Friday, January 14, 2005

Jonathan Prejean Distinguishes Himself By Defending the Indefensible

One of the regular “commenters” at DA’s blog is a man named Jonathan Prejean. I don’t normally respond to mere commenters of blogs, but this one struck me as so misguided that something needs to be said. He thinks my last blog “presented a darn good defense for Dave.”

I wrote: "There are just a few problems with DA's quote. The biggest problem with it is the fact that DA (as usual) rips my words out of context. I was not referring to pointing out DA’s tendency to lie and distort the fact. I will certainly continue to do that. I was instead referring to taking his theological and exegetical points seriously, and interacting with them as though he is a force to be reckoned with (he’s not).” Prejean responded:

Isn't that exactly what Dave said he was going to do?
No, it isn’t at all what DA said he was going to do—three times now. Here are the statements from his many “solemn oaths” again. Try to pay attention this time.

I will continue to simply document and record the insults of anti-Catholics towards me.
Has DA “simply” documented the “insults”? Nope.

I will only record personal insults, in my ongoing effort to document exactly how anti-Catholics usually "argue" their ludicrous case.
Has DA “only” recorded the “insults”? Nope.

I will not counter-reply at all
Has DA “counter replied”? Yes.

I have decided it is time to cease interacting with them altogether.
Has DA “ceased interacting” with us “altogether”? Nope.

I feel that "enough is enough" and I can move on to some serious discussion with folks who want to truly dialogue, rather than condescendingly lecture, pompously preach, and insult.
Has DA “moved on”? Nope.

I've had enough. My patience is exhausted. Life is too short to waste any more of my time with nonsense such as this.
Has DA “wasted more time” with us? Yes.

So I simply document their insults, and let people decide for themselves if such material is fitting (and ethical) in the midst of intelligent discourse.
Has DA “simply documented” and allowed people to “decide for themselves”? Nope.

Has DA mentioned James White since 2001? Yes.

He ought to be *utterly* ignored now. I'm just now realizing that, late in the game
Has DA “utterly ignored” James White since 2001? Nope.

But enough is enough. We need to wash our hands of Bishop White once and for all

Has DA “washed his hands” of James White “once and for all” since 2001? Nope.

So starting immediately, I resolve to neither interact with, nor to even mention at all, James White and Tim Enloe. They don't deserve any further attention or notoriety
Has DA ceased to “interact with,” or “mention” James White since 2001? Nope.

Furthermore, I am through with debating all anti-Catholics (i.e., ones who deny the Christian status of Catholicism), from this moment.
Has DA ceased “debating with all anti-Catholics” since “that moment” in 2001? Nope.

The only exception I will allow myself is if one or both of these men make a profound retraction of slanders and gross errors of fact in their past presentation. Of course, at that point I will interact with them, as a function of charity, mercy, and forgiveness, and urge others to, as well.
Has any of us made “a profound retraction of slander and gross errors of fact” in our past presentations? Nope. Did DA swear that this would be the “only exception” that would lead to further interaction with or mention of us since 2001? Yes.

If you think I *can't* keep this resolve because of the supposed "obsession" you think I have, then watch me. You will be in for a big surprise.

Did DA “keep this resolve” and avoid the “obsession” we thought he had since 2001? Nope. Did we "watch"? Yes. Were we “surprised”? Nope.

It's time for me to move on. I no longer have the *patience* for this sort of thing,
Has DA “moved on” from us since 2001? Nope.

If you don't think this constitutes a clear violation of a solemn oath, then I feel sorry for the cause of justice if you're ever called to serve on jury duty.
And now Svendsen is accusing Dave of being a hypocrite for doing exactly the same thing that Svendsen does?
The difference, Mr. Prejean, is that my comments have a qualifying context, and are otherwise conspicuously absent a solemn oath resulting from a “RESOLUTION STATEMENT”—let alone three identical solemn oaths resulting from three separate “resolution statements” taken over a period of five short years! Open your eyes. Remove the blinders.
It boggles the mind.
Perhaps it wouldn’t “boggle the mind” so much if you were thinking rightly about this and were not so obsessed with trying to get DA off the hook on which he’s placed himself. Again, if your breezy, irresponsible comments on this are representative of your sense of what is "right," then I'd hate to think of the cause of justice being placed in your hands.
If this argument is sound, then Svendsen is a mess of self-contradiction.
Not at all. Find my solemn oath on this in the form of a “resolution statement,” Mr. Prejean--the one that states I will never expose the errors of DA or RC apologists in general--and I’ll be glad to hold to it.
And he thinks that wordsmithing about what constitutes a dialogue (a critique of a pubished work is NOT a dialogue),
Here is why your thinking on this is confused. You have to allow each party to define its own terms, Mr. Prejean. Armstrong swore without qualification not only never to interact with us, but never to mention the name of James White. The ONLY exception he said he would make is if one of us made “a profound retraction of slander and gross errors of fact” in our past presentations. Those were the terms of his resolution. The exception clause has not happened, but Armstrong still interacted with us. In fact, He has broken that resolution over and over again. James White, on the other hand, resolved never to “dialogue” with Armstrong, UNLESS it was an oral debate OR it benefited a lot of people. His critique of Armstrong’s published work falls under the latter criterion. If you can't see the difference, then I'm afraid I can't help you.
but no nuance at all is possible on the term "interaction" even when that nuance was specifically noted in the original description ("documenting and recording insults") and was exactly the same nuance offered by Svendsen himself to explain his own behavior?
No, it’s not “exactly” the same kind of nuance—in fact, it’s not even close. The “nuance” about which you speak is that DA would “only” and “simply” “document”—there was no statement that he would be “interacting with.” Indeed, the resolution itself was specifically to “cease” this kind of activity “ALTOGETHER.”
His behavior has gone beyond ridiculous.
Statements like these are always plentiful when the one side doesn't happen to like how strong the evidence is for the other side. Your defense of the indefensible is quite telling.
It is disgusting and contemptible to resort to this type of irrationality in order to fabricate a charge of dishonesty.
Lol: I assure you, no attempt to “fabricate a charge of dishonesty” is necessary in this case. DA has adequately demonstrated that his oaths are meaningless. That’s a fact.
At best, Svendsen is so blinded by disliking Dave that he lacks any rational perspective.
Or, perhaps the case is rather that you are too blinded by loyalty to DA to listen to rational thoughts on this. The evidence speaks very well for itself. Have you even once thought to correct DA on this? Or are you in such a defensive posture that you fear "all would be lost" if you did the right thing by calling DA to task for his oath-breaking practices?
At worst, he is a hypocrite and a liar.
And as soon as you can find that elusive solemn oath I took never to expose DA’s strategy of deceit, perhaps you’ll have a case.