tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post9141098479962781717..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Broken resolutionsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-815349370585007172010-02-18T13:40:02.409-05:002010-02-18T13:40:02.409-05:00Dave,
Jesus had a different view of what constitu...Dave,<br /><br />Jesus had a different view of what constitutes an oath than you do. Steve's already quoted the relevant Scripture for you. Furthermore, you continue to ignore the fact that one not need to violate an "official" oath to be a liar; which is why you want to focus on the "I'm not an oath-breaker" aspect. You are in essence saying, "Yeah, I lied about not interacting with anti-Catholics, <i>but it's okay because I never made a vow</i>. I just <i>said</i> I would do so; and so a little [James] white lie here and there is no biggie." In fact, you've set it up right now so that the <i>only</i> person you would feel bad about lying to is your wife, because she's the only one you made a vow to.<br /><br />That's pretty pathetic, no matter how you cut it.<br /><br />Let's look at this for a moment:<br /><br />1: When you say X and then do non-X, that is a lie.<br /><br />2: Dave said he is "through with" both "a pro-con debate or dialogue on theological subjects" with anti-Catholics.<br /><br />3: Using Scripture to back your argument would most certainly be a "dialogue on theological subjects" given Scripture *just is* a theological subject!<br /><br />4: Dave considers TF to be an anti-Catholic.<br /><br />5: Dave just quoted 17 passages of Scripture in an attempt to defend himself to TF.<br /><br />6: Dave said X but did non-X.<br /><br />7: Therefore, Dave is a liar.<br /><br />I would now further add the following:<br /><br />8: Any mature, Godly person ought to recognize his own lies and apologize for them.<br /><br />9: Dave doesn't recognize his own lies, nor does he apologize for them (he instead rationalizes them).<br /><br />I'll let you fill in the conclusion.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57869409307267015942010-02-17T20:16:08.040-05:002010-02-17T20:16:08.040-05:00The Apostle Paul's inspired mouth, side 1:
Ga...<i>The Apostle Paul's inspired mouth, side 1:</i><br /><br /><b>Galatians 1:6</b> "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel"<br /><br /><b>Galatians 3:1-3</b> "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?<br />[2] Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?<br />[3] Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?" <br /><br /><b>Galatians 4:9b</b> ". . . how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?" <br /><br /><b>Galatians 5:4</b> "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."<br /><br /><b>Galatians 5:7</b> "You were running well; who hindered you from obeying the truth?" <br /><br /><i>The Apostle Paul's inspired mouth, side 2:</i><br /><br /><b>Galatians 1:2</b> "To the churches of Galatia"<br /><br /><b>Galatians 1:11</b> "For I would have you know, brethren, . . ." <br /><br /><b>Galatians 3:25-27</b> "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; [26] for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. [27] For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."<br /><br /><b>Galatians 4:4-7</b> "But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, [5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. [6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" [7] So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir."<br /><br /><b>Galatians 4:9a</b> "but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, . . ." <br /><br /><b>Galatians 4:12</b> "Brethren, I beseech you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong"<br /><br /><b>Galatians 4:19</b> "My little children, . . ."<br /><br /><b>Galatians 4:28</b> "Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise."<br /><br /><b>Galatians 4:31</b> "So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman."<br /><br /><b>Galatians 5:1</b> "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." <br /><br /><b>Galatians 6:1</b> "Brethren, . . ."<br /><br /><b>Galatians 6:18</b> "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen." <br /><br />There are similar dynamics with the Corinthian church as well.<br /><br />See also our Lord Jesus talking out of both sides of His divine mouth, in calling all seven churches or Revelation "churches" (2:1; 2:8; 2:12; 2:18; 3:1; 3:7; 3:14; along with the repetition of "what the Spirit says to the churches" in 2:7 and similar passages) yet excoriating several of them (2:4-5; 2:14-16; 2:20-22; 3:1-3; 3:15-18).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64865213694418663782010-02-17T19:30:41.734-05:002010-02-17T19:30:41.734-05:00Dave's mouth side 1:
“but could never manage ...Dave's mouth side 1:<br /><br />“but could never manage to do so with anti-Catholics, because of the combination of ignorance, stubbornness, and hostility.”<br /><br />“It's the classic Big Lie: you simply repeat it enough times like a mantra and ignorant followers who trust your judgment will believe it.”<br /><br />“you clowns”<br /><br />Dave's mouth side 2:<br /><br />“I can still approach the anti-Catholic in the sense that he is a brother in Christ”Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64757052081531372102010-02-17T18:23:55.525-05:002010-02-17T18:23:55.525-05:00"One thing that is obvious is that no one lik..."One thing that is obvious is that no one likes to be considered so unserious and lacking in intellectual acumen that others will decide they are not worth spending the time debating."<br /><br />Cf. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/10/chat-room-debate-challenge-to.html<br /><br />Exactly, TAO! Thanks for proving my point. The challenge was precisely to demonstrate that anti-Catholics are so unserious that they will refuse to defend their views, even in its most basic aspects. And so seven of y'all did just that. You wanted no part of a double cross-examination format.<br /><br />I knew it was 99.99% certain when I made the challenge that no one would be willing to take me up on it (because n one had in the previous 11 years online), and sure enough, that is what happened. So, far from proving anti-Catholics are worth any time debating, it demonstrated the opposite. No one should take them seriously because they won't defend their fundamental premises, like any self-respecting intellectual does.<br /><br />Just like this thread: even the most elementary requirements are scorned and mocked. No one care about the definitions of the words in dispute, which is always fundamental to any serious discussion. The only one who did was Pilgrimsarbour, and he's not anti-Catholic. Because he isn't, and is a serious thinker, I can easily have good discussions with him (and have had several). Theologically, he is a Calvinist. He agrees with you guys. But he also cares about ethics and talking about basic premises in a way that no one else in this thread has.<br /><br />The other basic thing lacking is the notion of "innocent until proven guilty." The anti-Catholic principle for a Catholic is "guilty until not proven guilty."<br /><br />So I supposedly am a vow-breaker and liar. When challenged to prove why this allegedly is the case, you clowns come up with absolutely nothing; zero, zilch, zip, nada.<br /><br />Therefore, you thumb your nose at the basic requirements of what you need to do to prove your case: 1) define terms properly, and 2) produce solid evidence that the accused person did what was charged.<br /><br />This is only one of 10,000 reasons that I don't take anti-Catholicism seriously. I never did. The only reason I have dealt with it at all is to show that it is gravely mistaken in many areas.<br /><br />I can still approach the anti-Catholic in the sense that he is a brother in Christ, which is huge common ground, but because I am not considered that, it never works. It's doomed from the outset.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64135920806771541992010-02-17T18:01:13.730-05:002010-02-17T18:01:13.730-05:00Dave,
I for one, without the playbook mind you, d...Dave,<br /><br />I for one, without the playbook mind you, don't buy any of what you just wrote.<br /><br />Here is what I buy with regards to you.<br /><br />Let these men judge it and offer a correction, instruction, reproof or even a rebuke!<br /><br />Here is what I am guided by, the Scriptures:::><br /><br />Rom 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you. <br />Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. <br />Rom 16:18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. <br /><br />and, as I indicated in an earlier post, if any one of the many USA Cardinals were fully informed about you, they might actually do what the Spirit of Grace gave the Apostle Paul insight and wisdom to instruct Titus to do after two admonitions with regard to your rants and continual insinuations in here about the members of Triablogue and other Christian interlocutors participating in the here:::><br /><br />Tit 3:4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, <br />Tit 3:5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, <br />Tit 3:6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, <br />Tit 3:7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. <br />Tit 3:8 The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. <br />Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. <br />Tit 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, <br />Tit 3:11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. <br /><br /><br />When you are asked to "consider" substance over self, I will bet my wooden indian nickel that the "substance" Steve is thinking about is that there in Titus 3:4-8 all the while wondering, like I am right now, if you might be like those kinds of souls being described at 3:9-11?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19735786839215713212010-02-17T17:42:36.361-05:002010-02-17T17:42:36.361-05:00"One thing that is obvious is that no one lik..."One thing that is obvious is that no one likes to be considered so unserious and lacking in intellectual acumen that others will decide they are not worth spending the time debating."<br /><br />Cf. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/10/chat-room-debate-challenge-to.htmlTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45180642222057101492010-02-17T16:50:16.730-05:002010-02-17T16:50:16.730-05:00But pilgrimsarbour raises a good point:
