Difference between revisions of "User talk:IndependentSkeptic"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(hour and half delay deleting page content - Dataclarifier's mother brought home - inner ear disorder - read RobSmith's evasive refusal to answer "Are you an authorized ordained preacher of the gospel?" - apparently not - private interpretation only)
Line 1: Line 1:
  
 
:''This page is left intentionally blank.''
 
:''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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup>
 
−
 
−
:Please do not disregard Sysop/Mediator's warnings by edit warring. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 13:35, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::(ec x3) No, you made it impossible by violating Debate rules and warnings not to.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 13:56, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::I see you're hesitating on posting one example of the 12 you allegedly found. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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! --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 13:37, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::Something to consider. Give me one example. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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.! --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 13:51, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::::Post one example here. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 13:15, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
 
−
:::::All of this runs contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine on water baptism, salvation, and receiving the Holy Spirit.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 09:16, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::<s>You are trolling again.</s> 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 ''[[diktat]]s.''  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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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 [[Putting words in someone's mouth|put words in one's mouth]]. Another deceptive lie. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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''.
 
−
----
 
−
--[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup>
 
−
 
−
===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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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,''' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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? --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 15:20, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
::::You can't even spell "losing"! "Lose" "Loose" You're the one who's loose. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:26, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::I have a keyboard that notoriously sticks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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.) --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 16:06, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::[https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.43ho3h0LSrYn2_yZARdEaAHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1 Here's my keyboard;] as you can see, it's not flat. Don't ever buy one. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 15:37, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE. Right. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 15:38, 30 August 2020 (EDT)<br>I just now heard Dataclarifier (Michael) laugh behind me. He read what I posted here.<br>"'''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 [[Logical Fallacy#Special pleading|fallacy of special pleading]]. [[Double standard]]!! You're no Christian. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 16:17, 30 August 2020 (EDT)<br> Dataclarifier laughed out loud. We're falling down laughing!!! Wow. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 16:17, 30 August 2020 (EDT)<br>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!''") --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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?]] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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'''. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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''.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup>
 
−
:::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 (salvation)|eternal security]]. Not so? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup>
 
−
::::::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. <br> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 19:25, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::Your faith is in Magisterium, not in God. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 19:30, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::So God's word is evolving....[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 19:41, 30 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
::::::::'''That's how it seems to you, insults included.''' <br> 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. <br> I stand firmly trusting in the promises of Christ my Lord and Savior. <br> I'm now referencing the word of God about properly interpreting the word of God according to the word of God: <br> 1 John 2:18b-19a "''many antichrists have come...They '''went out''' from us, but they were not of us''"<br>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.''" <br> 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''" <br> 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''" <br> 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''" <br> 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.''" <br> 2 Corinthians 11:13 "''For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.''" <br> 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.''" <br> 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.''" <br> 1 Corinthians 10:12 "''Therefore let any one who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.''" <br> 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.''" <br> 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.''" <br> Acts 20:30 "''And from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to '''draw away''' the disciples after them''" <br> 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?''<nowiki>'</nowiki> " <br> Proverbs 14:12 "''There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.''" <br> Proverbs 3:5b "''do not lean on your own understanding.''" <br> "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. <br> --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 00:18, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
::::::::Standing on the promises of Christ my King <br> Through eternal ages let His praises ring <br> "Glory in the Highest!" I will shout and sing <br> Standing on the promises of God <br> Stand-ing - Stand-ing <br> Standing on the promises of Christ my Savior <br> Stand-ing - Stand-ing <br> I'm standing on the promises of God. <br> --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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?''
 
−
::::::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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." --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 09:56, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
::::::::*''Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light''
 
−
::::::::The evidence for your claims weighs in that direction. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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 [https://conservapaedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page this site] created by [[User:Toby Chester|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. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> Monday, 01:32, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:Don't! It [https://conservapaedia.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Traditional_Roman_Catholicism looks heretical], unless you want to associate yourself with anti-Roman Catholic heresy.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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 [[Council of Trent|Trent]] through [[Second Vatican Council|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."<br>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''). <br> 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. <br> '''''Nuff said!''''' (too much!) --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 15:25, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::I happen to totally agree with Conservative. Take it up with Conservative. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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]]!''''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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?  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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! [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility|'''"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 "[[falsehood]]s" 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 '''[[Bigotry|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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> Monday, 18:30, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::::::And speaking of bigotry and hatred, look no further than to VargasMilan's attacks. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 19:04, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::::::::While I do agree that RobSmith has been uncivil at times ([[User_talk:Karajou#Important_question|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. [[User_talk:RobSmith#Was_blocking_Dataclarifier_really_necessary.3F|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) —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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]]. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> 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:<br>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. <br>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. <br> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 20:03, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
===Rules discussion===
 
−
I'm hammering out Debate Rules. Any suggestions for alternative wording or additional Rules?
 
