Mine and MG's latest debate!!!

For those of you who have followed many of mine and MG's debates, including the most recent one on the thread, "baptized w/ the baptism of Christ" I thought I would summarize all of them, so that you don't have to read them anymore. If you don't see my responses to some of his posts, just fill in the below as reposted from the baptism thread.

MG and Rooster debate as follows:
Rooster: "fact, source, verse, source conclusion".

MG: UPC bad!!!!!

Rooster: "but content, substance, verses, encyclopedia

MG: UPC minority, teeney, tiny, little, worthless ant

Rooster: "but typology, foreshadowing, prophecy"

MG: UPC, UPC, UPC, CPU, PUC, PCU, up yours!

Rooster: ?!?!!?!?!

MG: You heard me...UPC bad!

Rooster: verse, verse, verse!!!!

MG: ...personal attack, rooster slow, rooster dumb HA!

Rooster: personal experience, changed life, love for things of God, Jesus Saviour...

MG: meaningless, worthless, lies, "get your hands off of me, you damn dirty apes!"

*mg triumphantly raises both hands, declares himself victor, and scans forum for more Rooster threads..."

Please remove this. It does no one any good. Please.

-Shawn Dumas

Tom, I'm just having a little fun...lighten up a bit


I agree with Tom. This post does no one any good. Yes, you and I do debate and yes our debates often our heated and intense nonetheless I feel our so-called debates are more than some personal vendetta on my part.

I also feel that I have done much more than accuse you of falsehood etc. You make it seem as if this is a personal thing for me and it isn't. I am against your beliefs not you. I disagree with your beliefs which you have taken liberty to "teach" and "proclaim" here.

I mention UPC because that is where you core beliefs come from and I think those to whom you "proclaim" ought to know that.

As much liberty you have taken to "proclaim" and "teach" your biblical views and interpretations I have taken the same to counter and refute you.

ah, once again, back it goes to "me". How about addressing one point.

Martin Luther, the father of "by grace are ye saved, not by works" said:

"Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat." (Martin Luther, "Large Catechism", 1528, p. 100/111)

I did not interpret anything, I did not go to a "UPC website or book" no one from the UPC directed me there. Can you address the conflict between what Martin Luthers words have been taken to mean and what he said about baptism?

i enjoy a good debate...but when you start arguing over the trinity, scripture, baptism or stuff like that and it's casuing a rift between you and a fellow believer you are losing sight of the big picture....keep your eye on the ball

If these two can debate the merits of their beliefs without retreating to mere personal attacks and sowing discord among the brethren, then I'm inclined to agree. However, part of the big picture, or at least my big picture is biblical truth. This has forced me to have several debates with others on various topics. Did Chist actually raise from the dead, did He state He was God, is God 3 persons or has He revealed Himself in 3 manifestations, is baptism necessary or merely symbolic, are tongues the biblical sign of being baptized with the Holy Spirit, is tithing a practice that can be supported via the NT, are spiritual gifts for us today, etc, etc.

The truth is, it does matter what we believe, because our beliefs will dictate our actions. This being the case, someone who loves me, will labor with me as we work our the merits of my belief and his and hopefully, the truth will be revealed. I've seen this happen before, tho I must admit, it's usually a rare thing. Thanks to our own pride, motivation, and refusal to let the Holy Spirit lead us into all truth.


Agreed. Reign me in bro! I love ole MG, he's passionate and fervent. I was having some fun at his expense. Mg, I hope I didn't hurt your feelings...

I agree; the content of our faith results in the form of our actions therefore it is essential that we work through them and arrive, collectively even, at the truth of what the Bible says on all of the subjects it touches on. That is why we are continuing the debate on the thread that this thread has as its origin.

But what I am objecting to is this thread's existence ab initio. It servers no other purpose than to derail and I feel it hurts our collective witness and our current goal in unity on the other thread. In fact since its arrival m.g has yet to post on the other thread and I do not blame him.

I realize this sounds "holier than thou" and I so don't mean it like that. But I see no other mature recourse other that to speak up against this kind of display on rooster's part, sorry.

-Tom Bombadil

BTW: Puzzled it would be great if you could join us at "Baptized w/ the baptism of Christ?" and lend us your insight.

Tom, mg tends to attack me, my denomination and avoids the substance and content of my contentions. You'll notice that I was able to have a reasoned discourse with you based on your focus to the content.

That being said, I used to get angry and try to "stick it" back to MG. This is wrong. This was a simple reminder to him to stick to the issues using humor to illustrate my point.


I'm not attacking you personally. I am attacking your denomination since it is THE source of all your rherotic and interpretation of scripture. This makes sense and is even legit considering the denomination is the source and not necessarily you. I think your views and interpretations are wrong AND since I think the UPC is the SOURCE of your views and interpretations then I think it is right and just to attack that source.

Not to long ago the Rev made an excellent point in one of his post addressed to you. Essentially he felt as I feel that you ultimately rely on the UPC doctrine and theological position concerning all the biblical issues you raise.

Whenever we debate and when I or someone else offers evidence to support their point and more often than not you reply with a discourse that is STRAIGHT out of the UPC handbook. It is as if you have patent answers on hand AND nearly all these answers are EXACTLY identical the to answers provided UPC.

How do I know? I research the matter. I told you before your answers are essentially the same of ONENESS writer and theologian David Bernard.

