Thursday, January 14, 2010

How Anti-Catholics "Argue": "Rhology" (Alan Maricle's) Pathetic Attempts to Smear My Name with Relentless Lies, Over at Tribalblogue

"Rhology" is a pseudonym for Alan Maricle, who is from Norman, Oklahoma, and attends Trinity Baptist Church there. See evidences [one / two / three / four / five]

In reality, you're a special case. You're a false teacher, and a borderline obsessive-compulsive, incorrigible, tenacious one at that. Biblically, a Christian is not to treat you like he treats the majority of lost people. Rather, you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, cooing "come back to the true church" to unwitting people, some of whom follow the sweet voice and are devoured by the enemy. You are to be opposed, and that means exposing your foolish reasoning and false Gospel and "answering a fool according to his folly". May God have mercy on you.

("Rhology" / Alan Maricle: 8-21-09)

I am on a week-long diversion, documenting the methodologies of anti-Catholics. I know it is unpleasant material, but it is important to demonstrate once in a while, this sort of pathetic, unethical methodology. Anti-Catholic Protestants feel compelled to slander Catholics not just because we have, according to them, false beliefs, but often also (not always, and not necessarily, but often, in point of fact) because there is a deep personal prejudice as well. My friend Stan Williams noted this in the same combox thread that I shall cite below:

In Dave's defense, he's trying to say this: "You can't argue with ingrained prejudice." My doctoral research and current teaching assignments deal with both material and formal logic. I love both disciplines, and when it comes to discussions of faith and reason, I will spend longer on the reason side of the discussion. BUT my efforts are often a waste of time (which is Dave's point) because when extreme intolerance is involved no amount of reason or logic will win the day. . . . He's pointing out, as I often lament, that Protestant arguments MUST NECESSARILY commit a number of material fallacies among the most popular being "ignoring the counter evidence."

I submit that the juvenile attacks and slanderous smears occur in part because anti-Catholics so often have no rational replies to our arguments; thus, they resort to personal attack. The following is an absolutely classic example. Currently, at Steve Hays' site, Tribalblogue, there is what I call a "feeding frenzy" going on, because I have documented (three times: one / two / three) how one of their heroes, Jason Engwer, decides to ignore 80% of his Catholic opponents' arguments, when he is supposedly "debating" them. I'm the target, and any lie, no matter how outrageous and able to be soundly refuted as groundless, will do (see, e.g., Steve Hays' own outlandish flurry of a dozen lies).

Alan's words will be in blue:

* * * * *

Again DA breaks his vow of silence with regard to antis. [anti-Catholics].

WHAT vow? The only vow I've ever made is when I got married. Bearing false witness violates the Ten Commandments. It's a grave sin.

Or do you not know the difference between a binding vow and a resolution, which can possibly change?

[see my papers:

James White's Reply to My Recent Critique / The "Vow Breaker" Bum Rap

Clarification of Why I No Longer Attempt Debate With Anti-Catholic Protestants

My Basis For Refusing to Debate Anti-Catholics Any Longer Exactly the Same as James White's, For Refusing to Debate Certain Catholics]

Yes, please pardon my inability to read your mind.

Mind-reading? Where do you get off even making such a statement? If you claim that I broke a "vow" -- which I consider an extremely serious sin and charge -- then prove it. It's easy to simply parrot lies from your anti-Catholic friends who repeat this scurrilous charge. I'll save you the trouble: you can't do it because it doesn't exist. The best you'll find is a semi tongue-in-cheek statement I made in 2001 or so that I later changed my mind on. It contains neither the words "vow" nor "oath". It was a resolution. Those aren't written in stone and binding for all time. You can search my 2538 papers on my blog and you'll never find any such "vow."

Or do you deny that serious public charges need to be established by facts and not gossip and hearsay? Is truth and fair play so little thought of on this blog that you actually don't understand this principle?

[to paraphrase a common anti-Catholic taunt] Anything goes in the service of Holy Mother Bible? Even rock-bottom ethics that are condemned by that same Bible?

You need to get a grip on your emotional explosions. Seriously. I thought mine could be bad.

Emotional? I'm sitting here cool as a cucumber, as always. I'm making arguments, that you aren't able to rationally answer, so you simply resume further lying and mocking. Doesn't this ever get old?

Did you think I was trying to delete my comment that you re-posted, for good [the three paragraphs above, starting with "Mind-reading?"]? I simply changed a few words. Writers do that, you know. No big deal.

Yep. You do it all the time. A lot.

Right. Another lie from a clueless fool. Like a few days ago when I simply moved some papers about the controversy with Jason Engwer off of my front page: Peter Pike immediately concluded that I had deleted them. Profound reasoning there.

2538 papers including innumerable debates with anti-Catholics (back when I still did that), but it's clear that I try to hide everything. Who could doubt it?

I have deleted some stuff for very good reason at times: e.g., your buddy who has obsessively written 110 papers about me. I suggested that we both mutually remove our debates with each other because they were of a low level of discourse (as always with anti-Catholics). Your friend refused, and then your (and his) friend Carrie challenged me to remove my own papers if I was serious. So I took her advice and did so: removing all of this fool's debates from my blog altogether. He doesn't deserve any serious consideration as it is. It was one of the best editing decisions I ever made.

I did the same in a debate with a Catholic that got real nasty on the other guy's part, with all sorts of name-calling (just like this blog!). A mutual friend suggested that we remove this material. I complied, the other guy did not.

Other times I bring people back, as in the case of Tim Enloe, because he wanted to remove most of his old papers from the Internet so no one would know his record. He continued to misrepresent Catholic teaching, and converts and apologists, so I started putting old papers back, that I had removed in good faith.

