Dave Armstrong is trying his best to launch an urban legend about how Jason Engwer ignored “88%” of Armstrong’s “line-by-line” reply.
Now, it doesn’t surprise me that Armstrong has a hankering for legends. After all, he’s Roman Catholic. That alone makes him a certified legend-monger. For the church of Rome is a multistory legend.
It’s unwittingly revealing that Dave seizes on word counts as his benchmark of apologetic excellence.
Dave is the type of guy who judges the quality of a gift by the size of the box. To him, a 5x5 box full of Styrofoam stuffing and a peanut is far more valuable than a tiny box with a sapphire ring.
The problem with Armstrong’s response is that he didn’t offer a point-by-point reply. Rather, he offered a point-by-pointless reply.
One of Dave’s basic deficiencies is that although he fancies himself a “professional apologist,” he’s a cheapskate when it comes to research. He doesn’t invest in scholarly resources.
Instead, dear old Dave confines himself to whatever roadkill he can peel off the information superhighway. Welcome to Uncle Davey’s Roadkill Café. Today’s specials: Awesome Possum or Poodles n’ Noodles.
The intellectual quality of his rejoinder reminds me of that old Beatles song–“She Loves You.” Remember how the lyrics went?
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah
She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, yeah, yeah Ye-ah!
Hey, I mean, what gives?
ReplyDeleteYou cook roadkill right, using fine herbs and spices, a little salt and pepper, wrap it in bacon, slow cook it over an open flame, and hey, it doesn't taste as bad as it smells.
Besides, the other resolve would to agree with Scripture and Jason:::>
Pro 27:7 One who is full loathes honey, but to one who is hungry everything bitter is sweet.
But having said that, my guess is he will come back and argue that the sign should read:
"Uncle Davey's Roadskill Cafe'".
I am thankful for all the good and substantive apologetic that I've read on this blog over the past few weeks. I especially appreciate Jason's stuff on the development of doctrine which I found via a link on David Waltz's blog.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that Dave Armstrong is in his own right a sophist, I don't see the wisdom in 'stooping down' to his level.
Wouldn't it be a more powerful witness to simply engage in his ideas at a high level without peppering comments with name calling and sophistry? If the goal of some of this work is to draw Catholics into the truth than I might suggest that a loving approach would be more successful. Imagine a Catholic coming to this blog and on any given day and the first thing he/she sees is a thread like this? Do you think they’ll want to read more? Do you think they’ll take you seriously?
I hope you don't take offense at my suggestion. I just worry that the only people who are going to see the good stuff you are writing are people who are already ‘on your team.’
Raymond,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure the writers at Triablogue can forward their own defense on this issue. I just wanted to mention that posts like these remind me of Elijah and his comments to the false prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18:27 or Jesus' rather personal attacks on the character of the Pharisees. It seems it is sometimes appropriate to engage in this kind of behavior.
I guess my question for you is how you define and defend your concepts of "high level" and "loving approach" behavior from Scriptural examples.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteWhilst there is a place of a genuine 'righteous indignation' I don't think that the biblical examples you cite included the mocking/joking/belittling that you can find here.
Many Christians do not take Dave Armstrong seriously because he is bad about this...knowing this, what makes us think that Catholics will take us seriously if we act the same way?
Raymond said, If the goal of some of this work is to draw Catholics into the truth than I might suggest that a loving approach would be more successful.
ReplyDeleteOne of the goals here, too, is to help and encourage people to think soundly; one of the better ways to do this is to point out unsound patterns of thinking.
If those unsound patterns of thinking just happen to be laughable, then laughing at them is an appropriate response.
Shouldn't we pray and lament for apostates rather than mock them and laugh at them?
ReplyDeleteShouldn't we pray and lament for apostates rather than mock them and laugh at them?
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that anyone here isn't already doing that?
Is it your position that it is prudent to mock and laugh at them so long as you are lamenting and praying for them?
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteThis is off topic, but do you think you can critique or offer your opinion on 'evangelism' ministries and evangelism methods from Way Of The Master, and Living Waters, or Wretched Radio?
