Difference between revisions of "User talk:RobSmith"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Pokeria and RobSmith discussion on setting up a debate page)
m (Pokeria and RobSmith discussion on setting up a debate page)
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 649: Line 649:
:It may take years or even centuries to incorporate Francis' decrees into the Magisterium. Heck, it took 1950 years to make the Levitation of Mary official doctrine, together with making it a potential capital offense for failure to honor it. [22]
:It may take years or even centuries to incorporate Francis' decrees into the Magisterium. Heck, it took 1950 years to make the Levitation of Mary official doctrine, together with making it a potential capital offense for failure to honor it. [22]
Then of course you have the de-canonization of saints, which means the Magisterium in times past is fallible. Of course what is the final disposition of people in the intervening centuries who made prayers and offerings to the now defrocked Saints? Do they get booted out of heaven for necromancy ex post facto?
:Then of course you have the de-canonization of saints, which means the Magisterium in times past is fallible. Of course what is the final disposition of people in the intervening centuries who made prayers and offerings to the now defrocked Saints? Do they get booted out of heaven for necromancy ex post facto?
::"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." RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:57, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
::*''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.'''''  RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:57, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
:::Request: Public debates and debate pages have a question which can be either affirmed or rejected.  In other words, a question followed by yes and no sections. For example, these would be debates: "Does God exist?" or "Do low taxes best serve society?"[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:23, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
:::Request: Public debates and debate pages have a question which can be either affirmed or rejected.  In other words, a question followed by yes and no sections. For example, these would be debates: "Does God exist?" or "Do low taxes best serve society?"[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:23, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
:::This is the hard part: we don't want the debate questioned framed so as to appear as a loaded question and frighten people off. Pokeria1, as a self-identified Catholic, can be very helpful in framing a neutral-sounding question. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|Trump 2Q2Q]]</sup> 12:26, 2 August 2020 (EDT)

Revision as of 11:28, 2 August 2020

Useful links


Hello, RobSmith, and welcome to Conservapedia!

We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.

At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!

Thanks for reading, RobSmith!


You have been blocked indefinitely.

Blocked: RobSmith and VargasMilan

Reasons for action taken.

Substantial violation of key Conservapedia ethical and moral principles: To wit:

Conservapedia Commandments: number 3.

Conservapedia Guidelines#Duties:

Blocking for ideological reasons
Name Calling and Insults
Using Article Talk pages as Debate Forums for unresolved historical ideological and theological controversies
Unjustified threat of blocking and of massive deletion of all previous contributions (see below)

Conservapedia Guidelines#Civility:

Violation of Civility
Attacking for beliefs

Conservapedia Guidelines#Teamwork

number 2.

Conservapedia Guidelines#90/10 Rule

The sheer bulk of antagonistic responses of opinionated prejudicial point-of-view compared to the verifiable content of substantiated articles wrongly rejected as wrong and biased, refusal to accept reasonable replies with courtesy and respect, and refusal to let the matter rest.

Conservapedia:Topic bans: evidence of promoting a personal agenda as against well-founded research

Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia: numbers 12. and 15.

Bias#Encyclopedias: clear evidence of slanted bias in unjustified activities against multiple Conservapedia users

Trolling: evidence of, in exhibits below

Exhibits follow

A. Unjustified threat of blocking acted on and threat of obtaining a cooperative partner in plan to exercise massive deletion of all previous contributions

User talk:Dataclarifier#Suggestion "enjoy a block" unless a response is forthcoming
Talk:Salvation#Wow threat to get an administrator to "nuke all your contributions from day one"
User talk:Dataclarifier#Unjustified block

C. Talk:Infant baptism#Comment on page

Talk:Infant baptism: general tone of sheer bulk of numerous repetitive arguments and attacks with more of the same in an extensive archive of the page

D. Talk:Helpless babies and sinners: attack on an established doctrinal belief

E. User talk:Dataclarifier#Infant baptism

B. Debate: Infant baptism: repetitive attacks on beliefs and contentious arguing lacking civility

F. User talk:Dataclarifier#Ridiculous arguments

G. User talk:Dataclarifier#See Talk:Salvation

Exhibit A above suggests that RobSmith may have indeed elicited the cooperative agreement of VargasMilan to effect the intended [21 Feb to 1 May] unjustified block removed 25 Feb by AndyS. Further evidence from the comments made by VargasMilan on the linked talk and debate pages of the other exhibits strongly suggests a similar shared hostility and antipathy toward the fundamental key principles of Conservapedia which gradually becomes more evident from the reactions of other users in later postings on both their talk pages.

H. User talk:VargasMilan

I. User talk:RobSmith

Copies to Aschlafly, RobSmith, VargasMilan

--Dataclarifier (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi Rob, when are you coming back? --Jpatt 13:54, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

I'm here. I'm trying to get back full time, but it's been one crisis after another since the CCP bioweapon attack. McDonald's isn't even selling hamburgers anymore. I've been helping some of my neighbors hunker down in their bunkers. But I'm monitoring CP and keeping up with the latest developments. RobSLive Free or Die 16:12, 5 May 2020 (EDT)

Can you tell me how to add text next to name

Hi RobS. I notice you have the text "Live Free or Die" next to your name. Can you tell me how to add the same? I want to add "For Christ the King".NishantXavier (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

Go to Preferences, New Signature. Use this code. Then hit Save.

[[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]]<sup>[[User talk:NishantXavier|For Christ the King]]</sup>

RobSLive Free or Die 17:30, 10 May 2020 (EDT)

Thanks!NishantXavierFor Christ the King 21:47, 13 May 2020 (EDT)

Remember that Obamagate page on Facebook?

500 new like this week. That page is on fire simply because of the hashtag. Is it okay with you if I make Karajou and TerryH admins on that page? I don't even remember what our goal was with that page. DMorris (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2020 (EDT)

Sure/ I forgot my password. Haven't been there in years. The page was the genesis of CP's Obamagate series. RobSLive Free or Die 23:21, 12 May 2020 (EDT)


I took your suggestion about clarifying some of the wording for my recent essay plus I added some great quotes by you. I decided to give it less space on your web page as many people at CP prefer I mention this subject sparingly.Conservative (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

it now reads,
  • Ace has yet to restore User: GiuoccoPiano's content that User: GiuoccoPiano added;
  • Ace has yet to restore the content User: GiuoccoPian added
avoids redundancy. RobSLive Free or Die 04:00, 14 May 2020 (EDT)
I fixed it.
By the way, I added: I thought the Old Testament prophets gave some grave proclamations to people filled with gloom and doom until I saw this! Woe unto you editors! You are "far less welcoming"! Far less welcoming is atheist-speak for you guys are quarrelsome, socially challenged, male atheist. See also: Atheism and social skills and Atheism and women.
Maybe they should have fruit baskets delivered to new editors residences. That might stop their precipitous decline.Conservative (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2020 (EDT)
Ace: I see that you are a new editor. May I have your name and address please?
New editor: Why do you want that?
Ace: To deliver a fruit basket to your residence.
New editor: No thanks. I'm good.
If you could mention the fruit basket idea to Ace, I would appreciate it.Conservative (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2020 (EDT)

When creating a table, is there any way to change font and align text within the table?

Hi Rob, I have another question. When we create a table on Conservapedia, is there any way to align the text to the centre like we do in Excel? Or to change the font of one of the rows, e.g. boldface for the total rows? NishantXavierFor Christ the King 15:53, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Ewww, I'm not the technical expert who knows those things. For boldening, maybe you can try and experiment with the code here; for font color you'd have to experiment with the code <font color="brown"></font> (brown or whatever color) but I'm not sure where to place it. RobSLive Free or Die 16:07, 15 May 2020 (EDT)
Alright, so I was able to align the text to the center. However, about changing the color of the rows/columns, I'm not sure. For the latter, I think DavidB4 will know more about the technical details. --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 16:31, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Thanks! I figured out how to bold the figures for the total rows. It turned out to be simple enough, just use the bold for the table text as we do normally. It's done. Please check, guys, to see if it's fine. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Unofficial_2020_presidential_election_predictions Next, we can move on to the projections. Be back soon.NishantXavierFor Christ the King 17:00, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

I saw it, and it looks great! --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 17:06, 15 May 2020 (EDT)

Thanks, Liberal Tears, for your great help, that made it easy. And Rob also.

If fine, we can start compiling available polling for each individual state.

I did it for Alabama: https://www.270towin.com/2020-polls-biden-trump/alabama/

Do either of you have picture rights? I don't. If the pic is fine, can we use it?