−
{{quotebox|'''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. }}
 
−
[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 19:47, 31 August 2020 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
Suggestion for 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. <br>—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. <br>—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.}} <br> --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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:{{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. }}
 
−
 
−
:On first glance, 3 points:
 
−
#"Original postings are to be left intact." conflicts with "An editor may return to correct typos, sloppy grammar...etc."
 
−
#"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."
 
−
#"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 <nowiki><br></nowiki>)
 
−
 
−
:So, this is my cursory review. Tell me if you think I'm misinterpreting anything. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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 reasoning|specious]] pretext for RobSmith and anyone else eagerly and interminably posting more continued [[Blasphemy|blasphemous]] [[libel]] and [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility|incivility]] against the Church{{quotation|'''''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.}} --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:26, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:*Gal. 3:10 - ''All who rely on works of the law are under a curse.'' Repent! [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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!''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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.'' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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.''
 
−
::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup>
 
−
:::*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]]. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 16:38, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
::Works can't get you there. God can't be bribed. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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.'' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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.'' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 17:06, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::Obedience is believing what God says, not doing good works. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 17:08, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::*1 Peter 4:17 - '''For the time ''is come'' that <big>judgment must begin at the house of God</big>: and if ''it'' first ''begin'' <big>at <big>US</big></big>, what shall the end ''be'' of them that <big>obey not</big> the gospel of God?''' <br>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.'' <br>See again Romans 2:6-11. The Word of the Lord. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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''
 
−
:::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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.
 
−
::::: [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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'' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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.'' <br>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'''. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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 <big>in me</big> 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.'' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 18:04, 2 September 2020 (EDT){{quotation|'''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. '''<big>He</big> 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. <br> — http://scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s1.htm (''<small>boldface added</small>'') }}--[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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.''
 
−
::::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 18:13, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::The works of God are not filthy rags. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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.'' <br>The works of God are not filthy rags. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 18:21, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::So why don't you believe what God says, instead of using the Bible to contradict what God says? {{unsigned|User:IndependnetSkeptic}}
 
−
::::::::Who's contradicting the Bible, me or the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church?
 
−
{{quotebox|
 
−
*'''Galatians 3:10''' - ''all who rely on works of the law are under a curse''<ref>https://biblehub.com/galatians/3-10.htm</ref>
 
−
*'''CCC 2068''' - "The [[Council of Trent]] teaches that '''the [[Ten Commandments]] are obligatory'''
 
−
*'''1 Timothy 1:9''' - ''the law is not made for a righteous man''}}
 
−
::::::::It's actually not a contradiction. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that anyone who adheres to Catholic catechism is not righteous or saved. Salvation is now:
 
−
::::::::*'' whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me '''has''''' [present tense] ''eternal life. He '''does not come into judgment''', but has passed from death to life.'' (John 5:4)
 
−
::::::::''does not come into judgement.'' Why don't you believe what God says, instead of using the Bible to contradict what God says in this very thread?  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 06:45, 3 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
::::::::P.S. [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:IndependentSkeptic&diff=prev&oldid=1682049 You just violated the Debate Rules we negotiated.]  Such underhanded and deceitful tactics to pervert God's word and impugn a preacher of the gospel is not surprising for someone whom God has not declared righteous. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 06:32, 3 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. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 18:26, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::::You sound like a [[Cafeteria Christian]], tossing out ''ye are not under law but under grace''. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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.'''''
 
−
:::::::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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.<br>The works of God are not filthy rags. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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?''  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 18:44, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
::::::::::''Your glorying is not good.'' [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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.'' <br> 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.''" --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 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 page from the '''''Forerunner Commentary''''', John W. Ritenbaugh together with other contributors, '''Bible Tools: Topical: What The Bible Says About Obligation'''  https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/126/Obligation.htm <br>Both Dataclarifier and I were absolutely delighted with it. The Forerunner Commentary exists online (exclusively) at BibleTools.org. The Forerunner Commentary is comprised of material taken from articles, Bible studies, booklets, and sermons produced by ''the Church of the Great God (C.G.G.)'' since 1992. It's not Catholic, but the biblical doctrine of the ''Forerunner Commentary'' bears a strong likeness to the teaching of the [http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#1950 ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' 1950-1986 '''The Moral Law''']. They are not far from the kingdom of God. Compare also [http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a3.htm#2030 ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' 2030-2051 '''The Church, Mother and Teacher''']. God forbid that we should not tell you the truth of the Gospel. <br> --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 19:44, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:*'''1 Timothy 1:9''' - ''the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners''
 