"My ...But pilgrimsarbour raises a good point:<br /><br />"My advice--don't make "statements of intent" of any kind on your blogs. Just pray that the Holy Spirit leads you to do what is pleasing and honouring in His sight, and that He grants you the grace and strength to follow through as consistently as possible."<br /><br />I think this is good advice, generally speaking. But it occurred to me that one of the reasons folks like myself have been led to make such statements (and I was goaded into my 2001 statement by Ronnie and it was partially in reaction to the similar resolution that James White had already made regarding myself, that I have cited above) is precisely because if we choose not to interact with anti-Catholics, because it is always a futile effort and nothing is ever accomplished, and it usually descends into pure insults on their side (just as we see in this thread), we are accused of being cowards. <br /><br />That's not at all the case with me, since I have a proven track record of debating virtually all the leading online Catholics. James White has ignored (or, "run from," from one perspective) far more of my critiques than I have ever avoided of his.<br /><br />So we feel led to make statements of this nature in large part to make it clear that it is a principled decision to avoid certain folks with whom we believe no constructive dialogue is possible. But if I say that I am called a liar; misrepresenting my true motives.<br /><br />Fine; say what you will. I am still responsible under God to make responsible use of my time and efforts, as a matter of stewardship.<br /><br />I happen to think it is pointless to engage at any length folks who say you are "evil" or "beyond hubris and deep into the realm of insanity," as Peter Pike just delightfully observed.<br /><br />One thing that is obvious is that no one likes to be considered so unserious and lacking in intellectual acumen that others will decide they are not worth spending the time debating. That's a blow to human pride. I believe this is what is really at the bottom of the extreme disdain and insults thrown my way, because I have often (not always) abided by this policy in my 14 years online.<br /><br />No one wants to think that their position is the mental, emotional equivalent of a flat earth or geocentrism, or Holocaust denial. But my view of the fringe movement of anti-Catholic Protestantism is scarcely any higher than my view of those things. I've always thought it was a viciously self-defeating system. I have dealt with it only because it was part of my job as an apologist, to oppose error.<br /><br />Beyond that basic view of the position, there is the further fact of how anti-Catholics I have attempted to debate, when I had no resolution otherwise, have conducted themselves. And that is, of course, uniformly disgraceful behavior, that is an insult to the very notion of dialogue.<br /><br />After years of trying off and on to try to have a rational discussion, I gave up. When I made an exception for Jason Engwer recently, he was a gentleman, as he usually is, but he systematically ignored much of my argumentation (as I demonstrated, to the tune of ignoring 87 and 88% of my words, when he cited them back to reply to). So that was no debate. He didn't offer insults outwardly, but in his utter disdain for his opponent's arguments, he showed quite a bit of disdain.<br /><br />So which is better: pretending to debate without really seriously trying to do so, as he did, or stating upfront that you don't consider a certain strain of thought of sufficient seriousness to spend time debating and interacting with (which is my position)?<br /><br />I spent yesterday and a small portion of today exposing the nefarious tactics used by anti-Catholics, the lack of ethics, and pitiful "logic."<br /><br />That's enough. Now I need to get back to serious work.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50231976591696818792010-02-17T16:46:27.723-05:002010-02-17T16:46:27.723-05:00Wait, Dave is seriously suggesting that we need to...<i>Wait, Dave is seriously suggesting that we need to provide a source for where he said he wouldn't interact with anti-Catholics anymore, . . .</i> <br /><br />Nice try, and another excellent example of how what I say is fundamentally distorted by anti-Catholics. <br /><br />Of course, what I have been demanding throughout this thread is for my critics to show where I ever made a <b>"vow"</b> or an <b>"oath"</b> to do these things. Eric Svendsen is so cluelsss about definitions, that he can't even distinguish between a "solemn oath" and a "resolution," as I showed. Let him run by his wife, that he made a "resolution" at their wedding rather than a vow, and see how well that goes over. But that is how stupid his reasoning was when it came to me. <br /><br />It hasn't been shown that I made and broke a vow because it doesn't exist. That's why all the mocking and idiotic demeanor keeps taking place, precisely because it is indeed known that the proof is not to be had, and an anti-Catholic would rather be impaled than ever admit that a Catholic was right about anything. If it existed, surely it would have been produced by now, rather than every anti-Catholic in this thread making an ass and fool of himself (and John Calvin and Shakespeare both used the word "ass" [donkey] as I just did, so don't even start with that crap).<br /><br />I have stated repeatedly that yes, in the past I have made statements that upon reflection were too extreme and impossible to abide by, being an apologist. One of these that has been cited was from 2001. I have no problem admitting that I made a mistake there. I'm not like the anti-Catholics on this thread who seemingly can never admit to being wrong about anything. It was no sin, but it was dumb in its extremity. I've done lots of dumb things in my life, and I suspect I will do many more before I leave this earth. I'm not perfect like anti-Catholics are. But it's one thing to do something dumb; quite another to be an alleged vow-breaker and oath-breaker, which I have never done.<br /><br />But it was no vow or oath, which is the main point, and the point under consideration. Thus, it is not a violation of a "solemn oath" (Svendsen) or breaking of a vow, to change one's mind on such a thing. <br /><br />It is exactly because of my high view of vows and oaths (following the biblical view) that I was very careful not to use those words, because that was not how I perceived what I did at all.