Do you ever discuss anything of substance on Beggars All? I popped over there to try and do some debating. It seems like all the back and forth is petty personal squabbles. I know that can be a price you have to pay to get any interaction at all. Still, if that is the sum total of what they are about it will be a waste of time. It really is hard to find people who will have an intelligent exchange with a Catholic.
Yes, I have given up totally on any hope of intelligent discourse with Swan. He has lowered himself to the slimy depths of Eric Svendsen / David T. King territory: the two nastiest, most impolite anti-Catholics I have met online, even surpassing James White (but not by much).
It's even worse now that he has brought some others onboard who have even lower standards of discourse and research than he does.
How sad, pitiful, and pathetic.
Hi everyone at Beggars All! (as this certainly will be quoted there; I'm glad it will be. Farewell and God bless all of you).
What do you expect? This is the PANIC phase, at this point they are doing everything they can to shift the focus off of the real issues. After your Chemnitz articles I dont recall seeing much in the way of a protestant rebuttal.
Randy totally embarrassed Swan with that chemnitz comment.
Swan is a little punk that couldnt handle Dave in a real debate. He can dish it out, and thats about all he does, but he cant actually debate. In Swan's mind "apologetics" means looking for a single "misquotation", and based on that writing off Dave's work as totally worthless. Its not too hard to see that this mentality is actually driven by fear, he cant take Dave on in a real debate so he must always fall back on "Oh I dont take Dave seriously". LOL, you arent fooling anyone.
This last post of his was nothing but playing the victim card trying to make Dave look bad and Swan the ideal Christian modeled after the great saint and martyr Ignatius.
And now western civilization and all that is good and decent and beloved is collapsing because I used a synonym for donkey in the same way that Shakespeare and Calvin did. I can think of scarcely anything more ridiculous.
I think it is exactly right to say this doesn't fool anyone. But at least we can enjoy the high humor of it even while we lament with sadness how pathetic it is at bottom.
After I objected to my tenth grade English teacher calling me an ass (this was 1992 or so), she told me "An Ass is a fine creature, it just acts stupid." I'll never forget that line! I'll never forget either that the word ass (so long as not used in the posterior/anus sense) is perfectly appropriate for use around high school children!
Wow.
I just popped over to that Beggars All Reformation site, and I'm feel like I'm much stupider now than I was when I went over there. Swan and company seem to me like little unruly children. Most unedifying, and no sign of any understanding of Catholicism or even a desire to understand. (That's not to say that there aren't Catholic sites where the same kind of silliness is all too prevalent.)
Jordan,
I like your description, I too feel much stupider since visiting.
There is an interesting article Swan has up now regarding the canon of Scripture. I have no idea why he made this article considering his "answer" at the end is not really an answer at all.
Discussion on the atheist DagoodS' blog:
Hi DagoodS,
I'm afraid you still labor under a legalistic conception of what love is and what it entails, from a Christian perspective.
Simply using sharp language to describe someone who is acting stupidly is not automatically a lack of love. That is far too simplistic. There is such a thing as a biblical rebuke. Jesus called the Pharisees "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres; full of dead men's bones." Paul only semi-joked that an opponent should castrate himself. Elijah mocked the false prophets and false gods on Mt. Carmel.
I called an anti-Catholic a "pompous ass" because he was definitely acting in that fashion. It's too long of a story to delve into and no one cares anyway, but if you knew the sort of things he had been doing, I believe you would agree the description was fully justified.
Now remember, the anti-Catholic Protestant does not regard me as a Christian at all. Ironically, then, I can relate to you guys being hurt by folks saying you never were a Christian. That's bad enough (and I don't say that about you and don't have to, acc. to my theology) but imagine someone denying you are a Christian when you definitely are one (and in my case, one who has devoted himself to defending Christianity as my profession: at considerable cost).
This guy whom I called an ass had a person with whom he does his blog write the following against me:
======================
Thos: [ecumenical Protestant]
Am I right in taking your comment as a conclusion that Dave Armstrong is not a Child of the Lamb?
Rhology: (Alan Maricle: anti-Catholic Protestant)
Correct. He doesn't believe in a saving Gospel. Why is he any different than a Muslim... ooops, bad example. Why is he any different than a Moonie or a Hindu?
----------------------------
So I can totally relate to being lied about in this fashion. Your Christian critics lie about your past. My present is being lied about by fellow Christians.
