Thanks for the memories, but it's time for Christians to unite not fight

Huh? How does that answer the commentary of mine [about respect] you listed? Regardless, I love the skulls; I don’t think this is done anymore (is it?), but if so I’d be well honored to have myself bejeweled. It would mean that I was a saint!

901 posted on 04/29/2015 9:16:12 PM PDT by mlizzy ("Tell your troubles to Jesus," my wisecracking father used to say, and now I do.......at adoration.)

OK, relax... The reason I asked the question was because Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and the Mormon Faith is the object of many a negative comment in the RF. I was wondering what would win out, which was more distasteful, a candidate's liberal agenda, or strong feelings about the denomination they subscribe to. It's that simple. I've got nothing against Mormons- I wanted to know what the choice would be.

Do you find that Hillary represents your political views? Not mine. She stands against many moral principles in which I strongly believe. If the Reps choose Romney, his religion would not deter me. Again, it's that simple.

902 posted on 04/29/2015 9:19:45 PM PDT by Grateful2God (Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord...)

Speaking as a woman, I DON’T expect nor want “special” treatment from male Freepers on threads and have received my share of unchivalrous comments from FRoman Catholic men in my time here and it doesn’t bother me.

Have you ever asked yourself why it doesn't bother you? Maybe the roller-derby queen or pole dancer or abortion advocate or street walker wouldn't seek respect because they've been so trounced on previously, but why would you, a CHRISTIAN woman, seek this disrespect?

903 posted on 04/29/2015 9:26:53 PM PDT by mlizzy ("Tell your troubles to Jesus," my wisecracking father used to say, and now I do.......at adoration.)

To: mlizzy; boatbums

CX to boatbums: seek “[or not be bothered by]” this disrespect?

904 posted on 04/29/2015 9:33:24 PM PDT by mlizzy ("Tell your troubles to Jesus," my wisecracking father used to say, and now I do.......at adoration.)

To: WVKayaker; NYer; Alex Murphy; boatbums; Gamecock; mlizzy

I have been patiently correcting the falsity and bloviation of our Roman Catholic Friends.

You will know when attacked

along with a few comments of my own

If you take it personally, it may be a sign that the target has been acquired.

ignoring my taunts,

Is this what the graphic was all about, Alex? A warning that from now on, there will be carte blanche against any and all Catholic beliefs?

Like the old song says, "That was yesterday- and yesterday's gone."

Too bad. Yesterday's was a great discussion, not to mention a peaceful one, for almost all of it. But, life goes on. Peace is a fragile thing.

And I thought you were kidding...

Sadder but wiser once again,
G2G

905 posted on 04/29/2015 9:54:03 PM PDT by Grateful2God (Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord...)

To: mlizzy; boatbums

... but why would you, a CHRISTIAN woman, seek this disrespect?

It's really sad that Roman Catholics can talk favorably about their idolatry, and even wish to be so adorned. Liz, we are all saints, according to Scripture. Maybe your Bible says otherwise, but the Roman Catholic cult is one of the most idolatrous groups in history! Even ancient Rome can't compete with the modern abomination called roman Catholicism.

Romans 2: 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism. ...

... Galatians 3: 26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

906 posted on 04/29/2015 10:00:13 PM PDT by WVKayaker (Impeachment is the Constitution's answer for a derelict, incompetent president! -Sarah Palin 7/26/14)

To: Grateful2God

Waaaahhhhh! That is all I see in those posts from the FRomans herein, lately.

The only comity with Roman Catholics apparently is when they feel they have the "upper hand".

907 posted on 04/29/2015 10:06:44 PM PDT by WVKayaker (Impeachment is the Constitution's answer for a derelict, incompetent president! -Sarah Palin 7/26/14)

It's really sad that Roman Catholics can talk favorably about their idolatry, and even wish to be so adorned.

Are you still living in the Philippines? If so, have you met any of the "on-fire" oh-so-humble poor Catholic peoples in your land? I have had some Facebook posts I've put up of our statues of Mary, and have received tens of thousands of hits from these sweet people of the Philippines. Maybe you can fill me in on the culture there, the beliefs, the faith.

908 posted on 04/29/2015 10:10:21 PM PDT by mlizzy ("Tell your troubles to Jesus," my wisecracking father used to say, and now I do.......at adoration.)

