[book and purchase information]
***
[originally from 1-1-05]
***
My Introduction to the Series [12-29-04]
Part I: Binding Tradition [12-30-04]
Part II: Rabbit Trail Diversion [12-30-04]
Part III: Ad Hominem [12-31-04]
Part IV: I’m an Ignorant Convert? [12-31-04]
Part V: Deceiver Dave [1-1-05]
Part VI: Penance and Redemptive Suffering [1-2-05]
***
I know what many of you are thinking (scratching your head and shaking it in amazement): “this nonsense is a critique of Dave’s book???!!!” Yes, all of this personal attack is in the midst of a supposed “critique.” It is an exercise in intellectual self-destruction. The latest installment from Bishop “Dr.” [???] White is his “Quick Thought Regarding DA and Exegesis” (12-31-04), where he expresses his confusion and clueless noncomprehension of the replies I have been giving. Here are some highlights (his words in blue):
. . . it seems to be pretty difficult to follow where he’s going.
. . . [he] simply assumes the Roman interpretation, ignores the need to do any exegesis at all, and after all that, does not avail himself of counter-exegesis when it is only two pages away from passages he cites in his book . . .
I’m confused as well by the fact that when I mentioned looking for an exegesis of Romans 4:6-8 (which seemingly is not forthcoming: I’m sure I’m not the only one who would like to see Mr. Armstrong’s exegesis of the text) in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism he accused me of changing the topic; but now I am told to look there for the positive exegesis of these passages from the Roman Catholic side. Which is it? Sorta hard to figure out, isn’t it? Indeed it is.
To which I reply: read my explanations again. It’ll come to you if you keep trying. Moving on, the next post White has blessed his readers with, is “Armstrong’s Reading List” (12-31-04), in response to my last post, where I had to prove that I had done some serious reading as a Protestant (!!!). This is an absolute classic gem of Bishop White’s finely honed art of personal attack, obfuscation, and sophistry. I shall cite it in its entirety:
Mr. Armstrong has provided a reading list on his blog.
[see the previous installment in this series for my lengthy list of books I have read or own]
No; I provided a list of books I had read, and which are in my library: heavily-used for research (because White had ridiculously denied that I was well-read as a Protestant).
In essence, this means that instead of blaming ignorance for his very shallow misrepresentations of non-Catholic theology and exegesis, we must now assert knowing deception.
At this point, White has descended into virtual self-parody and high comedy. Having seen that his contention of my “ignorance” was blown out of the water by a simple citation of the books I have read and/or own, he faced a dilemma: the choice was (1) “admit that Armstrong actually knows something about Protestantism, so that I have been lying about him all these years,” or (2) “deny that he is telling the truth about his reading and books.” He chose (1) (well, the first clause, anyway), and decided to switch to the tactic of accusing me of “knowing deception,” so as to “save face” (so he thinks).
So far, DA has been unable to provide even the slightest meaningful defense of his own published statements and their refutation.
No refutation has occurred (White has almost totally ignored the arguments in the book); what need of defense, then? So, mostly I have been clarifying simple logic and facts.
Which is really only marginally relevant to the real issue: hopefully, aside from demonstrating the exegetical bankruptcy of The Catholic Verses, . . .
Can I help it if White continually shows his inability to grasp the very nature and purpose of the book?
. . . answers are being given to all those observing and learning how to speak the truth to those who likewise would handle the Word from the vantage point of tradition rather than allowing it to speak for itself with its own voice.
Failing any logical argument, simply distort the other’s belief and assert your own radically circular position . . .
*****
Total words: White: (minus his citation of my words): 492
Total words: Armstrong: 377 (or 77% as many as White’s)
Grand Total thus far: White: 4762 / Armstrong: 2001 (or 42% as many as White’s words, or White outwriting Armstrong by a 2.38 to one margin)
My percentage of words over against White’s, compared to his “average” prediction: 0.04% (2001 actual, compared to a predicted 47,620 / 24 times less)
Note Bishop White’s statement on 12-29-04, in commencing this present discussion:
Now, of course, DA will respond with text files (liberally salted with URL’s) that will average 10x the word count of anything I have to say. That’s OK. I shall . . . let him take home the bragging rights to verbosity and bandwidth usage.
***
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In