James Swan’s Double Standards Concerning Insults

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist James Swan wrote the article, “When Catholic Apologists Pray for You” (5-30-07), directed towards yours truly. I will cite it in its entirety (his words in blue):

“I’ll keep praying for you, as I do all my severe, hostile, critics.” [me!]

I’m curious how these prayers actually sound, and if any of this language is utilized:

Yeah, I think it’s good to follow Jesus’ advice:

Matthew 5:43-47 (RSV) “You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [45] so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. [46] For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? [47] And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Luke 6:27-28 “But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, [28] bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

Note how Swan — in very typical anti-Catholic fashion — implies that this was insincere on my part, and/or immediately hypocritical, so that it can be dismissed altogether.

“Jimbo”

“Anti-Catholic polemicist and pseudo-“apologist” James Swan”

“James ‘Dave Got The Citation Wrong Again!’ Swan”

“James ‘A…….g Botches Every Citation He Makes’ Swan”

Similarly, I wonder if these titles are used as well:

Steve “Whopper” Hays, David T. “I Could Care Less about Context”, King Dr. Eric “The Yellow” Svendsen, Frank “Federal Action If You Misrepresent Me” Turk, William “Historical Revisionist” Webster, Bishop King James White

Perhaps there is a particular saint being prayed to, one of whom enjoys such creative language.

What horrific language from me, huh? This is simply tweaking, playful, harmless, Rush Limbaugh-type stuff. I was, of course, reacting in all these cases to truly vitriolic, extreme, slanderous, malicious (fringe group) anti-Catholic insults sent my way, or the Catholic Church’s way, such as that we’re not Christians; our Church supposedly denies the gospel, teaches Pelagian works-salvation, that we are unregenerate pagans and idolaters, spiritual ignoramuses, that “Rome” is the antichrist, Whore of Babylon; stuff like that. There is no one-to-one comparison whatsoever.

My epithets or insults are not nearly as harsh as those of Jesus, Paul, and the prophets. Jesus called Herod “that fox” and the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” and “whitewashed tombs.” He even called them “fools”: after saying in another place that this usage might lead one to hellfire (obviously, then, it’s not an absolute prohibition). Elijah taunted the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel (who were soon to be executed), asking them if their “god” was off relieving himself; Jesus used the sarcastic “log in the eye” word-picture; St. Paul wrote that he wished false teachers would “castrate” themselves (Gal 5:12).
*
Now let’s review just a few representative examples (out of many hundreds) of what these guys have called me:
*
James Swan [link]

As far as I know, he’s a guy in Michigan sitting in his attic with a computer. (4-26-07)

….the one who craves attention. (12-22-07)

It’s all about the glory of DA. . . . . . . a guy who simply claims to be an apologist. (4-14-09)

This is a big difference between DA and I. I’ve never been bored. I actually have a job, . . . On the other hand, I think DA considers sitting up in his attic tapping away on a computer all day an actual job. Oh that’s right, he’s a professional Catholic apologist. . . . Wife comes in: Hi honey how was work today? Husband: today I spent all day posting inane blog comments and compiling a list of someone else’s blog posts about me. Wife: That’s great dear… how much did you get paid for doing it? Husband: well, um, err, um… (7-17-09)

I think it’s quite possible you have serious psychological issues. . . . your cyber-behavior strikes me (and probably others) as very bizarre. If you get yourself checked out, and my suspicions prove accurate, and you get the help you need, be it medication or therapy, and we see a change in your cyber behavior, I’ll seriously consider never mentioning you, and begin trying to strike your name from this blog. Perhaps then we could actually have a civil dialogue. If indeed this happens, I don’t want to be known as a guy who picked on a person struggling with deep psychological issues. . . . (8-24-09; this is the guy, remember, who complains frequently about folks using “psychohistory” to analyze Martin Luther)

[P]erhaps it is time we back of from Dave Armstrong a bit. I know you probably think I’m being sarcastic, but actually, I’m not. / . . . There’s just something not right with Mr. Armstrong. I think he needs some help. (8-26-09)

If anything is “comically surreal” it’s the effort you put in to your research. (12-21-09)

