1 on 1 Discussion (Please all others stay out)
(scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
My debate with Swamp Jew regarding these 5 things:
Are the Jews cursed, and enemies of God and the human race even up to the present? I say yes. Swamp Jew says no.
Is the Old Covenant still ongoing? I say no. Swamp Jew says yes.
Is OSAS true? I say no. Swamp Jew says yes.
Is the "Hebrew-roots Christian" movement actually Christian? I say no. Swamp Jew says yes.
Is the Talmud anti-Christian? I say yes. Swamp Jew says no.
Nice dissertation, bro. Too bad the other guy doesn't seem to care to do much more than try to control the frame of the debate. You're a more patient man than I, continuing to humor him that long.
Hi again, still love your username.
If you read it all on both sides, you'd see that by refusing all alternate definitions or any synthesis toward discovering additional truth, and refusing all questions, u/CrusaderPepe is doing a lot more frame-controlling than me. I just try to keep things on track so that a conclusion can be reached instead of just having (say) two unanswered dissertations.
The fact is that he's mostly speaking accurate Catholic theology that I don't disagree with (as I document in this thread). My own theological viewpoints are inaccessible to him because he's not willing to admit that any other definitions exist; so there's no point in my explaining my views on baptismal regeneration or Dake's 1,050 NT commands until he can settle that core. But by going to the full-press ad hominem he's basically, um, shutting things down.
I trust you can see that my strategy accomplished my goal of bringing his true epistemology into the light for God to convict him on.
Pretty sure your viewpoints are inaccessible to him because you're holding back. Maybe you stated them in a different thread? You called his theology "mostly" accurate, but when I skimmed through the thread yesterday I only saw you talking about points of agreement and asking him to further clarify his positions. Why not go ahead and lay out the bits you don't agree with?
Because I laid those out in detail at c/Christianity. I'm happy to provide complementary truth to a person who might be interested in receiving it, but he didn't want truth to be shared in either direction, he wanted to lay out his imagined truths and then to declare himself victor by fiat, which he has now done. I wanted to agree on terms by which we could jointly arrive at truth, which he flatly refused. If he refuses all alternate definitions, propositions, and questions, he's the one controlling terms of debate.
Just to give you a little context, I could freely lay out the case that the RCC, while it teaches in no uncertain terms that you can lose "sanctifying grace", does not in any place seem to teach authoritatively that you can lose regeneration. Rather, it teaches that regeneration presupposes faith and that there is false faith, which logically entails that some appearances of regeneration are false, which logically permits that you cannot lose regeneration. This explains all the Bible passages that imply this, which Catholics have to reinterpret when they look at them because of their plain meaning. However, why should I waste time developing this teaching additional to sanctifying grace doctrine if there is no one to hear it? I freely teach this for your benefit, but I proved there was no benefit in teaching anything to him because of his method presuppositions that prevent him from accepting truths by that path.
I did disagree on two points: I told him I never called him names, to which he replied by interpreting my words with false equivalence, defending his putting his interpretation of my words in quote marks as if I ever called him that. Plus, I told him I disagreed on Hebrew roots because thousands of Catholics in Jerusalem (the St. James Vicariate) share my view, and he said that they weren't really Catholics, that they ought to be investigated for excommunication. So if he will slice up his brothers so freely, and his pope and his bishop whenever they disagree with his interpretation of what truth has been established, it's no surprise how he treats me.
I then showed that all points whatsoever are only in dispute because he sets himself up as his own authority instead of submitting to God's authority. So the conclusion of the debate is that he's revealed where he stands: he affirms his authority to judge as infallible rather than God's authority to reveal his judgments infallibly. He cements this by his declaring me an enemy and son of satan and (just now) demanding, as the sole term of peace he would permit, that I call myself a "Jew" when he's defined that to mean a denier of Christ. We all know who asks people to deny Christ.
Would you like to join with me as a second witness in approaching him?
Thanks! Yeah, it is very grating lol. Especially since I call him out on it over and over again, and he just keeps gaslighting like it's not even happening.
Imaginary enemy to promote your low quality songs about a revolution?
This is such an old tactic...
I don't prefer you because someone else is worse than you.
You just go against Christianity with your terrible songs about revolution. If you don't repent, you will share the eternal fire with the sinners.
