User talk:IndependentSkeptic

This page is left intentionally blank.

Debate page

You are spamming; read the rule posted on the Debate page: "providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate". We are obviously talking about two different baptisms, water baptism and spirit baptism. You cannot expect readers to go through the dozens of scripture citations you provided to inspect each one to see if you are referring to water baptism or spirit baptism. Please remove the spam or a Sysop/Moderator will do it. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:19, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

The moment I got your alert I tried to relegate it to a ref note, but you blocked me before I could. So we're left with a hanging tag note. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Fine, Rewrite it and/or carrying your debating points over to Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical? Remember, that Debate (a) has the same rules, and (b) more importantly is on Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit, not baptism. So you can't just cut n' paste your stuff on water baptism or spirit baptism without focusing on the Debate question. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q}

Please do not disregard Sysop/Mediator's warnings by edit warring. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:31, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

I didn't. But you made it impossible. You are inventing the pretext of edit warring. You are stlll trying to remove evidence against your distorted misrepresentations. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

(ec x3) No, you made it impossible by violating Debate rules and warnings not to. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:44, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Oh yeah...I'm just sure! Your trademark is eternal Last wordism. Not to mention Confirmation bias. And violations of the 90/10 Rule. You're insulting too. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

I see you're hesitating on posting one example of the 12 you allegedly found. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:58, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things. Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? (2 Cor 11:6-7) I speak here as a debate participant and not as Moderator. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 14:07, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Idea! How 'bout I go through the whole page and remove all of your repetitive spam? Just give me the chance! But I think you're too much of a sniveling coward to allow it, no way! --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Something to consider. Give me one example. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:44, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

I found more than 12 of 'em! Let me loose and I'll do it! If you don't see the repetitions I remove as repetitive spam then revert the edit.! --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Ah ha! Hesitation. Could be fatal. Don't think you'd recover from it. You'd just bury it as if it never existed. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Post one example here. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:54, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

How 'bout several (indents retained): [note: see my recommendation at the bottom}

---

Christ is the foundation stone or rock that the Christian church is built upon, not Peter. This confusion, authored by the author of confusion and father of lies, is the source of all the confusion regarding the claims to "authority" by Roman Catholic doctrine.

One mediator 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

• Isaiah 28:14 - we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves

Salvation by grace This is a denial of salvation by grace (grace is not grace) and a doctrine, or another gospel of salvation by works.

We've been over this a dozen times. The gospel was preached to Israel in the wilderness.

Independent Skeptic says, "This shows that John's water baptism unto repentance cannot be the water baptism which Jesus commanded people to receive" Bingo! Now reconcile what you just posted with Roman Catholic doctrine and all the drivel in the Infant baptism page. Hint: Jesus didn't command "water baptism".

Yes He did! ...

You are spamming; read the rule posted above: "providing citations to scripture without providing the actual scripture and/or its relevant context to this Debate". We are obviously talking about two different baptisms, water baptism and spirit baptism. You cannot expect readers to go through the dozens of scripture citations you provided to inspect each one to see if you are referring to water baptism or spirit baptism. Please remove the spam or a Sysop/Moderator will do it. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:15, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

All of this runs contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine on water baptism, salvation, and receiving the Holy Spirit. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:16, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

You are trolling again. Below you state salvation is earned or merited, which is exactly what catechism teaches.

• Isaiah 28:14 - we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves

The Christian is not under law God says,

• Romans 6:14 - ye are not under law but under grace
• Galatians 3:10 - all who rely on works of the law are under a curse

You just can't seem to wrap your head around the word "obey". To the spiritual believer, to "obey" means to trust and believe God. To the natural man and carnal mind, "obey" means to follow orders to avoid a spanking.

And throughout all your spam postings, your point comes through clearly - you claim the Roman Church is God.

God is not a tyrant who rules by threats and intimidation. But you make him out to be such and claim the Roman Church is here to enforce his diktats. This is the opposite of grace.

ye are not under law but under grace. Go ahead, keep making the case that the Roman Catholic Church denies the Bible.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches sacraments are works God says,

• Galatians 3:10 - all who rely on works of the law are under a curse

Hence, per the Bible, adherents and practitioners of the Roman Catholic faith are under a curse and not redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

• Isaiah 28:14 - we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves

The parallels between apostate Israel and the apostate Roman church are unmistakable.

• Matthew 15:8-9 - This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
• Mark 7:13 - making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.

Context: Jesus is speaking of the Jews, and in particular of the Pharisees. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

You have rejected grace, as Israel in the wilderness did. Ye are under a curse.

We've already proven at least 5 times your catechism is a fraud. You're just digging your hole deeper in rebellion against God and God's word.

Unbelief in God's word.

Unbelief is a lack of faith.

• Hebrews 4:2 - but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Unbelief, or a lack of faith, is disobedience.

"obey" means have faith. Why would anyone have faith in lies? And the Christian believer is not under law anyway. Does God command us to bow the knee to Satan? Satan is the god of this world.

You either can't read or are just playing stupid now. I just cited above CCC 2068 "the Ten Commandments are obligatory". Get thee behind me, Satan.

Salvation and grace cannot be merited or earned. You need to repent, accept God's grace, and begin living life in the spirit.