If you've been reading all of the responses to Dave Armstrong, you realize that there is about 99% substance and 1% that is more light hearted. I don't need to defend Steve's sense of humor; but if you've spent the least amount of time here, you know that this is not a blog that's devoted to tearing people down.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that Dave Armstrong's responses are so laughable that sometimes you just have to laugh at them.
And yes, it is prudent to laugh sometimes.
Raymond writes:
ReplyDeleteShouldn't we pray and lament for apostates rather than mock them and laugh at them?
What did Elijah do in 1 Kings 18:27?
I'm not saying he didn't lament and/or pray for these apostates in other contexts (I don't know either way). But I don't see it as an either/or.
What do you make of the fact that Elijah did, indeed, mock the prophets of Baal?
Catholicism, of course, being the moral, theological, and intellectual equivalent of Baal-worship . . .
ReplyDeleteRay,
ReplyDeletehmmmm? I experience the guys in here at Triablogue offer some sound Biblical words of wisdom, teaching in righteousness, instruction, insights and at times, commical levity with a spirit of comity underneath.
Seeing these verses of Scripture undermine your position, which, to be fair, isn't a bad one to employ at times, don't you think you might want to redress them a bit, now?:::>
Pro 1:24 Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,
Pro 1:25 because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,
Pro 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you,
Pro 1:27 when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you.
Pro 1:28 Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently but will not find me.
Pro 1:29 Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD,
Pro 1:30 would have none of my counsel and despised all my reproof,
Pro 1:31 therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way, and have their fill of their own devices.
and:::>
Pro 18:20 From the fruit of a man's mouth his stomach is satisfied; he is satisfied by the yield of his lips.
Pro 18:21 Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.
I am sure you will agree that when a blind man is leading blind followers, the ditch is not wanting? And, who has the greater sin, the blind leader or the blind followers?
If God does not have trouble doing it, that is, laughing, mocking and humiliatingly ignoring a foolish man when trouble comes upon him for cause, why should His Sons, filled with the Holy Spirit, filled with the Scriptural knowledge to prove the foolishness of one's words and being much learned and disciplined, schooled to a scholarly degree of knowledge to boot, not do it too?
The [Uncle Davey's Roadkill Cafe'] title being assigned to DA, it seems to me, does elucidate some of the blindness I see as well as the words of death and life that have been coming across the bow back and forth in this forum and format, does it not or not?
Javier,
ReplyDeleteSteve I ain't, but you might find this convo I had a while ago useful.
Dave Armstrong writes:
ReplyDeleteCatholicism, of course, being the moral, theological, and intellectual equivalent of Baal-worship . . .
Did I say that? No.
And it doesn't have to be equivalent for the point to stick. We're talking about precedents and principles. If the kind of behavior Elijah engaged in was acceptable, it can serve as a case-study of appropriate behavior. Just what contexts that behavior is appropriate in is a different question, but I am addressing the raw issue of whether it is always wrong to mock, taunt, etc. It doesn't seem to be the case.
I'd love to see Dave try to enunciate the moral, theological, and intellectual distinctions between his religion and that of Baal, particularly in view of Lumen Gentium.
ReplyDelete"Catholicism, of course, being the moral, theological, and intellectual equivalent of Baal-worship . . ."
ReplyDeleteThat sounds about right, yes.
TF,
ReplyDeletenot to digress to far from the thread's direction, in it though, it would be of particular interest to me if Mr. Armstrong would do just that, as you have requested and for me, I highlight one single bit in it, a bone of contention with it's writing and that intent of authority and guidance found within:::>
From the pen of John Paul VI, found in the decretal, I suppose, of the Lumen Gentium:
"....the firstborn of every creature"...".
Could he explain why there is such a variance of intents, his, that is, John Paul VI's and God's?
For instance, we see two "firstborns", of obviously, that of Christ and the other, well it would be a thing to hear who he might be speaking of?
Job 18:13 It shall devour the strength of his skin: even the firstborn of death shall devour his strength.
and
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
I concede though, John Paul VI does describe Him as Paul the Apostle does too:::>
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Thanks for perfectly illustrating my point, guys. You fell right into my "trap" as it were. Yes, your own logic doesn't absolutely require that Catholicism = Baal worship (though two folks have now opined that there is indeed an equivalence there), and yes, there is permissible mocking and satire in Scripture, as I have noted many times through the years, using Elijah as one of the prime examples.
