![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/02\/WhiteJames2.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
I want you and your adherents to know that I am not . . . so faint-hearted as to be disturbed by your insults. But the fact that you are so disparaging, derogatory, and utterly contemptuous towards my\u00a0Discussion<\/em>\u00a0argues that it is not as contemptible as you make out. If it did not bear down on you, your pen would not have produced such outrageous insults to its author.<\/p>\n
[Y]ou are so impudent in your insults . . . so unrestrained in your abuse when you are hemmed in by arguments, that no one, even if he bent over backwards to be fair to you, could find any excuses for your spirit. (Erasmus responding to Martin Luther,\u00a0Hyperaspistes<\/em>\u00a0[1526], pp. 103, 140 in Vol. 76 in\u00a0Collected Works<\/em>\u00a0[1999] )<\/p>\n
Matthew 5:11-12<\/strong> (RSV) Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you.<\/p>\n
Matthew 10:22, 25<\/strong>\u00a0and you will be hated by all for my name\u2019s sake. . . . [25] . . .\u00a0If they have called the master of the house Be-el\u2019zebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Man, this was tough to narrow down to a mere ten, but I thought I\u2019d have some fun with it. At bottom, however, it is very serious, since it is sin (see my final remarks).<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
10.<\/strong> Steve Skojec<\/span><\/strong> [radical Catholic reactionary and former webmaster of One Vader Five<\/em>]<\/p>\n
I\u2019d characterize you as an arrogant bloviator with a penchant for TL;DR diatribes . . .\u00a0I do believe, though, that you\u2019ve helped people over the years. I have friends who benefited from you during their conversions before they realized what a self-parody you have become. They find it sad that you\u2019re so far from who they thought you were. . . .\u00a0at the present moment, you\u2019re doing more harm than good with your name-calling and your absurd denials of the truth in front of your face, and that\u2019s why you\u2019re just not taken seriously by many people now. Trying to debate with you about anything is an exercise in futility \u2013 not because of your skill as a rhetorician, but because you simply are unable to conceive of any scenario where you aren\u2019t the triumphalistic victor. . . .\u00a0We\u2019re trying to do work here that matters, and we don\u2019t have time for playground fights.
\n[5-26-16<\/a>]<\/p>\nPersonally, I\u2019ve found you ridiculous from the moment I first ran into you. You\u2019re a modern day, post-conciliar Don Quixote, all bravado and sword swinging, invariably picking the wrong targets. . . .\u00a0here you are, sword as dull as ever, energy for a thousand battles, none of them worthwhile. . . .\u00a0you\u2019ve been wrong as long as I\u2019ve ever come across anything you\u2019ve written about anything that matters, and history will judge you to have been on the wrong side of the schism that is even now coming to a head.\u00a0It\u2019s a thing, I think, with Protestant converts. They don\u2019t have sola scriptura anymore, so they resort to papal positivism as their one and only guide. Is the current pope saying something that\u2019s an almost complete contradiction of one of his predecessors? No problem! Like Muslims have the theological principle of abrogation, we have Super-Ultramontanism! . . .\u00a0we have a bad pope (and a run of Modernist-influenced ones before him) and are still reeling from a bad council and a bad Mass means having to deal with an uncomfortable level of cognitive dissonance. . . .\u00a0You could be a part of the solution if you want, but only if you stop making it about you and start making it about the truth. . . .\u00a0I feel bad for you, I really do. Someone was calling you the Napoleon Dynamite of Catholic Apologetics, but really, you\u2019re the Uncle Rico. You just keep fantasizing, 20 years on, about what would have happened if coach had just put you in fourth quarter. You keep telling people that you can throw a football over the mountains from your front porch. But coach didn\u2019t put you in, and you can\u2019t throw that far, and the only thing that matters right now is if you fight the evil that is, at this very moment, threatening to strangle the faith of millions of Catholics because it is being perpetrated from the very top. [5-28-16<\/a>]<\/p>\n
It\u2019s all about you. All hubris, all the time. . . .\u00a0of course, you pulled your trademark move of twisting whatever the other person says to fit your narrative. You\u2019re not just predictable, you\u2019re on rails. Get over yourself, Dave. You\u2019re not even a little deal. And you are doing more harm than good. [5-28-16<\/a>]<\/p>\n
