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 "shoved 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)

I still have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to blank this page, go ahead. If you want vandalize the Debate mainspace, I'd advise against it. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:39, 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 keyboard that notoriously sticks. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:37, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Don't you know how to edit-correct spelling? You just let it slide without reading what you've posted? Not very intelligent. Blame the equipment. You're totally innocent. It was the keyboard. Well override the keyboard and redo the edit as a minor. Or is that beyond your capacity. (You said it, not I.) --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Here's my keyboard; as you can see, it's not flat. Don't ever buy one. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:17, 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 (particularly The Christian is not under law section). 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)
I just now heard Dataclarifier (Michael) laugh behind me. He read what I posted here.
"Disrupted my talking points"!!! Poor baby! I've seen what you did to Dataclarifier's own talking points in disrupting his talking points argument so much that to make it without disruption and make sense he had to copy it to an Essay page. Talk page Infant baptism. You couldn't stand to let him make his point. And you yourself disrupted it without posting below his signature line. You hypocrite! Well, when it turned out to be your turn in accordance with the precedent you set, you hated it. Conservative even had to tell you not to do that. You did it any way. Why does Andy put up with you? You constantly violate Conservapedia rules and ethics and commandments. The fallacy of special pleading. Double standard!! You're no Christian. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

(tsk tsk, judge not lest ye be judged...)

You know, everyone said this was a foolish Debate to get involved with. I did it anyway, with no regrets. Obviously we never even got into all the spam Debate texts in the Debate question. But I did just now read over all your objections above. It appears you got your butt handed to you on a popsicle stick.

Let's call this Debate over, and move onto either Holy Spirit baptism or Martin Luther (sorry, I can't participate as an editor in a Luther debate cause I just don't really know much about it). No sense going over Catholic doctrine on baptism, cause that's been covered on several pages. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 16:08, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

So. You concede defeat. Good! You couldn't take it any more. So you want to flee the scene. OK. You lose the debate. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
Dataclarifier laughed out loud. We're falling down laughing!!! Wow. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
He almost fell off his chair laughing. (We thought of the line from a Warner Bros. Bugs Bunny cartoon applied to RobSmith, "Hahahaha! What a maroon!") --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

I'm blanking this page 2 PM Thursday. Unless you want to preserve it for the purpose of gloating by blocking me so I can't. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Do whatever you like. We need a good coherent Protagonist position at Debate: Is Roman Catholic teaching on the Holy Spirit biblical? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 16:21, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Yes, it is biblical. The Bible citations and quotations in the Catechism of the Catholic Church prove it! CCC 683–747. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Not it doesn't. You have no clue who authored that catechism anymore than who authors Wikipedia. And it was not God-breathed nor holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q}

Incidentally, being that Solomon authored Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticle of Canticles, despite his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God in his old age, he still qualifies as one of the holy men of God, which would tend to argue in favor of eternal security. Not so? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:24, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

So, you'll even reject the scriptures cited as clear proofs that anybody can read for themselves that anonymous preachers of the church cite as infallible proofs of support for Catholic doctrines. The doctrines are rooted firmly in the inspired word of God. You just refuse to accept it. You are not even as honest as the Beroeans who checked these things for themselves to see if they are true, what Paul said in his preaching. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Oh, so you claim in the 2,000 year history of the church, there was never one single sleezebag in any position, from pope to scribe, who inserted subversive disinformation into the catechism? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q}

Oh, people tried. "Sleazebags" of loud-mouthed discontent and ambition introduced subversive disinformation causing dissension and division. They were judged by the senior-ranking elders, leaders and shepherds of the whole church in council together to be heretics. The actual doctrine of the church Jesus founded, and people defied and went out and taught a different doctrine than this one Church they left, its actual doctrine is a matter of record as consistent with the scriptures, with apostolic tradition, and clarified by the magisterium as the Christian faith.
Yes, over the 2000 year history of Christianity, the doctrine of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church both east and west has been a consistent, harmonious unfolding of the depths of meaning in the scriptures, bringing out of the whole life of the Church all that is already implicitly present in the revelation of God through Christ our God and Savior as reflected in the Bible and discerned according to the promise of Jesus Christ Our Lord to be the doctrine of the Holy Spirit with us for ever, guaranteeing that the Church from which others departed and separated from is in fact the pillar and ground/foundation/bulwark of the truth. Paul said we have this treasure in fragile clay vessels, but the treasure is pure and true, revealed by God. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Your faith is in Magisterium, not in God. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 19:30, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

So God's word is evolving....RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 19:31, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

So let's compare momentarily a passage of scripture with catechism:

• James 1:18 - Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Now let's look at the variableness and shadow of turning in the Catechism:

• CCC1 1471 - "remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.' 'An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.' The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead."