Are you still living in the Philippines? ... Maybe you can fill me in on the culture there, the beliefs, the faith.

Roman Catholicism in the Philippines is even more idolatrous than American RCCers. Why do Catholics brag so much about all of their graven images and idols? Scripture says to flee from them.

FWIW, Protestants are making huge gains in numbers as evangelism has increased and eyes are being opened to the Truth of Scripture. Unfortunately, the Mormons are here on their bicycles, and "Iglesia in Christo" is just another cult, led by one man seeking to be God himself...

I would be ashamed to be revealing myself as an idolater! Yet, here you are...

Mary in Scripture is not the one depicted by the Roman Catholic cult. She's dead, and had many other children besides Jesus. She was never a perpetual virgin, and certainly does not share the Throne of God!

Just more idolatry and personality worship... My God is a jealous God!

909 posted on 04/29/2015 10:30:13 PM PDT by WVKayaker (Impeachment is the Constitution's answer for a derelict, incompetent president! -Sarah Palin 7/26/14)

To: Brian Kopp DPM

Simple. Moderate the RF properly, or eliminate it. Preferably the latter. Seeing as it is RCS who by far have posted the most articles on the FR for years, with relative few Prot ones until recently, then your comments once again are to be marginalized as not representing the majority vote.

But like liberal whiners, certain RCs seek to impose the will of a minority upon all since their church is being reproved and they cannot censor them, which their church required RC rulers to in the past. By extermination.

910 posted on 04/30/2015 3:00:51 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

To: mlizzy; boatbums; metmom

Have you ever asked yourself why it doesn't bother you? Maybe the roller-derby queen or pole dancer or abortion advocate or street walker wouldn't seek respect because they've been so trounced on previously, but why would you, a CHRISTIAN woman, seek this disrespect?

Hold on right there.

You just compared her to roller-derby queen or pole dancer or abortion advocate or street walker.

It is not the bb seeks to be disrespected (as you certainly appear accusing her of doing, while yourself are treating her very disrespectfully by making that allegation -- in the particularly foul way that you did) but rather as she just told you that she has;

have received my share of unchivalrous comments from FRoman Catholic men in my time here

So just what are you doing here in this comment which you made towards her, sister?

Blaming bb for treated on this forum no better than a pole dancing street walker ----by FRoman men, are you?

It sure does come across like that... the mask keeps slipping, showing us your truest self (which you may not even be acquainted with?).

911 posted on 04/30/2015 3:09:40 AM PDT by BlueDragon (This is the mystery of the quotient (quotient)- upon us, upon us all a little rain must fall)

I think one of the things about the Free Republic Religion Forum that bugs me the most is that men trounce on women the same way they would do so on men

Which adds to your call for special treatment, but when women post like men, ad hominems ad all, and show no respect of gender themselves then they can expect to be treated like the rest.

In the case at issue, the women engaged in fallacious personal attacks and mind reading, which i did not ping the RM to, but which you ignored in your attack of me. So much for your objectivity.

912 posted on 04/30/2015 3:13:47 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

“mocking others who are not Catholic and condemning us all to eternal hell for not converting to Roman Catholicism on OPEN RF threads.”

I find this very hard to believe. This is not Catholic doctrine, I’ve never heard a Catholic ever suggest anything like this on FR, or in person.

This is why the protests of rarely or never seen (by us regulars) posters have little to no standing.

Below are examples of RC doctrine which some RC here still support, or the extermination of such in the past in accordance with it.

