Thursday, January 26, 2012

Guess I Hit a Nerve: the Singular "Apologist" (???) Bob Sungenis Goes Nuclear Against Yours Truly in His "Reply" to My Two Rational Critiques / Responses






The following sustained rant constitutes Bob's "answer" to the second paper (his pathetic attempt at reductio ad absurdum was his "answer" to the first); conveyed through his surrogate James Phillips in a combox on my blog for the second paper, in four installments (one / two / three / four). I have selected (for the convenience of readers) the more entertaining and revealing highlights. All of the words below are Bob's except for interjections of mine (blue and bracketed) and one quotation of my words from Bob (in green).

* * * * *

. . . Well, as I feared, Dave’s ego got the better of him . . .

Dave, first of all, you don’t engage in “public criticism.” You engage in slander, name-calling and bullying. You haven’t engaged in constructive criticism since you began your website. Your website is all about Dave Armstrong and how great you think you are. Anyone who challenges that puffed up notion gets your wrath. We all see it, Dave. It’s about time you admitted it.

Perhaps we should call you a Washington Warmonger, just like the rest of the US Neo-Cons. You like US imperialism that spends trillions of our tax-payer dollars and kills innocent civilians all for purpose of spreading Masonic “democracy.”

As for “not taking kindly to criticism,” don’t make me laugh. You’re the king of that category. Go read your own website.

All of us who read the books and actually do the research into 9-11 and other such issues are just not good patriots, right?

Dave, your hypocrisy reeks. I advertise one secular DVD in the 19 years I’ve had a website, but you have a whole website droning on and on about your teenage years and showing your devotion to the scum bags like Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Doors, Cream, The Rolling Stones,

[this shows once again that Bob's goofy failed attempt at humor, in critiquing my articles about music (I've been a devoted musician and music collector for 45 years and play about ten instruments) had a dead-serious intent. He despises this; yet, as I argued in my second paper, he has no rationally consistent case against me, unless he listens to no music at all: rock or classical. It remains self-evident that art is not intrinsically a saintly exercise. But it could never do for Bob to actually offer us a rational reply to the solid counter-arguments I made. No, instead we get these sorts of insipid, vacuous insults. It's vastly different to say, on the one hand, that you advocate and promote (right on top of your website!) a film by an anti-Christian Gnostic wingnut, as offering profound truth, and on the other, to simply acknowledge that good music is good, wholly apart from the morals of the ones who created it. With art, the bottom line is not truth, but rather aesthetic beauty, which is almost purely subjective and a matter of taste. Long discussion, but there is no analogy whatever here, and Bob foolishly thought that there was . . .] 

. . . and yet you have the nerve to call me a “kooky conspiratorial theorist”!

[I searched the two papers and their comboxes and never found any such description of Bob (quotation marks normally suggest a direct citation). I have called the fake moon landing views and suchlike "kooky" -- along with various nutty views of Weidler (several times), but not Bob himself. It's a very important distinction that I always try very hard to observe: along the lines of "separate the sin from the sinner"; likewise, we shouldn't equate kooky ideas with the one who espouses them. I grant, though, that sometimes it is a very fine line . . .]

You are all emotion and prejudice.

And don't let Bob pretend that he doesn't severely criticize others in the apologetics world. He has savaged Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, myself, and others (not even to mention Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI). And it is far worse than anything I have ever done. 

No, Dave. The only one out of that group that I would consider “savaging” is you, because you are proving yourself to be such a putz. They neither bore us to tears with their past life, nor gossip like an old lady about inane issues, nor do they have a giant ego, like you do. I respect them, although we may disagree from time to time.

[This is simply untrue. Bob has gone after Karl Keating in particular, implying that Catholic answers was a fundamentally compromised, money-grubbing institution in a past paper. I can also remember very pointed attacks on Mark Shea. The problem is that Bob routinely deletes past outrageous statements, so as to eliminate a paper trail of his absurd and calumnious remarks about others. At one time I had documented what he wrote about Keating, but removed it as a charitable act (not to hide anything, as Bob does). I can find it if I have to, in Internet Archive. I have a very good memory, and I remember this distinctly. I don't make reference to imaginary meetings or quotations or posts, like Bob does. 