I like the folksy style and Steve\u2019s way with words, and wanted to preserve it. No one I\u2019ve seen in the present era can insult with the sheer derision and contempt in the way that Steve does. But I pity him and think I understand. He barely has any [Catholic] faith anymore,<\/span> absolutely hates Vatican II<\/a>,<\/span> and has virtually asserted that<\/span> the Church<\/a> and<\/span> Pope Francis<\/a> have entered into heresy, which is contrary to the Catholic dogma of the<\/span> indefectibility of the Church<\/a> and of<\/span> the pope<\/a>. Pray for the man. He is in very deep spiritual trouble and could very well end up an atheist if he doesn\u2019t change his dangerous trajectory soon.<\/span><\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
9.<\/strong> John Loftus<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0[prominent online atheist author and webmaster]<\/p>\n
You\u2019re a joke. I\u2019m surprised you have an audience. You\u2019re also a psychologist, eh? Wow! . . . Again, you\u2019re a joke. To think you could pompously proclaim you are better than me is beyond me when you don\u2019t know me. It\u2019s a defensive mechanism you have with people like me. It\u2019s called respecting people as people, and Dave\u2019s Christianity does not do that with people who don\u2019t agree with him. I\u2019m just tired of pompous asses on the internet who go around claiming they are superior to me in terms of intelligence and faith. Such arrogance makes me vomit.\u00a0. . . self-assured arrogant idiots out there, like Dave, who prefer to proclaim off of my personal experience that they are better than I. (10-16-06)<\/p>\n
You are an idiot! You never critiqued my whole deconversion story. Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. Other than that, you can critique a few brief paragraphs or a brief testimony, if you want to, but that says very little about why someone left the faith. You walk away thinking you have completely analysed someone\u2019s story. But from where I sit, that\u2019s just stupid. That\u2019s S-T-U-P-I-D! If you truly want to critique a deconversion story, then critique mine in my book. I wrote a complete story there. . . .\u00a0Dave, I can only tolerate stupidity so long.\u00a0<\/span>I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. It\u2019s a complete story. A whole story. It\u2019s mine. . . .\u00a0Do you accept my challenge? (10-16-06)<\/p>\n
John was rather displeased because I critiqued his \u201cdeconversion\u201d story and showed, I think, that his reasons for rejecting Christianity were woefully inadequate and at places downright silly or ignorant. At first, I refused to take up his challenge, because I wanted him to d=send me a PDF copy of his book (traded for several of mine), and he refused. But in September 2019 I bought a paper copy of his book and took up the challenge, writing ten in-depth critiques<\/span><\/a> of it. And guess what? Surprise! He has utterly ignored all ten.<\/span><\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
8. Dr. Eric Svendsen<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>[anti-Catholic Protestant author and former webmaster]<\/p>\n
[T]here are not that many of us who take Armstrong\u2019s writings seriously . . . his writings are little more than a bunch of words that have been loosely strung together). (1-3-05)<\/p>\n
\n. . . strategy of deceit that he [yours truly] uses all the time . . . (1-11-05)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n[T]he \u201cnature\u201d of his apology was insincerity . . . That\u2019s the \u201cstrategy of deceit\u201d that Paul refers to in Ephesians 4. (1-13-05)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nHe has no problem with lying, so long as he thinks he can pin that same charge on someone else; that way he doesn\u2019t \u201cappear\u201d to be lying. What a sad spectacle. (1-14-05)<\/div>\n*<\/p>\n
What\u2019s my \u201clack of charity\u201d got to do with DA\u2019s lack of honesty? Nothing. . . . that\u2019s just what DA does best\u2013he\u00a0deceives<\/i>, and he usually accomplishes that by focusing on half-truths (that\u2019s the \u201cstrategy of deceit\u201d that marks the heretic).\u00a0(1-15-05<\/a>)<\/p>\n
Eric has been known on several occasions to declare that some unfortunate is definitely damned to the fires of hell. But I suppose that if he thinks I am a heretic, I am already consigned to the reprobate in his fertile discerning mind. He was one of the more colorful and active anti-Catholic polemicists online, in the early 2000s. Then he decided to leave the Internet in April 2010 (I did a<\/span> fond remembrance post<\/a>) and has never been heard of since (to my knowledge). I\u2019d like to think that he came to his senses (at least to some extent).<\/span><\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
7. Gene M. Bridges<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>[anti-Catholic Protestant] (10-25-07<\/a>)<\/p>\n
[Y]ou are a chronic liar . . . shoddy, incompetent, and anachronistic exegetical work. . . . Titus 3 says to reject the factious man. You are the epitome of that man. . . . Further, this isn\u2019t about the truth for you Dave, however defined, it\u2019s about stroking your own overbloated ego. . . . a person of such obviously low character . . .<\/p>\n
