James White Has Completely Lost It

by Jimmy Akin

in Non-Catholic Apologists

And by "it," I mean two things: First, his mind, and second, the debate.

The reason I say that is that White has now posted pictures depicting those who have urged him to be more charitable with Frank Beckwith as radical Muslims protesting and urging beheading.

Here are the pictures.

To the first he gave the name "RCfatwa" (i.e., Roman Catholic fatwa):

Rcfatwa

To the second he gave the name "RCcharity" (i.e., "Roman Catholic charity"–depicting the attitude of the man in the picture as the kind of charity that Catholics display):

Rccharity

ORIGINAL SOURCE.

Toward the end of his post, White seeks to blunt criticism of these pictures (or appears to do so) by saying:

Now, I have obviously attempted to insert a bit of levity, and a bit of humorous sarcasm here, for the simple reason that I’m to the point where you either have to laugh or cry.

I’m sorry, but no. This kind of excuse will not do. Not in the slightest.

You do not compare your interlocutors to Islamists or portray those who urge charity on your part as if they were advocates of beheading those who disagree with them. Whether you feel they are right or wrong, annoying or not, or even reasonable or not, the actions of people engaged in this discussion with White are simply incommensurate with the kind of actions undertaken by radical Muslims.

What White has done here is not humor.

It is vile. It is reprehensible. It is despicable. It is outrageous. If White were thinking rationally, he would see this.

Hence, White has lost his mind when it comes to this. He is not functioning as a rational agent on this topic.

He also loses any debate on this point via special application of Godwin’s Law.

Godwin’s Law holds that the longer an online discussion goes, the greater the odds of someone making a comparison to Hitler. It is standard practice in many Internet circles–because of the inflammatory nature of this comparison and its tendency to start flame wars and shut down rational discussion–to regard anyone who makes such a comparison (unless you are talking about real-life Nazis or mass murderers) as having automatically lost the debate in question.

Islamists are the Nazis of the post-9/11 world, and thus anyone who depicts his debate opponents as Islamists automatically loses whatever debate was underway due to forfeiture.

He has crossed a fundamental line that shows himself to be incapable of holding a rational discussion. Excuses like "it was just a little levity" count for nothing. Those are the remarks of a troll. The individual has shown that he is not willing to make a good faith effort to abide by the terms of Internet discussions, and there is no point in discussing anything with him–either ever or at least until he seriously and sincerely acknowledges just how far over the line he was.

Discussion over.

James, you lose.

If you were Catholic, I’d tell you to go to confession.

What you did was vile, unacceptable, and childish. You have reduced yourself to the status of a troll.

If you can’t immediately see that and make amends then no one, knowing that you are capable of this, should engage you in debate or discussions of any kind.

UPDATE: The above pictures are so vile, particularly in light of 9/11 and the ensuing history and those who have been threatened or killed by radical Muslims, that this should be a matter upon which individuals of all confessional affiliations should be able to agree, including Evangelicals. I would like to invite Evangelicals, including those who have been close to White, to both publicly and privately distance themselves from the actions of Mr. White in posting these pictures as an act fundamentally incompatible with Christian charity. Evangelicals, in particular, can play a spiritual service to White by making this clear to him, since as the pictures themselves illustrate, he is deaf to appeals to charity from Catholics.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 796 comments }

AnnonyMouse August 9, 2007 at 6:30 pm

:0(

bill912 August 9, 2007 at 6:36 pm

I think he just lost a lot of people. It’s called “Jumping The Shark”. It’s doubtful that he’ll ever recover from it.

bill912 August 9, 2007 at 6:44 pm

“Now, I have obviously attempted to insert a bit of levity, and a bit of humorous sarcasm here, for the simple reason that I’m to the point where you either have to laugh or cry.”
I hope somebody picks his marbles off the floor before he slips on them.
Seriously, though, it’s time to pray for him.

francis 03 August 9, 2007 at 6:49 pm

Sooner or later, someone shows up in most of these threads to stick up for White. I wonder if anyone will do so this time. Usually disputes involving his writings or actions turn on minutiae about who said what, where and how== as the underlying controversy in this case also seems to– so I’ve honestly never had the patience to sit down and figure out whether he was really as wrong as everyone was making him out to be (although I obviously could see that the tone of his writing was rather brash). But as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words– and I’ve now seen two thousand very ugly words from James White. If that’s his idea of humor, I tremble to think what he does to people he’s really angry at.

Eileen R August 9, 2007 at 6:51 pm

I’m to the point where you either have to laugh or cry.
Well, that’s true enough in its own way. I’m torn between both myself reading this. (Though the laughter is gaining the upper hand at the moment. Is Beckwithamas the new Bushitler?)

Constantine August 9, 2007 at 7:07 pm

I have noticed that White has been especially hysterical about the Beckwith situation. I never had any respect for James White so I can’t say that I am disappointed in him or that I have lost respect for him. I expect this from him and other anti-Catholics. Anti-Catholicism rots the mind. James is obviously in the end stage of the affliction.

Jeremiah August 9, 2007 at 7:07 pm

The outrage here seems a little melodramatic

bill912 August 9, 2007 at 7:09 pm

“By their fruits, you will know them.”

Mary August 9, 2007 at 7:19 pm

“Melodramatic” in what respect?
Lying about Catholics can’t be bad because it’s a joke?
Perhaps you should consider these verses:
“Like a crazed archer scattering firebrands and deadly arrows
Is the man who deceives his neighbor, and then says, ‘I was only joking.'”

Foxfier August 9, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Golly, Mary, we must be melodramatic for objecting to being equated with folks who murder victims of rape, because we object to a fellow assuming someone is a liar!

Ray August 9, 2007 at 7:26 pm

I am not necessarily sticking up for this kind of behavior(in terms of the pictures) but everyone is human and give the guy a break. He preceives himself as being under heavy attack, and when we are under attack we don’t always make the best choices.
Now, I realize that there is tension between Catholics and James White because he challenges the teachings of the Catholic Faith but don’t let that distort your judgements. Let’s be honest, if it were anyone other than him posting pictures like that people wouldnt be reacting in such a manner. Don’t use this as a cheap debate tactic to aviod the real issues. Don’t poisen the well.

Alex August 9, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Islamists are the Nazis of the post-9/11 world
You smear with a broad brush Jimmy.

Foxfier August 9, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Alex– Islamist= radical Muslim, not to be confused with the non-murderous Muslims.

Jeremiah August 9, 2007 at 7:32 pm

Foxfier: it seems like convenient outrage. This is a neat easy way to end discussion and avoid any further diuscussion of the issue.

Foxfier August 9, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Ray, there’s tension between the folks here and Mr. White because he accused a good man of lying on very slim grounds, then equated those who object to a murderous mob.
Read the post. Then see if you’re still defending the guy.

Foxfier August 9, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Jeremiah– gee, the Angelwing Consperacy must’ve hacked into Mr. White’s site and posted the pictures.

Jeremiah August 9, 2007 at 7:35 pm

sorry, I don’t know what you mean by “Angelwing Consperacy”

Esau August 9, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Now, I realize that there is tension between Catholics and James White because he challenges the teachings of the Catholic Faith but don’t let that distort your judgements. Let’s be honest, if it were anyone other than him posting pictures like that people wouldnt be reacting in such a manner. Don’t use this as a cheap debate tactic to aviod the real issues. Don’t poisen the well.
Oh, so this post here is nothing but a CHEAP DEBATE TACTIC from Jimmy Akin????
Ray,
Speaking of “CHEAP DEBATE TACTICS TO AVOID THE REAL ISSUES”, you seem to OVERLOOK the fact that it is JAMES WHITE resorting to “CHEAP DEBATE TACTICS TO AVOID THE REAL ISSUES”, but I guess THAT’S OKAY, huh????

Alex August 9, 2007 at 7:39 pm

Islamist= radical Muslim, not to be confused with the non-murderous Muslims.
Radical <> murderous.

Foxfier August 9, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Alex- yes.

Jeremiah August 9, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Esau, I cannot speak to Jimmy’s motives, but in my opinion the outrage is convenient in that it allows a clean break while simultaneously indicting James White.

bill912 August 9, 2007 at 7:42 pm

By their fruits you will know them”. Thanks, Jeremiah.

Foxfier August 9, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Let me get this straight, J:
Accuse other side of being murderous mob rather than actually making an argument, OK.
Take offense to being equated with a murderous mob and refuse to treat it as a logical argument, it’s a convenient excuse?

bill912 August 9, 2007 at 7:47 pm

Francis 03: It didn’t take long, did it?

Ray August 9, 2007 at 7:48 pm

I remember the picture Dave Armstrong put up a while back, a caricature of James White with blood running down his face, it was pretty disgusting and more personal. Dave Armstrong wasn’t stoned to death for doing that.

bill912 August 9, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Oh, no! Ray found out about the albino monk assassins we’ve sent out to stone James White! What’ll we do?

Ray August 9, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Bill, I guess figure of speech is lost on you?

bill912 August 9, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Ray: LOL!

Beth August 9, 2007 at 7:55 pm

James White Has Completely Lost It. The reason I say that is that White has now posted pictures
He posted the same pictures you did Jimmy.

bill912 August 9, 2007 at 7:55 pm

BTW: I was “demonstrating absurdity by being absurd”.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 7:56 pm

Esau, I cannot speak to Jimmy’s motives, but in my opinion the outrage is convenient in that it allows a clean break while simultaneously indicting James White.
Posted by: Jeremiah | Aug 9, 2007 7:41:30 PM
Jeremiah,
It’s funny how you have maliciously characterized the actions of Catholics while COMPLETELY IGNORING the egregiously uncharitable actions of James White.

bill912 August 9, 2007 at 7:57 pm

Your point, Beth?

Mary August 9, 2007 at 8:02 pm

It’s the Vast Angelwing Conspiracy, Jeremiah! It’s out to confuse you!
But I will reveal the truth to you: It’s too late to save James White. You should not give yourself a reputation for purblind deceptiveness trying to save him.

GLowe August 9, 2007 at 8:30 pm

As a Protestant, I’m ashamed of James White’s actions. I used to devour his works, and use them quite often against Catholic friends in apologetic discussions. Unfortunately, his works have some decent conent…but he lacks the general Christian character. I just pray no one looks to him to see a reflection of Christ’s attitude. This is taking the idea of overturning the temple tables a bit too far. I just hope people don’t see him as the representative of Protestantism. However, I would like to make a suggestion. As awful as it is, what he did shouldn’t make anyone else treat him differently. Christ forgave and still treated people charitably. We are to forgive not just 7 times…remember those words? I hope that we can all pray for James, his walk with the Lord, and that he would embrace his Roman Catholic brothers and sisters in the Lord. He can think you’re going to hell and still treat you as decent human beings. And likewise, if we reflect Christ, we should give him the love that Christ would, yet the correction that comes with Church discipline.
Though…I must wonder– did Paul post a picture of the Pharisees as a brood of vipers on his blog 😉

Katherine Therese August 9, 2007 at 8:42 pm

But I will reveal the truth to you: It’s too late to save James White.
It’s never too late to save anyone. We should storm heaven with prayers for his conversion. The fact he is so angry at Catholics and Catholicism could mean his conscience is bothering him.

My Cat's Name is Lily August 9, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Blecchh.
I seriously need a “projectile vomiting” smiley to express my disgust.
If James White thinks this is humorous, he has indeed lost his mind, along with his common sense, and his simple ordinary decency.
And, by the bye,I am a United Methodist, not Catholic. A Methodist who thinks that James White needs his mouth and especially his mind, washed out with soap. And plenty of it.

Brett Cooper August 9, 2007 at 8:53 pm

As a Catholic, I agree with GLowe. In discussions let’s not give in to anger but rather focus on charity. God is Justice as well as Mercy. Only He knows all of the facts. We should err on the side of mercy and leave the justice to Him. Thanks for listening.

Foxfier August 9, 2007 at 9:16 pm

GL, Brett– Jesus forgave those who repented.
Soon as White says “Look, I’m sorry”– I’ll be cool with ‘im.

Shane August 9, 2007 at 9:18 pm

Let us not forget that Jesus treated those who had not repented with Charity.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 9:31 pm

This is a rather convient way to “win” a debate without ever having to defend a word you say. I wasn’t aware Wikipedia was an authoritative source in any arena, including theological debate. I suppose I should brush up on my regulations though, that or Mr. Akin should deal with the issues.

Lane August 9, 2007 at 9:44 pm

God is love. The fulfilment of the law is love your neighbor as yourself. Don’t bear false witness to your neighbor is a law from God. If the RCC and its apologists are so concerned with charity, why do they not seriously deal with the issues that are presented by Protestant apologists such as James White instead of just insisting that everyone blindly follow the “church” without any kind of examination of the facts so that people will not be confused and misinformed by any lies? Simple. In order to refute a lie, you have to do so with the truth.

Guardian August 9, 2007 at 9:50 pm

Soon as White says “Look, I’m sorry”– I’ll be cool with ‘im.
HAHA!!!! FAT CHANCE!!!! OLE’ JIMBO WHITE APOLOGIZE?? NEVER!!!!

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 9:51 pm

This is a little worse than that time you told that horribly inappropriate joke at worst place and time and everyone looked at you like you were Jack the Ripper or something.
Okay, so I guess I am the only one here who had that experience.
It is hard to take back a joke but real easy to pull pictures off a website. That alone should be enough to appease some people but as of this writing, the pictures are still there.
White is ridiculing people for asking him to be charitable. Talk about your sins against the Holy Spirit! There are some actions one is obligated to take in situations like these even if you do not feel guilty of being uncharitable. It is a manner of common decency and respect for the one’s fellow man (I would say fellow Christian, but I know White has his own theory on that).
Purely in terms of strategy, he must know that this is hurting his cause among both his co-religionists and those he presumably seeks to woo from the One True Church.
Call it a red herring, jumping the shark, ad hominum (where the hominum is the Body of Christ), or what have you. It is not conducive, constructive, or Christian. It is merely his oldest trick: be the circus mirror in which to reflect the beliefs of those who disagree with you.
Finally, it is not funny in the least.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 9:52 pm

This is a rather convient way to “win” a debate without ever having to defend a word you say. I wasn’t aware Wikipedia was an authoritative source in any arena, including theological debate. I suppose I should brush up on my regulations though, that or Mr. Akin should deal with the issues.
CareBear,
Tell me — did James White even “deal with the issues”?
Or did James White merely find “a convenient way to ‘win’ a debate without ever having to defend a word he says” by posting these pictures and the other tactics he has relied on in his debate with Beckwith?

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Carebear and Lane,
Late have you come in this debate that has raged over the past decade or so. James White and Jimmy Akin have met on numerous occasions in a variety of formats and frankly it is White who ends up tossing red herrings to avoid dealing with the truth.

Tim H. August 9, 2007 at 9:55 pm

I pretty much agree with My Cat’s Name is Lily (maybe Methodist minds think alike?…when did that start?). White is one of these guys who spends half his time making fun of his opposite number among the Catholic apologists and responding to ad hominems (umm, “ad hominis”?) with his own ad hominems. I might agree with some points he makes, but they’re overwhelmed by the mudslinging. (And he enjoys throwing some mud against those of us who aren’t of his specific theology, on top of it, so we Methodists aren’t exactly in his good graces, either, I reckon.)
That said, I wouldn’t get all worked up over this. Jeremiah’s got a point, that it’s a little melodramatic to make this into “He’s calling us bloodthirsty terrorists!” The photoshops are kind of funny, if you’re completely outside the debate (as I am), or would be funnier if White didn’t actually *deserve* some of what anger he’s already getting anyway. (And he does, for other things.)
But then, as others have pointed out, you’ve got Catholic apologists doing the same sort of jokes from their side. I don’t get outraged over those, either (and again, White often deserves being poked fun at). Sigh…I reckon it’s a tragic cycle of internet violence. Maybe we can call the blue helmet guys in as peacekeepers? 😉
Seriously, though, all of this is the face of [denominational] apologetics to me. Everybody spends his time responding to criticism or disagreement with personal insults and making fun of the apologist on the other side. [I’ve been glad that Jimmy, at least, has generally refrained from this.] I can’t get worked up over it, although I’d like to suggest they all cut it out. Good grief, aren’t we all Christians, here?! What about that description of Christians all having great love for one another?! Yikes.

Dean August 9, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Lane,
“why do they not seriously deal with the issues that are presented by Protestant apologists”.Case in point please.

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 9:57 pm

As a matter of fact, one of the pivotal moments in my conversion was an AUDIO CASSETTE of James White and Jimmy Akin on a Protestant radio talk show.
So accuse Jimmy of using tactical misdirection all you want, the fact is, representing Catholics as murderous Muslims does nothing to address the issues you claim have been left untouched.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 9:59 pm

“Or did James White merely find “a convenient way to ‘win’ a debate without ever having to defend a word he says” by posting these pictures and the other tactics he has relied on in his debate with Beckwith?”
Esau,
Please quote to me how White has claimed victory via the pictures posted. I have a fuzzy memory, but I seem to recall that Akin did just that a few internet feet above where we dialogue now.
Any other fallacious statements or can I get back to something fruitful?

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:01 pm

“Carebear and Lane,
Late have you come in this debate that has raged over the past decade or so. James White and Jimmy Akin have met on numerous occasions in a variety of formats and frankly it is White who ends up tossing red herrings to avoid dealing with the truth.”
Mind backing that up?

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Carebear,
The point of Essau’s post was not to accuse White of proclaiming victory but of avoiding the weighty theological issues and just ridiculing his opponents.
Fallacious though that may sound.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:02 pm

“Soon as White says “Look, I’m sorry”– I’ll be cool with ‘im.
HAHA!!!! FAT CHANCE!!!! OLE’ JIMBO WHITE APOLOGIZE?? NEVER!!!! ”
I think this characterizes the attitude of Akin’s crew well and, oddly enough, corresponds with the general attitude of ignorant zeal held by those in the doctored photographs.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 10:04 pm

CareBear,
Have you even paid attention to the White v. Beckwith debate???
Or do you deliberately GLOSS OVER White’s specious statements???
By the way, what WAS the purpose of White posting those pictures????
You don’t actually consider that act itself as a “convenient way to ‘win’ a debate without ever having to defend a word he says”????

M Burke August 9, 2007 at 10:04 pm

As the creator of said images, I gave those images their name. (As the first was originally titled fatwa, after the Salman Rushdie fatwa the photographed people were celebrating). Both images are were created in humor, with the intent of adding some needed levity to the discussion and to point out the similarities between those who call Islam a religion of peace while demanding beheadings and the hypocrisy of those demanding “charity” in the Beckwith discussion while using the kind of ad hom seen here and the CA boards (as well as the silliness of registering jamesrwhite.org for the CA site.)

Anonymous August 9, 2007 at 10:04 pm

Stubble,
I’m sorry, but that interpretation cannot be accepted as Esau purported that White was attempting to ‘win’ the debate via posting the pictures and some list of unnamed, unmentioned tactics that have yet to be named or proven to have been employed, but nonetheless still somehow implicate White in some wrongdoing.
And you’re right, that does sound fallacious.

Anonymous August 9, 2007 at 10:07 pm

“You don’t actually consider that act itself as a “convenient way to ‘win’ a debate without ever having to defend a word he says”????”
No, because I don’t consider posting pictures in the name of humor a way to win a debate. Perhaps you do with the rest of the Akin crew, as Akin seems to have used the pictures and some dubious “Law” from wikipedia to claim victory. Don’t make the mistake of assuming I hold the same low standard as you.