That looks more like the language of a shyster lawyer than the God-breathed inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For my money, I'll stick with God's word, and I'm not really interested in an interpretation or trying to understand what that gobbledygook supposedly means. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 19:41, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

That's how it seems to you, insults included.
Tell us, what is your guarantee that your own repetitive "gobbledygook" interpretations of God's word is the truth and not a deception of the devil instead leading you astray by the word of God? The Bible warns that people have deviated from the truth through believing in their own opinion about the scriptures. Some to their own destruction being convinced they were right, but they weren't. All of them quoting the Bible. Simon bet his money on what he supposed was perfectly all right and he was condemned Acts 8:9-24.
I stand firmly trusting in the promises of Christ my Lord and Savior.
I'm now referencing the word of God about properly interpreting the word of God according to the word of God:
1 John 2:18b-19a "many antichrists have come...They went out from us, but they were not of us"
2 Peter 3:15-18 "Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him...in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, 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."
2 Peter 1:20–2:1 "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies"
Hebrews 13:8-9a "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. Do not be led away by divers and strange doctrines"
Hebrews 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account"
1 Timothy 1:6-7 "Certain persons by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions."
2 Corinthians 11:13 "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ."
2 Corinthians 4:2 "We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."
2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not like so many, peddlers of God's word; but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ."
1 Corinthians 10:12 "Therefore let any one who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."
1 Corinthians 6:12 "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. 'All things are lawful for me,' but I will not be enslaved by anything."
1 Corinthians 3:18 "Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise."
Acts 20:30 "And from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them"
Mark 12:24 "Jesus said to them, 'Is not this why you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?' "
Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death."
Proverbs 3:5b "do not lean on your own understanding."
"For my money" I'll stick to God's word in the infallible promises of Christ himself about the church he built on a rock, himself with us always to the end of the world, the Spirit of truth with us for ever leading us into all the truth, commanding us to obey our leaders who speak the word of God in the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, having given himself up for her that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, as a temple and dwelling place of God in the Spirit, built of living stones to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God in the Spirit, and its warning about those who go out from us and teach a different gospel than what they had received by twisting the scriptures.
--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

(ec) What a bunch of nonsense. In one breathe you say the catechism is the word of God. In the next breathe you say the church is not built upon the Rock of Christ. Sheesh, talk about divers and strange doctrines, that's exactly what that catechism is. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 00:18, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Standing on the promises of Christ my King
Through eternal ages let His praises ring
"Glory in the Highest!" I will shout and sing
Standing on the promises of God
Stand-ing - Stand-ing
Standing on the promises of Christ my Savior
Stand-ing - Stand-ing
I'm standing on the promises of God.
--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Isaiah 22:16 - What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulchre here, as he that heweth him out a sepulchre on high, and that graveth an habitation for himself in a rock?

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 00:57, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Out of context, misapplied, abuse of scripture! My name is not Shebna, I have never counted the houses of Jerusalem, I am not over the household of a king, I am not the steward of a palace, I have no chariots, I have no appointed office to be thrust from, no robe of office, no girdle of rank, no station to be cast down from, no governmental authority, another man has not been clothed with my uniform. You read the Bible, but you neither know it nor understand it. That is quite clear from the way you ignore fundamental passages of doctrinal importance which proclaim the authority of the church over the private interpretation of individuals leaning on their own understanding. You have no understanding of the word of God, only your own misguided interpretation and rejection of scripture based on blind, prejudicial confirmation bias against authority. "Leave them alone. They are blind guides of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a ditch." --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

I/S says, "you ignore fundamental passages of doctrinal importance which proclaim the authority of the church over the private interpretation of individuals".

