Friday, November 05, 2010

Catholic chihuahua

Here are a few lovely quotes full of the sort of bravado, braggadocio, and bluster we've come to expect from Catholic tough guy "Nick" the brick:
In short, I know the Bible better than you and can trounce you with it. . . .

The moment you try to refute the actual arguments will be your downfall. This is very clear to me. Nobody hides and squirms like that if they have a substantial rebuttal. I predict my article will be your downfall, possibly even shutting down this blog as early as Jan 1. . . .

As to my prediction (not a prophecy), it's based on my assumption you'll eventually have to find the courage to address the argument head on, and submit to whatever Scripture ends up really teaching.
But as Peter subsequently pointed out:
Nick is the chihuahua of Catholic apologetics. He's got a high pitched squeak of a bark, and assumes that people walking down the street are running in terror from him.

And much like that poor chihuahua, he will end up crushed when his Bag Lady Owner doesn't check the seat cushion on the sofa before sitting down one Friday evening. She will probably notice him in a day or two, when the smell begins to overpower the room in a way that the poor pup only wishes he could have overpowered the room whilst alive, and she'll mumble a few words before dumping him in the dumpster out back.

And beyond the realm of the front yard, the passersby will keep passing by, unaware of the great tragedy.
All bark and no bite:


  1. It seems folks don't know what the saying "all bark and no bite" means. For those who don't know, it means those who can trash-talk but really have nothing backing up their comments. I was neither trash-talking nor did I fail to back up my comments. My apologetics argument is on the table for all to see...what everyone else can see is that folks like Steve are frantically rushing to bury the real issue at hand (my actual argument) in a mountain of fluff and insults. If the saying applies to anyone, it's on Steve (at least in this case).

  2. For those who want a quick recap of the situation:

    Steve has been advocating that the Levitical Sacrifices were based on Penal Substitution. I called him out on that, saying it was totally erroneous and unbiblical. Knowing that his Calvinism and reputation hang in the balance, he went into over drive to bury the issue.

    Knowing my Catholicism and reputation hang in the balance, but also knowing my argument is the truly Biblical one, I press on to expose his heresy in the face of insults and other irrelevant comments.

  3. Nick: Your claim:

    "Levitical Sacrifices were based on Penal Substitution. I called him out on that, saying it was totally erroneous and unbiblical"

    Is not what you think it might be.

    From a Protestant, a pastor with 20 years in the ministry, and no desire to accept much of what Rome teaches on many things.

    Though quite willing to talk with Catholics as I have in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

  4. I find that those who make great statements that they have devised the ultimate argument to defeat the other side often do not have what they claim to have.

  5. And Nick -- do not try the claim that Catholics and or Eastern Orthodox try -- that we can trace ourselves back to the original church when a little judicious reading of History demonstrates quite well that much of what developed in the Orthodox Church and Catholicism was little more then an appropriating of local customs that existed prior to Christian beliefs being adopted in the area.