I\u2019m surprised (and a bit disappointed) that Gene didn\u2019t consign me to hell, or at least to the insane asylum . . . this could have been so much better! But to be fair, in the same post, he consistently compared me to the Korean dictator (i.e., the father of the present one), complete with pictures. That\u2019s pretty good, too!<\/span><\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
6. \u201cTurretinfan<\/span>\u201d <\/strong>[anti-Catholic Protestant Calvinist and blogmaster]<\/p>\n
Dave . . . is a self-appointed e-poligist [sic] and largely self-published author. [I have had eleven books \u201cofficially\u201d published, by six major publishers: four of them bestsellers, and ten additional ones by FaithLife \/ Logos: the largest Christian electronic publisher; I also have several Imprimaturs]<\/span> . . . not all of his doctrines are Catholic . . . Dave has apparently never defined Christianity. . . . Maybe Dave will actually stand behind the dogmatic declarations of the church for which he is allegedly an apologist. (10-29-07)<\/p>\n
\n[Y]ou\u2019re not really in line with orthodox Roman Catholic teaching, Dave. (7-6-09)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nYou are as kind as you are wise or honest. (8-21-09)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI\u2019ve recently commented on your lack of integrity. It seems this is going to be an ongoing trend for you. (8-21-09)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Y]our agenda is more important to you than the truth. (8-21-09)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\nThis particularly obnoxious fool is so obsessed with his anonymity that he actually has appeared in live debates with Catholics with a bag over his head (looking like either a Klansman or a kid at Halloween with a lousy costume). I\u2019ve noted and\/or refuted several of his ridiculous opinions, such as that<\/span> God wanting men to sin<\/a>, and<\/span> statues of Jesus Christ being idols<\/a>.<\/div>\n*
\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n5. James Swan<\/span> <\/strong>[anti-Catholic Protestant polemicist and webmaster]<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not the one publishing books and attempting to define my very being as an \u201capologist.\u201d If these men wish to be taken seriously, I suggest they do serious work. . . . [He] craves attention. (12-22-07)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\nThis is a big difference between DA and I. I\u2019ve 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\u2019s right, he\u2019s a professional Catholic apologist. (7-17-09)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI think it\u2019s 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 don\u2019t want to be known as a guy who picked on a person struggling with deep psychological issues. . . . (8-24-09)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n[P]erhaps it is time we back of from Dave Armstrong a bit. I know you probably think I\u2019m being sarcastic, but actually, I\u2019m not. . . . There\u2019s just something not right with Mr. Armstrong. I think he needs some help. (8-26-09)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nYes indeed, I do find your shenanigans quite odd behavior. . . . I think you\u2019re wacky, . . . your eratic [sic] behavior, particularly on my blog, lead[sic]\u00a0 me to question whether or not you needed help. (2-27-10)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nPart of looking over your \u201cwork\u201d and commenting on it is nothing else than showing why you shouldn\u2019t be taken seriously. (4-18-10)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThis guy\u2019s a real piece of work. I don\u2019t say that he\u2019s nuts, as he says about me, but I do<\/em> say (from long sad experience over 18 years) that he is a first-class fool and inveterate liar: at least when it comes to anything to do with me<\/em>. He was at least somewhat cordial in the beginning of our interactions (as much as an anti-Catholic bigot can be with a Catholic), but what put him over the edge was foolish pride: after (in June 2003)<\/span> I roundly refuted<\/a> his second hit-piece about my Luther research that he had worked so<\/strong><\/em> hard on (with 201 footnotes, no less!). It probably took him several weeks to write; took me just a few hours to refute. That blow to his ego was just too much to take, and so he has \u201creplied\u201d ever since with the asinine juvenile insults we see above. Bitterness and jealousy drive many many people to serious sin.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n4.<\/strong> Mary Hammond<\/span><\/strong> [liberal Catholic]<\/p>\n