How fascinating, e.g., to look at what Bob wrote in his "Q&A January 2005: Question 3 - Response to Dave Armstrong on Catholic Apologetics" [now safely deleted, of course, but I retrieved it at Internet Archive] Remember that Bob said above: "You engage in slander, name-calling and bullying. You haven’t engaged in constructive criticism since you began your website." Right. In January 2005 he was saying something quite different about me, over against Mark Shea: whom he is now denying ever having savaged:

First of all, Dave, I didn't include you in the quote about the "darker side," because to my knowledge you haven't posted anything which makes slanderous accusations against geocentrists, least of all anything that makes someone who holds the view look like a derelict who walks around with an aluminum hat. Conversely, Mirus, Shea and a few other have done so to varying degrees, and Shea with his usual sardonic venom. The fact is that most of these "critics" haven't studied the issue, and won't even open up their mind to discuss it, yet elicit their pompous remarks as if an angel from heaven just came down and whispered the truth in their ear. When I see this kind of calculated, slanderous and deliberate obstinance, then I can only assume it is not of angels but of devils. If you want to believe there is some in-between realm of influence, that is your prerogative, but I tend not to. On the other hand, Hoge has been a gentlemen, and I respect him for it. . . . As for Scott Hahn, although I have critiqued him (as many other people have done), our QA board shows that I place him far above people like Mark Shea and Shawn McElhinney. [bolding added presently]

So we see that seven years ago, Mark Shea was on the "darker side" and I was commended for not having posted "slanderous accusations against geocentrists." We have it right from Bob. Now he revises history and completely reverses it: I supposedly have done nothing but slander and puff up myself since I began my website (February 1997), and I am a "kook" and other choice descriptions, while he "respects" Mark Shea. Ironically, Mark Shea put up a post just yesterday (1-26-12), linking to my first one about Bob's views, describing him in a far worse fashion than I ever have: "Bob Sungenis’ complete transformation into an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist kook". How ironic that Bob seems to think I called him this ("kooky conspiratorialist") and uses false quotation marks, but I didn't; Mark Shea: the one he tried to distinguish against me, as respectable, did (yesterday).

Bob has trashed Blessed Pope John Paul II (one / two) and Pope Benedict XVI (one / two) and both together. Fortunately, I documented all that in five papers (from his materials written in May 2011: a particularly vitriolic period, probably because of John Paul the Great's beatification on May 1), because I checked the links to Bob's hit-pieces and in every case they were removed. His opinion hasn't changed; he's simply covering his tracks. Hence he is currently hosting a guest article / hit-piece on the Holy Father (from 11 November 2011) that consistently calls him "Joseph Ratzinger" and opines: "Ratzinger, now pope, as a type of Manchurian Candidate, is a symbol of America’s occupation of the Catholic Church."]

But you’re such a company man, Dave, a real patriot. You’ll find a way to excuse all of these doctrinal anomalies and make everyone believe that you’re a good Catholic apologist in the process; and that people like me who point out these errors are just “kooky conspiratorialists.” The reality is, you’re the kook, and you’re in a conspiracy of your own making.

[This is now the second time Bob used a fake quotation in these rants (the two slightly different), as if I used a description of him that I never used. I guess that is a companion to his two other bogus quotations of my alleged words, that I documented in my second paper above (both written by others). It ain't there, folks! In fact, I did a search on my blog and neither phrase ever appears, anywhere in my writing: not even once. But you see now, that he has just called me, straight out, a "kook" and even alludes (irony of ironies) that I am a conspiratorialist. Thus he falsely accuses me of the thing that he hypocritically proceeds to do himself.]

You pride yourself on being able to discern the most minute and esoteric theological subjects (God’s omniscience); difficult political and engineering issues (9-11) and complex science issues (cosmology) . . .

You’re not really in it for the truth. You just want to be one of the boys in the club. You won’t allow anyone to burst that Catholic “everything is rosy” bubble you’ve created around your head. The truth will set you free, Dave. Try it sometime.


Stop your gossiping and start actually doing the research into the things that you think you already know.

David Armstrong, listen up. Cut the crap about the promotion of Gnosticism. Weidner's DVD was promoted for one reason and one reason only -- to bring ostriches like you out of the ground to wake up to what your country is doing to you, not to promote Gnosticism. Your attempt to smear Kubrick's DVD by digging up dirt on Weidner is typical of your demagoguery and character assassination style of argument. You should be so wary of undesirables in your choice of which music to listen to and promote on your website. Led Zeppelin comes right out of the pit of hell yet you promote them as if they were choir music. Your double-standard reeks of hypocrisy.

[Like I said, obviously I "hit a nerve" -- this sort of drama queen histrionics and filthy, slimy mud thrown my way is strong proof of that . . . Unfortunately, it's all part of the game of apologetics. It doesn't bother me personally at all. Good heavens, no (yawn . . .zzzzz)! But what does bother me a great deal are error and tomfoolery and conspiracy theories passing themselves off as legitimate Catholic apologetics (or rational analysis). It gives the Church and Catholic theology and the apologetic enterprise a bad name, and I am duty-bound to speak out against it. You see what (predictably) happened when I did that. Please pray and do penance for Bob.]


***

20 comments:

Dave Armstrong said...

I added a new lengthy comment about music at 3:17 PM ET Thursday, if anyone read this before then.

James said...

Yawn. Dave you need to get some sleep. You are obviously coming undone.

Why the picture of Vatican II (Mass Destruction :-)) at the top of the article? RS hasn't gone nuclear as you claim. His measured response to your obsessive tirades is called the truth -- and yes, it can set you free IF you are open to it.

Now get some sleep and let your hatchet men take over for you.

James Phillips

P.S. Please stop deleting Diego's comments (All he was doing was citing Sacred Scripture, the infallible word of God) in your previous article. I see he had to post them all over again.

Dave Armstrong said...

Try not to act like an abject idiot, James, and I will leave your comments up (this one was close!). Otherwise, I will delete them.

David Meyer said...

Having just read this post, Honestly I feel dirty. I have not followed the interactions between you and Sungenis (both of you I have learned a lot from as a newish convert) but this back and forth has got to stop.
At some point shouldnt a Christian just let things alone without defending himself? I say this to both Sungenis and Armstrong btw.

Let it go guys. Just let it go.

I dont know who is right or wrong and I dont care. One thing I know for certain is the whole thing is unbecomming of both of you.


Follow the example of Our Lady when she concieved of the Holy Ghost. Did she defend herself to Joseph? No. She didnt need to. God did it for her.
I am not saying we should never defend ourselves, of course there is a place for that. But what purpose does all this serve? To bring glory to Christ and converts to His Church? or just to prove the other guy to be off base?

Both of you need to focus on apologetics and not these exchanges. If you feel you are the recipient of an ad hominem, let it go! See it as redemptive suffering and let God defend you if He wants.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi David,

I always get this kind of comments when I get into these sorts of sometimes sadly necessary exchanges, so it is nothing new. And I always respond basically the same way (and almost always the person rejects my rationale).

You (almost) assume that there is never anything important enough to fight for, that might get ugly in the sense of the one critiquing potentially being attacked personally by a person who doesn't like the critique.

I know you have the very best of intentions, but I respectfully submit that you are simply wrong.

You didn't deal with the actual substance whatsoever; thus you argued from a purely subjective realm, and not an objective one: examining the matter at hand. You merely concluded (in effect, and without any rational argument) that we were both equally at fault and that we shouldn't do this ("I dont know who is right or wrong and I dont care"). I think you're half right. Bob shouldn't have done what he did, but I should have done what I did.

You ask, "what purpose does all this serve?"

I plainly answered that in the last paragraph, but it's as if you completely missed it:

". . . what does bother me a great deal are error and tomfoolery and conspiracy theories passing themselves off as legitimate Catholic apologetics (or rational analysis). It gives the Church and Catholic theology and the apologetic enterprise a bad name, and I am duty-bound to speak out against it."

You say "you need to focus on apologetics." And I did that, as well. Per my explanation, I am fighting for apologetics insofar as what Bob did here and in his advocacy of a kooky conspiracy theory is giving what I do a bad name (since he calls himself a "Catholic apologist"). It is causing scandal: some people will mock the Church because of it and use this kind of nonsense as an excuse to not follow God.

Every endeavor that has any importance at all involves quality control and "self-policing". If we apologists didn't do that, then anyone under the sun could do anything and call it "apologetics." There would be no standards at all.

Dave Armstrong said...

Ford Motor Company has quality control standards for its cars (I used to work at a job related to this: being from metro Detroit). Why should not Catholic apologetics have standards, too? We are defending the fullness of the Christian faith and Holy Mother Church. We must have extremely high standards!

As one who has devoted his life to apologetics, I am very concerned that we maintain a high quality and not cause scandal to the Church. This is the Lord's work and must not be cheapened.

Hence, documenting things like this and responding firmly to the personal attacks that result, so folks aren't swayed by that unsavory and sinful method, are highly important and necessary.

"I am not saying we should never defend ourselves,"

I'm not defending myself, ultimately, but the enterprise and vocation of apologetics: a thing I have devoted the last 31 years of my life to.

I can explain this till I am blue in the face (I have, dozens of times) but there will always be people, anyway, who don't understand it. I accept that, but at the same time, I know exactly what I am doing (as a professional apologist and author), exactly why I am doing it, and won't be swayed from doing anything that I believe is absolutely necessary as part of my apologetics apostolate.

If some people don't like or understand that, then they don't. But as a professional apologist, I have to do what I believe to be necessary as part of my work. Those who aren't in this world that I am in, in terms of my work, won't always comprehend it. But I don't operate based on head counts, popularity, and majority votes. I do what is right and necessary, whether it is popular or not.

I thank you for, and appreciate your concern, even though I respectfully disagree with it. I hope my explanation makes sense to you and others reading this.

Dave Armstrong said...

Follow the example of Our Lady when she concieved of the Holy Ghost. Did she defend herself to Joseph? No. She didnt need to. God did it for her.

That's right. But you admit right after this that there are also times to offer a defense, so it is a wash in that sense. Every situation must be examined and discerned individually.

I am following the model of St. Paul defending himself and his ministry against lies, at his trial. People were defaming the gospel, so it was right and just to defend it. They were attacking him personally, so he defended his name: knowing that he was an apostle and represented Jesus Christ and Christianity.

Likewise, on a vastly lesser scale, but still analogous: I am defending Catholic apologetics: the defense of Holy Mother Church, and myself to some extent, when I am personally attacked: not out of ego and a sense of personal grievance, but precisely because I am being attacked in my capacity as a Defender of the Faith.

Another analogy is Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, who was publicly attacked and savaged as a liar and equivocator. He wrote an entire book defending his character and reputation (Apologia pro vita sua). The effect was that he won over Protestant England, and it was a huge victory for the cause of Catholicism there. If the leading representative of it in the country was besmirched, then the cause would be besmirched.

These are perfectly valid examples, showing that sometimes it is necessary to fight for an important cause, much larger than oneself. But we rarely hear about them. Instead, we always hear the call for "turning the other cheek," as if this is a moral imperative in absolutely every situation. It's not. If it were, St. Paul couldn't possibly have done what he did at his trial. He would have had to act just like Jesus did at His trial.

If someone wants to personally attack me and ravage my character because I told them the truth, then most times I will respond and speak more truth to the sinful method of calumny. That was the purpose of this paper: to expose the unworthy attack as what it is: a sinful attempt to avoid dealing with the substance of my critique, and instead using it as a pretext to lie about a fellow Catholic.

That is what is wrong here: not my initial critique and counter-response to the ad hominem garbage that was the response to it.

If someone can't figure out what is right and wrong in all this, they need to look a lot closer and ponder it. I think it is patently obvious.

Dave Armstrong said...

I just added Bob's latest ad hominem blast (2nd paragraph from the end), at 12:36 PM ET on Friday. He gets more and more ridiculous.

Now I am actively promoting Satanism, says Bob, simply because I said I liked some Led Zeppelin music. Next thing, I will be an outright Satanist, right?