I was directly thinking of your dancing on the line of “I was calling you a donkey not a butt” rationalization
Why do you feel compelled to regard it as a rationalization? It's a perfectly acceptable use of the word, according to current dictionaries. Is it my fault that some folks don't understand that "ass" can mean donkey as well as rear end? That's not my fault. I'm a writer, and I may use a few terms that some people are unfamiliar with. But it is no rationalization at all. It is a straight explanation right out of the dictionary, with the backup of Shakespeare and John Calvin and Charles Dickens.
Out of perpetual curiosity—Is it “loving your enemy” to call some one a “donkey” but not “loving your enemy” if you call them a “butt”?
Again, a rebuke does not mean one doesn't "love their enemy". I deny that this person is my enemy at all, as a fellow brother in Christ, but he regards ME as an "enemy" and in darkness and an apostate and traitor and going to hell, etc. That is the pomposity and behavior that is absolutely accurately described as acting like an ass.
I deny that it is a lack of love. Granted, someone who speaks in similar fashion may indeed harbor bitterness and a lack of love in their heart, but I do not, and the word "ass" does not prove that I do. If it is a lack of love, then Jesus also lacked love, and you know that this is not possible in Christian theology. When Jesus overturned the moneychangers it was in love; a dramatic attempt to get them to reform their ways. It wasn't from a lack of love.
Perhaps you'll still see this as a rationalization. I can't stop that. Perhaps it is inevitable, given your background and the abuses you suffered in the name of Christianity. All I can do is explain it as I see it from my Christian point of view.
As for the donkey vs. butt question, I refrain from using the latter usage precisely because it does offend people and is considered vulgar still by many, and I try my best not to do so, within reason.
The meaning of "donkey" has a far more respectable pedigree, which is precisely why I cited Shakespeare and Dickens and the biblical usage. Lots of words have two meanings. Does that mean we can't use some of the meanings because some folks don't know that? No.
It's much easier to make the distinction in British English, where AIUI, generally the term ass refers to a donkey (which is why it's in the KJV bible), and arse refers to someone's hind portions. 
Great point. I am highly influenced by English writers, I think; my favorite writers being Lewis, Chesterton, and Newman, so perhaps that would explain my choice of words, knowing a bit more about the background, and also explain why some (fundamentalist) American hearers automatically assume that it must be in the other sense.
There are plenty of Christian sites that use far more salty language than I do, believe me. I deny that I use any salty language at all in my writings, because I deny that ass (meaning donkey) is that. It is not. It's a pointed remark (absolutely), but not vulgar or profane, etc.
===============
To show the affinity of "ass" as "donkey" one can think of the term "asinine" that comes from the same root.
So, e.g., I've often been known to use "asinine" when I am disgusted with something (my mother uses the word quite a bit, too):
"That was absolutely asinine what he did."
This is scarcely different from my recent utterance:
"He is a pompous ass."
An ass acts in an asinine fashion (just like we say "it is a human fault" when someone messes up because we presuppose that all people have flaws and tendencies to sin).
Anyone who knows my writing (and there is a ton of it) and my style, knows how I was using the word. You can search my 1700 papers online and you'll never find me saying the more common expression of ass (with another word added), let alone any more "serious swear words". I don't write that way. I don't talk that way at all (out of respect towards those who are offended). Therefore, it is no "rationalization" -- as you say -- for me to explain as I did. I was simply showing the sheer silliness of the groundless charge that I was being vulgar.
For heaven's sake, if Shakespeare's usage (and the Bible's, too) doesn't make some term respectable and permissible, what does?
See further related replies in my answer to the critiques of a former fundamentalist atheist, of all people. Even he adopts the goofy opinion that Swan takes. Heaven help us:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...sion-
story.html
There is an interesting article Swan has up now regarding the canon of Scripture. I have no idea why he made this article considering his "answer" at the end is not really an answer at all.
The article is there because the question of the canon is a big problem for Protestants, and Swan knows it. Give him credit at least for recognising how serious a problem it is for his form of Christianity. His answer is not really an answer because Protestantism has no answer to the question of the canon --- it's only Catholicism and Orthodoxy that have a good answer.
Nick and Jordan,
"stupider"??
No further comment on that is necessary.
For both of you and Randy too:
You seem to think that Swan doesn't know Catholicism. Query: what outspoken non-Catholic in your opinion does know Catholicism: Eric S.? James W.? Jack C.?