I’m sure you would very much appreciate it if I didn’t look up the quotes you mishandle and put them back in their proper context. . . . I’ll keep looking up your “research.” You’ve put forth enough bogus “research” to keep me busy for a long time, if I so choose.. . . Those who care about truth will benefit from contexts and will find your “work” substandard. . . . I don’t take you seriously as a “professional” apologist, . . . (2-26-10)

Great example of your psychosis. (2-26-10; retracted on 4-18-10 with apology)

That you won’t answer simple questions about context really does make one question your honesty. (2-27-10)

Yes indeed, I do find your shenanigans quite odd behavior. However, as I’ve stated repeatedly while I think you’re wacky, other people take you seriously. . . . I explained earlier your eratic [sic] behavior, particularly on my blog, lead me to question whether or not you needed help. (2-27-10)

I’m not against Mr. Armstrong’s book[s] simply because they are self-published. I’m against the ones I have because they’re simply awful. I’ve reviewed parts of a few of them, and the material is horrendous. (4-13-10)

Steve Hays [link]

“hypersensitive, paranoid, an ego-maniac, narcissistic, with a martyr and persecution complex, . . . a self-obsessive individual . . . Not only is Dave an idolater, but a self-idolater. He has sculpted an idol in his own, precious image. A singular, autobiographical personality cult” (7-16-09); “you’re a hack who pretends to be a professional apologist . . . you don’t do any real research” (1-28-10); “you need to have your psychiatrist up the dosage . . . You have an evil character. . . . I’m supposed to be taken in by your bipolar tactics?” (1-29-10); “. . . a schizophrenic guy like Armstrong . . . emotionally unhinged, . . . Armstrong’s instability” (4-18-10).

I used to think that Dave Armstrong was just a jerk. Not deeply evil. Just a jerk. . . . 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. (4-13-09)

You have to wonder what Armstrong would do with himself in heaven. I don’t think heaven is big enough for God Almighty and David Armstrong. If Armstrong ever gets to heaven, he’ll have to evict the Lord to make room for himself. Dave is his very own religion. Both subject and object. He carries around a mental icon of his adorable self-image. Lights imaginary candles to his self-image. Burns imaginary incense to his self-image. This overweening self-importance isn’t limited to Armstrong. In my observation, it’s fairly characteristic of Catholic converts who become pop apologists. . . . What is it about Catholic converts like Armstrong which selects for this particular mindset? (“The Cult of St. Dave”, 7-16-09)

[Y]ou play the innocent victim when someone exposes your chicanery. . . . you’re a hack who pretends to be a professional apologist . . . you don’t do any real research. . . . 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. (1-28-10)

Both Paul Hoffer and Dave Armstrong are bad men who imagine they are good men. (12-7-11)
*

James White [link]

Roman Catholic apologists like Dave Armstrong, who lack any meaningful ability to engage the text in a serious manner, have no compunctions about grabbing anything to use as a bludgeon against the truth. (3-27-04)

DA lacks the ability to engage the text of the Scriptures in a meaningful fashion, and 2) DA will use anything to attack the truth. . . . As to the first, I simply direct anyone to the “exegesis” presented in A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, his 2001 publication. The book is a monument to how to ignore context, avoid grammar, shred syntax, and insert the traditions of Rome willy-nilly into any passage you cite. . . . DA thinks himself a modern Socrates, yet, his writing takes wild leaps from topic to topic, inserts endless (and often gratuitous) irrelevant material that serves only to cover the shallow nature of what is being said, and in the end requires one to possess the skill of nailing jello to a wall to be able to respond to it for its utter lack of substance. (3-28-04)

When do, where do you draw the line? I mean, it would be so much easier to just ignore all these people, but the problem is, we’re one of those few folks that actually gets out there and we get our hands dirty. We actually take on these, these individuals, and show where the argumentation’s bad, and you’re gonna end up with dirt on your hands, and on your face, when you wallow with some of these folks, and we try to figure out where the line is. This guy [sigh], sadly, there are people who write recommendations of his stuff! I mean, you got Scott Hahn, all these folks, which amazes me. Uh, because you [laughter] look at some of his books, and it’s just like “wow! there’s just no substance here.” It’s just rattle rattle rattle rattle, and quote John Henry Cardinal Newman and that’s the end of the subject. And there’s no meaningful argumentation going on at all. (webcast of 4-20-04)

