Catholics believe in a heretical works salvation, I reject the Catholic church, before God I am not a Catholic - you were right. That was easy. Now the real question is, am I a Calvinist plant-you know how they are.
Unorthodox Teachings of Peter Ruckman
- Thread starter tmjbog
- Start date
While this Jesuit rabbit trail was kind of fun if you've researched the Jesuits much at all you would realize they would not be easily discovered. They would likely be the one demanding everyone else in the room express their hatred for the Catholic church. If you buy into the Jesuit conspiracy theories they can disown the church and do all sorts of anti catholic things as long as it supports the cause.
When I said good job, by the way:
Well, my game is done here.
Too many W's to count and you're just making yourself look shadier by the minute.
Well, my game is done here.
Too many W's to count and you're just making yourself look shadier by the minute.
Perhaps, but as shady as someone who would say this:
…for more than 35 years I have been preaching in public (and teaching in private) that the second advent date is Yom Kippur of the year 2000, if our calendar is right. By this figuring, I have told audiences all over America for 38 years that seven years must be deducted for the tribulation (giving us a figure of 1993), and then four years must be subtracted to make up for the differences in calendars. (Note: Christ is said to have been born in 4 B.C. by this adjustment of calendar systems.) This would give a maximum (I didn’t say, “exact”) date of 1989 for a rapture. (Ruckman, Peter. Bible Believers’ Bulletin. Feb. 1988, p. 1)
And that's checkmate.
If you were a non-Catholic, you would've been annoyed at this point (and judging by the rapidity of your responses, impatient as usual), saw what I just posted as a nitpick, and immediately corrected it in your next post with a period at the end of the sentence instead of the very odd and out of place "hyphen you". No one writes the way you just wrote that statement, especially not with the pause for effect you attempted to employ which would naturally beg a strong period at the end of your bolded sentence.
You also double posted red herring, one immediately after the other with no pause, after I just revealed your hand making it even more obvious.
At this point it doesn't matter even if you repost it with a period at the end, making it your own statement, as that would simply be your ego grabbing the win at the expense of rationalizing the late lie at this point, it's already clear you avoided too often and far too subtly.
Words are easy to play with when you're practiced at lying and creating loopholes, aren't they.
Good luck to you.
UGC... Do you think I could go back to being a Calvinist mole instead of a Jesuit? I've kind of grown fond of the mole on my avatar and don't want to have to go hunt down something to go with the whole Jesuit theme.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,687
- Reaction score
- 2,600
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Or another distracting post about the Jesuits or whatever.
For a 5-star Ruckmanoid, the Wonder Twins sure do try to derail any discussion of Dead Pete that they can't control.
I've noticed the same. The funny part is most of the posts on Ruckman have little or no commentary. It's primarily his own words they are offended by.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,687
- Reaction score
- 2,600
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
This support for abortion, you mean?
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." I teach that a baby is not a living soul until it breathes. I'm considered a great heretic for teaching that, but then again if a man goes by the King James Bible he's bound to be a heretic these days. And so I don't teach that abortion is murder like the Brethren do, and for that reason I'm considered a heretic to some of the Brethren. . . .
Now, I'll grant you the child is an organism, I'll grant you that. There's a lot of organisms. I'll grant you the child may be alive in the sense of animal life, I'll grant you that. I'll grant you it's an embryo, I'll grant you that. But if you're talking about a living soul, see, I read my Bible, there's no living soul until the Lord breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And when you smack that baby and the baby goes "Waaah," yeah, you can't blame a kid for yelling, look what he's coming into. And when that kid yells, as far as I'm concerned, they're now a living soul.
Peter Ruckman, the great moron, can't even read Genesis 2 competently.
*yawn* Now that we all know tmjbog is an undercover Catholic who slipped up in more lies than a 5 year old, I'd say it's obvious Ruckman warrants reading if the Catholics go to such desperately amateur Johnny English buffoonery to sabotage him,
Even to the point where they have to create accounts and pretend to be someone they aren't. That's going to lengths against a real threat right there.
The 1st word used to describe Satan in the Bible? He was more subtle than any beast in the field.
Satan's title? The Father of Lies.
Who is this undercover lying Catholic, posing as a FWB, attacking as his greatest threat? Ruckman.
Ultimately, it's primarily his own words they are offended by - you know what I mean? That's how subtly Satan twists words.
Even to the point where they have to create accounts and pretend to be someone they aren't. That's going to lengths against a real threat right there.
The 1st word used to describe Satan in the Bible? He was more subtle than any beast in the field.
Satan's title? The Father of Lies.
Who is this undercover lying Catholic, posing as a FWB, attacking as his greatest threat? Ruckman.
Ultimately, it's primarily his own words they are offended by - you know what I mean? That's how subtly Satan twists words.