Tim H. August 9, 2007 at 10:07 pm

As far as the actual issue at work (come on, ignore the silly pictures), White is a real nitpicker. I read Beckwith’s description of re-reading the Council of Trent, and though, admittedly, I would have to wonder exactly what he’d thought he read into it the first time, his wording is simply a little loose, or he’s exaggerating to be funny. But it’s *not* a big deal!
Sheesh. You’ve got White acting like Perry Mason, as if catching Beckwith playing fast and loose with his various understandings of Trent is going to make him finally jump up and shout, “All right, I admit it! I killed her husband and threw his body off the train in Shanghai!” (With apologies to “Bloom County”)
Heh, heh…in a funny way, he’s doing the kind of thing that Jesuits have been accused of… :)

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 10:07 pm

“I think this characterizes the attitude of Akin’s crew well and, oddly enough, corresponds with the general attitude of ignorant zeal held by those in the doctored photographs.”
So not only is the picture funny, but it also appropriate in an almost prophetic way.

netnet August 9, 2007 at 10:08 pm

Let’s see, who else could jump on in here and pick up where Mr. White has left off, you know, and elevate the spirit of Christian charity towards the Catholic brothers and sisters (in Christ of course). Wasn’t there a guy who was good at this, what’s his name…Chick or something? I mean as far as the level of charity goes, things can only go up from here, am I wrong?

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:09 pm

By the by, http://www.jameswhite.org for the CA website url? Isn’t that a little…obsessive?
I mean, what do you tell people who stumble onto the site looking for theological answers who have never heard of James White? Wouldn’t they then be more intruiged to find out more about him, seeing as you deem him important enough to name your apologetics website after him? I suppose such a thing fits the logic and attitude of the mob though.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Prophetic? No. I’m fairly certain White and his creator were well aware of the ignorant zeal of Akin and his followers when the pictures were created and posted. That’s why they are ironic and funny. The fact that Akin and his crew played into their hands just reinforces their predictability.

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Heh, heh…in a funny way, he’s doing the kind of thing that Jesuits have been accused of… :)
Yeah, heh heh!
(Somebody clue me in — what part of Dan Brown’s book is he referring to?)

Esau August 9, 2007 at 10:12 pm

Don’t make the mistake of assuming I hold the same low standard as you.
Oh, is that why you and the “Disciples of James White” purchased the “www.jameswhite.org” domain in order to implicate Jimmy Akin as well as Catholic Answers with such Act of Deception?

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 10:13 pm

So in your mind, Carebear, Catholics have no reason to feel outrage at being compared to terrorists when they call for charity?

Esau August 9, 2007 at 10:15 pm

CareBear,
How about if I made a similar analogy between your parents and loved ones and the 9/11 terrorists???
All in good humour, of course, right???
Or is it only acceptable for James White to do that???

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:17 pm

“Oh, is that why you and the “Disciples of James White” purchased the “www.jameswhite.org” domain in order to implicate Jimmy Akin as well as Catholic Answers with such Act of Deception?”
I really don’t know how to respond to this one, as I’m laughing a bit too hard.
1. You have no clue who I am and I am in no way associated with the actions of James White or his ministry. The fact that I come here and do not side with the Jimmy Akin followers does not make me a “Disciple of White” as you presumptiously put it.
2. I have no idea what you’re talking about pertaining to the url. I noticed that the URL was ww.jamesrwhite.org, yet the website presented was Catholic Answers. That leaves me with a bit of a conundrum, why is a roman Catholic apologetics website bearing the name of an apologist who opposes their position.
Can I safely assume now that you answer all questions pertaining to the nature of the CA URL in such a manner, ignorantly assuming that anyone who inquires about it is somehow a “Disciple of White”? Or would you rather retract the presumptious statement and just admit you jumped the gun while you were getting a little too emotional and excited?

Anonymous August 9, 2007 at 10:18 pm

Esau,
My parents and loved ones don’t blindly follow the work of an internet apologist, regarding him and his work with blind fervor and zeal, hypocritically asking for things that they themselves don’t offer. Ergo, your proposition doesn’t make sense, and don’t try to rob the situation of its context again.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 10:20 pm

CareBear, ChurchMouse,
Finally — I see now the ruse!!!
Before today, I wasn’t even aware of the “www.jameswhite.org” website which diverted visitors to Catholic Answers.
Now, given what Foxfire was alluding to in the other thread, I can see that it is more than likely that the “White” disciples were responsible for this deception:
1. They innocently introduced the website in the “Amazing. Simply Amazing.” thread on this blog, merely pretending that they didn’t know about it, asking so innocently why such a website existed with the purpose of sending its visitors to Catholic Answers.
2. Declare it as being such a malicious act of deception, condemning those responsible for the act.
3. Point the finger directly at Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers — as finally revealed here by your comments!
The Final Act was just — amazing!
Amazing-ly repugnant and dispicable, that is!

Anonymous August 9, 2007 at 10:21 pm

Stubble,
Catholics weren’t compared to terrorists as I understand it. The comparison was made between those who are asking for a charitable attitude from Mr. White, yet do not display it themselves.
I was unaware that such a thing implicates the entirety of Roman Catholicism because I’m not into committing categorical errors.

Foxfier August 9, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Guys, ignore CareBear. He’s trolling.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:22 pm

Esua,
Any more conspiracy theories you want to lay down on us, or is the cannabis plant calling?

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 10:23 pm

Somebody bring me up to speed.
Essau, what are you talking about?

Foxfier August 9, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Stubble– the last White post. Someone named Guardian posted a link to Jamewrwhite.org, it re-directs to Catholic Answers, three hours later Mr. White is ranting that we did it, and the threat kind of devolved into trying to explain that it would be a really stupid thing for someone pro-Catholic Answers to do.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 10:25 pm

CareBear,
Thank you so much for your answer!
I see now that blindly following James White is acceptable for you.
That it’s okay for James White to post pictures of terrorists and make the comparison between these terrorists and Catholics.

Ray August 9, 2007 at 10:26 pm

White has responded on his blog to Jimmy’s post.

Anonymous August 9, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Esua,
I thought the 9/11 terrorists died in the crashes? Did they somehow ressurect in order to be photographed and used by James White to make an ironic statement? Or are you again presuming a little too much and equating rallying Islamics with 9/11 terrorists?
Appeals to emotion don’t suit you well.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Stubblepark,
Visit the “Amazing. Simply Amazing.” thread.
You can observe for yourself how this ruse was initiated from start.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 10:28 pm

Gee, CareBear, weren’t you paying attention to my comments???
Or are you so wrapped up with your infatuation for James White that you didn’t even pay attention to certain particulars which have clearly gone above your head!

Anonymous August 9, 2007 at 10:29 pm

Esau,
Apparently you don’t understand what it means to make a “category error”. the pictures don’t pertain to all Roman Catholics, just to schmoes like you….

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 10:30 pm

Anon,
1) We have a rule here about not using some type of name when posting. I am reminding you because it may result in your getting booted and I do not want that to happen.
Anon and Carebear,
Would there be reason for outrage if, instead of Catholicky things photoshopped onto the pictures, a pro-abort pasted pro-life sayings?
Actually, given the overall anti-religious atmosphere of pro-aborts, I would be surprised if this and much worse had not already been done.
Could pro-lifers feel outrage if their call to charity to the unborn was portrayed as murderous invective?

Anonymous August 9, 2007 at 10:30 pm

“Gee, CareBear, weren’t you paying attention to my comments???
Or are you so wrapped up with your infatuation for James White that you didn’t even pay attention to certain particulars which have clearly gone above your head!”
And now we descend into argumentum ad hominem…

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:31 pm

The no name is me. I apologize for breaking the rules I will strive to remember to include a name in the future.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Quid significat hoc verbum?
Benigne dicis.
Id non faciam, definitum est.

labrialumn August 9, 2007 at 10:35 pm

I’m not terribly impressed with the behavior of some participants on either side.
The first problem being that it is a point-scoring debate, not a search for truth.
The second that both sides have fielded very weak and odd arguments.
The third is that both have slung mud.
Dr. Beckworth, however, has not slung mud. And there are a few on both sides who have not descended, either.
One of the rules of L’Abri is “honest answers for honest questions.” I don’t see a lot of that going on.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:36 pm

Stubble,
I would tend to agree, excepting the comparison being made here is not Catholics being murderous, but that those who call for James’ White’s charity do not bear it themselves. Ergo, one is holding a sign that demands charity or face beheading.
Also, the pictures appear to liken those Muslims rallying against Rushdie with blind zeal, who had probably never read anything by him, with those here and other places who rally against White with that same blind zeal, yet have never read a paragraph by him.
No one called Roman Catholics murderous, something the posters here seem to be ignoring in order to continue acting shocked and in disbelief so they can appeal to emotion rather than deal with issues.
I guess they follow the lead of their shepherd, Akin.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Malumus pugnare, non recedere.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:39 pm

I’ll take being familiar with logical fallacy to being familiar with Latin any day of the week. Perhaps you should take the plunge too Esau.

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 10:42 pm

So the same type of photo would be appropriate if demonstrated by a pro-choicer wishing to inject “levity” into the pro-life debate?

John August 9, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Labrialumn,
I agree with everything you wrote. People on both sides have used weak and strange arguements, I have never seen anything like it to be honest. Essentially they are contending about something that shouldnt even be an issue. Rhetoric and emotionalism on both sides. I mean if you look at white’s newest post he has a picture of a troll on in it! HAHAAH…what is the world coming to

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:43 pm

That illustration forsakes the context of the present situation.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 10:43 pm

No one called Roman Catholics murderous
Ahhh — sooooo….
Meaning if I were to post a picture of Nazis and make the caption that it reflects Caucasians, it in no way says anything even remotely demeaning about them.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Esau,
You’re again committing that same category error. Clear that up and you might score one on me.

Edward August 9, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Get your popcorn and enjoy the freak show!

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:47 pm

I’m expecting the entire fanbase of Jimmy Akin to act accordingly and immediatly chastize Edward for likening all Roman Catholics to a “freakshow”.

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 10:50 pm

Carebear,
My presumption is that Edward is anti-religion and anti-Christian. Which would unfortunately include YOU in that comment.
Given that the comment was made the intention of injecting levity, it can be forgiven, right?

Edward August 9, 2007 at 10:51 pm

CareBear,
What makes you think I am refering specifically to Catholics. It takes more than a few monkies to to consitute a cirus!

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm

I’m disappointed.
Esau attempts to keep up with me point for point for simply not agreeing with him, but he won’t apply the same category error he does to James White to this fellow here, Edward.
Edward likened some Roman Catholics to a freakshow, as James White likened some Roman Catholics blind zealots. From there, the posters here committed the category error of applying that likening to ALL Roman Catholics.
honestly, if you’r going to be consistant, you need to consistently apply that category error to Edward too, lest your obsession for White be found out.

Edward August 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm

And I cant spell! hehe

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:53 pm

Stubble,
I’m well aware of Edward and his religious, or non-relegious presuasion.
I’m being sarcastic to make a point. Edward is of no real concern to me or anyone here in reality.

Foxfier August 9, 2007 at 10:53 pm

Look, have any of y’all defending him READ the bloody post that goes with the pictures?
Crowds of faithful followers of Rome had gathered in the parking lot in support of the Charitable Dr. Beckwith, calling for my immediate repentance and adoption of charity
So, was he saying that Roman soldiers came back from the dead? Or may, just maybe, given that he’s against ROMAN Catholics, he’s refering to Roman Catholics?

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 10:54 pm

Edward: “What makes you think I am refering specifically to Catholics. It takes more than a few monkies to to consitute a cirus!”
I was right. So you see, it takes one (a former one) to know one.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:54 pm

Stubble,
I’m glad to hear God led you through!

Esau August 9, 2007 at 10:55 pm

Universi X sunt Y.
Z est X.
Ergo Z est Y.
no?

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:56 pm

Uhh, foxfier, again..category error.
For Pete sake’s people your committing logical fallacy in pretty much every post. Is this not getting through or are you just ignoring the fact your comitting fallacy like I sarcastically portrayed? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt up until now.

Edward August 9, 2007 at 10:57 pm

While I don’t wish to hurt your arguement against Esau, I wasn’t refering to Catholics when I said enjoy the freakshow. This whole situation is a freakshow, people on both sides. Heck, I am part of it for even commenting but it’s like the accident on the side of the road, you know, the one where you can’t help but stare :(.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:58 pm

Esau,
Correct, except that syllogism doesn’t accurately portray what went on here.
White portrayed X (Roman Catholics demanding charity and giving none) to Y (a picture of a Muslim demanding charity or calling for a beheading).
In this syllogism, Roman Catholic is qualified, ergo it is not a universal, but a particular. You cannot conclude a UNIVERSAL from a PARTICULAR.
If you’ll send me your address, I can mail you a book that explains all of this.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 10:59 pm

Edward,
I surmised that much. Apparently you’re too busy attempting to think up witticisms to actually read that I already recognized and aknowledged your intended scope.

Edward August 9, 2007 at 11:00 pm

No, that’s because I am dense but thats another issue.

Foxfier August 9, 2007 at 11:00 pm

CareBear, you are incorrect.

CareBear August 9, 2007 at 11:02 pm

I give up. Foxfier defies Aristotillean logic and that does it for me. Keep it up with the category errors, maybe the laws of logic will change and afford you the ability to rightfully get indignant over something that never occured.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 11:02 pm

CareBear,
I gotta admit, you’ve made your argument.
Thanks for taking the time to make things clear!
Actually, could you provide the title of the book???

Edward August 9, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Anyone read the new reply from White? You cant make this stuff up! Even has a picture of a little troll doll and talks trash about Jimmy.

Edward August 9, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Excerpt from White’s blog article:
“Of course, Akin has been avoiding doing a real debate since he lost the only one we have done (on KIXL), and he seems to likewise be using this so as to have an excuse to keep hiding from that challenge.”

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Carebear,
I am a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism (Baptist) and many of the posters here are also former something or others.
It is not like we are thin-skinned. As someone active in the pro-life movement, I have to tell you that I am accustomed to violent shrieking, rude gestures, angry insults, and even guys in tricked out VW buses getting so upset they nearly rip the rearview mirror out.
Catholics are constantly ridiculed. Not just as Catholics but also as devout Christians.
So I hope I help you understand that what James White did is in order of magnitude far worse than your common troll like Edward. Or even the likes of Jack Chick.
A normal day in the life of James White is nothing to us. His methods of distortion are to Catholicism what Richard Dawkins is to Christianity in general — he reads, but not too deep.
I would like to say that no amount of defending on anyone’s part can make what White did seem like an appropriate response to a call to charity.
It was inappropriate.

Esau August 9, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Tell me about it, StubbleSpark.
Thanks for your above post.

Edward August 9, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Stubble called me a troll, so I call him a goblin!

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 11:27 pm

Finally, I would like to make some comments regarding James White’s supposed openness to the truth.
1) Jimmy allows random people to post in his comboxes without requiring any sort of registration. James White does not.
2) While said random posters include those with a less-than-charitable bend (and I make no excuses for them). White characterizes them as representative of all Catholics while failing to live up to the same standards of decency for what are undoubtedly his own actions.
3) James White always proclaims victory in debate even when he clearly is not the victor.
4) To that end, everything that happens to James White reflects wonderfully on him and proves his case beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is regardless of the bare facts of the case.

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Edward,
In the lingo of the blogosphere a troll is someone who has no sincere interest in sharing ideas but only wishes to inject invective in order to anger other posters.
The comment has nothing to do with your race, gender, faith, sexual preference, political affiliation, or physical appearance.
To that end, no such insult was intended.
Nor do I take issue with being called a goblin as I am not at all thin-skinned (as previously stated).

StubbleSpark August 9, 2007 at 11:42 pm

Also, I think White could be justified in theory for running the pictures he did if, in fact, the Catholics who pleaded for his charity did so in a way that was frightening or threatening.
Reading his post, no such observation is made.
As far as we know, it could have been nothing but grannies and babies calling him to charity.
But due to the tongue-in-cheek nature of his post, I think it could be safe to say that there really were no people at all outside his office yesterday morning.
Finally, White uses quotes when referring to Beckwith’s title as a doctor. Considering that seven months ago, Beckwith deserved his respect, the quotes seem, well, inappropriate and uncharitable.

Edward August 9, 2007 at 11:42 pm

OKay I do apologize for being a troll, by defintion I am one in this case. However, I didn’t wish to anger anyone…I see this entire thing as a joke, but I realize others obviously don’t. I am jaded when it comes to religion because there is so much of this kind of controversy. In terms of Beckwiths conversion, yea i can see how someone would get upset with white for turning that into a stepping stone for his cause against the catholic faith…in that sense it is serious. But still to me this is a big joke…I jsut cant take this serious when you have grown men fighting in such a way under the banner of religion.

M Burke August 9, 2007 at 11:49 pm

“1) Jimmy allows random people to post in his comboxes without requiring any sort of registration. James White does not.”
Firstly, Dr. White’s site is a bit behind the times technologically and does not have the ability for comments to be added. Its not a true blog, that part aside, one can email Dr White directly and comments that have come through email are handled by Dr. White or aomin.org staff. Generally it is better for one to air their concerns privately first before going public. (Matt 18 anyone.)
“2) While said random posters include those with a less-than-charitable bend (and I make no excuses for them). White characterizes them as representative of all Catholics while failing to live up to the same standards of decency for what are undoubtedly his own actions.”
Dr. White has been specifically clear who has said what, except when its a growing throng of people with bad attitudes like at the CA forums. Given the comments here, the generalization measures up.
“3) James White always proclaims victory in debate even when he clearly is not the victor.”
This is simply without basis. Dr. White does not look at debates as something “won” or “lost”. I challenge you to back up your words with evidence showing where Dr. White has always “proclaim(ed) victory”. Keep in mind, you’re suggesting he proclaims “victory” in every one of his debates. Please provide evidence.

M Burke August 9, 2007 at 11:53 pm

“Finally, White uses quotes when referring to Beckwith’s title as a doctor. Considering that seven months ago, Beckwith deserved his respect, the quotes seem, well, inappropriate and uncharitable.”
Let’s keep in mind the context of said quotation marks. The specific context has to do with the fact that Dr. Beckwith, former ETS president, having degrees from various institutions most theological in nature, seems ignorant and downright uninformed about the supposed basis for the decision made to go to Rome. He uses hyperbolic language to suggest the Council of Trent really doesn’t anathematize Protestants (even though it was written in direct response to the reforms of Luther and others) and seems to be intent on playing the “let’s all just get along” mantra.
With all this in mind, one has to question what benefit a doctorate degree was for the poor fellow.

WWW August 10, 2007 at 12:00 am

Dr. White does not look at debates as something “won” or “lost”
You might want to look at Mr. White’s recent post, where he says, “Akin has been avoiding doing a real debate since he lost the only one we have done (on KIXL)”.

brian August 10, 2007 at 12:00 am

I understand that most likely this is complete tripe but one still wonders. What really is the Gospel? How is one reconciled with God? Granted these questions dont have much meaning when one is debating issues about Faith but it should be. As one I would really like to know the answer. Granted again such questions are irrelevant.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 12:08 am

…the Council of Trent really doesn’t anathematize Protestants (even though it was written in direct response to the reforms of Luther and others)
Excuse me, you seem to neglect the fact that “Luther and others” were Catholics and, thus, the anathemas applied to them.