We can put the map next to the table. Shall I create a table for 2020 predictions? NishantXavierFor Christ the King 12:17, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

For "picture rights", I think you're referring to upload rights. I unfortunately don't have the "upload" tag, but Rob does. --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 12:21, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Awan investigation

Rob, I read somewhere that the police investigation, where they examined devices the Awans used, was closed the day after it opened. Since you followed and wrote about the case, I thought you might find that interesting! Had you heard that yet, or is it something you already know about? VargasMilan (talk) Saturday, 21:50, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

It's complicated and much remains unknown. The usual Deep State suspects are involved - the DNC chair, DOJ prosecutors, and Paul Ryan - the same cohorts in the Obamagate scandal and coverup. What you may be referring to is, that after years of waiting for some prosecutorial action, the day Imran Awan pled guilty to some minor charge, it was revealed the case had been closed months earlier.
All we have right now is some speculation and theory. It appears about 60 Democrat Congresspeople were victims of a scam and blackmail perpetrated by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But that may be minor compared to what actually did happen, and what Paul Ryan and Debbie Wasserman Schultz covered up. Apparently someone or entity in Pakistan and possibly elsewhere were receiving real-time information from Congressional Committees and offices. Why? Donations? Blackmail? Who knows? Wasserman Schultz most certainly was wittingly involved in this treason; Paul Ryan turned the other cheek, possibly because the DNC had some offsetting blackmail information to use against the RNC. Who knows?
There are two likely trails to follow here: (1) is the information being transmitted to Pakistan. Who, what, when where, why? (2) In a very similar circumstance, which may or may not be related, simultaneously Hillary Clinton's illegal server was transmitting to China real time information from the State Department and the Secretary of State's office.
Because of the similarity in mode, method, timeframe, and personalities involved, and the subsequent coverups, I'd pursue both questions as one investigation. RobSLive Free or Die 22:07, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
IOWs, the setup Imran Awan had in house was very similar to the setup Hillary Clinton had in her house, designed to transmit real time national security information to foreign entities. RobSLive Free or Die 22:19, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
My guess, and I'll take a shot in the dark, is this treasonous activity on the part of the Democrat party from its highest levels and the Obama administration was a sale of national security information in exchange for illegal foreign donations, some of which ended up in the hands of Democrat candidates at all levels, federal and state. Conversely, Paul Ryan and his cohort Reince Prebius may have been involved in something of equal dubiousness, having turned a blind eye and assisted in the coverup. RobSLive Free or Die 22:26, 16 May 2020 (EDT)
Not to go off on a tangent, but let me editorialize some observations:
  • Clinton opponents waited for years for prosecutorial action against Clinton. It never happened.
  • Democrat critics waited for years for prosecutorial action in the Awan case. It never happened.
  • Trump critics waited for years for prosecutorial action in the Mueller probe. It never happened.
  • Obama critics have waited for years for prosecutorial action from John Durham. The precedents aren't encouraging.
In the Clinton case, Hillary Clinton may have received a secret pardon from Obama early on, making the FBI probe moot and window dressing. If true, Obama granting a pardon, and Hillary accepting a pardon for felonious conduct and treason, would have been an issue before Hillary received the DNC nomination and in the general election. This would simply amount to one more count in the Obamagate scandal for misuse of the FBI to conduct a loaded investigation and interfere in 2016 election as cover for a secret pardon to deceive the American people. RobSLive Free or Die 23:15, 16 May 2020 (EDT)

Articles for Deletion

Hi Rob. I have selected the article "Indian Occupied Kashmir" for deletion. The article was created by RepublicanRichard who is parroting the same narrative that Pakistani Military and ISI propagandists push. The sources he uses are all Turkish and Pakistani.Bytemsbu (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2020 (EDT)
Actually, I wasn't aware there was an alleged Indian occupation of Kashmir, but I'm not surprised. Last I heard a few days ago was a military confrontation at the China/Indian border. RobSLive Free or Die 23:30, 24 May 2020 (EDT)
Just to give you background, Pakistan invaded the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in the year 1947. Under the threat of the Pakistani invasion, the Maharaja of the Jammu and Kashmir princely state acceded to India. You can read more about it here [[1]].Bytemsbu (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2020 (EDT)
I made some changes. Why don't you add that to a ==History== section and then more information could be added about the current dispute. RobSLive Free or Die 23:55, 24 May 2020 (EDT)
Right now, the page is an orphan; you just need to watch for other page links to "Indian Occupied Kashmir" and replace it with "the disputed territory of Jammu_and_Kashmir." RobSLive Free or Die 23:58, 24 May 2020 (EDT)
I screwed up - I misspelled the name. Now it needs to be deleted. Can you Merge the contents of Jammu_and_Kashmi at Jammu_and_Kashmir? RobSLive Free or Die 00:13, 25 May 2020 (EDT)
I'll see what I can do.Bytemsbu (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2020 (EDT)
Sorry, I think I'm half awake. I am going to take all the contents from Jammu_and_Kashmi and merge them at Jammu_and_Kashmir, then deleted the misspelled title. Jammu_and_Kashmir then needs to be reorganized. RobSLive Free or Die 00:24, 25 May 2020 (EDT)

Running a Checkuser

I have a suspicion that RepublicanRichard is actually a Pakistani Muslim who works at the University of Houston. I have given more details about this at [[2]]. Can you run a checkuser on his account to see if the IP's are coming from Houston?Bytemsbu (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2020 (EDT)
Simply because somebody may or may not be a Muslim isn't cause to invade their privacy; while the user's creation of a somewhat biased or slanted article may be controversial, it didn't really contain anything that couldn't be fix. Bottomline, he hasn't done anything yet to warrant blocking. But I hope you keep me informed on these contributions cause I just can't be everywhere at once monitoring everything. Thank you. RobSLive Free or Die 14:47, 25 May 2020 (EDT)
I think the fact that he is Muslim is an important detail. I question how this person even found out about this website. Which only leads me to believe that it could be an attempt to purposely infiltrate Conservapedia.Bytemsbu (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2020 (EDT)
Latest news reports show Pakistan supporting Uighur Muslims in the war against Communist China; [3] India is a solid ally, but if Pakistan were to change sides then we'd have something to worry about. RobSLive Free or Die 20:06, 26 May 2020 (EDT)
Pakistan is hand in glove with China. They refuse to condemn China's actions against the Uighurs and in fact will dodge around it when questioned [[4]]. Bytemsbu (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2020 (EDT)


Has there been a confirmation yet whether RepublicanRichard's IP address goes back to Houston?Bytemsbu (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2020 (EDT)
Also, I believe that the IP of Kamran Riaz's Blog site is (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2020 (EDT)
I haven't checked cause he hasn't really violated any site policy. RobSLive Free or Die 15:55, 26 May 2020 (EDT)

Created a New Page

I created a new page about the country East Turkestan which is currently under Chinese occupation. Can I have some help categorizing it? Bytemsbu (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2020 (EDT)
I added a cat. but it remains an orphan. RobSLive Free or Die 23:06, 26 May 2020 (EDT)

Map of China

Can the Map of China be changed so that Tibet and East Turkestan are shown as separate countries? Bytemsbu (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
What about Outer (or Inner, depending on context) Mongolia? RobSLive Free or Die 16:37, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
I think you are referring to South Mongolia. But yes, that should be shown as separate.Bytemsbu (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
I agree we definitely need a good map showing disputed territories with the indigenous populations; replacing the main map in the China article is probably a long way off. Alternatively, we have a People's Republic of China article where I believe a whole section with subsections on disputed territories should be included. I'd be happy to work with you on that.
Also, find a good map and I'll upload it. RobSLive Free or Die 18:31, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
I found some good antique maps, [[5]], [[6]]. Bytemsbu (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
There here. RobSLive Free or Die 22:20, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
So, am I now able to upload it to the article on China?Bytemsbu (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2020 (EDT)
Why don't you start with the PRC article and we can develop some good narrative text, then integrate things into History of China and eventually the full China article. RobSLive Free or Die 22:30, 27 May 2020 (EDT)

Hi there

Hey rob I need something to work on. Ty BorisKhlivski (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2020 (EDT)

How about Trump administration and the CCP with this as your primary source. RobSLive Free or Die 22:28, 27 May 2020 (EDT)

Scandinavia is not socialist

The bulk of Scandinavian workers go to work just like everyone else in all other western non-socialist countries; that is, they go to work (for their own paychecks) in companies or enterprises that are mostly privately-owned and that operate on a mostly for-profit basis (paying all due taxes of course, and so on). The workers can freely unionize and negotiate and such, have full freedom of movement in employment, and are not restricted at all by the State. The main difference is they have higher and more extensive taxation systems there, which (partly) help to fund the ‘welfare state’ (the benefits, etc, available for citizens).