You can say that til you're blue in the face. The problem you have is proving any relationship between the Roman church today and the church Christ built upon a rock. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:56, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

• Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light

The evidence for your claims weighs in that direction. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:02, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Interesting suggestion

Hi IndependentSkeptic, if you and/or Dataclarifier ever feel that debating with other editors here gets nowhere, do you want to consider creating an account on this site created by Toby Chester? It seems to be a more Catholic-oriented alternative to Conservapedia, and it's a site I may register an account on sometime soon. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Monday, 01:32, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Don't! It looks heretical, unless you want to associate yourself with anti-Roman Catholic heresy. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:14, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Sure looks like it, and no, I don't. On this point RobSmith and I totally agree. As soon as I logged on 12:45 my time (CDT) and saw there were messages I came here and saw your warning. Very much appreciated! Thank you for that much respect. I followed up and took a good look at it. It not only looks heretical, I read enough to know that it is. I've read the Bible through several times (not as much as Dataclarifier, whoo-boy he knows his stuff!) and the Catechism 3 times through. I utterly reject Sedevacantism as a heresy as much as the Protestant Reformation and the separated Old Catholic Church, precisely because of the promises of Christ and the command of scripture to obey our leaders and according to the Bible that all authority that exists is established by God, and whoever resists the authority resists what God has established. Of course, you already know that's the biblical position I have been defending.

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 Trent through Vatican II. (I'll post this paragraph on Liberaltears' talk page.) 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!) --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

That presents a problem, not against you personally, but setting a new precedent by allowing editors to rearrange other editors contributions in a Debate format. Context can often be lost. The problem may be with debate rules and formats, which I would encourage developing uniform standards and guidelines (here is an excellant example where the 90/10 rule discourages cooperation between editors).

As to the specific debate page in question, I'd encourage you to engage on the talk page there with suggestions before making any substantial revisions to the mainspace. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:25, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

I happen to totally agree with Conservative. Take it up with Conservative. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Ok then. Don't make any substantial changes moving other editor's comments. It can be viewed on sight as vandalism.

Also, adding more content to a posting, which another editor has already responded to, is in my view, unethical. And you have developed a habit of doing that which entirely changes the meaning of whatever the subsequent poster responded to. That can be considered a form of trolling and vandalism. You need to post your comments contiguously in a real time debate. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:39, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

No one objects to correcting typos, adding a link in support of a statement, and even sloppy grammar. But adding additional whole sentences, phrases, thoughts, comments, etc. to a posting that another editor has already responded to is at a minimum, unfair. You would think common sense would guide you to refrain from such actions, but if restrictions on such highly irregular and unethical conduct have to be set down in black and white, that can be done also. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:49, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Then I "suggest" you stop your practice of disrupting others' texts with your own inserted disruptive comments. I'm not the only one who's complained about your form of vandalizing. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

See, that's what I mean. A moment ago I suggested developing rules and guidelines for debate. You essentially told me to go to hell. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 16:25, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

You hypocrite! Every single point you listed in the comment above is exactly what you've been doing yourself. Double standard! --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Well duh, if you're not interested in collaborative editing to develop Debate rules and guidelines for Conservapedia just say so. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 16:56, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

I would suggest developing a format that allows for an Introductory Debate Question or Resolution, Two sections reserved for Protagonists and Antagonists to outline their respective positions (and possibly allow neutral or other alternative positions), and a Third section for a free-flowing interactive discussion. A rule should be imposed that debaters cannot simply cut and paste redundant spam from their stated reserved positions into the free-flowing debate section, but must expand on or articulate answers to specific points and questions. Additional subheads can be created as the free flowing debate takes various twists and turns. Sound reasonable? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:06, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

That's what Conservative said to do in the first place, bozo. Ah—I see!—you just don't want your irrelevant off-topic spam removed! Only the relevant comments relating to the debate question will be left intact. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Bingo. But he didn't lay out the rules in black and white. I've had to do it on the fly. I'd appreciate some input or criticism of the language I've had to develop on these rules. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:19, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Pity poor me! I've had to balance the role of being a neutral Moderator/Sysop and debate participant all the while developing debate rules at the same time over three debates; whereas you have been able to use the same time to concentrate the full weigh of your hatred and venom against me while filling in the gaps of your lame arguments with redundant spam. It's not fair. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:36, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

