When Jethro suggested to Moses to divide the people into captains of 10, captains of 50 and captains of 100, was that ordained by God, too? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:55, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
::Yes. Jethro was a prophet of God, the priest of Midian, and Moses' father-in-law. "Honor thy father and thy mother" Exodus 18:17-23 "If thou shalt do this thing, '''and God command thee ''so'''''..." v.23. God commanded him so, for he did it. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:25, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
:::Wow. It was the Midianites who sold Joesph into slavery in Egypt, now on the reverse journey out of Egypt suddenly God is speaking through the mouth of a Midianite priest after which God commands
:::*'''Numbers 31:1-2, 7''' - ''And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people....And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:14, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Scripture does not say Jethro was among those slain. Moreover Jethro's descendants were included among the righteous people of Israel. Jethro's word is still true as the counsel of God. Balaam was a prophet of God who spoke true prophecy: Numbers 24. He was killed as a wicked prophet. His words are true. Moses was a murderer before he was called by God. He authored holy scripture. His words are true. Saul of Tarsus was a murderous persecutor of Christians and blasphemer, by his own admission. He authored holy scripture. His words are true. David sinned with Bathsheba and that brought a permanent curse on Israel: "''never shall the sword depart''". But David is a prophet of God. Acts 2:29-36. His Psalms are true. Caiaphas the high priest who condemned Jesus to death with the consent of the Sanhedrin supporting his judgment was a prophet. John 11:49-52. His word was true. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:20, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You're actually veering closer to the truth with your comments on Moses and David, however God did not tell Moses to murder the Egyptian anymore than he told David or Abraham to sin with Bathsheba and Hagar. Moral of the story: God has entrusted his flock to fallible men and has never transferred his sovereignty to them. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 17:13, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Even being fallible, fallen sinners and corrupt murderers, their '''doctrine''' is true. What God says through them is the truth. That is the same guarantee of the truth of the interpretations of scripture and apostolic tradition by the interpretation of the [[Magisterium]] of the Church the one holy universal and apostolic body of Christ, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, guided forever into the truth by the Holy Spirit of truth, '''as promised infallibly by Jesus as recorded in the Gospel of John'''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:53, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Well, I think God using two murderers, Moses and David, to author significant portions of his Word says more about God's grace and forgiveness. Perhaps that's why he used them. No one is disputing the veracity of the truth they wrote. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:02, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

:Second question: When Sarah suggested to Abraham that perhaps God meant to fulfill his promise to Abraham by taking her handmaid Hagar, was that ordained by God? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:58, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
::Yes (or it would not have happened). God told Abraham to do what his wife said. Genesis 10:9; 21:12. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:25, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
:::*'''Genesis 17:19''' - ''God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.''
:::You appear to be using God to justify sin. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:17, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It all happened according to the predetermined counsel and purpose and plan of God (or it would not have happened). That included the sin of putting Christ to death. Acts 2:23.
:::::*''born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man (Ishmael), but of God''.
:Third question: Did God command David to build the Temple? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 17:01, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
::::
::By Nathan the prophet God told David that his son "shall" build him a temple ("shall" is a command: "thou shalt..."). And David made all the preparations (1 Chronicles 28:11-10 "all this he made clear by the writing of the Lord concerning it" v.19). By Gad the prophet God told David to build an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Ornan/Araunah. He continued to offer sacrifices there. And it was there the temple was built. 2 Samuel 7:4, 12-13; 24:18, 25; 1 Chronicles 28:6, 20; 2 Chronicles 3:1 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:25, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
:::*'''2 Samuel 7:4-7''' - ''4 But that same night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, 5 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘Thus says the Lord: Would you build me a house to dwell in? 6 I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent for my dwelling. 7 In all places where I have moved with all the people of Israel, did I speak a word with any of the judges[a] of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”’''
:::''Would you build me a house?'' God is saying, that's awfully presumptuous of you, and it is equally presumptuous of the claims extrapolated out of Matthew 16:18-19 by other men.
:Your use of scripture appears to bear out the meaning of 2 Corinthians 3:6,
:*''The letter killeth, the spirit gives life.''
:All these actions were a bit presumptuous on the part of godly men, Moses, Abraham, and David. They were decisions made by men, acting in the flesh without the spirit of God. All had serious longterm consequences as the result of sin. Now we understand a bit more what Paul means by apt to teach, rightly dividing the word of truth. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:14, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
:I suppose under your teaching of scripture you could justify Moses striking the rock twice or David's sin with Bathsheba, as well. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
::Look at the scriptures on the authority of the church (''above section'': '''Contentions over Bible authority vs Church authority: What the Bible says about it'''). Rhetorical question to consider: What church has been completely free of immoral sinners among its leaders, or free of immoral sinners within their congregations, or free of accusations of hypocrisy and scandals? --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:20, 9 August 2020 (EDT) All the churches, Orthodox, Catholic, multiple Protestant denominations, Independents, non-denominational, say the Bible is the Word of God. They differ profoundly on interpretation and doctrine. Scripture warns that wrong interpretation of the scriptures is "unto destruction" 2 Peter 3:15-18. Rhetorical question to consider: Which church "holding to the Bible as the Word of God" has the correct interpretation of the Bible free of error in interpretation? How can we know we are not being led astray? What infallible sign does the Bible give that points to the one church guaranteed to have the true interpretation of the Bible free of error, free of the danger of destruction? --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:18, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

====Proofs that condemnations of Catholic doctrine are false====
Read [http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/w.bible.htm '''Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham'''] and the [https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm '''''Catechism of the Catholic Church''''']

Reverend Graham says in his Introduction:
:“IF all were true that is alleged against the Catholic Church in her treatment of Holy Scripture, then the proper title of these papers should be [not] ‘How we got', but 'How we have not got the Bible'. The common and received opinion about the matter among non-Catholics in Britain, for the most part, has been that Rome hates the Bible-that she has done all she could to destroy it—that in all countries where she has held sway she has kept the Bible from the hands of the people—has taken it and burned it whenever she found anyone reading it. Or if she cannot altogether prevent its publication or its perusal, at least she renders it as nearly useless as possible by sealing it up in a dead language which the majority of people can neither read nor understand. And all this she does, (so we are told), because she knows that her doctrines are absolutely opposed to and contradicted by the letter of God's written Word—she holds and propagates dogmas and traditions which could not stand one moment's examination if exposed to the searching light of Holy Scripture. [...]

:“The Protestant account of pre-reformation Catholicism has been largely a falsification of history. All the faults and sins that could possibly be raked up or invented against Rome, or against particular bishops or priests, were presented to the people of this unhappy land, and all her best acts misconstrued, misjudged, misrepresented, and nothing of good told in her favour. She has been painted as all black and hideous, and no beauty could be seen in her. Consequently people came to believe the tradition as a matter of course, and accepted it as history [...]

:“But nowadays many are enquiring—Is it really so? Are we sure of our facts? Are we not building up mountains of abuse and calumny on a false suppositon? Just as all have come to know that the sun, as a matter of fact, does not rise or set but stands still, that there never was a Pope Joan but his name was John, that monasteries and convents are homes of learning and sanctity and charity, and that no Catholic ever pays or ever could pay a single farthing to get his sins remitted—and all this through the spread of knowledge and education and enlightenment and study—so also I venture to think that people will now be rightly considered ignorant and blameworthy, and at the least behind the times, if they do not learn that the notion I have alluded to above about the Catholic Church and the Bible is false and nonsensical—historically false and inherently nonsensical. By a calm consideration of the facts of history and a mind open to conviction on genuine evidence, they will be driven by sheer force of honesty to the conclusion that the Catholic Church, so far from being the monster of iniquity that she is painted, has in very truth been the parent, the author and maker under God, of the Bible; that she has guarded it and defended it all through the ages, and preserved it from error or destruction; that she has ever held it in highest veneration and esteem, and has grounded her doctrines upon it; that she alone has the right to call it her book; that she alone possesses the true Bible and the whole Bible, and that copies of the Scriptures existing outside of her pale, are partly incorrect and partly defective, and that whatever in them is true, is true because derived from her who alone possesses the Book in its fulness and its truth. If they were Catholics, they would love God's Holy Word more and more; they would understand it better; they would adore the Divine Providence that took such a wise and sure means of preserving and perpetuating it; and they would profoundly admire the Catholic Church for her ceaseless vigilance, untiring zeal, and unswerving fidelity to the commission entrusted to her by Almighty God.”

The '''''Catechism of the Catholic Church''''' represents the actual doctrine of the Church. Condemnations of the doctrine are examples of [[straw man argument]]s, based on [[misrepresentation]] and [[specious reasoning]], which are all demonstrably [[falsehood]]s of [[error]]. People who have read it have come to believe the actual truth of the doctrine is perfectly biblical. They have found the [[Catholic Church]] in all its forms to be the most biblical Church on earth.

Keep in mind that what people say about Catholic doctrine is not necessarily true. Keep in mind that the scandal of bad and sinful behavior does not invalidate doctrine. Keep in mind that [[hypocrites]] are found in every Christian denomination. Their bad example has never proved that [[Christianity]] itself is false.

:Read '''[https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14913/what-happened-to-the-book-of-the-law-in-the-time-of-josiah What happened to the Book of the Law in the time of Josiah?]'''
:Text: '''2 King 2:8:''' - ''I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD.''
:Excerpted: "King Josiah ruled Judah over a period in which the re-discovery of YHWH overall was in vogue. For the past 57 years, two very wicked kings had ruled - Manesseh and his son Amon.
::"Of Mannesseh, it is said:
::''and he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to the despicable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. For he rebuilt the high places that [[Hezekiah]] his father had destroyed, and he erected altars for [[Baal]] and made an Asherah, as Ahab king of Israel had done, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them. And he built altars in the house of the Lord, ... And he burned his son as an offering* and used fortune-telling and omens and dealt with mediums and with necromancers. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger.''
::"The wickedest king of Israel presided over a huge decline in the worship of God. In such a regime, especially if new altars were being built in the Temple, it would not at all be surprising if the Book of the Law was "filed away" and forgotten.
:'''The book of the law could not have been found in the house of the Lord without it not having been ''lost'' in the house of the Lord ''first''.''' This describes what has happened to the Roman Catholic church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:54, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
::The Bible has never been lost in the Catholic Church throughout its entire history. As pointed out by the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham '''''Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church''''' (reference link above), she has preserved and protected it and taught from it always by the ministry of her magisterium. It is properly her own as an integral and inseparable and indispensable part of the whole deposit of the Christian Faith to keep intact and whole and guard from the distortions of heretics, and misinterpretations of misguided persons "ignorant and unstable" 2 Peter 3:16 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:13, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

===="''By their fruits ye shall know them''": The Fruits of Catholicism====
"''By their fruits ye shall know them''". All of the excellent and praiseworthy benefits of Western Civilization are the '''fruit''' of the tree of the Catholic Church and the doctrine of her magisterium leading into all the truth. See [https://www.deseret.com/2011/12/28/20240742/commentary-history-shows-contributions-of-catholic-church-to-western-civilization '''Commentary: History Shows Contributions of the Catholic Church to Western Civilization'''] —major contributions to Science, Astronomy, Medicine, establishment of Universities, Hospitals and care centers for the elderly, women and children and orphans, charitable institutions for the poor (all unknown in the pagan world), Christian missionaries sent to pagan lands, converting them from ignorance to knowledge of Jesus Christ, and preserving the Bible. In addition, the Catholic Church has produced by the grace of God men and women eminent for their holiness and goodness and devotion to Jesus Christ, as the direct fruit of her doctrines and sacraments. Even non-Christians have admired their example, and praised even many of her popes and bishops as saintly examples of Christian goodness to follow. They have even died as martyrs of the Lord for their faith in Jesus Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:02, 9 August 2020 (EDT) [https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/saints/10-influential-saints-and-their-legends.aspx '''10 Influential Saints and Their Legends'''] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:55, 9 August 2020 (EDT)
:Give God the glory; the Magisterium sounds just like the [[Democrat]]s - taking credit for things they have nothing to do with, while shifting the blame for their screw-ups to others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 21:08, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

==Scripture has authority over the Roman church==
===User:RobSmith===
Conservapedia's [[Magisterium]] article says of the Magisterium,
{{quotebox| According to the Catholic Church the only correct and valid understanding of the revealed Christian doctrine of [[salvation]] and the Bible can only be obtained by taking account of both Sacred Scripture and [[Apostolic Tradition]] as interpreted by the authentic catholic Christian Living Magisterium under the promised guidance of God the [[Holy Spirit]].}}
The Magisterium is a living being or institution that purports to talk for God.

====Matthew 15:8-9====
Jesus summed up the problems with the [[Roman Catholic]] Magisterium with these words:
*''‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’''<ref>https://biblia.com/bible/esv/matthew/15/8-9</ref>

====Upon this rock I will build my church====
*'''Exodus 33:13''' - ''Now therefore, I pray thee, '''if I have found grace''' in thy sight, '''shew me now thy way'''
*'''John 14:6''' - '''''I am the way'''''
*'''Exodus 33:21''' - ''And the LORD said, Behold, '''there is a place by me''', and '''thou shalt stand upon a rock.'''''
*'''Romans 5:2''' - ''Through him '''we have also obtained access''' by faith '''into this grace in which we stand'''''
*'''1 Corinthians 10:4''' - ''And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and '''that Rock was Christ.'''

Even Peter says that rock was Christ.
*'''1 Peter 2:6-8''' - ''For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion '''a stone, a cornerstone''' chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” 7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, '''“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”''' 8 and '''“A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.”''' They stumble because they disobey the word'' (ESV)

The church is built upon Christ, the Rock, not Peter.
*'''Psalm 89:26''' - ''He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the '''Rock of my salvation.’'''''

====Matthew 16:18 has no relationship to papal primacy====
:Borrowed from [[Debate:Does_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F#Peter_Being_.22the_rock.22_does_not_necessarily_mean_the_first_Pope|Peter Being "the rock" does not necessarily mean the first Pope]]
From Barnes' Notes on The Bible:
{{cquote|Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself.

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. '''But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church.''' See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: "I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."}}

====The question of papal primacy and Apostolic tradition====
Borrowed from [[Debate:Does_the_Catholic_Church_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Christ_Himself_to_preach_and_to_teach_the_truth_forever%3F#No._The_Catholic_Church_does_not_have_the_biblical_authority_of_Jesus_Christ|Authority Forever debate]]:

'''1.''' Meaning of: "And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros = rock/stone), and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the powers of death / the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19

Please see:

*[https://bible.org/question/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-%E2%80%9Cupon-rock-i-will-build-my-church%E2%80%9D What did Jesus mean when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church”?]

*[https://blog.tms.edu/upon-this-rock Upon This Rock]

*[https://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html What is the rock in Matthew 16:18?]

'''2.''' The historical evidence for papal primacy is insufficient. The historical evidence is against papal primacy.

See:

*[https://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2009/march-april/papal-primacy PAPAL PRIMACY?]

*[https://christiantruth.com/articles/articles-roman-catholicism/forgeries/ Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy] By William Webster

"The word “Pope” means “Papa,” “Father.” At first it was applied to all Western Bishops. About AD. 500 it began to be restricted to the Bishop of Rome, and soon, in common use, came to mean Universal Bishop. The Roman Catholic list of Popes includes the Bishops of Rome from the 1st century onward. But for 500 years Bishops of Rome were NOT Popes.

'''The idea that the Bishop of Rome should have Authority over the Whole Church was a slow growth process, bitterly contested at every step, and has never at any time been Universally Recognized, not even prior to the Protestant Reformation.'''