ReplyDeleteMy deeper point, however, is that the very reason it is seen as perfectly justified to mock my person and my opinions and/or argumentative prowess, etc. (whether I worship Baal or not), is precisely why dialogue never could possibly have proceeded normally in the first place. It is this rock-bottom aversion to Catholicism (right or wrong: even that is beside my present point) that precludes all dialogue from the outset.
Jason took me no more seriously than any of you guys do. Yet you think I'm supposed to spend many more hours of my time trying to debate him? It's literally impossible. It's dumb enough to not know that Catholicism is a species of Christianity: dumber still to expect that any sane, self-respecting person would continue pseudo-"dialogue" (ha ha!) under these ludicrous conditions.
Even an atheist can see that, but the folks here cannot. In any event, I'm delighted that you confirmed yet again the rightness of my decision to no longer engage Jason, or anti-Catholics, generally speaking. You always do.
Well, yet again, Dave, you have confused me:::>
ReplyDeleteDA: "....that precludes all dialogue from the outset....".
So, are we to conclude that you didn't intentionally preclude any dialogue in here, which is the inset of that outset?
I think not, or not? Which is it, Dave?
I don't mean to belittle you Dave because with God all things are possible and it is possible that many Roman Catholics will die and pass into the everlasting arms of Our Savior, as I believe many have already, based on their belief in Him solely as the One Who died on that cursed oak for their sins, was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.
Who am I, a wretched sinner, to tell Jesus Who He died for, anyway? He is right now, according to the Faith once delivered to the Saints, sitting at the entry portal of His Holy Eternity, to it, many Roman Catholics shall enter simply because they too have Faith to believe He saves His people from their sins.
I would say that the context of the mocking to the Baal worshiping was quite different than the context we have in front of us.
ReplyDeleteTo that end, I don't think that calling Catholics 'Baal worshipers' is going to impress very many converts to leave the Catholic Church.
CS Lewis managed to write some of the most compelling and effective apologetic works without name calling.
If we want to invoke and live by scripture maybe best to also take into account that the meek inherit the earth along with the warning about our tongues and how we use them in James?
Raymond writes:
ReplyDeleteI would say that the context of the mocking to the Baal worshiping was quite different than the context we have in front of us.
That's possible, and I'd like to understand your perspective more, but I'd need to see you draw this out in more detail.
"You fell right into my "trap" as it were."
ReplyDeleteThis comes as no surprise, since everyone knew you had a big trap to begin with.
"Yes, your own logic doesn't absolutely require that Catholicism = Baal worship"
Well, it's true that we don't need to equate Catholicism with Baal worship. Equating it with Queen of Heaven worship is actually a bit more apropos.
"My deeper point, however, is that the very reason it is seen as perfectly justified to mock my person and my opinions and/or argumentative prowess, etc. (whether I worship Baal or not), is precisely why dialogue never could possibly have proceeded normally in the first place. It is this rock-bottom aversion to Catholicism (right or wrong: even that is beside my present point) that precludes all dialogue from the outset."
Yes, Protestant apologists have been "averting" dialog. That's why blogs like this and others have provided detailed, point-by-point refutations of numerous facets of Catholicism. The fact, as difficult as it may be to accept, is that it's your antics that keep people from taking you seriously. If you take a moment and see, there are plenty of dialogs with other Catholics that don't escalate to these kinds of hysterics. Why is that?
"Jason took me no more seriously than any of you guys do."
You don't have access to Jason's mental states. This is just a hand-waving exercise to try and distract from the real argument while you make a break for the nearest exit door.
"Yet you think I'm supposed to spend many more hours of my time trying to debate him? It's literally impossible."
Given that Jason's right and you're wrong, it's true that you're on the impossible side of the argument. You're free to switch over, though.
"It's dumb enough to not know that Catholicism is a species of Christianity"
It's dumb enough to not see that Catholicism commits the same errors as the Judaizers.
"dumber still to expect that any sane, self-respecting person would continue pseudo-"dialogue" (ha ha!) under these ludicrous conditions."
Well, we have pretty high expectations. Surely you won't let us down!
"Even an atheist can see that, but the folks here cannot."
Yes, agreeing with atheists is a fantastic benchmark for orthodoxy.
