For example, this quote:
“In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons”
I don't see how this can be construed as an attack on anyone in this Forum (unless Martin Luther is a FReeper).
In fact the historical record is clear: Martin Luther suffered from terrible scrupulosity-- the belief that he could never be good enough to go to heaven. His personal solution to the problem was to invent the "faith alone" doctrine which is contradictory to the Scriptures and was never believed by any Christian in the previous 1500 years of Christianity. He then tried to promote his personal solutions into doctrine. When the Church didn't go along, he rebelled. Simple as that. As someone has already said, facts is facts.
“I don’t see how this can be construed as an attack on anyone in this Forum (unless Martin Luther is a FReeper).”
I did not say it was an attack on a FReeper. It is an attack on one side of an ecumenical discussion in the very article by the other side. In other words, on a thread that prohibits antagonism, the article stacks the deck, skirting the historic rules and practices of ecumenical threads.
Historically, FreeRepublic Religion Forum rules and moderator decisions have thrown out antagonistic articles when posted as ecumenical. I’m asking for a response from the RM - and I accept his or her decision.
Even your statement that I am responding to is antagonistic toward one side and is by definition, not ecumenical and should be removed by the RM.