The prime minister of Denmark even said Denmark isn't socialist. https://www.thelocal.dk/20151101/danish-pm-in-us-denmark-is-not-socialist

Why do you even want Scandinavia not to be socialist. Don't you love capitalism and want successful countries to be included in it. Also they do have higher political and civil liberties than in the US. It's okay for the US not to be number one on everything. I'm data-driven, not ideology driven and do not think everyone not on my side is evil.

There has been a loss of basic human rights in socialist Sweden, particularly free speech rights. 23:11, 4 June 2020 (EDT)

Right... Sweden has better political and civil liberties. https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2020

Right. If you campaign against an elected parliamentarians voting record, you get charged with a hate speech crime. RobSLive Free or Die 14:19, 5 June 2020 (EDT)

Just a few questions

I'm only curious about a couple of things.

1. I know that Nazism stands for "National Socialism" and that Hitler did do SOME socialist things with his government. However, I have been told before that Stalin did WAY more socialist things with his government. And yes, I know Stalin was a communist. All that aside, I had also heard before that Hitler was NOT even MOSTLY a socialist (just partially), but rather more of a fascist. Is that true? If not, please give me an explanation.

2. Were KGB agents during the Cold War capable of being on any organized crime syndicates' payrolls, or in other words bribed by mobsters? If not, why?

Thanks in advance for the answers. (King Conservative (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2020 (EDT)King Conservative)

As to (1), just read the history of Volkswagon, (Das Volk, as in Das Volk RepubliK of China). Volkswagon, which today is a privately held stock company, was originally founded as a state enterprise, owned by das volk, run by das volk, to create and serve a product for das volk (verses Beemers and Mercedes which only "the rich" could afford). It's hard to find a good history of Volkswagon; during the war das Volk had to use foreign volk as slave labor to keep the company going because of manpower shortages. After the war it was privatized. The big question is why it hasn't it been forced into bankruptcy, like I.G. Farben, by lawsuits from victims? Anyway, Power To The People!
National Socialism is a collectivist mentality based on racial identity politics. It ignored the call for globalist revolution from Moscow in 1919, Workers of the World Unite! This is because Germany was the original home of Cultural Marxism from the Frankfurt School after the failure of the 1848 Revolutions. The collectivist mindset, racial identity politics, and anti-democratic values were set in place during the culture wars (kultur kampf) over the span of two generations during the Second Reich. A cultural revolution was complete by 1921.
These Marxist values were totally alien to Russia in 1918, and Nazis weren't about to bend the knee to some Third World Russians who imagined they headed a globalist people's revolution whose main target for its first takeover was Germany.
(2) A difficult question. Very likely not. CIA used mafia hitmen as early as the 50s to give the U.S. government deniability. The way to study this subject is to examine the role of organized crime in USSR and its relationship with the KGB as well as CIA's relationship with organized crime in the US. Russian organized crime today was greatly strengthened by the fall of the USSR as many ex-KGB, which was also the border guard, went to work full time for the Russian mafia who controlled smuggling of foreign made goods to get around economic sanctions, narcotics trafficing, and human trafficing. And controlled the internal distribution networks. It was a joint partnership between organized crime and the KGB, and why das volk {Russian: narodny) were so angered by government corruption. While the US never suffered from economic sanctions imposed by a foreign power, CIA's relations with narco-terrorist weapons smugglers outside the US is well known. RobSLive Free or Die 12:13, 8 June 2020 (EDT)
Another thing to keep in mind: Hitler was a far-leftist who, after failing in liberal arts, blamed all his problems on the Jews whom he deemed privileged and the root source of every problem on Earth (akin to leftist anti-Zionists today). --LiberaltearsJust say no to quid pro joe! | Free Roger Stone! 12:22, 8 June 2020 (EDT)
"The Jews" was used by Nazis the same as "the rich" in U.S.. Marxist rhetoric and terminology is always aimed at about a 14 year old mentality . The People, Das Volk, Narodny. In Hawaii, Frank Marshall Davis wrote of 'plain people', which encompassed all non-white groups, Asians, Samoans, Pacific Islanders, Philippinos, resident Chinese and Japanese, etc. I'm beginning to see this type of rhetoric from AOC and others, where 'plain people' differ from 'the rich', i.e. white people (poor kids are just as smart as white kids). RobSLive Free or Die 12:32, 8 June 2020 (EDT)
If there ever was a socialist dream come true, it is Volkswagon (The People's Car). Having seized power, the workers went beyond seizing the means of production and answered critics who claimed Socialism is incapable of innovation by starting their own state run manufacturing enterprise (state planning) with the latest technology. Compare this with modern China. RobSLive Free or Die 12:40, 8 June 2020 (EDT)
This targeting of adolescent minds with slogans rather than policy proposals we've just seen take place with "Defund the Police!" Remember "Abolish ICE!" which Democrat presidential candidates signed on to? We're not even discussing the policy implications of that brilliant proposal, and now have moved on to city councils debating the next step. RobSLive Free or Die 12:50, 8 June 2020 (EDT)

Karl Marx

Just to let you know, the information I put about Karl Marx did NOT originate from me. It originated from James Paul Wickstrom, it you know who that is. (King Conservative (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2020 (EDT)King Conservative)

Not really and who cares, other than the hate mongers at SPLC and other brainwashed individuals. RobSLive Free or Die 14:23, 16 June 2020 (EDT)

In the News

For the news headline, we need to add that the Indian Army killed over 43 PLA troops in retaliation.Bytemsbu (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2020 (EDT)

Ok. Let me check for updates. I'm getting conflicting reports on the North Korean situation and I'd look to pair the two together. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:19, 17 June 2020 (EDT)
I'm not sure of the veracity of that Indian report; it could simply be 20 x 2 = 40 + 3 from the first day reports = 43 dead in retaliation. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:29, 17 June 2020 (EDT)
U.S intelligence has reported that 35 Chinese were killed.Bytemsbu (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2020 (EDT)
Good. I'll use ibtimes link. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:45, 17 June 2020 (EDT)
(Note: I sometimes try to avoid using Fox to avoid being dismissed out of hand or being accused of being a brainwashed Fox echo chamber). RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:50, 17 June 2020 (EDT)


Nobs add a hyperlink to your story. --Jpatt 09:44, 24 June 2020 (EDT)

Please quickly block this vandal

Hi RobSmith, can you please block MagaMr and delete the vandalized revision? Thanks! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 01:44, 29 June 2020 (EDT)

Whoa whoa!

Rob you have doubled the size of MPR! VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 02:21, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

What do you mean? in length or in font size? I can't keep up with what I'd like to post. RobSTrump 2Q2Q
Recently I've taken to storing links there that get added to pages later, there's so much news. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 02:24, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

Just a thought

Maybe you guys should declare the epidemic over! I've heard some people trying to do that. VargasMilan (talk) Wednesday, 10:52, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

Covid? No way. Now we got covid II and bubonic plague to worry about. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 10:59, 8 July 2020 (EDT)


Is it necessary to have administrative privileges to post in the time when normal posting is locked? Or can this also be granted to newbies like me. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 11:21, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

What do you mean? Are certain pages locked you're trying to edit? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:29, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
I think NishantXavier might be referring to nighttime mode, where editing pages is limited to users with either the "edit" or "Administrator" tag. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 11:32, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
Okay. Andy grants those rights. Nishant could ask on Andy's page. I can put in a good word if there's a delay. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:47, 8 July 2020 (EDT)
Lots of luck, I've been here for several years longer than NishantXavier and I STILL don't have edit rights. Andy won't answer me. Shobson20 (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
At least you have block rights though, Shobson20. And thank you for blocking this troll! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 01:02, 9 July 2020 (EDT)
I also added a speedy deletion template to the sole article Nefioe created to get rid of what is obviously a very poorly-written article that exposes just how little of an education the writer received (lacking punctuation, doesn't capitalize some words, basically one long run-on sentence) in favor of liberal indoctrination at whatever school he attended/probably attends now. Northwest (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2020 (EDT)

Please delete this page and block this troll

Hi RobSmith, can you please delete this page and block the clown who created it? Thank you! —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 23:43, 8 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Rob. Do you think Conservapedia should have its own "Project 100 Million" like Network 211 has

Rob, since we both agree Christians should strive to work by God's Grace that many souls are won for Christ, do you think it would be a good idea for Conservapedia to have its own "100 Million souls for Christ" like Network 211 does? "Project 100 Million: Network211 has a Mission to reach 100 Million for Jesus Christ by 2028 through Internet evangelism." https://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Commission#Project_100_Million If you agree, I will propose it to Andy. I think we can aim for 100 Million by 2030. It would get others more excited and involved as well in the important and necessary work of winning souls for Christ. The Bible says, he that winneth souls is wise. But we can only do it if Christians agree to work together. We can have our own theological questions, but we can discuss that in the background. Recall that the Bible promises a Crown in Heaven to all who persevere to the end with faith in Christ, and St. Paul the Apostle indicates the jewels on that Crown will be the souls we have won for Christ. We can have a Testimonials page, where people who have come to know and love Jesus Christ Our Lord can share their own personal testimony, and can mention if they came through CP.

