The Reality of Romanism

The Riddleblog ^ | May 10, 2007 | Kim Riddlebarger

[Religion Moderator]

What if the person instructed not to post to me ignores that request?

Ignore him. If he keeps it up, ping me or send me a Freepmail.

Remember that the behavior of a poster speaks as much about his confession as whatever he actually says about it. So "turning the other cheek" always wins.

I deal with the non-compliant in my own way based on the poster's personal posting history. Everyone has a bad day now and again so sometimes I cut slack - and sometimes I don't.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

It was pretty typical that they took Augustine's Retractions to make the point and ignored Augustine ending the paragraph, "Which of these two interpretations is the more likely to be correct, let the reader choose."

Augustine was stating a retraction, correcting a previous misunderstanding, which the correction is in alignment with the overwhelming majority of the Church Fathers, and in alignment with what Scripture clearly teaches.

The "last line" referred to is as opposed to the Roman Catholic position of blind obedience and blind faith it it's proclamations, Augustine does not insist on such tyranny, but rather makes his case, and advises the reader to decide for themselves which is the correct interpretation of the Matthew 16 passage, in opposition to Rome's later condemnation of "private interpretation", and the anti-Biblical claim of being the sole arbiter of truth by the Roman Catholic religion.

[Risky-Riskerdo]

I guess there's no law against impersonating a theologian on the internet.

Roman Catholics do it all the time.

[Religion Moderator]

tiki has been on the forum for nearly 10 years, adiaireton8 for about 4 and you are new here.

Older posters usually know how far the envelope can be pushed. In the example given, tiki was asking questions not attributing motives or reading your mind. The best response would have been "I'm not in over my head and I already answered the question at post n."

[Risky-Riskerdo]

R-R, I'm quite willing not to ping you if you so request. But if you criticize Catholicism here, then I reserve the right to respond by pointing out how my question remains unanswered.

I get it, you will agree to the request, but not really because your fingers are crossed behind your back.

The question was answered, once again a personal dis-satisfaction with the answer does not negate the fact of it being answered. So, what is seems is that a fictitious liberty to harass, is reserved based on a purely subjective misinterpretation of the facts.

I have no problem at all debating the issues. However, I have serious doubts of particular posters to restrain themselves from making things personal, based on the performance of those who have exhibited a lack of restraint to make things personal, even after being advised by the Religion Mod to cease.

[adiaireton8]

You think you already answered my question. I pointed out (at least twice now) that you in fact answered a *different* question than the one I asked you. You answered the following question:

Whose interpretation of Scripture is not authoritative?

But what I originally asked you was:

Whose interpretation of Scripture is authoritative?

Do you see how those are two different questions? Just because you answered the first one (which I never asked you) does not mean that you answered the second one (which I did ask you).

-A8

[Risky-Riskerdo]

I too ignore a lot of posters on FR but I've never found the need to run to the moderator because someone was talking to me.

What the record shows is that someone had already brought the Rel Mod in before I logged in today, therefore it is a misrepresentation of the facts to falsely accuse me of "running to the Moderator". Since the Moderator had already been brought in, quite naturally I had questions concerning the instructions, what degree they were to be followed, and what recourse there is to having those who cannot follow the instructions to actually comply as I have.

I ping the Mod now so the Mod is aware of my replies.

If the Mods instructions were followed none of this would be happening now would it?

[Risky-Riskerdo]

Please do not ping me.

I pray that request will be honored.

Sound advice would be to review the Moderator's instructions and comments on this matter until they are understood.

[ChurtleDawg]

Why do you keep asserting that Rome makes the Assumption nessecary for Salvation? While it does teach it as official dogma, it never says that it is nessecary for salvation.

Rome officially only says, in truth, that God’s mercy and grace is the ONLY thing nessecary for salvation. God’s grace leads to faith and the works thereof. Rome actually puts less limits on God’s grace than Protestantism.

[ChurtleDawg]

You don’t get it-—A Saint is a person the Lord worked through. They do not have powers of their own. The Lord chose them as intercessors on His behalf, because of their faith and obediance.

[Campion]

Seeing how the only people to have used those terms on this thread are Roman Catholics

The title of the thread was written by a Roman Catholic???

[ChurtleDawg]

EXACTLY. If the protestants are so correct, why would a Catholic papist idolator like Padre Pio be so blessed with gifts from The Lord? If even 1/10 of the stories about Padre Pio are true (and I have a book written by a Lutheran Minister who interviewed witnesses), then there is NO other conclusion than Pio was chosen by Almighty God, much like St. Paul, to carry on His witness.

[Religion Moderator]

Risky-Riskerdo is no longer among the land of the Freepers. This thread is about a year old.