So occasionally I delete (and add), as every blogmaster does. But the lie is that I do this all the time, with the motivation to hide and conceal.

Thus, you jumped the gun in this very combox, when I merely edited a few words. You concluded that I was trying to hide a supposed emotional outburst, and so you posted a "gotcha" post. Wrong again, on both counts (desire to hide and supposed loss of temper).
One would think you guys would get it right once in a while, just by chance alone. It's amazing.

And I have every reason to believe that your "cool as a cucumber" is either a lie or a product of your own massive self-deception. Anyway, catch you later.

Believe what you will. You are lying again. If I had a videocam I could easily prove that. Might be fun. My word isn't good enough for you. I think I know my state of mind better than you do. You're lying. You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

This is what prejudice and irrationality does, as my good friend Stan was pointing out above.

1) I never said anything about your motivation. More self-projection onto others, it would appear.

2) This is just one example of your bizarre comment deletion rampages. Sorry to break up your hate-anti-Catholic party.

Exactly; that had to do with the same guy to whom I referred earlier: your buddy, who is on record saying that I have serious psychological deficiencies and shouldn't be dealt with anymore:

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. . . . That being said, to all of you who share my concern, perhaps 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.

(22 and 24 August 2009)

I removed his papers from my site, and in that case I removed my comments from a combox. Big deal.

[I also did the same in the combox thread where Alan's comment at the top of this page occurred: rational discussion having obviously long since ceased by that time. There are occasions where a person has become so unreasonable, that they no longer deserve the dignity of any reply]

His site [the guy whose words are in orange above] is like Tribalblogue: Catholics who come here are routinely mocked, insulted, lied about, laughed at. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible for us to sometimes delete our comments, because no real discussion takes place (just as now).

So he says I am nuts and shouldn't be taken seriously and that he should cease responding to me, yet he has written more than 110 papers about me (or as the major mentioned opponent), and keeps writing occasionally about me (from what I hear). He profoundly contradicts his own statements in both cases. Apparently he finds it very difficult to be consistent with his own stated convictions. It's too much fun to try to lie about and smear a Catholic. That's mostly what his blog is about, after all. One gets very little positive presentation of some particular Protestant viewpoint: it's almost all Catholic-bashing.

Steve Hays sez I am evil and shouldn't be satirized, but he keeps doing it, making himself a hypocrite and a liar (in my case) as well.

Yet I am the one who is supposedly kooky, with all this asinine hypocrisy going on?

And there is your "hate", if there is any (and I don't claim definitely that it is present): calling people nuts and "evil" and doing so publicly. I don't hate anyone. I wouldn't have pursued a career as an apologist, with all that that entails, out of a motivation of hatred. It is a motivation of love and reaching out to others with the gospel and the fullness of Christian truth, as found in the Catholic Church.

You lie about me as well: claiming to know my internal states of mind and my heart: I am supposedly lying or self-deceiving myself being in a rage or temper tantrum (you know my emotions and personality better than I do myself, never having met me), and now you claim that I "hate" anti-Catholics. Not at all. I detest the falsehoods that y'all labor under (just as you guys hate what you wrongly think is falsehood in Catholicism without hating individual Catholics). It's an act of love to try to convince you of those falsehoods so you can get out from under the bondage of them, but one can only do so much. I had to shake the dust off of my feet over two years ago, after a dozen years of trying to have a rational, constructive conversation with an anti-Catholic.

I have given up actual theological debates with anti-Catholics. The thing with Jason was strictly a temporary exception, to try to aid a Catholic apologist who is in theological crisis.

The current comments I am making don't have to do with theology but with ethics, and replying to all the lies about myself being bandied about in this combox.

* * *

And what do you think of the following Steve Hays' statement on 13 April 2009 and abrupt reversal of policy?:

I used to think that Dave Armstrong was just a jerk. Not deeply evil. Just a jerk.

In that respect he was easy to make light of. . . . 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.

That lasted exactly three days (then three satires / spoofs were issued in rapid order, and innumerable ones since). Now I'm "evil" and it is a super-serious situation, and folks shouldn't even satirize and mock. Yet here he is doing that for the umpteenth time.

When reminded above that he perhaps ought to pray for me rather than mock, he virtually mocked the very enterprise of prayer and started lashing out at the person who suggested even a minimal application of elementary NT ethical principles, and Christian love:

[Raymond, a Protestant]: Shouldn't we pray and lament for apostates rather than mock them and laugh at them?

If I did pray for Armstrong, do you think I’d announce it in public? . . . But suppose I didn’t? There are, after all, billions of people in need of prayer. He can get in line like everyone else.

It's so easy to put you in full self-defense I've-got-time-so-I'll-just-not-let-this-go mode!

It’s not something we can spoof or satirize anymore.

Doesn't mean we can't try.

Steve "Whopper" Hays chimed in again (a fitting conclusion):

I realize that whenever the topic turns to Daveitude, Armstrong's vanity poses an insuperable obstacle to his ability to think straight (he could give a peacock advanced lessons in vanity), . . . For somebody who's as cool as a cucumber, why does Dave always carry on and on and on like a bitter, aging, jilted drag queen?

There you go, folks: how anti-Catholics "argue" . . . only prayer can break this level of pure prejudice and bondage to falsehoods down. Please fervently pray for all anti-Catholics.



Alex B said...

I'm an atheist but I've been at the receiving end of Alan's lies and warping of the truth as well. In fact, if you google 'rhology' you'll find a LOT of people who think he's a*difficult*

Dave Armstrong said...

Doesn't surprise me! The recourse to personal attack always indicates serious problems.