Your thoughts? I'm going to ask a few others also, but I thought I would ask you first. Lord Bless, NX NishantXavierFor Christ the King 01:58, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

No. Authenticity is the key. You need the real word of God to impart to non-believers or share between believers, and we just don't have it here. The Word needs to be imparted organically, rather than thru some official program that advertisers one thing and turns out to be a bait and switch. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:48, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Sadly, Anti-Catholic Protestantism has greatly delayed the fulfillment of the Great Commission, and sadly, it continues to. I will have to ask others. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 09:51, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

You need the Word, brother. God's word, not man's. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 09:56, 12 July 2020 (EDT)

Useful Notes about Catholicism

Catholicism thrived in an age when less than 10% of the human population could read and the Scriptures were in a language that most people didn't understand. In that environment, the laity were dependent on leaders to tell them about God and religion but they couldn't read the scriptures for themselves to fact-check the leaders. When you have a situation like that, leaders can easily make stuff up and no one will know the difference. Today, all of Scripture has been translated and everyone can read it for themselves and find things inconsistent with what they were taught like Martin Luther did. Catholics no longer have the institutional power they once had, so they have no choice but to try to deal this from their own interpretation of Scripture which requires a lot of ad hoc reinterpretation and extrapolation. They also argue from history and the "church fathers" but I suggest reading "The Gnostic Origins of Roman Catholicism" by Ken Johnson. It's full of quotes from the church fathers that don't support Catholic doctrine. Among them are notes that Linus, not Peter, was the first Bishop of Rome, that the Apostles did not pass down any kind of special oral tradition, just the scriptures, and that Purgatory is based on a Gnostic heresy. Supposedly, some Protestants read the writings of the church fathers and converted to Catholicism, but many Catholics also read the Bible for themselves and realized it wasn't consistent with the Catholic traditions they had been taught. Shobson20 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

Well said, and that ain't the half of it. Dataclarifier never got the memo that the war on Protestantism is over, and the church needs to walk back a few millennia of bad doctrine. Rome wasn't built in a day, and reform of the Roman Church won't happen in a day. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:18, 14 July 2020 (EDT)
And as you so clearly articulate, by the 3rd or 4th century already church leaders, and by this I'm referring to parish priests who could read and understand Latin, were already being instructed to ignore what they were reading from scripture and teach interpretations coming from the central bureaucracy, what we know today as the Vatican Politburo. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:28, 14 July 2020 (EDT)

These claims about Catholicism are mistaken, Shobson. It is historically demonstrable, and admitted by many learned Protestant historians, that Saint Peter was the first Pope or Bishop of Rome, and Pope Linus was the second. For more on that, please see: "The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

St. Peter (d. 64 or 67) St. Linus (67-76) St. Anacletus (76-88) St. Clement I (88-97) St. Evaristus (97-105) St. Alexander I (105-115) St. Sixtus I (115-125) St. Telesphorus (125-136) St. Hyginus (136-140) St. Pius I (140-155) St. Anicetus (155-166) St. Soter (166-175) St. Eleutherius (175-189) St. Victor I (189-199) "It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)" http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

After the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, Linus was the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome." -Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.2
"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.3 Shobson20 (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2020 (EDT)
I know how you like to argue, so let me anticipate your response by saying this, if Linus was the successor to Peter, Eusebius would have said "Linus succeeded Peter with the episcopate of the church at Rome." Instead, it says he was the "first to receive." The language implies that the episcopate of the church at Rome was only established after Peter and Paul's deaths. Shobson20 (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Rob Smith/Shobson. Would either of you kindly consider participating in this project? https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:150_Million_Souls_for_Christ_the_King Please consider giving a public shoutout to Jesus Christ our King and encouraging others to do the same. The more who come to believe that Jesus Christ is King, the more quickly the Peace of Heaven will come to us all. 07:24, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Hi Shobson. Yes. St. Linus was the first Pope after the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul. That was in 67 A.D. From 42 A.D. to 67 A.D. St. Peter was the first Pope or Bishop of Rome. This can be abundantly proved from the same Church Fathres you cite including St. Irenaeus and Bp. Eusebius. I will cite St. Jerome: "Saint Jerome relates: "Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. He wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him. Then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to him. On the other hand, the books, of which one is entitled his Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Revelation, a fifth his Judgment are rejected as apocryphal."Buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way he is venerated by the whole world." [8] The second year of Claudius is 42 A.D. and the 14th year of Nero is 67 A.D. St. Peter's 25 year reign as Bishop of Rome was therefore from 42-67 A.D." https://www.conservapedia.com/Saint_Peter

Rather than get into a long Patristics argument (which is not my thing) I refer you to this: http://www.peacebyjesus.net/Ancients_on_Issues.html The guy who made this can be reached here: https://www.blogger.com/profile/5048749 Shobson20 (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2020 (EDT)

Dealing with papists

When dealing with papists, mention what Jesus said about a good tree producing good fruit and a bad tree producing bad fruit.

It can be argued that the Roman Catholic Church is filled with more corruption that non-Christian religions. Are the Buddhists well-known for their leaders engaging in pedophilia and homosexuality? No, they are not. But the Catholic priests and its leaders are!

Catholic Church = corruption. Wikignome72 (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

Is Anti-Catholic name-calling really helpful. Should Catholics refer to Protestants as "heretics"? In fact, we call them as separated Christian brethren. Your claims are mistaken: The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization on the planet, She has Orphanages, Hospitals, Charities, Soup Kitchens etc on every continent and most every country on the planet. That is Her teaching and it is what the great Saints of the Church like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Vincent De Paul and Mother St. Theresa of Calcutta beside countless others have lived by.

As for bad eggs, who don't determine what a Church is and teaches - even among the many various Protestant denominations, there is a significant percentage, if you want to go there. For more on that, "Finally, in the authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent.[xxii]" https://www.catholicleague.org/sexual-abuse-in-social-context-clergy-and-other-professionals/

But all this is a distraction from the real issue: Catholic Chrisitianity is the Faith taught by God Himself and the Catholic Church is the Church founded by God Himself 2000 years ago. After the unsuccessful attempts to show St. Linus was the first Pope of the Catholic Church, we must ask why it is historically demnonstrable that Protestantism began 1500 years after the Lord and the Apostles. And Martin Luther and his friends were the first members of that new faith. The true Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Church that goes back to the writers of the Bible, is older than that. NishantXavierFor Christ the King 08:38, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