"Hatred and venom!" You don't even recognize yourself! Your own comments on the debate page have been quite vicious! No prizes for diplomacy there. "Neutral!!" Comments like "garbage spam", "Satanic", "gobbledygook", "antichrist". They're all there, and more! "Incivililty"—a blocking offence! And your vindictive deletion of abundant evidence from the Bible against statements you have made that were lies! And when an attempt was made to correct you on what might charitably be called "falsehoods" rather than going so far as saying they are deliberate lies you retaliated. I know what you are. Anyone with a modicum of good sense can see it. You're a proven bigot. The evident hatred mentioned as characteristic of a Double standard is clearly evident in your inveighing against the Catechism of the Catholic Church—which you don't seem to have actually read in its entirety. (TLDR?) You've closed your mind and heart to the truth—only stubbornly maintaining your own Prejudice in answer to clear explanations from the Bible and your refusal to acknowledge responses explaining that you are not truthful regarding actual Catholic doctrine, by continuing the same attack of misrepresentation using the Straw man fallacy in a classic example of the Fallacy of invincible ignorance when the evidence disproving your assertions is not acknowledged by you, as if no evidence was presented. You don't belong on a Christian site. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

I get what you mean about RobSmith sometimes using rather harsh words, etc., though he technically is CP's largest contributor currently. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Monday, 18:30, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

And speaking of bigotry and hatred, look no further than to VargasMilan's attacks. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Monday, 18:31, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

"Largest contributor currently". Andy Schlafly gives him a free hand to violate Conservapedia. I can only conclude that Andy fully approves of his incivility and grants him complete immunity to express his bigotry. Why does he put up with it? Again, obvious Double standard. It's unconscionable. It's neither Catholic nor Christian nor ethical. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

User: Conservative has also refused to discipline or restrain either of them [RobSmith and VargasMilan]. Same thing. Several Debate pages about controversies over Catholic doctrines are proof. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

While I do agree that RobSmith has been uncivil at times (especially with his smear one point accusing me somehow defending pedophilia), he's been the biggest contributor to topics regarding the Deep state, 2020 presidential election, quid pro joe, etc. And regarding Andy, I can see why he avoids getting involved in the debate wars; all I'd really wish regarding him is maybe a promotion to rollback, Block and/or Upload abilities, especially with the general elections coming up in almost 2 months. About Conservative, my biggest suspicion is his deletions of revisions, something Shobson20 acts as an apologist for, insisting that it's merely "moderation". Conservative recently deleted Dataclarifier's user talk page, removing the >300,000 views for it. And VargasMilan is about the worst, contributing almost nothing substantial to the mainspace and rabble-rousing here and there. VM recently suggested that I was a sock of Dataclarifier simply because I strongly defend DC. All I can really conclude about the more anti-Catholic editors here on CP is that their behavior makes me more inclined to be a Catholic Christian. (note: I'm technically not a Catholic, as I only sympathize with Catholicism currently) —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Monday, 19:17, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Come on in, the Church is fine. "And you will find rest for your soul." The Bible is precious to the Catholic Church, her most precious treasure along with the sacraments and her precious souls. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

I'll see if I get a chance to go to a local Roman Catholic church once some moronic lockdowns imposed by my state's governor are all over. For now, I may try to find time to read the Conservative Bible Project. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Monday, 19:27, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

I posted a response to Liberaltears immediately and saved page, before the following postings, but it has vanished! Anyway, I'll post it here again, as best I can reconstruct it. I said:
Oh, better than the CBP, go to the Harmony of the Gospel (Conservative Version) longer form, which has marginal notes, and includes the Gospel/New Testament texts of the CBP. Read online the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Go online to EWTN.com for Catholic programming and live daily broadcasts of the Mass. The Catholic Bible is also available to read online. Also contact the nearest Catholic Church to you and ask about remote inquiry classes without any obligation.
I will have to quit for now. This afternoon's messages and postings have taken too much time for me to get to the revision of the layout of the Debate page. Tomorrow.
God bless. Dataclarifier says Pax vobiscum, which he says is Latin for "peace be with you". His mother says, "Get off the computer and come watch a movie." Any way, good night. God Bless. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Forget revising it. It'll have to be preserved for posterity as is. We've moved on to writing agreeable debate rules and the Roman Catholic position on the Holy Ghost. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:22, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Again, see what I mean. I lay a choice between grace and wrath, salvation and condemnation, being a collaborative editor and spewing hatred and venom, and you choose the path of wrath, condemnation, hatred and venom. Get with the program and lay your pride aside. Look up, the fields are white ready to harvest. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 19:35, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