Historical RC teaching	Comments	Modern RC teaching	Comments
Pius XII, Humani Generis (27,28): "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation...These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html	Thus the Mystical Body of Christ is said to be the Roman Catholic Church, and which is the true Church, belonging to which is necessary for salvation. However, the Vatican Two defender could argue that this does not mean the Roman Catholic Church is uniquely the Mystical Body, but which is what the pope seems to be arguing against as being part of the errors of modernism which he is addressing.	Vatican Two: Lumen Gentium 16: "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief* and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...	Thus rather than the Mystical Body of Christ being uniquely the Roman Catholic Church, she is united in faith with many (properly) baptized Protestants.
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood..." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215) [considered infallible by some]	Thus the universal Church of the faithful is said to be one that holds to the erroneous doctrine of transubstantiation with its NeoPlatonic explanation, outside which no one at all is saved.	"They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.	Thus rather than salvation requiring being part of the universal Church of the faithful which holds to the Catholic transubstantiation, with rejection of which excluding one from salvation, baptized Protestants are generally affirmed as being part of the universal body of Christ.
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm	Thus the pope decrees (imagines) that the Apostolic Roman Church under Peter is the One True Church® outside of which one cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation, and is not in the Church. He thinks this bombast will prevent dissent, but it has not worked.	Dominus Iesus: " …those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.” “All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html	While Rome, of course, asserts that all grace to be found in separated Churches and communities come from her, and thus ecumenical RCs can try to use this as meaning Protestants are part of the church, it is certain that Popes Boniface VIII, Pius IX, Pius XI, Pius XII, Innocent III, Eugene IV and the Council of Florence and the authors of the other exclusive elitist assertions here — would not stand for this.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox “schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html	Thus the specific stipulation that recognition and submission to the pope as supreme is stated to be necessary to be in the One True Church and for salvation, which excludes even the EOs.	Joint Catholic-Orthodox declaration: Grateful to God, who mercifully favored them with a fraternal meeting...Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I have not lost sight of the determination each then felt to omit nothing thereafter which charity might inspire and which could facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. They are persuaded that in acting this way, they are responding to the call of that divine grace which today is leading the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, as well as all Christians, to overcome their differences in order to be again "one" as the Lord Jesus asked of His Father for them.	So much for recognizing and obeying the authority and supremacy of Peter for life and salvation. Note the substantial differences between the two.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html	Here we have an accepted (by many) “infallible” clear statement — made when Rome had no real lasting competition besides the EO, and used an unholy sword to deal with dissent, and could control the press — that submission to the Roman pope is necessary for salvation, with “subject” not meaning the EOs view of the pope, but the RC manner of submission.	CCC 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324	Evidently Vatican Two sees some Prots as somehow being subject to the Roman Pontiff, which Boniface VIII say is absolutely necessary for salvation. While Lumen Gentium 14 does say, “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved,” in context this refers to baptism being the door by which men enter the Church. Thus to refuse baptism would be refusing to enter the Church, and not those whop know of the exclusive claims of the Roman church but are not convinced of them, and thus do not enter it.
Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm	Thus the presumptuous pompous decree of Boniface VIII is affirmed by the Fifth Lateran Council, adding to Rome collective guilt.	Dominus Iesus: "...these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation...”	Obviously, if “separated brethren” are part of the Body of Christ, and are instruments for salvation, then it cannot be held that subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful. Period.
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), [considered infallible by some]	Here is specified who is excluded from becoming participants in eternal life, which includes heretics and schismatics, yet in reality some dissent from Rome it is necessary to be saved. Rebellion to errors of Rome is obedience to God.	Lumen Gentium 8; This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. . These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ,* are forces impelling toward catholic unity.	Consistent with what has been said previously is the change here regarding the word “subsist.” Noted RC theologian Yves Congar states, The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute "Roman" missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body...Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it. (Le Concile de Vatican II, (Paris: Beauchesne) p. 160.)
Pope Gregory XVI: "The holy universal Church teaches that God cannot be truly adored except within its fold; she affirms that all those who are separated from her will not be saved." (Summo Iugiter Studio, encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI May 27, 1832, quoting “Gregory the Great” in Moral. in Job. XIV,5 [ch 158]).	Truly adored is in contrast to falsely adored.	Lumen Gentium 16: But the plan of salvation ( propositum salutis ) also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place ( in primis ) among these there are the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind Nostra Aetate's §3 Upon the Moslems, too, the Church looks with esteem. They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth and Speaker to men.., They strive to submit wholeheartedly even to His inscrutable decrees, just as did Abraham, with whom the Islamic faith is pleased to associate itself.	Here is it affirmed that Muslims along with RCs adore the one and merciful God. There is no parsing this to mean Muslims only “profess” to do so, as instead it is affirmed that they adore/worship the one and merciful God, and strive to serve the same, just as did Abraham.
Therefore we can see that Vatican Two Rome has contradicted previous church teaching, even if that was not consistent. But which latest magisterial teaching is what RCs are to obey, and not interpret for themselves what church teaching really is by examination of the past,. For, It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906. However, both pre and post Vatican Two Roman Catholicism was and is a serious deformation of the NT church, as partly detailed here by God's grace.