"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." - Matthew 15:14
My songs aren't about revolution. They are about counterrevolution, or about going against the revolution already enacted by the Jews and Freemasons.
https://conspiracies.win/p/17tegdzZ7j/happy-monday-everyone-here-is-a-/c/
Also, you promote the Catholic perversion of Christianity, but you can read that in my comment, that I left under your revolution song the first time you posted it.
Of course, I quoted the Bible, which I assume was the reason that you couldn't reply.
Just in case you're not an actual shill, but probably a very confused person, repent from the Catholic perversion and follow the Bible. Everyone knows Catholicism is demonic with their Jesuits and Opus Dei, and the raping of children, in case you weren't aware. They twisted peganism with Christianity - Easter, Christmas, etc.
Roman Catholicism Fully Refuted - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1elvOeWe4Y
Atrocities of Catholicism - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXy29586xiY
Is Catholicism True? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVwqyOIwpoo
Wow. Just wow.
Wait. You added the stuff after the link to my song AFTER I responded "Wow. Just wow.". That's very JEWISH of you.
I read your comment, but didn't respond to it because your comment was nothing more than a strawman.
You are literally cherry-picking the Bible to try to tell me that Christians shouldn't defend their religion.
Here is one of my favorite quotes from Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ:
"Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword." -Matthew 10:34
If you love Jesus, you will fight for Him.
What is your "denomination" or "sect" of Christianity? Are you SDA by any chance?
The person you're replying to is a pacifist "christian". I was in a debate with him and he ignored every single point of logic about righteous people being justified in being violent against people hurting them, and every single instance in the Bible where Jesus and God condoned violence by righteous people. If you dig into my profile back a few weeks, you'll find the debate.
Gotcha. Thanks! Where in the world do these people come from??? Lol
This implies a conflict of reason (yes vs no)...centered around conflict. A side cannot overcome its center, but sides fighting each other can be tricked to ignore center.
The propositions are boolean, which in logic means they can either be true or false, but nothing else. Creating a dialectic where there even is a center in a boolean proposition is a Jewish mind trick.
a) Booleanism tempts ONE to consent to another ONEs suggestion, hence establishing a DUAL conflict of reason...that's where the "only two possible values" originate from.
b) In nature there can be only one value...motion, hence motion proposing momentum (inception towards death) for evaluation by matter (life).
From a christian perspective...only God proposes. George Boole proposed a suggestion (Satan), which tempts one to ignore perceivable (God)...one deceives self by consenting to ignore "you shall have no other gods before me".
a) Logic/logos - "word" implies suggested word tempting one to ignore perceivable sound. That's the foundation for idolatry...if one consents to hold onto the suggested meaning of words.
b) Shaping words within sound implies "spell-craft", which tempts those who consent into conflicts of reason aka logomachy (word magic) - "war of words"... https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Logomachy
a) True (wanting suggested) or false (not wanting suggested) ignores change (perceivable need).
b) If being alive is "true", then does changing into death makes being "false"?
What if being (life) can only exist within constant change (inception towards death)? Only within process of dying can life come to be aka springing off (offspring)...true vs false reasoning tempts one to ignore CHANGE, verb - "to cause to turn or pass from one state to another; to alter, or make different; to vary in external form, or in essence"
Holding onto a side (true of false) tempts one to ignore alternation. Reason/logic tempts alternating beings into static behavior, hence many becoming statistics for few.
c) How could nothing be? Is nothing true or false? Else/alius/alias/alien - "another"...how could another be nothing?
a) Creationism (out of nothing) tempts one to ignore transformation (within everything)...only within everything perceivable can ones perception be transformed.
Consenting to suggested creationism tempts one to de-nial (Latin nihilo; nothing) everything perceivable.
Right now...try to create anything suggestible without shaping it out of; within and in response to everything already perceivable. One cannot perceive creation, because everything perceivable had to be there for one to be able to perceive.
b) Dialect aka dia (two) legere (to speak)...who's the ONE speaking?
Can you show me TWO in nature without each ONE of whatever you're showing being apart from ONE another? Where does nature suggest one to count?
Notice that nature doesn't speak aka it doesn't articulate (word) natural (sound)...it moves sound within which artifice can be shaped.
Even (balance) generates odd centers (choice)...one can only wield choice within balance, and only within motion can there be balance (momentum) for choice (matter).