WBSG Note: Jesus tells us in the Bible to “call no man your father on earth.” We know that He wasn’t speaking about your flesh parent because the fifth commandment says: “Honor thy father and thy mother…” [Ex 20:12]. So what other father could He mean except Pope (The word “Pope” means “Papa,” “Father.”). Also notice the capitalization below in the word Father (this indicates the presence of the definite article in the Greek language):

Matt 23:9 (Jesus speaking) 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (KJV)

The Roman Catholic tradition that Peter was the First Pope is Fiction pure and simple. There is no New Testament hint, and no historical evidence whatever, that Peter was at any time Bishop of Rome. Nor did he ever claim for himself such Authority as the Popes have claimed for themselves. It seems that Peter had a divine foreboding that his “Successors” would be mainly concerned with “Lording it over Gods flock, rather than showing themselves Examples to the flock” (I Peter 5:3)....

'''Beginning of Rome’s Domineering Policy:'''

*Anicetus, Bishop of Rome (154-168), tried to influence [[Polycarp of Smyrna|Polycarp]], Bishop of Smyrna, to change the date of Easter observance; but Polycarp refused to yield... (Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John)...

*Victor 1 (190-202), threatened to excommunicate the Eastern Churches for celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, replied that he was not afraid of Victors threats, and asserted his independent authority. Iranaeus, of Lyons, though a Western Bishop, and in sympathy with the Western viewpoint on Easter Observance, that is, the week-day rather than the month-day, rebuked Victor for trying to Dictate to Eastern Churches."[https://mannastore5776.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/halleys-handbook-church-history/]

====Philippians 2:12====
:*''Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, '''work out your own salvation''' with fear and trembling''

The individual believer does not need the [[sacrament]]s, authority, leadership, guidance, direction, absolution, or consent of the church to ''work out your own salvation.''

==See also==
*[[Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?‎‎]]
*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
*[[Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day‎‎]]
*[[Debate: Infant baptism]]
*[[Debate: Explain the apparent inconsistency between Ex. 33:11 and Jn. 1:18]]
*[[Debate:Is Holy Communion the True Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ]]
*[[Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?]]
*[[Investiture controversy]]
*[[Petrine Primacy]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Debate]]

Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?

2020-08-27T01:32:48Z

[[category:Debate]][[category:Catholic Church]][[category:Reformation]][[category:Protestantism]][[category:New Testament]]<center>''This is a non-denominational exchange of ideas intended to bring about a greater understanding of the Bible.'' ''All views are welcome.''</center>
TEXTS and QUESTIONS of the Debate are posted here. READER RESPONSE ANSWERS AND COMMENTS are most welcome here, and should not be made on the [[Talk:Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?|Talk Page]].
==Texts==

::Jesus: "And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros = rock/stone), and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the powers of death / the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:18-19

::Jesus: And if any one will not receive you (plural) or listen to your (plural) words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you (plural), it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrhah than for that town. Matthew 10_14-15

::Jesus: (said to his Jewish disciples) "if he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, let him be to you (plural) as a Gentile and a tax collector (''to the Jews a godless pagan and a traitor to the people of God''). Truly I say to you (plural), whatever you (plural) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you (plural) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 18:17b-18

::Jesus: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (plural); and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age ([[eon|"''aeonos''"]] = millions of years)." Matthew 28:19b-20

::Jesus: "And I will pray the Father, and he will give you (plural) another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you (plural) know him, for he dwells with you (plural), and will be in you (plural)." John 14:16-17.

::Jesus: "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." John 15:6. "I have yet many things to say to you (plural), but you (plural) cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you (plural) into all the truth" John 16:12-13a

::"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you (plural). As the Father has sent me, even so I send you (plural).' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you (plural) forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you (plural) retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20:21-23

::"But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcized according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved' (''their sola scriptura interpretation''). And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. So being sent on their way by the CHURCH...When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the CHURCH and the apostles and elders." Acts 15:1-2,4a. "Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole CHURCH to choose men from among them and send them...'it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us' ...and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. And when they read it, they rejoiced at the exhortation." Acts 15:22,28,30b-31 (''this has been called the [[Council of Jerusalem]]—the New Testament had not been written'')

::Paul: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you guardians, to feed the CHURCH of the Lord which he obtained with his own blood." Acts 20:28

::Paul: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." Romans 13:1-2

::Paul: "I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given to me by God to be a minister / official ambassador of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." Romans 15:15-16

::Paul: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slave or free" 1 Corinthians 12:12-13. "Now you (plural) are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the CHURCH first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators..." 1 Corinthians 12:27-28

::Paul: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2

::Paul: "So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:20

::Paul: "As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to to that which you received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:9

::Paul: For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10

::Paul: "So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy TEMPLE in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." Ephesians 2:19-21

::Paul: "to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known..." Ephesians 3:9-10

::Paul: "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the CHURCH; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell" Colossians 1:18-19 "holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God." Colossians 2:19

::Paul: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15. "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the traditions that you received from us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6

::Paul: "know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and bulwark / foundation / ground of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15

::Paul: "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2:2

::Paul: "exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:15 (''written to the [[bishop]] of Crete''). "avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law / Old Testament, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is [[Schism|factious]] / an [[Heresy|heretick]], after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful: he is self-condemned." Titus 3:9-11

::Hebrews: "A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses (''compare Matthew 18:16''). How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned / made unholy / regarded as common the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" Hebrews 10:28-29

::''Hebrews'': "We have '''an altar''' (''singular'') from which those who serve the tent / tabernacle have no right to '''eat'''." Hebrews 13:10

::''Hebrews'': "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you." Hebrews 13:17

::James: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24

::James: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (presbyteroi = "priests") of the CHURCH, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." James 5:14-15

::Peter: "Like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 2:5.

::Peter: "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every HUMAN INSTITUTION, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." 1 Peter 2:13-15

::Peter: "be subject to the elders (presbyteroi = "priests"). Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for 'God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.' Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you." 1 Peter 5:5-6

::Peter: "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE." 2 Peter 1:3-4 (''[[Eucharist]]'', the promise of eternal life in John 6:53-58)

::John: "Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They WENT OUT FROM US, but they were not of us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us." 1 John 2:18-19

::John: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." 1 John 4:14-15 (''the Catholic Church confesses that Jesus is the Son of God in the [[Apostles' Creed]] and the [[Nicene Creed]] and in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.'' John 20:21 ''testifies that just as the Father sent Jesus as Savior of the world so He sent the apostles as Savior of the world in His Body the Church'').

::John: "Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work." 2 John 9-11 (''this includes the doctrine of Christ that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church that Jesus built on a rock'')

::John: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the CHURCHES." Revelation 2:7,11,17,29 3:6,13,22

==Questions==

Discuss the following questions relating to the scriptures cited above:

*What is the [[sola scriptura]] plain and clear simple meaning of these passages?

*Are the parenthetical comments inserted in the passages above useful? If not, why not?

*Is biblical scholarship regarding these passages helpful? Is it irrelevant?

*Are biblical commentaries on these passages helpful? Are they irrelevant?

*Do the meanings of these passages in the original language help understanding of their meaning? Is it irrelevant?

*Can translations be trusted? If not, why? If so, which one is best? Is there more than one to be trusted?

*Are these passages taken together in context?

*Are some or any or all of these passages irrelevant to the Debate Question? Which ones?

*Are any of these Bible passages not relevant to the church? Which? Why?

*Is the church a governing authority?

*Does any church have authority?

*What is the meaning of "''the church''" in these passages?

*Explain your personal answer to the Debate Question: "Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?"

*Does the Catholic Church have any authority at all?

*Is the Catholic Church a human institution? If it is, how is the obedience commanded by 1 Peter 2:13-15 relevant?

*If not, what does that mean in reference to Matthew 16:19-20 "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"? Is it irrelevant? Why?

*Do church teachings and official documents have any binding authority? Are they to be ignored? Why?

*Are ecumenical and local church councils and synods relevant? Do they have any authority?

*Who has authority to interpret scripture? How do we know this? Is [[sola spiritu]] reliable? Is it infallible?

*Is the list of scriptural passages posted here at the top of this page a misuse of scripture? Is the list a demonic or satanic abuse or twisting of scripture? If so, why?

*What authority do you have? Why should you be believed? Is that relevant to the Debate Question? Why?

*Differences and contradictions: —Do heresies and charges of heresy prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and 16:13? —Do Christian divisions and multiple divided denominations opposing each other prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and 16:13? —Do the Great Schism of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and 16:13? —''and'' Do moral scandals and charges of scandal and hypocrisy and corruption against Christian leadership, against Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests, Reformers, Pastors, Ministers, and leaders of Christian Sects and Cults, prove that Jesus did not keep his promises in Matthew 16:19-20; John 14:16 and John 16:13?

*Sinful Behavior: Does sinful behavior against the Christian doctrine and scriptures invalidate the Christian doctrine and scriptures and the promises of Christ? Is behavior identical with doctrine? If so, why? If not, why?

*Satanic influence and power: Does Satan dominate and rule the Church and all the churches? If so, why? If not, why?

== No. The Catholic Church does not have the biblical authority of Jesus Christ ==
The Second Vatican Council declared, "many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its (the Catholic Church's) visible structure".<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church ''Lumen gentium'', 8]</ref>

=== User: Conservative ===
[[File:Martin Luther by Cranach-restoration.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Martin Luther]] was the father of the [[Protestant Reformation]].
 
 
One of the editors of the [[User: Conservative]] account is a staunch Protestant.
 
 
"Here I stand. I can do no other." - Martin Luther]]
===== The Christian church was not built upon Peter =====

Meaning of: "And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros = rock/stone), and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the powers of death / the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19

Please see:

*[https://bible.org/question/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-%E2%80%9Cupon-rock-i-will-build-my-church%E2%80%9D What did Jesus mean when he said, “Upon this rock I will build my church”?]

*[https://blog.tms.edu/upon-this-rock Upon This Rock]

*[https://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html What is the rock in Matthew 16:18?]

==== The historical evidence for papal primacy is insufficient. The historical evidence is against papal primacy ====

See:

*[https://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2009/march-april/papal-primacy PAPAL PRIMACY?]

*[https://christiantruth.com/articles/articles-roman-catholicism/forgeries/ Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy] By William Webster

"The word “Pope” means “Papa,” “Father.” At first it was applied to all Western Bishops. About AD. 500 it began to be restricted to the Bishop of Rome, and soon, in common use, came to mean Universal Bishop. The Roman Catholic list of Popes includes the Bishops of Rome from the 1st century onward. But for 500 years Bishops of Rome were NOT Popes.

'''The idea that the Bishop of Rome should have Authority over the Whole Church was a slow growth process, bitterly contested at every step, and has never at any time been Universally Recognized, not even prior to the Protestant Reformation.'''

WBSG Note: Jesus tells us in the Bible to “call no man your father on earth.” We know that He wasn’t speaking about your flesh parent because the fifth commandment says: “Honor thy father and thy mother…” [Ex 20:12]. So what other father could He mean except Pope (The word “Pope” means “Papa,” “Father.”). Also notice the capitalization below in the word Father (this indicates the presence of the definite article in the Greek language):

Matt 23:9 (Jesus speaking) 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (KJV)

The Roman Catholic tradition that Peter was the First Pope is Fiction pure and simple. There is no New Testament hint, and no historical evidence whatever, that Peter was at any time Bishop of Rome. Nor did he ever claim for himself such Authority as the Popes have claimed for themselves. It seems that Peter had a divine foreboding that his “Successors” would be mainly concerned with “Lording it over Gods flock, rather than showing themselves Examples to the flock” (I Peter 5:3)....

'''Beginning of Rome’s Domineering Policy:'''

*Anicetus, Bishop of Rome (154-168), tried to influence [[Polycarp of Smyrna|Polycarp]], Bishop of Smyrna, to change the date of Easter observance; but Polycarp refused to yield... (Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John)...

*Victor 1 (190-202), threatened to excommunicate the Eastern Churches for celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, replied that he was not afraid of Victors threats, and asserted his independent authority. Iranaeus, of Lyons, though a Western Bishop, and in sympathy with the Western viewpoint on Easter Observance, that is, the week-day rather than the month-day, rebuked Victor for trying to Dictate to Eastern Churches."[https://mannastore5776.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/halleys-handbook-church-history/]

==== The Catholic Church is a corrupt joke. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits ====

:"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach," 1 Timothy 3:2 [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 19:05, 13 August 2020 (EDT)
:"So, the Pope is perfect and has to be chosen by perfect men. That’s impossible, obviously. I would say this, that the papacy is the biggest hoax ever foisted on the world. The biggest hoax ever. Popes who were fornicators and bribers and murderers, and some who were good men in a human sense, dot the landscape of this history and make it impossible to see in it the work of God or any apostolic succession." -John MacArthur [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 19:06, 13 August 2020 (EDT)

Specifically, Jesus said: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them." (Matthew 7:15-20)

Religious scholars generally separate Christianity into 3 main branches: Catholicism, [[Protestantism]] and [[Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox]].
[[File:Blake Whore of Babylon.jpg|thumbnail|[[Protestant Reformation|Reformation]] writers Martin Luther, [[John Calvin]], and [[John Knox]] taught that the Catholic Church was the [[Whore of Babylon]] mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Identification of the Pope as the Antichrist was written into Protestant creeds such as the Westminster Confession of 1646.
 
 
In the last 60 years, the corruptness of the Catholic Church has gone to a whole, new stratospheric level (For example, it has had many pedophile and homosexual priests and there have been many Vatican bank/financial scandals).]]
<big>'''There are major problems as far as homosexuality, pedophilia and Vatican bank/financial scandals within the Catholic Church.'''</big>

<big>"'''The report released Thursday by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the 2019 report — which covered July 2018 through June 2019 — counted 4,434 allegations of clergy sex abuse against minors.'''"</big>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/06/26/scandals-compensation-programs-lead-catholic-clergy-sex-abuse-complaints-quadruple-2019/]

*<big>'''A global look at the Catholic Church’s sex abuse problem'''</big>[https://apnews.com/8cb4daf509464bad8c13ef35d44a0fc5], Associated Press, 2019

<big>'''Homosexual clergy problem within the Catholic Church:'''</big> The staunch, Catholic Michael Voris indicates there is a major problem with there being many homosexual priests in the Catholic priesthood, Western Catholic hierarchy and in the Vatican: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vQTtEZenIw The Vortex — The Homosexual Papacy?].

*[https://www.google.com/search?q=vatican+bank+scandals&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS771US771&oq=vatican+ban&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57.3414j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Vatican bank scandals]

The Catholic church is a corrupt joke. Its corruptness is long-standing, but in the last 60 years its corruptness has gone to a whole new stratospheric level (Sexual abuse victims report their abuse many years after the fact typically).

There is no pandemic of pedophilia in conservative, Bible-believing, Protestant churches (I am not referring to [[liberal]] Protestant churches which I consider heretical because they often reject the authority/inerrancy of the Bible and promote unbiblical practices such as as homosexuality). I have been going to conservative, Bible-believing, Protestant churches for years and I am not aware of any such pandemic either locally (in the various geographic areas I have lived in), nationally or globally. On the other hand, the Catholic diocese in my city has declared bankruptcy due to all the sexual abuse cases lodged against it.

There is also no pandemic of homosexuality in conservative, Protestant churches.