Regarding your statement about about Catholic orphanages and charity: "Church leaders and government watchdogs covered up 'endemic' and 'ritualised' abuse of thousands of children in Roman Catholic schools and orphanages in the Irish Republic, a shocking report revealed yesterday."[7]
If abusing kids in orphanages qualifies you for being charitable, then this is a sad state of affairs.Conservative (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
As I laid out before, the doctrines of the Catholic Church thrived in a culture of biblical ignorance (edit: and illiteracy) and Protestantism merely came about once people were able to actually read the bible for themselves and realize that many of the things in the Bible were not consistent with what they were being taught by their leaders, for example, when Martin Luther read Romans 2:28 "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." he realized it went against the faith and works doctrine that he was being taught. And before you say "ceremonial law," Romans 2:21 says "you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal?" and 22 says "You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?" This indicates that it is the moral law, not ceremonial law. Before you say "James 2:24" Here: [8] And here's the answer to all the "prooftexts" about Baptism: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Even today, Catholics are leaving the Catholic Church when they study the Bible for themselves. And not just lay-Catholics, but Priests and Nuns. Shobson20 (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
Here's the problem with your argument, Wikignome72: just because some people in the Catholic Church have been involved in awful behaviors does not mean that the Church as a whole is corrupt. If you see here, you'll read that sex abuse isn't somehow unique to Catholic clergy. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 11:00, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
Sex abuse scandals are the least of Catholicism's historical problems. [16] And before you bring up things that the Protestant churches have done, keep in mind that Protestants have no trouble acknowledging the wrong done in the name of God. They have no trouble acknowledging Martin Luther's anti-semitism. We don't believe that the Apostles passed on their special gifts to their successors, and we don't think that present-day church leaders have any kind of Divine Inspiration, we think that they are fallible men who can be wrong, and we don't idolize them the way Catholics idolize their saints. Here's a Lutheran Pastor summing up the Pope's unbiblical declarations (and the damage control): [17] Here's Catholics watching and not getting it: [18] And here's someone who does get it: [19] But since the Catholic Church codified the doctrine of Papal infallibility at Vatican I in 1870, they can't question him and have to do these mental gymnastics. Shobson20 (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
IMO, focusing on the Word of God will bring out truth. Advocates for the Roman Church are up front about it: they do not accept the Word of God as the final authority and add such things as "Apostolic tradition", encyclicals, communiques out of creed conventions, etc.
God is not democratic; God never empowered a committee to vote upon who will be Peter's successor, what sin is, what the Word of God is, etc. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:33, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
As an 8 year old altar boy, I remember asking the priest after a reading from Hebrews, "What does that mean, we are all priests?" and realized in short order even he didn't know. You would think someone who dedicated his life, with extra education and vows could answer a simple bible question. Evidently they still don't teach the Bible in Catholic seminary. All the teach is Roman Catholic apologetics -- which absolutely is not, and has nothing to do with, the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:54, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
Liberal Protestantism, which is unbibiblical Protestantism, is bad too. It is heretical.
On the other hand, I have been going to conservative Protestant churches for a lot of years and not once have I heard a case of pedophilia. But the same is not true of the Catholic churches in my area. The diocese is my area has gone into bankruptcy due to all its pedophilia cases.
I am an ex-catholic who was always a closet Protestant. Even as a Catholic, I thought the Catholic Church focused too much on Mary and the Catholic saints. I got called into the monsenior's office and he asked me why my knowledge of Mary and the saints was so poor. I chose to remain silent about this matter rather than tell him what I thought. This was probably one of the rare occasions I kept silent about my dissenting opinions!
The Catholic church is a corrupt joke. Its corruptness is long standing, but in the last 40 years its corruptness has gone to a whole new stratospheric level. Conservative (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
(reply to Shobson20) Before you continue going about on some anti-Catholic antagonism, maybe you should recognize the sin of envy; remember this? Oh, and not to mention here as well. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 14:04, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
You talk about "anti-Catholic antagonism" but this whole thing was actually started by Dataclarifier being an over-zealous Catholic. Northwest is Catholic too, and he's been here since 2012, but he hasn't gotten involved in any Catholic vs Protestant arguments. I've been mostly staying out of this and letting RobSmith deal with the now three Catholic Zealots here. In my experience, Catholics are always the ones who start arguments with Protestants. This is Conservapedia, not Catholicopdeia, and no matter how much you might think you're right, both sides have to accept the fact that their position is not going to be the dominant position here. Shobson20 (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
Good points. Me personally, I am neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. I am Christian. I owe my early interest in God's Word to hearing it read in Roman Catholic masses, testifying to the truth of God's word, faith cometh by hearing. But in 8 years of Catholic religion classes and catechism, I never once studied the Bible. In fact, I was warned away from it. And personally, I find it offensive to be constantly accused of being a Protestant. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:48, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
I didn't leave the catholic and universal church of Jews and gentiles, the Roman Catholic church left me - before I was born. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:48, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
And the fact there are virtually no Jews today who are members of the Roman church questions whether the the Roman church even has a claim on calling itself 'Catholic'. Ichabod - the glory has departed. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:03, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
You wouldn't expect Jews to become Catholic since the Catholic Church has been historically so anti-Semitic (having a "Jews killed Jesus" mentality). Most of the issues you've been discussing have been argued by much more qualified people for years. The fact that you weren't taught the Bible would explain why Catholics always argue from history and tradition and only argue from the Bible when the Bible is used against them. The Bible is, and always will be the primary source, against which all else, including the "church fathers" will be judged. This is what Sola Scriptura really means. It could probably be better summarized as "scripture first." Another claptrap I've seen Catholics get stuck on is an interpretation of certain Bible verses that depends on a pre-conceived Catholic idea read into the scripture such as 1 Corinthians 3:13 being a reference to Purgatory. Since more qualified people have been debating this topic, maybe you should start trying to wind this down. It's gone on longer than it should and has spilled over into to too many talk pages. I was hoping that by talking on your talk page I could talk to you without the Catholic zealots getting involved, but clearly that is not the case. Shobson20 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
The word "catholic" means Jew and gentile, or universal. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. But the Roman church has become strictly a gentile church with its anti-Semitism. And it doesn't even meet the definition of "called out ones" to be separate from the world. It rejects the finished work of Christ on the cross. It rejects the Word of God for doctrines of men. It's like Voltaire's description of the Millennial Kingdom or Tausand Jahre Reich: It is neither holy, nor Roman, nor catholic, nor a body of called of ones (saints). RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:18, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
I've had this debate with Roman Catholics since I left the church 50 odd years ago. I say, "the Catholic church does not believe in the Bible". I usually get one of two response. The first is an honest admission that it is true and has been replaced by a Magisterium because the ancient texts are incomprehensible, outdated, and not relevant to the modern era, or secondly a claim that they do believe in the bible, with additional texts just like Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses have (here's a theory: Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses were inspired by the success the Roman Catholic Church - you can have your sin and be religious too). RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:35, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
Bottomline: I have to speak harshly sometimes cause when I speak in the spiritual language of scripture, they just don't hear it. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 21:36, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
Look at the date on this: [20] I put in a request that long ago and Andy never responded. This has been the story of my life. I've always had to raise my voice to get attention. It's highly unlikely that Andy would have noticed if I hadn't made some more noise. Put yourself in my shoes, how would you feel being ignored for 7 months, and seeing others get preferential treatment over you? Before you judge anyone, put yourself in their perspective. Preferential treatment is as wrong as envy. Shobson20 (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
According to here, you haven't made more than 1,000 edits despite having been on this site longer than I have. And looking at your contributions here, you haven't made more than 150 edits in the past seven months. And even then, most of it were either reverting vandalism or on essays. So just what exactly do you mean by putting myself in your perspective? For the past months, I worked on and created key content pages. You? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 15:16, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
I've created several original essays that promote conservatism, and Andy doesn't differentiate between essay and mainspace editing when it comes to meaningful contributions to this site. I work mostly on essays because the Manual of Style has more leeway. Shobson20 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
Preferential treatment would be the case only if you worked as hard as NishantXavier and I did and still didn't get promoted, though the fact was that we had made more contributions over the last few months. Also, about "being ignored", some of my posts on Talk:Main Page received no responses from other editors. Oh, and no one else participated in this debate I started. I was rather disappointed, and just tried keeping it to myself without complaining about it. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! 15:25, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
The essays that I created also got no contributions from other editors except for 1990sguy. Shobson20 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
That's an interesting question. Perhaps it's the way you framed the debate. It is for the people of Maine to decide if Susan Collins deserves re-election. Most conservative voters and even others resent outsiders interfering in their elections. Outsiders just aren't familiar enough with Maine politics to comment. While there is place for outsiders to comment on the job elected officials from other states are doing, IMO the way you frame the debate isn't effective. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:43, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
To ask the people of 49 other states with no say in the outcome if Susan Collins deserves re-election ignores the central issue in question - the issues that matter to the people of Maine. The way the discussion and debate is framed smacks of liberalism - central planning, big government, ignoring local issues, promotion of a central big government mindset and ideology that ignores the issues of importance to states. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:53, 16 July 2020 (EDT)
It's no different than listening to the BBC and The Guardian trash Trump. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:56, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

The esoteric nature of Roman church doctrine

(ec) To Nishant: This may not be the place to raise this, but there is a long standing debate among some Bible students if what Paul references as people who are yet carnal are Christians at all. They are not. You cannot be carnally minded and be born of the spirit at the same time A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Nishant, you have been asked several times about the spiritual life of a believer, and can only give answers related to carnality and worldliness. Your "separated brethren" answer is a joke; what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? You just dig yourself a deeper hole with your reliance on Roman Church doctrine rather than the Word of God.
As Isaiah the prophet said, Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils.
[I post this here because it directly relates to the discussion we are having on 1 Corinthians 3:13-14 elsewhere.] RobSTrump 2Q2Q

These verses describe the problems with Roman church doctrine:

14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

How do we lift the veil? Ye must have the mind of Christ. Datclarifier denies that Christian laity have access to the mind of Christ, and must accept the dictates of an esoteric Magisterium.

  • Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils
  • teaching for doctrines the commandments of men
  • where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:42, 16 July 2020 (EDT)

What Happened to You?