<br /><br />In that very statement, I specifically used the word "resolve". It's simply not a vow or an oath. My critics have been lying about that for now ten years and running. That is a serious sin. They continue to lie, even though I have repeatedly demonstrated that there is nothing to it, and that there is considerable hypocrisy and inconsistency among my critics on the same score. <br /><br />Now the game is to be legalistic and ridiculous about what I have chosen to do and not do with regard to anti-Catholics, as if that is not my prerogative to decide in the first place.<br /><br />If I say I am not debating out of a principle (explained till I am blue in the face), I get the accusation that I am <i>really</i> doing it (wink, wink) because I am a coward. Or it is stated that I have run from anti-Catholics all along (a one-minute perusal of my Anti-Catholic, James White, and Contra-Catholic web pages puts the lie to that immediately).<br /><br />If I decide to make an exception (for excellent reasons) to my usual policy to debate Jason Engwer, I am mocked for supposedly being untrue to my word, as if no exceptions whatever are ever justifiable. Then when I cease doing that and go back to my regular work (just as I said I would) I am mocked as a coward, as if no one is aware of my own resolution, that they mocked when I entered the debate. Absolutely nothing I do makes any difference. This is how bigots and those who despise other human beings act.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36195702733048939592010-02-17T15:54:22.633-05:002010-02-17T15:54:22.633-05:00Wait, Dave is seriously suggesting that we need to...Wait, Dave is seriously suggesting that we need to provide a source for where he said he wouldn't interact with anti-Catholics anymore, after *HE* linked us to his article titled "Clarification of Why I No Longer Attempt Debate With Anti-Catholic Protestants"? And in that clarification, he nowhere says "I don't mean I won't ever do it" but instead repeatedly asserts "this is *WHY* I won't ever do it." <br /><br />This is beyond hubris and deep into the realm of insanity.<br /><br />I can't wait for DA's dodge that writing 6000+ word responses on a site he says is run by an anti-Catholic doesn't constitute "debate" because it's not conducted by a debate society or whatnot. <br /><br />Then again, Dave linked dialgoue and debate several times.<br /><br />Exhibit A:<br />---<br />But a conversation or even a clarification, as presently, is not the same as a pro-con <b>debate</b> or <b>dialogue</b> on theological subjects, which is what I have said I am through with, out of futility. [bold added]<br />---<br /><br />Exhibit B:<br />---<br />I didn't know he was referring solely to oral <b>debates</b> at first. I do know that he was <b>dialoguing</b> with me (quite a bit) back in 1996, when we were both members of James White's sola Scriptura Internet discussion list.<br />---<br /><br />So it's clear there is no clear-cut line between "debate" and "dialogue" in Dave's mind. I trust readers can see through his veneer and see that this simply means "I don't talk to anti-Catholics who won't let me win."<br /><br />I could probably Google more of Dave's stuff, but A) why would I want to do that? and B) this is already sufficient to prove the point.<br /><br />Scream away, Dave.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83757566250606507352010-02-17T14:22:14.315-05:002010-02-17T14:22:14.315-05:00By the way, I meant to point this out:
Patrick sa...By the way, I meant to point this out:<br /><br />Patrick said, in speaking to Mr. <br />Birch...<br /><br /><i>If you had wanted to be gracious in keeping with your New Year's resolution, you could have said many things short of calling White a liar and a spin master akin to far left liberals. For example, you could've said White's words were poorly chosen. Or you could've said White made an illogical statement. Or you could've said White made a bad argument. Or you could've said maybe White misunderstood what Caner meant and so he inadvertently glossed Caner's position. Or you could've said maybe White had a slip of the tongue in this particular moment.</i><br /><br />That was excellent. Well said and reflecting my sentiments exactly, though better stated than I would have.Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79442472590695231212010-02-17T14:08:04.877-05:002010-02-17T14:08:04.877-05:00Notwithstanding our confusion over definitions, it...Notwithstanding our confusion over definitions, it seems clear to me that Steve's argument stands: online blogging resolutions get made and are broken. Whether it is necessary to point out the possible hypocrisy of others to others is a reasonable question for debate, and it depends upon circumstances, contexts and motives. Hypocrisy is something of which the Christian should be ever mindful, but mainly his own rather than others.<br /><br />This is what I've learned from this experience in the combox:<br /><br />1) "You guys are nasty to me" is not a rational response to the question of whether a resolution has been broken or not. If we fail, we should "man up" to it.<br /><br />2) I don't quite understand all the hubbub over whether a vow, oath or resolution was made, since some kind of <b>statement of intent to do so and so</b> can be clearly demonstrated and shown to have been violated, for whatever reason, legitimate or not.<br /><br />3) My advice--don't make "statements of intent" of any kind on your blogs. Just pray that the Holy Spirit leads you to do what is pleasing and honouring in His sight, and that He grants you the grace and strength to follow through as consistently as possible.Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58048191747299257872010-02-17T13:20:20.051-05:002010-02-17T13:20:20.051-05:00Dave's memory:
(2/16/2010 5:23 PM)"TAO w...Dave's memory:<br /><br />(2/16/2010 5:23 PM)"TAO wants to cite an old post of mine?"<br /><br />(2/17/2010 10:01 AM)"It's remarkable that after all this, the supposed "proof" that I ever made a vow or oath about anti-Catholics and broke it remains nowhere to be seen. There is altogether good reasons for that. It doesn't exist. Not even anti-Catholic myth-making and revisionist history can pretend that it does."Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-6682128575311072332010-02-17T12:01:21.844-05:002010-02-17T12:01:21.844-05:00It's remarkable that after all this, the suppo...It's remarkable that after all this, the supposed "proof" that I ever made a vow or oath about anti-Catholics and broke it remains nowhere to be seen. There is altogether good reasons for that. It doesn't exist. Not even anti-Catholic myth-making and revisionist history can pretend that it does.<br /><br />Instead we have mocking, evasion, and obfuscation.<br /><br />One rational, fair-minded (Protestant) soul actually tries to bring objective sanity into the discussion and considers the dictionary definitions of words, and he is ignored. <br /><br />We can't have <i>that</i>! We must play games with words and define them our own way, so that the despised Catholic apologist can't possibly ever be right about anything! That goes against the Playbook. It can't be allowed to happen. What would James White say??!!<br /><br />Words don't matter; ethics don't matter; NT injunctions of how others should be treated, and how we ought to admit it when we are wrong, go out the window. Anything goes, because of the wicked "evil" Catholic who must never be right on anything whatever.<br /><br />Now having inevitably reached the stage of the surreal and absurd, as always in the anti-Catholic fantasy world of nonsense, my powers of rationality have exhausted themselves, and we must descend to humorous satire.<br /><br />In honor of the occasion, I present the classic <i>Fiddler on the Roof</i> scene with the engaged couple who "gave each other a pledge."<br /><br />Now we can add "pledge" to the roster of oath, vow, resolution, and promise. Enjoy! ROFL<br /><br />[see the end of my post for the You Tube video]Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76776674024288097272010-02-17T11:31:34.439-05:002010-02-17T11:31:34.439-05:00Since Uncle Dave likes numbers so much...
Peter&#...Since Uncle Dave likes numbers so much...<br /><br />Peter's word count (pre-this-comment): 146.<br /><br />Steve's word count: 522.<br /><br />Dave's word count (pre-the-customary-"This post has been deleted by its author"-rampage): 6,265.<br /><br />Seriously, Dave. They make medication for this type of thing.<br /><br />Note too that for all his wasted words, Dave actually does get around to admitting everything that Steve and I have said about him, not just in this thread but in many other posts.<br /><br />Also, personal note for Dave: does your priest know that you wrote 1/10th of a novel on Triablogue comments during the course of a single day? I just wonder if you might consider telling him, so he can help you with your vow/promise/oath/resolution/suggestion/ideal/hypothesis/perhaps-yes-perhaps-no "I'm never gonna interact with anti-Catholics" pledge/affirmation/creed/hope/statement thing. After all, if you had put that much energy into Hail Mary's and Our Fathers, your Purgatory sentence could have been reduced to only several thousand years. But now you've squandered that time and it's forever irredeemable.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4751501745375777732010-02-17T09:45:18.185-05:002010-02-17T09:45:18.185-05:00"I did NOT say that White had a track record ..."I did NOT say that White had a track record "of lying," you put those words in my mouth."<br /><br />What you wrote was: "Typical of White, he gave his spin on a philosophical notion of what Caner said, turned it completely around and claimed that, therefore, Caner claimed that if one believes that Christ's death actually saves anyone, that view comes from the devil. What is odd is that White actually posted Caner's words for everyone else to catch White in his lie. Honestly, given White's track record, we have come to expect no better of him."Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52566380013093188802010-02-17T03:45:53.926-05:002010-02-17T03:45:53.926-05:00TAO shows the same sort of confusion as to what in...TAO shows the same sort of confusion as to what in fact I have claimed (more proof that you guys are just "winging" this and have little idea what you are talking about, let alone knowledge of dictionary definitions):<br /><br />--------------<br /><br />You made the decision/vow/whatever to ignore Reformed apologists. That's no one's fault but your own. But I'll tell you what - I'd have a little more respect for your refusal to answer a simple question if you had something you yourself considered a "vow" not to do it. You draw a line between "vows" and something apparently equal so binding that it leaves you in between a rock and a hard place where you are a speudo-vow-breaker or a coward (by your own analysis).<br /><br />(7-15-09)<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/07/now-you-see-itnow-you-dont.html?showComment=1247715687753#c8355877465065564162<br /><br />Part of your on-going campaign in support of your resolution/promise/vow/whatever to be "ignoring you and other anti-Catholics".