You absolutely ignore everything Catholicism says about the path of forgiveness, mercy and compassion, and the fact that God himself has revealed in the Bible that rejection of righteousness and justice and love and mercy merits hell. You claim to have been raised Catholic. Then you know better (unless you lied about being Catholic). What you say in your comment above is a lie. You are spamming lies. There is no truth in what you said. Get with the program of salvation and holiness and start by telling the truth instead of telling lies. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Ok, I guess we're not discussing hammering out rules anymore.

From my perspective, you (a) do not cite any or not enough CCC for other debaters and readers to view and criticize; leading to (b) a gross misuse and misrepresentation of the Bible for readers and debaters to compare and criticize.

You need to cite more CCC and less scripture; others, that is readers and debaters, have to take your word for your claim that the Bible supports catechism, yet you provide no evidence. This makes for a non-logical debate.

IOWs, your complaint is without merit. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:03, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Rules discussion

I'm hammering out Debate Rules. Any suggestions for alternative wording or additional Rules?

Rules

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

• Participants are directed to formulate their position in either the Protagonist or Antagonist sections under their User name. No crossover editing is allowed in the opposing participants section. Please respect your opponents Protagonist or Antagonist section space. All debate and interaction is to occur within the Open discussion section.

• In Open discussion, debaters are strongly discourage from cutting and pasting extensive text from their already stated Protagonist or Antagonist position. The Open discussion is for a free-flowing examination of those ideas, not redundant spam.

• An editor may return to correct typos, sloppy grammar, or add a link in support of a statement in the Open discussion. Adding additional sentences, extensive phrasing, thoughts, comments, etc. to a posting one previously made that another editor has already responded to is not acceptable conduct in Open discussion.

• Spamming, defined for purposes of this Debate, means providing multiple citations to scripture without providing the actual scriptures 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. 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.

• Users are encouraged to cite specifically a limited number of scriptures to make any point, preferably counting on one hand, as a courtesy to other readers and participants.

• 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.

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 19:47, 31 August 2020 (EDT)

Suggestion for additional rule:

• 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.

--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (EDT) I cite in particular these, as relevant to a revision of the mainspace Debate page to remove spam, and disruptive insertions into original postings, as vandalism:

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.

On first glance, 3 points:

1. "Original postings are to be left intact." conflicts with "An editor may return to correct typos, sloppy grammar...etc."
2. "No inserting of commentary or challenge into an original posting..." I propose alternative language of "*The Protagonist and Antagonists sections are to be edited exclusive by editors who have declared their positions in either the Protagonist or Antagonist sections, with no crossover posting or editing."
3. "Any editor can remove it." I'd advise against "any editor" which can invite disruptive vandalism. By simply restricting Protags and Antags within their own section should prevent that problem.

An exception or exemption has to be made for Sysop/Moderators whose job is keep an orderly flow and maintenance of the Debate.

Comment: I think we can agree on maintaining the integrity of the Protag and Antag sections as they are stated. We just need clarification in he Open debate section. Two things concern me:

• No spamming and no redundant spam;
• No posting above a signature line. (We may have to discuss your run-on postings when a signature is followed with a <br>)

So, this is my cursory review. Tell me if you think I'm misinterpreting anything. Thanks. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:01, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

Revisions

Proposal: I propose moving this extensive revision out 'as is' (with minor changes) to Debate Revision: 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?, to include the Category:Debate tag with a link from the original ==See also== to there. I have not had time to review it and will assume in good faith for now its integrity. It should not be linked to from the Header or Introductory section of the original Debate page until review is completed, which may take some time. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:18, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

Proposal 2: Remove the above Revision section to make way for further discussion on proposed Rules. A new mainspace has been created. Please refrain from editing until we agreed on rules in place and debate participants can review the new Revised Debate mainspace. Thank you. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:31, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

Frequent purging of junk from this page

I will delete all content from this page 2 PM CDT Thursday, 3 September 2020, as I already said. If anyone wants to keep what's been posted, then you'd better make a copy for your own page—or consult [View history] this page to read previous versions.