I am not aware of any pandemic of pedophilia in Eastern Orthodox Churches. According to ''Newsweek'': "But the Orthodox Church has not experienced as many scandals as its Roman Catholic counterpart, which has been the frequent target of protests by activist groups advocating for victims of sexual assault. Unlike Catholic priests, Orthodox priests are allowed to be married."[https://www.newsweek.com/priest-guilty-violent-sex-acts-children-orthodox-christian-youth-camps-783725]

'''Roman Catholic Church, Homosexuality and pederasty'''

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the American [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] bishops and the Vatican had noted a growing problem with clerical sexual abuse in the U.S.<ref>https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26940</ref> In addition, Ireland and other European countries have experienced problems relating to instances of Roman Catholic priests sexually abusing children.<ref>http://www.daily49er.com/opinion/our-view-catholic-church-needs-administrative-reform-1.2200659</ref>

[[Catholic League]] president Bill Donohue declared concerning the scandals of priests molesting minors:
{{cquote|The latest attempt to silence me comes from GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), Call to Action and the Interfaith Alliance. The three left-wing organizations have joined hands demanding that the media "ignore Bill Donohue." Their complaint? My telling the truth about the role homosexual priests have played in the abuse scandal.

The data collected by John Jay College of Criminal Justice show that between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent of the victims were male and 75 percent of them were post-pubescent. In other words, three out of every four victims have been abused by homosexuals. By the way, puberty, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, begins at age 10 for boys.

No problem can be remedied without an accurate diagnosis. And any accurate diagnosis that does not finger the role that homosexuals have played in molesting minors is intellectually dishonest. The cover-up must end. And so must attempts to muzzle my voice. Everything I am saying is what most people already know, but are afraid to say it. It's time for some straight talk.<ref>[http://www.catholicleague.org/attempts-to-censor-donohue-fail/ ATTEMPTS TO CENSOR DONOHUE FAIL.April 1, 2010 by Bill]</ref>}}

Bill Donahue published in the [[New York Times]]: "The Times continues to editorialize about the "pedophilia crisis", when all along it's been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay."<ref>https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/bill-donohue-catholic-sex_n_520187.html</ref>

Thank God homosexuality isn't prevalent in Bible-believing, conservative, Protestant Christianity!

<big>'''Good fruit of [[Protestantism]]:'''</big>

''See also:'' [[Protestant cultural legacies]] and [[Christianity and social stability]]

[[File:Niall Ferguson.jpg|thumbnail|151px|right|The atheist and [[Harvard University]] historian [[Niall Ferguson]] declared: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the [[Protestantism|Protestant]] societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history."<ref>[http://blog.tifwe.org/the-protestant-work-ethic-alive-well-in-china/ The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China] By Hugh Whelchel on September 24, 2012</ref> ]]
The article ''The Surprising Discovery About Those Colonialist, Proselytizing Missionaries'' published in ''Christianity Today'' notes:
{{Cquote|In his fifth year of graduate school, Woodberry created a statistical model that could test the connection between missionary work and the health of nations. He and a few research assistants spent two years coding data and refining their methods. They hoped to compute the lasting effect of missionaries, on average, worldwide...

One morning, in a windowless, dusty computer lab lit by fluorescent bulbs, Woodberry ran the first big test. After he finished prepping the statistical program on his computer, he clicked "Enter" and then leaned forward to read the results.

"I was shocked," says Woodberry. "It was like an atomic bomb. The impact of missions on global democracy was huge. I kept adding variables to the model—factors that people had been studying and writing about for the past 40 years—and they all got wiped out. It was amazing. I knew, then, I was on to something really important."

Woodberry already had historical proof that missionaries had educated women and the poor, promoted widespread printing, led nationalist movements that empowered ordinary citizens, and fueled other key elements of democracy. Now the statistics were backing it up: Missionaries weren't just part of the picture. They were central to it...

Areas where Protestant missionaries had a significant presence in the past are on average more economically developed today, with comparatively better health, lower infant mortality, lower corruption, greater literacy, higher educational attainment (especially for women), and more robust membership in nongovernmental associations.

In short: Want a blossoming democracy today? The solution is simple—if you have a time machine: Send a 19th-century missionary."<ref>Christianity Today, [https://archive.is/cDMnA The Surprising Discovery About Those Colonialist, Proselytizing Missionaries], January 8, 2014</ref>}}

The atheist and [[Harvard University]] historian [[Niall Ferguson]] declared: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the [[Protestantism|Protestant]] societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history."<ref>[http://blog.tifwe.org/the-protestant-work-ethic-alive-well-in-china/ The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China] By Hugh Whelchel on September 24, 2012</ref> See also: [[Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism]]

'''Protestantism vs. Catholicism and political corruption (Widespread political corruption in Catholic countries):'''

*[http://elaine.ie/2009/03/31/will-10-more-protestants-lead-to-less-corruption/ Article on Protestant vs. Catholic religion and corruption] - Academic research shows less political corruption in Protestant countries

*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research Protestant work ethic and European countries]

*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/11/pain-gain-work-ethic-burkeman Protestant work ethic]

'''The [[Eurozone Crisis|Eurozone financial crisis]] was primarily caused by the spendthrift PIGS countries (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain).'''[https://www.stephenhicks.org/2011/12/21/pigs-catholicism-and-protestantism/]

4 out of the 5 of the PIGS countries are Catholic. None of them were [[Protestantism|Protestant]]. Greece is [[Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox]].

In summary, I will repeat the words of the Protestant [[Martin Luther]] who launched the [[Protestant Reformation]]: "Here I stand. I can do no other."

===User:Shobson20===
{{cquote|So, the Pope is perfect and has to be chosen by perfect men. That’s impossible, obviously. I would say this, that the papacy is the biggest hoax ever foisted on the world. The biggest hoax ever. Popes who were fornicators and bribers and murderers, and some who were good men in a human sense, dot the landscape of this history and make it impossible to see in it the work of God or any apostolic succession.}}
John MacArthur
====The Pope (and Catholic authority) has taught a different Gospel====

Pope Francis has run against Galatians 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EX1BjID_fE]

The Catholic authority says "faith and works" but the Bible says "Faith and NOT works." [https://carm.org/catholic/are-we-saved-faith-alone-or-do-we-need-works-too][https://carm.org/catholic/catholic-salvation-attain][https://carm.org/catholic/ccc-2010-2027-2068] Romans 11:6 says that adding works into the equation nullifies the concept of grace, therefore, they CANNOT mix. Catholic attempts to use other scripture out of context nullifies the clear meaning of these verses. Here are examples: [https://dailyverse.knowing-jesus.com/romans-2-13] [https://dailyverse.knowing-jesus.com/titus-2-14] [https://www.gotquestions.org/faith-alone.html] Those who are saved will do good works, but the works are not what saves. Keep this in mind when reading verses about doing works.

====Critical thinking vs appeal to authority====

So far, the Catholic side of this debate has relied on appeals to authority from people who happen to agree with the Catholic interpretation regarding the Apostle Peter. However, the Protestant side has used critical thinking to actually compare whether the teachings of the Roman Catholic Magesterium has been consistent with the teachings of Scripture. Mike Winger in the video linked above shows conclusively that Pope Francis has not. James G. McCarthy created a simple Pamphlet detailing how Roman Catholic doctrine is in conflict with the word of God in several places: [https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Catholicism-Quick-Reference-Guides/dp/1565074297] and authored the longer "The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and the Word of God." [https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Rome-Comparing-Tradition/dp/1565071077/ref=pd_bxgy_2/144-4983834-3521601?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1565071077&pd_rd_r=c3561759-e55c-4528-ba16-880cd8d37d76&pd_rd_w=JLCg0&pd_rd_wg=fXuiR&pf_rd_p=ce6c479b-ef53-49a6-845b-bbbf35c28dd3&pf_rd_r=PPCCJ62PW1M4FZ16W7C8&psc=1&refRID=PPCCJ62PW1M4FZ16W7C8] Richard Bennett, former Catholic Priest of 20 years details the doctrinal problems and bad fruits of the Catholic Church in Catholicism: East of Eden [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1848710836/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1]

'''Catholics leave the Catholic Church when they study scripture for themselves'''

Historically, most laypeople have been illiterate and did not have direct access to the Bible, so they were dependent on what religious leaders told them. In an era where all of scripture has been translated, anyone can fact-check what their leaders tell them just as the Bereans did in Acts 17:11 "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." The congregation must be modern-day Bereans and only submit to church leaders whose teaching are in harmony with the scriptures.

User:RobSmith was raised Catholic, but said in his own talk page:
{{cquote|"In parochial school I heard the word read everyday at mass for 8 years, and '''it didn't square up with what we were taught in catechism and religion class. The priests and nuns couldn't resolve the questions where the Roman Church and bible seemed to be in direct conflict.''' I wasn't alone in this - I have three brothers and numerous friends who also were confused by the contradictions. In those days Catholic law forbade independent reading of the scripture.

We used to joke about the Assumption of Mary, that Church law and church tradition "assumed" Mary was levitated cause it appears nowhere in the Bible. Image the shock years later when you discover that the joke is literally true."}}

Former Catholic priest Richard Bennett left the Catholic Church when he began to seriously study the Bible: [https://bereanbeacon.org/richard-bennett-from-tradition-to-truth-a-priests-story/]
{{cquote|While I had learned earlier that God’s Word is absolute, I still went through this agony of trying to maintain the '''Roman Catholic Church as holding more authority than God’s Word, even in issues where the Church of Rome was saying the exact opposite to what was in the Bible.''' How could this be? First, it was my own fault. If I had accepted the authority of the Bible as supreme, I would have been convicted by God’s Word to give up my priestly role as mediator, but that was too precious to me. Second, no one ever questioned what I did as a priest. Christians from overseas came to Mass, saw our sacred oils, holy water, medals, statues, vestments, rituals, and never said a word! The marvelous style, symbolism, music, and artistic taste of the Roman Church were all very captivating. Incense not only smells pungent, but to the mind it spells mystery.}}

Former Catholic nun Alicia Simpson likewise: [https://bereanbeacon.org/my-search-for-peace-a-nuns-story/]
{{cquote|In due time, I went with a bus from our church. For the first time in my life I found myself in a vast evangelical gathering. I had no idea what was going on. There I saw the words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”, and I heard for the first time the words, “Ye must be born again.” There was a new way of preaching from the Bible, very different from anything I had ever heard. My interest was truly aroused and questions were arising in my mind. Was there salvation outside the Church of Rome? The preacher said that salvation was obtained through believing in the finished work of Christ at Calvary, not through belonging to any particular church. '''All my training and indoctrination denied such a possibility.''' But this preacher kept asking us to repent and come to Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Who was right?}}

====What the "church fathers" actually say====

*[https://christiantruth.com/articles/articles-roman-catholicism/fathersmt16/ The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18]

*[http://www.peacebyjesus.net/Ancients_on_Issues.html Church “fathers” on issues] with emphasis on [http://peacebyjesus.net/Ancients_vs_papacy.html this part] including quotes from Philip Schaff whom Catholics like to cherry-pick and quote mine.

====Peter Being "the rock" does not necessarily mean the first Pope====

From Barnes' Notes on The Bible:

{{cquote|Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself.

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. '''But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church.''' See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: "I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."}}

So although Albert Barnes believed that Peter was the rock, he did not believe that meant Roman Primacy.

Pulpit Commentary, which also asserts that Peter is the rock, says this:

{{cquote|Combining the two expositions, we may say that Christ herein promises that neither the power of death nor the power of the devil shall prevail against it (κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς), shall overpower it, keep it in subjection. The pronoun refers doubtless to Church, not rock, the verb being more applicable to the former than the latter, and the pronoun being nearer in position to ἐκκλησίαν. To see here an assurance of the infallibility of the pope, as Romanists do, is to force the words of Scripture most unwarrantably in order to support a modern figment which has done infinite harm to the cause of Christ. As Erasmus says, "Proinde miror esse, qui locum hunc detorqueant ad Romanum Pontificem."}}

The Latin in the last part translates to: "It is surprising that this is twisted to the Pope."

Furthermore, after Jesus supposedly declares Peter to be a rock that the gates of Hell will not prevail against, in Matthew 16:23: Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." This is wholly inconsistent with Peter being an infallible "first Pope." The "rock" that will be the foundation of the church is looking pretty weak. And of course, in Matthew 26:69-75, Peter denied Jesus three times, AFTER he was supposedly declared "the rock" and the "first Pope." Peter did eventually turn his life around, but he is far from the "rock" that the Catholic position implies that he is.

===="Church Authority" Does Not Mean Authority to go Against Previously Established Scripture====

Regardless of how many prooftexts Catholics attempt to hijack in order to assert that their church has authority, they do NOT have the authority to go against God's authority, which they do in many ways as outlined by User:RobSmith. In Daniel 3:12 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not submit to Nebuchadnezzar's order to bow to the idol made of gold. Galatians 1:8 says that '''even church authorities who preach a different Gospel receive God's curse.''' '''"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!"''' Paul is talking about himself and his fellow apostles in this statement.

====Former Catholics affirm that Catholic Doctrine is exactly what Protestants think it is====

[https://bereanbeacon.org/former-priests-and-nuns/] [https://bereanbeacon.org/former-nuns/] Not to mention, User:RobSmith was also raised Catholic.

====Equivocation====

Catholics will take a reference to "traditions" in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and interpret it as referring to their traditions. Many of the so-called "proof-texts" require Catholic pre-suppostions. 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, the natural reading is that the "fire" is a metaphor for the testing of our works to determine Heavenly reward (it is the work that is set to the fire, not the person). This does not conflict with Jesus paying all the penalty for sins, but the Catholic reading their doctrine of Purgatory into it does. It also does not say that we are burned and tortured until the sin is purged. [https://carm.org/john2023-priests-forgive-sins] Answer to another common canard. It addresses not only the language of the verse, but the concept of successors and what power they had. Again, Protestant interpretation does not conflict with only God forgiving sins, but Catholic does.

====The "Gates of Hell"====

Jesus gave his declaration to Peter at Caesarea Philippi which was known for being a center for Pan worship, and there was a grotto literally called the "Gates of Hades" ("Hades" in the Greek Bible is frequently translated as "Hell") giving Jesus' words a potentially geographic context-sensitive interpretation. <ref>https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/gates-of-hell-article</ref> Regardless, the verse cannot be referring to Papal infallibility because of this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EX1BjID_fE] clearly going against not only Christian doctrine, but Catholic doctrine as well. In addition, just a few verses down in Matthew 16:23 Jesus says to Peter "Get behind me, '''Satan!''' You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man." The supposedly infallible "first Pope" is being called "Satan" and is harshly rebuked and compared to the devil.

===User:VargasMilan===
<big> Category error: Christ's "Church" is not an institution at all!</big>

The English word "Church" comes from the word ''Kyrios'', meaning "Lord", because a church was regarded as the Lord's (Jesus's) house. Whether the house is a true church depends on whether its people belong to the Lord.

Nor is the Church the people's ''response'' to its institution, which may not even be possible, but rather their response to other members, the good angels, Jesus Christ and God, whether living with God or here on earth.

I didn't want to give XavierDinant the legitimacy this debate implies, but felt I had to speak up, while still waiting for an explanation as to why he expressed what he considered an essential doctrine of his belief in the form of an amphiboly (a phrase with a double meaning giving two different counsels). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Tuesday, 00:23, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

===User:RobSmith===
The Roman Catholic Church rejects the authority of the Bible.

Peter says,
{{quotebox|1 So '''I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder''' and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, '''not under compulsion, but willingly,''' as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 '''not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples''' to the flock. 4 And '''when the chief Shepherd appears,''' you will receive the unfading crown of glory.<ref>1 Peter 1:1-5 (ESV)</ref>}}
Peter identifies himself as a "fellow elder" and shepherd. This shoots down any claim to "papal authority".

The Roman church cites "Apostolic tradition" because there is no biblical basis for the authority it claims. Peter has no biblical or contemporaneous historical connection to the church at Rome as either a founder or leader.

The binding and loosing of Matthew 16:19 & 18:18 grants no power to add church or Apostolic tradition as equivalent to biblical authority; these passages refer to binding or loosing obligations within scripture.