No Comment August 10, 2007 at 12:19 am

Jimmy allows random people to post in his comboxes without requiring any sort of registration. James White does not.
“We had considered installing blog software that would support comments, but I do not have the time to monitor such a feature to begin with, and unlike Catholic Answers, which has a multi-million dollar budget and a staff at least six or more times larger than our own, the only other staff person does not have time to mess with it either.”
– Mr. White, April 2004

David Smart August 10, 2007 at 12:28 am

“I would like to invite Evangelicals . . . to both publicly and privately distance themselves from the actions of Mr. White in posting these pictures as an act fundamentally incompatible with Christian charity.” (Jimmy Akin)
1. I did not find the images humorous, either—but that is because the real analogy being drawn by them was too spot on. Akin was simply wrong in his claim, that these images were “depicting those [urging White] to be more charitable . . . as radical Muslims protesting and urging beheading.” The images were not speaking toward persons, and Akin was irresponsible for claiming they were. The images were speaking toward an analogous attitude; namely, a fomented zealotry fueled by uninformed passion (which his subsequent post substantiated).
2. When considering Akin’s call for charity, it is quite peculiar to observe his notable lack thereof. If charity regards generosity and forbearance—and it does—then Akin’s post (a) should not have displayed such an overt appeal to the emotions of his readership, (b) but should have displayed logical impassivity with a concerted effort to interact with White about the images. Nowhere in Akin’s post do I find him explaining how he asked White what his intentions were, following it with White’s answer quoted and cited, and so forth, which is what a charitable person would have done. Akin does himself a disservice with this post because it simply added weight to White’s charge of “double standard.” Akin should consider the charity he expects White to display, and then display that in his own posts.
3. If someone wishes to call me a “disciple” of White in any sense, he or she needs to realize that such is an ad hominem retort and not worth the electrons it took to display it, when it comes to the arena of critical dialogue. It is appropriate for fomenting the emotions, certainly, but the issues at hand call for something a great deal more rational. Much can be said in favour of the impassive precision of logic and scholarly conduct.

My Cat's Name is Lily August 10, 2007 at 12:34 am

Since Mr White is apparently reading everything with his name on it, & since he has no combox (probably a wise move, considering what I feel like posting there):
To Mr James White, you seem to have missed the point. You. Are. Not. Funny. But. You. Are. A. Prejudiced. Boor.
I won’t mention what else I think you actually are, out of good manners & Christian charity. (Two concepts you would do well to look into developing in yourself).

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 12:39 am

“good manners & Christian charity.”
“You. Are. Not. Funny. But. You. Are. A. Prejudiced. Boor.”
Seriously, try to keep the contradictions at least a post or two apart.

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 1:09 am

Seriously, folks, ignore the Trademarked toy. I fully expect him to start into “depends on your interpretation” at any time now.

Jonathan Prejean August 10, 2007 at 2:12 am

It’s like watching Howard Dean all over again.
“And we’re gonna go to ROME! And Catholic Answers! We’re gonna go to imams! And the Crusades! And the Bible Answer Man debate that wasn’t a debate! And then we’re gonna to Francis Beckwith! YEAAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!!!!!!”

bill912 August 10, 2007 at 2:57 am

Francis 03 wondered if anyone would stick up for White. I had hoped not, because White’s action is indefensible. Those who did so showed their fruits, by which we now know them.

Ellen August 10, 2007 at 3:29 am

Whose fruit is this squabbling between Jimmy and James?

terry August 10, 2007 at 3:33 am

1 Timothy 6:4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions,

Tom August 10, 2007 at 3:40 am

2 Timothy 2:24-26 The Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.

jt82 August 10, 2007 at 3:45 am

Did I get this right. M Burke criticized Francis Beckwith’s doctorate, but refers to James White as Dr White? Hello, is that just priceless or what?

Mary August 10, 2007 at 4:16 am

But I will reveal the truth to you: It’s too late to save James White.
It’s never too late to save anyone. We should storm heaven with prayers for his conversion. The fact he is so angry at Catholics and Catholicism could mean his conscience is bothering him.

I should have spoken more carefully.
In that sense, only Jesus can save him.
In the sense that I should have made clear — Jeremiah can’t save him from being viewed as a dangerous, purblind fool at best.

SDG August 10, 2007 at 4:23 am

“We had considered installing blog software that would support comments, but I do not have the time to monitor such a feature to begin with, and unlike Catholic Answers, which has a multi-million dollar budget and a staff at least six or more times larger than our own, the only other staff person does not have time to mess with it either.”
– Mr. White, April 2004

Irrelevant: Jimmy doesn’t have time to monitor his comments boxes either, and he doesn’t have CA staffers doing it (this is his blog, not the CA blog). This is evidenced by the spam comments that accumulate on some older threads.
The simple fact is: Jimmy is willing to be cross-examined in public on his own blog without even being able to effectively monitor the results. James White is not. White wants the freedom to throw out whatever he feels like without any accountability to the community of his readers in the court of public opinion.

Scott W August 10, 2007 at 4:42 am

Whose fruit is this squabbling between Jimmy and James?
It’s not squabbling. Jimmy has a legitimate point about a serious matter. Whose fruit is cavalierly dismissing a protest of injustice?

SDG August 10, 2007 at 4:42 am

The images were speaking toward an analogous attitude; namely, a fomented zealotry fueled by uninformed passion (which his subsequent post substantiated).

The images are disgusting to ordinary human sensibilities because they imply moral equivalence where such a claim is outrageous and offensive. Your post, Mr. Smart, is disgusting for the same reason.
Sometimes human beings respond to what is disgusting with outrage. Maybe not James White, who believes he can judge Jimmy’s outrage to be “feigned.” (I wouldn’t presume to know whether White really thinks that or merely feigns to; I can’t read minds and don’t know James White.)
For whatever reason, James White seems to prefer projecting a more impassive public persona. Your praise of “impassive precision of logic and scholarly conduct” implies a similar sensibility — though one hardly in keeping with the horrendous taste and judgment of White’s “joke.”

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 4:50 am

Logic? Scholarly conduct?
In a pig’s eye.
The guy accuses someone of lying for having actually intellectually grown in TWENTY YEARS, whines about people pointing out that a Christian might want to think about being compassionate and at least consider other options, then drags in a murderous mob as “humor.”
He strikes me as just another guy who has a following, wailing about how badly he’s been treated by the bad ol’ world.
Perhaps he actually shows those features you praise elsewhere, but in this matter, they are greatly lacking.

Chris August 10, 2007 at 4:51 am

The simple fact is: Jimmy is willing to be cross-examined in public on his own blog
Putting out a pad of paper for people to share their thoughts with one another is not the same as being willing to be cross-examined.

SDG August 10, 2007 at 5:08 am

Putting out a pad of paper for people to share their thoughts with one another is not the same as being willing to be cross-examined.

Funny, it looks a lot more like it than not putting the piece of paper out there.
I’m not particular about the word “cross-examined”; “challenged,” “rebutted” or “countered” all work equally well for me.
Whatever you call it, Jimmy is apparently comfortable allowing it, and James apparently isn’t. Perhaps Jimmy is confident that truth will out in the free exchange of ideas, whereas White wants the freedom to throw out anything he likes without any dissenting voices.

Dale Price August 10, 2007 at 5:21 am

The “Doctor” nonsense is ironic beyond words. It’s almost as funny as the mental contortions of those who try to defend it.
What Mr. Greydanus said. All of the “category error” pussyfooting nicely dodges the real problem with the picture: White states an equivalence between people in the comment thread demanding charity (yes, in a predictable and certainly from his standpoint irritating fashion) with those who use violence and intimidation to silence their opponents.
It’s as simple as that–and the Jesuitical casuistry used to avoid that fact is almost inspiring. Mesmerized by the brilliance of the nightlight, I suppose. And way more amusing than the actual photoshop. Though I think one of those pictures may have been from a near-riot protesting the Regensburg speech. Which would mean that he’s comparing himself to the Pope. At which point, my Ironymeter explodes.
That said, it does strike me as a tempest in a teapot. It was a deeply stupid comparison which says more about White’s mindset than it does about the Beckwith thread(s). It’s a combox flame war, which means the stakes are remarkably low. There is no mediating figure White will listen to who will call him on it, so I’d just move on.

Good Morning August 10, 2007 at 5:22 am

There seems to already be plenty of paper flying between the two feuders.

Jerry August 10, 2007 at 5:43 am

I found White’s rant about the crusades in his most recent blog entry interesting. Quite telling actually. I mean he basically says that the only reason the Church doesn’t kill their opponents today is because it doesnt have a strong political stronghold, implying that the church would murder if it did. Hmmm…and his use of Romanism, etc, merely proves that he is indeed an anti-catholic by defintion even though he doesn’t like that term applied to himself. White came across as one of conspiracy fundamentalist’s. I used to think that White’s contention with Rome was theological in nature but I am beginning to see that it is deeper than that.

Alissa August 10, 2007 at 5:48 am

Though I think one of those pictures may have been from a…
Maybe it was from the rioting about the cartoons. And now White & Co. has become the new cartoonists to the riots of people on this forum.

Matthew Siekierski August 10, 2007 at 6:02 am

For what it’s worth, “jamesrwhite.org” is registered to an anonymous user of mapname.com, as of 6 days ago. Catholic.com is registered in the clear to Catholic Answers, since 1995.
The two domains are pointing to two different IP addresses. A reverse lookup of the addresses shows that one is hosted by theplanet.com (I use the same one for a personal site), and the other at dewdesigns.net.
It’s not a simple domain preemptive registering done by Catholic Answers, nor does it seem to be related to aomin.org (they have their own website, own nameserver, etc.). Without contacting mapname.com and asking about customer 3 (they paid the $15.95 for protected registration, so good luck with that), it’s wrong to try and point fingers at anyone.
The set of circumstances that would lead another James R. White in the US to register that domain (as a .org, no less) and forward it to catholic.com is unreasonable, as well.
I would label this domain registration either the work of someone trying to “win”, or someone trying to increase disagreement between Mr. Akin and Mr. White.

Jerry August 10, 2007 at 6:37 am

I don’t think Catholic answers likes JamesrWhite.org tied(or whatever you call it in this case) to their website. The Question is, can they do anything about it?

Christopher August 10, 2007 at 6:42 am

I don’t get what the big deal is with the pictures. I despise James White and think he writes at the level of a college Sophomore (maybe a little better), but the pictures didn’t offend me. In fact, I got a chuckle out of them. It IS a bit of levity. Comparing foaming-at-the-mouth bronze age fanatics to Catholics who disagree with him is completely absurd. And yes, by making them, he IS crying “uncle.” It’s as close to an admission of error as you’ll ever get with him.
The Internet is anarchy cubed. What do you expect? Reasoned dialogue and brotherhood? Hah!

Memphis Aggie August 10, 2007 at 6:50 am

Does anyone else remember that saying:
Never argue with a fool, because a third party will not be able to tell the difference.
There are reasonable expectations required to have a debate. The minimum requirement is mutual respect. From what I gather Jimmy Akin isn’t claiming to win the debate because of the merits of his argument. Rather he is saying that since those pictures are inherently disrespectful reasonable debate ceased to exist. The win is by forfeiture, which is unsatisfying to everyone because it means that no one benefits from new insights from either side.
Presumably there are Protestant apologists out there somewhere who can make substantive arguments that challenge us. Well reasoned criticism soberly offered is a blessing. It forces the respondent to think critically on the merits. Nowhere in any of this distraction are we dealing with the matters of God and salvation. The lack of charity on James White part guarantees that his arguments (and he doubtless has some) will fall on deaf ears. You don’t insult a man you intend to persuade.
A more important question, from my perspective, is when do you give up? When do you decide to move on? Christ engaged the Pharisees for a while but not at the end during the Passion when they were intent on killing him. There is a point where it’s reasonable to walk away. I think Jimmy is right to leave the “debate” at this point. I don’t think I’d claim victory however. I think it’s on the grounds of futility that the debate should be ended.

AnotherCoward August 10, 2007 at 7:11 am

I got sick of reading the comments about half way through.
Jimmy is right in the essence of his post: White has lowered the level of debate below that of being able to produce any good fruit.
Ending the debate was the right thing to do.
Trying to shame White beyond his own personal offense, though, was wrong. Evangelicals and the like should do that on their own – and I believe some would.
Trying to claim superiority is likewise wrong. White did not lose. We’ve all lost. If we can’t just dust our sandals and walk away without a second look or a last word, then we’re not really dusting our sandals, are we. Certainly, there is a courtesy in letting someone know that you are not going to participate in the kind of conversation taking place (e.g. naming your offense) … but to go beyond that, to in effect try to get the last jab in (e.g. shaming them), is counterproductive as it puts them on an emotional defense.
I doubt any of this makes any difference, but I thought I’d say my peace in the event that maybe Jimmy might see this and try to correct some error I think could rightly be assigned to him. But, all the same, I think he was right to try to end the debate – or at least give White an opportunity to correct his offense and bring the conversation back to a level of civility.
All we have right now is a giant urinary joust of who is more charitable and/or offensive.

Matthew August 10, 2007 at 7:27 am

I find it interesting that in this thread or previous threads regarding the actions of Dr. Beckwith that he [Dr. Beckwith] is the ONLY one showing true Christian charity. Dr. Beckwith has not made anything personal, but it seems everyone, and especially James White, sure has made it personal. I had never heard of Dr. Beckwith before three months ago, but I have read several of his interviews and blogs in which he has participated. I have done the same with James White and from my observations he shows the traits of someone with severe control issues. Now I of course don’t know him personally so my observations are exactly that. However, with my professional background and experience he shows classic signs of one who cannot tolerate anyone who does not fully agree with him. I pray that his humility will one day match his obvious intelligence.
In Christ,
Matthew

Martin August 10, 2007 at 7:38 am

I remember the picture Dave Armstrong put up a while back, a caricature of James White with blood running down his face, it was pretty disgusting and more personal. Dave Armstrong wasn’t stoned to death for doing that.
Important point. DA apologized for the picture and pulled it from his site.
I’ve seen Dave’s picture and it was not as inflammatory as JW’s.
I think JW’s picture has served it’s purpose though but distracting the discuss from the origional point: JW impugned that Dr. Beckwith is a liar, that point in turn was diverting the discussion from the actual point of what Trent actually said.
Say what you like but JW is an amazing man. He managed to sling mud at Dr. Beckwith, splatter it on JA and CA and soon will declare victory (though this isn’t a contest, ya know) over the emotional catholics.
Oh yeah, I do remember JW being quiet upset at the depiction of him on DA’s blog. Why is that offensive and JW’s picture “Just funnin” .

Greg August 10, 2007 at 7:50 am

I don’t think Catholic answers likes JamesrWhite.org tied(or whatever you call it in this case) to their website. The Question is, can they do anything about it?

When you go to a website, there is information passed as to which website you came from, it’s called the referral. CA should be able to block any incoming connections that contain a referral from jamesrwhite.org. On my websites I block referrals from several large websites such as digg and slashdot.

Richard Froggatt August 10, 2007 at 7:53 am

Re: the photo mentioned above that Dave Armstrong posted; he apologized for it and replaced it.

Brian Walden August 10, 2007 at 8:04 am

Why is Bishop White so concerned with lay Catholic apologists? I don’t know of many Catholic Bishops debating with White in particular or Protestant apologists in general. It would seem to me that that’s not the role of a bishop. Maybe I just don’t understand what a bishop is in James White’s denomination. Could someone enlighten me?

heisenburg August 10, 2007 at 8:07 am

I just want to make a quick comment….
Though i do think the actions taken by white are questionable at best, this is the perfect time to show what it means to be Catholic. Perhaps Jimmy shouldn’t just cut off conversation. Perhaps he can use this not as a tit for tat, but as a chance to expand.
I recall someone saying the best example of a Catholic Apologist.
A priest is in a debate with anti-catholics or anti-Christians. His counter part goes off on rants, rages on about yyy, says why he has to be false, etc. The priest jsut sits there takes it all in. When the counterpart is finished, he expected a quick rebuttal, but doesn’t get one. The priest sits there, stares at the floor for a second, thinks, and after a long pause, finally speaks.
After 30 minutes of accusations, he responds not with a dissertation, but with maybe a single paragraph worth of words, mostly from scripture, and always ending with a question that is not intended to be answered, but something to be contemplated on.
The counterpart is stunned silent at first…. but immediately returns to his rants…
But the seed is planted
Perhaps we should not rail Mr. White. Perhaps we should go above and beyond on showing him the love Christ demands
Maybe instead of us responding with anger, we should all email him and say “I don’t agree with your interpretations, and I take offense to your pictures, but i just wanted to say, as a Catholic, May the peace of Christ be with you always”
Just food for thought
In Christ

Seamus August 10, 2007 at 8:32 am

Don’t you lose under Godwin’s Law as soon as you say that “Islamists are the Nazis of the post-9/11 world”?

SDG August 10, 2007 at 8:36 am

Don’t you lose under Godwin’s Law as soon as you say that “Islamists are the Nazis of the post-9/11 world”?

Nope. Godwin’s Law is triggered when the Nazis are invoked in characterizing one’s opponents in the present debate. Since James White isn’t an Islamist, Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply.

Harry August 10, 2007 at 8:40 am

Godwin’s Law is limited to comparisons with Nazis and Hitler. It’s Akin’s Law that includes comparisons with Islamists.

SDG August 10, 2007 at 8:47 am

Godwin’s Law is limited to comparisons with Nazis and Hitler. It’s Akin’s Law that includes comparisons with Islamists.

Godwin’s law is subject to numerous corollaries, extensions and codicils. In fact, even the notion that invoking Nazis equates to forfeiture is technically an extension of the original law, which merely states that a comparison to Hitler or Nazis becomes increasingly inevitable the longer an online discussion continues.
The Akin Extension of the well-known Godwin’s Law Forfeiture Corollary seems an eminently reasonable one.

Harry August 10, 2007 at 8:57 am

In fact, even the notion that invoking Nazis equates to forfeiture is technically an extension of the original law
Technically, the Usenet FAQ on the subject says: “The obvious response is to call them on it, say ‘thread’s over’, and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses, because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that don’t say exactly what you wish they said anyway… Not only is it wrong to say that a
thread is over when Godwin’s Law is invoked anyway… but long ago a corollary to the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki “Quirk” Kogama (quirk@swcp.com): Quirk’s Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called “Nazi Clause” is ineffectual.”

Mary Kay August 10, 2007 at 8:57 am

Heisenburg, that’s a nice thought. However, an en masse mailing would be counter-productive for at least two reasons I can think of.
There comes a time when the best thing is to simply not engage with the other person and only respond to correct any inaccuracies.
White’s comments are not something that I’ve spent much time on, but clearly he overstepped a line. The best thing IMO is just to back away and give him space.

JohnD August 10, 2007 at 8:58 am

There’s a little too much moral equivalency going on here. Mr. Akin calling Mr. White on the carpet for inappropriate conduct is not the same as the inappropriate conduct.
Example:
Joe: Bob, you’re a S***head M********** and so is your mother!
Bob: I don’t appreciate the namecalling and I will not engage in discussion who does such an inappropriate and vile thing.
Joe: Hey, you’re just as bad…. you called me a name-caller and labeled my actions as “inappropriate and vile”. We’re the same.

Cindy August 10, 2007 at 9:01 am

There’s a little too much moral equivalency going on here.
And mayb3e a little too much moral relativism going on here too.

AnotherCoward August 10, 2007 at 9:04 am

Except that Bob also said: So neener, neener, I won … and everyone else should back me up.

JohnD August 10, 2007 at 9:07 am

//Except that Bob also said: So neener, neener, I won … and everyone else should back me up.//
Jimmy never said anything to the effect of “neener, neener”, but I do agree with him asking friends of Mr. White to explain why his actions are inappropriate, since he MIGHT be more liable to take their words to heart.

JimBo August 10, 2007 at 9:11 am

Jimmy never said anything to the effect of “neener, neener”
Calling on Godwin’s law is a form of neener, neener. That’s AC’s Law.