"In any event, I'm delighted that you confirmed yet again the rightness of my decision to no longer engage Jason, or anti-Catholics, generally speaking. You always do."
Well, you are correct that it is the right decision. Since Jason has the superior argument, then avoiding him is the only way of curtailing further defeat.
Dave is a upset that he is obligated to consider our beliefs more credible than we are his. That's all.
ReplyDeleteDAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:
ReplyDelete“My deeper point, however, is that the very reason it is seen as perfectly justified to mock my person and my opinions and/or argumentative prowess, etc. (whether I worship Baal or not), is precisely why dialogue never could possibly have proceeded normally in the first place. It is this rock-bottom aversion to Catholicism (right or wrong: even that is beside my present point) that precludes all dialogue from the outset.”
i) Just to set the record straight, you are trying to create a false and defamatory narrative of Jason’s performance. And, as usual, you play the innocent victim when someone exposes your chicanery.
ii) In addition, you’re a hack who pretends to be a professional apologist. Unlike Jason, you don’t do any real research.
iii) You constantly interject yourself into your “arguments.” You make yourself the issue. So you get what you ask for.
RAYMOND SAID:
“Shouldn't we pray and lament for apostates rather than mock them and laugh at them?”
i) There are lots of taunt songs in Scripture.
ii) If I did pray for Armstrong, do you think I’d announce it in public?
iii) But suppose I didn’t? There are, after all, billions of people in need of prayer. He can get in line like everyone else.
iv) Dave isn’t somebody who lost his faith and went quietly into the night. No, Dave is a stalwart enemy of the faith. He’s no better than Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Just like the militant atheist, his MO is to destroy faith in God’s word to make room for his alternative. In this case, his corrupt denomination.
“CS Lewis managed to write some of the most compelling and effective apologetic works without name calling.”
Seems to me that there’s quite a bit of in-house mockery and satire in That Hideous Strength. Lewis was lifelong academic, and there’s clearly a lot of autobiographical experience feeding into this expose. And that’s not the only example which springs to mind.
In Dave's defense, he's trying to say this: "You can't argue with ingrained prejudice." My doctoral research and current teaching assignments deal with both material and formal logic. I love both disciplines, and when it comes to discussions of faith and reason, I will spend longer on the reason side of the discussion. BUT my efforts are often a waste of time (which is Dave's point) because when extreme intolerance is involved no amount of reason or logic will win the day. And that is why Dave has resorted to numbers and percentages... it's a bit more quantitative and physical rather than psychological and spiritual. He's pointing out, as I often lament, that Protestant arguments MUST NECESSARILY commit a number of material fallacies among the most popular being "ignoring the counter evidence." Thus John 6 (in its entirety) will never be seriously preached upon by Protestants. The literal commingling of the physical and the spiritual (in John 6) would otherwise push the preacher toward sacramentalism, and perhaps, if not to RCC and Orthodoxy, then to Lutheranism.
ReplyDeleteStan,
ReplyDeleteIf you think that the argument: "he only quoted 12% of my words therefore he only responded to 12% of my arguments" is something anyone should take seriously, I'd love to hear why you think so.
-TurretinFan
STAN WILLIAMS SAID:
ReplyDeleteIn Dave's defense, he's trying to say this: "You can't argue with ingrained prejudice." My doctoral research and current teaching assignments deal with both material and formal logic. I love both disciplines, and when it comes to discussions of faith and reason, I will spend longer on the reason side of the discussion. BUT my efforts are often a waste of time (which is Dave's point) because when extreme intolerance is involved no amount of reason or logic will win the day. And that is why Dave has resorted to numbers and percentages... it's a bit more quantitative and physical rather than psychological and spiritual. He's pointing out, as I often lament, that Protestant arguments MUST NECESSARILY commit a number of material fallacies among the most popular being "ignoring the counter evidence." Thus John 6 (in its entirety) will never be seriously preached upon by Protestants. The literal commingling of the physical and the spiritual (in John 6) would otherwise push the preacher toward sacramentalism, and perhaps, if not to RCC and Orthodoxy, then to Lutheranism.
