I admit daniel1212's writing can be a bit difficult to follow (as can my own) but the ideas come across well enough, as does evidence he frequently brings, which if not out-and-out direct refutation of some claim or another made by [Roman] Catholic faithful (if you don't mind those persons being labeled that way, too much) then at the least, often put those "claims" or statements to serious challenge.
Many times there are claims (peculiar to Catholicism) which valid rebuttal can be offered towards, for reason those claims are in some error, chiefly for just how far those same claims are being said to extend, with here myself speaking of items most often in dispute, on these pages. I find those sort difficult to navigate, being that partial truths, or misrepresentation/distortion can be the hardest to tackle. Refutations for that type, rarely can be trimmed down enough to fit on a bumper-sticker, while retaining that which is entirely true & holy, not causing the same some damage, while not letting conceptual "validity" overstep it's own bounds, becoming some thing never meant to be...and if not that... then not seen in the earliest Church, or in some conflict with what can be found there, including but not limited to how ECF's (Early Church Fathers) wrote about how they applied various scriptural precepts.
Certain types of "reaction", such as those of the sort daniel1212 makes mentions of, can often enough come when the rebuttals he and others provide, are themselves difficult to deny, hence his own mention of same, AFAIKT.
That being said...
The portion you cited as some sort of proof of your own "wisdom" as things to be ignored, due to being possibly inflammatory in your own eyes(?) or offensive to you, could be the inventive (RSS)? ... or was it also or more, the "...as indeed to do so in order to ascertain the veracity of Rome's claims is discouraged." part?
I cannot help but consider that your response to him (and possibly part of reason for it?) could well be demonstration in part, of that very phenomena of discouraging which he spoke of. You may disabuse me of that notion, if you care to do so.
...in other words...is it like sticking fingers in your ears and saying naa-naa-naa I can't hear you? which --- can be a fun thing to do, I do confess. Newer versions are always better of course.
But I can only score yours about a two-point-eight-five out of ten. Not quite Olympic caliber, but if a training regime could be devised and adhered to (watch your diet too, of course) then who knows?
Actually, my first reply was not meant to be an out-and-out direct refutation of the claim that there were distinctions btwn sin, but to far better Scripturally substantiate it than simply using one text which itself was in need of interpretation, while noting that all sin is mortal in the basic sense, as the opposing parties insisted. As well as to refute the issue of purgatory to which this related.
And my reply expanded upon the first to points, as well as to examine 1Jn. 5:16,17. And anyone who reads these should be able to see that one sin makes one a culpable sinner, and all sin is indeed mortal for the lost, spiritual death being the wages of sin, (Rm. 6:23) and which is why the sin unto death of rejecting Christ would be.
But despite actually affirming and establishing Scripturally there are different degrees of sin, as seen in different degrees of punishment, and which includes the degree accountability, the often seen Roman Reactionary Syndrome seems to have kicked in not simply because i dealt with purgatory, but because i offered a reply that offended them by explaining this and mildly chided them by saying "if you want to show that there are differences in degrees of sin, then you need to be more familiar with Scripture," for the Catholic reply that was considered irrefutable needed to go further than what it did.
But for which i was charged with lying, and providing unrelated Bible references and obviously erroneous interpretations, none of which the poster even tried to substantiate, for indeed that is what is fallacious.
But the apostle Paul sought reason out of the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2) though sometimes hard to follow, and to be delivered from souls who among other things were unreasonable. (2This. 3:2)