I put forth to you right now that Dave Armstrong, without regard to who trained the ass, educated the ass, is a reflection of exactly what\u2019s wrong with the Catholic Church in America today. If you want to know why it\u2019s split and disfunctional\u00a0[sic]\u00a0as a unifying force? Look at Dave. He is the spitting image. . . . Dave Armstrong- you as a heart- aren\u2019t worth the Tomahawk payload to blow you to hell. . . .\u00a0And if I was your wife I\u2019d divorce you. For being a prissy phony.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n[Mary reminds me of a funny saying from Winston Churchill. Some woman who didn\u2019t like him much said, \u201cSir, if I were your wife, I\u2019d put poison in your tea.\u201d The great man replied, \u201cMadame, if\u00a0you<\/em>\u00a0were my wife, I\u2019d\u00a0drink<\/em>\u00a0it.\u201d]<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n. . .\u00a0You are in this for the money. Not me. Peace out. You are off the rails and too egotistical to know who your friends are. . . .\u00a0My daughter married such a nightmare. . . . I think if I were you I\u2019d spend sometime wondering who the hell I was before God. Trembling before him certainly is not in your line. . . .\u00a0what he sorely lacks for as an apologist is love- either for people or the Church. Can\u2019t quite leave his Protestantism behind. . . .\u00a0A sad sad case Dave is. No love. . . .\u00a0There is no love, no peace, no charity on your page or in you. You abuse anyone who disagrees with you. And apparently your no does not mean no and your yes does not mean yes. . . .\u00a0Still waiting for some Catholic apologetics. . . .\u00a0I also venture to say that one of the more truly toxic forms of Catholicism are with those who convert yet never truly leave their Protestant home. They are neither one or t\u2019other. . . .\u00a0Not only are you an idiot, but unethical, a bulky and a liar. . . . You are just amazingly STUPID. It boggles the mind anyone reads you at all. . . .\u00a0It\u2019s time you got a real job\u00a0man. . . . I have no intention of reading apologetics from a guy who acts premenopausal.. . . This is all you\u2019ve got. Gossip, . . ., slander, calumny, insults and screenshots. Stop blaming the Church by calling this pig tripe of yours \u201capologetics\u201d. . . . Armstrong just has no credibility left. . . .\u00a0An apologist? The man is a joke.\u00a0 . . . complete dishonesty . . . Very dishonest and completely unaware of his own prejudices. . . .\u00a0It\u2019s hard to decide what is worse. Dave Armstrong or his supporters.\u00a0(April 2017 on my own Facebook page<\/a>]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMary would derive huge benefit from a reading of Proverbs. But of course she wouldn\u2019t apply the \u201cfool\u201d verses to herself:<\/span><\/div>\n\nProverbs 18:2<\/strong>\u00a0(RSV) A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.<\/span><\/p>\n
Proverbs 18:7<\/strong>\u00a0A fool\u2019s mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to himself.<\/span><\/p>\n
Proverbs 15:2<\/strong>\u00a0The tongue of the wise dispenses knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
***<\/p>\n
3. The late Steve Hays<\/span> <\/strong>[anti-Catholic Protestant webmaster and polemicist]<\/p>\n
[G]uys like Dave Armstrong . . . present an artificially Evangelicalized version of Roman Catholicism . . . sterile hybrid theology that isn\u2019t consistently Catholic or Protestant. (9-14-06)<\/p>\n
\n*<\/div>\nI used to think that Dave Armstrong was just a jerk. Not deeply evil. Just a jerk. . . . He isn\u2019t just a narcissistic little jerk. He\u2019s actually evil. It\u2019s not something we can spoof or satirize anymore. He\u2019s crossed a line of no return. (4-13-09)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n[H]ypersensitive, 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)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nYou have to wonder what Armstrong would do with himself in heaven. I don\u2019t think heaven is big enough for God Almighty and David Armstrong. If Armstrong ever gets to heaven, he\u2019ll 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.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nThis overweening self-importance isn\u2019t limited to Armstrong. In my observation, it\u2019s fairly characteristic of Catholic converts who become pop apologists. . . . What is it about Catholic converts like Armstrong which selects for this particular mindset? (\u201cThe Cult of St. Dave\u201d, 7-16-09)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\n[Y]ou play the innocent victim when someone exposes your chicanery. . . . you\u2019re a hack who pretends to be a professional apologist . . . you don\u2019t do any real research. . . . Dave is a stalwart enemy of the faith. He\u2019s no better than Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Just like the militant atheist, his MO is to destroy faith in God\u2019s word to make room for his alternative. (1-28-10)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\n[Y]our persecution complex (btw, you need to have your psychiatrist up the dosage) . . . I didn\u2019t say you were evil in this one instance. You have an evil character. . . . There\u2019s always a clientele for P. T. Barnums like you. . . . I\u2019m supposed to be taken in by your bipolar tactics? (1-29-10)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/p>\n