****************
Stan,
The painfully ironic thing about your comment is that you exhibit the very blindness you decry in Protestants. Take your test case of Jn 6. Due to your ingrained Catholic prejudice, you ignore the counterevidence by commentators like Carson, Keener, and Ridderbos.
Again DA breaks his vow of silence wrt antis.
ReplyDeleteWHAT vow? The only vow I've ever made is when I got married. Bearing false witness violates the Ten Commandments. It's a grave sin.
ReplyDeleteOr do you not know the difference between a binding vow and a resolution, which can possibly change?
Yes, please pardon my inability to read your mind.
ReplyDeleteAnd what do you think of the following Steve Hays' statement on 13 April 2009 and abrupt reversal of policy?:
ReplyDelete"I used to think that Dave Armstrong was just a jerk. Not deeply evil. Just a jerk.
"In that respect he was easy to make light of. . . . He isn’t just a narcissistic little jerk. He’s actually evil. It’s not something we can spoof or satirize anymore. He’s crossed a line of no return."
That lasted exactly three days (then three satires / spoofs were issued in rapid order, and innumerable ones since). Now I'm "evil" and it is a super-serious situation, and folks shouldn't even satirize and mock. Yet here he is doing that for the umpteenth time.
When reminded above that he perhaps ought to pray for me rather than mock, he virtually mocked the very enterprise of prayer and started lashing out at the person who suggested even a minimal application of elementary NT ethical principles, and Christian love.
It's so easy to put you in full self-defense I've-got-time-so-I'll-just-not-let-this-go mode!
ReplyDeleteIt’s not something we can spoof or satirize anymore.
Doesn't mean we can't try.
Dave Armstrong unsaid:
ReplyDeleteMind-reading? Where do you get off even making such a statement? If you claim that I broke a "vow" -- which I consider an extremely serious sin and charge -- then PROVE it. It's easy to simply parrot all of your anti-Catholic friends who repeat this scurrilous charge. I'll save you the trouble: you can't do it because it doesn't exist. The best you'll find is a semi tongue-in-cheek statement I made in 2001 or so that I later changed my mind on. It contains neither the words "vow" nor "oath". it was a RESOLUTION. Those aren't written in stone and binding for all time.
Or do you deny that serious public charges need to be established by facts and not gossip and hearsay? Is truth and fair play so little thought of on this blog that you actually don't understand this principle?
[to paraphrase a common jive] Anything goes in the service of Holy Mother Bible? Even rock-bottom ethics that are condemned by that same Bible?
-----------
You need to get a grip on your emotional explosions. Seriously. I thought *mine* could be bad...
Yes, please pardon my inability to read your mind.
ReplyDeleteMind-reading? Where do you get off even making such a statement? If you claim that I broke a "vow" -- which I consider an extremely serious sin and charge -- then PROVE it. It's easy to simply parrot lies from your anti-Catholic friends who repeat this scurrilous charge. I'll save you the trouble: you can't do it because it doesn't exist. The best you'll find is a semi tongue-in-cheek statement I made in 2001 or so that I later changed my mind on. It contains neither the words "vow" nor "oath". it was a RESOLUTION. Those aren't written in stone and binding for all time. You can search my 2538 papers on my blog and you'll never find any such "vow."
Or do you deny that serious public charges need to be established by facts and not gossip and hearsay? Is truth and fair play so little thought of on this blog that you actually don't understand this principle?
[to paraphrase a common anti-Catholic taunt] Anything goes in the service of Holy Mother Bible? Even rock-bottom ethics that are condemned by that same Bible?
Emotional? I'm sitting here cool as a cucumber, as always. I'm making arguments, that you aren't able to rationally answer, so you simply resume further lying and mocking. Doesn't this ever get old?
ReplyDeleteDid you think I was trying to delete my comment that you re-posted, for good? I simply changed a few words. Writers do that, you know. No big deal.
Did you think I was trying to delete my comment that you re-posted, for good?
ReplyDeleteYep. You do it all the time. A lot.
And I have every reason to believe that your "cool as a cucumber" is either a lie or a product of your own massive self-deception. Anyway, catch you later.
Yep. You do it all the time. A lot.
ReplyDeleteRight. Another lie from a clueless fool. Like a few days ago when I simply moved some papers about the controversy with Jason Engwer off of my front page: Peter Pike immediately concluded that I had deleted them. Profound reasoning there.