Biblical authority does not come from "the Church". Paul did not have authority to change the gospel which he himself preached:
{{quotebox|8 But '''even if we''' or an angel from heaven should '''preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached''' to you, let him be accursedl,<ref>Galatians 1:8 (ESV)</ref>}}
yet the Roman church has preached a contrary gospel. Roman Catholic doctrine teaches salvation by works.<ref>[[Council of Trent]]. The Catholic Church declared in the VII session in canon IV that, "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema (excommunicated)."</ref> The Bible teaches that salvation is not a reward. Romans 4:4-5 teaches,
{{quotebox|4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.<ref>Romans 4:4-5 (KJV) 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. (ESV).</ref>}}
The Roman church does not have the authority to declare what is a true and correct interpretation of the Word of God. Romans 14:5 says,
{{quotebox|5 One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.<ref>[https://carm.org/catholic/roman-catholic-romans14 Roman Catholicism, ''Sola Ecclesia'', Tradition, and Romans 14], by Matt Slick. CARM.</ref>}}
The Roman church adds to and replaces the authority of the Bible with "developing tradition." However Jude, the Lord's brother, states:
{{quotebox|Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith '''that was once for all delivered''' to the saints.<ref>Jude 3 (ESV)</ref>}}
Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself? Isaiah 42:8 says,
{{quotebox|I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.<ref>Isaiah 42:8 (KJV)</ref>}}

====False Gospel====
The Roman Catholic church teaches a false gospel. The Roman Catholic Church denies the free gift from God of salvation by grace. The Roman church teaches that salvation must be earned. The Roman church denies the finished work of Christ. The denial of the finished work of Christ is a denial of the person, work, and divinity of Christ himself.

The Roman church teaches a gospel of works, denying both the free gift of grace and the finished work of Christ on the cross. These work requirements are [[sacrament]]s.

The Roman church claims a person will be held to account for thier own sins, denying the finished work of Christ, and the divine person of Christ himself. The Roman church denies the sacrificial death of Jesus as an acceptable sacrifice for sin.

====Denial of grace====
Paul teaches in the Book of Romans 11:6:
{{quotebox|But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.<ref>Romans 11:6 (ESV)</ref>}}
Roman Catholicism teaches that grace is earned through the work of sacraments, namely baptism, confession and the Eucharist.

[[Pope Francis I]] offered time-off for sins in [[Purgatory]] by offering "[[indulgences]]" for following him on [[Twitter]].<ref>[https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/if-the-pope-can-give-indulgences-for-twitter-follows-here-are-4-more-ways-to-digitize-the-church/#:~:text=According%20to%20The%20Guardian%2C%20Catholics%20who%20follow%20Pope,of%20time%20you%20have%20to%20spend%20in%20purgatory.]</ref> This is a denial of (a) the ''free gift'' of salvation by grace; (b) the sacrificial [[atonement]] of [[Jesus]]'s blood on the cross; (c) the divinity of Christ himself; (d) the truth of the Word of God.

====Denial of the Spirit without measure====
John 3:34 says,
{{quotebox|For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure.}}
Roman church doctrine teaches that an Act of Spiritual Communion should be prayed when a person is not physically present or able to attend Mass and receive the Eucharist. An official prayer of the Roman church claims:
{{quotebox|Our Lord to Sr. Benigna Consolata: "Make as many Spiritual Communions as possible, to supply for the many Sacramental Communions which are not made. One every quarter of an hour is not enough. Make them shorter, but more numerous."<ref>[https://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=35 Act of Spiritual Communion], catholic.org</ref>}}

====Denial of Christ as mediator====
The Roman church denies that Christ is the sole mediator between God and man.<ref>1 Timothy 2:5</ref> Holy Orders is a non-scriptural sacrament for a non-scriptural priesthood of mediators. The Bible says,
*'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''
Official Roman Catholic teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), which supplants the bible in authority (Catholic teaching believes God's word is "evolving"), says
*CCC 1456 - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>
This is a direct contradiction and nullification of the bible.

====Occult practices====
Acts 15:19-20 specifically forbids the drinking of blood:
{{quotebox|15 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.}}
Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that drinking the blood of the Eucharist is a work requirement for salvation. Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that a communion waffer becomes the actual, physical body of Jesus and is another work requirement for salvation that must be eaten over and over again, whereas Jesus himself said,
{{quotebox|“I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."<ref>John 6:35</ref>}}

====Rejection of the sufficiency of Christ's blood to purge all sin====
The non-biblical teaching of a "Purgatory" rejects the sufficiency of Christ's blood sacrifice to purge all sin. Furthermore, the Bible teaches for the believer,
{{quotebox|To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.<ref>2 Corinthians 5:7</ref>}}
There is no middle phase of purgation. Jesus told the thief on the cross,
{{quotebox|This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise.<ref>Luke 23:43</ref>}}
The thief did not undergo any last communion or extreme unction. There is no evidence the thief was ever baptized. Repentance and [[faith]] was all that was necessary for the thief to get into the Kingdom of God.

====No other doctrine====
*'''1 Timothy 1:1-3''' - ''Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; 2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. 3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach '''no other doctrine'''''

[[Catechism of the Catholic Church|Catechism]], [[papal bull]]s, and other such renderings are ''other doctrine'' outside of scripture.

====Papal fallacies====
Peter was never appointed head of the church; Peter was assigned the role of Apostle to the Jews.<ref>Galatians 2:8</ref>

====Necromancy====
The Bible strictly forbids contacting the spirits of the dead.
*''10 There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer 11 or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead'' - Deuteronomy 18:10-11 (ESV)
*''Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God.'' - Leviticus 19:31 (ESV)
*''15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.” 16 And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy?'' - 1 Samuel 28:15-16
*''19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.'' Isaiah 8:19-20 (ESV)

The bible instructs us to address all prayers solely to God.<ref>Phillipians 4:6</ref> The officially sanctioned Roman Catholic prayer to Our Mother of Perpetual Help is addressed to Mary (excerpted):
{{quotebox|O Mother of Perpetual Help.....grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying. O purest Mary! O sweetest Mary! Let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O Blessed Lady, to help me whenever I call on thee; for in all my temptations, in all my needs, I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy Sacred Name: Mary! Mary! O what consolation, what sweetness, what confidence fills my soul when I utter thy sacred name, or even only think of thee! I thank the Lord for having given thee, for my good, so sweet, so powerful, so lovely a name. But I will not be content with merely uttering thy name...Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee...In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul....if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear no thing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them, nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all Hell together; nor even from Jesus...}}
Whereas the bible teaches:
*''Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.'' - Acts 4:12 (KJV)
*''And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous'' - 1 John 2:1b (KJV)
*''For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'' - 1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV)

The Roman Catholic church encourages communication with the departed, or prayer to saints. A dead person need not have undergone official canonization into "Sainthood", with the official title of "Saint", to be the recipient of efforts at communication from the living. To be recognized as an official "Saint", an official church inquiry is conducted to determine if the saint-candidate indeed answered prayers of supplicants, typically evidenced by "miracles". Hence, it is not uncommon for Catholic laity to attempt to communicate with dead spouses, parents, children, other family members, friends, neighbors, etc.

====Roman church rewrote the 10 Commandments====
The Roman church rewrote God's Ten Commandments, merging the first 2 commandments into one, thus scaling down God's condemnation of [[idolatry]], and dividing the 10 Commandment into two to make up for the loss.<ref>http://www.cognm.org/cognm/Publications/The%20Ten%20Commandments%20in%20the%20Bible%20verses%20the%20Catholic%20Ten%20Commandments.htm The Ten Commandments In the Bible verses the Catholic Ten Commandments]</ref>

====Vane repetitions====
Jesus instructs believers not to use vane repetitions in prayer, such as the [[rosary]].<ref>Matthew 6:7</ref>

====Liberation theology====
:{{See also|Marxism}}
[[Liberation theology]] was born out of Roman Catholic doctrine and spread by church priests. The term was coined in 1971 by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, who wrote one of the movement's defining books, ''A Theology of Liberation''. Other noted exponents include he Jesuits Jon Sobrino and Juan Luis Segundo.<ref>Richard P. McBrien, ''Catholicism'' (Harper Collins, 1994), chapter IV.</ref><ref>Gustavo Gutierrez, ''A Theology of Liberation'', First (Spanish) edition published in Lima, Peru, 1971; first English edition published by Orbis Books (Maryknoll, New York), 1973.</ref>

===Section summary===
From the scriptures cited here and the evidence of history and the fruit of its works in [[scandal]] and [[corruption]], the Roman Catholic Church does not have the authority of Christ or the Bible to preach and to teach, supporting the argument that "'''No. The Catholic Church does not have the biblical authority of Jesus Christ to preach and to teach the truth forever.'''" Only a church that holds to scripture and is beyond moral reproach has the authority to teach. 1 Timothy says "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach," (PS the "husband of one wife" goes against the Catholic teaching of celibate priests).

== Yes. The Catholic Church does have the biblical authority of Jesus Christ ==
===User:NishantXavier===
Biblically, the answer is yes.

For at least Three Reasons (1) St. Peter as Rock means he has been appointed Chief Bishop or Pope of the Church. (2) The Power of Binding and Loosing in Rabbinic Theology means the Power to issue binding judgments and loose pardon for sins, to teach authoritatively as a magisterium. (3) The Keys in light of Isa 22 mean that St. Peter has the Chief Authority of the Royal Steward, who authoritatively made judgments in the name of the King

And there is more historically. (4) St. Peter has an unbroken line of Successors in the Roman See from the beginning (5) St. Peter's Successors are recognized as being Chief Bishops or Episcopal Heads over the whole Church.

See [http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm here] for some Protestant commentaries that acknowledge this Truth. <ref>http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm</ref>

====St. Peter is the Rock on which the Church on Earth is built====

=====R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical)=====

"The name Peter means 'Rock', and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)....It is sometimes suggested that because the word for 'rock' (petra) differs from the name Petros, the 'rock' referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter's name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above." (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)

====Oscar Cullmann, Theological Dictionary====

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build' shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann, article on "Rock" (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

====The Key of the Royal Steward stand for his authority to bind and to loose, to open doors and to close them====

=====Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed)=====

"In Jewish interpretation, the key of David refers to the teachers of the Law (exiled in Babylon); according to Matthew 23:13, the 'keys of the Kingdom of heaven' are in the hands of the teachers of the Law. A contrast is here drawn between them and Peter. He is thus not the gatekeeper of heaven, but the steward of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth. His function is described in more detail as 'binding and loosing' ....the saying must from the very outset have referred to an authority like that of the teachers of the Law. In this context, 'binding" and 'loosing' refer to the magisterium to declare a commandment binding or not binding....For Matthew, however, there is only one correct interpretation of the Law, that of Jesus. This is accessible to the community through the tradition of Peter...Probably we are dealing here mostly with teaching authority, and always with the understanding that God must ratify what Petrine tradition declares permitted or forbidden in the community." (Schweizer, page 343)

=====Willoughby C. Allen, The International Critical Commentary=====

"The figure of the gates of Hades suggests the metaphor of the keys. There were keys of Hades, Rev 1:18; cf. 9:1; 20:1. The apocalyptic writer describes the risen Christ as having the keys of Hades, i.e. having power over it, power to enter it, and power to release from it, or to imprison in it. In the same way, 'the kingdom of the heavens' can be likened to a citadel with barred gates. He who held the keys would have power within it, power to admit, power to exclude. In Rev 3:7 this power is held by Christ Himself [quotes Rev 3:7]...The words are modelled on Is 22:22, and express supreme authority. To hold the keys is to have absolute right, which can be contested by none...It would, therefore, be not unexpected if we found the Messiah or Son of Man described as having the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. This would imply that He was supreme within it. But it is surprising to find this power delegated to S. Peter...To S. Peter were to be given the keys of the kingdom. The kingdom is here, as elsewhere in this Gospel, the kingdom to be inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven. If S. Peter was to hold supreme authority within it, the other apostles were also to have places of rank...To 'bind' and to 'loose' in Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to 'forbid' and 'allow,' to 'declare forbidden' and to 'declare allowed'...The terms, therefore, describe an authority of a legal nature. If he who has the keys has authority of an administrative nature, he who binds and looses exercises authority of a legislative character....Further, the position of v. 18, with its description of the Church as a fortress impregnable against the attacks of evil (the gates of Hades), suggest irresistibly that 'the keys of the kingdom' mean more than power to open merely, and imply rather authority within the kingdom. And this is confirmed by the 'binding' and 'loosing' which immediately follow...What were the keys thus given? Even if we identify the kingdom with the Church, it is not entirely satisfactory to suppose that the Lord simply foretold that S. Peter was to take a prominent part in the work of opening the door of faith to the Gentiles. His share in that work, though a great, was not an exclusive one....The motive must have been to emphasise the prominence of S. Peter in the Christan body as foretold and sanctioned by Christ Himself...They [the apostles] had left all to follow Christ; but when He sat on the throne of His glory they would sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, 19:18. And amongst them Peter was pre-eminent. He was protos, 10:2." (Allen, The International Critical Commentary [orig 1909, 1985], page 176ff)

====Binding and loosing mean Authoritative Pronouncements and Teaching Magisterium====

=====William F. Albright and C.S. Mann comment on Matthew 16:19=====

"Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux [Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah's position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as 'over the household' [2 Kings 15:5]....It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle....The role of Peter as steward of the Kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority, as was the case of the OT chamberlain who held the 'keys.' The clauses 'on earth,' 'in heaven', have reference to the permanent character of the steward's work." (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)

====St. Peter's Successors in the bishopric of Rome are an unbroken line of Successors====

The succession list of bishops in the Apostolic See of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125)
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, page 166)

====St. Peter's Successors are recognized as Chief Bishops or Episcopal Heads by the Whole Church====

Catholic historian '''Philip Hughes''' writes --

"Ever since the popes were first articulate about the General Council, they have claimed the right to control its action and to give or withhold an approbation of its decisions which stamps them as the authentic teaching of the Church of Christ. Only through their summoning it, or through their consenting to take their place at it (whether personally or by legates sent in their name), or by their subsequent acceptance of the council, does the assembly of bishops become a General Council. No member of the Church has ever proposed that a General Council shall be summoned and the pope be left out, nor that the pope should take any other position at the General Council but as its president...in no council has it been moved that the Bishop of X be promoted to the place of the Bishop of Rome, or that the bishop of Rome's views be disregarded and held of no more account than those of the bishop of any other major see...the general shape is ever discernible of a Roman Primacy universally recognized, and submitted to, albeit (at times) unwillingly -- recognized and submitted to because, so the bishops believed, it was set up by God himself." (Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils, page 5-6)

From the old '''Catholic Encyclopedia''' (1913) --

"History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence afforded by the first three centuries. The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes....The tone of authority [in his Epistle to the Corinthians] which inspires the latter appears so clearly that [Protestant scholar J.B.] Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as 'the first step towards papal domination' ...Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head....The limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the Apostles." (volume 12, article "Pope" page 263, 264)

'''Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly''' in his classic work '''Early Christian Doctrine'''s sums up how unanimous the Church was in the patristic period, particularly the fourth and fifth centuries where the documentary evidence becomes overwhelming for the primacy and authority of the Papacy --

"Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding...that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as 'the archbishop of the whole world' (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pages 406, 407

====St. Peter's Successors like Pope St. Clement of Rome exercised supreme jurisdictional authority====

On '''St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD)''', the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Protestant early Church Historian Philip Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, volume 2, page 158)

From the '''New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967)''' --

"That in the primitive Christian period the Roman Church was credited with an authority superior to that of any other patriarchal see, can be gathered from the letter written by Pope Clement I (c. 92) to the Corinthians in which he made important statements concerning the nature of the Church and laid down principles that in embryonic form contains maxims of government. That in view of its location, the Roman Church was in actual fact credited with preeminence over other sees is a matter of history....Numerous testimonies could be cited to prove the factual preeminence of the Roman Church." (volume 10, article "Papacy" page 952)

====Orthodox Bishops and Priests come close to admitting a Primacy of Authority of the Roman Pontiff====

"The Orthodox study '''The Primacy of Peter (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992) by John Meyendorff''' states on St. Clement of Rome and the ante-Nicene period (before 325 AD) --

The epistle [Clement of Rome to the Corinthians] is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth's eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority....Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument." '''(Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 125-126)'''

"Rome's vocation [in the "pre-Nicene period"] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome...." '''(Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 128f, 133)'''

"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome -- 'presiding in agape,' according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance." '''(Schmemann from Meyendorff, page 163-164)'''

===User:Dataclarifier===
====Proofs that condemnations of Catholic doctrine are false====
Read [http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/w.bible.htm '''Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by the Right Rev. Henry G. Graham'''] and the [https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm '''''Catechism of the Catholic Church''''']

Reverend Graham says in his Introduction:
:“IF all were true that is alleged against the Catholic Church in her treatment of Holy Scripture, then the proper title of these papers should be [not] ‘How we got', but 'How we have not got the Bible'. The common and received opinion about the matter among non-Catholics in Britain, for the most part, has been that Rome hates the Bible-that she has done all she could to destroy it—that in all countries where she has held sway she has kept the Bible from the hands of the people—has taken it and burned it whenever she found anyone reading it. Or if she cannot altogether prevent its publication or its perusal, at least she renders it as nearly useless as possible by sealing it up in a dead language which the majority of people can neither read nor understand. And all this she does, (so we are told), because she knows that her doctrines are absolutely opposed to and contradicted by the letter of God's written Word—she holds and propagates dogmas and traditions which could not stand one moment's examination if exposed to the searching light of Holy Scripture. [...]