I appreciate that you think I'm subtle-I think you give me too much credit. You know who's not subtle? This guy:
Ruckman believes in a ten foot-tall Antichrist with a bad right arm and a bad right eye that will land in St. Peter's square in a 600 feet in diameter by 60 feet thick flying saucer, who will implant the mark with his huge black lips. (Ruckman, Peter. Mark of the Beast. 4th edition 1977, pp. 79, 106, 108)
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,687
- Reaction score
- 2,600
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
St. Petey of Six Feet Under wouldn't know subtle if it clobbered him on the head with a baseball bat.
One of the Mormon connections to Ruckmanism.
Let's recap, just to make sure everyone knows. I knew tmjbog was Catholic because of obvious, and I mean really obvious things he said I won't waste time breaking down, but here's all you need to know:
I challenged tmjbog to prove he wasn't an undercover Catholic lying about being a partially-Arminian flip-flopped to full-Arminian overnight FWB attending a non-FWB IFB as an actual member despite disagreeing with "much of their beliefs" for "reasons that will not be detailed" (that alone should tell you he's a lying, undercover something).
I knew he is a devout Catholic because the closest way to accurately describe yourself without lying about what you believe as a devout Catholic is to correlate it to the closest Protestant doctrine and pretend to be that. And the closest way to explain Catholic doctrine in Protestant terms is "partial Arminian". Claiming to be a full-on orthodox Arminian would be a lie from the get go, and also inaccurate. Catholics, in doctrine, are essentially equivalent to partial Arminians. There is no more accurate correlation available on the Protestant side to describe them. So I knew that even though he rationalized lying about his identity to infiltrate these forums 1 month after UGC started posting here to smear Dispensationalism, the KJV, and Ruckman, he is at least devout enough to not lie about his personal faith.
This is how I knew I could pin him. I challenged him to openly lie by attacking his own faith, that great idol of his, the Catholic church.
Of course he dodged. Multiple times. I hyped up the challenge, knowing he would eventually have to feign a profession against the Catholic faith, otherwise avoiding such a simple request would seem suspicious after a while. What's so hard about being honest and just saying you're not a Catholic, people would think.
However, I knew he still would not be willing to lie about his faith, yet he still had to make it appear to everyone that he renounced Catholicism.
So I gave him a statement to work with, knowing he would take it and use it to make it look like he's actually willing to say it. Why?
Since I said it for him, it saves him from actually writing it in his own words, so I knew he would take the bait and use it.
However, he could not quote it exactly as I wrote it. He had to manipulate it just slightly to make sure he didn't really denounce his Catholic faith.
This is what I gave him to work with:
Now, notice how above, the period at the end of the sentence was provided for him, yet he removed it and changed it to:
To which I then called this out. He then responded with 2 back-to-back posts immediately after I called it out, both red herrings.
To which I then broke down the entire incident:
Hey tmjbog:
I challenged tmjbog to prove he wasn't an undercover Catholic lying about being a partially-Arminian flip-flopped to full-Arminian overnight FWB attending a non-FWB IFB as an actual member despite disagreeing with "much of their beliefs" for "reasons that will not be detailed" (that alone should tell you he's a lying, undercover something).
I knew he is a devout Catholic because the closest way to accurately describe yourself without lying about what you believe as a devout Catholic is to correlate it to the closest Protestant doctrine and pretend to be that. And the closest way to explain Catholic doctrine in Protestant terms is "partial Arminian". Claiming to be a full-on orthodox Arminian would be a lie from the get go, and also inaccurate. Catholics, in doctrine, are essentially equivalent to partial Arminians. There is no more accurate correlation available on the Protestant side to describe them. So I knew that even though he rationalized lying about his identity to infiltrate these forums 1 month after UGC started posting here to smear Dispensationalism, the KJV, and Ruckman, he is at least devout enough to not lie about his personal faith.
This is how I knew I could pin him. I challenged him to openly lie by attacking his own faith, that great idol of his, the Catholic church.
Of course he dodged. Multiple times. I hyped up the challenge, knowing he would eventually have to feign a profession against the Catholic faith, otherwise avoiding such a simple request would seem suspicious after a while. What's so hard about being honest and just saying you're not a Catholic, people would think.
However, I knew he still would not be willing to lie about his faith, yet he still had to make it appear to everyone that he renounced Catholicism.
So I gave him a statement to work with, knowing he would take it and use it to make it look like he's actually willing to say it. Why?
Since I said it for him, it saves him from actually writing it in his own words, so I knew he would take the bait and use it.
However, he could not quote it exactly as I wrote it. He had to manipulate it just slightly to make sure he didn't really denounce his Catholic faith.
This is what I gave him to work with:
Now, notice how above, the period at the end of the sentence was provided for him, yet he removed it and changed it to:
Essentially saving himself from actually denouncing his Catholic faith by quoting me as being the one saying it, perfectly placed within the syntax.
To which I then called this out. He then responded with 2 back-to-back posts immediately after I called it out, both red herrings.
To which I then broke down the entire incident:
Hey tmjbog:
if you've researched the Jesuits much at all you would realize they would not be easily discovered - you bet. But Christians are smarter than Catholics.