2538 papers including innumerable debates with anti-Catholics (back when I still did that), but it's clear that I try to hide everything. Who could doubt it?
I have deleted some stuff for very good reason at times: e.g., your buddy who has obsessively written 110 papers about me. I suggested that we both mutually remove our debates with each other because they were of a low level of discourse (as always with anti-Catholics). Your friend refused, and then your (and his) friend Carrie challenged me to remove my own papers if I was serious. So I took her advice and did so: removing all of this fool's debates from my blog altogether. He doesn't deserve any serious consideration as it is. It was one of the best editing decisions I ever made.
I did the same in a debate with a Catholic that got real nasty on the other guy's part, with all sorts of name-calling (just like this blog!). A mutual friend suggested that we remove this material. I complied, the other guy did not.
Other times I bring people back, as in the case of Tim Enloe, because he wanted to remove most of his old papers from the Internet so no one would know his record. He continued to misrepresent catholic teaching, and converts and apologists, so I started putting old papers back, that I had removed in good faith.
So occasionally I delete (and add), as every blogmaster does. But the lie is that I do this all the time, with the motivation to hide and conceal.
Thus, you jumped the gun in this very combox, when I merely edited a few words. You concluded that I was trying to hide a supposed emotional outburst, and so you posted a "gotcha" post. Wrong again, on both counts (desire to hide and supposed loss of temper).
One would think you guys would get it right once in a while, just by chance alone. It's amazing.
And I have every reason to believe that your "cool as a cucumber" is either a lie or a product of your own massive self-deception. Anyway, catch you later.
Believe what you will. You are lying again. If I had a videocam I could easily prove that. Might be fun. My word isn't good enough for you. I think I know my state of mind better than you do. You're lying. You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.
This is what prejudice and irrationality does, as my good friend Stan was pointing out above.
One side of Dave's mouth: "When reminded above that he perhaps ought to pray for me rather than mock, he virtually mocked the very enterprise of prayer and started lashing out at the person who suggested even a minimal application of elementary NT ethical principles, and Christian love."
ReplyDeleteThe other side of Dave's mouth: "Another lie from a clueless fool."
He fell right into the "trap" as it were. Yawn.
ReplyDeleteBut the lie is that I do this all the time, with the motivation to hide and conceal.
ReplyDelete1) I never said anything about your motivation. More self-projection onto others, it would appear.
2) This is just one example of your bizarre comment deletion rampages. Sorry to break up your hate-anti-Catholic party.
2) This is just one example of your bizarre comment deletion rampages.
ReplyDeleteExactly; that had to do with the same guy to whom I referred earlier: your buddy, who is on record saying that I have serious psychological deficiencies and shouldn't be dealt with anymore. I removed his papers from my site, and in that case I removed my comments from a combox. Big deal.
His site is like Tribalblogue: Catholics who come here are routinely mocked, insulted, lied about, laughed at. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible for us to sometimes delete our comments, because no real discussion takes place (just as now).
So he says I am nuts and shouldn't be taken seriously and that he should cease responding to me, yet he has written more than 110 papers about me (or as the major mentioned opponent), and keeps writing occasionally about me (from what I hear). He profoundly contradicts his own statements in both cases. Apparently he finds it very difficult to be consistent with his own stated convictions. It's too much fun to try to lie about and smear a Catholic. That's mostly what his blog is about, after all. One gets very little positive presentation of some particular Protestant viewpoint: it's almost all Catholic-bashing.
Steve Hays sez I am evil and shouldn't be satirized, but he keeps doing it, making himself a hypocrite and a liar (in my case) as well.
Yet I am the one who is supposedly kooky, with all this asinine hypocrisy going on?
And there is your "hate", if there is any (and I don't claim definitely that it is present): calling people nuts and "evil" and doing so publicly. I don't hate anyone. I wouldn't have pursued a career as an apologist, with all that that entails, out of a motivation of hatred. It is a motivation of love and reaching out to others with the gospel and the fullness of Christian truth, as found in the Catholic Church.