913 posted on 04/30/2015 3:19:00 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

You mean that of reproving the unBiblical demigoddess of the fictitious Mary of Catholicism , in contrast to the holy, virtuous blessed Mary of Scripture?

I'm not going to fetch examples.

So you make an assertion without having any examples? How typical.

They'll come up in the future. In fact you seem to have espoused one just now. :)

Just as i suspected, and thus the meaning of your charge of hating Christ and His mother is spurious, as it refers to only honoring the Biblical Mary they way it does, in contrast to the documented egregious extremes RCs have and do go to in exalting their Mary of Catholicism.

Such as lauding her as

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

914 posted on 04/30/2015 3:39:28 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

To: mlizzy; boatbums; metmom

But when women enter the conversation, there should be at least a modicum of special respect.

Generally I would agree. Yet once those same woman cross the lines and seek all the rights and privileges of a man -- then ---if they mess with the bull, they too, can get the horns.

Specially when those same women are posing as bull-fighters, wielding lances.

Here & now you openly confess to being sexist. And seeking to have that benefit to apply to *some* women (that would be Roman Catholics) disproportionately. I can say this for I've never seen you come riding to the rescue of metmom or boatbums, while either of those two women were being subjected to getting personal-like harassment.

What ---you think we haven't noticed that there is more than a little bit of the ya-ya sisterhood thing going on?

How stupid do you think people are? Do you not realize that many of us have long seen this "sisterhood" activity, with men too (FRomans) jumping upon any who would dare confront that sisterhood?

Meanwhile, women like metmom and boatbums, day after day have insinuations slid towards them like stilettos trying to find a way in between the ribs, when they are not at other times openly insulted in one way or another. Observing that activity makes this particular bull, very very angry.

And so more than a few individuals here, over the years -- have gotten the horns, while I broke and stomped on the lances intended not for whatever it was these two had been saying, but meant as personal attack, and then (of course) would have those same lances then aimed at myself when I tried to break it up.

Even seen a bull pick up a lance and throw it right back into the faces of the ones' who brought those lances into an arena?

THat's me, baby, and that's why I'm so admired by one and all. (he hate me)

And so I have often attempted to intervene when I've witnessed individuals here be gone after personally with extra-special attention mainly for reason they dared oppose or correct a member of the FRoman sisterhood.

I've been given that treatment from YOU more than once, with it being more all about myself having opposed something which some FRoman dame posted instead of whatever issue it was which was being discussed, instead. Did you think I didn't realize what was going on? I may be a lot of things...but stupid isn't one of them.

Yet here you (and others) are, complaining about how unfair "the rules" are ---since you people just cannot stop yourselves from going straight to making everything personal!

Screeching split-tails -- unite! And then piss and moan on thread after thread about how one of the members of the sisterhood had been exposed as having long falsely represented herself (for example). Remember that?

"They stalk people from thread to thread

when what really had transpired was some of the game-players around here were being called out for the bullshitting they had long been indulging themselves in (while trying to score points by moaning & complaining about how evil-boll-weevil "Protestants" on this forum are).

Meanwhile, it would be nice to focus upon principles and concepts being discussed, instead of the main topic of thread conversations be sidetracked again and again into being about who it is that is discussing what, and who has to figuratively have more than one hand tied behind their back, while they themselves are slapped around by screecher contingent.

It seems like in this, here again you'd like 'special' rules apply where *some* people are more equal than others.

But this is the Smokey Backroom -- and yourself and others have been going on and on about how unfair everything is to "Catholics" -- and so I am addressing those claims. Otherwise, I would prefer to not have to be constantly dealing with this sort of crap. One cannot deal with the issue without it being all about people, since the issue has been made all about people (including the religion forum moderator(s), and by extension, JimRob too).

Don't even tell me the one about "baby Jesus and his mother", waving that around like a magic wand that would preclude female FRomans from needing to abide by the same rules as anyone else (whenever it suited the ya-ya sisterhood's strategic RC objectives). You did that while alluding to abortion, and chips on shoulder as big as Nevada...pinging others to that sideways insinuation made towards boatbums.

Knock it off. You keep trying to have things both ways -- sliding knives at people here (women, even).