As I said a few weeks ago, since there is no substance to the man’s methodology or study, but no end to his time to tap away at a keyboard, what do you do when he starts in with his irrational diatribes? Hopefully the clear demonstration of his incapacity to engage in meaningful exegesis (indeed, even to know what the term means) will help some who have been impacted by his sheer volume of verbosity. (4-23-04)

Mr. Armstrong has provided a reading list on his blog. 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. (12-31-04)

Honestly, how utterly pathetic can someone become? It was bad enough that his work was shown to be consistently shallow, and worse that his attempts to respond were shrill and panic-filled (leading to his melt down and his unwillingness to even attempt further defense), . . . But it truly amazes me that someone who utterly lacks the tools to do the work he claims to do with such expertise continues to be dragged along by the rest of his compatriots. Just another example of “as long as it is in the service of Mother Church, it is all good.” What a contrast: we seek to be consistent in honor of the truth, . . . (4-5-05)

Now, moonbat is an interesting phrase. It is generally used to describe the wacko left, but it strikes me as being particularly descriptive of wackos in general, unhinged folks who have no self-control and are utterly controlled by their angry emotions. Most religions have their moonbats. Rome surely does. Off the top of my head, we can list . . . Dave “the Stalker” Armstrong . . . (5-4-07)

Steve Ray and Dave Armstrong, . . . those Roman Catholic apologists who really are not serious about truth but do what they do for less-than-noble reasons, . . . (7-31-08)

The little yip yip yip yip yip dog? That’s Dave Armstrong, because he never does anything original on his own. He always borrows from somebody else. . . . . . . try doing it truthfully. (webcast, 7-31-08)

Serious readers in the field realize that while Dave may stumble over a thoughtful argument once in a while, it is always to be found somewhere else. He simply does not produce original argumentation of any kind, . . . (1-6-10)

Dave Armstrong is not a serious or thoughtful or reflective or studied Roman apologist or writer. Period. (Twitter, 5-17-12)

Dave Armstrong has never had a fresh insight on a theological and doctrinal topic. Period. (Twitter, 5-18-12)

Eric Svendsen [link]

. . . strategy of deceit that he [yours truly] uses all the time . . . (1-11-05)
*

[T]he “nature” of his apology was insincerity . . . That’s the “strategy of deceit” that Paul refers to in Ephesians 4. (1-13-05)

*
He has no problem with lying, so long as he thinks he can pin that same charge on someone else; that way he doesn’t “appear” to be lying. What a sad spectacle. (1-14-05)

*
. . . DA’s strategy of deceit, . . . (1-14-05)

*
What’s my “lack of charity” got to do with DA’s lack of honesty? Nothing. . . . that’s just what DA does best–he deceives, and he usually accomplishes that by focusing on half-truths (that’s the “strategy of deceit” that marks the heretic). (1-15-05)

“Turretinfan” [link]

. . . of course, most of what appears on the web site is not even pretext at Biblical apologetics, just inflammatory material . . . (10-18-07)

I have no desire to debate whether Roman Catholicism is Christian with someone who is not fully Roman Catholic . . . Obviously, for now, the debate is on hold, pending Dave’s decision about whether to follow Roman Catholic dogma or not label himself Roman Catholic. (10-27-07)
*

Dave . . . is a self-appointed e-poligist [sic] and largely self-published author. (10-29-07)

Your dishonesty stopped surprising me when you pretended that I refused to debate you. (8-21-09, 8:22 AM)
*

You are as kind as you are wise or honest. (8-21-09, 1:10 PM)

*
I’ve recently commented on your lack of integrity. It seems this is going to be an ongoing trend for you. (8-21-09, 5:56 PM)

*
Many folks would be ashamed to have the reports of their dishonesty recalled, but you seem to wear the judgment of godly men like Dr. [Eric] Svendsen and Pastor [David T.] King as a badge of honor. You actually seem proud to have been judged dishonest by them. I’m glad to be in their company in concluding from my personal observations to the same effect: that your agenda is more important to you than the truth. (8-21-09, 7:29 PM)

***

*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo Credit: [public domain / PxFuel]

Summary: Anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist James Swan sez that my mild epithets are the worst ever. In fact, his and his anti-Catholic cronies’ slanders sent my way are infinitely worse.