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

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

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

The title of this debate is unacceptable

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

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

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

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

He's making a statement. If nobody signs up in a few days, a speedy tag could be hung. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:20, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

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

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

This is practically the definition of bad faith

Please end it. --LawfulLibertarian (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2020 (EDT)

Yes. It's redundant of at least two earlier debates. They think by their many words they shall be heard. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:29, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

IndependentSkeptic

Dataclarifier may not be willing to participate. I am. At least once.
First the creator ot the page did not state it was created in bad faith.
Second (and I hope finally) I posted on the Debate Page what I consider the most devastating response I ever found to the blasphemous garbage-mouth objections posted by VargasMilan and RobSmith against the promises of Jesus Christ and against his Church. I joined because of the Bible, and like Dataclarifier (Michael), I too have found the Catholic Church to be the most biblical Church. It's a Full Gospel Church. Nuff said! Oh Yeah! --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

This debate will not add anything new that has not already been said on other pages. But if it becomes helpful to save a few more souls in what promises to be another spamfest, so be it. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:31, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

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

As Solomon said, much study is a weariness of the flesh. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:35, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

"By grace are ye saved". Exactly! The Catechism says the same thing!
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part Three, Section 1, Chapter 3, article 2: Grace and Justification
You really ought to read it. The Bible backs it up completely. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

No it doesn't. The Catechism says grace is not grace. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:46, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

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

Oh, the logic is inescapable! Only someone like yourself blinded by confirmation bias can't see it.
Look at John 9:39-41. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

Catechism teaches grace is merited. It's already cited in mainspace. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 11:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

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

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

I will waste no more time with you. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

If grace is merited, grace is not grace. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:03, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

The grace of God is essentially the "good news", which is what the term "gospel" is translated into. Catholic catechism denies the good news, i.e. the gospel, and reverts back into law and Judaism. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:09, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

Ye are like unto whited sepulchers....… RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 12:25, 27 August 2020 (EDT)

This page should be locked if the disruptive trolling continues

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:44, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

This page has turned into an incoherent mess

Replete with Dataclarifier's signature redundant spamming, which IndependentSceptic has now adopted. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:52, 29 August 2020 (EDT)

The spamming of -1,289 bytes and doubling down with another -2,301 bytes in an edit war here marked in red is making the page incomprehensible. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 13:53, 30 August 2020 (EDT)

Mistaken reversion

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

Proposed revision of mainspace Debate page - orderly and organized

RobSmith proposed some new additional Rules for this Debate. I cite in particular these, as relevant to a revision of the mainspace page to remove spam, and disruptive insertions into original postings, as vandalism:

Rules

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

• [...]

• [...]

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

• [...]

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

In support of these I proposed on my talk page an additional rule:

• Original postings are to be left intact. No inserting of commentary or challenge into an original posting made by another user, and thereby disrupting, interrupting or breaking up the flow of the thought or argument of the posting. Any editor can remove it, especially the original posting editor, as an attempt at spamming or vandalism, obscuring the point of the posting.
  —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Protagonist section must be made in the Antagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Protagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged.
  —Opposing comments or challenges to particular points in the Antagonist section must be made in the Protagonist section or Open discussion section, citing the Antagonist point being challenged by the opposing or objecting user. A quote box of the point being challenged by an opposing editor is encouraged.

In accordance with these rules proposed by RobSmith and myself I have revised a copy of the Debate mainspace page as follows.
(This is not spam. RobSmith said he had unlocked the page. It's still locked. All double-brackets enclosing identifying signatures of users posting comments have been removed from the copy below to preemptively defeat a potential accusation of "forging electronic signatures" on a page the user "never posted to"—meaning this Debate talk page.)
--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2020 (EDT)

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

Debate page is still locked to prevent editing. Note posted at [View source] states any edit proposed should be first discussed. O.K. I propose the following edit be added right after RobSmith's partial quotation of 1 Timothy 5:18 to "not muzzle the ox".

RobSmith characteristically misleads readers with comments that deflect from the point of the actual context of the reference being made, taking it out of context, in this case deflecting and implying as a mistaken typo the actual reference to 1 Kings 11:12-13 that the kingdom was "Torn away". It says

Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away all the kingdom; but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.
—RSVCE ("rend away" KJV)

But RobSmith says "Torn away" must be a typo, that it says instead "turn away". The actual text of KJV verse 9 says "because his heart was turned from". While there are many different versions of the Bible, none of them says "turn away" in 1 Kings 11:9-13.
And not only that, but RobSmith also claims to be a "preacher of the gospel" in accordance with Matthew 28:19, which in the context of the passage was addressed to "the eleven disciples" who were those remaining of the Twelve Apostles whom Christ had "ordained"/"appointed" and named as apostles. (Luke 22:29; 6:13). But he refuses to answer and say unequivocally that he is an accredited ordained preacher, making his claim doubtful at best. The term "preacher of the gospel" in the New Testament was applied only to those ordained as preachers of the gospel and like Paul ordained as apostles.

1 Timothy 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
—KJV

2 Timothy 1:11 Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
—KJV

I've already quoted other Bible passages from the New Testament about the apostles ordaining elders as preachers of the congregations in the book of Acts. Paul's additional reference to not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain is RobSmith's answer to the question "Are you an acknowledged ordained preacher?" That's RobSmith's evasive and slanted abuse of scripture taken entirely out of context as if it is referring to all of the responses of correction on these Debate pages as attempts to "muzzle" him, to "silence" him, to put forth grounds to discredit his right to insist on his own interpretations and applications of the Bible as from God having called him to preach and teach the word, quoting Matthew 28:19, and 1 Timothy 5:18 "you shall not muzzle the ox".
In fact, St. Paul was citing that passage as applied to himself regarding his rights and the rights of ordained elders (presbyteroi/priests) to receive a salary or monetary support ("honor") as an ordained apostle and preacher of the gospel.

2 Corinthians 11:8-9 8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them', to do you service. 9 And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.

1 Timothy 5:17-18 17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
—KJV

I really think this response edit must for the sake of truth be included on the Debate page, right after RobSmith's quote of 1 Timothy 5:18a (his leaving out of v 15b), which he applies to himself in refusing to answer if he is an accredited ordained "preacher of the gospel". Given his past performance up to this day, I believe he will oppose including it, as an embarrassment to him for making false claims about himself. He has a right to witness to the gospel according to his own understanding, but no right to claim to be a "preacher of the gospel" if he hasn't been acknowledged by any church as "appointed and ordained" a preacher.

--IndependentSkeptic (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2020 (EDT)