Greg McR August 10, 2007 at 9:14 am

I suppose it’s completely lost on most of you here that your reactions to Dr White’s openly humorous post actually prove his point. I sorry that you are offended but it’s too funny; really. Most of you are practically drooling on yourselves over this. That’s what makes humor like that found on Steven Cobert’s ” (who I’m sure you know is Catholic) “Report” so funny. Not because it is so outrageous, but because it captures certain aspects of peoples behavior and shows how incredibly bizarre it actually is. Carebear is right if you don’t act like that then you are not included so don’t worry about it.
A couple of other points just briefly.
The debate Mr Akin says is now over never started because he refuses to debate Dr White in any substantive manner and has for some time. (What was your excuse last week Mr Akin?) Anyone who has listened to Dr White’s personal interactions with those who disagree with him will be struck by his professionalism and courteous treatment of his debating opponents and callers. Hey, phone him up and see. Many of the posters on this site make all sorts of wild, personal and unsubstantiated accusations directly against Dr White and never seem to find the time or the courage to back up their claims by directly confronting him with factual data.
Now; As far as Dr Beckwith having some moral superiority over Dr White on the issue of “Charity”: I think he lost that the minute he started impugning Dr White’s character and motives.
He (Dr Beckwith) “repeatedly” (two out of three ain’t bad) left his readers/listeners with the distinct impression that he had not read Trent until recently and insulted his former “Lutheran professors” by indicating they had led him to expect: “…to read this sort of horrible document, you know, requiring people to stick pins in their eyes, you know, and flagellate themselves, you know,…”
Only later did Dr Beckwith tell us that that’s just his funny way of talking.
I suppose as long as he smiles and feigns “Charity” as he sticks a knife in former friends and colleagues that makes it alright. Go figure.
So who’s got the guts to step up and make the call next Tuesday? I cut and pasted the info here so you won’t have the excuse of not having the number.
Dr. White welcomes your calls at:
(602) 973-4602 (Metro Phoenix)
1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free)
Most Tuesday Mornings at
11:00am MST and
Most Thursday Afternoons at 4:00 MST
(pre-feeds begin 30 minutes or so before start of program)

JohnD August 10, 2007 at 9:19 am

//Calling on Godwin’s law is a form of neener, neener. That’s AC’s Law.//
“Neener, neener” is taunting. Showing that someone is not engaging in appropriate discussion methods is not taunting.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 9:20 am

I don’t think Catholic answers likes JamesrWhite.org tied(or whatever you call it in this case) to their website. The Question is, can they do anything about it?
Posted by: Jerry | Aug 10, 2007 6:37:05 AM

Jerry,
That’s what I couldn’t quite understand —
That is, why would “Catholic” anybody (e.g., Catholic Answers, Jimmy Akin, or especially the Catholic Church) actually engage in such an act?
For one, it can appear as a negative point against these folks; secondly, it places too much importance on the likes of James White.
The point I was attempting to make earlier in this thread (since the website was again brought up as an issue) with my “Disciples of James White” Conspiracy Theory is that it is just as ridiculous as the “Catholic Answers/Jimmy Akin/Catholic Church” Conspiracy Theory.
At any rate, folks need only consult the “Amazing. Simply Amazing.” thread and see how it unravelled there.
In fact, had somebody not even mentioned the site on that thread, I wouldn’t have even heard about it in the first place.

Anonymous August 10, 2007 at 9:20 am

“Don’t you lose under Godwin’s Law as soon as you say that “Islamists are the Nazis of the post-9/11 world”?”
Seamus
w00t!

Anonymous August 10, 2007 at 9:22 am

By the way, How exactly are Islamists the National Socialist Workers of the post 9/11 world?

Ed Peters August 10, 2007 at 9:23 am

Ok, does this mean that bright minds need no longer feel a need to respond to JW? That would be nice. Some good people have wasted a lot of time on him.

JohnD August 10, 2007 at 9:24 am

Nameless,
You really don’t know? Think “fanatically murderous”.

JimBo August 10, 2007 at 9:26 am

Showing that someone is not engaging in appropriate discussion methods is not taunting.
Maybe you think calling Mr. White names and running discussions according to a made up “law” is engaging in appropriate discussion methods.

JohnD August 10, 2007 at 9:29 am

//Maybe you think calling Mr. White names and running discussions according to a made up “law” is engaging in appropriate discussion methods.//
AND, we’ve come full circle. Vile is a “name” a “label”. Moral equivalency. Go back to the Bob & Joe example.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 9:31 am

Maybe you think calling Mr. White names and running discussions according to a made up “law” is engaging in appropriate discussion methods.
Jimbo,
What name-calling did Jimmy Akin resort to?
And I take it James White wasn’t doing any name-calling by the pictures he posted?
Further, most “laws” we know of in advocacy and argumentation is “made-up”; yet, that doesn’t mean they do not apply.
In fact, most “laws” are “made-up” in the most basic sense.

bill912 August 10, 2007 at 9:37 am

As I posted earlier, White’s defenders have displayed their fruits, by which we now know them. They have revealed themselves clearly.

francis 03 August 10, 2007 at 9:38 am

This is all just incredibly sad. Almost everyone involved has behaved shamefully. Most every controversy I’ve seen involving James White follows the same pattern:
1. White makes some sophisticated-looking objections about something one of his interlocutors has said or done. Shortly thereafter (either as part of the original objections or in one of the immediate follow-ons) he makes what looks like a really nasty personal jibe or two.
2. The interlocutors then indicate (with varying degrees of politeness and charity) that they’d prefer not to have a substantive discussion if it’s going to include that kind of personal unpleasantness.
3. White’s response is twofold:
a. He complains that his interlocutors are refusing to discuss his real points, which
he claims implies that they are irrefutable.
b. He either (i) defends his smear as accurate and to be expected, or (ii) explains why
it wasn’t a smear at all, but rather a big (and possibly willful) misunderstanding by
his interloctur(s).
4. The interlocutors then say that they just can’t continue the conversation under those
circumstances. They (or their comboxers) often respond with nasty smears of their own
at this point.
5. White’s parting shots are:
a. They interlocutors or their comboxers are hypocrites for ending a discussion based
on his lack of charity when they can’t be charitable themselves.
b. Finally, he throws up his hands and says that this is the latest in a long series of
refusals by his opponents to address his unassailable points.
6. Subsidiary nastiness continues in comboxes and online forums, sometimes flaring up and
returning us to Stage 3.
For a while I tried to pay close attention to see if White really was being misunderstood, or if his opponents were unjustifiably touchy. But it’s starting to look to me like almost everyone who White squares off against winds up feeling personally offended. That many people can’t all be wrong absent a huge conspiracy– and at this point it seems more charitable to believe that White really is rather off-putting than to conclude that all his opponents are in some sort of sinister league with each other.
Finally, these photos seem to me to be on the level of what you see on supermarket tabloid covers– funny despite their offensiveness, but in a way that does not reflect particularly well on their creators and sponsors. I see no reason why anyone should get angry over them, instead of shaking his head and praying for whoever was foolish enough to think they were a good idea. Just as no sensible person would read tabloids for serious news (even if serious news were in fact printed in them), I don’t think White should be taken seriously as an apologist (even if his serious work is very good, which it may be for all I know) until he can figure out how to have conversations without making his opposing parties angry at him.
I hope I can continue to read JA.O, and its comboxes, without having to see this kind of kindergarten-level foolishness again.

Paolo August 10, 2007 at 9:38 am

It seems Mr. White posted a reply to Jimmy’s post on his blog:
http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2185&catid=7
I think it’s strange that he has no context of the history of the Crusades and Inquisition as a response to Islam – which he says Jimmy is not doing in his work at Catholic Answers.
I think there is also a misunderstanding on what the word “Charity” means. Charity does include “admonishing the sinner” which Jimmy does by shaming Mr. White’s actions.
And the best that Mr. White can do is say “I won back in 1995! And you are doing nothing against the real issue of Islam!”
So what were the Crusades and the Inquisition about, then?

JimBo August 10, 2007 at 9:44 am

Vile is a “name” a “label”
A name is a label.
What name-calling did Jimmy Akin resort to?
I’m not going to repeat it.
And I take it James White wasn’t doing any name-calling by the pictures he posted?
If he did, does that make it ok?
Further, most “laws” we know of in advocacy and argumentation is “made-up”; yet, that doesn’t mean they do not apply.
You can apply any law you want, it doesn’t mean it’s valid.

francis 03 August 10, 2007 at 9:46 am

I should add that the result of the six-step progression I just documented is that so-call “apologetics” becomes an exercise in arguing about who is more offensive than whom. What a stupid waste of time.

francis 03 August 10, 2007 at 9:47 am

I should add that the result of the six-step progression I just documented is that so-called “apologetics” becomes an exercise in arguing about who is more offensive than whom. What a pointless waste of time. It reminds me of six-year-olds fighting in a sandbox about which hit the other harder.

francis 03 August 10, 2007 at 9:48 am

Greg McR August 10, 2007 at 9:52 am

So no one should respond to Hittchens or Dawkins because they are sometimes offensive? That’s a weak objection.

francis 03 August 10, 2007 at 9:53 am

Sorry for all the posts; I re-posted when my first one didn’t show up. The first can be deleted.

JohnD August 10, 2007 at 9:55 am

//So no one should respond to Hittchens or Dawkins because they are sometimes offensive? //
You can. But if the persons demonstrate a pattern of being unable to carry on a rational discussion, your time might be better spent elsewhere.

francis 03 August 10, 2007 at 9:56 am

Offensiveness per se doesn’t preclude response. What does is when it isn’t intended as serious even by its author, and/or when it so overwhelms almost every conversation that they just don’t go anywhere.
Offensiveness can also, of course, indicate closed-mindedness. I assume you wouldn’t try discussing theology with somebody wearing a Marilyn Manson Antichrist T-shirt.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 9:57 am

I find it amusing that most, if not almost all of those accusing James White or wrongdoing are foregoining any possible transgression by Akin or any one of his cronies. Posts are filled with illustrations of the situation that make White out ot be the devil and yet Akin seems to have clean hands.
Does anyone else see the irony in the way these people are acting and the joke being made in the pictures? Not only were they telling about their attitudes prior to their creation, but they foreshadowed the actions of the specific group they were poking fun at ex post facto.

Thomas Aquinas August 10, 2007 at 9:57 am

Greg writes:
He (Dr Beckwith) “repeatedly” (two out of three ain’t bad) left his readers/listeners with the distinct impression that he had not read Trent until recently and insulted his former “Lutheran professors” by indicating they had led him to expect: “…to read this sort of horrible document, you know, requiring people to stick pins in their eyes, you know, and flagellate themselves, you know,…”
Another example of uncharitable construction of another’s thoughts. What Greg does here is take Beckwith’s comments in one venue about his Lutheran professors–of whom Beckwith speaks respectfully–and juxtaposes them with radio comments in which the profs are not talked about at all and Beckwith is trying to make a point to Greg by employing hyperbole. (If anyone knows Frank Beckwith, you know that’s his style of humor).
But Greg, here’s my inquiry to you.
Protestant Evangelicals disagree with each other on infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, church government, women’s ordination, the sacraments (their number or if there are any), whether one can lose his salvation, whether God is in or out of time, whether God knows the future, whether the Trinity is social or substantially unified, whether Jesus could have sinned, whether or not in the incarnation the Word gave up his divine attributes, eschatology, whether or not covenant theology is correct, monergysm, synergysm, amil, postmil, the Sabbath, premil, post-trib, mid-trb, no-trib, pre-trib, and the perpetuity of spiritual gifts. I’m sure I can list others. But you the point.
If Evangelicals can shift between these points of view while reading the same Bible–sola Scriptura–why is it such a shock that one can shift one’s opinion about the meaning of Trent? Is Trent more clear than Scripture?

Clarence August 10, 2007 at 9:59 am

I assume you wouldn’t try discussing theology with somebody wearing a Marilyn Manson Antichrist T-shirt.
Do you judge a book by it’s cover?

Esau August 10, 2007 at 10:03 am

francis 03,
What does is when it isn’t intended as serious even by its author
So you’re saying that you would consider (let’s say) a racial slur acceptable so long as it wasn’t intended as serious even by its author?

Jay D August 10, 2007 at 10:04 am

Trent, in many ways, is irrelevant to the Reformation. The Reformers weren’t reforming against Trent.

Greg McR August 10, 2007 at 10:06 am

“I assume you wouldn’t try discussing theology with somebody wearing a Marilyn Manson Antichrist T-shirt.”
Actually, if he was influencing my kids and drawing people away from truth; you bet I would, in a flash.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 10:07 am

I find it amusing that most, if not almost all of those accusing James White or wrongdoing are foregoining any possible transgression by Akin or any one of his cronies. Posts are filled with illustrations of the situation that make White out ot be the devil and yet Akin seems to have clean hands.
CareBear:
Again, you, yourself, seem to be forgoing any possible transgression by James White but, instead, seem to hail him as some innocent victim in all this despite his egregiously offensive acts.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 10:13 am

Prove his actions offensive and I’ll recant. Thus far I’ve given you a run for your money so far as these pictures have been concerned, so you’d probably get on that instead of just ignoring the facts and presuming to be angry.
Sorry, I’m not dead set on assuming the conclusion that they were wrong when I don’t find them wrong in the first place. Shame on me for being reasonable though.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 10:18 am

Thomas,
Surely you jest. Roman Catholics differ on as many issues as Protestant Evangelicals do. The argument from unity accomplishes nothing because it doesn’t exist. Having a Pope to declare official doctrine doesn’t seem to be working out too well, so I’ll take my Bible and stay in my sandbox with the different ideas concerning Baptism, and you can stay in your where the only common denominator is a guy in a hat.
Not much difference there.

Greg McR August 10, 2007 at 10:19 am

Wow, Thomas Aquinas? Should I call you Doctor?
You are wrong about me judging Dr Beckwith’s thoughts BTW. I merely pointed out the clear implications of his words.
As far as Dr Beckwith’s odd (unstated) humor, I can grant him that, but he took such great offense when people who don’t know him took his words at face value and immediately violated his own admonition to charity by ascribing to Dr White the worst possible motives and attacking his character.
Pot; meet Mr Kettle.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 10:31 am

Prove his actions offensive and I’ll recant. Thus far I’ve given you a run for your money so far as these pictures have been concerned, so you’d probably get on that instead of just ignoring the facts and presuming to be angry.
Sorry, I’m not dead set on assuming the conclusion that they were wrong when I don’t find them wrong in the first place. Shame on me for being reasonable though.

CareBear,
That’s just it —
You haven’t been reasonable.
That fact that you’ve merely ASSUMED that James White is innocent in all this without even weighing any of the evidence from the debate speaks volumes of the level of ‘fairness’ you actually subscribe to in the end.
You level against me that:
1. I’m ignoring the facts
2. Assuming the Conclusion
3. Being Unreasonable
However you:
1. Ignored the facts yourself by not taking into consideration the things James White has done
2. Assuming a Conclusion (James White is innocent) based on a rather biased examination of what appears to be ‘little facts’ about the subject matter
3. Being unreasonable yourself by not taking in ALL the facts of the case — only the one that seem to cast negative light on Jimmy Akin (in y our opinion) but have yet to examine evidence as revealed in the debate between White v. Beckwith
Had you been truly a fair-minded individual, you would consider ALL of the evidence and not merely this post (as it seems this is the only thing you’ve looked over so far) and only those things that seem to cast negative light on Jimmy Akin or rather how you’ve negatively characterized him.
If anything, you are actually guilty of the fallacy of neglected evidence as you have failed to consider (to the extent of even overlooking) evidence that is likely to be relevant to the argument here — such as elements in the debate itself between White v. Beckwith.
Indeed, it would be “reasonable” to expect from your part as well (being that you seem to be of the mind that James White is the innocent party) to reveal facts from that debate — and not only from this post alone (as your comments have exclusively dealt with Jimmy Akin’s post only) — that has actual bearing on the matter here.

diane August 10, 2007 at 10:34 am

Why is anyone responding to CareBear? He/she/it is has demonstrated juvenile snotty arrogance in inverse proportion to the congency of his/her/its arguments.
Don’t feed the energy creature, as Mark Shea used to say.

Lisa August 10, 2007 at 10:35 am

Had you been truly a fair-minded individual, you would consider ALL of the evidence and not merely this post
Esau, as a limited human, do you have the capacity to consider ALL of the evidence?

Dale Price August 10, 2007 at 10:39 am

He (Dr Beckwith) “repeatedly” (two out of three ain’t bad) left his readers/listeners with the distinct impression that he had not read Trent until recently and insulted his former “Lutheran professors” by indicating they had led him to expect: “…to read this sort of horrible document, you know, requiring people to stick pins in their eyes, you know, and flagellate themselves, you know,…”
Only later did Dr Beckwith tell us that that’s just his funny way of talking.

Good Lord. People actually thought Dr. Beckwith was serious? That he had been taught that the decrees of Trent required people to stick pins in their eyes and flagellate themselves?
Really?
OK.
That’s…obtuse.

diane August 10, 2007 at 10:40 am

typo alert: “cogency,” not “congency.”

rose August 10, 2007 at 10:40 am

This is indeed childish behavior.
Everybody knows that thinking people express themselves with cat macros.

diane August 10, 2007 at 10:41 am

OK, Lisa. We’ll settle for ANY of the evidence.
OK by you? :)

Lisa August 10, 2007 at 10:43 am

Ok, now let’s see how you’re going to prove that Carebear didn’t consider ANY of the evidence.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 10:43 am

Surely you jest. Roman Catholics differ on as many issues as Protestant Evangelicals do.
The argument from unity accomplishes nothing because it doesn’t exist.
Having a Pope to declare official doctrine doesn’t seem to be working out too well, so I’ll take my Bible and stay in my sandbox with the different ideas concerning Baptism, and you can stay in your where the only common denominator is a guy in a hat.
Not much difference there.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 10, 2007 10:18:26 AM
CareBear,
It’s kind of ironic that you should make the point that there are Catholics who don’t act like robots and merely follow the whims of the Pope like mindless automatons.
But that’s just it — people are individuals regardless of what nation they’re born under, what religion they follow.
You can’t expect them to act like automatons because they do have a mind of their own.
Perhaps that’s the very reason why Christ founded a Church in the first place!
Mt 16:18:
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Remember what St. Paul said???
Eph 4:14:
14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.