For the third time, I ask Bob (through his legates, since he never comes here, himself, anymore): what music do you listen to, Bob? I guarantee that it was not all written, performed, or produced by canonized saints. There will be fornication somewhere along the line, and drugs, and weird religious views (some even as dangerous as Gnosticism!).

Knowing you, it is possible, I suppose, that you listen to no music whatsoever, or never look at art; never go to a movie, etc. . . .

David Meyer said...

I have read and appreciate your comments. Of course you can and should defend yourself at times.

But at some point if something is obviously rediculous (the Led Zep thing) then does it need rebuttal? After all it is obviously rediculous. If someone calls me a satanist, I have a right to defend myself, but a really good option is to just not respond. The silliness of the charge is not worth my time.

From my perspective, you are a skilled appologist who I have learned from on many occasions when I was in my conversion process and your time could be better spent focussing on dismantling Protestant arguments or something.

Dave Armstrong said...

But at some point if something is obviously rediculous (the Led Zep thing) then does it need rebuttal? After all it is obviously rediculous.

Ah, but this leads to another relevant consideration. Obviously, Bob's followers (however many there are) are able to read what he puts out and see little wrong with it. We see his defenders vociferously defending him on this blog and ignoring most of the substance involved in this (i.e., whether it is prudent and wise to promote DVDs about faked moon landings, written by Gnostic anti-Christian lunatics).

My purpose is to refute things that may be "obviously ridiculous" to you and I, and indeed most people, but, sadly, are not so to others. Bob is an intelligent man, and has helped many (like you) to become Catholics, yet he can believe in an idea so patently absurd as "listening to a rock group means espousing everything that the musicians do in their personal lives." He actually believes this. And he is an educated man.

You can see the silliness of it. I can; most can, but he does not. So what do we do about it? He's out there doing his apologetics, making some 5-6 times more money per year than I do (while people squawk about his living being "harmed" by critiques), so a lot of people accept what he says.

Do we just sit here and let kooky conspiracy theories go out to the public in the guise of "apologetics"? Not as long as I have something to say about it . . .

I agree that the vast majority of my time should be spend on serious theological issues, and indeed it is. If you look at the entirety of my 2500+ papers and 26 books, 95% of it is devoted to theology and history: not these sorts of internecine battles. I stopped debating anti-Catholics almost five years ago now for precisely that reason: it's always ridiculous and futile.

This stuff has just taken a day or two of my time. No big deal. In fact, it is prolonged only because of the way Bob and his defenders always react: with Chicken Little hysteria and personal attacks. And so they did. And that is what prolongs it . . . WEriting the original paper took me only 90 minutes max.

But Bob gets by with his ludcicrous, illogical attacks, because he can always be secretive about the music that he listens to. I have asked three times now what he listens to. He knows (if not consciously, then down deep) that once he reveals that, he'll be nailed on the same illogical grounds that he applies against me: even if it is classical music. I absolutely guarantee it, as an amateur historian of music and music collector, myself.

If he listens to Schubert: he died of syphilis at age 31: not all that different from Jim Morrison or Jimi Hendrix, who died at age 27 after lives of excess and immorality. Sexual sin can be found anywhere: including the great composers.

"Good song" or "good performance" is not the equivalent of "the ones who performed it being good Catholic saints."

This is utterly obvious. But Bob: an educated, intelligent man, is silly and foolish enough to think otherwise. And this is just one of many serious logical errors that he makes, as I and others have documented.

David Meyer said...

I got ya. I have criticized Sungenis on my own blog as well for going on a rabbit trail with the "geocentrism is dogma" thing. I still love some of his other stuff though, particularly debates.

Thanks for the exchange, and keep up the good work.

Dave Armstrong said...

Fair enough. Thanks for your input, David, and for hearing me out. I appreciate it very much. I wish I could have such a calm, rational, intelligent discussion with Bob and his zealous comrades.

James said...

I wish I could have such a calm, rational, intelligent discussion with Dave and his zealous comrades. Fair enough?

James Phillips

Paul Hoffer said...