Did someone in the Catholic Church really hurt you? Did you simply read the Bible and find that it didn't support the Catholic doctrines you were raised on? Or was there something else? Shobson20 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

In parochial school I heard the word read everyday at mass for 8 years, and it didn't square up with what we were taught in catechism and religion class. The priests and nuns couldn't resolve the questions where the Roman Church and bible seemed to be in direct conflict. I wasn't alone in this - I have three brothers and numerous friends who also were confused by the contradictions. In those days Catholic law forbade independent reading of the scripture.
We used to joke about the Assumption of Mary, that Church law and church tradition "assumed" Mary was levitated cause it appears nowhere in the Bible. Image the shock years later when you discover that the joke is literally true. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 08:10, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Is there a way to contact you privately?

I wish to find a means of contacting you without any other voices listening. I have DavidB4's email, you could tell him to send contact info. Shobson20 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Re: Catholic vs. Protestant debates on talk pages

RobSmith, I know you do your best to bring in web traffic which Conservapedians appreciate.

I have a small request.

Conservapedia has debate pages. For example, here is a debate page: Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?.

Having a debate on a specific issue, would make the debate exchanges more organized and debates with debate titles on the page would be more organized.

I would also suggest setting up debate guidelines. Because right now the back and forth between the Protestants and Catholics is getting repetitive. And because it is on talk pages, it tends not to be very organized.

What I see now is a whole bunch of repetitive and poorly organized material on talk pages dealing with Catholic vs. Protestant issues that is not bringing web traffic.

If you are going to have debates, for the sake of Conservapedia readers, have them on debate pages. Conservative (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

User: Dataclarifier, User: NishantXavier and User:IndependentSkeptic

Dataclarifier was acting in an unreasonable way - especially near the end of his tenure. It was impossible to work out having a readable and objective article on topics dealing with Protestant vs. Catholic issues. If Wikipedia can work out Protestant vs. Catholic issues on a number of topics, it can be done. But it was impossible to do this with Dataclarifier as he often took a "my way or the highway" approach near the end of his tenure at Conservapedia. Dataclarifier set off this whole Protestant vs. Catholic conflict at Conservapedia. Frankly, it never had to occur. Debate pages and working out having objective pages on matters dealing with Protestantism vs. Catholicism issues would have been much better.

I don't know enough about the posts of User: NishantXavier and User:IndependentSkeptic to comment intelligently on these editors. Frankly, because the material was not on debate pages, I decided that I was not going to read a lot of poorly organized and repetitive material.Conservative (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Suffice to say, although they are trying to lay all of the blame on RobS and me, they've done plenty of their own pushing and had a "my way or the highway" attitude just like Dataclarifier. I've been trying to distance myself from this debate, but still want to communicate with RobS. Off of CP, prefereably. Shobson20 (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
  • I am of Paul, I am of Apollos. Are ye not carnal?
I've said so from the beginning I am not a Protestant and am not interested in Protestant vs. Catholic issues. I'd like to see the Roman church reform itself, if such a thing were possible without God's intervention. Yet I'm constantly attacked with anti-Protestant vitriol (just like the white BLM protesters calling black cops racist, if that makes any sense. People are just brainwashed with Satanic/Marxist nonsense and dig in their heels). RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:07, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
I don't know who came up with the Conservapedia debate pages concept. I suspect it may have been Andy Schlafly who is the owner of Conservapedia. If so, this is definitely one of the things that Andy Schlafly got right. Debate pages look far more encyclopedic and they tend to be more intellectual than a bunch of unorganized material and repetitive material on talk pages. Conservative (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith, the only thing I am asking is that the issue is resolved on debate pages. In addition, things can be worked on on the relevant talk pages of articles dealing with doctrinal issues (for example, material on infant baptism topic can be put on that page or its talk page. Same thing with other issues such as "Papal infallibility", etc.).
Asking that these exchanges be done in a more organized way is not an unreasonable request. I am just being an advocate for the wiki's readers. Readers want material to be organized/relevant.Conservative (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Look at User talk:Dataclarifier. It has over 310,000 hits, making it one of the top 50 all time trafficed pages (not counted in Popular pages @ Special pages, incidentally). My own talk page has risen probably 27,000 hits in the just the past few weeks, and NS' comparably. So there a big following out there evidently.
Moving these discussions to Debate project pages would count in the Popular pages, but they'd still probably appear as the same disehevelled messes they are on User pages. Then again, the viewing public evidently likes it that way. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 15:22, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
(reply to Conservative) Ah yes, of course it's Dataclarifier's fault, somehow. He was "acting in an unreasonable way". If that's going too far, then what about zealously spewing anti-Catholic sentiment (see here)? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 16:19, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Hmm, no reply yet. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 16:39, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
My 2 cents: I've declared from the beginning my only interest is in discussing the Word of God PERIOD When I discuss the Word of God, I get accused by people who call themselves Roman Catholics of (a) Protestantism (of which I am not) and (b) anti-Catholicism (of which I could care less if the persons making the accusations reject scripture. They say in one breath, "Catholics accept scripture", and in this next breathe refute and deny scripture. They don't want to discuss bible; they want to have a Catholic v. Protestant food fight. I'm ill equipped for such a debate cause I'm not Protestant and never studied Protestantism. I know way more about Roman Catholic doctrine and Biblical doctrine, and particularly where the two intersect and where there is a divergence. But I am constantly lied to by these supposed Roman Catholic defenders who claim the Roman church follows biblical doctrine, yet know nothing of the Bible and are fully indoctrinated with Roman Catholic doctrine whose foundational precepts, if you listened to them, is anti-Protestant and anti-Bible). RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:51, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
RobSmith, there are 3 branches of Christianity: Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox and Catholicism. You do not identify as a Protestant, but you are a Protestant (I know you are definitely not a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox). Conservative (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
I'm a small "c" catholic who has been blessed with many Protestant friends and their fellowship, as well as Roman Catholics.
More than a week ago I asked Nishant a simple question which could resolve all of this - in response to his posting that the Holy Spirit is given at baptism I ask for a scriptural cite. Still waiting. DC and I/S have made similar claims and have ignored the same request. Yet all three pile on more and more drivel upon drivel, either attacking their imaginary foes, or more bogus claims about the Word of God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:59, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Liberaltears, you have to draw the line somewhere. And lately as far as the Catholic Church, the sheer volume of pedophilia, homosexuality and Vatican bank/financial scandals is overwhelming. The diocese in my area had to declare bankrupty. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. The Catholic Church is a den of iniquity. Conservative (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
It's what happens when the Word of God is abandoned in favor of doctrines of men. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:05, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
It's obvious in listening and talking to some of these users: their loyalty is not of God. Their love is not for God. Their loyalty and love is toward church. And this church is puffed up in its pride. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:05, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Guys, just honor my reasonable request to take things to debate pages. There is nothing unreasonable about my request.

As far as Dataqualifier's talk page having a big view count, it was due to the massive amount of times it appeared in the "recent changes" log.

If you bring your material to debate pages, it will be more organized, less repetitive and it will also garner web traffic because title pages of web pages are more search engine friendly.Conservative (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Wow, you're still going about on this talk page to tell us that we should be leaving here to debate somewhere else (🤣). And if are focused on attracting readers in terms of our pages showing up on search engines, then what about making ads to put on YouTube, as I mentioned here? —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 17:13, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
It's funny whenever I spot the inconsistencies of the Catholic-baiters here. Conservative spams messages on user talk pages telling us to move discussions to debate pages while continuing to talk here. And over here yesterday, RobSmith accuses me of wanting to change the subject while changing to subject to focusing on Dataclarifier.
🤣🤣🤣LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 17:28, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
The point I made was to the bible and Christian doctrine; your retort was to make it personal about me, thus changing the subject. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:35, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
My point is that you accused me of trying to change the subject, while you tried to change the subject. And now you're skipping over that point. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 17:38, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
My point is judge not lest ye be judged; rather than hear, you became defensive and accused me of something or other RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:46, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
And now you still choose to continue dodging by point in highlighting your inconsistency for that instance.
🤣🤣🤣LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! 17:52, 18 July 2020 (EDT)
Not really. I thought accusing someone else of sin and holding it against them publicly was inappropriate. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 18:14, 18 July 2020 (EDT)


My main criticism is that these Protestant vs. Catholic exchanges are not on talk page articles relevant to the topic. They are not on debate pages. They are on User talk pages which is the worst places for these exchanges to take place.