:“The Protestant account of pre-reformation Catholicism has been largely a falsification of history. All the faults and sins that could possibly be raked up or invented against Rome, or against particular bishops or priests, were presented to the people of this unhappy land, and all her best acts misconstrued, misjudged, misrepresented, and nothing of good told in her favour. She has been painted as all black and hideous, and no beauty could be seen in her. Consequently people came to believe the tradition as a matter of course, and accepted it as history [...]

:“But nowadays many are enquiring—Is it really so? Are we sure of our facts? Are we not building up mountains of abuse and calumny on a false suppositon? Just as all have come to know that the sun, as a matter of fact, does not rise or set but stands still, that there never was a Pope Joan but his name was John, that monasteries and convents are homes of learning and sanctity and charity, and that no Catholic ever pays or ever could pay a single farthing to get his sins remitted—and all this through the spread of knowledge and education and enlightenment and study—so also I venture to think that people will now be rightly considered ignorant and blameworthy, and at the least behind the times, if they do not learn that the notion I have alluded to above about the Catholic Church and the Bible is false and nonsensical—historically false and inherently nonsensical. By a calm consideration of the facts of history and a mind open to conviction on genuine evidence, they will be driven by sheer force of honesty to the conclusion that the Catholic Church, so far from being the monster of iniquity that she is painted, has in very truth been the parent, the author and maker under God, of the Bible; that she has guarded it and defended it all through the ages, and preserved it from error or destruction; that she has ever held it in highest veneration and esteem, and has grounded her doctrines upon it; that she alone has the right to call it her book; that she alone possesses the true Bible and the whole Bible, and that copies of the Scriptures existing outside of her pale, are partly incorrect and partly defective, and that whatever in them is true, is true because derived from her who alone possesses the Book in its fulness and its truth. If they were Catholics, they would love God's Holy Word more and more; they would understand it better; they would adore the Divine Providence that took such a wise and sure means of preserving and perpetuating it; and they would profoundly admire the Catholic Church for her ceaseless vigilance, untiring zeal, and unswerving fidelity to the commission entrusted to her by Almighty God.”

The '''''Catechism of the Catholic Church''''' represents the actual doctrine of the Church. Condemnations of the doctrine are examples of [[straw man argument]]s, based on [[misrepresentation]] and [[specious reasoning]], which are all demonstrably [[falsehood]]s of [[error]]. People who have read it have come to believe the actual truth of the doctrine is perfectly biblical. They have found the [[Catholic Church]] in all its forms to be the most biblical Church on earth.

Keep in mind that what people say about Catholic doctrine is not necessarily true. Keep in mind that the scandal of bad and sinful behavior does not invalidate doctrine. Keep in mind that [[hypocrites]] are found in every Christian denomination. Their bad example has never proved that [[Christianity]] itself is false.

====Contentions over Bible authority vs Church authority: What the Bible says about it====

I'll address the primary issue I addressed on the purgatory debate page—
:"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Greek '''''rock'''''], and upon this rock I will build my '''<big><big>church</big>; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it</big>'''. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and '''<big>whatsoever</big> thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and <big>whatsoever</big> thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven'''." "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in '''the house of God, which is the <big>church of God, the pillar and ground of the truth</big>'''." "'''Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves:''' for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that ''is'' unprofitable for you." "Ye see then how that '''by works a man is justified, and <big>not by faith alone</big>'''. "'''Submit yourselves to <big>every ordinance of man</big> for the Lord's sake:''' whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using ''your'' liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. '''Honour all ''men''. <big>Love the brotherhood. Fear God</big>. Honour the king.'''" "We have also a '''more sure word of <big>prophecy</big>; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed''', as unto '''a light that shineth in a dark place''', until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this '''first, that <big>no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation</big>'''. For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but '''holy men of God spake''' ''as they were'' moved by the Holy Ghost'''. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom '''the way of truth shall be evil spoken of'''." "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. '''<big>They went out from us</big>, but they were not of us;''' for if they had been of us, they would ''no doubt'' have continued with us: but ''they went out'', that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us'''." "But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be '''mockers''' in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. '''These be they who <big>separate themselves</big>, sensual, <big> having not the Spirit</big>'''."
(Texts from the King James Version: '''Matthew 16:18-19; 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 13:17; James 2:24; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 2 Peter 1:19–2:2; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 17-19''')

On a rock Jesus built his church, and '''the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the <big>truth</big>'''. Therefore, according to ''the Bible itself'', it is impossible that the church could ever teach what is not the truth. This is simply the doctrine of the Bible about the church, and it is simply the same as the Catholic doctrine about the church. Therefore according to the Bible the doctrine of the church is the truth taught by the Holy Ghost. Nowhere does the Bible teach that the leaders and members of the church will all live impeccable lives free of all sin. Bad example, like that of Judas, does not invalidate the truth of the doctrine of the church.

I stand with the Bible just as every professing Bible-believer should. It's the Word of God. Amen. Period. The end. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:34, 2 August 2020 (EDT)

====Peter the Rock====
The Greek of the New Testament indisputably shows that Peter is the rock, not Jesus: '''πέτρος''' Greek '''Petros''' as an appellative: thou art a '''rock''', Aram. '''<big>כֵּיפָא</big> ''kepa'''''. The form '''ὁ πέτρος''' is likewise common among classical writers, and that not merely in the sense of a stone, as everywhere in Homer in contradistinction to '''πέτρα''' Greek '''petra''' (see Duncan, p. 937, ed. Rost, and Buttmann, Lexil. II. p. 179), but also as meaning a '''rock''' (Plat. Ax. p. 371 E: '''Σισύφου πέτρος'''; Soph. Phil. 272, O. C. 19, 1591; Pind. Nem. iv. 46, x. 126). Jesus declares Peter to be a '''rock''' on account of that strong and stedfast faith in himself to which, under the influence of a special revelation from God, he had just given expression. According to '''John 1:43''', however, Jesus conferred the Grecized form of the name '''Cephas ''Kepas''''' Aram. '''<big>כֵּיפָא</big> ''kepa'' rock''' upon him at their very first interview (according to '''Mark 3:16''', somewhat later); but our passage '''Matthew 16:18''' is not to be understood as simply recording the giving of the name, or the giving of it for the second time. It is rather intended to be taken as a record of the declaration made by Jesus, to the effect that '''Simon''' was in reality all that the name, conferred upon him, ''implied''. Consequently our passage is in no way inconsistent with that of '''John 1:43''' just referred to, which could only have been the case if the words used had been '''σὺ κληθήσῃ Πέτρος'''.

'''καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ''' The Greek emphasis is on '''ΤΑΎΤῌ ταύτῃ''', which points to Peter (not to Jesus, as Augustine would have us suppose), and to be understood thus: '''on no other than on this rock'''. —'''https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-18.htm''' <ref>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:NishantXavier&diff=prev&oldid=1674432</ref>

::Response:
::*''The letter killeth; the spirit gives life.''
::*''The stone which the builders rejected has become head of the corner.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:58, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the move of the above commentary on the Greek of Matthew 16:18 to this Debate page. But simply FYI, it isn't "my own comment". That's why I didn't sign it. I plainly copied the stated expertise of an established and internationally reputable Greek linguist from the biblehub.com commentaries on Matthew 16:18 and "signed" it with a link to the actual online source. What he says about the Greek grammatical import of the passage is simply a fact plainly and clearly not open to debate. It says what it says. This expert linguist and scholar simply states what the Greek of the scripture passage states. There is no debate about its meaning among the international community of Bible linguistic experts in Greek. He says the meaning is clear. All of them agree. It points to Peter as the rock Jesus referred to. "''I say to you, you are a rock, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.''" I felt that it would be useful as a fact truthfully presented as an indisputable fact. It was not intended to provoke disputatious debate. How could anyone argue with such a fact, the grammatical structure according to the Greek meaning pointing directly to Peter, not Jesus? I'm glad it's been posted onto this Debate page where it might be most useful to seekers of truth who want to know what Jesus really meant according to the original Greek. It's even more interesting to me that not one of the extant manuscripts containing Matthew 16:18 vary in any way from each other. They all say the same exact thing. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:14, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
::*'''1 Corinthians 3:11''' - ''For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.''
:::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 17:21, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
::::Jesus simply said what he said. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:31, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:::I bet $100 I can go to biblehub and find another expert source to refute whoever that was. This is what you call [[confirmation bias]].
:::You can weasel your way out of this mess by simply saying, ''Christ is the head of the corner'' User:RobSmith|RobSUser talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q
::::None of them there refutes the '''Greek grammar''' of the passage. You can check it for yourself. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:19, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::It's a play on words. What do the commentaries have to say about
:::::*'''1 Corinthians 3:11''' - ''For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.'' User:RobSmith|RobSUser talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q 17:25, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Jesus simply said what he said. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:30, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::(ec) You even get a twofer in this argument: ''Cephas'' also means ''head''. Is Peter the chief Capstone? User:RobSmith|RobSUser talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q 17:31, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Jesus simply meant what he said according to the Greek. "''I say to you, you are a rock, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.''" I can't change it. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:37, 5 August 2020 (EDT) Even the KJV text of John 1:42 says, "'''And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.'''" Not even the KJV says it means "head": it says "which is by interpretation, A stone." According to the interlinear text of John 1:42 this word "Cephas" is from the Aramaic "kepa" which means "a rock". Check out [https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=g4074 Strong's number G4074] for "stone" at John 1:42. Whether big or small it still means "a rock". --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:51, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::(ec) Let's go back to the original citation in scripture, Isaiah 28:16:
:::::{{quotebox|''Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.''}}
:::::This scripture is repeated numerous times in the Bible by Luke, Peter and Paul. Two questions: (1) Is this unfulfilled prophecy? (2) Are you attempting to lay a foundation other than that which has been laid? User:RobSmith|RobSUser talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q 17:40, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Jesus also said (Matt 21:44), ''whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder''
:::::so if you haven't been broken yet (repentance) or ground to powder, ye are still in your sin - pride, the original sin. User:RobSmith|RobSUser talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q 17:53, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::I didn't say it. Jesus did. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 18:01, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::And there's nothing wrong with humbling yourself and falling upon the Rock of Salvation:<ref>Palm 89:26</ref>
::::*'''Psalm 34:18''' - ''The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart''
:::::It is pride that keeps us from repentance, and insures you will be ground to powder in judgement, if you neglect so great a salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:45, 5 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::[[Infant baptism]] does not wash away the [[original sin]] of [[pride]], which hinders many adults from [[repentance]] and [[salvation]]. And it all begins with denying that Christ is the rock and foundation of our faith. Look at the alternative Jesus promises to those who don't humble themselves and fall upon the rock: they will be ground to powder. I didn't say it, Jesus did. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 19:03, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

::Answer: The Church has always had the religious authority ordained and established by God (for there is no authority except from God) and whoever resists the authority resists what God has ordained, and those who resist shall incur judgment ("damnation" KJV), ''because''''':''' Jesus Himself said on this '''rock''' I will build my '''church''', and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, through which the mystery of God hidden from the foundation of the world is revealed, the '''one''' body of Christ (not many), the church of the living God which he purchased with His own blood, the temple of God in the Spirit, with us forever, leading into all the truth, obeying the command to be obedient to the leaders who watch over our souls, the church in which God appointed the elders as guardians to take heed to themselves and to feed the flock of the Lord, and keep the traditions delivered to them whether by word of mouth or by letter (whether oral or written), who have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever they bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever they loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, but those that went out were antichrists who despised authority and separated themselves and set up divisions, worldly persons devoid of the Spirit, antichrists who went out and taught another gospel and another Christ that it might be made manifest that they were not of us.
::Every Bible-believing Christian who has read the Bible and is familiar with its text recognizes these passages immediately. The Bible itself commands us to obey the leaders who watch over our souls (Heb. 13:17), to submit to every institution of men for the Lord's sake and to submit to the elders (1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6), because their established authority in the church is ordained and established by God (Rom. 13:1-2). This is not private interpretation. If the authority is of God, we are commanded to submit and obey. If the authority is of men, we are commanded to submit and obey. In either case, we are commanded to submit and obey. It's what the Bible says, clearly, plainly and simply, according to the Word of the Lord. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 03:40, 7 August 2020 (EDT)

::For the benefit of readers who need to check for themselves as the Beroeans did in Acts 17:10-12, the above chapter-and-verse passages are: Romans 13:1-2; Matthew 16:18; 1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 2:21-22; John 14:16-17; John 16:13; Hebrews 13:17; Acts 20:28 (''again''); '''2''' Thessalonians 2:15; Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 8; Jude 19; John 2:18-19 (''again''); Galatians 1:6-7; '''2''' Corinthians 11:4; Hebrews 13:17 (''again''); 1 Peter 2:13-17; 1 Peter 5:5-6; Romans 13:1-2 (''again''); 1 Peter 5:5-6 (''again''). Compare John 8:43; John 8:47. Let me point out that in Ephesians 2:19-20 the household of God (''which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth'' 1 Timothy 3:15) is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone (supporting the whole foundation); and that the new Jerusalem has '''twelve foundations''', and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (but the Lamb is not one of the twelve foundations, Revelation 20:16); and that the living '''stone''' is joined by living '''stones''' built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:4-5). There is no contradiction in Jesus saying to Peter (= "rock"), "you are a '''rock''', and on this '''rock''' I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". Since scripture cannot contradict scripture, "and the scripture cannot be broken", because God "cannot deny himself", there is no contradiction in the Bible saying Jesus is the rock foundation supporting Peter and the apostles and prophets as the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and that Peter is the rock on which he built his church as He Himself said according to the Greek grammar of what he said which points to Peter not Jesus. The foundation of the church is firm as rock, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 7:24. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 05:47, 7 August 2020 (EDT)

::In 1 Corinthians 3:10 '''Paul''' says that '''he''' is the one who laid the foundation: "According to the commission of God given to me, like a skilled '''master builder I laid a foundation''', and another man is building upon it." ''But in the next verse he says'', "For no other foundation can any man lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus." This is true! But a literalist would see in these two verses an absolute contradiction. Consider this: no man can lay the foundation of the church Jesus built; only God can lay the foundation, and Jesus is God ''and'' man. ''But Revelation says there are "twelve foundations"'', not "''one''". A literalist would see in these two statements an absolute contradiction in the Bible: ''how can there be twelve when there is only one?'' The '''twelve foundations''' of the new Jerusalem are not laid by man (human beings) but are laid only by God and man. A literalist would see in the one foundation and the twelve foundations a contradiction. The foundation of the apostles and prophets is laid by God the Spirit: "because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men '''moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God'''." 2 Peter 1:21. The rock of salvation laid a foundation of rock that is twelve foundations chosen. The first was Peter, "a rock". One of them was "a devil" John 6:70-71. But this did not invalidate the word of the Lord. Afterward, the Eleven, led by Peter, chose another, guided by God: Matthias. The apostolic office was empty but then a successor was chosen by lot, just as the apostolic office of Peter vacated by death is filled by lots cast by the elders of the church from that day to this. The foundation of the twelve foundations of the church was built by the foundation (''the same foundation that Paul laid, which is Christ Jesus''), and laid by Him on a foundation of '''a rock-''Petros''''', the first of twelve foundations He laid, and was built up into a house of living stones by the living stone as a dwelling-place of God in the Spirit, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There is no contradiction.--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 08:30, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Roman Catholic doctrine is built on a one legged stool that Peter is the foundation rock of the church, not Christ. And furthermore that "all authority", which includes "authority" to nullify prophecy and scripture, was passed to men. When this one leg is kicked out from the foundation, the entire doctrinal structure comes down.