David M, I share your concerns about the edge that personal back and forth can take and have written against it on my own blog. However, in this instance, I do not disagree with Dave's responses to what Mr. Sungenis and his surrogates have written. Mr. Sungenis has the erroneous view that ANE cosmology, ontology and protology that is indicated in Genesis 1-3 somehow is the final word on humanity's understanding of macro-biology, physics and astronomy even though the Scriptures never state they were meant to be a scientific treatise or for that matter a systemic catechism written by God Himself containing the sum total of God's revelation. For Dr. Sungenis, anyone who holds to a notion contrary to his particular view of geo-centrism, creationism, and anti-Zionism, is blatant heresy and is deserving of his utmost contempt. I would respond that a world view based on Prima scriptura is just as wrong as sola scriptura. Here is a sampling of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

CCC 39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

CCC 159 Faith and science : "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." (Dei Filius 4: DS 3017) "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (GS 36 ' 1)

CCC 283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies that have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.

Mr. Sungenis rejection of the above teachings of the Church which in effect state that the purpose of the Bible was not to be a book of science, but one of faith which contains the account of God's loving self-revelation to humanity and man's response to same. Personally, my faith in the creative abilities of Our God Who continues to make Himself present to us is certainly stronger than any particular theory of evolution, intelligent design, or creationism. Whether Adam was literally fashioned from the earth or evolved from primates does not affect my faith or adherence to the teaching of the Church on original sin as I could reconcile either theory with the teaching of the Church.

God bless!!!

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi James P.,

Having been officially designated as one of Dave's hatchet men by no less than the notorious anti-Catholic Steve Hays himself, I feel immensely qualified to respond to your comment and ask you how Mr. Sungenis (at least it appears that way since I could only find you asserting that RS says this) calling someone a "putz" whether he meant that as a vulgar reference to an erect male genitalia or as a thoroughly stupid and ignorant person is considered a measured response anywhere in polite or civilized discourse?

As someone versed somewhat in the art of rhetoric, there is a distinct difference between labels like "putz," "Neo-con," and "warmonger" which are totally subjective labels vs. the labels Dave used "gnostic", anti-Christian" and "anti-Semitic" which are based on objectively determinable criteria. They are certainly provocative words, but are defensible. Dr. Sungenis' vitriol is not.

As far as comparing Vatican II with a nuclear explosion, fine~I get it~you don't like Vatican II, you don't like theologians like Popes Benedict XVI and Bl. JPII, I am sure that you think that NO Mass is the worst thing invented since that boullibaisse of all heresies, Calvinism. If I were a betting man, I would bet you even have Pope Paul VI or Karl Rahner hanging in effigy in the corner of your bedroom. But I find it interesting how folks like you decry certain Catholics' supposed modernism but yet engage in the heresy of Americanism yourselves by rejecting the authority of Vatican II and the authority of those popes to teach and by failing to obey what the present Church's teaches as the truth. One can call oneself a modernist, one can call oneself a traditionalist, but engaging in ala carte Catholicism is pernicious heresy regardless of how you may want to label yourself. (And so you know-I have no problem with a notion of geo-centrism since any point you pick on the infinite plane we call an universe is going to make that point the "center" of that plane.)

Personally, as a native son of Ohio and having met both Neil Armstrong and John Glenn, calling these men liars, which in effect that DVD is doing are fightin' words and if you are going to defend the scurrilous claim that the lunar landing which occurred in 1969 did not happen I challenge you to a duel with wet noodles-you can pick whether you want to use pasta or rice noodles as your weapon of choice. For those interested in moon landing conspiracy theories and their refutation here is link to a Wikipedia article on the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

God bless!!

Dave Armstrong said...

Bob could actually attempt a rational response (it is possible!), rather than the failed reductio, name-calling, and acting like an ass, that he chose to do in "response."

He and I have managed to have rational, normal discussion in the past. But when we disagree on anything, that all goes out the window, and now I am a "kook" and egomaniac, and promoter of Satan, etc.

Dave Armstrong said...

Paul,

It is interesting that the first man to fly an airplane, and the first in orbit, and first to walk on the moon, were all from Ohio. Chalk those three up for y'all!

And I can be proud that Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon. Hooray Scottish-Americans! I visited Kitty Hawk and even went hang gliding near there in 1998, which was really cool, since the Wright Brothers started with gliders, somewhat like hang gliders.

We will probably visit Cape Canaveral this summer on our vacation.

Paul Hoffer said...

Hey Dave,

and all three were from Southern Ohio too. The Wrights lived in Dayton, John Glenn is from New Concord (near Zanesville-my hometown), and Neil Armstrong is from Wapakoneta over by Van Wert. Must be something in Ohio River watershed water...

Dave Armstrong said...

Some new material added at 7:15 PM ET Friday . . . First, some background info. (my bolding presently):

ME: And don't let Bob pretend that he doesn't severely criticize others in the apologetics world. He has savaged Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, myself, and others . . .

BOB: No, Dave. The only one out of that group that I would consider “savaging” is you, . . . I respect them, although we may disagree from time to time.

NEW STUFF:

How fascinating, e.g., to look at what Bob wrote in his "Q&A January 2005: Question 3 - Response to Dave Armstrong on Catholic Apologetics" [now safely deleted, of course, but I retrieved it at Internet Archive]

http://web.archive.org/web/20050111211245/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/qa.htm#Question%203

Remember that Bob said above: "You engage in slander, name-calling and bullying. You haven’t engaged in constructive criticism since you began your website." Right. In January 2005 he was saying something quite different about me, over against Mark Shea: whom he is now denying ever having savaged:

"First of all, Dave, I didn't include you in the quote about the "darker side," because to my knowledge you haven't posted anything which makes slanderous accusations against geocentrists, least of all anything that makes someone who holds the view look like a derelict who walks around with an aluminum hat. Conversely, Mirus, Shea and a few other have done so to varying degrees, and Shea with his usual sardonic venom. The fact is that most of these "critics" haven't studied the issue, and won't even open up their mind to discuss it, yet elicit their pompous remarks as if an angel from heaven just came down and whispered the truth in their ear. When I see this kind of calculated, slanderous and deliberate obstinance, then I can only assume it is not of angels but of devils. If you want to believe there is some in-between realm of influence, that is your prerogative, but I tend not to. On the other hand, Hoge has been a gentlemen, and I respect him for it. . . . As for Scott Hahn, although I have critiqued him (as many other people have done), our QA board shows that I place him far above people like Mark Shea and Shawn McElhinney."

So we see that seven years ago, Mark Shea was on the "darker side" and I was commended for not having posted "slanderous accusations against geocentrists." We have it right from Bob. Now he revises history and completely reverses it: I supposedly have done nothing but slander and puff up myself since I began my website (February 1997), and I am a "kook" and other choice descriptions, while he "respects" Mark Shea. Ironically, Mark Shea put up a post just yesterday (1-26-12),

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/01/they-dont-call-it-lunacy-for-nothing.html

linking to my first one about Bob's views, describing him in a far worse fashion than I ever have: "Bob Sungenis’ complete transformation into an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist kook". How ironic that Bob seems to think I called him this ("kooky conspiratorialist") and uses false quotation marks, but I didn't; Mark Shea: the one he tried to distinguish against me, as respectable, did (yesterday).

Dave Armstrong said...

I just posted the following on Mark Shea's post related to this, but it didn't appear. Here is it, in case there is some technical problem:

* * *

Mark!,

I'm jealous. Bob actually gives you the high honor of appearing personally on your website, whereas he would never defile himself by setting foot in mine, and always sends his "Bob is always right, and can never ever be wrong, even about the kookiest stuff" surrogates / legates : Phillips, DeLano et al. :-)

He just stated (through his legates) that he respects you and would never savage you or Keating or Akin; he reserves that for me alone, and is now calling me a "kook" and numerous other epithets. Now it'll be fun to see what he says about you after this post. :-) Of course, i duly noted the irony with great relish in my revised recent post documenting Bob's gut-bustingly funny insults against me.

I can't wait to watch The Shining again. So much meaning that I missed the first three times . . .

Thanks for favorably mentioning my website in an upcoming [OSV Newsweekly] article, by the way. They asked me for a photo so I heard about it. God bless!

* * *