<br /><br />(7-16-09)<br /><br />http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/07/now-you-see-itnow-you-dont.html?showComment=1247745531910#c7468057099227423517Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76852456890247049572010-02-17T03:00:36.560-05:002010-02-17T03:00:36.560-05:00The person who is truly utterly confused about the...The person who is truly utterly confused about the proper distinctions between oaths and resolutions, is Eric Svendsen. In a post of 14 January 2005, devoted to blasting me up and down as a liar and oath-breaker, he shows an incredible ignorance of the distinctions, since he uses the two terms interchangeably (talking about the same exact thing, using these terms):<br /><br />http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/jonathan-prejean-distinguishes-himself.html<br /><br /><b>OATH</b><br /><br />1) Here are the statements from his many “solemn oaths” again.<br /><br />2) If you don't think this constitutes a clear violation of a solemn oath, . . . <br /><br />3) DA has adequately demonstrated that his oaths are meaningless. <br /><br />4) Or are you in such a defensive posture that you fear "all would be lost" if you did the right thing by calling DA to task for his oath-breaking practices? <br /><br /><b>RESOLUTION or RESOLVE</b><br /><br />1) Did DA “keep this resolve” . . . <br /><br />2) Those were the terms of his resolution. <br /><br />3) He has broken that resolution over and over again. <br /><br />4) Indeed, the resolution itself was . . . <br /><br /><b>BOTH</b><br /><br />1) . . . a solemn oath resulting from a “RESOLUTION STATEMENT”—let alone three identical solemn oaths resulting from three separate “resolution statements” taken over a period of five short years! <br /><br />He also used "swear" and "swore" once each: which to most ears, I think, have that feel of the courtroom or the "oath of office" and so forth.<br /><br />We can only conclude, then, that Dr. Svendsen is unfamiliar with these basic definitions that were helpfully presented above. He doesn't know the difference between a resolution and a "solemn oath."<br /><br />Furthermore, Jason Engwer, on Svendsen's blog, described my statements as "resolutions" (not oaths or vows):<br /><br />"Prejean's decision to "retire" probably is about as lasting as Dave Armstrong's "resolutions"."<br /><br />(8-21-05)<br /><br />http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/jonathan-prejean-and-missing-case-for.html<br /><br />"As I said in a previous article, Jonathan Prejean's recent claim to be "retiring" from "proselytizing" was about as credible as the "resolutions" of Dave Armstrong."<br /><br />(8-24-05)<br /><br />http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/jonathan-prejean-should-have-stayed-in.htmlDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87169733994070382952010-02-17T02:39:47.179-05:002010-02-17T02:39:47.179-05:00I do think that "promise" is more like a...I do think that "promise" is more like an oath or vow than a resolution is, so upon reflection and seeing the above definitions I agree with pilgrim on that. I just threw it out in the midst of 10,000 words on this mess today.<br /><br />All along I have stated that I made <i>resolutions</i> (the most recent in October 2007). The one in 2001 was too strong and I later changed my mind on it. Since it never was a vow or oath, there is no sin in that. <br /><br />Besides, as I've shown, I have acted hardly any differently from James White, who said he was through with me in 2001, too.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25872059514796202292010-02-17T00:38:26.240-05:002010-02-17T00:38:26.240-05:00THANK YOU.
What a breath of fresh air. Whew . . ...THANK YOU. <br /><br />What a breath of fresh air. Whew . . . <br /><br />And that is all I have been saying. But my friends here can't admit this simple fact because it goes against the playbook and spinning talking points for "Dear ol' Dave."<br /><br />Admitting that a Catholic may be right around here (about anything) and that his critics may be wrong is itself a naughty no-no.<br /><br />You, being a very fair-minded reasonable guy, can declare the obvious. Kudos and bravo to you for having the courage to do it in this environment.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1670140133664553652010-02-17T00:02:51.740-05:002010-02-17T00:02:51.740-05:00It seems to me that there is no meeting of the min...It seems to me that there is no meeting of the minds between Dave and the Triabloguers as to the precise definitions of vows, oaths, resolutions and promises.<br /><br />See what Thesaurus.com<b>*</b> has to say about the word "vow." I have put in bold the various words in question that have come up in the combox:<br /><br />Main Entry: <b>vow</b><br />Part of Speech: noun<br />Definition: <b>promise</b><br /><br />Synonyms: affiance, assertion, asseveration, <b>oath</b>, pledge, profession, troth, word of honor<br /><br />Antonyms:<br />breach, break<br /><br />Main Entry: vow<br />Part of Speech: verb<br />Definition: <b>make a solemn promise</b><br /><br />Synonyms:<br />affirm, assure, consecrate, covenant, cross one's heart, declare, dedicate, devote, give word of honor, pledge, plight, <b>promise</b>, swear, swear up and down, testify, undertake solemnly, vouch, warrant<br /><br />Antonyms:<br />disavow<br /><br />The words <b>vow, oath, promise</b> all seem to carry the same meaning. The only word I don't see here is <b>resolution</b> which upon further study doesn't connect any of the three words above to it, but carries the meaning <b>declaration, determination, intention</b>.<br /><br />While I think Dave's precise delineations of the three words are overwrought in relation to modern English usage, it seems to me likely that he had previously made a <b>resolution</b> (determination, intention) to not interact with "anti-Catholics" (unless by stated exception necessity) but not a <b>promise, oath</b> or <b>vow</b>.