−
:If you are under law, you are without Christ. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 20:32, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
::You obviously didn't read the above commentary, "What the Bible says about Obligation". The [[Prejudice|avoidance]] that is a [[Denial]]: [[Confirmation bias]] and [[Fallacy of invincible ignorance]], ''especially'' [[Damning the Alternatives]]. It only proves that you are not interested in the truth. ''Whassamatter? Afraid of being convicted of error?'' ''''S'Too much!''' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 20:42, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:I have a message from God for both you and Dataclarifier:
 
−
:*'''2 Timothy 3:7''' - ''Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.''
 
−
::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 20:51, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::''[[Non sequitur]]'' The whole context of 2 Timothy 3:1-9 shows that verse 7 is about "silly women" loaded with a burden of sins, led by various lusts of bodily passions and emotions, who will listen to anybody, disciples of men who oppose the truth, disobedient to parents, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, like the Egyptian sorcerers Jannes and Jambres who opposed Moses, not the leaders we are commanded to obey. <br>We both—"''both you and Dataclarifier''"—we both came to the knowledge of the truth by seeing clearly what the Bible teaches about the Catholic Church. It's because we studied the Bible and read actual Catholic doctrine for comparison that we know Catholicism is the fullness of the truth of the Christian Gospel of Salvation in Christ alone through his body the Church and that it is the most biblical Church on the face of the earth. Our search is ended. Now we live it. Our souls have found rest. And we shall never cease proclaiming the truth of God. We've done that here. Others will too. So we will not have to any more on Conservapedia. We're getting off. We totally entrust you to God. He'll deal with you. In surprising ways. ''Better believe it!'' God bless. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 21:06, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
::::We've been over this. Salvation is in Christ, not in a church or church membership.  [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 21:35, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::God lives and dwells and works in and through the Catholic Church. Yes there are weeds among the wheat. But God remains holy, and he has sanctified his church, cleansing her by the washing of water with the word, making her holy and without blemish, and those who are united to him by his grace he makes partakers of his own divine nature, making them holy. Those who fall back into sin have forgotten their cleansing and have fallen away from grace. Ephesians 5:21-27; 2&nbsp;Peter 1:3-11. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 21:49, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
::::::If you're declared righteous, you're without sin. If you're under law, you're without Christ. Again, not rocket science. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 22:14, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::It's possible after being declared righteous by faith to fall away from being declared righteous. <br> See [https://biblehub.com/2_peter/3-17.htm '''2&nbsp;Peter 3:17 and parallel passages of similar scripture.'''], including [https://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-20.htm '''2&nbsp;Peter 2:20'''] and [https://biblehub.com/revelation/2-5.htm '''Revelation 2:5''' "Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first."] <br> ''Or maybe you choose not to read these parts of the Bible.'' --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 23:05, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
::::::::Did Solomon fall away and be damned? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 23:18, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::::What does the scripture say? How do you read it? <br>I believe 1 Kings 11:9-11 "''Torn away''". --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 23:27, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
<-----
 
−
:It's a very interesting question, we could probably do a whole page on it. And I believe God wants the serious Bible student to study this question, comparing scripture with scripture. There are numerous scriptures to consider. [http://www.prca.org/current/Doctrine/Volume%2011/News-K-14.htm#Was_Solomon_Saved_] Let's take for a moment all of 1 Kings chapter 11 and all of 1 Corinthians chapter 3; (for this, you'd have to lay aside you thinking on 1 Corinthians 3:15). Solomon built the temple. Now consider this excerpt from 1 Corinthians 3:
 
−
:{{quotebox|12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by 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 shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: '''but he himself shall be saved;''' yet so as by fire. 16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 '''If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy;''' for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, '''The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.''' 21 '''Therefore let no man glory in men.'''''}}
 
−
:Vanity of vanities. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I boldened a few sections here, but there's much more. And we also have to consider ''I will remember their sins no more'' (Hebrews 8:12, 10:17), yet like Manasseh, Solomon's sins are embalmed into the bible.
 
−
:Now, I'm not ready to offer a definitive conclusion yet as to whether Solomon was saved. But in studying this brief excerpt I superficially find two weaknesses in Roman Catholic doctrine: (1) a misunderstanding of 1 Corinthians 3:15 which we've addressed in debates elsewhere, and (2) verse 21 above. There seems to be a whole lot of ''glorying in men'' in Roman Catholic doctrine, beginning with the claim that Mary is a "Mediatrix" given the fact that we are sexless in the resurrection, and much of the glorying in men you posted right here in this discussion thread.
 