I check our own emails almost daily and delete all junk mail. I'll check this page same time and immediately purge all content. Dataclarifier (Michael Paul Heart) and I (Delwayne Royd Mullin) refuse to participate any more in Conservapedia. We both regard the contentious issue over content of Debate: Have the gates of hell... as irrelevant, redundant, useless and futile. I've said all I intend to say. Immediately after checking our email, I'll check this Talk page.

RobSmith's postings here will be nuked on sight without reading. He and VargasMilan and Shobson20. Other users posting here will be immediately considered, read, and then deleted, once a day, or whenever we get around to it. Don't expect a response.

If any sysop/administrator wants to block our accounts [Dataclarifier, IndependentSkeptic], go ahead, even to "eternal". If any sysop/admistrator wants to permanently lock this page after I delete all its content tomorrow, to prevent it from being used as a mailbox, go ahead. In either or both cases, Dataclarifier and I totally agree. Go ahead. We don't care. We're not going to contribute anything anymore to Conservapedia. We just don't want to post any further material to be any more a specious pretext for RobSmith and anyone else eagerly and interminably posting more continued blasphemous libel and incivility against the Church

reliably identified by continuous and unbroken Apostolic succession as the original Church Jesus built on a rock, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, the temple and dwelling place of God in the Spirit of truth with us for ever leading into all the truth, built upon the apostles and prophets of God, whose appointed elders and shepherds as guardians and leaders watching over our souls having authority established by God, whom the Bible commands us to obey as the ambassadors of Christ, to whom God has entrusted the message of reconciliation, God Himself speaking by them, and antichrists disobeyed, ignorant and unstable, twisting the scriptures to their own destruction, by private interpretation, deceitfully handling the word of God, and went out, and drew disciples after them, leading them astray from the truth with specious arguments, peddlers of the word of God, preaching another gospel and another Jesus not preached by the apostles, a Jesus who either lied or was unable to keep his word.

--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

• Gal. 3:10 - All who rely on works of the law are under a curse. Repent! RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 15:06, 2 September 2020 (EDT

• Prov. 28:9 - He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law [the word of the Lord], even his prayer shall be abomination.
• John 12:48 - He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
• John 14:21,24 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. Repent! --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

The Law and the Word are two different things; faith cometh by hearing; ye are under grace and not under law. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 16:21, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

• 1 John 5:2-3 - 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

• Romans 3:21 - now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law
• John 1:14 - The Word was made flesh
• John 6:63 - These words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q}

• Romans 8:3 - what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did

Nobody disputes the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (Romans 7:12); the bottomline is, the law is not your ticket to salvation. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 16:38, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

Works can't get you there. God can't be bribed. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 16:42, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

• Matthew 7:21-23 - 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
• Romans 2:6-12 - 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
• John 8:43,47 - 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
• Ephesians 2:10 - For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Not bribery. Obedience to the will of God, by doing the will of God by good works. Faith without works is dead. Ye see then how that by works a man is Justified, and not by faith only. James 2:24. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

• as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.
• ye are not under law but under grace

This is the meaning of salvation.

• Romans 5:9 - we shall be saved from wrath through him.

The Christian is saved from judgement. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:06, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

Obedience is believing what God says, not doing good works. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:08, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

• 1 Peter 4:17 - For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at US, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
  So you better practice obedience and believe what God says in the Bible, that every Christian will be judged according to their deeds.
• Revelation 22:12 - And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
  See again Romans 2:6-11. The Word of the Lord. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

what the law was unable to do, God did

• Gen. 22:8 - God will provide himself a lamb

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:14, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

the vessel was marred in the potter's hands; so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it

Ye must be born from above

he is a new creature in Christ

You can't make your self righteous (your works are filthy rags). Adam and Eve tried to clothe themselves with fig leaves, but God had to clothe them.