Shane August 10, 2007 at 10:44 am

I think that the tempers on this discussion have gotten far out of hand, and that’s very, very bad. I also see things coming from people on all sides of the debate that, quite frankly, shock me. I am not easily shocked.
Therefore, I want to – I pray – very simply present the events that brought us here.
1) James White is critical of Dr. Beckwith. – nothing wrong with that
2) Some persons suggest that Mr. White’s manner of criticizing Dr. Beckwith is wanting in the Charity that he, as member – and especially as a leader – in the Christian church, is obliged to handle matters with. – nothing wrong with that, either
3) James White rejects this characterization of his criticisms – nothing wrong with that.
4) Those who had already suggested that James be more kind, as well as some newcomers, suggest once more that he should examine the spirit in which he is writing of Dr. Beckwith. – nothing wrong with that
5) James White posts pictures comparing these persons to radical Muslims who behead people for not accepting their particular theological viewpoint.
I say this with as much humility as I can. In fact, as I type this out I’m scared to death I’m not being as polite as I can be, that I’m not letting the Holy Spirit use me here: there is something drastically wrong in the fact that some persons do not believe this is wrong.
Christians are called to charity, above all else. If we lack charity, then nothing we do matters in the slightest bit. All the faith in the world is utterly meaningless without charity, as Paul writes. Christians are also called to help those brothers and sisters in Christ who are failing in some substantial matter of living their faith. Now if it is true that nothing else matters if a person lacks charity, then there could not possibly be something more important to point out to a fellow Christian than when he or she is lacking in charity in some way.
So a person who, with charity himself, points this out is fulfilling Christ’s teachings perfectly, in a profound way. Note that it doesn’t matter whether or not a person is correct in their attempt to admonish. Someone may be completely mistaken to suggest that I am lacking charity, and it may be that I should in no way take their advice. That happens and that is ok. However, the spirit behind what such a peson has said is not something I should ever reject, for it is the spirit of obedience to Christ and of a true love of neighbor. A person who does this – whether correct or mistaken – loves me, cares about me, and wants to help me grow closer to Jesus Christ.
People did this to James White. They may have been correct, and they may have been wrong. The spirit, however, is one of obedience to Christ and of fraternal love. James’ response was to compare these people – people exercising love – to radical Muslims who exercise the hatred of those who do not agree with their theology. The intention of the Christian who admonishes is to bring life to the admonished by correcting a sin and bringing him back to Christ. The intention of the radical Muslim who beheads is to bring death to those whom they disagree with.
So some people have tried to love James White and bring him to life, and he has compared them to persons who hate and try to bring death. All other points aside – whether the admonishing was truly needed or not – is irrelevant. I beg anyone who is defending Dr. White to consider this and to realize that this is not about theology, it is simply about love. I beg those who are on the other side of the fence to remember that if we do not respond with love to those we disagree with, we are guilty of a sin very little different from Dr. White’s.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

glowe August 10, 2007 at 10:46 am

I think it is important to distinguish between Dr. White’s blog entries and his ministry. Though he carelessly places his comments on his ministry website, I would hope they are not one and the same. His articles are actually substantive for the most part as I noted above. His blog posts however are invective. They are not charitable. They are not Christian. They are self-centered, not Christ-centered. That doesn’t mean everything he does is bad. It just means his character doesn’t always reflect Christ (whose does? I know I don’t always). But that said, take his substance as substance. Let is speak for itself. And take his blog as it is…self-centered, gospel-blurring invective. I recommend his other work as good stuff. Just don’t read his blog and you won’t be upset ;).

Esau August 10, 2007 at 10:46 am

Esau, as a limited human, do you have the capacity to consider ALL of the evidence?
Lisa,
If you had taken the time to examine CareBear’s comments, you would see that he is judging James White’s innocence merely on the basis of this one post of Jimmy Akin alone.
I have yet to see him list a point-by-point case from him on James White’s innocence based on the actual White v. Beckwith debate.
Thus, he is merely ASSUMING James White innocence on the basis of this one red herring alone rather than the subject debate.

Wayne August 10, 2007 at 10:51 am

The intention of the radical Muslim who beheads is to bring death to those whom they disagree with.
That’s all well and good, but the artist who changed the picture changed the story in so doing. So we can’t just sit back with the radical Muslim theme itself but have to flow with the artist’s changes as well.

Dale Price August 10, 2007 at 10:54 am

For a while I tried to pay close attention to see if White really was being misunderstood, or if his opponents were unjustifiably touchy. But it’s starting to look to me like almost everyone who White squares off against winds up feeling personally offended. That many people can’t all be wrong absent a huge conspiracy– and at this point it seems more charitable to believe that White really is rather off-putting than to conclude that all his opponents are in some sort of sinister league with each other.
Bingo, Francis 03. Take a look at the appendix to the second edition of Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler. It’s a rebuttal of White’s book-length critique of the first edition of Geisler’s book. Putting aside the merits of an important debate, it’s telling that Dr. Geisler also expresses dismay with White’s tone.

francis 03 August 10, 2007 at 10:54 am

Esau:
No, racial slurs are obviously unacceptable. What I am saying is that if a person thought it was somehow funny to use them, and responded belligerently when told that constitutes poor judgment, I certainly wouldn’t try to discuss the finer points of race relations with him. That’s the analogy I’m trying to draw here– someone who really thinks this kind of thing is “acceptable” is not going to be a worthwhile interlocutor. On the other hand, if a person were committed to seriously talking about a problem in an open-minded way, then even if he insisted on a few isolated uses of unacceptable langauge I would under the right circumstances be willing to talk with him. But if the slurs came so thick and fast that the atmosphere was just unbearable, then again I’d have to end the encounter.
McR:
I admire your courage. I wouldn’t expect such a “conversation” to be very fruitful.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 10:55 am

I’m not defending the White v. Beckwith debate, and I never have been.
I’ve been defending the posting of these pictures, and never anything more. Don’t try to dillute the issue I’m debating by attempting to attribute to me other debates or issues I’m not involved with or attempting to defend.
I don’t have to post a point-by-point case on James’ White’s innocence in the Beckwith debate because that has absolutely nothing to do with Jimmy Akin and 20 Roman Catholic fanbois getting their toes stepped on via a couple of pictures that accurately display their childish, hypocritical attitudes.

Shane August 10, 2007 at 10:56 am

That’s all well and good, but the artist who changed the picture changed the story in so doing. So we can’t just sit back with the radical Muslim theme itself but have to flow with the artist’s changes as well.
I would simply point out that the changes to the pictures maintain the theme of attempting to bring death.

Lisa August 10, 2007 at 10:59 am

Esau, you contradict yourself. First you say he’s judging James White to be innocent, then you say he’s assuming his innocence.
And then you go off on how he hasn’t proven James White’s innocence. Since when is it anyone’s duty to prove innocence? It’s typically the duty of the accuser to prove guilt.

Wayne August 10, 2007 at 11:01 am

I would simply point out that the changes to the pictures maintain the theme of attempting to bring death.
That might be what you see, but not everyone sees it that way.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 11:02 am

So some people have tried to love James White and bring him to life, and he has compared them to persons who hate and try to bring death. All other points aside – whether the admonishing was truly needed or not – is irrelevant. I beg anyone who is defending Dr. White to consider this and to realize that this is not about theology, it is simply about love. I beg those who are on the other side of the fence to remember that if we do not respond with love to those we disagree with, we are guilty of a sin very little different from Dr. White’s.
Shane,
It is not inhuman to feel insulted when one is compared to terrorists, as these pictures would initially strike this sort of vile comparison at the onset.
Let’s say somebody says the most dispicable thing about your family.
Would it be unnatural to feel offended and react to that offense in such an emotional manner?
Is a Christian supposed to act so phooney as to tell that person who has just insulted your family:
“God bless you for your remarks!” and go on to sing Kumbaya right afterwards?
Sure, there are those blessed with such patience as to bear the insult gracefully.
However, let’s not all of a sudden likewise stone a person merely for acting so naturally under those conditions.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 11:06 am

Esau, you contradict yourself. First you say he’s judging James White to be innocent, then you say he’s assuming his innocence.
Lisa,
There are actually folks who judge a person innocent merely based on an assumption.
In my view, CareBear has done so here.
And then you go off on how he hasn’t proven James White’s innocence. Since when is it anyone’s duty to prove innocence? It’s typically the duty of the accuser to prove guilt.
There, we finally come to the point I’ve been hoping to reveal all along —
Just who is the accuser here, exactly???
And what, exactly, is the accusation being levelled???

Jeremiah August 10, 2007 at 11:06 am

The pictures might not be funny, but Esau’s gratuitous usage of the caps lock button sure is.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 11:08 am

heheh… yup — I believe that’s been the general consensus! ;^)

Lisa August 10, 2007 at 11:15 am

There are actually folks who judge a person innocent merely based on an assumption.
That’s nice, but you said he was “merely assuming” on the basis of one post. Now you want to say he’s judging based on that assumption? If he’s “merely assuming”, how is now judging?
Just who is the accuser here, exactly???
According to you, Carebear was proclaiming someone’s innocence.

Sifu Jones August 10, 2007 at 11:16 am

Carebear, comments like:
– Roman Catholic fanbois
– The Jimmy Akin crew
– A guy with a pointy hat
and so on say much more about you then your arguments do. The bitterness and disdain you present with such loaded terms take away a lot of the impact your comments might otherwise have — they tell all the RCs here that you have no respect for us, either as co-religionists or human beings.
Add to that your snarky “kewl”-ness when you say things like “give me your address and I’ll mail you a book to help you out” . . . I don’t know. I just can’t believe people here aren’t just ignoring you.
Also, I’m not entirely convinced you know what a category error is. As far as any of us know, you’re a college student with a very basic understanding of the applications of symbolic logic. And like a college student, you assume that we should all just roll over because you use “big words” like universal, particular, and logical fallacy.
Please — we don’t know you from Adam. Maybe you’re not an overzealous troll. Maybe you’re a professor in logic at some prestigious university. But all we’ll get to know is from what you tell us, and how you tell it.
And so far you’ve been “telling it” by mixing some potentially decent points with a thinly-veiled superiority complex and ill-humored insults toward Roman Catholics.
Perhaps you think Esau is being rude to you. That doesn’t mean you need to be rude to all the rest of us.

bill912 August 10, 2007 at 11:20 am

“Prove his actions offensive and I’ll recant.”
LOL at that one!

Churchmouse August 10, 2007 at 11:21 am

Esau,
From my interactions with you, you evidently aren’t a very rational person. There is NO reason for a White “disciple” to point anyone to Catholic Answers, let alone build up some elaborate hoax to discredit the Catholics here. That would be mundane. That would be tedious. Your theory is just a way to cover up someone’s malicious intents. Here’s what is rational. I did a Whois search and found out this info:
Domain ID:D148791841-LROR
Domain Name:JAMESRWHITE.ORG
Created On:04-Aug-2007 09:17:04 UTC
Last Updated On:04-Aug-2007 09:17:18 UTC
Expiration Date:04-Aug-2008 09:17:04 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Directi Internet Solutions d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.Com (R27-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:DI_471115
Registrant Name:to attn. of Mapname.com customer 3
Registrant Organization:to attn. of Mapname.com customer 3
Registrant Street1:P.O. Box 5121
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Riverside
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:92517
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.9512424988
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:whois-protected2@mapname.com
Admin ID:DI_471115
Admin Name:to attn. of Mapname.com customer 3
Admin Organization:to attn. of Mapname.com customer 3
Admin Street1:P.O. Box 5121
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Riverside
Admin State/Province:CA
Admin Postal Code:92517
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.9512424988
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:whois-protected2@mapname.com
Tech ID:DI_471115
Tech Name:to attn. of Mapname.com customer 3
Tech Organization:to attn. of Mapname.com customer 3
Tech Street1:P.O. Box 5121
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Riverside
Tech State/Province:CA
Tech Postal Code:92517
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.9512424988
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:whois-protected2@mapname.com
Name Server:NS.DEWDESIGNS.COM
Name Server:NS5.DEWDESIGNS.NET
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
The registrant organization is Mapname.com and they are based in Riverside, California. There phone # is (951) 242-4988. Maybe, if you want to get to the bottom of things, considering you indulge conspiracy theories, it’s a start.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 11:21 am

Esau,
As I have already proven, (the facts have not gone refuted), the pictures do not compare Roman Catholics to terrorists.
You must neccessarily ASSUME the following to draw that conclusion:
Those pictured are, in fact, terrorists and not just rallying Muslims.
And
The pictures apply to all Roman Catholics and not the select few that they are geared towards.
1. Not all Muslims are terrorists, no matter how much you presume them to be. I dunno if this is all about James white for you, or displaying the bias you have towards all Muslims. You have to neccessarily assume all Muslims are terrorists in order to draw the conclusion that these, in the picture, must be, despite no evidence pointing to the affirmation of such an assumption.
2. The pictures pertain to those calling for charity, yet give none of it to begin with. It’s an ironic display of hypocrisy, which has been successfully illustrated in the controversial pictures.
That you can’t understand that displays that you are ignoring the facts in order to fiegn disgust, or you’re just plain unable to deduce facts reasonably from the current situation.
Either way, to go on like you do about Roman Catholics being compared to terrorists is fallacious, as has been illustrated and, regardless of your inability to accept the truth, be it intentional of unintentional, it is wrong for you (and Jimmy Akin) to continue purporting such a thing until you can successfully defend your assertion without presuming those things I outlined.
Of course, I know both of you will continue on ignoring these facts, but, now that you have been informed you can’t claim ignorance of the subject.

Michael August 10, 2007 at 11:22 am

Islamists are the Nazis of the post-9/11 world, and thus anyone who depicts his debate opponents as Islamists automatically loses whatever debate was underway due to forfeiture.
As a German American I would be somewhat happy if this were true. Afterall, the societal paradigm for the last half century often seems to be: Nazis are evil; All Germans are Nazis; Therefore all Germans are evil. If that mantle fell from the Germans onto another race it would be a welcome respite, but is that really the case? Can you imagine if these had been doctored photos of German SS holding signs saying something like, “Gas those who lack charity.”? Do you honestly think anyone could get away with saying – Hey, I was only joking? Meh!

Churchcat August 10, 2007 at 11:24 am

There phone # is (951) 242-4988. Maybe, if you want to get to the bottom of things, considering you indulge conspiracy theories, it’s a start.
Why don’t YOU call them up Churchmouse, as you’re the one who had the questions?

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 11:24 am

Bill912,
It is the burden of one affirming a positive to prove their case first.
*wonders how long it will take before the latter part of the ‘charity’ sign is exercised on himself*

bill912 August 10, 2007 at 11:24 am

“I’ve been defending the posting of these pictures..”
Which speaks volumes about the poster’s character.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 11:27 am

ChurchCat,
How does that follow? Esau is the one with the consiracy theories. What questions has ChurchMouse asked specifically? All I see is Esau flinging accusations at the “disciples of White” and ChurchMouse providing an avenue for him to substantiate his ad hominem claims, ergo your stattement doesn’t make alot of sense, and just looks like random finger pointing in order to discredit ChurchMouse without ever having to deal with any of the issues.
Seems like that’s the tone of the day at jimmyakin.org though.

Trixy August 10, 2007 at 11:27 am

If that mantle fell from the Germans onto another race it would be a welcome respite
First tell us, what race are the Germans?

Dale Price August 10, 2007 at 11:28 am

A moment of nostalgia: this reminds me of the old late 90s Catholic Converts Message Board (tan background)–when you could watch the board scroll with new comments on a particularly energizing topic. Not always edifying, but it sure had its moments.
“Those were the daaaays…”

bill912 August 10, 2007 at 11:28 am

“As I have already proven…the pictures do not compare Roman Catholics to terrorists.”
This calls into question the poster’s sanity.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 11:30 am

bill912,
Anymore ad hominem onel iners or are you actually going to deal with the picture issue and refute me? Assuming you conclusion is circular reasoning, but this IS a RC webpage afterall.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 11:31 am

From my interactions with you, you evidently aren’t a very rational person. There is NO reason for a White “disciple” to point anyone to Catholic Answers, let alone build up some elaborate hoax to discredit the Catholics here. That would be mundane. That would be tedious. Your theory is just a way to cover up someone’s malicious intents.
Did you even read my comment:
“The point I was attempting to make earlier in this thread (since the website was again brought up as an issue) with my “Disciples of James White” Conspiracy Theory is that it is just as ridiculous as the “Catholic Answers/Jimmy Akin/Catholic Church” Conspiracy Theory.”
Also, it’s interesting how in your most recent comment, you have excluded the “White” disciple; therefore, would it be unreasonable for me to concluded now that you are pointing the finger at Catholics, since they would be the one, based on what you’ve been implying here and on the other thread, with the ‘malicious intents’?
Also:
Why in the world that you:
1. Made Such a Big Deal about it on the other thread
2. Continue to Make Such a Big Deal about it in this one?
Could Mary/Foxfire actually be right all along???
Hmmmmm…

Churchcat August 10, 2007 at 11:31 am

What questions has ChurchMouse asked specifically?
To quote from yesterday’s thread:
“Isn’t it a deception to use the url http://www.jamesrwhite.org to connect to Catholic Answers? Who would go through through the expense of buying a domain name to lead others to Catholic Answers? For that matter WHY would someone go through the bother?”

Kaiser Wilhelm III August 10, 2007 at 11:32 am

“First tell us, what race are the Germans?”
Krautoid.
Way to major in minors there, sport. You’ll get that casuistry degree yet.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 11:36 am

CareBear:
Of course, I know both of you will continue on ignoring these facts, but, now that you have been informed you can’t claim ignorance of the subject.
As you have, I can see.
All of this revolves around the debate between White and Beckwith.
It’s hilarious that you feel that facts from the debate is irrelevant when, actually, it is the very heart of the matter!

Trixy August 10, 2007 at 11:36 am

Way to major in minors there, sport. You’ll get that casuistry degree yet.
No, that belongs to the one who thinks Germans are a race.

Carl August 10, 2007 at 11:38 am

It’s hilarious that you feel that facts from the debate is irrelevant when, actually, it is the very heart of the matter!
Perhaps it’s the dark heart of the matter. The light heart was laughing.

Mary Kay August 10, 2007 at 11:40 am

Bill, right on the button.
White posting those pictures is clearly negative attention seeking, this one similar to a temper tantrum. When attention stops being paid, the screaming escalates.
As at least one person has suggested above, it’s time to stop feeding the energy machine.
Those defending White had demonstrated more than I want to know about them.

Aaron August 10, 2007 at 11:42 am

As at least one person has suggested above, it’s time to stop feeding the energy machine.
It’s time when it happens. Akin & Co. still had some more feeding to do.

Greg McR August 10, 2007 at 11:43 am

Every body now, to the tune of “You’re so Vain”
You’re so mean…
You probably think this post is about you
You’re so mean…You’re so mean
You probably think this post is about you
Don’t you? Don’t you? Don’t you?…….

Kaiser Wilhelm III August 10, 2007 at 11:45 am

“No, that belongs to the one who thinks Germans are a race.”
No, no–you’re much too modest!
Ignoring the thrust of an argument and drawing attention to a minor point is an important asset in the practice! Good show!
There’s an old zinger about the alleged slippery thinking of the Jesuits:
“A Jesuit will respond to a charge of killing three men and a dog by producing a live dog.”
I’d say you’re doing Magna Cum Laude work, with the prospects for a good minor in nitpicking.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 11:46 am

CareBear:
About the website, do you even remember your having levelled the accusation against Jimmy Akin and ‘his crew’, as you put it:
“By the by, http://www.jameswhite.org for the CA website url? Isn’t that a little…obsessive?
I mean, what do you tell people who stumble onto the site looking for theological answers who have never heard of James White? Wouldn’t they then be more intruiged to find out more about him, seeing as you deem him important enough to name your apologetics website after him? I suppose such a thing fits the logic and attitude of the mob though.”
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:09:37 PM
Just who is the ‘you’ in your comment:
“…seeing as you deem him important enough to name your apologetics website after him”

Trixy August 10, 2007 at 11:48 am

Ignoring the thrust of an argument
But I didn’t ignore the thrust of the argument. What did you expect, applause?

Esau August 10, 2007 at 11:50 am

CareBear:
It’s funny that you should say that I’m the one with the Conspiracy Theories when it was you who stated:
“By the by, http://www.jameswhite.org for the CA website url? Isn’t that a little…obsessive? …seeing as you deem him important enough to name your apologetics website after him?”

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 11:52 am

Could Mary/Foxfire actually be right all along???
*sniffles* You don’t BELIEVE me, Esau? Are you sure you’re in the Vast Angelwing Conspiracy?
PS-
Churchmouse, that is the height of rudeness. You shouldn’t cut-and-paste a huge amount of garbage into someone else’s com box. For that matter, it might have been nice if you mentioned that I told you where the information could be found.