:::As can be seen above, the Catholic gospel is a gospel of wrath and condemnation, promising hell to people who do not follow the ordinances of men. Example, the church ordered in A.D. 1950 that whosever doesn't attend mass on August 15th will go to hell (a few loopholes and exemptions were written into this new supposed addition to biblical truth).

:::By replacing Peter as the foundation Rock upon which the Christian church is built, no other scriptures of the Bible make sense. Roman Catholics in fact are offended when the Bible is quoted, such as 1 Peter 2:8, '''''a rock of offense''''', proving the truth of the Bible. Christ is a Rock of offense to those yet in their pride and sin, as the Pharisees were.

:::Pride is original sin - ''worshipping and serving the creature more that the Creator'', as Lucifer did when he led the rebellion against God and was cast down to earth. God made a plan to re-take the earth from evil when he created [[Adam]]; however Adam soon joined the rebellion against God and lifted himself up in pride; he felt he knew better than God. Jesus came to reconcile us with God and finish the work of retaking the earth from evil. But Roman doctrine only preaches wrath (as aptly illustrated in the above posting) to those who refuse the decrees of men, which render the Word of God to no affect.

:::Infant baptism theoretically washes away self-will and pride, making a grown adult believe they have no need to humble themselves and repent of this egregious error and sin, that like Jews of the circumcision, they felt they had no need to hear Jesus's voice because by birthright they were already Sons of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 19:29, 7 August 2020 (EDT)
::::That is an [[Falsehood|untrue]], [[Distortion|distorted]] [[misrepresentation]] of Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine teaches that genuine humility all life-long is necessary along with sincere repentance and confession of all mortal sins committed after Baptism coupled with a heart-felt genuine purpose of amendment of life according to the example of the holiness of Christ. — http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm Catechism of the Catholic Church Part Two, Section Two, Article 4 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:29, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Yes, a doctrine of works, rejecting the Gospel of Grace and the sacrificial atonement of Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:08, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::*''Christ died for the ungodly.'' - Romans 5:6. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:14, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::*''For we are his workmanship, '''created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.'''''" Ephesians 2:10. Bad behavior and the scandal of sinners in the Church is not doctrine. That's why Paul throughout his epistles commands believers to repent and amend their lives, and John tells his "little children" to confess their sins, lest they be condemned with the wicked. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 16:50, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::*[https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/verses/id/2381/good-works-necessity-of-verses.htm '''Bible Verses on Works, the Necessity of Good Works''' (cgg.org)] --a page display of the Bible text of '''63''' passages that speak plainly without any comment that you can readily read for yourself, shown in the following sequence: Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 2:12-13; John 14:15; Titus 2:14; James 2:14-26; 1 Peter 1:15-17; Ephesians 4:22-24; Titus 2:11-12; Revelation 20:12-13; Matthew 16:24; Romans 12:1-2; Hebrews 4:1; Hebrews 6:1; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:28-30; Romans 2:13; Hebrews 11:4; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:3; 1 John 5:3; Matthew 6:37; Matthew 19:16-19; John 6:27; John 15:8; John 15:16; Romans 6:1-2; Romans 6:4; Romans 6:18-19; Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 3:8-10; 1 Corinthians 15:58; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 2 Corinthians 6:1; Ephesians 5:1-2; Colossians 3:8-10; Hebrews 6:10; Psalm 119:1; Psalm 119:10; Psalm 119:172; Proverbs 24:30-34; Matthew 7:21; Matthew 19:21-22; Matthew 25:14; Matthew 25:24-25; Matthew 25:41; Luke 13:24; John 15:14; Acts 5:32; Romans 5:5-11; Romans 7:22-23; Romans 14:12; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 1 Corinthians 9:27; Galatians 5:6; Colossians 3:5; Colossians 3:23-24; Titus 1:16; Hebrews 11:7; 1 John 3:18; Revelation 2:23; Revelation 3:21; Revelation 19:7-8 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 17:44, 8 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::You've never addressed the main point infant baptism does not wash away the sin of pride.

::::::::Secondly, spamming the page with scripture references is pointless - none of it supports the argument. Anyone can copy pastes tons of scripture references. It does not make the arguments look scholarly or learned. OTOH, reverting actual bible quotations prove the point that Christ is a ''stumbling block and rock of offense''.<ref>. [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Dataclarifier&diff=prev&oldid=1675214] </ref> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 18:08, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::The "main point" of this Debate is not [[infant baptism]]. The main point is framed in the question of the Debate addressed on this page: '''Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:41, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::You're right. This is what happens when you start a flame war. confusion abounds. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 21:55, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

===="''By their fruits ye shall know them''": The Fruits of Catholicism====
"''By their fruits ye shall know them''". All of the excellent and praiseworthy benefits of Western Civilization are the '''fruit''' of the tree of the Catholic Church and the doctrine of her magisterium leading into all the truth. See [https://www.deseret.com/2011/12/28/20240742/commentary-history-shows-contributions-of-catholic-church-to-western-civilization '''Commentary: History Shows Contributions of the Catholic Church to Western Civilization'''] —major contributions to Science, Astronomy, Medicine, establishment of Universities, Hospitals and care centers for the elderly, women and children and orphans, charitable institutions for the poor (all unknown in the pagan world), Christian missionaries sent to pagan lands, converting them from ignorance to knowledge of Jesus Christ, and preserving the Bible. In addition, the Catholic Church has produced by the grace of God men and women eminent for their holiness and goodness and devotion to Jesus Christ, as the direct fruit of her doctrines and sacraments. Even non-Christians have admired their example, and praised even many of her popes and bishops as saintly examples of Christian goodness to follow. They have even died as martyrs of the Lord for their faith in Jesus Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:02, 9 August 2020 (EDT) [https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/catholic/saints/10-influential-saints-and-their-legends.aspx '''10 Influential Saints and Their Legends'''] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:55, 9 August 2020 (EDT)

===Section summary===

From the abundance of scripture on the Church cited here, and the fact that the scandal of bad and sinful behavior by individual members and leaders of the Church does not invalidate Church doctrine (''which condemns the scandal of bad and sinful behavior''), the conclusion drawn from the Bible itself and presented here in this section is supported: "'''Yes. The Catholic Church does have the biblical authority of Jesus Christ to preach and to teach the truth forever'''". Not even the gates of hell shall prevail against the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:41, 8 August 2020 (EDT)

==See also==
*[[Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day]]
*[[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]]
*[[Debate: Is the Magisterium infallible?]]
*[[Debate: Infant baptism]]
*[[Debate: Explain the apparent inconsistency between Ex. 33:11 and Jn. 1:18]]
*[[Debate:Is Holy Communion the True Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ]]
*[[Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?]]

== References ==
<references/>

Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-08-27T01:29:25Z

Dataclarifier: /* See also */ added link to Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

<center>''This is a non-denominational exchange of ideas intended to bring about a greater understanding of the Bible.'' ''All views are welcome.''</center>

'''Texts:'''
*'''Matthew 16:13-19''' 13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say ''that thou art'' Joh the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed ''it'' unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter ["a rock"]. and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heave: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
*'''John 14:16-17''' 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 ''Even'' the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
*'''John 16:12-15''' I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, ''that'' shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew ''it'' unto you.
*'''Ephesians 2:18-22''' For through him we both [the Uncircumcision and the Circumcision] have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner ''stone''. <be> In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
*'''1 Timothy 3:14-15''' 14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
*'''1 Timothy 4:1-2''' 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
*'''Hebrews 13:7''' 7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of ''their'' conversation.
*'''Hebrews 13:17''' 17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that ''is'' unprofitable for you.
*'''2 Peter 3:17''' Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know ''these things'' before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
*'''1 John 2:18-19''' 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would ''no doubt'' have continued with us: but ''they went out'', that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

'''Rules'''
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.
----

==Yes, the gates of hell have prevailed against the church Jesus built on a rock so that it committed the [[Great Apostasy]], and therefore Jesus obviously either was powerless to keep his promise or he lied.==

==No, the gates of hell have never prevailed against the church Jesus built on a rock so that it never committed [[apostasy]] from the faith, because Jesus remains with the church always to the end of the world, and the Spirit of truth is with the church for ever leading into all the truth as Jesus promised, and Jesus is God Who cannot lie.==

==See also==
*[[Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?]]
*[[Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?]]
*[[Debate: Is the Magisterium infallible?]]
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]
*[[Debate: Infant baptism]]
*[[Debate: Is there a Purgatory before Judgment Day]]
*[[Debate:Is Holy Communion the True Body and Precious Blood of Jesus Christ]]
*[[Salvation: declarational salvation and ontological salvation]]
*[[Ex opere operato and ex opere operantis]]
*[[Eternal security (salvation)]]
*[[Antinomianism]]

[[category: Debate]]

Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-08-27T01:27:20Z

Dataclarifier:

Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-08-27T01:24:44Z

Dataclarifier:

Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-08-27T01:21:48Z

Dataclarifier: /* See also */

Talk:Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-08-27T01:19:34Z

Dataclarifier: note that I set up the debate page with yes and no formal but will not myself participate. because my view has already appeared on other debate pages listed under See also section of this debate page

Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-08-27T01:12:58Z

Dataclarifier: added category|Debate

Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-08-27T01:10:22Z

Dataclarifier: added See also section

Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-08-27T01:04:51Z

Dataclarifier: top page note: This is a non-denominational exchange of ideas intended to bring about a greater understanding of the Bible. All views are welcome.

Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?

2020-08-27T01:00:11Z

Dataclarifier: created debate page - will add category and See also

'''Texts:'''
*'''Matthew 16:13-19''' 13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say ''that thou art'' Joh the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed ''it'' unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter ["a rock"]. and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heave: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
*'''John 14:16-17''' 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 ''Even'' the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
*'''John 16:12-15''' I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, ''that'' shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew ''it'' unto you.
*'''Ephesians 2:18-22''' For through him we both [the Uncircumcision and the Circumcision] have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner ''stone''. <be> In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
*'''1 Timothy 3:14-15''' 14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
*'''1 Timothy 4:1-2''' 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
*'''Hebrews 13:7''' 7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of ''their'' conversation.
*'''Hebrews 13:17''' 17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that ''is'' unprofitable for you.
*'''2 Peter 3:17''' Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know ''these things'' before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
*'''1 John 2:18-19''' 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would ''no doubt'' have continued with us: but ''they went out'', that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

==Yes, the gates of hell have prevailed against the church Jesus built on a rock so that it committed the [[Great Apostasy]], and therefore Jesus obviously either was powerless to keep his promise or he lied.==

==No, the gates of hell have never prevailed against the church Jesus built on a rock so that it never committed [[apostasy]] from the faith, because Jesus remains with the church always to the end of the world, and the Spirit of truth is with the church for ever leading into all the truth as Jesus promised, and Jesus is God Who cannot lie.==

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-26T23:54:08Z

Dataclarifier: /* Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical */

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

:Note to reader: see definition of '''[[Spam#In internet culture|"Spam"]]'''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:10, 26 August 2020 (EDT) See [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=1677787&oldid=1677784 '''Diff''' (excess spam removed)] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:21, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Romans 6:14 "ye are not under law" is referring to the "law of Moses". All of Paul's references to "the law" in his writings are references to "the law of Moses". He is not saying "ye are not under authority". Compare Romans 13:1-2; 1 Timothy 4:11; 5:17; Titus 3:1. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:42, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::That's an old Catholic canard. In fact, most of your arguments are old Catholic canards that I've heard a thousand times before. But Romans 2:21-23 refers to stealing and committing adultery. These are aspects of the moral law (Which Jesus re-asserts), not just the ceremonial law. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 10:10, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::God wants people to love and serve him, and love and serve their fellow creatures cause they want to, not cause they are commanded to, or because he has authority. The way Dataclarifier pitches Catholic "authority" sounds exactly like what [[Christopher Hitchens]] calls "a celestial North Korea". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:37, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Law of Moses = Law of God. Is there any other law that parallels or supersedes "the law?" God says the Christian is not under God's law. PERIOD. If you cannot understand this, you are a carnally minded, walking in the flesh, under law, and destined for hell. PERIOD. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:43, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Proposition: When you co-operate with grace, it makes you worthy, but not meriting in place of grace, and you can't merit salvation without grace. True or false? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 10:53, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::I accidently wrote an amphiboly here. I was a little confused, but I didn't have any hidden meaning nor was it central to anything. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 14:02, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::You can't merit grace at all. It's a standing offer. You have a choice to either accept it or ignore it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::But if we make ourselves subject to righteousness, won't we win the crown of righteousness?

::::::I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish; I have kept the faith; all there is to come now is the crown of righteousness reserved for me, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give to me on that Day; and not only to me but to all those who have longed for his Appearing.—(2 Timothy 4:6-8)

:::::[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 12:03, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Yes, exactly ''Now the righteousness of God is revealed'' - Romans 3:21. Cut n pasted from the Scofield notes:
{{quotebox|"The righteousness of God is neither an attribute of God, not the changed character of the believer, '''but Christ Himself''', who fully met in our stead and behalf every demand of the law, and who is, but the act of God called imputation Lev 25:50 Jas 2:23, "made unto us . . righteousness" 1Cor 1:30.

"The believer in Christ is now, by grace, shrouded under so complete and blessed a righteousness that the law from Mt. Sinai can find neither fault nor diminution therein. This is that which is called the righteousness of God by faith."--Bunyan. 2Cor 5:21 Rom 4:6 10:4 Phil 3:9 Rom 3:26}}
::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Isaiah 28 - more context===
Perhaps looking at Isaiah chapter 28 will give more context. Verses 1 and what immediately follows puts its finger on pride as the problem. These were the people whose carcasses ''did not'' fall in the wilderness, and entered in. Verse 12 revisits how the word not mixed with faith is what gave them law rather than grace. Then we have a section on the futility of the law (v.13; see also Paul, ''the law was unto me death''), how it cannot save or make one righteous before God. Finally we arrive at the situation of Israel then, and the Roman Catholic church now in verse 15: ''ye have said with hell are we in agreement''. And ultimately the famous prophecy of verse 16, which the "author of confusion" (another title of Satan) has used to blind people's eyes.