\n. . . a schizophrenic guy like Armstrong . . . One of Dave\u2019s problems is his lifelong love affair with himself. He reacts to any imagined slight the way a normal man reacts if someone slights his wife or mother or girlfriend. . . . Dave is self-important. . . . If would help Armstrong if, in refuting the allegation that he\u2019s emotionally unhinged, if he didn\u2019t become emotionally unhinged whenever he hears the allegation. . . . because he doesn\u2019t trust in the merit of Christ alone for salvation, Dave has an insatiable need for self-justification. He, like other Catholics, has no peace of mind. . . . Yes, Dave, that\u2019s evil. Pure evil. . . . Of course, that\u2019s symptomatic of Armstrong\u2019s instability. (4-18-10)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nIt\u2019s bad enough to be a narcissist, but when you\u2019re at war with your mirror-image, who\u2019s left to turn to? It\u2019s hard to be Dave Armstrong. Hard to be a bipolar solipsist. (\u201cSplit-personality narcissist\u201d, 8-3-11)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nBoth Paul Hoffer and Dave Armstrong are bad men who imagine they are good men. That\u2019s not unusual. Bad men often have a high opinion of their own motives. And Catholicism reinforces that self-deception. (12-7-11)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nThis is seething literal hatred and contempt, in a way that only an anti-Catholic Calvinist applying his own false doctrine of total depravity can express. The problem with supposedly \u201cdetermining\u201d who is of the elect or not (which means also who is going to hell) is that the Bible never sanctions doing any such thing (and<\/span> even John Calvin agreed<\/a>). But once a person goes down that road and doesn\u2019t like someone else or his or her ideas, the danger is that they will decide that they are scumbags, judged by God and on the way to hell. This in turn justifies any outrages and slanders heaped upon the object of derision. It\u2019s as far away from the love of Jesus and the fruit of the Holy Spirit as can be imagined. I don\u2019t thereby conclude that the one committing such sins is not a Christian. But I do know for sure that such inveterate lying puts them in serious spiritual danger. I sincerely pray that Steve was saved when he passed in the last year. I know that God does everything in His mercy to save as many as possible, given human free will and sin.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n2. The Right Reverend Bishop \u201cDr.\u201d [???] James White<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>[anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist Apologist, Elder, Author, famous debater, with a supposed PhD<\/a>, etc., etc.]<\/p>\n
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 \u201cexegesis\u201d presented in\u00a0A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em>, 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.\u00a0 (3-28-04)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n\n[I]f you read his materials, he\u2019s very very high on himself and, uh, makes sure that you know how many books he\u2019s written.\u00a0Of course, they\u2019re vanity published,<\/p>\n
[at this point in time \u2014 April 2004 \u2014 I had two books published, by two different Catholic publishers: one the largest one: OSV; both bestsellers]<\/span><\/p>\n
but how many books he\u2019s written, and uh, you read the top of his page, and it\u2019s [mocking tone]\u00a0exegesis<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0history<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0apologetics<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0philosophy<\/i>\u00a0and all this stuff, and you know, in your heart of hearts, that\u00a0this<\/i>\u00a0fella, uh, bless his soul, has\u00a0no<\/i>\u00a0idea what he\u2019s talking about. He\u2019s read some books, but the important foundational stuff that allows you to actually make sense out of all that stuff, he\u2019s\u00a0clueless<\/i>; he has\u00a0no<\/i>\u00a0idea what he is talking about, but he writes\u00a0constantly<\/i>!<\/p>\n
. . . Cuz, it\u2019s sorta, sort of; it\u2019s really disturbing to me, uh, that I hear from people, and they go, \u201cwell, well, whaddya think about what he said about\u00a0this<\/i>?\u201d And I sorta, I sorta; I, it\u2019s really hard for me to go, \u201cwell, have you really\u00a0thought<\/i>\u00a0about, you know, the\u00a0foundation<\/i>\u00a0of this argument, and the background of this argument?\u201d\u00a0People\u00a0<\/i>need to\u00a0learn how\u00a0<\/i>to\u00a0examine argumentation!<\/i>\u00a0And see through\u00a0fluff<\/i>! Uh, see through stuff that shouldn\u2019t even be\u00a0called<\/i>\u00a0an argument; it\u2019s\u00a0complimenting<\/i>\u00a0it way too much to\u00a0call<\/i>\u00a0it an argument! And [sigh] it\u2019s just, how do you\u00a0deal<\/i>\u00a0with folks like that? . . .<\/p>\n