The suggested label "jew" tempts one to mentally hold onto it, which in return tricks one to brand perceivable (sound) with suggested (word).
Trick/trigger/trekken - "to pull"...consent pulls suggestion into self deception, hence the happy merchant of temptation pushing suggestions.
By the definitions u/CrusaderPepe supplied by context, there's nothing to debate. He mischaracterizes my position by refusing to permit any other definition of the words.
By one definition ['"The Jews" are anyone of the Hebrew stock who publicly or privately REJECT Jesus Christ as their Messiah, Lord, Savior, and God. This includes all religious Jews, since the First Century (Pharisees, Rabbinical Jews, Orthodox Jews, Reformed Jews, Hasidic Jews, etc.). This includes all secular non-Christian Jews that are only ethnically Jewish. Whether they are Zionist or not doesn’t matter. It also includes converts to post-First Century Judaism.'], "the Jews" would, indeed, be cursed and enemies of God and the human race even up to the present; no other definition is in view there.
By one definition ['By "valid" I don't mean it justified them. No. It just better prepared them for Faith in Christ.'], the Old Covenant would, indeed, no longer be "valid" in the same way it was once "valid"; no other definition is in view there.
By one definition ['The term is "sanctifying grace." And this is the grace bestowed by God upon Baptism and is poured upon the soul while one has Faith and no stain of mortal sin. Mortal sin removes it. Penance/confession brings it back.'], having "sanctifying grace" once would, indeed, not be having "sanctifying grace" always; no other definition is in view there.
By one definition ['The "Hebrew-roots Christian movement" syncretizes Christianity with anti-Christ Talmudic/Rabbinical Judaism, believes the Old Covenant is still active, believes Mosaic Law is still active, practices the Sabbath, celebrates Jewish feasts, etc. and clearly meets the definition of a Judaizer sect (that being a sect that tries to enforce Old Covenant or Mosaic Laws into the New Covenant of Christ)' .... 'And even if they don't force other Christians to do so, by even influencing and advocating for these things, at all, they fall under the definition of "Judaizers".' 'When you post stuff defending the Talmud and/or Jewish interpretations of things ... you are influencing it, in a Judaizing way.'], the "Hebrew-roots Christian movement" would not be actually Christian; no other definition is in view there.
By one definition ['Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name.'], the Talmud contains "blasphemy"; no other definition is in view there.
If Pepe is willing to offer other definitions I can evaluate the new truth claims separately at that time.
In other words, I won't let this Jew REDEFINE words with OBJECTIVE MEANING into his SUBJECTIVE MEANING TO SUIT HIM, and he thinks this is unfair. The 5 propositions are Boolean, from a formal logical point of view: you can either find each of the 5 original propositions true or find them false. There is no MIDDLE GROUND, no CENTER, and a JEWISH HEGELIAN DIALECTIC need not apply.
Since I won't let Swamp Jew redefine objective words or turn Boolean propositions into dialectics, in order to reframe the debate in his favor, he has made it clear that he has no desire to debate in a fair, straightforward way.
https://scored.co/c/catholic/p/17txxxO85I/1-on-1-discussion-please-all-oth/c/4ZDtRZaCxAO
On the contrary, as just shown here, once he defined his terms I agreed with his terms and came down on the same Boolean side he did. He doesn't know how to set Boolean propositions and get consent to debate from someone who disagrees. He only knows how to set tautological propositions that very few would disagree with, which is why there was no debate. When I did set propositions he disagreed with, he utterly refused to allow any means of resolving the debate, implying instead that he only intended an unresolved showcase of both positions, which is itself Hegelian even if he thinks his truths shone out clearly. If all this is not so, he should tell how the final resolution of truth in "debate in a fair, straightforward way" can be achieved other than unilateral unagreed declaration of victory. (Comment being copied due to his admitted "spamming".)
ALL LIES!!! Swamp Jew DOESN'T AGREE!!!
Proposition 1:
When I criticize "the Jews" in my video posts for subverting Christianity through their support of Abortion, Birth Control, Communism, Divorce, Feminism, peddling Pornography, and the Sexual Revolution, amongst other things, Swamp Jew STRONGLY DISAGREES, and says that I am accusing the group for things that individual actors in the group does.