{{quotebox|28 '''Woe to the crown of pride''', to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!

2 Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.

3 The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet:

4 And the glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be a fading flower, and as the hasty fruit before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up.

5 In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,

6 And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.

7 But '''they also have erred''' through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; '''they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.'''

8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, '''This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: ''yet they would not hear.'''''

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

15 Because ye have said, '''We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:'''

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.}}
*Verse 15: ''We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:''
:Verse 15 is the position of those who chose law over grace.

*Verse 16: The foundation stone of Roman church doctrine rejects this offer of grace and salvation in verse 16; ''he that believeth shall not make haste'', translated, "stop spinning your wheels with redundant spam." [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:44, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank my talk page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A1&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''Titus 3:1'''] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A9-11&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''3:9-11''']--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A4-5&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE 1 Peter 2:4-5]). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::Wow...that's big of you! You lowered the bar so much when you lied to Andy and acted suspiciously like you (and "Xavier") three times were scheming to impale RobS on one of the horns of a hidden dilemma, that simply saying you don't agree with RobS, which was true before the debate was even proposed, seems like a major concession!

::::::::::::Did you ever admit that those things even happened? No, I guess you passed them by without acknowledgement! And certainly without apology. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 06:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::An explanation is still needed for how the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen. Jesus is God Who cannot lie. The antagonist position has not addressed this. I suggest that this issue of the claim of the Reformation that the Catholic Church became Antichrist and the claim of a [[Great apostasy]] be debated: [[Debate: Have the gates of hell prevailed against the church Jesus founded on a rock, when He Himself said it could never happen? Did Christ who cannot lie fail to fulfill his promise?]] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 19:54, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Side note===
I use Microsoft 10 with the Edge browser, which has a Read Aloud function. This, together with darkening the screen, is a tremendous ease on your eyes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:I have been using Read aloud from the tools function as appearing on my screen when I click the tools function (mine is three dots top right … ). Currently it is Ctrl + Shift + U. It keeps changing. It used to end with + F, more recently + V. IndependentSkeptic recommended on the article page of his Introduction to Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) audio version the function Ctrl + Shift + F, then revised it to + V, then gave up, recommending use of whatever the reader's computer tools function offers. Other Users have made the same suggestion to me on my talk page. All have been appreciated. God bless you all, open your hearts, and bring you to everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-26T13:43:45Z

Dataclarifier: /* Phony scholarship and phony authority */

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

:Note to reader: see definition of '''[[Spam#In internet culture|"Spam"]]'''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:10, 26 August 2020 (EDT) See [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=1677787&oldid=1677784 '''Diff''' (excess spam removed)] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:21, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Romans 6:14 "ye are not under law" is referring to the "law of Moses". All of Paul's references to "the law" in his writings are references to "the law of Moses". He is not saying "ye are not under authority". Compare Romans 13:1-2; 1 Timothy 4:11; 5:17; Titus 3:1. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:42, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank my talk page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A1&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''Titus 3:1'''] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A9-11&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''3:9-11''']--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A4-5&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE 1 Peter 2:4-5]). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::Wow...that's big of you! You lowered the bar so much when you lied to Andy and acted suspiciously like you (and "Xavier") three times were scheming to impale RobS on one of the horns of a hidden dilemma, that simply saying you don't agree with RobS, which was true before the debate was even proposed, seems like a major concession!

::::::::::::Did you ever admit that those things even happened? No, I guess you passed them by without acknowledgement! And certainly without apology. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 06:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Side note===
I use Microsoft 10 with the Edge browser, which has a Read Aloud function. This, together with darkening the screen, is a tremendous ease on your eyes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:I have been using Read aloud from the tools function as appearing on my screen when I click the tools function (mine is three dots top right … ). Currently it is Ctrl + Shift + U. It keeps changing. It used to end with + F, more recently + V. IndependentSkeptic recommended on the article page of his Introduction to Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) audio version the function Ctrl + Shift + F, then revised it to + V, then gave up, recommending use of whatever the reader's computer tools function offers. Other Users have made the same suggestion to me on my talk page. All have been appreciated. God bless you all, open your hearts, and bring you to everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-26T13:42:39Z

Dataclarifier: /* Phony scholarship and phony authority */ note re Rom 6:14 as referring to "the law of Moses" not to "authority" - with relevant citations to passages from Paul Rom 13:1-2; 1 Tim 4:11; and Titus 3:1

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

:Note to reader: see definition of '''[[Spam#In internet culture|"Spam"]]'''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:10, 26 August 2020 (EDT) See [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=1677787&oldid=1677784 '''Diff''' (excess spam removed)] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:21, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Romans 6:14 "ye are not under law" is referring to the "law of Moses". All of Paul's references to "the law" in his writings are references to "the law of Moses". He is not saying "ye are not under authority". Compare Romans 13:1-2; 1 Timothy 4:11; 5:17; Titus 3:1. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:42, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank my talk page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A1&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''Titus 3:1'''] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A9-11&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''3:9-11''']--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A4-5&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE 1 Peter 2:4-5]). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::Wow...that's big of you! You lowered the bar so much when you lied to Andy and acted suspiciously like you (and "Xavier") three times were scheming to impale RobS on one of the horns of a hidden dilemma, that simply saying you don't agree with RobS, which was true before the debate was even proposed, seems like a major concession!

::::::::::::Did you ever admit that those things even happened? No, I guess you passed them by without acknowledgement! And certainly without apology. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 06:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Side note===
I use Microsoft 10 with the Edge browser, which has a Read Aloud function. This, together with darkening the screen, is a tremendous ease on your eyes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:I have been using Read aloud from the tools function as appearing on my screen when I click the tools function (mine is three dots top right … ). Currently it is Ctrl + Shift + U. It keeps changing. It used to end with + F, more recently + V. IndependentSkeptic recommended on the article page of his Introduction to Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) audio version the function Ctrl + Shift + F, then revised it to + V, then gave up, recommending use of whatever the reader's computer tools function offers. Other Users have made the same suggestion to me on my talk page. All have been appreciated. God bless you all, open your hearts, and bring you to everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-26T13:21:33Z

Dataclarifier: /* I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section */ link to diff showing what excess spam was hidden 23 Aug = https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=1677787&oldid=1677784

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

:Note to reader: see definition of '''[[Spam#In internet culture|"Spam"]]'''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:10, 26 August 2020 (EDT) See [https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=1677787&oldid=1677784 '''Diff''' (excess spam removed)] --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:21, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank my talk page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A1&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''Titus 3:1'''] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A9-11&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''3:9-11''']--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A4-5&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE 1 Peter 2:4-5]). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::Wow...that's big of you! You lowered the bar so much when you lied to Andy and acted suspiciously like you (and "Xavier") three times were scheming to impale RobS on one of the horns of a hidden dilemma, that simply saying you don't agree with RobS, which was true before the debate was even proposed, seems like a major concession!

::::::::::::Did you ever admit that those things even happened? No, I guess you passed them by without acknowledgement! And certainly without apology. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 06:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Side note===
I use Microsoft 10 with the Edge browser, which has a Read Aloud function. This, together with darkening the screen, is a tremendous ease on your eyes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:I have been using Read aloud from the tools function as appearing on my screen when I click the tools function (mine is three dots top right … ). Currently it is Ctrl + Shift + U. It keeps changing. It used to end with + F, more recently + V. IndependentSkeptic recommended on the article page of his Introduction to Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) audio version the function Ctrl + Shift + F, then revised it to + V, then gave up, recommending use of whatever the reader's computer tools function offers. Other Users have made the same suggestion to me on my talk page. All have been appreciated. God bless you all, open your hearts, and bring you to everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-26T13:10:28Z

Dataclarifier: /* I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section */

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

:Note to reader: see definition of '''[[Spam#In internet culture|"Spam"]]'''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:10, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank my talk page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A1&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''Titus 3:1'''] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A9-11&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''3:9-11''']--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A4-5&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE 1 Peter 2:4-5]). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::Wow...that's big of you! You lowered the bar so much when you lied to Andy and acted suspiciously like you (and "Xavier") three times were scheming to impale RobS on one of the horns of a hidden dilemma, that simply saying you don't agree with RobS, which was true before the debate was even proposed, seems like a major concession!

::::::::::::Did you ever admit that those things even happened? No, I guess you passed them by without acknowledgement! And certainly without apology. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 06:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Side note===
I use Microsoft 10 with the Edge browser, which has a Read Aloud function. This, together with darkening the screen, is a tremendous ease on your eyes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:I have been using Read aloud from the tools function as appearing on my screen when I click the tools function (mine is three dots top right … ). Currently it is Ctrl + Shift + U. It keeps changing. It used to end with + F, more recently + V. IndependentSkeptic recommended on the article page of his Introduction to Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) audio version the function Ctrl + Shift + F, then revised it to + V, then gave up, recommending use of whatever the reader's computer tools function offers. Other Users have made the same suggestion to me on my talk page. All have been appreciated. God bless you all, open your hearts, and bring you to everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-26T13:10:07Z

Dataclarifier: /* I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section */ added brief response: "Note to reader: see definition of '''"Spam""

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

:Note to reader: see definition of '''[[Spam#In internet culture|"Spam"]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:10, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank my talk page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A1&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''Titus 3:1'''] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A9-11&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''3:9-11''']--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A4-5&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE 1 Peter 2:4-5]). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::Wow...that's big of you! You lowered the bar so much when you lied to Andy and acted suspiciously like you (and "Xavier") three times were scheming to impale RobS on one of the horns of a hidden dilemma, that simply saying you don't agree with RobS, which was true before the debate was even proposed, seems like a major concession!

::::::::::::Did you ever admit that those things even happened? No, I guess you passed them by without acknowledgement! And certainly without apology. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 06:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Side note===
I use Microsoft 10 with the Edge browser, which has a Read Aloud function. This, together with darkening the screen, is a tremendous ease on your eyes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:I have been using Read aloud from the tools function as appearing on my screen when I click the tools function (mine is three dots top right … ). Currently it is Ctrl + Shift + U. It keeps changing. It used to end with + F, more recently + V. IndependentSkeptic recommended on the article page of his Introduction to Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) audio version the function Ctrl + Shift + F, then revised it to + V, then gave up, recommending use of whatever the reader's computer tools function offers. Other Users have made the same suggestion to me on my talk page. All have been appreciated. God bless you all, open your hearts, and bring you to everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-26T13:03:22Z

Dataclarifier: /* Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical */ minor revision of statement originally made in the context of my talk page, but when transferred here sounded like I was talking about this debate talk page

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank my talk page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A1&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''Titus 3:1'''] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A9-11&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''3:9-11''']--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A4-5&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE 1 Peter 2:4-5]). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::Wow...that's big of you! You lowered the bar so much when you lied to Andy and acted suspiciously like you (and "Xavier") three times were scheming to impale RobS on one of the horns of a hidden dilemma, that simply saying you don't agree with RobS, which was true before the debate was even proposed, seems like a major concession!

::::::::::::Did you ever admit that those things even happened? No, I guess you passed them by without acknowledgement! And certainly without apology. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 06:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Side note===
I use Microsoft 10 with the Edge browser, which has a Read Aloud function. This, together with darkening the screen, is a tremendous ease on your eyes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:I have been using Read aloud from the tools function as appearing on my screen when I click the tools function (mine is three dots top right … ). Currently it is Ctrl + Shift + U. It keeps changing. It used to end with + F, more recently + V. IndependentSkeptic recommended on the article page of his Introduction to Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) audio version the function Ctrl + Shift + F, then revised it to + V, then gave up, recommending use of whatever the reader's computer tools function offers. Other Users have made the same suggestion to me on my talk page. All have been appreciated. God bless you all, open your hearts, and bring you to everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-26T12:58:19Z

Dataclarifier: /* Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical */ minor edit - links for Bible refs cited, and removal of duplicated sentence

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank this page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A1&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''Titus 3:1'''] and [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus+3%3A9-11&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE '''3:9-11''']--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones ([https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+2%3A4-5&version=DRA;KJV;ESV;NABRE 1 Peter 2:4-5]). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::Wow...that's big of you! You lowered the bar so much when you lied to Andy and acted suspiciously like you (and "Xavier") three times were scheming to impale RobS on one of the horns of a hidden dilemma, that simply saying you don't agree with RobS, which was true before the debate was even proposed, seems like a major concession!

::::::::::::Did you ever admit that those things even happened? No, I guess you passed them by without acknowledgement! And certainly without apology. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) Wednesday, 06:00, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

===Side note===
I use Microsoft 10 with the Edge browser, which has a Read Aloud function. This, together with darkening the screen, is a tremendous ease on your eyes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:I have been using Read aloud from the tools function as appearing on my screen when I click the tools function (mine is three dots top right … ). Currently it is Ctrl + Shift + U. It keeps changing. It used to end with + F, more recently + V. IndependentSkeptic recommended on the article page of his Introduction to Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) audio version the function Ctrl + Shift + F, then revised it to + V, then gave up, recommending use of whatever the reader's computer tools function offers. Other Users have made the same suggestion to me on my talk page. All have been appreciated. God bless you all, open your hearts, and bring you to everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-26T00:10:56Z

Dataclarifier: /* Side note */

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank this page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::'''Titus 3:1''' and '''3:9-11'''--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones (1 Peter 2:4-5). TThey are living stones (1 Peter 2:4-5). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

===Side note===
I use Microsoft 10 with the Edge browser, which has a Read Aloud function. This, together with darkening the screen, is a tremendous ease on your eyes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:I have been using Read aloud from the tools function as appearing on my screen when I click the tools function (mine is three dots top right … ). Currently it is Ctrl + Shift + U. It keeps changing. It used to end with + F, more recently + V. IndependentSkeptic recommended on the article page of his Introduction to Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) audio version the function Ctrl + Shift + F, then revised it to + V, then gave up, recommending use of whatever the reader's computer tools function offers. Other Users have made the same suggestion to me on my talk page. All have been appreciated. God bless you all, open your hearts, and bring you to everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-26T00:09:32Z

Dataclarifier:

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank this page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::'''Titus 3:1''' and '''3:9-11'''--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones (1 Peter 2:4-5). TThey are living stones (1 Peter 2:4-5). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

===Side note===
I use Microsoft 10 with the Edge browser, which has a Read Aloud function. This, together with darkening the screen, is a tremendous ease on your eyes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 15:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:I have been using Read aloud from the tools function as appearing on my screen when I click the tools function (mine is three dots top right … ). Currently it is Ctrl + Shift + U. It keeps changing. It used to end with + F, more recently + V. IndependentSkeptic recommended on the article page of his Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) audio version the function Ctrl + Shift + F, then revised it to + V, then gave up, recommending use of whatever the reader's computer tools function offers. Other Users have made the same suggestion to me on my talk page. All have been appreciated. God bless you all, open your hearts, and bring you to everlasting life through Christ our Lord. Amen. ''Semper Fi!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:09, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

Talk:Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?

2020-08-25T18:39:06Z

Dataclarifier: /* Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical */

<s>Ooops, I screwed up, I need to reverse the "yes" and "no" positions.</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:52, 8 August 2020 (EDT) Never mind.

==Format==
The "Yes" and "No" sections are for Introductory narrative laying out the basics of the position, and not for interaction and exchange of debate points.

The Yes section currently lacks a brief Introductory outline of the idea. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 16:52, 12 August 2020 (EDT)

The "Yes" section still lacks a brief Introductory outline. This should be completed before spamming the page with "God gave all authority to men". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:22, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===Re-ordering of subheads and Sysop actions===
I reordered two subheadings from the antagonist viewpoint and moved them to the protagonist Summary section. The protagonist Section Summary, which was unedited, was lost in transition. So as a Sysop/Moderator, I placed Dataclarifier's '''Summary''' in that section.

