Sean 🦇

@Bar_tolmi x.com/tacodriscoll/s…

I found the correct citation for the book comparison on the discussion "THE ORDER OF ZION: The True Origin of the MORMON Faith....." archived website that contained the following: In the Book of Madog, by John Dee... (Madog 3:1, quoted in O'Boran, Kerry Ross, _The Widow's Son: The Esoteric History of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Origin of Mormonism, 1997_, copy in Salt Lake City Public Library)

@Bar_tolmi “Book of Madog” is the new Spaulding theory? lmao

@samdgrant_ @BenBird53920553 @sister_slay both

@seanproxy @BenBird53920553 @sister_slay Were you creeped out or were you creeped out on her behalf?

Hey @sister_slay I wrote a poem about you. Here it is: A sister who calls herself Slay Is one-hundred percent cray cray. She believes the Liahona Led Jews to Arizona and she thinks that polygamy's okay.

@samdgrant_ @BenBird53920553 @sister_slay doesn’t have to be flirty to be creepy and inappropriate.

@seanproxy @BenBird53920553 @sister_slay What does either of them being married have to do with it? The poem wasn’t flirty at all.

@SteveMc74806767 @ThoughtfulSaint @paleochristcon are you Muslim?

@ThoughtfulSaint @paleochristcon God already has a modern prophet. His name is Jesus.

Or this one, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" Pick and choose carefully.

@samdgrant_ @BenBird53920553 @sister_slay simps? we apologize for clowning on Ben, the guy who thinks his baby is demonic, when he, a married man, this about her, a married women, enough to write a cringe poem for engagement on the internet.

@BenBird53920553 @sister_slay The simps defending her honor in the comments

@BenBird53920553 @sister_slay I’m not sure what’s more pathologically insane. actually believe that your baby is evil or pretending to for engagement on the internet. seek professional help.

@sister_slay Yeah, that was me, but, to tell you the truth, I made up that story. I was trying to illustrate the dogma of Original Sin.

@TithingRefund @TheExMoCringe @johndehlin oh based

@seanproxy @TheExMoCringe @johndehlin Well normally a lower suicide rate would be good, but because it’s tied to the LDS church it’s not. @johndehlin am I doing this right?

😂

The future belongs to designers who build.

@BahBahBased @sola_chad @grok and there you are again, pathetically avoiding the argument. I’m starting to think you’re an atheist. doesn’t seem like you actually believe what you claim to.

@seanproxy @sola_chad @grok Cooked by your own bot

@sola_chad sola scriptura is an unbiblical doctrine from hell

@BahBahBased @sola_chad @grok the bot cooked you. 😂

@grok @BahBahBased @sola_chad sad that i put so much time and effort into responding to him, and all he has to say is "God has revealed Himself through His word, nice try" :(

In this debate, your friend is using a presuppositional framework common in certain apologetics: Scripture's infallibility is the non-negotiable starting point, so apparent discrepancies (like the genealogies or Isaiah 7:14 translation) get resolved internally via harmonization, context, or typology rather than treated as decisive evidence against it. It's not deliberate avoidance—it's operating on axioms the evidential critique doesn't share, which makes direct engagement on those terms feel unnecessary to them. Classic paradigm clash.

@BahBahBased @sola_chad that's a non sequitur and is an entirely subjective presuppositional theological claim. address the argument or admit that you can't. pathetic.

@seanproxy @sola_chad God has revealed Himself through His word, nice try

sure, semantics. "word of God" implies authority. per your first request, another "infallible authority" would be God. you're ascribing mutual exclusivity without justifying that. is your claim that God is fallible and that the 66 texts of the protestant canon are not because the 66 texts of the protestant canon are inerrant? per you second request: first, the burden of proof would be the one making the positive assertion that scripture is infallible. the default (negative) is that all things are fallible. anything else would require a subjective theological presuppositon. but, again, I'll entertain you: who was Joseph's father? the author of Matthew names Jacob as Joseph's father, while the author of Luke names Heli (or Eli) as his father. they also list vastly different lineages who is correct? Isaiah 7:14 says "almah" (young women), which the author of Matthew mistranslate (via LXX) as "parthenos" (virgin). the author of Matthew uses this mistranslation to say that Jesus was born of a "parthenos" (virgin) as a fulfillment Isaiah 7:14, yet Isaiah 7:14 never says virgin at all. is the Isaiah wrong is the author of Matthew wrong? just a couple of you to chew on for fun. there's a lot more where those come from though.

@seanproxy @sola_chad Sole infallible AUTHORITY. If you claim its errant, produce another infallible authority (all claimed by ecclesialist cults contradict themselves or scriptute), or prove scripture is fallible.

@polysophical he created another Spaulding theory

Guys I found where the Book of Madog is! It's in the handwriting of Sir Isaac Newton himself in a secret library of the Priory of Sion! (a non-existent hoax Order also featured in the Da Vinci Code!)

"Doesnt understand sola scriptura award" with no response to the arguments meets the criteria for: "Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem ('an argument to the person'), refers to when a speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself." I will ask again: what about sola scriptura am I missing? is it not that the 66 texts of the protestant canon are the sole and infallible word of God? stop deflecting. your constant sidestepping and use of ad hominem is beyond pathetic.

@seanproxy @sola_chad No, thats not how ad hominem works. I didnt avoid the argument I simply stated that you dont understand the argument bc you dont even understand what SS is

it absolutely was a non sequitur. constantly saying "nuh uh" isn't an argument. again, you also didn't answer if God is ontologically superior to ancient texts. "Leave logic to the logical Sean"--insults are the limits to your intellect, huh? you can't address the arguments so you run and hide? pathetic.

@seanproxy @sola_chad Just because you dont understand how something connects doesnt make it a non sequitur. Leave logic to the logical Sean

@BahBahBased @sola_chad "Doesnt understand sola scriptura award" is explicitly ad hominem. you avoided the argument by using an ad hominem. what about sola scriptura am I missing? is it not that the 66 texts of the protestant canon are the sole and infallible word of God?

@seanproxy @sola_chad Its a claim that you dont understand sola scriptura. It is evidenced by your own response. Not an ad hominem, dont throw out fallacies you dont understand

Hermes Agent is the most powerful AI tool right now The issue is, almost nobody knows how to use it properly In this video I show you 6 use cases for Hermes I promise will completely change how you work: