Wednesday, February 24, 2010

How Anti-Catholics Often Argue (Massive Use of Ad Hominem, Personal Insult, Smear Tactics) / My Humorous, Satirical Retorts


Since I have been the target of these antics on many occasions (being an apologist who defends the Catholic faith, and thus a visible target), I often use myself as an example, below, of what such attacks are like. Even this has been utilized by anti-Catholics, as supposed evidence of my alleged "martyr / persecution complex," "narcissism," etc. LOL! I'm attacked because these people despise what i defend: the Catholic Church. Period. End of story.

"BJ Bear" (Lutheran)

Using your style of citation and interpretation an atheist can easily prove that the Bible teaches there never was a god. Using your method it would go like this, "In the beginning ... There is no god ... You are gods." (November 2002)

Gene M. "Troll" Bridges
I don't read, Kim Jong Armstrong's blog [with pictures of the North Korean dictator]. Unlike him, I'm not so self-obsessed that I troll about the internet looking for references to my name so that I can find targets to test fire missiles. . . . Reading the post, the debate is, itself, more about his feeling left out, mocked, etc. than it is about the truth of Scripture, theology, etc. No, the list of resolutions are, for the most part, all about Dave's ego . . . attention he so desperately craves . . . I think me debating Dave would be as profitable a use of my time as a US official debating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. . . . you are a chronic liar . . . If you would write something less than the long, incoherent, and rambling posts you write - posts that an English professor would grade "C" at best, I might be willing to do a blog debate. . . . shoddy, incompetent,and anachronistic exegetical work. . . . Titus 3 says to reject the factious man. You are the epitome of that man. You've demonstrated that several times. Further, this isn't about the truth for you Dave, however defined, it's about stroking your own overbloated ego. . . . a person of such obviously low character . . . (10-25-07)

Generalissimo (In)Fidel Armstrong's Polit Bureau [with a picture of Castro] . . . Here's a challenge for Dave: Stop with the self-flagellation and self-absorption and maybe you'll be taken more seriously. . . . And Barney Fife, Dave, and Barney Fife. (10-26-07)

Dave . . . earned those posts because he was behaving like these petty, impotent dictators. If the shoe fits . . . These sorts of posts are made, in case Dave hasn't yet figured it out, so we can draw out the real Dave. On the one hand, Dave is a pious man; on the other, when the veneer is stripped away, he's a vain idolater who worships at the altar of Dave. . . . what makes you evil in darkness for doing it is your hypocrisy and the fact that you devote long, involved, heavily detailed treatises, . . . all for the sole purpose of defending your honor. . . . From my perspective you've apostatized. What does 1 John say about praying for such people, Dave? On the other hand, I have no idea if you are reprobate. That's above my pay grade. I'll pray for mercy for you, Dave, . . . I'll pray for your regeneration. (7-16-09)

The pattern is always the same...he interjects himself into a discussion, beginning with pious words. Within a few posts, we're able to bring out the real Dave, the Dave full of contempt. Maybe it never occurs to Dave that he gets treated this way because it serves our purpose: to get the real Dave to come out to play. Honestly, that's what is really going on here. Dave falls for it every time. . . . Dave Armstrong - Pious Fraud. Here's a word of advice for Dave...keep your big mouth shut and these situations could easily be avoided. You remind me of the victims of domestic violence who go back to the men who abuse them. (12-14-09)

Dave's words are all about Dave. Sorry, Dave, you fool nobody, except yourself. Your actions give the lie to your words. You are a foolish man full of contempt for anybody that does not agree with Dave. You can't even keep your own word . . . Let the record show, yet again...Dave Armstrong, liar, pious fraud. (12-14-09)

Jason Engwer
We have to sift through a lot of dross in Dave's posts before we find material that's of much significance. There are misrepresentations and irrelevancies throughout Dave's posts, . . . What does it tell us about Dave Armstrong's apologetics when he argues this way, and does so with such frequency? (July 2003)

Steve "Whopper" Hays

So guys like Dave Armstrong . . . present an artificially Evangelicalized version of Roman Catholicism . . . sterile hybrid theology that isn't consistently Catholic or Protestant.
(9-14-06)

. . . if you do a spot-on impersonation of someone who’s hypersensitive, paranoid, an ego-maniac, narcissistic, with a martyr and persecution complex, then how are we supposed to tell the difference between the person and the impersonation? The make-up, inflection, &c, is just uncanny. . . . For that matter, have you ever encountered a self-obsessive individual who admits to being a self-obsessive individual? Don’t we expect a self-obsessive individual to deny how self-obsessive he is? A self-obsessive individual spends endless amounts of time talking about how he’s not a self-obsessive individual, which, of course, is just another way of talking about himself–over and over again. Does that ring a bell? Sound like anyone you know? . . . 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)

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 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. . . . 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. Dave isn’t somebody who lost his faith and went quietly into the night. No, 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. In this case, his corrupt denomination. (1-28-10)

. . . your persecution complex (btw, you need to have your psychiatrist up the dosage) . . . I didn’t say you were evil in this one instance. You have an evil character. This particular instance brought that to the fore. . . . Since you can’t out-argue [Jason Engwer], you try to discredit him by creating a deceptive narrative about his performance. . . . There’s always a clientele for P. T. Barnums like you. . . . I’m supposed to be taken in by your bipolar tactics? (1-29-10)

It’s entirely possible for a schizophrenic guy like Armstrong to contradict himself from one moment to the next. Indeed, just look at the wild mood swings which he has put on display in this very thread. . . . The question is not whether the accusation makes sense, but whether Dave makes sense. Dave is confusing logical consistency with psychological consistency. It’s psychologically possible for an emotionally unstable guy like Dave to be logically inconsistent. (4-18-10)

That disclaimer would be a bit more plausible if Dave didn’t go on and on and on in one hysterical comment after another after another. One of Dave’s 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. . . . People who are truly self-effacing don’t ordinarily crow about how truly self-effacing they are. If would help Armstrong if, in refuting the allegation that he’s emotionally unhinged, if he didn’t become emotionally unhinged whenever he hears the allegation. A hundred hysterical comments later: . . . (4-18-10)

Well, since you ask, one of Armstrong’s problems (yes, the list is long, I know) is his repudiation of Pauline sola fide. And we see the practical outworking of his life. Because he doesn’t 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. (4-18-10)

Yes, Dave, that's evil. Pure evil. (4-18-10)

Of course, that’s symptomatic of Armstrong’s instability. He will post reams and reams of high-strung reaction pieces in the heat of the moment, then, after a cooling off period, when it dawns on him that his impetuous commentary unwittingly backfired, he will follow that up with a mass purge. (4-18-10)

Both Paul Hoffer and Dave Armstrong are bad men who imagine they are good men. That's not unusual. Bad men often have a high opinion of their own motives. And Catholicism reinforces that self-deception. (12-7-11)

David T. King

I already have a very low view of the integrity of non-Protestants in general, . . . most of you are too dishonest to admit what you really think. (on Eric Svendsen's Areopagus board, 4-15-03)

It is a typical Roman Catholic tactic to misrepresent one's opponent purposely in order to "name and claim" a victory.
(on Eric Svendsen's Areopagus board, 6-5-03)

Poor DA, so misunderstood . . . My heart goes out to this filthy, foulmouthed Romanist! Good ole DA, a legend in his own mind, and a magisterium of one. (3 April 2009)

Rev. Paul T. McCain (Lutheran Contra-Catholic)


Dave Armstrong is one of those sad persons who apparently spend nearly every waking moment on their Internet site. He is a Roman Catholic apologist who culls through the Internet looking for any chance he can to pounce on people who dare breathe a word of protest against what "Holy Mother" Rome has to say on anything. As is the case with most apologists like him, he tends to get his facts pretty screwed up. If you engage him, it is akin to sticking your hand on flypaper, he and his groupies like to swarm. (March 2007)

I had not looked in at this site for a very long time, but there was no surprise when I did recently. Armstrong is still spouting his nonsense that is an embarassment [sic] to any good Roman Catholic with only a modicum of a decent education in Reformation history. I suppose its only to be expected though that the Roman Catholic Church have its share of amateur "apologists" who bring shame on it much as we have ours as well. If this wasn't such a tragedy, it would be, truly, laughable. (20 September 2009)

Armstrong's attacks on Lutheranism are just embarrassing. The scholarship is an example of a first-rate, third-rate grasp of facts. He relies on sources that are purely polemical RC tripe. I mean, seriously, how anyone can possibly begin to take the man seriously is quite beyond me. (19 February 2010)

He is the Roman version of a guy like James White, who has a similar style. Dave Armstrong is not interested in "helpful discussion" but only attacking non-Romanists. . . . Mr. [Armstrong] has made a little business for himself playing at apologetics, and thrives on the kind of petty sniping that this blog site seems to be more about than anything else. The whiney tone is unbecoming a Christian man. If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. . . . stop taking yourself so seriously and stop all the self-referential posts. You are just making yourself foolish and your position weak. . . . Grow up. Be a man and stop acting like a 14 year old kid in an Internet chat room. I'm quite sure that Rome deserves better and, frankly, even you realize it. I hope you have some friends who can counsel you and help you find a more constructive manner in which to go about your "apologetics" work. Truly, I'm embarrassed for you. . . . The best/worst thing that a person can do to a dysfunctional personality like yours is ignore them. God bless. . . . a Roman Catholic layman named Armstrong who self-published a book titled, The One Minute Apologist. . . . Armstrong is still spouting his nonsense that is an embarassment [sic] to any good Roman Catholic with only a modicum of a decent education in Reformation history. I suppose its only to be expected though that the Roman Catholic Church have its share of amateur "apologists" who bring shame on it much as we have ours as well. If this wasn't such a tragedy, it would be, truly, laughable.

Peter Pike

For the record, an anti-Catholic is anyone who disagrees with Dave Armstrong. I know he's got this pretend definition that he pulls out, but when you look at who he calls an anti-Catholic it's pretty clear that it's nothing but a sledge-hammer to use against those he hates. (12-14-09)

I don't think Dave is capable of seeing how petty and vindictive he looks right now. He literally reminds me of a four-year-old throwing a tantrum because someone took his toy and he wants it back. Words cannot express how pathetic it is to be reduced to blubbering about word counts and percentages instead of dealing with substantive issues. (1-29-10)

. . . you have the character of a charlatan and you are the kind of person who would delete a post and claim Blogger did it. . . . But you really do need to get therapy, Dave. This is not an insult. This is an honest assessment. I've never met anyone with as over-inflated ego as you have. . . . Doesn't your pathetic little world ever get boring for you? Expand your horizons. Turn off your computer and leave your basement occasionally. Then you'll see that the world doesn't revolve around you, and you are not some great mystic champion for the Truth. You are a lesser-known wannabe who's only claim to fame is crying a lot about nothing. . . . your obviously diseased mind . . . (9-27-10)

"Rhology" (Alan)

[website]
 
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. (8-21-09)

"Saint and Sinner"


Here’s Dave’s attempted rebuttal. I would encourage everyone (who has the time!) to read my post, write down the specific points / arguments / counter-arguments that I made, read Dave’s post, and see if he actually responded meaningfully with anything I said. Good luck! (10-5-07)

[H]e rants and raves ad nauseam [sic] and ends up drifting away from the issue. (10-6-07)


Eric "the Yellow" Svendsen

RC apologists will do or say just about anything--true or not--to advance their cause. They engage in the strategy of deception regularly.
(on his Areopagus board: 4-27-03)

[W]e have experience with those who use the "strategy of deceit" to mislead people down the road to a false gospel. (on his Areopagus board: 6-4-03)

[T]here are not that many of us who take Armstrong's writings seriously . . . To correct him always requires discussing foundational issues that Armstrong should have known before embarking on writing in the first place (which is justification for my prior statement that his writings are little more than a bunch of words that have been loosely strung together). (1-3-05)
It appears that direct and substantive critiques of his work have proved too much for Dave Armstrong. He has pulled the plug on his little blog experiment gone bad . . . now, as poetic justice would have it, Dave Armstrong is not merely closing the comments section of his apologetic blog--he's getting out of the apologetic blog business entirely! (1-4-05)

. . . 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)

"Truth Unites.....and Divides"


But I say you're deleting our comments because they're really showing that you, Dave Armstrong, are the real imbecile. You're embarrassed and you want to hide. Hence, you delete comments and structure the thread discussion to a one-sided slant in your favor so that you don't look as bad as you would if you had just let all comments stay up. P.S. I'd probably concede to the charge that I'm not spending my time wisely by continuing to interact with such a delusional loser like Dave Armstrong. (9-29-10)

Please leave Dave Armstrong's invective up on this blog thread. . . . I say let it remain because it clearly shows what a horse's ass he is. (at Boors All; probably will be deleted there; 9-30-10)

I'll also say that I get comedic value out of Dave Armstrong's comments. They are so over the top in his rhetoric, plus the fact that he really believes in what he's writing, that I just bust out laughing at this pompous blowhard. (Boors All; probably will be deleted there; 9-30-10)

Frank Turk (aka "Centuri0n")

I have contacted several "professional" apologetics ministries
about you to see if there was something I was doing wrong in approaching your position and your person, and they all, unanimously, said that you do not participate in any kind of fair method of dialogue . . . (7-16-03)

Hi Dave! Seems I'm not the only one who thinks you're a cry-baby who is unable to rightly handle historical primary sources. . . . anyone about to stick a needle in the balloon which is Armstrong's alleged arguments deserves support and kudos. (1-11-04)
"Turretinfan"

The logo ["Biblical Evidence for Catholicism"] is cleverly worded to confuse Protestants (who will think that it means Scripture teaches Catholicism, which it does not) while corresponding to the objective of the author of that blog, namely to tack Scripture onto Catholic dogma that never came from Scripture . . . of course, most of what appears on the web site is not even pretext at Biblical apologetics, just inflammatory material . . . (10-18-07)

Dave's defense [in a proposed chat room debate that TAO declined] would not be a defense of Roman Catholic dogma but a Protestantized version thereof (especially considering Dave's apparently anti-Tridentine acceptance of Reformed Christians as Christians rather than as anathema . . . 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. . . . 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)

. . . you're not really in line with orthodox Roman Catholic teaching, Dave. (7-6-09)

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. Svendsen and Pastor 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)

Bishop "Dr." James White

1) 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)

[Y]ou know, in your heart of hearts, that this fella, uh, bless his soul, has no idea what he's talking about. . . . he's clueless . . . 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: listen to the complete audio file, or you can listen to only the nine-minute portion directed towards me
]

Related Papers, Documenting Anti-Catholic Smearing Tactics:











Reply to James White's Unwarranted Trashing of Protestant Philosopher and Apologist William Lane Craig / Does Dr. Craig Believe in Original Sin?

Anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist James White's Bizarre Obsession With Insulting and Smearing Catholic Apologist Steve Ray

Bishop James White's Unbounded Admiration and "Respect" for My Apologetic Work (Particularly in Reply to John Calvin)

Does No Protestant Denomination Whatsoever Regard Deacons as the Equivalent of Pastors and Elders? (Reply to James White's Ad Hominem Extravaganza)

James White's Hypocritical Sense of Humor



Yet Another James White Hit Piece / Correction of Erroneous Blurb Concerning My Catholic Conversion


 
Documentation of James White Posts That Are Solely Personal Insults, Without Any Substance or Actual Counter-Reply (Reply to "Turretinfan")

My Humorous, Satirical Reactions to the Mudslinging




His Holiness James White Pope Doll (satirical visual caricature)





 






My Collection of Rush-Like Take-Offs of Songs (Humor)


A Day in the Life of an Anti-Catholic: Steve "Whopper" Hays (includes a satirical take-off of the Beatles' song, A Day in the Life)



2008 Don Rickles Chronic Insulter of the Year Award Goes to Bishop White [includes take-off of Bob Dylan song Positively 4th Street]
 




Updated on 20 December 2011.



***

3 comments:

Darryl Tymchuk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maroun said...

Amazing how all the anti-catholics are just innocent victims.Always complaning and never answering...Always asking the wrong questions,and never even bothering to listen to the answers...

Dave Armstrong said...

It's a case study in what emotional, irrational hostility does to the reasoning process.