@TRiG I saw that previously. I thought it was one of the best answers on the whole SE I've ever read.

This post seems to have caused a bit of a kerfuffle in the review queue generating mixed flags and action and comments that don't seem to agree on what the problem is. I've gone ahead and put it out of it's misery with a comment of my own saying what I see as the main problem and how it would need to be fixed. And if you don't have 10k and still want to gawk at the train wreck...

These sort of posts actually happen fairly often, so I wanted to suggest that the first thing to do is look past the un-orthodox theology and not even bother engaging that if the post doesn't identify who it's speaking for.

In spite of being heterodox such positions might have a place on this site when and only when they are properly matched to questions and identify who they represent. Sometimes the fault is with questions that are really "truth questions" and hence answer's cannot be reasonably vetted, but sometimes the questions are alright and random "truth answers" like this come along.

Unfortunately we let the orthodox-ish ones stand even when they are terrible answers. We also tend to engage the heterodox ones on content before format/applicability to the question. This is just a reminder that those patterns are backwards.

@Caleb My comment (and VFD) that this was more a comment than an answer was the best way I could think of to approach the idea that this wasn't presented as a specific doctrinal position. Maybe I should have reworded my comment.

Sometimes we all (myself included, particularly now) need to be reminded to let it go.

Sorry, I don't do animations :P

@DavidStratton: Your point RE: FMS's answer is that because the Pope can only speak ex cathedra based on scripture and tradition, that these are insufficient to certify Christ is who he claims to be after the second coming?

That's quite different than what I read from his summary statement at the end... it's probably more valid than what I took out of his answer, but I'm still not sure it's accurate to say that's true, unless the Catholic church has directly said so.

At the first coming, Christ used the OT to prove who he was. I fully expect at the second coming he'll use the OT and/or NT to do the same.

He also used the contemporary version of Jewish "Tradition" to prove his identity as well.

@Flimzy I see your reasoning, which is why I didn't reply, and didn't delete that comment. It's valid. I personally think that his answer is "strong enough" to stand in that I wouldn't delete it as "not an answer". I personally think that in this one, his logic is sound, but that doesn't mean YOU have to think his logic is strong enough.

I wouldn't delete it either. I didn't flag it for deletion. I just downvoted, because I don't think it's solid reasoning.

You're perfectly justified in voting it down and commenting as to why.

I think it is one valid line of reasoning...

but that makes it opinion

and not authoritative

Which is why I said, if there was Catholic writing on the topic that spelled out his conclusion, I would actually up-vote it. But I suspect there are other, equally valid conclusions that can be drawn.

I wish FMS would come to chat some time... it would be so much easier to discuss these things in chat

but that doesn't seem to be his way

yeah, it's hard to find that line. I see your point, and agree somewhat. It would be better if he could find a reference from a Catholic source that said explicitly what he said as the conclusion. In the end, it is his reasoning, and you're right, that is on the opinion side.

He's been in chat recently here.

That's good.

His questions do seem to be improving.

Although slowly, IMO

The thing about FMS is that he's filled with good information and knowledge, it just all comes out in ways that rub people the wrong way... I'd really like to see him learn to participate without raising the hackles of the rest of the community.

Yes, it's quite apparent he has a lot of good information... even this last answer which I down voted I thought started out very well, and taught me some things. It's just the conclusion which I disagreed with.

And then he takes things very defensively

He seems determined, though (else he probably would have left long ago). I suspect he'll get there.

I hope so. At any rate, it's time to go sugar the kids up so that they'll crash in time for bed. It's annoying while the sugar rush is on, but I don't have to answer to the social workers about using Nyquil to get them down.

(kidding)