If Roman Catholics come to this forum and say things which cannot stand up to scrutiny -- then those things which they have said (issues or claims made ---not people) can be shredded -- right before their eyes. Just_like_for_clams_made_by_any_one_else.

If you (and your sisterhood) can't stand the heat, don't bring any. If RC apologetic cannot stand being opposed, if it offends yourself and those who bring it here to have other people oppose it --- then stop bringing it, and stop bullshitting about how unfair everything is, too.

There is a reason why in Jewish traditions women were not allowed to stand among the men in the Temple while those men would open the scrolls and propound upon Scripture (as virtually all Jewish males had birth-right to do).

Ever hear the one about why many women from India have that red dot on their forehead?

[answer given while forcefully jabbing index finger forward in the air (at forehead level) as if punctuating each word]

Because_they_just_don't_know_when_to_shut_up!

915 posted on 04/30/2015 3:43:08 AM PDT by BlueDragon (This is the wonder of devotion... I seek the torch we all must hold)

To: mlizzy; metmom; boatbums; caww; presently no screen name; redleghunter; Springfield Reformer; ...

There’s problems on both ends. That’s why a [devout, patient] Catholic moderator helping out would be very beneficial. Would you keep [happily] attending your son’s soccer games if both referees were opposing team fathers [and you didn’t always agree with their calls]?

So now you even know the religion or devoutness of RMs? Meaning that a devout RM would never allow such posts as i just posted reproving the unScriptural accolades ascribed to Mary of Catholicism, in contrast to the holy Mary of Scripture?

In addition, you charge the RM with bias, yet this is due to RCS expecting special treatment, as they can and have denigrated Protestantism, and the nature of Protestants for YEARS without censure, of which i can PM you examples of, and even have gotten away with personal attacks (including falsely charging me with lying, etc.).

But what certain RCs seem to want is to be free to continue to advertize and promote their elitist church in "open" forums and not allow its pretentious claims to be attacked, as if they ran FR. Which is consistent with the historical attitude of their self-exalting church, which will be abased, and country to Scripture as well as the Founders of America overall.

But consistent with your desires, the Mormons could insist upon a "devout, patient" Mormon moderator who would forbid criticism of their religion, such as charges it with teaching contrary to the one and only true Judeo-Christian God as taught in KJV, with no books of fiction or additional editing.

To which censure i concur, but what do you think should be done with a poster who says such as that if you recommendations became forum rules?

916 posted on 04/30/2015 4:00:02 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)

To: daniel1212; Grateful2God

Which adds to your call for special treatment, but when women post like men, ad hominems ad all, and show no respect of gender themselves then they can expect to be treated like the rest.

In the case at issue, the women engaged in fallacious personal attacks and mind reading, which i did not ping the RM to, but which you ignored in your attack of me. So much for your objectivity.

Stronger moderating would be an answer to that.

And, for the sake of information, men who deeply love [and respect] Mary, Christ's Mother, are usually more respectful toward women in general. Pay attention to the boards and see for yourself.

[And did you see the video of the mama who laid her son out in Baltimore? He does not battle back even though he's getting a pretty good scolding in front of his friends and the whole nation. Lots of hope and love on that very short video, imo.]

917 posted on 04/30/2015 4:34:42 AM PDT by mlizzy ("Tell your troubles to Jesus," my wisecracking father used to say, and now I do.......at adoration.)

To encourage good holy conversation (debates) from all faiths and more peoples, the open forum board needs to be better moderated.

God be with you.

918 posted on 04/30/2015 4:47:03 AM PDT by mlizzy ("Tell your troubles to Jesus," my wisecracking father used to say, and now I do.......at adoration.)

Reading comprehension BlueDragon. Please go back and reread/rethink my commentary.

919 posted on 04/30/2015 4:52:21 AM PDT by mlizzy ("Tell your troubles to Jesus," my wisecracking father used to say, and now I do.......at adoration.)

You’d be surprised to know an NCC whose commentary gets me to laughing. He [usually] knows how to insult the Catholic faith [which is his intent], but still be funny.

However, it’s Catholics, themselves, who are the best at poking fun of certain aspects of their faith, but they want the information in that regard to be truthful, not inaccurate or a display of hate.

920 posted on 04/30/2015 5:01:56 AM PDT by mlizzy ("Tell your troubles to Jesus," my wisecracking father used to say, and now I do.......at adoration.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794