Apology's accepted. But I didn't really take it as an insult. Besides I know I'm not moron When I agreed with you I meant whatever good I got it's not mine and it's God's gift. Denying God's gift is not humility but stupidity but same is true when appropriating it.
I made it as clear as possible without being rude that I think that in the first instance the document is flawed, in that it allows much to much room for historical conjecture, and that in the second instance you've drawn false conclusions from incomplete data.I agree that I'm not an original thinker or even thinker at all. But at least give me proof that the document is flawed (we can't just rely on your words). And give me some reasoning that proves my non-original conclusion conclusion is wrong.
In the third place I do not give you sufficient credit for being an original and insightful thinker such that you have come to an accurate conclusion that is unique in the history of the discussion on filioque. The chances of that really are pretty slim.
You have yet to offer any correlative proofs to my challenge so I'll let it rest till you do.
If you have no answer to this in your next response I'll know you just want to say something and it doesn't matter what you say.
ahhhh...I knew when I went out this morning that I had been too strong and it conveyed a high-handedness that I did NOT mean. Of course you are a thinker and a strong one but what you have in that document that you referenced is not enough that you can think your way through it logically. It is not sufficient data. I am sorry if you thought I was just slamming you to the mat. That was NOT my intention. I will say that if I were in your shoes, I'd have done no better with it.
As for giving you more...that takes time and work and lots of typing...and its Lent and I want to keep my focus. Which means I'll look around for something that I can offer you in a reasonable time frame and if I cannot find just the thing then we'll have to let this hang.
Please forgive me for any insult or hurt I caused this morning!!
Yes please, provide me with more information (links would be OK) that proves your point and disproves mine. I'm not saying I can't be wrong but at the same time I don't see otherwise based on however insufficient data may be provided in those articles. I'm more then glad to hear anything. I don't try to merely refuse everything Catholic, though I do like to see something supporting Catholic statements.
Good on the first point. All I was really saying was that if your point were accurate then it would be likely that I would have heard something like it before or that it would be a point that is grappled with more directly historically. But in the way that you have phrased it all, it has not appeared.
As to your openness to being proved wrong...I don't know if I can do that directly. I think your whole approach is off so from my perspective it would be like trying to prove to you that I don't or did not beat my children, if I never had any children.
So there are two things at work: one being your presumptions are off because two, there is insufficient data there in the document to make it clear that you are reading something in to it that is not really intended or cannot stand against the actual history.
At any rate, I will keep my eyes open to see what I can see that might help. You realize that I see how rigidly you are convinced at the moment so I don't know that I will be staying up nights looking for ways to change your mind.