Proof:
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/17txaaaw1j/here-is-a-jewgrass-song-my-frien/c
Swamp Jew:
"Informal warning: We're going to need to do something about our communication gaps that many have noted. Just deleting the posts the mods find to be racist isn't solving the problem. Dialogue will ensue."
Me:
"Documentation of fallacy:
Equivocation
This is the upteenth time you have accused me of racism.
And you berated me in the other thread about never defining my terms.
Again, I will define the terms of what "the Jews" are, as has been agreed upon for most of the past 2000 years (until it was muddied in the 20th century):
The definition of "the Jews" I am using refers to people of Hebrew stock who reject Jesus Christ as their Messiah (which included Rabbincal Jews and secular Jews) AND people of non-Hebrew stock that practice Judaism (and again, reject Christ). People of Hebrew stock who accept Jesus Christ as God the Son (Nazarenes or "Messianic Jews" as you call them) are excluded from this definition.
This is the upteenth time I have defined this term. My content is meant to highlight a spiritual war between Christians and Jews, NOT to spread hatred against the Hebrew race.
Now that my terms are well-defined, if you gaslight me again by equivocating my participation in the spiritual war against those that reject Christ but call themselves "Jews" as me being "racist against the Jewish race" then I will re-paste this documented response over and over and over whenever you pretend that I never define my terms or that I am racist or that I never respond to Swamp Jew or whatever..."
Swamp Jew:
"Your content takes your "95% of the Jews" definition of "the Jews" and lumps them all together as guilty of many things severally and jointly. This is judging the innocent with the guilty, which I've defined as racism when it applies to ethnoreligious constructs like your definition."
Proposition 2:
Swamp Jew doesn't believe the Old Covenant was superseded by the New.
Proof:
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/17txVyUe1f/the-old-covenant-is-fulfilled-su/c
Swamp Jew said:
"While I understand some of the church sees the Old Covenant as "ended" in its fulfillment in Christ's first coming, I don't see that, and I do see that people use this as a wedge issue to explain away our connection with the covenant people among the Israelites, which I see as dangerous. "
And:
"OP gets caught up in an unproven supersession as "the Old is superseded by the New". This is never taught by Scripture and probably not as such by tradition. If the Old ever had a place that could be superseded by the New, that would be dual covenant in the past!
Therefore I say the Old Covenant's purpose stands just as it ever did."
Proposition 3:
Swamp Jew believes in "Once Saved Always Saved".
Proof:
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/17txfCkFEf/i-will-prove-that-once-saved-alw/c
Swamp Jew said:
"You define OSAS as "once God gives You saving grace You can never lose it". I agree with Calvin this is true."
And:
"there is no proof the Bible or Rome teach that "we can lose our saving Grace". Passages about loss either (1) do not refer to Christians saved by grace, (2) speak of perseverance without expressing doubt in it, or (3) speak hypothetically of loss as a warning to those truly saved to continue testing that they are not falsely assured."
Proposition 4:
Swamp Jew believes that "Hebrew Roots Christianity", which he adheres to, is not a Judaizing sect.
This contrary to what I have seen. Proof:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Roots
Looks like the aim is to syncretize Judaism and Christianity to me...
Proposition 5:
Swamp Jew DEFENDS the Talmud from charges of blasphemy.
Proof:
Swamp Jew made a whole thread trying to DEFEND the Talmud here:
https://scored.co/c/Christianity/p/17s5tfMVEL/talmud-quotes/c
Swamp Jew did it here to, in order to try to refute me and gaslight me into believing that there are 3 different Jesuses of Nazarene in the Talmud:
https://scored.co/c/Christian/p/17tLKRPlQ3/repost-from-cconsumeproduct-lgbt/c/4ZCaZybJv5Z
And here too:
https://communities.win/c/Christianity/p/17te0Hl9KZ/proof-that-the-talmud-blasphemes/c
And my response is here, which shows Swamp Jew has to be an intellectually dishonest gaslighter to believe that the Jews weren't blaspheming Jesus Christ and His Mother:
https://rumble.com/v4bpdd3-yes-michael-lofton-the-jews-are-talking-about-jesus-christ-in-the-talmud.html
Making public posts like this directed at one person makes you seem obsessive in almost a romantic or erotic way. Care to comment?
What a load of trash! Swamp Jew is a powerful moderator on this website and is a subverter, has subverted me and others, and I just want to publicly accuse him for what he is sitewide: HE IS A JEW.