When these exchanges take place on user talk pages, they tend to be unorganized, repetitive and "no holds barred". There are no rules or conventions when it comes to user talk pages. But article talk pages tend to be more topically relevant and organized. Debate pages tend to also be more organized and less repetitive. Conservative (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2020 (EDT

What a joke. You want to debate these "proofs" here? What if I created a Debate page, "5 Proofs the Roman Catholic Church is the Synagogue of Satan" ? Do you honestly think anyone would a have a prayer winning that debate? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:31, 18 July 2020 (EDT)

Debate page formatting

Please take a look at this recent debate: Debate:Does the Catholic Church have the biblical authority of Christ Himself to preach and to teach the truth forever?.

The title of the debate page is the proposition being debated.

You will notice that there is a yes/no section.

This is how debates are set up. One side takes the affirmative position and the other side takes the negative position.

Please set up your debate like this.

When you have the debate take place on the talk page, these unfortunate things happen:

1. Many people do not read talk pages. This is especially true of non-wiki users. So the whole purpose of the debate is rendered useless when people do not go to the talk pages.

2. The search engines prefer long form content. When the debate page is broken up with a large portion of it being on the talk page, the content is far less likely to be found. Therefore, there is less web traffic to Conservapedia.

I hope this makes sense to you. I do want the debates to be useful to people. And having the proper formatting of the debate page will help cause this to happen.Conservative (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2020 (EDT)

Your recent post on my talk page

Hi RobSmith, I saw your post on my talk page here saying that I "owe" you an apology. Firstly, I can't edit my own talk page because Conservative locked it to "edit=sysop"; secondly, I don't recall lying about you (please provide a diff); thirdly, I got over your lies/smears against me today (you spent the entire day with strawman attacks) and didn't bother demanding an apology, because I know that I'm partially responsible for the dispute and won't unjustly blame others. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 00:53, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

I "intentionally" removed mainspace content about pedo priests and had the unmitigated gall to discuss the problems with it on the talk page, which you ignored. You reinserted that garbage noting that I "wrongfully" removed it. Then you flame warred on a new page calling it "misconduct" and spread your lies to Karajou's talk page.
You need the Word of God, brother. Read Psalm 32. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 01:28, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Again, I don't recall outright lying. To be fair, I'll admit I could've been better. That doesn't excuse your false attacks/smears based on strawmans, though I'll let it pass, given that I have had far worse problems in life before to be angry over. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 01:39, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
I covered the sins of pedo priests - and you call me an anti-Catholic zealot. You need to check your own sense of justice and morality. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 02:01, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Let me give you a short Bible lesson. In King James, italicized words do not appear in the original. Psalm 32:1 reads without the italics
  • Blessed - transgression - forgiven - sin - covered.
It's not the transgression that is blessed, it's the man whose transgression is forgiven. In these five words you have the gospel. Who blessed the pedo priests and covered their sins in that article? I did. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 02:17, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Speaking of Scripture and Bible lessons, I don't think God's pleased to see that you outright posted the s-word on the sewer rat website. I'm just curious, why do you intend on showing your true self there in bashing good users here while taking things out of context to make the same strawman attacks over and over? You should know that the phrase, when in its entirety, is not a justification of pedophilia. I'm not sure why I even have to repeat this over and over just so you double down on the same logical fallacy. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 13:07, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Speaking of the Conservative Bible Project, let me translate Jesus' words for you, If the salt looses its savor, it ain't fit for the s**tpile. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:12, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Don't post uncensored profanity; this is a violation of the 3rd CP commandment. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 14:31, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
This isn't the first time you made a strawman attack. Back here, you somewhat implied (if not outright asserted) that I could've been a DNC hack despite the fact that I have continuously been a good editor here for months. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 13:10, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
If you keep defending pedophilia, how do we know you're not a DNC hack? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:15, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
You still have not come to terms with the fact that you not only defended pedophilia with a lame whataboutism, you twisted the Word of God to do so. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:26, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
I made it clear that I didn't defend pedophilia. The topic was anti-Catholic hypocrisy, and you clearly exploited the somewhat vague structuring of the phrase, taking it out of context by not quoting the last part. What you're doing right now is just like what many did back in 2012 to Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock over phrases misinterpreted and taken out of context. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 14:31, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
You're the one engaging in whataboutism by misconstruing the entire context; no wonder you only quoted the part that fit your attacks. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 14:34, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
I've made myself more clear that I should've; please don't engage in such nasty and vile behavior in the future. You're lucky I'm not one to get angry at all over spats like this. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 14:36, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
The topic was not anti-Catholic hypocrisy. The topic was Cafeteria Christianity (a rather non-scriptural concept that opens the way for this kind of garbage). What did you think would happen when you ignored the discussion page and edit warred and started a flame war? Worse yet, as you've done right here, you use discussion page diffs to attack users rather than solve problems, as discussion pages are intended? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:42, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
The topic for that specific phrase was anti-Catholic hypocrisy. And are you actually trying to justify your smears against me on the basis that I didn't expect it? How biblical of you. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 14:45, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
It was garbage that did not belong in mainspace in that article. If you had a problem with that, the talk page is the place to address it. You think you are too good for that?
Then this garbage. You make no distinction between mainspace contributions and discussions. Who do you think you are? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:50, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
How biblical of me? Your biblical defense of pedophilia remains disgusting. Don't get smart with me. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:57, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

How do you know Rob's true self? Your attacks sound just like DataClarifier's. Like I said, you work in tandem. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 13:54, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
As I said, on the sewer rat site, RobSmith used the s-word and harshly attacked CP users here. And what I'm saying is true, if you at all the evidence in its full context. —LiberaltearsMay Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot! Tuesday, 14:05, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Users plural my butt. I think what you did yesterday is disgusting. And you're continuing it today. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:17, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
And I can't help but notice that the "good users" are always the same four users. Imagine that! Also you are a copycat. "Doubles down on" was my phrase that you took, and I'm not pleased that you dared to use it in the same context as one where you are badgering Rob. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 14:10, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

At the present time, it seems Liberaltears and RobSmith/VargasMilan are not going to be best friends due to religious differences. I suggest taking the "Northern Ireland approach" and just agree to disagree without being disagreeable.Conservative (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

Good idea. Thanks. I need to season my speech with a little more salt. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 16:13, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Good. There are two editors of the User: Conservative account. The other person is largely a Catholic, but he agrees with many Protestant things. He said that Catholic vs. Protestant battles would probably be pointless at Conservapedia. The best solution is to have articles relating to Catholicism be as neutral/objective as possible. Like an ideal encyclopedia. And to work things out peaceably on the talk pages of the articles. Back and forth squabbling on User talk pages is unproductive.Conservative (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
I agree. It could best be done through Templates, but I don't know how to create them. It's virtually impossible to discuss bible with the current batch of users. They have no interest. All they push is "Great Commission", Purgatory, and Infant baptism. None can tell what salvation is. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 22:37, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

Scripture Citing

RobS, I may have found the Bible verses that say the Holy Spirit enters in when you are baptized:

2 Corinthians 1:21-22: Remember it is God himself who assures us all, and you, of our standing in Christ, and has anointed us, marking us with his seal and giving us the pledge, the Spirit, that we carry in our hearts.

VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 04:32, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