Marshal August 10, 2007 at 11:55 am

You shouldn’t cut-and-paste a huge amount of garbage into someone else’s com box.
Maybe on his screen it looked smaller.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 11:56 am

This is DISHONEST folks! It is DECEPTION! Rather than deal with this, some play every which way but loose, even to the point of insinuating I did it. GOD knows who did it, but one thing can be certain, NO PROTESTANT would go through such extremes let alone steer folks to Catholic Answers.
Foxfire,
Churchmouse has finally revealed THE FINAL ACT — as seen in her latest comments above!
IT’S THE CATHOLIC CHURCH/CATHOLIC ANSWERS/JIMMY AKIN RESPONSIBLE FOR IT ALL ALONG!!!

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 11:57 am

Esau– I think the trademarked toy hasn’t realized that the .org addy is an auto-forward to another site, and thus doesn’t need to have the slightest relation to the site it forwards to.

Barry August 10, 2007 at 12:00 pm

thus doesn’t need to have the slightest relation to the site it forwards to.
It has to have sufficient relation to have set it up to do that.

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 12:00 pm

Barry- No, it doesn’t.
All someone has to do is know the URL of the site they wish to forward to.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Foxfire,
I think Bill can relax now since we now have confirmation that Churchmouse all along has been “pointing the finger” at Catholics, as stated for the record in her latest comments:
” one thing can be certain, NO PROTESTANT would go through such extremes let alone steer folks to Catholic Answers.”

Barry August 10, 2007 at 12:02 pm

All someone has to do is know the URL of the site they wish to forward to.
And enter it into the form so that it would do what it does. That is a relationship of some form.

I. Shawn McElhinney August 10, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Yet when Catholic apologists like Mark Shea act the same way, they get either (i) silent approval, (ii) public support, or (iii) financial support from the major apologetics organizations such as the very Catholic Answers that our host is the main apologist for??? The word “hypocrisy” comes to mind with this double standard (to put it mildly).
If there were genuine principles involved here then Jimmy would sanction a distancing from James White and Mark Shea but we know that Jimmy’s boss is bankrolling publication of some upcoming books from the very same Mark Shea. For if what James White is doing is wrong, then it is wrong all the time, not just selectively so -as in “it is bad when their guys do it but when our guys do it, well we will either not say anything, support them verbally, or even financially promote them and their work. So much for the Law of Non-Contradiction!!!

Kaiser Wilhelm III August 10, 2007 at 12:03 pm

But I didn’t ignore the thrust of the argument. What did you expect, applause?
Again with the modesty!
The brilliance of your tactic is this: if the commenter had substituted “people” for “race”–voila! Couldn’t call him out on sloppy usage.
(Though no one ever seems to call out Muslims who make “Racism!” accusations when they really mean “Islamophobia” [sic]. But what can you do?)
IOW, you’d have to find a more substantive angle of attack.
Or less substantive. Either way, it works. But you’d come up with something, I’m sure.

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Esau- true.
Apparently, my dad doesn’t count– if dad knew computers well enough to do web sites and got wind of this White guy, he’d probably set up a forward to a site that tears his arguments to shreds. He’s Protestant.

Trixy August 10, 2007 at 12:06 pm

if the commenter had substituted “people” for “race”–voila!
But he didn’t.
you’d have to find a more substantive angle of attack
Why would I “have” to? Do you presume I disagree with the main point of his argument?

Anonymous August 10, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Esau/Churchcat,
No, YOU are the one who indulged conspiracies and claimed that it was done to discredit Catholics. The onus is on YOU to prove it. The person who cited the phony link was “Guardian.” Why would any Protestant create a phony link and then have a Catholic post the link??? Are you that irrational? Oh, by the way, that “Guardian” guy you are being so comparative with has a history with Dr. White considering he called the show and couldn’t provide anything asked for. Look at the 08/08/2007 entry in Dr. White’s blog here: http://www.aomin.org
Gosh! The conspiracy must be deeper then we think.

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 12:07 pm

And enter it into the form so that it would do what it does. That is a relationship of some form
Barry- you’re really grasping at straws. Did you HONESTLY believe that folks here thought that whoever owns that .org addy didn’t know the address he was sending the traffic toward?
By that logic, I have a relationship of some form with Mr. Spock– I’ve been a fan for years, and have put up posts about him.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 12:08 pm

CareBear,
Did you not even remember your post????
“By the by, http://www.jameswhite.org for the CA website url? Isn’t that a little…obsessive? …seeing as you deem him important enough to name your apologetics website after him?”
Just who are you accusing here????
Your latest comment, just like Churchmouse’s, is all too revealing:
“Why would any Protestant create a phony link and then have a Catholic post the link???”

Churchcat August 10, 2007 at 12:09 pm

YOU are the one who indulged conspiracies and claimed that it was done to discredit Catholics.
No, I didn’t. You have me confused with someone else.

Jonathan Prejean August 10, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Greg McR:
So who’s got the guts to step up and make the call next Tuesday?…
Dr. White welcomes your calls at…

No one should reward this playground-level discourse. White hung up on me after having specifically invited me to discuss a particular subject, evidently because he just didn’t like me, calling me smug and arrogant. He subsequently made much of the fact that I allegedly “struggled to answer if the Incarnation is a unique event,” a clear instance of the complex question fallacy, yet when a Catholic does it (see Phil’s version and My Version), it’s a cheap debating trick. White’s is consistent about one thing: there is no principle that White is not willing to throw away out of sheer convenience if his opponent is Catholic.
So no one should respond to Hittchens or Dawkins because they are sometimes offensive? That’s a weak objection.
First, this goes far beyond being “sometimes offensive.” This is a basic inability to conform to moral principles and standards of argumentation, which even Dawkins and Hitchens manage to do despite substantive incompetence. Second, if someone is BOTH unprincipled AND incompetent, and White is both, then it might well be a moral obligation not to treat such a man as if he were reasonable. As francis03 pointed out, White’s arguments have been raised (and better presented) by dozens of other Protestants with better qualifications, so why bother with White, unless it is for the sake of a personal issue that White himself claims we should disregard?

Esau August 10, 2007 at 12:13 pm

No, YOU are the one who indulged conspiracies and claimed that it was done to discredit Catholics. The onus is on YOU to prove it.
CareBear:
You unhesitatingly state:
“By the by, http://www.jameswhite.org for the CA website url? Isn’t that a little…obsessive? …seeing as you deem him important enough to name your apologetics website after him?”
…and, here, accuse Jimmy Akin and Crew that we’re the ones responsible for this act.
As somebody earlier mentioned — it is the accusing party that must prove their case!

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Hey, Nonny, use a name, would you?
BTW, you may not have noticed, but the post you refer to is a copy of a post to this web site. We are fully aware of that post, seeing as that’s the only showing of Guardian so far.
Given that Guardian shows up, posts a URL out of the blue, vanishes and four hours later White has an angry post up, it does stink.
The whole point of the thing is that it’s just as irrational for Catholic Answers to do the auto-forward– given that those who follow White are unlikely to stay and read the site– as it would be for White to do it, just to have something to complain about. Although, given the most recent burst of childishness, I’m starting to think that it’s more likely than I thought….
Back to the point, the setup smells. Someone wanted trouble, and they were TRYING to make this web site be found. That is not in the interest of Catholic Answers, unless you think they are a bunch of very stupid people.
Given that the site was registered in a manner to best preserve anonymity, it looks like it was maliciously done; there is a chance that someone is playing a joke, though, and just didn’t want it to be found out that quickly.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Foxfire,
That’s what I was attempting to point out earlier:
“That’s what I couldn’t quite understand —
That is, why would “Catholic” anybody (e.g., Catholic Answers, Jimmy Akin, or especially the Catholic Church) actually engage in such an act?
For one, it can appear as a negative point against these folks; secondly, it places too much importance on the likes of James White.
The point I was attempting to make earlier in this thread (since the website was again brought up as an issue) with my “Disciples of James White” Conspiracy Theory is that it is just as ridiculous as the “Catholic Answers/Jimmy Akin/Catholic Church” Conspiracy Theory.”

Kaiser Wilhelm III August 10, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Compare: “Do you presume I disagree with the main point of his argument?”
With: Way to major in minors there, sport. You’ll get that casuistry degree yet.
No, that belongs to the one who thinks Germans are a race.

Well, let’s see–by ‘awarding’ him a casuistry degree, you are accusing him of specious reasoning. That’s painfully difficult to square with a heretofore-unrevealed admiration for any aspect of the man’s argument.

Barry August 10, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Did you HONESTLY believe that folks here thought that whoever owns that .org addy didn’t know the address he was sending the traffic toward?
He didn’t just know the address. He apparently typed it into the form after having paid money from his wallet with deliberate intent that it would forward to that address.
By that logic, I have a relationship of some form with Mr. Spock– I’ve been a fan for years, and have put up posts about him.
Yes, that too is a type of relationship.

Paul August 10, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Mr. Akin,
James White is, quite simply, a moron. His arguments are moronic. He is a moron not of necessity (for that would not be something to be held against him), but rather a moron of convenience. I think his stupidity is a defense against the Truth that is the Roman Catholic Church. And, as he is becoming more stupid, I can only imagine it as a sign that he is moving closer to Rome. His arguments appear as a patter of weak hands against the door of the Church, not sure if they are thrusting away or bidding entrance. I would not be surprised if White becomes a Catholic in the next few years. Given, of course, good charity and a clear head from those whom he listens.
Jimmy, when you take stupid things seriously, you yourself look stupid. I have a high respect, in general, to your excellent apologetics work both on and off your blog. And I do understand that this blog represents, to a certain degree, you feelings, and should be more raw than a formal article or text. Nevertheless, the seriousness you take these jokes from a fool worries me. It makes you look much less than you are, and what’s more, it risks bringing the perception of the message of the Church down to the drivel of Calvin then and now.
I myself found the pictures amusing, much like I find monkeys flinging feces amusing. I probably wouldn’t write a blog entry about it, though. Certainly not a serious one.

Lonnie August 10, 2007 at 12:21 pm

That is, why would “Catholic” anybody (e.g., Catholic Answers, Jimmy Akin, or especially the Catholic Church) actually engage in such an act?
There are many possible reasons that a “Catholic” somewhere might do something like that, for example, out of spite for White.

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Barry– whoot, eight bucks. I pay that much for a paperback. You still haven’t said anything that hasn’t already been said.
It is not a *relationship*. Relationship implies that it goes both ways.
It means he knew of the site, and knew of White. We can presume that he knew no love was lost between them. Can you get off this tangent and actually make a point?

Trixy August 10, 2007 at 12:24 pm

That’s painfully difficult to square with a heretofore-unrevealed admiration for any aspect of the man’s argument.
Yes, I have heard some people report thinking to be painfully difficult.

Kaiser Wilhelm III August 10, 2007 at 12:26 pm

How can you stand to be so precious, Trixy?
Your style is like cotton candy, only without all that painful grit.

Kevin August 10, 2007 at 12:29 pm

The cat is among the Pigeons

Barry August 10, 2007 at 12:31 pm

It is not a *relationship*. Relationship implies that it goes both ways.
A donor and a receiver have a relationship. It is not required that the donor receive anything directly from the other party.

JohnD August 10, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Paul,
Why do you think Jimmy has to blog on only serious matters? He blogs on apologetics, culture, humor and lots of stuff. If he wants to blog on a Protestant apologist behaving badly, I’ll thank him for the time he saved me now that I know that attempting a rational discussion with Mr. White is a collosal waste of time.

Ephrem August 10, 2007 at 12:41 pm

And, as he is becoming more stupid, I can only imagine it as a sign that he is moving closer to Rome
LOL

Greg E August 10, 2007 at 12:56 pm

I just wanted to clarify that I was the Greg who wrote about how to block referrals from Websites I am not the Greg that Thomas Aquinas wrote about. I don’t want there to be confusion.

Greg McR August 10, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Call him again Johnathan. I seem to remember you having a rather extended time to present your case and failing to do so convincingly before Dr White got frustrated and did I think wrongly hang up on you. Maybe you were under the impression that you were going to be in a safe place to just share your journey and not be challenged?
How about the guy who accused Dr White of multiple errors and deceptions with regards to the teachings of Rome and then phoned in to say he needed to do three months of research to come up with even one. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.

Anonymous August 10, 2007 at 1:02 pm

“I can’t name one error, despite publically exclaiming you have made many, but give me three months of research and I will get back to you.”

francis 03 August 10, 2007 at 1:13 pm

That’s the last time I even bother reading these comments. Shut ’em down now, Jimmy. Nothing good happening here, on either side.

Matthew Siekierski August 10, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Goodness, this is still going on?
The pictures White posted are offensive, even if intended as humor. Such humor detracts from any reasonable discussion, and if Jimmy thinks it’s useless to continue discussing things with White, that’s his prerogative.
I don’t see the comparison between what Jimmy did and what White did. White ridiculed Beckwith, Jimmy pointed out problems with White’s arguments (not in a very charitable manner, honestly), White compared Jimmy and the people here to Islamic extremists.
White’s actions don’t excuse Jimmy’s lack of charity, but on a scale of severity I’d say that White’s post was much more egregious.
Barry: Without knowing who linked the jamesrwhite.org website to Catholic Answers, any discussion of why it was done is pure speculation. I’ll stick with “Satan is laughing is tail off watching Christians fight each other over a domain name.”

Kaiser Wilhelm III August 10, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Mea culpa for my role in this. I got too acerbic for anyone’s good. Apologies to “Trixy” and anyone else offended.
Bowing out….

Barry August 10, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Barry: Without knowing who linked the jamesrwhite.org website to Catholic Answers, any discussion of why it was done is pure speculation.
Yes, other than to say it was done so as to forward from jamesrwhite.org to catholic.com.

Trixy August 10, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Apologies to “Trixy” and anyone else offended.
I wasn’t offended. It was a delight talking with you.

Matthew Siekierski August 10, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Yes, other than to say it was done so as to forward from jamesrwhite.org to catholic.com.
Well, there is that. But going beyond that is the “why” to which I was referring.

Greg McR August 10, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Yes shut em down before anyone notices what’s actually happening. Like for instance the constant personal character assassination and unsubstantiated accusations against one person in particular (James White). Someone even went so far as to register his name jamesrwhite.org and then point the site to Catholic Answers. (At our house we would blame the cat) I think you guys need therapy. Quick shut it down.

Brian Day August 10, 2007 at 1:33 pm

This thread has been painful reading.
Jimmy, please close the comments!

Jarnor23 August 10, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Someone makes horribly insulting pictures about you and your friends, and you publicly say this is wrong…
And somehow, people go out of the woodwork to attack you for doing so?
Wow, forgive me for being “uncharitable” but the level of willful stupidity exhibited by White’s supporters in this thread is staggering. It’s clear these people have no interest whatsoever in rational discourse. At that point it’s time to move on to more important things.
A final note: This is why the Internet is so annoying for debate. In the old days, saying really offensive and stupid things to someone might get you decked. Frankly, such things were a check that kept people more civil. The thought that words have consequences is sadly missing from this day and age.

Matthew Siekierski August 10, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Unsubstantiated personal attacks? Where?
Mr. White’s post comparing Catholics to Islamic extremists is internet troll-like behavior, and Jimmy called him on that.
Now what will you do about your own unsubstantiated attack? You have no basis for assuming that someone here or at Catholic Answers is responsible for registering that domain and pointing it at catholic.com, but it’s implied by your comment. Like I said earlier, jamesrwhite.org was registered 6 days ago….when was the start of this bruhaha?

JoAnna August 10, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Yes shut em down before anyone notices what’s actually happening. Like for instance the constant personal character assassination and unsubstantiated accusations against one person in particular (James White). Someone even went so far as to register his name jamesrwhite.org and then point the site to Catholic Answers. (At our house we would blame the cat) I think you guys need therapy. Quick shut it down.

Unsubstantiated? I’ve yet to hear James White claim that he DIDN’T post those pictures.

Greg McR August 10, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Someone registered it and then pointed it to Catholic Answers. Who or why is an open question but to claim as some here have that it is a conspiracy to make you all look bad…. well let me just say, your doing fine in that department already. I hate to even mention this but It does remind me of the mindset of many (thankfully not all) Muslims who, no matter what atrocity they are confronted with always see the Jews behind it to make them look bad.
Step up and play the man. Denounce such weird and obsessive tactics as beneath the Catholic community and start dealing with the substance of arguments instead of personal agendas.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:00 pm

“Mr. White’s post comparing Catholics to Islamic extremists is internet troll-like behavior, and Jimmy called him on that.”
Except White did not call all Roman Catholics Islamic Terrorists so yes, Akin jumped the gun and acted irresponsibly.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:01 pm

“And, as he is becoming more stupid, I can only imagine it as a sign that he is moving closer to Rome”
A quote for the ages. Perhaps you should all look to your own for blanket, ad hominem attacks against Roman Catholicism proper.

Terrence August 10, 2007 at 2:01 pm

You have no basis for assuming that someone here or at Catholic Answers is responsible for registering that domain and pointing it at catholic.com, but it’s implied by your comment. Like I said earlier, jamesrwhite.org was registered 6 days ago….when was the start of this bruhaha?
Where have you been? The brouhaha between the parties is of longstanding. It simmers in the background and bubbles up every so often.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Someone registered it and then pointed it to Catholic Answers. Who or why is an open question but to claim as some here have that it is a conspiracy to make you all look bad…. well let me just say, your doing fine in that department already. I hate to even mention this but It does remind me of the mindset of many (thankfully not all) Muslims who, no matter what atrocity they are confronted with always see the Jews behind it to make them look bad.
Greg McR,
I’m sure in the interest of a professed fairness, your having overlooked the following comments from the Pro-“White” folks was merely an oversight, no?
“By the by, http://www.jameswhite.org for the CA website url? Isn’t that a little…obsessive? …seeing as you deem him important enough to name your apologetics website after him?”
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:09:37 PM
“This is DISHONEST folks! It is DECEPTION! Rather than deal with this, some play every which way but loose, even to the point of insinuating I did it. GOD knows who did it, but one thing can be certain, NO PROTESTANT would go through such extremes let alone steer folks to Catholic Answers.”
Posted by: Churchmouse | Aug 10, 2007 10:51:50 AM

JohnD August 10, 2007 at 2:02 pm

//Step up and play the man//
And denounce Mr. White’s behavior, which is, after all, the topic of this blog entry, not some obscure web adress registered to an unknown entity.
And how does one person’s opinion speculation make “us all” look bad, precisely? Nice job sneaking in the hate reference (Islamists & Jews). I’d appreciate an apology.

Mary August 10, 2007 at 2:02 pm

There is NO reason for a White “disciple” to point anyone to Catholic Answers, let alone build up some elaborate hoax to discredit the Catholics here.
You contradict yourself within this sentence. First you assert there is no reason, then you observe it could be done to discredit Catholics.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Esau,
I was addressing the Roman Catholic apologetics community. When one happens upon a URL that leads direcrtly to Catholic Answers, what is one to assume? I’m not to apt to jump on the “conspiracy train” as you are. My bad for thinking Elivs is dead, the Loch Ness Monster is a fairlytale, and that James White and co. didn’t buy up that domain name and redirect it to Catholic Answers. I’ll ammend my positions and habits post haste.

Dale Price August 10, 2007 at 2:06 pm

“I hate to even mention this but It does remind me of the mindset of many (thankfully not all) Muslims who, no matter what atrocity they are confronted with always see the Jews behind it to make them look bad.”
There must be some bug in the water in Reformed country. “You’re acting like Muslims!” has become the house retort.
But, fine–Greg does have half a point (even as he remains metaphysically convinced of White’s sinlessness in the photoshop matter): the domain name thing is stupid and childish.
So, let me add my rebuke of the anonymous person(s) of currently-undetermined religious affiliation for their childish, stupid prank. It goes double if he/she/they all happen to be Catholic. It’s unworthy of Christian discipleship.
Well, then.
For all that’s worth. It’s not going to change a whit on this thread. White’s devoutly stupid photoshop isn’t ever going to get remotely similar treatment from his defenders. Par for the course.

Mary August 10, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Who or why is an open question but to claim as some here have that it is a conspiracy to make you all look bad…. well let me just say, your doing fine in that department already.
What? It isn’t funny to point out that the people who make vague accusations about the URL could have done it themselves?

Thomas A Kempis August 10, 2007 at 2:12 pm

I think those pictures and especially the insinuations about prof. Beckwith are rather offensive, yet we should not waste our time with enganging in vain discussions. Let us pray for each other!
“Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.” (The imitation of Christ)

Imperatorix August 10, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Someone ought to send this to Dave Armstrong.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Esau,
I was addressing the Roman Catholic apologetics community. When one happens upon a URL that leads direcrtly to Catholic Answers, what is one to assume? I’m

As I’ve stated previously:
— it is the accusing party that must prove their case!

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Dale– you know the really funny thing? Nobody has defended the URL thing, we’ve just pointed out that accusations are unfounded and assume the one accused are utter idiots.
Good idea, though. (your post, not the URL, before a troll jumps on this)

Anonymous August 10, 2007 at 2:17 pm

To Greg McR,
Your comment is interesting, you completely chastise Jimmy Akin for not debating James White and yet this is the same guy who refuses to debate Robert Sungenis anymore inspite of the repeated requests from Robert Sungenis. If James Whites position is so biblical what is is he hiding behind? Everyone really is fed up with the excuses.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:20 pm

What case?
I didn’t accuse anyone of anything. How was I wrong for assuming Catholic Answer and registered a domain name that led to their site, given the information that I had.
I had a url. The url led to Catholic Answers. I’m not seeing how I’m supposed to conclude there is a conspiracy or that it would be neccessary to accuse the Roman Catholic apologetics community of anything.
Tell me Esau, how often do you visit webpages and question whether or not the given url has been registered to that website, given that the url leads directly to it?
I never do, but then, like I said, I’m not as apt to jump on the conspiracy train.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 2:24 pm

I never do, but then, like I said, I’m not as apt to jump on the conspiracy train.
CareBear:
Didn’t you just point the finger at Catholic Answers — that they’re the ones responsible for that and, in fact, you even maliciously charcterized it by your own words!
Again, here’s the full quote:
“By the by, http://www.jameswhite.org for the CA website url? Isn’t that a little…obsessive?
I mean, what do you tell people who stumble onto the site looking for theological answers who have never heard of James White? Wouldn’t they then be more intruiged to find out more about him, seeing as you deem him important enough to name your apologetics website after him? I suppose such a thing fits the logic and attitude of the mob though.”
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:09:37 PM

Greg McR August 10, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Thank you Dale
John D.
I hesitated to use the analogy because I knew that it would be taken as something it was not and yet the point is I think a valid one. Why don’t the reasonable people on this site and I’m sure there are many just say that such conspiracy theories are plainly silly and do what Dale did?
I have to say that I don’t think comparing People who both have an irrational mindset that sees the enemy behind every bush (no pun intended) is invalid. The point is irrationality not hate. Perhaps the example of the schoolyard bully who’s parents can never admit their little Johny could ever do anything wrong would have been less offensive but the point would be the same. To think that Protestants were behind the site directing traffic to CA is highly unlikely and sounds like something OJ’s Lawyers would have thought up. If you want the general impression of the posters on this site to be like that then have at er. Surely you are not all like that… Are you?

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Uhhh Esau,
When was it considered a conspiracy to figure that a url belonged to the site it directed to? You’re not making a fat load of sense and you’re comming off even more deserate with this one.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Allow me to accentuate the latter part of your comments:
“I suppose such a thing fits the logic and attitude of the mob though.”
Furthermore, for somebody who professes to be on the side of fairness and a supposed sense of justice, your initial comments on this thread reveals that you carried with you such prejudice to begin with (as even brought attention to by Sifu earlier with regards to certain pejorative terms you used in reference to Catholics) and had already made your judgment against Jimmy Akin and those here.
Look at your initial comments in addition to the one above:
This is a rather convient way to “win” a debate without ever having to defend a word you say. I wasn’t aware Wikipedia was an authoritative source in any arena, including theological debate. I suppose I should brush up on my regulations though, that or Mr. Akin should deal with the issues.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 9:31:13 PM
“Soon as White says “Look, I’m sorry”– I’ll be cool with ‘im.
HAHA!!!! FAT CHANCE!!!! OLE’ JIMBO WHITE APOLOGIZE?? NEVER!!!! ”
I think this characterizes the attitude of Akin’s crew well and, oddly enough, corresponds with the general attitude of ignorant zeal held by those in the doctored photographs.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:02:36 PM

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Esau,
I think you’re grasping at straws here bud, what in the world was the point of that last post…to illustrate that I have levied the actions of Akin irresponsible and incorrect before I even posted? Wow, big discovery. That’s something I never denied, but, in fact, that’s the reason I posted.
So, what was your point?

Greg McR August 10, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Please don’t post anonymously.
I have heard White and Akin interact and it was professional and courteous on both sides. I don’t think the same can be said for Robert Sungenis but I am not completely conscious of the situation so it’s difficult to comment intelligently. Mr Akin should debate Mr White and quit hiding behind excuses.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Greg,
GODWIN’S LAW has spoken. Dr. White has lost due to an abigious law listed on wikipedia. Mr. Akin is the victor now, due to no truth or veracity on his part or his position’s.
GODWIN’S LAW HAS SPOKEN.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 2:38 pm

CareBear,
Do you even read what you write?
Okay, let’s first examine the url post:
“By the by, http://www.jameswhite.org for the CA website url? Isn’t that a little…obsessive?
I mean, what do you tell people who stumble onto the site looking for theological answers who have never heard of James White? Wouldn’t they then be more intruiged to find out more about him, seeing as you deem him important enough to name your apologetics website after him? I suppose such a thing fits the logic and attitude of the mob though.”
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:09:37 PM
– You accuse Catholic Answers for the url
– Characterize it pejoratively as “such a thing fits the logic and attitude of the mob though”
– Even defended Churchmouse’s comments which extended to the following:
“This is DISHONEST folks! It is DECEPTION! Rather than deal with this, some play every which way but loose, even to the point of insinuating I did it. GOD knows who did it, but one thing can be certain, NO PROTESTANT would go through such extremes let alone steer folks to Catholic Answers.”

Paul August 10, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Carebear,
A sad, sad turn of things, your response to a letter not intended even for you. It hurt my feelings. Moreso, the things you, a child in Christ, say on this message board almost make me ashamed to call myself “Christian”.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:43 pm

“- You accuse Catholic Answers for the url
– Characterize it pejoratively as “such a thing fits the logic and attitude of the mob though”
– Even defended Churchmouse’s comments which extended to the following”
1. I didn’t accuse Catholic answers of anything. As I already stated, I assumed the url was their doing, because any able-minded, reasonable person would firgure that a url naturally belongs to the site it displays. Again, my bad for not crying wolf when a dog barks.
2. Based on that information, one can then assume that CA is obsessing over White a bit too much which, let’s be honest, does fit the general attitude of those around here. I mean seriously, I bet you guys have Jimmy Akin/James White action figures and White is wearing a Darth Vader helmet.
3. I defended ChurchMouse’s posting of the information you needed to ascertain who obtained the url.
Love
-CareBear

Anonymous August 10, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Paul,
If defending against the irrational, overly-emotional, cry-wolf attitude of ten or twelve fanbois makes you ashamed to be a Christian, you need to seriously ask yourself some questions. For anything that I have said here, a Roman Catholic has said something the same or much worse, and I don’t consider anything I’ve said here to be bad.
If you pass judgement on me because I havn’t gone along with a happy-go-lucky attitude the whole time then guilty as charged. Look to the Roman Catholics here too, because they’ve done the same and much much worse.
Where in the world do you get off man? Check the mirror.

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 2:52 pm

As I already stated, I assumed the url was their doing, because any able-minded, reasonable person would firgure that a url naturally belongs to the site it displays.
… If they are utterly ignorant of human nature, maybe. I seem to recall that someone paid Google to make the top search for the current POTUS a “Bush is an idiot” site for well over a month. That cost a good deal more than this little stunt.
You are assuming that Catholic Answers is *stupid* and that is frankly offensive. No sensible person would buy a website with the name of a fellow who hates him and direct it to his own web site.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Paul,
A more accurate statement is the actions of everyone here make you ashamed to be a Christian. Don’t attempt to single me out because you want to attempt to dismiss what I say with yet more appeals to emotion.
If I somehow hurt your feelings than Esau should have pages more written about him because he has intentionally argued fallaciously, i.e. lied.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:55 pm

“You are assuming that Catholic Answers is *stupid* and that is frankly offensive. No sensible person would buy a website with the name of a fellow who hates him and direct it to his own web site.”
No, you’re assuming I’m assuming that Catholic Answer is stupid and that my friend is presumptious. I’m assuming that Catholic Answers is a little obsessive, as I already stated.

Paul August 10, 2007 at 2:57 pm

“I may be bad, or angry, or saying hurtful things. But at least I am not as bad as some of the others here.”
If you believe I am a Christian, if you believe Catholics are Christian, then correct me please in charity. If you believe I am not a Christian, then show me charity, please, even in my foolishness.
But please, in both, show love. I ask this only because I believe you are a Christian, a loved and precious child of Christ, washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb. I believe that makes you my sibling. So I don’t want to hurt you, in any way.
I apologize if I did.
But I would ask you to consider, carefully, what you say. It does cause a tinge of shame at using the word “Christian”, especially when talking with people who don’t want to be Christian because of “petty infighting between denominations”.
What can I say to that, in clear conscience?

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 2:58 pm

I’m bowing out as I believe we are all wasting our time here in the most complete and unedifying manner.
Grace and peace be upon each of you here and upon Jimmy Akin, James White, and Francis Beckwith.
The Lord bless you and keep you, the Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you, and may He lift up His countenance upon you and give you His peace.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 2:59 pm

If I somehow hurt your feelings than Esau should have pages more written about him because he has intentionally argued fallaciously, i.e. lied.
Just how have I lied, CareBear?
Again, you maliciously characterize folks without any evidence whatsoever, just as you have Catholic Answers here!

Edward August 10, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Word of the day, insane:
1. not sane; not of sound mind; mentally deranged.
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a person who is mentally deranged: insane actions; an insane asylum.

Inocencio August 10, 2007 at 3:03 pm

I just checked Jimmy’s Store he doesn’t seem to carry any action figures of himself or James White? Does Jimmy’s come with the white cowboy hat?
Just curious…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Ren August 10, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Does Jimmy’s come with the white cowboy hat?
No, it’s sold separately.

SDG August 10, 2007 at 3:08 pm

CareBear: If you look through Jimmy’s comboxes, you’ll see not infrequent apologies and admissions of error or wrongdoing from Jimmy’s readers (yours truly included).
Jimmy has publicly admitted errors and owned up to mistakes.
Has anyone ever heard of James White making a single mistake? (And of course by that I mean owning up to one.) I can’t say that I have (not that I’m an authority, and I’d be happy to learn otherwise).

Mary Kay August 10, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Again, my bad for not crying wolf when a dog barks
No, Bear. Your bad was imputing malicious intent on the most tenuous of circumstantial evidence.
Your inability and/or unwillingness to consider ideas outside of your own conjecture,
your inability and/or unwillingness to recognize that your perceptions may be filterd by a bias,
your inability and/or unwillingness to suppose that the world is larger than you are, that God is larger than you are…
all of which you clearly demonstrated by your assumptions that Catholic Answer was behind that website.

Esau August 10, 2007 at 3:18 pm

SDG,
What’s interesting to note is that Jimmy Akin doesn’t surreptitiously ‘erase’ the errors he’s made on this blog — unlike others I’ve observed in the past.
For example, when Jimmy Akin has stated something incorrectly on a post, you’ll still find the original statement he made there and that it had only been ‘redlined’ out (so-to-speak) with the appropriate corrected statement featured above the original one.
In other words, he owns up to his mistakes.
That is why I respect him.
That is why Inocencio wants to buy his action figure with a Cowboy hat!

Esau August 10, 2007 at 3:21 pm

No, Bear. Your bad was imputing malicious intent on the most tenuous of circumstantial evidence.
Your inability and/or unwillingness to consider ideas outside of your own conjecture,
your inability and/or unwillingness to recognize that your perceptions may be filterd by a bias,
your inability and/or unwillingness to suppose that the world is larger than you are, that God is larger than you are…
all of which you clearly demonstrated by your assumptions that Catholic Answer was behind that website.

Mary Kay,
If only I was articulate as you.
Your comments here are dead-on and what I was trying to express — rather poorly and without much success I’m afraid.

Mary Kay August 10, 2007 at 3:28 pm

This is a rather convient way to “win” a debate without ever having to defend a word you say
That’s CareBear’s very first sentence on this thread.
Funny how now that
his or her jumping the gun about falsely ascribing malicious intent to Catholic Answer and
after calling Esau a liar,
after continuing to escalate when several people asked to tone this down,
funny how now CB is bowing out because he or she decided this was unedifying.
Regulars here know that I try to show restraint, but I have to tell you that those “grace and peace” lines had me reaching for the barf bag.
Then again, maybe not surprising. All of a fabric to stir up a mess then walk away without cleaning it up.

Mary Kay August 10, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Esau, thanks but I think you were well-spoken here. Especially noting that Jimmy acknowledges if he misspeaks. The people here are rock solid in their faith, wise, witty and fun. I’m honored to cyber-know each and everyone of you.

Vols60 August 10, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Ok most of these comments are getting ridiculous–seriously. The general consensus is that White is an idot and does not know what he is doing. May I suggest that if that is the case then:
Peter Stravinskas and Bill Rutland should, under penalty of excommunication, never be allowed to interpret the bible publically again, Tim Staples should never be allowed to speak in public,Gary Michuta should do nothing but sit in an infallible silence and on and on.
The list can go on but the common theme each of these men have is that they have all lost in debate with White and the recordings make it painfully obvious. So my point is simply this: If White is such an idiot then be prepared to throw about 8 well known Catholic apologists as even bigger idiots than White.

Dean Steinlage August 10, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Can we give it a rest, just for a day. The egos are getting out in force, mine included.
There seems to be alot of talking past each other and just general crankiness.
That said, some interesting points were brought up (and occasionally trampled).
Just a side thought on this URL thing, why does the one behind it have to even be a professing Christian? Face it, some folk get a kick out of kicking over ant hills.
Vivat Christi

SDG August 10, 2007 at 4:15 pm

I doubt whether anyone familiar with White thinks he’s an idiot in fact.
I’ve met White and seen him debate. No question, he’s an intelligent and canny individual.
Any idiocy, therefore, is purely tactical.

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Vols60, you are mis-characterizing the “consensus”.
The closest thing we have to a consensus is that a lot of folks think Mr. White is being childish, and that many of his “defenders” are… counter-productive.
Dean– on the URL, yeah, that’s the one suggestion that none of White’s “defenders” ever paid any attention to, although– like I said when I first suggested it– it’s the most likely. It smells like a prank, like someone causing trouble.

Jonathan Prejean August 10, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Call him again Johnathan.
No, I will not. White got frustrated with me because I didn’t give the answer he wanted in response to a cheap debater’s trick. When I attempted to explain that participation in the hypostatic union was a well-known element of patristic theology, from First Nicaea to Chalcedon to Second Nicaea, he hung up on me.
Maybe you were under the impression that you were going to be in a safe place to just share your journey and not be challenged?
Of course not. I was under the impression that White would attempt to score a cheap victory without dealing with the substantive issues, which he did. I was not expecting him to hang up on me when it wasn’t as easy as he thought. For my part, I was demonstrating that I was not intimidated by such tactics and that there were important theological issues (like participation in the hypostatic union) of which White was completely oblivious.
How about the guy who accused Dr White of multiple errors and deceptions with regards to the teachings of Rome and then phoned in to say he needed to do three months of research to come up with even one. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.
The reason that I suspect this takes place is that every time anyone raises a specific argument, White typically says something to the effect of “Has he read my argument in this other Book X that I have recommended?” or “Has he not listened to my debate on X?” (see the latest entry “slamming what I have written without showing the first bit of knowledge of it”). Of course, appealing to one’s career without actually reproducing the argument is formally invalid as a logical matter, but as a practical matter, it means that pointing out an error in what White says on any given day is practically useless, because one basically has to purchase and sift through everything that White has ever said on any given subject and hope you don’t miss anything that would give White a hook for saying that he refuted the argument elsewhere. Likewise, if you use any statement or general observation, there will be an accusation that the surrounding context somehow excused the gaffe, meaning that one has to literally quote every single piece of the entire article, transcript, etc., in one’s answer. That’s why I started quoting blog entries from certain people is their entirety in my responses (for which, ironically, I was then chastised for going on at such length). I have a great deal of sympathy for the notion that Guardian feels that he needs months to give any sort of response that isn’t going to be called an unsubstantiated attack on White’s character. What he likely doesn’t realize is that he could spend three months or three years documenting the charge, and White would still do the same thing.
I have the luxury of having been personally subject to White’s blatant double standards in an inexcusable way (even his allies concede that he shouldn’t have hung up on me), and I suspect that is why Jimmy has opted to make this particular gaffe an example. But in most instances, one has to write a book-length work just to answer White’s numerous excuses for his mistakes in addition to pointing out the mistake itself. Consider that he has now written extensive multiple blog entries to justify what should have been an obvious mistake in his reading of Frank Beckwith to any reasonable person.
The point is that there is just no reason to talk to White anymore, because he is beyond reasoning. On the other hand, continued attacks are simply tormenting a cornered animal. In that respect, I think White is right to say “Do these folks really think that lying about me, slamming what I have written without showing the first bit of knowledge of it is supposed to attract me to this religion?” Everybody here knows he’s lashing out irrationally, and right or wrong, there’s no reason to be an occasion of sin by provocation. Just leave the man alone; he’s been hurt enough.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Here I go, getting baited back in.
Jonathan, that last little tidbit is an argumentum ad populum and should be recanted.
Everybody knows I’m right…right?
No, sorry, that doesn’t work.

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 5:35 pm

CareBear, *we don’t care* what insanity you want to bring out.
You’ve been violating logic almost as often as you call upon it.
Just leave already, and stay gone, eh?
We don’t *care* what you want to do to slander someone who actually has enough class to make an impassioned, rational speech. I don’t even agree with him fully, and *I* respect that class.

Dean Steinlage August 10, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Foxfier,
Sorry to repeat what you wrote before.
BTW nice site you have and congrats on the wedding.
Dean

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 5:36 pm

I know you don’t care, I can see that because you see pointing out the error of someone as slander.
Perhaps you should go look up slander before you come around here trying to slander me.

Mary Kay August 10, 2007 at 5:46 pm

Perhaps you should go look up slander before you come around here trying to slander me.
This from the person who called Esau a liar.