<br /><br /><b>*</b> Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition<br />Copyright © 2010 by the Philip Lief Group.Pilgrimsarbourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18046918223325823689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66958145573108285332010-02-16T22:38:10.531-05:002010-02-16T22:38:10.531-05:00Steve Hays, too, knows what a real vow is, and he ...Steve Hays, too, knows what a real vow is, and he thinks that even a vow is not absolutely absolute, if there are mitigating circumstances (precisely what I have been saying with my reference to the sheep on the Sabbath and the showbread):<br /><br />"1.Vows are not moral absolutes. They are not an end in themselves, but a means to an end.<br /><br />"The end is the point of principle, whereas the means are pragmatic.<br /><br />"A process is not a moral absolute. It is not a value in itself. Rather, a process is a means to an end.<br /><br />"This is not a question of morality, but prudence.<br /><br />"2.Even in the case of moral absolutes, in a fallen world we may often be confronted with conflicting obligations. In that event, a higher duty overrules a lower duty. . . .<br /><br />"As I said before, vows are not moral absolutes.<br /><br />"1.The Mosaic law distinguishes between lawful and unlawful vows (e.g. Num 30)."<br /><br />(8-31-06)<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/social-conventions-moral-absolutes.html<br /><br />So we have the bizarre situation of Hays and others accusing me of breaking a vow. But Hays says sometimes vows can indeed be broken in extraordinary circumstances.<br /><br />My position is that vows are binding, apart from extremely extraordinary circumstances. But I have not <i>made</i> any vow concerning anti-Catholics, anyway. I have made resolutions. And they certainly can be changed and modified, as circumstances warrant.<br /><br />But Hays wants to deny that, so he continues on with his mocking, even though he has stated the above possibility of being non-binding, even about vows.<br /><br />Don't try to find moral or even logical consistency on <i>this</i> site . . . It's a lost cause.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39339056853382636692010-02-16T22:19:03.771-05:002010-02-16T22:19:03.771-05:004. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common ...4. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words. without equivocation or mental reservation.<br /><br />5. A vow, which is not to be made to any creature but to God alone, is to be made and performed with all the utmost care and faithfulness."<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/02/pattersonian-anabaptist-roots-at-work.html <br /><br />Bishop James White wrote about me on 4-6-07:<br /><br />"He is not stable. He swings from pillar to post, and if we did, in fact, arrange a formal debate today, how could anyone trust that next week he won't have yet another change of heart, make another vow to avoid anti-Catholics, and bag out?"<br /><br />http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1906&catid=7<br /><br />TAO wrote on 7-12-09 (also on this blog):<br /><br />"he made the following vow: 'I'll be ignoring you and other anti-Catholics . . .' . . . since that vow was made. . . . But now the vow has morphed."<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/07/scripture-twisting-for-catholicism.html#2152306992407675768<br /><br />You play the same word-games, slipping back and forth between "vow" and "resolution" as if they were the same thing:<br /><br />"When he suspends a resolution, it’s only temporary. . . . yet he remains resolute in his punctilious fidelity to every solemn vow. His word is his bond. He never ever goes back on his word, except whenever he happens to go back on his word–which, however, is not to be confused with breaking a promise."<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/01/romes-pinocchio.html<br /><br />This is what liars do, of course. The equivocation and ambiguities and word-games and so forth . . . this is what Bill Clinton did, with his playing around with what "is" means. That's your game.<br /><br />My position, on the other hand, is very straightforward:<br /><br />1) A vow or oath made to and under God is far more serious than a mere self-imposed, self-referring resolution.<br /><br />2) I never made a vow concerning anti-Catholics.<br /><br />3) Yet I have been falsely accused of making such a vow.<br /><br />4) Even what I did do is constantly misrepresented as supposedly ruling out all interaction whatever, when in fact I stated I was done with actual debate with anti-Catholics.<br /><br />5) When I protest about being characterized as a vow-breaker, and challenge my accusers to put up or shut up and prove that I am guilty of this, they revert to the very sort of word games and obfuscation that they falsely accuse me of doing.<br /><br />Witness the present case. When called on his having charged -- with his buddies -- that I have broken a vow, you revise the history and pretends that you have only objected to my breaking resolutions. <br /><br />Just keep doing that, Steve. You're making a fool of yourself in front of everyone. Anyone with an ounce of fairness can observe what is going on here. You wouldn't have a prayer in a court case with a jury. They would see right through your nonsense and asinine word-games.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82470292958010217792010-02-16T22:18:51.296-05:002010-02-16T22:18:51.296-05:00Then there’s the title of my post (Hint! Hint!).
