“but now that I see the mods have let you know”
That’s what they said.
“none of the “Protestants” turned you in for bad behavior”
I have not exhibited any “bad behavior.” Putting fang and claw protestants’ bad behavior at 100, no Catholic has exceeded 15 here, and that only under extreme provocation.
“You seem to have made up a “group” here in the RF”
You need to look up the difference between “made up” and “observed.”
“called the fang and claw protestants and accuse them of turning you in”
Yeah, the predictability with which the moderator rides to their rescue led me to that opinion. When you think about it, it’s actually worse that no one hit the abuse button, because that means the moderator is taking the time and energy to be pro-active about it. I wonder if the moderator posts here under a different name.
“Which they did not do.”
I have already admitted that, based on the moderator’s statement. Dwelling on it is just bad form.
“Not true, so wrong “opinions” twice.”
Nope, still the same error, still once.
“Wrong “opinion” again, third time.”
No, that one is correct. To hide their own thin-skinned behavior and distract the eye from their own bad behavior, the fang and claw protestants do, in fact, make a habit of slinging around false accusations of over-sensitivity.
You see, the moderators do allow personal insults here, so long as the poster is a tiny bit clever about it. I have demonstrated that on numerous occasions, and you demonstrate it once again by putting the word “opinion” in danger quotes.
*“As has been mentioned many times, if you (or any poster) is too thinskinned for the open threads, they should not be on them.”*
I really hate a bully.
“What’s wrong with that. It sounds like good advice to me?”
On a level playing field, there might be nothing wrong with it. What’s wrong with it here is that it translates to this: “We will insult you and lie about you to our heart’s content, and you will not be allowed to answer with the truth, so shut up.”
“What a concept! The posters arguing against the assumption of Mary”
They haven’t been “arguing,” in the correct sense of the word. The only argument they have is “it ain’t in da Biibull,” which is also true of things like the weather on the day of Jesus’ baptism. Since it’s not in the Bible, I assume there was no weather on that day. It was neither hot nor cold nor medium, it was neither sunny nor cloudy, windy nor not windy...there just wasn’t any weather that day, because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible.
“Non Catholic Christians don’t give those writings the weight of wisdom from God”
Do what?
“they (we) use the Bible...”
...incorrectly, to propagate error.
I just loved it when the teacher said, after a test was finished, "Students; grade your own work."
“they (we) use the Bible...”
...incorrectly, to propagate error.
Which is NEVER pointed out.
Rome uses the CC to propagate IT's agenda.
I’ll pray for you
Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture is the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice. It is NOT a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture, nor is it a claim that all traditions are necessarily invalid per se. It IS a claim that traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with it. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not binding on the Christian conscience.
No proponent of the Biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura here has stated anything otherwise, and your use of the absence of a meteorological report on the day of Jesus' baptism to insinuate that the arguments here for Sola Scriptura amount to and entail the notion that all truth of every kind is found only in the Bible is a gross misrepresentation of that doctrine and the comments on this thread.
Cordially,
Not only do you insult all the non-Catholic Christians here - those that refuse to be bullied by certain Roman Catholics -and who go to the trouble of REPEATEDLY explaining why certain RC dogmas aren't acceptable to them, you continue to accuse the Religion Moderator of showing favoritism, not ensuring a "level" playing field for you and allowing rule breaking by non-Caths while dinging the rule breaking Catholics! But, you cannot show even one time where that was the case. No one expects the Moderator to monitor every single thread down to the last post to ensure compliance - we are, after all, all grown-ups here. But there is a "report abuse" button available to anyone who feels the moderator needs to be brought in. How often have you used that feature?
Furthermore, you cannot point to ANY post where you have personally been insulted without the Mod reprimanding nor can you point out what you believe are "lies" being told to ones "heart's content" while you have been prohibited from rebutting it - that's just silly. As the rules explain, disruptors are not allowed to stay very long on open religion forum threads and those who continue to flaunt the rules after repeated warnings can and do get told to leave the thread. Whiners and crybabies are even less welcome. The most egregious ones get zotted!
I have not exhibited any “bad behavior.”
Well, you were the one that said that Christians turned you in for bad behavior, but now we see that NO one turned you in for anything. I personally prefer to have some objectionable false information posts left up so we can see who says what.
Plus posting false information isn't bad behavior? LOL glad they left that one up!
no Catholic has exceeded 15 here, and that only under extreme provocation.
Gimme a break! There's that thinskinned thingie raising it's ugly head again.
Funny, the Mormons also used to call posting the truth about their belief system "extreme provocation" also.
You need to look up the difference between “made up” and “observed.”
Ok, I did. Still don't see and fang and claws posters here, at least not from the Protestant/Christian contingency
Projection maybe?
No comment on your apparently bitter and hateful digs at the mods.
putting the word “opinion” in danger quotes.
LOL @ "danger quotes." Ok, howabout this? opinion
“As has been mentioned many times, if you (or any poster) is too thinskinned for the open threads, they should not be on them.”I really hate a bully.“What’s wrong with that. It sounds like good advice to me?”
There's that thinskinned thingie again.
"I didn't like what you said, you are a bully"!
They haven’t been “arguing,” in the correct sense of the word. The only argument they have is “it ain’t in da Biibull,” which is also true of things like the weather on the day of Jesus’ baptism. Since it’s not in the Bible, I assume there was no weather on that day. It was neither hot nor cold nor medium, it was neither sunny nor cloudy, windy nor not windy...there just wasn’t any weather that day, because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible.Something as astounding as Mary being assumed into heaven [(not to mention being born without sin (her and Jesus huh?,) remaining a virgin all her life, not having maritial relations with her husband after giving birth to Jesus], I daresay would be important enough for God to have his Spirit lead one of the writers of the Bitle to include it. (it's a bit more important than the weather...)
“they (we) use the Bible...”
...incorrectly, to propagate error.
Ok, show me the error in any Biblical quote.
Interesting your use of the phrase "neither hot nor cold"
So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.--Rev 3:16
Boatbums, thank you for your excellent reply to this post that I am finally getting around to addressing!