When you\u00a0respond<\/i>\u00a0to him, and I don\u2019t know if anyone followed it, if they went to his blog \u2014 we provided some of the links and stuff \u2014 but, I went through, I provided, I quoted from his book, and then I quoted from the article I had written. And the whole point was to illustrate the difference in exegetical methodology. I\u00a0have<\/i>\u00a0one. He doesn\u2019t. And he doesn\u2019t because he doesn\u2019t know the field. He\u2019s just; he doesn\u2019t know what he\u2019s\u00a0doing<\/i>! I mean, that would be like my trying to, to, write to a CPA and criticize uh, an audit that he\u2019s done on a major corporation. I\u2019m not\u00a0trained<\/i>\u00a0in that. I don\u2019t know the terminology. I don\u2019t know the\u00a0basics<\/i>, the foundational\u00a0rules<\/i>\u00a0that you\u2019re supposed to do and why you put this in this ledger and why you put that \u2014 I don\u2019t\u00a0know\u00a0<\/i>that stuff. It\u2019s not my\u00a0area<\/i>, I; you can go to school and\u00a0learn<\/i>\u00a0those things. Uh, but he hasn\u2019t\u00a0done<\/i>\u00a0so.<\/p>\n
And so, I just provided as an example. Well, he writes this response which has\u00a0nothing<\/i>\u00a0to do with the text; it has nothing to do with exegesis; it just simply proves my point, but that\u2019s one of the things [mocking me] \u201csee, he just ignores this.\u201d Well, okay, yeah, I\u00a0did<\/i>, because it wasn\u2019t worth\u00a0responding<\/i>\u00a0to! I mean, it\u2019s just that\u00a0bad<\/i>! So, I did respond to it, after he said I wouldn\u2019t, and so I responded to it, demonstrated that it had no connection with reality whatsoever, it was really really bad, and his response to that was basically to accuse me of attacking him, and all the rest of this stuff, which for him means, I pointed out that he doesn\u2019t know what he is talking about.<\/p>\n
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\u2019re one of those few folks that actually gets out there and we get our\u00a0hands<\/i>\u00a0dirty. We actually take on these, these individuals, and show where the argumentation\u2019s\u00a0bad<\/i>, and you\u2019re gonna end up with dirt on your hands, and on your face, when you wallow with some of these folks, and we\u00a0try<\/i>\u00a0to figure out where the line is. This guy [sigh], sadly, there are people who write recommendations of his\u00a0stuff<\/i>! I mean, you got Scott Hahn, all these folks, which\u00a0amazes<\/i>\u00a0me. Uh, because you [laughter] look at some of his\u00a0books<\/i>, and it\u2019s just like \u201cwow! there\u2019s just no\u00a0substance<\/i>\u00a0here.\u201d It\u2019s just rattle rattle rattle rattle, and quote John Henry Cardinal Newman and that\u2019s the end of the\u00a0subject<\/i>. And there\u2019s no meaningful\u00a0argumentation<\/i>\u00a0going on at all.<\/p>\n
Where\u00a0<\/i>do you draw the line, because eventually, I have to trust that the people who are reading these things, and are concerned about these things can eventually go, \u201chey, wait a minute, that wasn\u2019t even a\u00a0response<\/i>; that\u2019s not even a meaningful argument,\u201d without my having to hold their hand and\u00a0show<\/i>\u00a0that to them. But, sadly, in a postmodern world, where, for a lot of folks, if you can produce a response, and\u00a0spell<\/i>\u00a0it right, that somehow\u00a0means<\/i>\u00a0something. The view of logic, rationality, the ability to examine argumentation; let\u2019s face it, folks, listen to the political dialogue in our\u00a0nation<\/i>! There\u2019s not a whole lot of meaningful\u00a0discussion<\/i>\u00a0going on there! And yet you get people all excited; you know, I could play my Howard Dean .wav here, you know. [laughter] It\u2019s just like, \u201cwhoah!\u201d People, people\u00a0look<\/i>\u00a0at this kind of stuff and as long as your\u00a0mouth<\/i>\u00a0is moving, somehow you\u2019re making a\u00a0point<\/i>! Instead of going, \u201cyou know what? That person didn\u2019t answer that question, either!, that person didn\u2019t answer\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0question, either,\u201d wow! you know, all the rest of that kind of stuff . . . it is, it is, it\u2019s a\u00a0daily<\/i>\u00a0battle as to\u00a0how\u00a0<\/i>to decide what you respond to and what you don\u2019t.<\/p>\n
Well, on a much\u00a0higher<\/i>\u00a0level; on a much much much higher level; uh, on a, on an\u00a0extremely<\/i>\u00a0much higherly [sic] level [derisive laughter], . . .\u00a0(webcast of 4-20-04)<\/p>\n
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)<\/p>\n
Quite honestly, I just don\u2019t see that he follows an argument really well. . . .\u00a0A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em>. This is a self-published book, alright?\u00a0[At first it was, but it was published by Sophia Institute Press in June 2003: a year and seven months before this screed by Bishop White]<\/span>\u00a0There\u2019s no editor in the sense of a Bethany House or something involved with this particular book\u00a0[really? That would be big news to Todd Aglialoro: currently editor for Catholic Answers]<\/span>\u00a0. . . . The man does not know how to do exegesis. It\u2019s a fact. I went through it and demonstrated that. But that book really didn\u2019t have a lot of distribution.\u00a0[That would be news to Sophia, and is a curious comment, since the book was a bestseller in its field]<\/span>\u00a0Well now he\u2019s put one out with Sophia Institute Press.\u00a0[Yeah, my\u00a0second<\/em>\u00a0one!]