On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

Orthodox Advices ^ | 1981 | Elder Cleopa of Romania

[ArrogantBustard]

I consider it rather difficult to defend anything against anything several hundred years before one's existence.

I'm not doing that. Nor am I committing any form of historical revisionism. I leave for you to do, if you see fit. Denying several hundred years of the existence of the Catholic Church certainly qualifies. And I couldn't care less what you find "cheeky".

co-opt the MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS gig vis a vis the other Christian leaders around the Mediteranian.

You're entitled to your own opinion. Inventing your own set of "facts" puts you beyond the pale of civil discourse.

elitist rulers over all.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

[Quix]

The Romanist perspective I was responding to, doesn't.

[Quix]

elitist rulers over all.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
= = = =

How incredibly fascinating . . .

A thread is posted defending, affirming, pontificating about, lauding, supporting . . . elitist rulers of a presumed universal Christian church.

And then NOTING and disagreeing with that construction on reality is called bearing false witness?

Fascinating.

Hey, Bro Calvinists . . . have we fallen down the Rabbit Hole again? Has the Matrix unloaded? Has the Wizard of Oz lost his suspenders, his smoke and mirrors? What gives?

Different perspectives and constructions on reality is par for the course on such threads . . . but this sort of reality revisionism seems to be utterly off the wall . . . and the wall was the funny farm to begin with! LOL.

[Quix]

Inventing your own set of "facts" puts you beyond the pale of civil discourse.
= = = =

My perspective on that is that inventing one's own set of historical revisionist falsehoods and calling that

GODLY

is enormously well and galactically BEYOND "beyond the pale."

[ArrogantBustard]

inventing one's own set of historical revisionist falsehoods and calling that GODLY is enormously well and galactically BEYOND "beyond the pale.

Then I'd advise you to refrain from such behaviour in the future. I certainly shall, as I have in the past.

[ArrogantBustard]

A thread is posted defending, affirming, pontificating about, lauding, supporting . . . elitist rulers of a presumed universal Christian church.

You must be looking for another thread ... you've spectacularly failed to describe this one. Try the "Fine Young Calvinist" thread ... I'm sure you'll find it fascinating. I certainly do ...

The rest of your post, being premised on falsehood, is utter rubbish.

[Quix]

as I have in the past.
= = =

Not my habit, either! LOL.

[Quix]

you've spectacularly failed to describe this one.
= = = =

Must be speaking of a different galaxy for that to be true.

[Quix]

is utter rubbish.
= = = =

I think God is an exceedingly better assessor of what is and is not rubbish . . .

than is the elitist, pharisaical, tradition bound; traditions of men bound; politically powerful; politically arrogant; politically manipulative; UNBiblical Romanist hierarchy.

[ArrogantBustard]

You seem to be contradicting yourself, here. Does the "Romanist politically successful group" still exist today? Where could I find its adherents? By what name does it call itself?

No real entity that I'm aware of matches your descriptions.

Either:

1) You are describing some group that I've never heard of.

or

2) You are falsely describing some group that I have heard of.

or

3) You're describing some figment of your imagination.

[Quix]

4) Am fairly accurately describing a group, many adherents of which seem to live in chronic denial about it's clay feet and particularly the clay feet of it's elitist leaders and it's historical revisionism.

[ArrogantBustard]

Answer my questions, please.

[Quix]

I find it nice when folks ask me something and I reply in an earnest, honest and accurate way with a pretty clear answer . . .

for said folks to treat it at least somewhat that way.

[ArrogantBustard]

1) Does the "Romanist politically successful group" still exist today?

This is a simple question, requiring only a yes/no answer.

2) Where could I find its adherents?

This one's a bit more complex ... in might require recourse to a phone book or perhaps a street map. Still not beyond your capabilities. Anyone who can use the internet should be able to manage.

3) By what name does it call itself?

This one should require no research at all on your part. You seem to have invented the term, so you must certainly know what it means.

Let's have answers to these three questions ... it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion unless we are sure we're talking about the same thing.

[Quix]

I don't recall seeing an idiot in the mirror when I got up this morning.

And I'm certain that Romanist believers on FR are not idiots.

I also don't recall surrendering my posting decisions, criteria for truth; my style decisions; how I frame reality and the truth . . .

over to

anyone else.

[ArrogantBustard]

I'll ask you one last time to answer my three questions. Please have the courtesy of answering those three questions, so that we may speak plainly.

If you continue to refuse, I shall have to draw conclusions based on your other posts, and on the fact of your refusal to answer. Since mind-reading is not permitted in the religion, I will not attempt to state for certain what you mean by "Romanist politically successful organization" ... but I shall treat your posts as though you are either falsely describing something I know about, or are entertaining us with figments of your imagination.

[ArrogantBustard]

My apologies: that should read "Since mind reading is not permitted in the religion forum &c."

[Quix]

I try to post the truth.

Sometimes I post satire to make a truthful point--though haven't here.

I take no responsibility for any readers' personal choices and responsibilities for what they do with the truth I post.

It is well and easily known what group I've been posting about. It's been obvious that I haven't abandoned discussing the group the thread was posted in praise of. That's well known. Pontifications to the contrary are merely that and not overly impressive ones, at that.

I have no illusions or delusions about my skills in helping pigs fly; pigs sing; cows fly; pig's ears into silk purses; leaping tall buildings with a single bound; making horses drink;

. . .

OR

in forcing Romanists to be more aware of and accurate about the historical truths of history regarding the early 500 years of Christianity.

God will make HIS perspective abundantly clear to ALL WHO TRULY SEEK HIM, HIS WILL, HIS WAYS REGARDLESS OF ALL ELSE; REGARDLESS OF ALL PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS; ASSOCIATIONS; TRADITIONS, WHATEVER . . .

He alone is able to impact the human heart; spirit; mind in lastingly fruitful ways.

I'm just a feeble noise maker along the way . . . that He graciously sees fit to use in some cases with some people somewhat.

That's grand enough, for me.

I do, however find the ways I and/or my posts have been characterized in this exchange to be from a perspective that appears to me to be exceedingly wanting; exceedingly cheeky; exceedingly haughty in tone and attitude. I hope my perspective doesn't come across those ways. They aren't very persuasive, to me.

But then lot of things persuade some folks and not others. One size does not fit all.

[ArrogantBustard]

May the Lord God of Hosts bless you and keep you, may He let his Light shine upon you, and may he lead you to the fullnes of Truth.

[Quix]

Thanks.

And, INDEED:

May the Lord God of Hosts bless you and keep you, may He let his Light shine upon you, and may he lead you to the fullnes of Truth.