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:
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
https://scored.co/c/catholic/p/17txxxO85I/1-on-1-discussion-please-all-oth/c/4ZDtRZaCxAO