tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post4078519432881652827..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: More on Self-Published, Momentous Anti-Catholic Books (Such as Those by William Webster and David T. King)Dave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-469977215668321362011-07-26T12:11:11.383-04:002011-07-26T12:11:11.383-04:00Even if I was intending to "defend" myse...Even if I was intending to "defend" myself (which I wasn't), there would be ample precedent for that: St. Paul defended himself in his trial in the book of Acts (he didn't just depend on the Holy spirit and prayer). <br /><br />Cardinal Newman wrote his classic <i>Apologia pro Vita sua</i>: a 300-page defense of his character against charges of dishonesty that were rather widespread. He caused a sea change in English opinion about Catholicism, so that was well worth it indeed.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-58192429635534337272011-07-26T12:08:30.075-04:002011-07-26T12:08:30.075-04:00I always get a response like this whenever I deal ...I always get a response like this whenever I deal with anti-Catholics. I understand the sentiment, but it is simply a brief foray into the world of anti-Catholicism, to expose the mentality of it. I think it is worthwhile to do so for the sake of others who are on the fence or in that world. It has nothing to do with defending myself. <br /><br />Your comment could, it seems to me, apply just as well to Jesus, Who excoriated the Pharisees and noted their double standards, or Paul with the Judaizers, or scores of Church fathers who dealt with heretics and heresies. <br /><br />I don't care if people think I am "defending my honor" or not. Of course I am not. The example of his denigration of my books only serves as the springboard to make the larger point.<br /><br />It is very worthwhile to expose the phony, dishonest mentality of much of anti-Catholicism, so as to discourage people from being taken in by it. I do very little of that anymore (I haven't engaged in true, substantive debates with these guys for four years), but when I do, sure enough I hear this criticism every time.<br /><br />You and anyone else are welcome to comment on the matter, of course, and I respect your opinion, and know the good motivation behind it, but I know exactly what i am doing and its purpose, and will continue to do this periodically. It doesn't interrupt any of my main work; it is just a momentary diversion.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-88264930138048535432011-07-26T09:41:01.305-04:002011-07-26T09:41:01.305-04:00Dave:
I think that the time you spent on this res...Dave:<br /><br />I think that the time you spent on this response to ongoing drivel is actually beneath what you stand for. You do great detailed research on the faith we love, and I enjoy trying to follow what you write. Yes, you can never do Twitter. <br /><br />But, wasting one moment of your time trying to refute a buffoon actually sounds more like hurt pride defending itself than meaningful writing.<br /><br />You cannot win with people behaving foolishly. They are determined to be right, and the truth is elusive to them, because they run helter skelter with their fingers in their ears. <br /><br />You do not have to defend yourself. You have a Lord and Saviour who has already done so. Move on. Let it go.<br /><br />God Bless You, and those who persecute you.<br /><br /><br />earsMichael Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17557797099650457723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-62374096931876964682011-07-25T23:43:24.019-04:002011-07-25T23:43:24.019-04:00Of course my point i this article was to point out...Of course my point i this article was to point out the double standard: mocking Catholic books for being self-published (as if that were an automatic disqualifier) while ignoring the same status in the case of anti-Catholic ones put out by buddies and comrades-in-arms.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-34578652619744527362011-07-25T23:41:55.882-04:002011-07-25T23:41:55.882-04:00I agree to some extent, which is why I put out boo...I agree to some extent, which is why I put out books on my own, and also with conventional publishers. The oversight and professionalism of traditional publishing is a plus, though. A person can put out a good book on their own, but of course they can also put a bad book out. No quality control . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-45688193798584257152011-07-25T21:58:50.712-04:002011-07-25T21:58:50.712-04:00As I have told my Latin III students when we study...As I have told my Latin III students when we study Roman publishing, the self-pub trend, or more specifically print-on-demand, has simply brought publishing full circle, for this was just how the Romans did, albeit with slave copyists. Furthermore, in some current research I am doing, I have run across a book publishe by Wiley, a well-know publisher, yet its author makes wild, unsubstantiated claims. Bottom line: Wikipedia and Lulu are not necessarily less trustworthy than a commercial publisher. A reader must check footnotes and bibliography. There is the true proof of the pudding.Magister Christianushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09087270710114392727noreply@blogger.com