...<i>Then there’s the title of my post (Hint! Hint!).<br /><br />Of course I realize that you like to compartmentalize the obligation to keep your word into different, airtight categories with various escape-hatches.</i><br /><br />Now we have the sophistry and obscurantism of backing off the original accusation. Since I have easily shown that the charge itself is groundless by challenging the liars to back it up and prove it with something I ever said, now you retreat to word games and the pretense that I have not been accused of breaking vows in the first place.<br /><br />You know this not to be the case. It has been taking place for years. Eric Svendsen used this charge; James White often has; now TAO and Hays and Bridges and Pike have followed suit. It's the classic Big Lie: you simply repeat it enough times like a mantra and ignorant followers who trust your judgment will believe it. After all, it has been stated 179 times, right? It must be the truth! But when you and your fellow slanderers are called on it and challenged to put up and shut up, you can't do so, and have to retreat back to juvenile word games and sophistry.<br /><br />So, e.g., on this blog not long ago, official contributor Gene "Troll" Bridges wrote on 7-9-09:<br /><br />"You've also taken an oath to stop interacting with "anti-Catholics", and yet here you are wanting us to interact with you. I, for one, take the Law on making vows seriously, and I am not going to contribute to you sin before God in violating your word."<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/07/troll-feeding-time.html<br /><br />Ironically, Bridges knows full well what a real oath or vow is, because he also wrote about <i>that</i> on this blog (2-27-08):<br /><br />"From the Second London Confession:<br /><br /> 23. Lawful Oaths and Vows<br /><br /> 1. A lawful oath is an act of religious worship, in which the person swearing in truth, righteousness, and judgement, solemnly calls God to witness what he swears, and to judge him according to the truth or falsity of it.<br /><br /> 2. Only by the name of God can a righteous oath be sworn, and only if it is used with the utmost fear of God and reverence. Therefore, to swear vainly or rashly by the glorious and awesome name of God, or to swear by any other name or thing, is sinful, and to be regarded with disgust and detestation. But in matters of weight and moment, for the confirmation of truth, and for the ending of strife, an oath is sanctioned by the Word of God. . . . <br /><br />3. Whoever takes an oath sanctioned by the Word of God is bound to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and affirm or confess to nothing except that which he knows to be true. For by rash, false, and vain oaths, the Lord is provoked and because of them this land mourns.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55452774580511286402010-02-16T22:14:09.285-05:002010-02-16T22:14:09.285-05:00I am wondering if these Words have any significanc...I am wondering if these Words have any significance in here?<br /><br />Job 11:1 Then Zophar the Naamathite answered and said: <br />Job 11:2 "Should a multitude of words go unanswered, and a man full of talk be judged right? <br />Job 11:3 Should your babble silence men, and when you mock, shall no one shame you? <br /><br />and<br /><br />Pro 10:18 The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander is a fool. <br />Pro 10:19 When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent. <br />Pro 10:20 The tongue of the righteous is choice silver; the heart of the wicked is of little worth. <br />Pro 10:21 The lips of the righteous feed many, but fools die for lack of sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52754359606801242052010-02-16T21:55:41.300-05:002010-02-16T21:55:41.300-05:00Methinks I am now really dumb and confused by the ...Methinks I am now really dumb and confused by the last few posts.<br /><br />Didn't DA say he wasn't going to do theology debates?<br /><br />What is this:::> <br /><br />"....E.g., right now in documenting how you guys lie in order to supposedly further your goals, I'm "dealing" with you. But I am not debating theology. And that is what I decided to stop doing in October 2007. This is an ethical discussion, and an exposure of the almost non-existent NT ethics of anti-Catholics, where it comes to treating others, even fellow Protestants (Reiss, Birch et al; White's treatment of Caner, Craig, etc.; just about anyone who has a principled disagreement with him)."<br /><br /><br />Ok, fair enough and clear enough, no equivocation here, right? No maybes about it or am I just plain wrong?<br /><br /><br />Then a few comments later, this:::><br /><br /><br />"....Jesus was not simply about law and legalism (that was the Pharisees' thing); He was about intelligent application of law in conjunction with justice and mercy and love of God and neighbor: the "weightier elements" of the Law. hence, like I said, He recognized that there can be exceptions to the rule(s): rescuing a sheep on the Sabbath if necessary; eating the showbread, like David did, even though only the priests were technically allowed to do so.".<br /><br />Honestly, have I lost my mind?<br /><br />So, Dave, you can put out this theological position in here above and call that "not debating"?<br /><br /><br />Hmmmmmm?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com