In this Debate format, while interaction and exchange of ideas/arguments across the Pro/Con divide is encouraged, creating new subheadings for the sake of argument/discussion '''''outside''''' the divide an editor has identified with, can be viewed as disruptive of an orderly debate format. So while editors are welcomed and encouraged to interact across the divide, lengthy spam postings should be confined under the User's own subheading or within their respective Pro/Con Section Summary.

Thank you for you co-operation. I'll be happy to entertain any questions or suggestions for improvement about formatting. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 06:00, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

===I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section===
I removed the excess spamming in the Introductory section that was irrelevant to Grace. Spamming is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument in a Debate format. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:59, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposed rules in future debates==
*Off topic subjects, without providing an explanation of its relevancy to the Debate question, can be removed by a Sysop/Moderator.

*Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate, or providing scriptures in full with no relevant context or explanation of the relevant context to the Debate question. Such designated spam postings may be removed by a Debate Sysop/Moderator. Editors may freely inquire of any Debate Sysop/Moderator, along with a brief explanation of cause, for removing such spam postings.

*No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

Comments or proposed changes of wording welcome. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 05:36, 22 August 2020 (EDT)

==Proposal for another Debate==
*[[Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical?]]

[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:57, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

==Phony scholarship and phony authority==
Dataclarifier's argument seems to be that the Roman Church has "authority". Dataclarifier habitually posts excessive spam references to bible verses with no context to the discussion. These debates, and particularly a Debate on grace, are designed to examine this alleged "authority". Under the biblical doctrine of grace, God uses his legal authority to free the sinner from the legal consequences of sin. This is not too big a concept to wrap one's head around. Readers simply want to know what the Roman Catholic position is on grace.

Excessive spam postings citing dozens if not hundreds of bible verses, repetitively, while some may think look "authoritive", are not helpful. We simply want to understand what the meaning of Romans 6:14 is:
*''ye are not under law, but under grace''
A cosmetic appeal to look "authoritive" while adding no narrative context or substance to the discussion, is not articulating the position of the Roman Catholic church on grace. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:Bottomline, and this comment should rightly go into the Debate mainspace, if Christian believers are not under law as the Bible says, but rather under grace, the Roman Catholic church then has no legal authority.

:The Roman Catholic church's claims to "authority" can only be enforced by law. The Christian believer is not under law. Hence the Catholic catechism's convoluted claims that ultimately deny scripture and arrive at the conclusion that ''grace is not grace''. This is the basis by which the Roman Catholic church can claim to have authority. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:06, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:The Catholic catechism's doctrine of "merited grace" not only corroborates this view, it highlights the disobedience or lack of faith within the Roman church's hierarchy and tradition that rejects the grace of God (as Israel in the wilderness did) in favor of law, which can only condemn and not offer salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

===Strike 2===
[[User:Dataclarifier]] just added an additional 57,166 [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&action=history] bytes of spam after being asked not to, twice. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

==Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical==
You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, ''Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical?'' in a '''narrative context'''. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is '''''not''''' biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.
::::::It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine. '''It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence.''' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::Thanks for the support. '''''But watch that page!''''' Peace be with you. ''Semper Fidelis!'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages. But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

:::::::::::::The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments ([[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Confirmation bias]]) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a [[Specious reasoning|specious proof]] that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

:::::::::::::I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the ''straw man'' distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine '''''really''''' is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a [[cover up]] of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his [[straw man fallacy]] arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant ''garbage spam''".

:::::::::::::My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, '''watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! '''.

:::::::::::::I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith ''Santa Fe''. '''The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.''' ''Pax vobiscum''. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart
::::::::::::::Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::What if I.S. can just post on my [[User:Liberaltears/mail|user mail page]] once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!
::::::::::::Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::For those who defend the ''sola scriptura'' position, '''Romans 13:1-2''' and '''Matthew 16:17-19''' with '''1 Timothy 3:15''' should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind ''who'' the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, ''God is not the author of confusion''. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::He '''did''' specify a reason '''REPEATEDLY.''' it was '''to get rid of debates on the talk pages.''' [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]''''' Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::This is extraordinary [[specious reasoning]]; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the [[Magisterium]], which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT) No context? The Bible speaks for itself ''sola scriptura''. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? '''''And''''' you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive ''adversarial'' response. Then you locked it. '''Context'''. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. ''"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it"'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The strength of your argument should be able to stand ''without'' all the excess spam. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace '''''is''''' the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. '''''The Bible is not spam.''''' It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who '''cannot lie'''. In the Bible. "''All of his promises are faithful and true.''" We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::::'''Romans 6:14''' - ''ye are not under the law, but under grace.''
::::::::::::::So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

:::::::::::::::'''Conservative'''—If you don't blank this page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_Is_the_Roman_Catholic_doctrine_of_grace_biblical%3F&diff=prev&oldid=1677381 this edit] by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'') you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the ''Catechism'', I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the ''Catechism'' as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the ''Catechism'' says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article [[Intercession]] for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of ''intercession'' with ''mediation'' stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says '''both''' the Holy Spirit '''and''' Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, '''besides''' and in '''addition''' to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "'''''only''''' one mediator" meaning "'''''only''''' one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit '''cannot''' make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive [[Eisegesis|eisegetical]] reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one '''intercessor''' between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

I post here not only the link to which I would have directed as a really outstanding answer by Tim Staples, but the whole text of https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/one-mediator-between-god-and-men {{quotation|

ARTICLE
One Mediator Between God and Men
TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL
Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.}} Excellent answer to deceptive Protestant [[sophistry]] against Catholic biblical doctrines. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, '''without spamming''', in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:
{{quotebox|'''1 Timothy 2:5''' - ''there is one God and '''one mediator between God and mankind,''' the man Christ Jesus''}}
{{quotebox|'''CCC 1456''' - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness '''for remission ''through the mediation of the priest'''''" [my bolden and emphasis added].:<ref>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm</ref>}}
:And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.
:[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. [[Antinomianism]] utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "''Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law''" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—'''doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance.''' That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

::Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article [[Individualism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Who is the rock the church is built on? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. ''By grace are ye saved, through faith;'' ''not of works:'' ''if by works, grace is not grace''; ''ye are not under law, but under grace''. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::'''Obey''' your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT) This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::You need to go back and study Hebrews chapter 4 again. Disobedience = lack of faith, or not believing God when the gospel was preached. Obedience = trusting God and/or trusting God's word when you hear the gospel. You attach, as the Roman church teaches as doctrine, an entirely fleshly or carnal meaning to the word "obedience" and "obey". You associate "obedience" and "disobedience" with getting a spanking. The Bible says disobedience is not believing the gospel. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:''Render unto Caesar'' is essentially what those verses mean. ''He bares not the sword in vain'', i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget ''My kingdom is not of this world.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (''they neither marry nor are given in marriage''); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to ''render the word of God to no effect''. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::'''Titus 3:1''' and '''3:9-11'''--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::Oh, so Paul commanded that Christians be in submission to Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping. That's encouraging. But it would need it's own Debate page after we resolve whether the Roman Catholic church preaches a gospel of law and wrath or a gospel of grace and salvation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::Deceptive [[sophistry]], [[putting words into someone's mouth]] by a strategy of [[misrepresentation]]. The authority of Christ dwelling by his Holy Spirit in the Church he established, against which the gates of hell (represented by those three despots you mention) shall not prevail, is a '''higher''' authority than the authority of Hitler, Stalin, and Xi Jinping, because Jesus established the authority of the church he built firmly on a rock by his divine word. The word of God commands obedience to the leaders who spoke the word of God and watch over our souls (Hebrews 13:7,13; 1 Peter 5:5-6). That obedience "trumps" the authority of evil despots and dictators who defile human dignity and hate Judaeo-Christian morality, such as Nebuchadnezzar who commanded the three children of Israel to commit idolatry by bowing to a pagan image (not a Christian iconic image of holiness), or Antiochus IV Epiphanes who commanded the followers of Judaism not to obey the dictates of the law and tore up copies of the Torah and demanded eating swine's flesh and offer incense to Greek images of the pagan gods who are not Christian saints, and the Sanhedrin who commanded the apostles of the Lord not to preach and teach in the name of Jesus, and antichristian despots and terrorist regimes who command establishment of legislation for the abolition of Christian worship in any form and authorize destroying Bibles and churches and slaughtering of Christians. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Ok, so we're speaking hypothetically now. A Christian who gets a draft notice to serve as a camp guard at Auschwitz isn't bound by the Bible to submit, as you allege, correct? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 11:48, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::'''Yes'''. The authority of the Church is higher than the authority of the Nazi State. Death before dishonor (Marine code). That Christian can afterward truly repent and be absolved of that sin by confession and a change of life. I assume you intend to slander Pope Benedict as if all his life he remained guilty and delighted in what he did in his youth, as if he promoted Nazism all his life without repentance or regret, and therefore made Nazism Catholic doctrine. That is an abominable and monstrous suggestion. It's consistent with your contention that the Church is Satanic and that the Spirit dwelling in her is the Devil himself. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Denial that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that Jesus built on a rock. Denial of the word of Christ Himself. Denial of the Bible, the word of God. Denial of the command to obey Christian leaders. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:58, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::Good! Then why do you repeatedly claim that the Christian is in under the authority men, and that the Bible commands submission to them? You know full well the scripture, ''ye are not under law but under grace''. ''God is not the author of confusion.'' Where then, does this confusion you repeatedly post come from? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You also know full well that Jesus established the authority of the Church led into all the truth forever by the Spirit of truth and that the authority of the leaders of the Church is of God (2 Corinthians 5:19-20), not of men, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "The baptism of John: was it of God or of men? Answer me." A similar issue confronts the Bible Christian who denies and resists the higher authority of the church Jesus built on a rock, the church that is the pillar and foundation/ground/bulwark of the truth. Is the word of Jesus the word of God or of men? Answer. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::::No I don't. You keep mouthing the lines by the author of confusion that the Rock the Church is built upon ''is not'' Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::::"I say to you, you are a Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18 --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::Let me pause momentarily for a comment on ''render unto Caesar''; in both Catholic and Protestant sermons I've heard this to mean, "pay your taxes", while the teaching here, which is before everybody's face, is usually ignored. Jesus asks, ''Whose image and inscription is this?''. Man was created in God's image. Render unto God what is God's. Jesus is saying, render yourself unto God, this is by far a more important teaching for the Christian believer than "pay your taxes". [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:23, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::The leaders of the Church are likewise the image of God. They are living stones (1 Peter 2:4-5). TThey are living stones (1 Peter 2:4-5). And they have authority established by God for there is no authority except what God has established, as given by him from the Holy Spirit distributing his gifts to them for their ministry, and whoever resists the authority receives condemnation. Render yourself unto God under their established authority which they have from him as instituted and ordained by him. Jesus told his representatives sent by him, "Whoever hears you hears Me, and whoever hears Me hears him who sent Me." They are ambassadors of God, as if God speaks by them, they urge you in the name of God, "Be reconciled to God." --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:30, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::There you are again. Preaching the authority of men and not the authority of God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:36, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::They have the authority established by God, the authority of God as his ambassadors, "God as it were speaking by us. We beseech you in the place of Christ" 2 Corinthians 5:20.. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:44, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::If God is not the author of confusion, then who is the author of confusion? And make your answer relevant to who the Rock is in Matthew 16:18. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:46, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::Expert linguists have pointed out that according to the structure of the Greek language the Greek vocabulary of Matthew 16:18 points to Peter, not to Christ as the rock referred to in that passage.<ref>https://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/matthew/16.htm '''Meyer's New Testament Commentary on Matthew 16'''</ref> Besides, as I pointed out elsewhere Christ the living stone and rock of our salvation is in Peter the rock and in all of the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem and in all the living stones built into the temple of the Lord, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, with himself and them as the foundation on which he built his church. So there is no contradiction in the truth that Christ in Peter built the church on himself in Peter the rock, as he explicitly stated. We and he are one Body of Christ. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Peter and the whole of the Twelve as the beginning of the church are the foundation of the church in Christ the chief cornerstone who continues as he promised in the church to this day and unto the end of the ''aeonos'' the end of the [[Eon]] of the Church Age, "always, even unto the end of the world" KJV. Therefore, Christ has remained with the church he built on a rock, indwelling the leaders who speak the word of God and watch over our souls in every century to this day and to the end, led into all the truth by the Spirit of truth with us forever. Therefore the doctrine of grace they teach must be the truth, because of the promise of Christ and the established authority of the Church as instituted by God, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist, including the authority of the Church, have been instituted by God, and whoever resists will incur judgement (Romans 13:1-2; Hebrews 13:17; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 5:5-6). --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::Still riding your Matthew 16:18 hobby horse? You're spinning your wheels. You need to begin defending where catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture to gain any traction. You're just spamming re-cycled junk you already posted in the Magisterium and Authority Forever debates and elsewhere. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
:::::::::It's the Word of God. The ''Catechism'' cites scripture as the root of Catholic doctrine, so there is no conflict or nullification of scripture in the Catechism. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (EDT) Your position is the [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]] against the evidence. You say the catechism conflicts and nullifies scripture. It's not true. Your position is maintained by persistent [[confirmation bias]] in spite of the evidence that what you say is simply not true—frankly a position resting on a [[falsehood]]. It's an example of the [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]] and [[Willful ignorance]] which was exhibited by all of the Protestant Reformers in their debates with Catholic theologians who cited scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:34, 25 August 2020 (EDT) The Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical. The authority of the Catholic Church to teach that doctrine is biblical. The ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' is proof that it is entirely biblical, based on scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:50, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
::::::::::You're just spinning your wheels. You haven't even attempted to resolve the discrepancy between 1 Tim. 2:5 and CCC 1456 above. Look at the mainspace Debate and scroll to the bottom. The same question was posed 4 days ago and remains unanswered. Since then, you've added probably 100K bytes of re-cycled spam to at lest two pages without answering a specific discrepancy between the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 13:52, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::The question was and is ably answered by Tim Staples' article, linked and posted on this page. Either you didn't read it, or you have decided to ignore it and simply say falsely ([[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|fallacy of assertion]]) that the question has not been answered. It has been fully answered. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 13:59, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::You're "overwhelming weight" and "linguistic" arguments do not cut it. ''God is not the author of confusion''. The Catechism does not "add to" or replace the Bible. Your spam is nothing but confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

::::::::::::I'll be happy to rip Staples and Fr. Hard On to shreds when the time is right in a debate on mediation. But this is a debate on grace, not authority, marriage, Holy orders, sacraments, etc etc etc. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 14:06, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

:::::::::::::This is an excellent place to close the debate. Both sides have been fully expressed. Agreement is not expected in a debate. The Catholic position on the doctrine of grace is not the non-Catholic position. The non-Catholic position on grace is not the Catholic position. The issue has not been settled. That is legitimate. Settling an issue that has been debated for centuries is not the purpose of this Debate. It has been a forum for discussion, and it has been nothing if not animated and passionate. Neither side can be said to have "made their case". Both have been as honest as possible about the reasons for the position they hold. That is as it should be. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 14:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

==Refs==
{{reflist}}

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>

==Template design==
Is it possible to design a Template similar to this which could be used on debate and discussion pages to warn a user against disrupting the flow of a discussion or debate with off-topic spam postings before removing spam postings? Thank you. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]] 12:08, 23 August 2020 (EDT)
<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #E55451; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #000000;">''This posting is considered off-topic '''spam''' by some editors, and should be removed as such.
</div>

Good template to use against your own incessant postings and [[Last wordism]]. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] ([[User talk:Dataclarifier|talk]]) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

<includeonly>
[[:Category:Templates]]
</noinclude>