<\/span>\u00a0Now that\u2019s an actual publisher. And so that means it\u2019s gonna get actual distribution\u00a0[my 2nd of three bestsellers for them!]\u00a0<\/span>. . . so it would be useful to a wider audience to go ahead and respond to some of the arguments that are presented in the book,\u00a0The Catholic Verses<\/em>, . . . there is a consistent pattern of eisegetical misunderstanding, and an inability to deal with the text . . . basically, Mr. Armstrong melted down . . . it does not seem that anyone knows what\u00a0ad hominem<\/em>\u00a0argumentation is . . . the reason that Dave Armstrong is doing this is pretty much the same reason that Dave Hunt won\u2019t debate me. He can\u2019t. He can\u2019t . . . the facts are not on Dave Armstrong\u2019s side. He can\u2019t respond! . . . Dave Armstrong has gone into hiding . . . because he can\u2019t respond anymore . . . . . . If you don\u2019t read what the other side is saying, you can\u2019t call yourself an apologist, can you? . . . if it\u2019s right there, and you are writing on the subject of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>\u00a0or against\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/em>, and two pages prior to something you do cite, a hole is blown right through your argument, facts are presented that are completely contrary to your own position, and you hide that; you say nothing about it, that\u2019s not honest! That\u2019s not apologetics! I don\u2019t have any respect for that, and I\u2019m gonna point it out! You\u2019re misusing your audience when you do that. Aren\u2019t you? . . . I would rather have had 20 verses that confound Protestants, and had serious arguments presented, than 95 fluffy pieces; 95 fluffy passages. Most of the time, these passages are cited, and there\u2019s no exegesis offered. It\u2019s just, \u201cwell here\u2019s what the text says, and my Catholic tradition says this, and therefore we move on from there.\u201d That\u2019s not meaningful argumentation . . . if you\u2019ve been in a serious, Bible-oriented, Bible-preaching church for the past ten years, you should be able to refute clearly and exegetically, at least 90 of these 95 . . . the argumentation is so basic and so clearly fallacious . . . clear, obvious, logical errors . . . Armstrong could throw his hands up in the air and say, \u201clook, I\u2019m not a scholar; I have no scholarly training.\u00a0[I guess that is why I wrote in the Intro. of this very book (p. xiii): \u201cThis is not a scholarly work, as I am no scholar in the first place . . .\u201d]<\/span>\u00a0. . . . . . your refutation is actually based upon your own ignorance; you didn\u2019t understand what they were saying . . . . . . If Mr. Armstrong can\u2019t defend his material, then so much the worse for Mr. Armstrong. Maybe he will move on to doing something else. Maybe he\u2019ll recognize this isn\u2019t something he should be doing. Maybe he\u2019ll think twice before putting himself in that situation again. . . . No one has even tried to document that I have misrepresented Dave Armstrong. They can\u2019t.\u00a0(webcast of 1-4-05)<\/p>\n
[I]t 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 \u201cas long as it is in the service of Mother Church, it is all good.\u201d (4-5-05)<\/p>\n
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 \u201cthe Stalker\u201d Armstrong . . .\u00a0(5-4-07)<\/p>\n
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, . . .\u00a0(7-31-08)<\/p>\n
The little yip yip yip yip yip dog? That\u2019s Dave Armstrong, because he never does anything original on his own. He always borrows from somebody else. . . . . . . try doing it truthfully. Try presenting both sides; maybe try listening to both sides sometime. You\u2019re not gonna get that kind of example following Dave Armstrong and Jerusalem Jones\u00a0[Steve Ray], but I call you to a higher standard.\u00a0(webcast, 7-31-08)<\/p>\n
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, and clearly does not understand the responses that have been offered to him over and over again.\u00a0(1-6-10)<\/p>\n
Dave Armstrong is not a Roman Catholic scholar. He trolls the Internet and cobbles stuff together. Worst of the worst.\u00a0(Twitter, 5-17-12<\/a>)<\/p>\n
Dave Armstrong is not a serious or thoughtful or reflective or studied Roman apologist or writer. Period.\u00a0(Twitter, 5-17-12<\/a>)<\/p>\n
Dave Armstrong has never had a fresh insight on a theological and doctrinal topic. Period.\u00a0(Twitter, 5-18-12<\/a>)<\/p>\n
[the hilarious thing about that is that he was replying to Dan Pritchett, who is is Executive Vice President at FaithLife \/ Logos Bible Software, which publishes\u00a0eleven<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0of my books!]<\/span><\/p>\n