Anointing isn't baptism, even in Roman tradition.
The big problem Roman Catholic laity has is, church teachers do not teach the two baptisms, John's baptism or water baptism, and Jesus' baptism or spirit baptism.
Then listening to these guys you see that the indwelling holy Spirit is collectively held by the Church. Or the mind of Christ is only possessed by the church bosses, the Magisterium. See Dataclarifier here, for example:
"only properly interpreted and understood according to the mind of Christ by the leaders of the magisterium" [21]
If you can't get baptized in the spirit or possess the mind of Christ, and are consigned to a life of carnality, what's the point in being a member? RobSTrump 2Q2Q 05:04, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Hypothesis: Of course we know Final Anointing, but why do they call it that? I was curious a long time ago and learned that Roman Catholic teaching was that we are "anointed" for various spiritual tasks and advancement in responsibilities throughout our lives when we answer what we feel is God's call to us. That could apply, but is not exclusive to, every sacrament.
But if some "anointings" fit the profile the Holy Apostle states better than others, baptism seems especially to refer to Jesus Christ "marking us with his seal"; it's not "reinforcing the mark of his seal".
I'm going to stop here and answer what you said about the two kinds of baptism; you don't know the half of it. Not only is it the Catholic doctrine to teach the two baptisms, but in fact, whether the teachers are aware of it or not, it goes further by saying that there is a third valid one: a baptism of blood for martyrs, whether or not they receive a water baptism. Hebrews 6:2 lists the basics of Christian teachings and includes
instructions about the different kinds of baptism, about the laying on of hands, about the resurrection of the dead, and our sentence in eternity.
VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:10, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
This same doctrine also must hold account that Christ's Passion transformed the baptism of repentance, because it is still allowed as an irregular baptism as prefigured in Isaiah 4:4:
"If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning."
VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:28, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Maybe you noticed the opposites don't match up entirely: the baptism of repentance requires no water, because it presupposes you can't get to a church, and spirit baptism does require water (unless a delay can't be avoided and the delay not having to do with a hatred of religion), it being a sacrament. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 10:49, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
Baptism, or water baptism, is all related to the law of the leper starting about Leviticus 23. How a leper is set apart from the congregation for a period of cleansing. The high priest, or Christ figure, would have to come out of the camp or gate, risk his own life, and inspect them for re-admission to the community (it's interesting how this is all personnel and individual, yet Roman church doctrine will deny the Holy Spirit or spirit baptism to the individual). Even by the time of John the Baptist, water baptism was merely symbolic and the people understood it as such. God uses leprosy to each us about sin and the need for cleansing. Although lepers still existed, the disease itself wasn't as big a problem among congregants as it was when the law was first laid out. The people did learn over time. How do we know this? Jesus asks, What did you go out in the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? It wasn't just lepers kicked out of the city that John the Baptist ministered to, it was townsfolk voluntarily seeking repentance, and John was a revival preacher in the wilderness. The people went to hear him preach, and his water baptism was merely symbolic of repentance and renewal. Faith cometh by hearing. God has chosen the foolishness of preaching. There never was any "Abracadabra, you are clean" with John's baptism; it was always just a ritual ceremony. Water baptism doesn't write God's word on your heart. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:08, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
"I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness." (Ezekiel 36:25)
Let me try to thread this needle.
If one repents with sincerity and takes up the yoke of doing what God requires, those preparatory purifying actions determine that we know the performance of the symbolic acts with the element of water, in the presence of the congregation (because the symbols are chosen to have a corresponding object founded in the soul in addition to binding together believers of all stations), will also grant a spiritual power among the many powers promised by the prophets, under God, to one's soul because one has demonstrated a capacity to receive it.
I don't know if it's a word, but it is a character, and it's not the same as grace. VargasMilan (talk) Tuesday, 13:49, 21 July 2020 (EDT)
I think the Ezekiel cite is similar to Jesus' out of your belly will flow living waters. The word cleanses us, and is often referred to as water. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:05, 21 July 2020 (EDT)

Liberaltears keeps picking at scabs and my patience has run out

I stopped talking about edit rights when Andy responded to me, and he keeps bringing it up. We all agreed to move the Catholic vs. Protestant discussion to the debate page like User:Conservative recommended and made it more civil, yet he's still whining about Catholics being "persecuted" on this site. He keeps putting molehills under a magnifying glass and ignoring the mountains behind him. Shobson20 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

What an idiot. He worships the church more than God. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:11, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Don't say things like that, it will just fuel his persecution complex even more. You've got to stop picking at scabs too. I put up with him for a long time because in between his accusations, he was making contributions to this site. I think we just need to make it clear that we will not tolerate him pushing our buttons anymore. Shobson20 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Liberaltears, if you're reading this, note that I left NishantXavier's talk page a long time ago, I'm out of that. Shobson20 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Fair enough. You got a point. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:25, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
And he's got it backwards anyways. Protestants are the conservative originalists and strict constructionists with their focus on the bible, and Roman Catholics are liberals with their evolving doctrine and "developing tradition". RobSTrump 2Q2Q 17:36, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
Don't talk about that here, you've said plenty on the debate page. We don't need to go over this again. Shobson20 (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Andy foresaw this matter. Andy said a User's talk page is his castle. If Liberaltears tries to bait you, you can remind him to take things to a debate page. If that doesn't work, simply revert what he puts on your talk page because it is your castle. If that doesn't work, block him for a short period. If that doesn't work, made the blocks longer and longer.

And don't bait Libereraltears on his talk pages if you feel angry.

Debate pages and reverting things on your talk pages if it is trollish, etc. is the key to resolving this matter. Blocking if necessary, but don't have the blocking be heavy-handed.

As far as Conservapedia articles which relate to Catholicism, try to have the articles be as objective as possible and keep the talk page comments objective and civil. If Wikipedians can manage the Catholicism vs. non-Catholicism issue, Conservapedia should be able to also. My guess is that while Wikipedia isn't perfectly neutral in the Protestant vs. Catholicism issue (favoritism is probably shown to pro-evolution Catholics on the creation vs. evolution issue for example. By the way, not all Catholics are evolutionists) at least Wikipedia isn't like Northern Ireland during "The Troubles".Conservative (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Since I blocked him for 3 days it's been very quiet, contrary to the way Liberaltears has been trying to spin it, he's been the rabble-rouser. Even NishantXavier and IndependentSkeptic haven't been as noisy as he is. Liberaltears contributes to this site, so it would be a shame to get rid of him, but his trolling and incivility cannot be tolerated anymore. He also really needs to see the log in his own eye and stop pointing at specks in other people's eyes (Matthew 7:3). Shobson20 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2020 (EDT)
I've been working on the Atonement page. If you guys have any knowledge of this subject I'd appreciate you giving it a once-over.
Dataclarifier expanded it considerably, and surprisingly it's quite good. He did however take one sentence of mine from when it was a three sentence stub, change one word, and turned it into an attack page on Martin Luther and Protestantism. It's since been fixed, but I suspect Nishant or somebody will try to explain how Roman Catholics really do believe in Christ as our atonement, despite Purgatory. If that happens, it should go into another one of their long-winded rambles with pious sounding rhetoric in a separate section, but leaving the contribs made by Dataclarifier intact in the full section in the body of the article.
If you're interested, use the histories to see how Dataclarifier subtly inserts non-scriptural doctrine into biblical subjects. It's a good case study/ RobSTrump 2Q2Q 22:18, 23 July 2020 (EDT)

Copy of a post I made on NishantXavier's talk page

Re: Catholic Ecumenism and the Re-Union of Christendom

Gentlemen, please take this issue to a debate page. Stop going back and forth on a talk page in an undisciplined manner. That is not going to help anyone. Make your cases on a debate page in an organized manner that puts forth your best arguments in a methodical way.

User:NishantXavier, stop making posts on your talk page meant to draw RobS into an argument. Instead, set up a debate page and make your arguments. Have a "Yes" section and a "No" section so each of you can make your best arguments.

It would have been so simple to set up a debate page entitled: Debate: Is the Catholic ecumenical movement valid?

Thank you ahead of time for your cooperation. I hope this is the last time I make my reasonable request. I am a very patient person, but I am not going to repeat myself over and over when I made my reasonable request clear.

I don't want to block you, but if you persists on trying to draw RobSmith into no holds barred "debates" where people don't have to support their positions, I will do it.

Suggestion to RobSmith: Don't respond to User: NishantXavier's posts on his talk page that are designed to be no hold barred "debates" where people don't have to support their positions.Conservative (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2020 (EDT)


You can use this website: https://creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com/?s=obama. User:Punish China


We're not debating, we're discussing and hammering out the wording for the Proposition for the Debate on Magisterial infallibility. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:11, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
I think User:Conservative may be a little quick on the trigger. You got to give time for the Best of the Public to come out. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:13, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
Ok. My mistake. I will restore it.
I did have a phone discussion with Andy and he definitely wants the Catholic vs. Protestant material in debate pages.Conservative (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2020 (EDT)

Pokeria and RobSmith discussion on setting up a debate page

Actually, we DO worship God, and not just the church. Actually, if anything, many of us Catholics are very much disgusted with what Pope Francis is doing, which is against God's doctrine, let alone that of the Church, which is meant to be subservient to God. And quite frankly, at least we Catholics didn't outright remove books from the bible, which is what Martin Luther did. Pokeria1 (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2020 (EDT)

It may take years or even centuries to incorporate Francis' decrees into the Magisterium. Heck, it took 1950 years to make the Levitation of Mary official doctrine, together with making it a potential capital offense for failure to honor it. [22]
Then of course you have the de-canonization of saints, which means the Magisterium in times past is fallible. Of course what is the final disposition of people in the intervening centuries who made prayers and offerings to the now defrocked Saints? Do they get booted out of heaven for necromancy ex post facto?
  • 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. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 11:57, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
Request: Public debates and debate pages have a question which can be either affirmed or rejected. In other words, a question followed by yes and no sections. For example, these would be debates: "Does God exist?" or "Do low taxes best serve society?"Conservative (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2020 (EDT)
This is the hard part: we don't want the debate questioned framed so as to appear as a loaded question and frighten people off. Pokeria1, as a self-identified Catholic, can be very helpful in framing a neutral-sounding question. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 12:26, 2 August 2020 (EDT)