User talk:Dataclarifier

This page intentionally left blank.

Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical

You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical? in a narrative context. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --Dataclarifier (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

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

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

Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--Dataclarifier (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.

It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine.
It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence. --Dataclarifier (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

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

Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the support. But watch that page!
Peace be with you. Semper Fidelis! --Dataclarifier (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for Conservative, as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages.
But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

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

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

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

I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith Santa Fe.
The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.
Pax vobiscum. --Dataclarifier (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart

Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!

Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

For those who defend the sola scriptura position, Romans 13:1-2 and Matthew 16:17-19 with 1 Timothy 3:15 should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

He did specify a reason REPEATEDLY. it was to get rid of debates on the talk pages. Shobson20 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

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

This is extraordinary specious reasoning; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the Magisterium, which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --Dataclarifier (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
No context? The Bible speaks for itself sola scriptura. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? And you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive adversarial response. Then you locked it. Context. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)