You question and blame the catholic church for "corrupting" Christian doctrine and biblical truth. Well I think the UPC should be under the same scrutiny.

I don't think your answers are well thought out and base on bible study but rather the exact same rhetoric and nonsense the UPC states. So in essence all your doing is reharshing the same stuff the have already stated.

I am not avoiding the substance of your points and arguments, I am simply stating that your points and arguments is nothing more than the same UPC rhetoric, not even original.

"Martin Luther, the father of "by grace are ye saved, not by works""

Just to interject for a moment.

Martin Luther is not the father of salvation by grace. He is the father of Sola Fide. Sola Gratia is, and has always been, the position of the Catholic Church.

Back to the debate....

MG, I welcome the critique of my denomination. It is an organization made up of humans and as such is certainly, like any institution open to mistakes.

I am also proud to be lumped in such company as Dr. Bernard. His multiple theological degrees, and listing as "Who's Who" in religious circles/publications make him a strong advocate of the UPC doctrine.

However, I haven't read his book in about 15 years and I search the scriptures and respond based on prayer, and the belief that God is One and we must be born again of water and Spirit. I'm glad the UPC church agrees with me! :-)

Anyway, if you don't think my positions are tenable, then I wish you would address them rather then ignoring them. If you want to scrutinize the UPC...have at it. They are not God.


Whether you read David Bernard recently or 15 years ago doesn't discount the FACT you still reharsh the same rhetoric. His words are essentially your words the only difference is your speaking instead of him.

Wow! I'm that good?!? I've managed to memorize his very words?!!? What's weird is I actually find these things in the bible. I wonder if David Bernard put into the bible the fact that the first time the world was "born again" it was immersed in water and the 2nd time it will be by fire. Thus pointing towards the new birth experience of water (baptism) and fire (Spirit). I wonder if he put that in there?!?!

I wonder if David Bernard inserted into the bible the story of the Red Sea burying (a type of baptism) the Egyptians (a type of bondage) completely while Moses called on the name of the Lord (Jah-Shuah-Jesus)and they were led by a tunnel of wind and fire (Spirit).

Did he interpolate that "he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved?!". Wow!!!

See the very first post, you are doing it again.

MG: (ignoring content) "BAD UPC, Bad David Bernard!"


If you were going for comical effect with your initial post, you should have made yourself more of a Latino caricature.

For example:

Rooster: But content, substance, verses, encyclopedia, esse!

Rooster: But typology, foreshadowing, prophecy, homes!

Rooster: verse, verse, verse! Ariba!

(NB. I've never seem those words written down before, so I have no idea how they're supposed to be spelled.)

You should also make up some background for MG. Since this is a Catholic/Protestant type argument, (even though IIRC he isn't actually a Catholic), you might want to depict him as some kind of Sicilian mobster or something. They're Catholic, and have amusing accents and stereotypical phrases.

Just trying to help keep things entertaining...


Am I really ignoring content and substance or just you reharshing the same UPC and David rhetoric? I mean considering you essentially give the exact same answers they give I would say I'm ignoring the UPC/BERNARD rhetoric.

Of course you claim at this is "substance" and "content". Well...we all have our opinions :)

IBI, very good! Since I'm a Latino, that only makes sense. Maybe MG can be a member of the Irish Mob?!?

MG, glad you admitted that you ignore my posts. For instance, what say you to the orthodox's position that Baptism is essential. If David Bernard wrote about this, I forgot and am not using his historical sources. Just did a google search. Were they wrong? Esse? If you want, I can answer this..."UPC bad, Rooster bad, David Bernard bad." If that sums up your response, then there you have it! You've won again!

I think an equally comical (yet accurate) view of this debate could have been caricatured as follows:

Rooster: "fact, source, verse, source conclusion".

Anyone Else Who Disagrees With Rooster (AEWDWR): "fact, source, verse, source conclusion".

Rooster: "but content, substance, verses, encyclopedia

(AEWDWR): "but content, substance, verses, encyclopedia

Rooster: "but typology, foreshadowing, prophecy, slight mockery"

(AEWDWR): real life experience, teachings, substance

Rooster: verses, more mockery, insults, says the same thing over and over and over again, asking if debatee has children, slippery slope

(AEWDWR): Calls Rooster on subtle insults and silly attempts to discredit the person

Rooster: verse, verse, verse, takes moral high ground with regard to insults!!!!

(AEWDWR): personal attack, rooster slow, rooster dumb HA!

Rooster: personal experience, changed life, love for things of God, Jesus Saviour, demonstrates prideful arrogance, places self on pedestal and prepares to show others just how smart and holy he is...

Rest of Forum: Its' pointless to debate anything with Rooster since he never sees anyone elses point of view, will never admit he's wrong, and will never apologize for antagonizing people and lowering the debate to nothing more than a name-calling contest.

Rooster: "Gosh, I was only joking when I called you names. In my infinite wisdom I felt that you needed my sarcastic barbs to keep you on track...I just didn't say that initially but will now (10 responses later and after the initial discussion has escalated to an argument). Maybe I'll make a thread talking about how I've seen how my debating tactics have been largely egotistical and that I'll change my ways in the future, only to drop right back into my old habits in less than a month."

Remember now, I'm just messing around. ;)

Try to keep it civil guys.