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 17:20, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

He created us in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God ordained before that we should walk in them—only those who do the will of his Father shall enter the kingdom of God --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

• Philippians 2:13 - For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
  So we are not making ourselves righteous, but God in us doing his work through us is He Himself making us righteous, because we obey his will and do what he commands in us—justice, mercy, love, keeping faith with him who calls us to the obedience of righteousness. You blasphemously say that the righteous works of God done by Him in and through the willing cooperation of his people doing His good pleasure—His works (not their own)—are filthy rags!!. Paul was talking about Pharisees, not Christians. The Holy Spirit is not unclean. That blasphemy is never forgiven. Matthew 12:30-34. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
• John 15:1-2 - 1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away...
• John 15:4-6 - 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

  CCC 1076 In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age. He acts through the sacraments in what the common Tradition of the East and the West calls "the sacramental economy"; this is the communication (or "dispensation") of the fruits of Christ's Paschal mystery in the celebration of the Church's "sacramental" liturgy.
  — http://scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s1.htm (boldface added)

  --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

• Isaiah 64:6 - we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;
• ye must be born again.

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 18:13, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

The works of God are not filthy rags. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

Ahh, here you are liftitng yourself up in pride against God. Neither you, nor the Roman church, are God. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 18:23, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

You have become deaf of hearing: I will say it again:

• Philippians 2:13 - For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
  The works of God are not filthy rags. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

"Practicing obedience" is faith in God, trusting God or believing what he says. You just tossed out what God says, ye are under grace and not law; all who rely on law are under a curse. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 18:21, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

• Isaiah 5:20-21 - 20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 20 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! You don't believe what God says about bearing fruit, and the necessity of His deeds done by Him through us who believe him and seek to do His Will. All the scriptures I cited above. You don't believe the Bible. You are disobedient to the word of the Lord. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

You sound like a Cafeteria Christian, tossing out ye are not under law but under grace. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 18:39, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

I/S says, "You blasphemously say that the righteous works of God done by Him in and through the willing cooperation of his people doing His good pleasure—His works (not their own)—are filthy rags!!"

CCC 1076 says, "Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church...He acts through the sacraments ..."

• Isiah 29:15 - You have turned things upside down, as if the potter were regarded as clay.

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 18:33, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

• Philippians 2:13 - For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
  The works of God are not filthy rags. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

That still doesn't make you God; it is fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, and greater works than these the fact that God saved another sinner. It is God's doing, not yours or the church's. Give glory to God.

I can of my own self do nothing.

for by grace are ye saved through faith....not of works.

Wherein is boasting? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 18:44, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

Your glorying is not good. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 18:48, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

• 1 Corinthians 12:6,27 - 6 and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
  You are deaf to the word of God. You do not hear it. How often do you have to hear Philippians 2:13 before you understand what He is saying: "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." And "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

How long are you going to reject the grace of God and bring yourself under bondage again to law, judgement, and wrath?

Gal. 5:4 - whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace

all under law are under a curse

by grace are ye saved

Fine <shakes dust from his shoes>. You have chosen law over grace, a curse over salvation. Nuff said. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 19:19, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

Being under grace imposes the obligation to do good. See an excellent analysis of RobSmith's fundamental error in this Berean page from the Forerunner Commentary, John W. Ritenbaugh, Bible Tools: Topical: What The Bible Says About Obligation https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/126/Obligation.htm
Both Dataclarifier and I were absolutely delighted with it.
--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

---

Hi RobSmith, can you please save these replies as part of debates/disputes for later? As IndependentSkeptic mentioned here, Dataclarifier's mother (who's in her nineties) had a serious accident earlier today, and while it seems that there wasn't anything that serious, they (especially D.C.) may be in extreme apprehension. Just in case you aren't already, can you please pray for D.C.'s mother to be all well as soon as possible? Thank you! —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Wednesday, 15:19, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

How's D.C.'s mother doing at this moment?

Hi IndependentSkeptic, how's Dataclarifier's mother doing right now? I saw your post on my user mail page, and I apologize for not seeing it sooner. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Wednesday, 16:32, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

Waiting to call back at 6 (1800 hrs military time). --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2020 (EDT)

Okay, thank you very much for responding! I'll send my prayers and hope for the best. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Wednesday, 17:08, 2 September 2020 (EDT)