Feel free to post evidence if you have any.
Here some evidence that's still warm and indisputable:
Pinto’s ideas are bizarre, stupid, implausible - exactly the sort of nonsense ignorant anti-Catholic, mouth-breathing, inbred, Protestant morons love.
That statement more than qualifies as dishonest, vitriolic, and out of touch with reality in the minds of most, including the minds of honest Catholics who follow THE teachings of Yeshua, commandments from the Almighty and not every decree issued by the Popery.
Therein lies the danger of manmade doctrine which isn't substantiated by scripture. It eventually leads to burning others at the stake, as antichrist as you can get.
As I said upstream, there is no disputing the Catholic church has indeed done much good in spite of evil its leaders have engaged in, which Btw can be equated to the Pharisees in that regard as well as in furtherance of inequities dreamed up by man and not of the Almighty.
When one wants to discuss a lie, what is it when someone is offered proof from Catholic sources that Catholic scholars long disagreed about the doctrinal value of the Apocrypha, and then responds in answer to Trent failing to address the question:
“There was no question to answer.”
The Catholic historian Hubert Jedin in his “History of the Council of Trent” discussed it, as cited, but some Catholics simply deny what took place.
Is that a lie? Or is it deliberate rejection of the truth? Or is there difference?
“Pinto’s ideas are bizarre, stupid, implausible - exactly the sort of nonsense ignorant anti-Catholic, mouth-breathing, inbred, Protestant morons love.”
My comment was spot on. It was perfectly honest so it doesn’t count as evidence of “The religion forum, unfortunately, is the ******least honest******* and most vitriolic part of FreeRepublic.” If you call making a perfectly honest and accurate comment vitriol, you’re wrong.