That's about as lame as it gets...
For example: your definition of "heresy" above is as ludicrous and self-negating as the statement "there are no absolutes,"
My definition of heresy is correct: teaching that which is contrary to the teaching of the Church. The only thing that is ridiculous is your negation of it.
but demonstrating that fact for you would be "teaching a pig to sing" so I'll keep my pearls to myself despite your numerous fatuities after post #200
So instead of substance you have to resort to insults (never even attempting to answer or document any of your answers), I suppose in hopes that you will bait me to respond in kind. I won't stoop down to your level. In fact, I couldn't even if I wanted to.
Your replies are void of any substance, or meaning. You fail to answer straightforward questions such as why do you persistently write Greek with a lower-case letter g, or how many languages do you know expertly. You don't reply to historical facts with historical facts but with out-of-context fables. You claim that you studied Greek, yet you are unfamiliar with variant transliterationsal forms of the same. You use well known words in a supposedly colloquial manner when such colloquial usage is not documented in dictionaries. You insinuate that I said apostasy is dependent on geography, yet you will not provide where I supposedly make such a claim. In short, you don't answer anything. You just spill out your vomit and insults for whatever reason once a week. That's pathetic.
How much effort am I suppose to expend on you? If you will not acknowledge patristic silence is not the same thing as contradicting those fathers, you are accepting the same false logic of the sola scriptura crowd. That's not insult: that's fact.
You get the insults when you refuse to acknowledge such simple, straightforward, self-evident facts.
Furthermore, it is not my responsibility to powder your bottom everytime you wet yourself over my references to what other posters have claimed (like the geography comment).
You use well known words in a supposedly colloquial manner when such colloquial usage is not documented in dictionaries.
Gee, you're right. It would be pretty stupid to try to find colloqialisms in a dictionary. Maybe that means the inquirer needs to look up "colloquialism" first.
Be that as it may, would telling you to add something like "personality" to "solipsistic" as a search term satisfy your appetite for citation, or would you prefer I make your petulance even more explicit with copy/paste?