The Roman church's rejection of grace and reversion back under law is not just serious error, it is a rejection of the New Covenant entirely. Hence, you are under a curse, as God says.

Go ahead, be in denial. For the third time in this section CCC 2068 "the Ten Commandments are obligatory". The law was only our schoolmaster.

• Galatians 3:24-25 - the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

If you choose to continue under a schoolmaster and a curse, good luck. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 16:17, 28 August 2020 (EDT)

The sacraments cannot save The sacraments of the Roman Catholic church are works of the law.

The Roman Catholic church teaches of a false gospel of salvation by works.

What does that have to do with receiving the sacraments?

Bull. It's a whataboutism that has nothing to do with the alleged "authority" of the Roman Catholic church and/or the fact salvation through sacraments is unbiblical. Please stick to the topic.

The problem you have is in claiming the validity of your interpretation of Matthew 16:18, on which the entire monstrosity of Roman Catholic doctrine is built.

Your whole argument appears to put words in one's mouth. Another deceptive lie. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:57, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

You use the Bible to twist God's word into lies. The Roman Catholic church rejects the authority of the Bible in favor of sinful men, i.e. the Magisterium.

That's specious reasoning; The Roman Church claims God's word is evolving and is overridden by the Magisterium. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 11:32, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

One flock and one shepherd = Jew + Gentile = Catholic. This isn't rocket science. ye are not under law but under grace, but the Judaizers kept preaching law.

ye are not under law but under grace. Right there, you just dispensed with grace once again.

Law of Moses = law of God. The Christian is not under the law of God, which can only condemn and not save.

• all who rely on works of the law are under a curse;

• all who rely on works of the law are under a curse;
• Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law

Obedience = faith. Disobedience = lack of faith, not believing God, doubting what God says is true or calling God a liar, leaning on your own understanding.

The spiritual definition of disobedience is not believing God. It appears you just acknowledged that.

Nice try, but you can't around ye are under grace and not under law. I guess you're just not among the ye.

---

--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Recommendation - I go through the whole Debate main page and remove all of my inserted responses to the "Protagonist" arguments, and remove all your (and others) inserted responses to the "Antagonist" arguments, and let both sides stand alone. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Ah ha! Longer hesitation! more than 13 minutes! Hands sweaty and trembling yet? You really don't like the idea, do you?

TLDR; look, I asked for one example and you give spam. The page is unlocked. Let's see if you can abide by the rules this time. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 14:58, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Oh, you've spammed TLDR before. I didn't expect you to read every one of them, just select one. You have a multiple choice. Choose one. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

If you don't choose one, and answer it here within 24 hours, I'll do what I recommended. Let's see how you like that! You can block me all you like. But you can't avoid what a block response by you really means. Even Andy reverted your most recent long series of edits on the Debate main page. Dataclarifier was too patient and polite with you. You need a "smack-down" by your own argument exposed for what it is by a reply that you don't want to hear. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

I told you the page is unlocked. I'm not going over that garbage again. You are free to edit without spamming or creating any more intentional disruption to the free exchange of ideas. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q}

The problem

(ec)The problem originated when you began posting responses in my discussion points that were not below any signature. That created confusion and disruption. If you have a response to another editor, formulate your ideas coherently, without massive blocks of spam, and answer point by point below where another editor leaves off with their signature. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:03, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Hah! You have a long history of initiating that same kind of harassment long before Dataclarifier and I used your example in kind. Boo-hoo, that "problem" precedent was set by you, not him and not me, and you can't take your own medicine. Too bad. You earlier stated about Dataclarifier that you "showed his face in his own garbage". You can dish it out, buddy, but you sure can't take it when it's your turn in the game that you yourself set up! So either put up, or shut up. I'll see you, and raise. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

I can't deny I may have done that once or twice, particularly in the midst of one of DC's massive spam postings. That's why we have an anti-spam rule now, RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:18, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Bzzzt! Wrong! Once or twice! Hah! I counted over 89 + times you've done it. You've done that kind of vandalism to several other users. Some of them quit because of you and your gang of supporters.

You have 96 hours before I blank this page. I don't want to preserve your crap. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

(ec) I wear two hats, one as a regular editor and one as a Sysop; I'll try to make known in edit summaries or on pages when I intervene as a Sysop.

96 hours for what? The more you talk, the less sense you make. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:30, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

"For what?" Read. Repeat. "You have 96 hours before I blank this page. I don't want to preserve your crap." Do you remember now? Or is that too much to expect? --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

When you're loosing an argument, you can't quash it or hide your embarrassment with 50,000 bytes of spam. PERIOD. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:20, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

You can't even spell "losing"! "Lose" "Loose" You're the one who's loose. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

I have a jeyboard that sticks. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:37, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

The Problem. It's spelled R O B S M I T H. Deal with it. I will get rid of your disruptive insertions. Or block me. Your call. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

I haven't a clue what you're talking about. All I know is you disrupted my talking points in the mainspace before they were completed. In several sections they never were completed. Unlike yourself, I didn't cut n paste my Protagonist position, but I did take the bait with the loaded Debate question. It appears you're not happy with the Protagonist position. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:37, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE. Right. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2020 (EDT)