-Turretinfan
"Stupider" is a permissible word, acc. to American Heritage Dictionary and Dictionary.com:
http://dictionary.reference.com/...browse/
stupider
So I would say you are definitely stupider than Nick and Jordan when it comes to the word stupider. Thanks for the entertainment. The topic of the post was already funny enough, since your buddies don't even know the language of the Bible, Shakespeare and Calvin includes ass-as-donkey.
what outspoken non-Catholic in your opinion does know Catholicism: Eric S.? James W.? Jack C.?
No anti-Catholic I have ever met. But I think Norman Geisler (not an anti-Catholic, but a Protestant apologist) has a good grasp of the differences between us. He doesn't have to distort and get ridiculous. It's an honest disagreement, just like we have with Protestants.
For a Reformed thinker, Joel Garver (not anti-Catholic, either) has an excellent understanding of Catholicism.
Query: what outspoken non-Catholic in your opinion does know Catholicism: Eric S.? James W.? Jack C.?
I am not even worried about understanding Catholicism. If they just took Catholics at their word that would be good. For example, Catholics claim to believe in scripture. Yet they keep saying Catholics go against scripture. That they don't respect scripture. That they don't follow scripture. They know no Catholic is really doing that. They are all following the traditional view of scripture. So why not say that? We have a disagreement about scripture. Much more civilized.
Same thing with works righteousness or worshipping Mary. These things keep getting repeated no matter how many times it is corrected. It is OK to point out Catholic things that you feel are inconsistent with grace alone but it is not OK to say we deny grace alone. We don't and you know it so don't say otherwise.
I'd be interested in knowing where I lied about RC-ism or anyone... Saying sthg you disagree with and think you can disprove is one thing, but aren't accusations of lying going a little further than that?
Whoever wants to can feel free (in this space). I'm not the one. I don't have the patience required.
Man, I left Swan's blog for good to get away from Rhology, Carrie, DTK and Swan. Not that I dislike them, I just see it as an unfruitful placement of my time, which is not very frequent in the first place.
The energy it takes to keep trying to unravel the circular arguments of Protty'ism, esp Calvinism does not interest me any longer. The constant Catholic Bashing in the manner in which it is done does not taste well either.
Swan's blog is about nothing but baiting and bashing Catholicism.
There is nothing in there that I can find that makes me want to become a Christian in their manner. There is nothing positive, nothing about the beauty of Chrisianity from the Reformed perspective, and here's why you should consider it. All the blog seems to be is 'You should believe in Calvinism because 'Romish' (Rhology actually used that word the other day) Catholicism is evil. it's just snipe, snipe, snipe.
Dave, you don't have the energy to deal with Rhology's last post, nor do I.
It seems as though 'Orthdodoxy' (from Orthodox Throughts http://orthodox-thoughts.blogspot.com/ ) is plenty up to it, but I am not.
I can deal with apologetics with my mainstream Evangelical in-laws, friends, and many Protestants, but with these fundamentalist Calvisnists, there is no point...none. After diologueing with them, I feel like I just pigged-out on McDonald's. This is not ad-hominem, it means that I feel very unfulfilled spiritually and have to listen to crap like Catholicism is non-Christian, just like Muslims, Moonies and Hindu's.
When Swan let's that remain on his blog, and the many things DTK has written, and deletes what I have written (nothing in comparison, as I still consider them basic Christians, but of a faulty system, with their salvation in jeopardy) I have to draw a line.
Waste of time.
Be sure not to miss Turretfan's profound ruminations on the "stupider" sub-controversy:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/...et-
another.html
Also, see his equally fascinating commentary on the original dispute:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/...-other-
fun.html
Absolutely classic cases of anti-Catholic animus, illogic, and obscurantism. I've always said that much of the deficiency of anti-Catholicism is in the thought processes and lack of logic. I think it stems far more from a logical shortcoming rather than a moral one, etc.
By the way, has anybody gotten wind as to whether or not Mr Swann has finally taken to task his good pal Dave "I don't care what these men said in another context" King on his blog?
My goodness, King has already shown us that his new book cannot be trusted and we didn't even have to do any research to show this. All we had to do is read his words to Dave Walz back in the spring on Beggars All. What a pathetic joke.
"I don't care what these men said in another context. All I care about is what they said here"
Yep, we can sure trust that he didn't take the ECF's out of context when he compiled a bunch of their quotes for his book.
Commenting by HaloScan