−
:But let's not get sidetracked from the main question. I'm saying you might have reconsider what ''he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire'' means using the internal consistencies of the bible without any external sources, such as catechism. (At the same time, any scripture may have more than one application, so this does not dismiss your understanding of Purgatory completely, but it should open your eyes to the fact that there are other internal applications of ''he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire'' and your understanding is of 1 Cor. 3:15 is not definitive.)
 
−
:We're only scratching the surface here of an important question that I believe God wants any serious bible student to study. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 04:52, 3 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:And brief after thought about glorying in men: ''In every house there are two kinds of vessels, vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor''. Translation: Two kinds of vessels, dinner plates and piss pots. Maybe that's all Solomon was, a piss pot. The more important question is, What do you want to be in the Lord's House, a vessel of honor or vessel of dishoner?  It's a choice each individual believer has to make., [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 05:09, 3 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::Quote: "'''''Such underhanded and deceitful tactics to pervert God's word and impugn a preacher of the gospel'''''". Apparently from the context, you claim or imply that you are "a preacher of the gospel", a title applied by you to yourself without having explicitly cited any recognized credentials on any page of Conservapedia (as far as I know; I haven't seen any, nor has Dataclarifier—I asked). For example, NishantXavier has said that he has seminary training. Dataclarifier has explicitly stated that he is not a Catholic apologist, only a "Bible apologist", as an informed and believing Bible Christian ,"who happens to be Catholic". <br> So we ask you RobSmith: Have you graduated from a seminary? Have you been ordained? Have you submitted yourself to the laying on of a bishop's hands or the hands of the presbytery or the hands of accredited apostles? (I'm looking at 2 Timothy 1:6; Acts 13:1-3; Acts 14:23; 1&nbsp;Corinthians 9:14.) Even Paul, as Saul of Tarsus, was already an ordained and accredited rabbi with authority to preach in the synagogues of the Jews, even Paul himself, who was appointed an apostle by Christ Himself on the road to Damascus, was formally ordained by the laying on of the hands of the prophets and teachers when they were worshiping the Lord and fasting before he was "sent forth" with Barnabas. That tradition of worship and fasting and laying on of hands to ordain priests as acknowledged "preachers of the gospel" has continued from the time of the apostles to the present day by churches claiming [[apostolic succession]].
 
−
::So we ask:
 
−
::*Are you acknowledged by formally ordained and accredited preachers of the gospel as an officially accredited and acknowledged preacher of the gospel in any Christian church or sect or denomination?
 
−
::*Are you salaried by any congregation of the people of God as an acknowledged preacher of the gospel?
 
−
::'''Or''' are you self-appointed without "the laying on of the hands of the elders"? <br>You have never directly said one way or the other, at least not on any of the Debate pages or Debate Talk pages. Declare yourself. What are your credentials? It's enough to say "yes" I was formally and officially ordained a preacher of the gospel, or "no" I haven't been ordained a preacher of the gospel.<br>--[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 10:16, 3 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:'''Mark 16:15''' - ''And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.''
 
−
::[[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 11:56, 3 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
----
 
−
::::Hi RobSmith, can you please save these replies as part of debates/disputes for later? As IndependentSkeptic mentioned [[User:Liberaltears/mail#Update:_hospitalization|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! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> 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. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> Wednesday, 16:32, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:Waiting to call back at 6 (1800 hrs military time). --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk: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. —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> Wednesday, 17:08, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
:::Apparently episodes of cardiac-arrhythmia, which Michael (Dataclarifier) said he recognized from watching the bedside patient monitor, can be missed during diagnostic tests because sometimes it doesn't manifest or occur during the period of the testing procedure. Therapy and treatment to follow. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 20:37, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
:::I'm still going to delete all the above content of this whole page about 2 PM tomorrow. So if you want anything saved you'd better copy it to another page, your own or another, 'cause it won't be here, except as accessible from the [View history] file of this Talk page. --[[User:IndependentSkeptic|IndependentSkeptic]] ([[User talk:IndependentSkeptic|talk]]) 20:37, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 
−
 
−
::::Thank you for the update, I.S.; I'll continue sending my prayers! —[[User:Liberaltears|Liberaltears]]<sup>'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|May Dataclarifier be well!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Liberaltears|Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!]]'''''</sup> Thursday, 20:46, 2 September 2020 (EDT)
 

Revision as of 20:25, September 3, 2020

This page is left intentionally blank.
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:IndependentSkeptic&oldid=1682329"