You lie about me as well: claiming to know my internal states of mind and my heart: I am supposedly lying or self-deceiving myself being in a rage or temper tantrum (you know my emotions and personality better than I do myself, never having met me), and now you claim that I "hate" anti-Catholics. Not at all. I detest the falsehoods that y'all labor under (just as you guys hate what you wrongly think is falsehood in Catholicism without hating individual Catholics). It's an act of love to try to convince you of those falsehoods so you can get out from under the bondage of them, but one can only do so much. I had to shake the dust off of my feet over two years ago, after a dozen years of trying to have a rational, constructive conversation with an anti-Catholic.
I have given up actual theological debates with anti-Catholics. The thing with Jason was strictly a temporary exception, to try to aid a Catholic apologist who is in theological crisis).
The current comments I am making don't have to do with theology but with ethics, and replying to all the lies about myself being bandied about in this combox.
Dave Armstrong said...
ReplyDelete"Steve Hays sez I am evil and shouldn't be satirized, but he keeps doing it, making himself a hypocrite and a liar (in my case) as well. Yet I am the one who is supposedly kooky, with all this asinine hypocrisy going on?"
I realize that whenever the topic turns to Daveitude, Armstrong's vanity poses an insuperable obstacle to his ability to think straight (he could give a peacock advanced lessons in vanity), but notice how he convenient omits the context of my comment.
Dave was slandering James White's father. Dave has no firsthand information to go on. Yet that didn't prevent him from attacking James White through his father.
So, yes, that's pure evil. And I said that type of conduct is beyond satire.
Which doesn't mean that all of Armstrong's other Tomfoolery is also above satire.
"Emotional? I'm sitting here cool as a cucumber, as always."
Boiled cucumber, perhaps. Or maybe steamed cucumber. Speaking of which:
"You lie about me as well: claiming to know my internal states of mind and my heart: I am supposedly lying or self-deceiving myself being in a rage or temper tantrum..."
For somebody who's as cool as a cucumber, why does Dave always carry on and on and on like a bitter, aging, jilted drag queen?
Well Dave, it is hard to imagine that you are a sober, serious defender of any faith let alone the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
Well, here is one good reason:
Act 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." This is a desert place.
Act 8:27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship
Act 8:28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
Act 8:29 And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go over and join this chariot."
Act 8:30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
Act 8:31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
Act 8:32 Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: "Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth.
Act 8:33 In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth."
Act 8:34 And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?"
Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.
Now let me bring that reason down to earth. The difference between you and Philip is he understood when to keep his mouth shut and when to open it.
Notice what he is doing when his mouth is opened?
I do not sense the same with you.
Why?
Because of comments like these:
DA: "....The current comments I am making don't have to do with theology but with ethics, and replying to all the lies about myself being bandied about in this combox."
Even when defending the Faith, one needs to know when to keep their mouth shut!
Just call me one big crazy horse then!
DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:
ReplyDelete"Right, Steve. You are one amazing pip. What a waste of brain power. Of course, your own slanders are uttered in perfect calmness and soundness of mind; e.g., your tirade against Scott Windsor recently (complete with accusations of hatred of Jews , , , good grief . . .):"
i) Nice try, but I didn't spend time defending *myself* in response to Windsor. Rather, I defended my theological *position.*
You, by contrast, spend endless amounts of time defending your slighted sense of honor.
ii) You then, in your trademark mendacity, proceed to lift isolated sentences of mine in reply to Windsor while omitting all of my argumentation.
Oh, and one more thing, Dave. It's quite revealing that, when push comes to shove, you'd rather defend your Catholic comrade's anti-Semitic comments rather than defend the Jews against his anti-Semitic comments. Of course, a man who defends a Jew-baiter is no better than the Jew-baiter he defends.
ReplyDeleteDave Armstrong said:
ReplyDeleteThanks for perfectly illustrating my point, guys. You fell right into my "trap" as it were.
Uh-oh!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It’s a trap!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . . ._________/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .,/ /|\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\’|\ |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
. . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
/ : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :
Dave,
ReplyDeleteDave, Dave???
If you have any love for your own pope, "shut up"!
At least your popes know what this means:::>
Pro 12:1 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.
Ah Dave, Dave?
ReplyDeleteThat was me, by my own volition, not Steve.
At least shoot the gun at the right target!
Now are we suppose to believe you are blind too?
Oh, I already accused you of being blind.
