In the news:
In response to a request by the present "anonymous" blogger to get back to the topic under discussion, Dave Armstrong wrote (italics are Armstrong's quotation of the present blogger's earlier comment, the portion below the line is the second repetition of Armstrong's praise/insult):
I hope we can move on from discussions about Beckwith to discussion of the flaws in your arguments that I have identified above.
Why would I bother? As I wrote above:
I will spend time refuting James White's falsehoods and misrepresentations and mockeries of my work because he has a name (no pun intended) and influence and is a big shot in the anti-Catholic world.
You, OTOH, are simply an anonymous blogger. I know nothing about you (nor do I wish to). Certainly no one who can't even give his real name, has any significance or importance in the apologetic world.
But Bishop White (whatever one thinks of his work and his ethics) does have this importance. So I will spend time shooting down his "reviews" but I see little reason to spend much time on your sophistical inanities.
Obviously the praise of White also includes insults, but it is particularly interesting that Mr. Armstrong would choose to use an "anonymous" blogger's anonymity as an ad hominem reason to avoid responding to the difficult questions raised by said blogger.
Dave: as I responded in your combox, that's just mean. If you believe that your criticis are providing "sophistical inanities," don't simply assert it, demonstrate it. When you dodge the issues and hurl ad hominem arguments and well-poisoning characterizations of your opponents, your readers start to realize that it's bluster not rebuttal. When you accuse Dr. White of "falsehoods and misrepresentations and mockeries" and can only demonstrate that he mocks you, your readers are left wondering why you do not demonstrate the more serious allegations.
Of course, there are some closed-minded folks who will eat up every criticism of any outspoken non-Catholic apologist, whether it is substantiated or not. Nevertheless, there is also a significant body of readers who are put off by excuses for failing to rebut what one's opponent has to say. If you are simply pandering to the former group, there is no reason for you to continue reading, or for the latter group to continue reading your writings.
But surely the latter group dominates, and you have given many indications that you want their readership as well. Those readers, however, are interested in a consistent presentation of the truth. There is something about your evasion above that gives most of us pause.
Indeed, as most readers would, I find your comments above particularly interesting in view of your previous comments/questions:
Oh goody. Two names. I commend you. Now about about you, Turretin? You feeling brave today?You asked for Gojira's name (Doug Mabry), and then mine, yet above you claim "I know nothing about you (nor do I wish to)."
And your previous assertion:
"Turretinfan" (who shows up here occasionally and then flees as soon as he is challenged) offers a comment right out of the anti-Catholic "DA playbook" (note the obligatory reference to being taken "seriously").
People can review my blog to try to find a single instance when you "challenged" me, and folks can review your blog for the same elusive instance. Is there even one such instance? But it is plain, here, in this instance, who is running away and making excuses for not responding to a challenge. It's one thing to falsely accuse someone of sniping and quite another to demonstrate it.
My challenges to your arguments stand unrebutted. When you are tired of hiding behind the excuse that I have not told you who I am, you may feel free to interact with my arguments. I am a man (of the male variety) with a Bible, the illuminating aid of the Holy Spirit, and a mind. That is all you need to know, and all the information I give anyone over the Internet. Quit trying to go after my person and address my arguments, if you can. And if you cannot, revise your position, striking the errors from your position. Apologetics, Dave, is not about personalities but positions.
My position is rock solid because it is consistent with, drawn from, and grounded and rooted in the unchanging truth of Scripture. I have not the least bit of fear in responding to the positions of others (including anonymous commentators), because I know the reason why I believe what I believe, and because I am willing to learn. Can you say the same?