NL has taken many non-Catholic Christians to task for what he calls "trolling" on the Catholic threads in order to lie about their doctrines and disparage Catholics. He calls them haters and bigots, now they're "Pauliwogs" who bastardize the Bible. It seemed hypocritical for him to carry on so much about his beliefs being offended by posters who lie in wait with their evil motives and pounce at every opportunity they have. If such behavior is so repulsive to him, that he would turn around and do exactly the same thing is questionable.
I know the thread is open, but if you would look back on the path the posts took in an honest way, you would see that those who screamed and complain the loudest are guilty of exactly the same offense. NL response was that he was answering the lies about the teaching of Rome, and up to that point nothing of the kind had even occurred.
It makes no difference to me if it's Natural Law criticizing the Reformed or the Reformed attacking Rome, the principle of an open forum applies, period.
You are tight, but since the practice has been so vigorously defended by the anti-Catholics that I thought you would have no issues with it. The difference is that I did not use it as an opportunity to skillfully lie about any entity or person.
This thread celebrates a very controversial division in Christendom.
One is dishonest or extremely naive to pretend that the premises of the headline alone of this thread would not be challenged.
My #4 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2618333/posts?page=4#4is) an intellectual argument noting that the words of Luther posted in #2 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2618333/posts?page=2#2) contradict one main tenet of protestantism.
It is disingenuous to claim that my comment #4 was an instance of “drawing blood”.
And my comment #5 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2618333/posts?page=5#5) was a lame joke referring to a misreading of the headline as referring to Crist in his senate race against tea party favorite Mario Rubio (Headline: “In Crist Alone.” Reply: “No - Rubio all the way!”).
This thread celebrates a very controversial division in Christendom.
One is dishonest or extremely naive to pretend that the premises of the headline alone of this thread would not be challenged.
My #4 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2618333/posts?page=4#4) is an intellectual argument noting that the words of Luther posted in #2 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2618333/posts?page=2#2) contradict one main tenet of protestantism.
It is disingenuous to claim that my comment #4 was an instance of “drawing blood”.
And my comment #5 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2618333/posts?page=5#5) was a lame joke referring to a misreading of the headline as referring to Crist in his senate race against tea party favorite Mario Rubio (Headline: “In Crist Alone.” Reply: “No - Rubio all the way!”).
You claim I was the first to “draw blood.” Please let me know which of these comments of mine (you can also add my #108 if you wish, though I assume you agree #108 is benign) “draws” blood” rather than simply makes an academic point that draws your ire:
#4: So, according to that quote of Luther, reason alone could suffice. [This is an intellectual argument regarding the headline and disputing a comment]
#5: No way - Rubio all the way! [Attempt at Florida election wordplay humor in response to the headline]
#23: It was the beginning of the long slide into the dark abyss that we see in protestantism today. After all, if Luther can claim that he need only follow his conscience, then Luther’s followers can do the same, and so naturally the non-stop “reformation” began, creating millions of popes - each man his own. [My point: no one can deny that the various protestant sects that have followed Luther’s example of breaking away when conscience calls has led to breathtaking protestant doctrines that accept what everyone previously agreed was biblically prohibited as moral evil – his is the protestant moral abyss to which I refer].
#25: The Reformation gave us rampant divorce, rampant homosexualism, and rampant promiscuity due to the reformed churches’ absolute acceptance and promotion of birth control. Enjoy your party while you can. [Same point: no one can deny that the various protestant sects that have followed Luther’s example of breaking away when conscience calls has led to breathtaking protestant doctrines that accept divorce, homosexualism, birth control, living in sin, condom use by junior high kids, abortion, etc. ].
#26 1. But that is not what Luther said. 2. Your second line is not true; the bible does not address many things that we can easily know through reason alone, but this does not mean that such things are false. Perhaps you ought to say “All reason contradicting Scripture is false.” [This is an intellectual argument regarding the headline and disputing a comment]
#36: That reminds me of what said God to Himself before He created Eve: rib it. (I think I’m gonna croak.) [Attempt at humor]
#47: Protestant doctrine embraces evil. Catholic doctrine rejects evil. And of course, there are sinners whose actions run counter to doctrine. With your logic we would have to conclude that Jesus’ moral teachings were incorrect because most of his audience rejected his moral teachings. Protestant doctrine embraces birth control and gayness and divorce. Catholic doctrine rejects all three. And I follow these doctrines. [Same point: no one can deny that the various protestant sects that have followed Luther’s example of breaking away when conscience calls has led to breathtaking protestant doctrines that claim moral evils are actually moral goods (divorce, homosexualism, birth control, living in sin, condom use by junior high kids, abortion, etc. ) and that Catholic doctrine refuses to change and embrace such evils as good despite the personal sinfulness of its members and even of its clergy.]