Them that live in glass houses...

***QUOTE***

At 12:18 AM, September 07, 2006, Dave said...

Hi Matthew,

It's true that Jason Engwer is generally "quite gentlemanly and cordial," and a rare bird in that respect for someone whom I classify as an "anti-Catholic Protestant" (i.e., one who thinks that Catholicism is not a Christian belief-system).

That said, I do believe that he is a sophist of the highest order (Steve Hays is even more so). But this is probably not deliberate; it's just par for the course for one who adopts a self-defeating position (that Protestantism is somehow Christian while Catholicism is not).

Yours, in It,

Dave Armstrong
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
At 12:39 AM, September 07, 2006, Dave said...

I should clarify that when I say Jason is a sophist, I mean with regard to the way he treats Catholicism. It may very well be that when he does what I call "general Christian apologetics," he does a great job (I don't know; I haven't read much of his work). It wouldn't be the first time. I find this to be the case for other well-known anti-Catholic Protestant apologists, such as James White.

Ineptitude in one subject doesn't necessarily bleed over into another. One often finds these sorts of apologists writing perfectly ridiculous stuff about Catholicism, but quite sensible and compelling arguments when dealing with, say, Islam or excessively skeptical biblical criticism.

***END-QUOTE***

Yes…well…other issues aside, critics of Armstrong are not limited to us fundy anti-Catholics, but emanate from his own fold:

***QUOTE***

"C'est La Vie" Dept.
(On David Armstrong Tragic Mental Meltdown)

I spent more time than I should have pondering how to respond to the latest round of escalating bilge from one Dave Armstrong. Part of me considered posting a whole bunch of stuff on this matter and continuing the obliteration of David's fantasies and illogical public grandstanding with systematic and factual accounts of reality.

It is a sad spectacle since Dave is doing nothing more than the very excesses that makes a lot of what passes for "apologetics" so repugnant to me. And while I do at time set traps for my opponents to stumble into, it would not be honest to say that I concocted this as a ploy to trap Dave. No, this time his Tar Baby like snaring was for the most part rather serendipitous. It all gets down to the elements of logic, reason, and the objective presentation of the facts of reality. And no matter how much he publicly grandstands with presumed "new discoveries", those who can look at the evidences without bias can see that Dave has inexorably become another Captain Queeg.{3} It is sad to see someone I once respected so much fall as he has but it is a casualty to the methodology of certain "apologist" sorts.

Then, when Dave started talking behind my back again this month (and I was made aware of it), I sought to undertake a more systematical outlining of what I noted before shorn of almost all invective. What I outlined in two postings this month{8} is irrefutable by Dave and that is why he continues to ignore it.{9} Now, we have his latest attempts at Jerry Springeresque grandstanding{10} for what reason I have no idea...unless it is to generate more $$$ for the "Poor Dave Box" or something.{11} Or unless it is because his fragile ego is still hurting from the thrashing he got last year.{12} Again, I did not in any way compel him to have to respond to anything on that subject. And (furthermore), I did not compel him to make this an issue of personalities which is what he chose (for some reason) to do.{13}

Apologists like him{14} have to always "win" arguments. And when they do not "win", they go about all sorts of disgraceful historical revisionism, tearing their interlocuters words from context, etc. Rather than show some humility and admit that they may have bit off more than they can chew on something, it is viewed as better by them to demonize.

http://rerum-novarum.blogspot.com/2006_08_27_rerum-novarum_archive.html#115682245845042316

***END-QUOTE***