Ah, how about this, "give it a rest, big guy", Jesus knows how to take care of His own!
Pro 3:11 My son, do not despise the LORD's discipline or be weary of his reproof,
Pro 3:12 for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.
Atheists have no need to point out the supposed foolishness of Christianity: you guys do a great job of illustrating it yourself.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I'm reading playground taunting games.
DAVE ARMSTRONG SAID:
ReplyDelete“That's revisionist history. You have tried to spin this ever since the exchange occurred...”
Really? Up until my previous comment, which I only made today, I don’t recall having said much of anything in response to your off-repeated charge about how I allegedly went back on my word 3 days later.
“…(rather than descend to the horrifying prospect of actually retracting any lie made at the expense of a Catholic), but it won't do.”
I realize that, due to your persecution complex (btw, you need to have your psychiatrist up the dosage), you imagine that only “anti-Catholics could ever find fault with your stainless conduct, but Shawn McElhinney, Kevin Tierney, and Greg Mockeridge evidence a flaw in your theory.
“You would rather play the sophist, and spin, hoping that people won't notice. You're quite good at that (except when you run across someone who understands what you are doing, like myself).”
I see. I’m a sophist, and you can detect my true identity because it takes one to know one.
“Most of your followers won't see that; that's clear, but the rest of us see through your tactics.”
“Us?” Are you hearing voices?
“But in any event, what you said clearly implies that I am evil, period; not just that I was in this one instance.”
I didn’t say you were evil in this one instance. You have an evil character. This particular instance brought that to the fore.
"It’s not something we can spoof or satirize anymore."
Notice the neuter pronoun, Dave. Did I say that you personally were beyond satire? No. I had reference to your despicable tactic of attacking James White through his father, compounded by vile calumny which you’re in no position to verify.
“I didn't make MYSELF the subject of this thread: you guys did. You decided to write yet another hit piece against me.”
Uh, no. My post was in response to the “hit pieces” you’ve been churning out against Jason. Since you can’t out-argue him, you try to discredit him by creating a deceptive narrative about his performance.
“You attack me primarily because I defend the Catholic Church.”
And is that also why Shawn McElhinney, Kevin Tierney, and Greg Mockeridge went after you?
“You figure that if you can tear down and discredit me, then less folks will read my stuff.”
I have no such hopes. There’s always a clientele for P. T. Barnums like you.
Cont. “And I will fight against that till my dying breath, because truth and falsity is not arrived at by attacking people and trying to make them look as and ridiculous foolish as possible.”
ReplyDeleteWhich you do all the time.
“Hence, I have defended James white: one of my severest critics on this earth…”
I’m supposed to be taken in by your bipolar tactics? You play a double game. “Defend” your opponents to give you cover so that you can then defame them.
“The context was absolutely irrelevant because statements of that sort are unethical in and of themselves, WHATEVER the context is.”
It’s unethical that he doesn’t know the difference between “BC” and “AD,” even when it’s demonstrable from what he said that he didn’t know the difference?
“How can context fundamentally change the meaning of potshots like the following?”
You rip bleeding chunks out of context, then put the onus on me to defend them. But their justification is given in the very context you deviously fully omit.
“You've slandered so many people relentlessly for so long that it looks like you have lost the ability to even comprehend that statements like the above are slanderous at all.”
You’re so used to using “slander” in your polemical, hyperbolic mode that you’re blind to the bona fide slander you indulged in when you maliciously defamed the father of James White.
“You're flunking Christianity 0101: love of neighbor, the Golden Rule…”
You mean, like when you called Rhology a “clueless fool”?
But, hey, let’s consult a second opinion. All you have to do is give the name and contact info for your parish priest, then a few of us will collect some of your zingers and run them by him for his evaluation. I’m sure you’ll be more than happy to comply. After all, you believe in the Catholic accountability system, don’t you?
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteYou just made my evening. LOL.
Whew, this is a nasty bunch of people, and not a nice place to be. And do any of you know anything about Catholicism at all? Ever been to Mass? Catholics are as Christ-centred. and the Mass is as biblical in its focus as any Protestant could wish. Go spy it out some time. Mā te Atua koutou e manaaki.
ReplyDeleteYes, I've been to Mass. Many times.
ReplyDelete