Ah, what can one say about the inimitable Bishop White? He has wasted more ink in lying about me since<\/span> our first postal debate in 1995<\/a> (where he was so defeated that he split before the end and has never attempted a serious debate with me since), than any man alive. None of it has had the slightest effect, anymore than it had the slightest truth contained in it (not that this would ever stop him from doing it). He brags endlessly about his skill in oral debates and how every Catholic on the face of the earth is supposedly scared to death of him. Well, I don\u2019t do oral debates, but I did one spontaneous \u201clive chat\u201d with him in his chat room, with no notes (making patristic references off the top of my head), and I thought I did fine<\/em> (<\/span>you be the judge<\/a>).\u00a0 I have<\/span> compiled a book<\/a> of my written \u201cdebates with\u201d (er, more like my refutations of) him and have a<\/span> lengthy web page<\/a>\u00a0devoted to His Eminence as well.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Thanks for the memories and laughs, James!<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\n1.<\/strong> Shawn McElhinney<\/strong><\/span> [Catholic blogger with unfortunate remnants of irrational \u201ccan\u2019t see the forest for the trees\u201d modes of thought from his SSPX days ]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nObviously those who have more of an interest in personality clashes and public pissing matches cannot stand this approach; ergo the spectacle Dave sought to create last year on a matter he was (and is) profoundly ignorant and not equipped to discuss correctly. And though I have already dealt with this; the recent public attempts to \u201cairbrush\u201d the record of what happened requires that I set the record straight once and for all.<\/p>\n
. . . your claim to want to dialogue was a sham exactly as I said it was. You should have had the decency to have admitted to it publicly rather than try to pretend that you wanted to dialogue. Furthermore, if you never intended to interact with my arguments, then you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for crying about how soundly I bitchslapped your crap down publicly after 8\/28.<\/p>\n
. . . he had no interest in an actual dialogue but instead wanted to turn what was a private discussion on a very theologically complex subject matter into a public spectacle complete with Jerry Springer-esque antics and Michael Moore-like uses of photography for propagandistic purposes.<\/p>\n
. . . Dave proved if there was any doubt on the matter about his honesty on these matters that he either had none or that he was sloppy and not bothering to read and consider the arguments debunking his sources. . . .<\/p>\n
Dave, you may be able to fool those who hang on your every word as if it came from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets, but people capable of critical discernment and who have even an elementary understanding of how to construct a valid argument will recognize your approach here for what it is worth.<\/p>\n
In light of the\u00a0absolute outhouse compost\u00a0that he threw together, Dave has a\u00a0lot of gall\u00a0referring to \u201cskewed factual data\u201d or \u201cmere aversion.\u201d He has acted as disgracefully as Benedict Arnold in this whole situation and my tolerance for his blatant misrepresentation of my position on this was used up long ago. I was content to let the issue die but with his latest attempt at grandstanding and public sensationalism (and once again violating the private discussion forum to resurrect this subject publicly), I decided enough was enough.<\/p>\n
. . . every assertion Dave makes above is a bald faced lie.<\/p>\n
And Dave should be\u00a0ashamed of himself\u00a0for attempting to pass off such a heap of dung as he has as some kind of \u201cserious scholarship\u201d when in fact, I wrote better and more convincing papers than this offering in junior high school back in the day.<\/p>\n
It is frankly\u00a0embarrassing\u00a0to see a person with Dave\u2019s gifts act in this fashion but I am not surprised to see it really. That is what happens with those who have either a provincialist approach to issues or an apologetic \u201cmust-debate-anything-however-ignorant-I-am-about-the-subject-to-be-discussed\u201dmentality coupled with a predictable and \u201cone-size-fits-all\u201d approach to these matters. And in Dave\u2019s case, it is pretty evident that he has all three of those problems in spades along with perhaps a few others I am not about to go into at the present time.<\/p>\n
Now that is fine when you do not have all the facts but I provided them and Dave (if he had any scholastic integrity whatsoever) would recognize this and account for it accordingly. (1-23-06<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\nThis incredibly hostile display of worthless flatulence (and this is only a twentienth of all of it: if that much) all came about as a result of my taking the position that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were immoral according to Catholic just war ethics. Shawn didn\u2019t like the way I argued. That is his explanation for it. He also contends that\u00a0ad hominem\u00a0attacks are justifiable as long as one makes real arguments about the subject matter alongside them; quite curious and dubious ethics, to say the least . . .<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nShawn and I <\/span>