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Dean– thank you greatly; I have no trouble with you repeating it, since it seems that the prior times had no effect…..
Mary Kay- I don’t think it will work, since the guy keeps on misusing units of logic at whim. Seriously, it’s like someone googled “logical fallacies” and just started sprinkling them into their accusations.
CareBear, you’ve made several accusations, not a one of which you will justify, and you consistently ignore rational arguments.
Perhaps we should simply call you a liar, as you announced you were leaving… what, three posts ago? I don’t care enough to count.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Mark Kay,
I accused Esau of knowingly committing fallacy, and dilineated exactly how he did it. If he did it intentionally, that would make him a liar.
Slander is saying something not true, so perhaps you should consider what exactly you’re saying before you go shooting your keyboard off.
Foxfier,
I’ve backed up every single one of my accusations, blatantly going against the grain of the general tone around here. Have you substaintiated a single accusation against me? No. Esau has been the only one to even attempt to, and more credit to him for trying. The rest of your armchair apologists are just sitting back flinging the accusations sans any effort to back them up.
Call me a liar, you’d be right, any Christian would confess such a thing.

Greg McR August 10, 2007 at 6:24 pm

What a weak excuse Johnathan.
“He’s mean, mean I tell you.”
The guy who made straight out accusations of lying was given all the time in the world and he didn’t even have one example of any blatant misrepresentation or lie that he had slandered Dr White with but hey give him a couple more months….. So it’s slander first and ask questions later.
Now I see you don’t have any real reasons either except that he hung up on you in frustration after giving you an extended period of time to make your non point. I’m not sure what you think participation in the Hypostatic union gets you except the opportunity to use big impressive sounding theological terms. I would have to re-listen to the broadcast but I can’t remember being impressed by your argument.

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Call me a liar, you’d be right, any Christian would confess such a thing.
Amphiboly.
Slander is saying something not true, so perhaps you should consider what exactly you’re saying before you go shooting your keyboard off.
Oh, you mean like accusing someone of a logical fallacy, which you never did substantiate?
I’ve backed up every single one of my accusations
Liar. Example one listed above. I’m fairly sure Esau has listed a few, as well.
blatantly going against the grain of the general tone around here
Begging the question of when you proved that such a thing was true. If you mean your own statements, then my objection is withdrawn.
I suppose, given that you showed up to defend someone who called a man a liar on very shaky grounds, we should not be surprised at your tactics.
Well, my husband-to-be just called, so I’ve no more time to waste on you for a while….

Brian August 10, 2007 at 6:34 pm

You know how Jimmy always wins those Catholic blog awards? This time he should win the 2007 most Melodramatic. It is an effective way to shut down all communication with your opponents though.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 6:36 pm

foxfier,
Saying something is true doesn’t make it true. Perhaps you missed that part, you have to prove it is true or show it is true.
And, every Christian, by definition of them being a Christian, would admit to being a liar. It’s kind of part of the package deal of being a confessing sinner.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Brian,
If this is the best of the best, I’m not all that impressed. Considering his peers here though he is heads and shoulders above them.

Pilgrimsarbour August 10, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Friends,
I don’t expect any of you know me (from blogging, that is), but I just wanted to add a thought here. I was raised Catholic but have been Protestant for over 30 years. It is my hope that Catholics and Protestants can converse without all the rancour that I’ve seen since I started blogging in October 2006. I’ve decided not to give up on this, in spite of a few disappointing setbacks, of which I also have been partly at fault.
Before that time I was not really acquainted with any of the apologetics blogs on either side. I will say this, however. For my money, there is hardly a dime’s worth of difference in approach among most of the sites I’ve visited on both sides.
Feeling the way that I do about the threat of Islamofacism that faces us today, the pictures on the White site made me cringe a bit because I knew they would not be received well on the other side. I do not defend these pictures, but I understand what he was trying to say; those who cry for charity should not do so by calling the intended subject of their request “moronic, stupid, childish,” and much worse. In these contexts, repeated statements about needing to pray for the other guy ring hollow and insincere. However, I think it is important to note that White was making an analogy. It would have been wrong and far worse to have pictures of people who are obviously Catholic holding up such signs. Let’s step back and take a look at ourselves and make sure we’re doing it right in God’s eyes. As it is, there is enough uncharitableness to go around.
It is my hope that we can find a way to discuss the important issues of our differences without the personal attacks coming from both sides. Let’s see if we can’t tone things down and get back to some reasonable discussion on the issues. I can’t help but think that the average online lay person from both communions will have to take the lead in this matter.
I am fond of what talk radio host Dennis Prager holds as one of his key goals on his show: “I prefer clarity over agreement.” May it be so for us as well. And who knows? Maybe we’ll get a little agreement in there as well from time to time.
Please feel free to visit me at The Porter’s Lodge.
As always, God’s best to my Catholic friends,
Pilgrimsarbour

Randy August 10, 2007 at 7:19 pm

JAMES WHITE WINS
Think about it. When all this started Dr Beckwith was asking a pretty tough question. He was wondering why people accept a consensus of the early church on the cannon of scripture and don’t accept a similar consensus on penance and the real presence. Why trust one of those as absolute truth and dismiss the others as mistakes? Especially since all those things were so intertwined with the liturgy that the members of the Early Church could hardly talk about them separately? It was a pretty hard question to answer as you might imagine.
Then James White shows up. He makes his usual unfair swipes at his opponents credibility and intelligence. You know the kind where he says something without really saying it. Dr Beckwith sets him straight. Then we are no longer talking about the cannon. We are talking about James White. His favorite topic. So he had totally drawn attention away from the fact that he could not answer the question. He is very good at that.

Mary Kay August 10, 2007 at 7:20 pm

CB,
Here are some statements that you’ve made today:
Slander is saying something not true, so perhaps you should consider what exactly you’re saying before you go shooting your keyboard off.
Are you implying that I’ve said something untrue? If so, then please provide a specific example.
If you are not implying that I’ve said anything untrue, then “you should consider exactly what you’re saying” and “shooting your keyboard off” are rather hostile and aggressive phrases, an insinuation of wrongdoing which you can not substantiate.
Two comments that you’ve made about Esau, with emphasis mine:
Esau should have pages more written about him because he has intentionally argued fallaciously, i.e. lied. Aug 10, 2:54 pm
I accused Esau of knowingly committing fallacy, and dilineated exactly how he did it. IF he did it intentionally, that would make him a liar. Aug. 10, 6:22 pm
Which is it? Either you’re accusing Esau of definitely doing what you claim or the backpedalling second comment where you make a presumptuous assumption about Esau then qualify it by saying IF he did it intentionally, then he was a liar.
You can’t have it both ways, both definitive and conditional. So which is it?
You’ve accuse Esau of lying and/or intentionally being fallacious. Your username is new to me. I’ve read Esau’s posts for an extended time. While he may be at times over the top passionate, he has never been deceptive. It seems that once more your perception is colored by your something other than the statement itself.
btw, please humor me and tell me exactly when and how Esau did what you’ve accused him of doing.
Maybe you have a definition of being a liar. Perhaps from your view of theology. Please explain what you mean by And, every Christian, by definition of them being a Christian, would admit to being a liar. It’s kind of part of the package deal of being a confessing sinner. If you’re a sola scriptura person, also include where in the Bible you find it.
Any further discussion will have to wait as I’m heading to bed soon. Writing this response again reminded me that many of your statements simply do not pass the logic test nor debate skills, an observation that several here have made.

Mary Kay August 10, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Randy, right on the money.

Foxfier August 10, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Mary Kay– the Trademarked Toy only showed up after this deal started, that I’ve seen.
Less than two days.

Steve August 10, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Turn on the smoke evacuation fans and get back to the issues.

Aaron August 10, 2007 at 8:01 pm

I have one thing to say about “Dr.” White: Golden Gate Theological Seminary. Wow. Not exactly the Ivy League. Kind of a DeVry Technical Institute for theology. Instead of getting a degree in VCR repair, you major in Scripture. I can only imagine the level of discourse. The sort of conversation you might overhear at a professional wrestling match, I imagine.

Tim August 10, 2007 at 8:32 pm

You guys are down right mean :(, if I didn’t know better I wouldn’t guess you were catholics.

Tim August 10, 2007 at 8:34 pm

I wont let the people in this com box color my judgments on the catholic faith because I still have respect for it…but i wonder when i see so called catholics acting so uuncharitable and rude :(

Mary August 10, 2007 at 8:38 pm

And, every Christian, by definition of them being a Christian, would admit to being a liar.
And this after washing his hands of us and coming back.

Jeremiah August 10, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Aaron, Golden Gate is ATS Accredited. Your attempt to call into question their value as an educational institution is pathetic and sad.

Eileen R August 10, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Foxfier wrote ages ago:
Seriously, folks, ignore the Trademarked toy. I fully expect him to start into “depends on your interpretation” at any time now.
I’m quite disappointed I read the whole thing and the “Rejoice!” gnostic-troll didn’t show up.

Eileen R August 10, 2007 at 9:14 pm

For what it’s worth, if anyone’s still reading, I’d like to express my admiration for Jimmy Akin. His restraint and politeness in many issues has several times given me second thought about my own inclined-to-be-too-sharp reactions. I think he’s quite thoroughly a gentleman.
And that’s not actually a compliment I’d give to everyone on the home team, so to say. There are Catholic apologists I admire for other aspects who also have manifested sharp tempers like me. Jimmy just seems to me to give very good example in this particular area.

Dale Price August 10, 2007 at 9:32 pm

Your attempt to call into question their value as an educational institution is pathetic and sad.
Perhaps. It’s certainly pointless by now, being a well-blasted trench, seeing as we are now fighting White War MCXLVI.
But it’s not nearly as pathetic and sad as White calling Beckwith “‘Doctor’ Beckwith” in his exchanges.
However, I have every confidence you’ll find a way to excuse that behavior. White’s fans always do.

A Simple Sinner August 10, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Eileen – I read it, and I agree.
The vitriol and sarcasm tossed around the net these days is rather sad. Sad to say, some Catholics have adopted it as thier MO as well.
Jimmy on the other hand is just plain good person. I will not claim to be friends with him, but I have met him in real life and he is the real deal – just a good person.

CareBear August 10, 2007 at 11:37 pm

Mary,
I admire your charity. You are the reason those pictures are hilarious. Keep up the good work of proving those you hate completely right.

Mike August 10, 2007 at 11:41 pm

As a former catholic, Evangelical, and a devoted follower of White—- though we strongly disagree on the Calvinism vs. Arminianism issue….I wish to support his use of gallows humor to make a point. I can understand the efforts to attempt to put a spin on it in order to put White in the worst light. But are you all so devoid of humor that you cannot/willnot see how you prove his pooint ?

LJ August 11, 2007 at 12:29 am

My father had a deep concern, as a Baptist, for Catholics because he truly believed they were going to hell in ignorance. I discovered that he was honestly mistaken when I studied the Catholic faith.
I’ve listened to James White. I honestly believe that winning the debate is more important to him that really knowing the truth, or, believing as he does, trying to help Catholics get to heaven. Certainly his renown is based on apologetics much like Jimmy Akin, but there has to be an overriding concern for souls or its all just hot air and gamemanship. I don’t hear that concern from James White. IMHO.

StubbleSpark August 11, 2007 at 12:43 am

So James White has managed to appeal to pagan America’s substitute for truth by playing the part of the sainted victim. So put upon is he by the cacophonous calls for charity that he has to break the tension by putting up what he believes are a few innocent and humorous pictures.
That the pictures are offensive is completely immaterial to those few who come to his defense. (How exactly does one “prove” something is offensive?) Their main goal, as stated, has nothing to do with theological background to the flames of this controversy but is simply to defend the posting of the pictures.
Why?
What is so important about the pictures that they just cannot be taken down?
To those who defend the pictures, they are:
Appropriate
Funny
A fair generalization
Fine. You have made your point abundantly clear: we deserve it.
And you know what? I am half-beginning to think that we do in fact deserve it. We deserve the pictures. We deserve the Klan. We deserve the constant belittling by the Secularists, Protestants, and Muslims.
We deserve the society full of people who do not know the difference between between what actually occurred with Columbus, Galileo, the Inquisition, and the Crusades. We deserve Dark Age II with its superstitious fear of the supernatural soul and the supernatural religion.
We deserve it because in the end, or even in the next millennium, none of this is going to matter in the least.
But we will still be here. Watching nations fall and rise. Seeing entire languages disappear. Enduring hatred far worse than Rome or Central America or China.
God tests those He loves. And those who obsess about their victimhood can never be heroes.
Let us work with the Holy Spirit in bettering ourselves and send warm, heartfelt gratitude to James White for playing his role in this.
Thank you Carebear and friends! We deserve it!
Thank you James White! We deserve it!

catholicWayne August 11, 2007 at 12:49 am

About the “why” of forwarding of a website named james r white to catholic .com:
Marketing.!!!! like this.
Salesman: Mr White would you like to buy this webAddress off us for $95 if you get it now? Isn’t it terrible that people would search for you and instead endanger their souls by encountering the evil Romanists?
James White reply: are you or any of your relatives, friends, aquaintences Romanists?
Salesman: Uh,… I think maybe the guy who installed my countertops….
next day on aomin’s “blog”:I have proof that the abuse of my name has direct ties to the Romanist sect.
this was just a joke & no accusations were intended.This example suggests that the motivation may be free of any malicious conspiracy against or for James R White
Observations on the rest of this debacle:
1. Calls for charity should be charitible. However, the Bible sets forth a pattern of charity: confronting evil, treasuring prophetic rebuke, valuing- and practicing truthTelling and truthSeeking
This applies to both sides in every situation.
2. The fruit of Christ’s life in our lives is not an option. The daily dying to self, the seeds of every moment are to die for the sake of the Kingdom which is Christ our Lord. Only in this self emptying is an abundant harvest.
This applies to both sides in every situation.
3. God is not impressed by sophistry and manipulative actions. This applies to both sides in every situation.
good nite all.
I was an Anticatholic, Reformed Baptist, from (at least 3) previous generations of AntiCatholic Reformed Baptist Preachers
I was a baptist (Reformed)
I wish to credit Pastor Al Martin(N.J.) for introducing me (He was speaking at Jarvis Street Baptist & T.B.S.) to the theology of Union with Christ. This Teaching ultimately led me into the Roman Catholic Church 25 years later. ( I was slow :) )
(Of course, in that time, I did some theological reflection, and the doctrine developed into a more fully rounded & Biblical set of teachings. […I had to become Catholic to be faithful to the Scriptures and to the Teachings of the Scriptures. so should you all, including James White]
Tiber swim team 2005

Mary Kay August 11, 2007 at 4:24 am

Wayne, you make several good observations. I love the phrase Tiber swim team :)
Eileen and Simple Sinner, yes and I’m glad you spelled it out.
StubbleSpark, I get your point, but I would disagree with the word deserve. No one deserves maltreatment. You’re right that we will still be here despite any maltreatment. Jesus didn’t deserve his scourging. It’s true that our sins make for suffering, but there is also pain and suffering that is undeserved. But that could be topic for a whole ‘nother thread.
Mike, I’ve used gallows humor myself. During weeks and months when yet another suicidal kid had to be wedged in when there wasn’t time to begin with, times when the important gets dropped because if the new situation isn’t attended to, someone might come to serious harm or possibly die.
Medical staff, firefighters and police probably have their own versions of gallows humor. The common thread is a way of letting off steam, privately or at least non-publicly, in order to continue their job of preventing injury or death.
There’s a huge difference between that and the childish, tantrum-like posting of photos that are an angry lashing out. To excuse that as gallows humor is an insult to those who put themselves on the line and have valid claim to gallows humor.

Chuck August 11, 2007 at 6:57 am

The harted you guys show toward White actually proves the very point he wanted to make in posting those pictures.

Mike Petrik August 11, 2007 at 7:02 am

White behaves like a jerk. Calling him on it has nothing to do with hatred.

glowe August 11, 2007 at 7:09 am

Chuck…to the extent charity isn’t shown to Dr. White, I’d agree. And to the extent forgiveness isn’t shown, I agree. However, I’m not quite sure how familiar you are with Dr. White’s work, but his personal comments and his articles differ significantly in tone. One must wonder, if Dr. White truly feels it necessary to be nasty to people and use biting sarcasm and insults…why doesn’t he do that in his books or scholarly articles? Why doesn’t he do that in debates? If it’s good enough to post on a ministry blog, then it’s good enough for the other media. The reality is that Dr. White uses his “blog” on his homepage as a sort of venting system which completely sheds a negative light on the rest of his ministry. I don’t see why he lets his emotions dictate his ministry. He is allowing Satan a stronghold in his ministry, and I think he will find that ministry will not be as fruitful. If he truly thinks his ministry is fulfilling God’s commands, I would hope he would stay clear of this negative teenage banter. It’s not appealing at all. And as I noted elsewhere, I used to love reading his materials. As a Protestant, I use them all the time as references. Until I read his homepage, I didn’t know he seems so hateful and immature.
It’s not good for anyone to be negative in this way, and that goes for either side of things (Prot or Cath). Pray for Dr. White, but also pray for ourselves, that we wouldn’t get sucked in to such things. Even I, in this post, strayed into personal insult (and I apologize to Dr. White for those), but I will leave them to illustrate my point.

ukok August 11, 2007 at 7:44 am

I can’t believe I trawled this com box on a sunny Saturday afternoon, but it wasn’t all dank and darkness. Oh no,there was a gem amongst the comments, to be sure;
“That is why Inocencio wants to buy his action figure with a Cowboy hat!”
Personally, I can’t think of anything scarier than a J.A dolly. Although I think that Mr. White could find a use for one if he had a packet of pins handy…

deanswife August 11, 2007 at 8:34 am

Hey…if I’m going to be a member of “Akin’s Crew”…can I at least get the T-shirt?

Mary Kay August 11, 2007 at 9:13 am

deanswife, only if you know the secret handshake. 😉
“That’s a joke, son. Son, I say, that’s a joke.”

Mary Kay August 11, 2007 at 9:13 am

oops, forgot the attribution of Foghorn Leghorn.

Matthew Siekierski August 11, 2007 at 9:16 am

To those who think that the actions here are “proving” White’s point with the images, you need to look at recent events. Context is important.
1. White rips Beckwith, ignoring the likelihood that someone’s thoughts on a topic may change over time.
2. Akin rips White’s attack on Beckwith, with some ad hominem involved.
2a. I assume White also received e-mail from various people calling him on his actions…or he read the comments here.
3. White counterattacks by “humorously” likening those who disagree with his actions/statements to Islamic extremists.
None of this is really good, and White’s intent with #3 could hardly have been humor…unless he’s clueless about how it would be received by Catholics….unlikely. It was meant to incite people, and it did. Of course, he knew it would work out well for him in any case. Either Catholics would react, thus “proving” his point, or they wouldn’t, thus implying that it’s a reasonable comparison (after all, the Catholics didn’t object.) It’s akin to the Complex Question fallacy. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” There’s no answer that will satisfy the situation.
Now, to those defenders of White, I have a question. I’ve seen several Akin supporters in these comments admit wrongdoing, lack of charity, etc., without backing down on their position. (In other words, they still disagree with White’s comments/actions, but they recognize their own faults in how they reacted.) Can you say the same for White supporters? Or is it all about the “win”?

Jonathan Prejean August 11, 2007 at 9:45 am

What a weak excuse Johnathan.
“He’s mean, mean I tell you.”

Given that this wasn’t what I said, I don’t care about your opinion of it. Given that you are willing to offer an opinion on the call when you don’t recall it by your own admission, it seems that you also have a habit of offering opinions without checking the facts. I can’t imagine people will give much credence to the opinion of someone with such a habit, so please feel free to rant away.

Thomas Aquinas August 11, 2007 at 10:01 am

It seems to me that White lacks good judgment, a virtue that I learned from the Philosopher as well as Scripture. Here is a man, White, who sought and received doctoral credentials from an institution that is not regionally accredited and has none of the attributes one associates with excellence in theological research.
He has lived for some time in the greater Phoenix area, in which Arizona State University resides. ASU is a Pac 10 school. It is regionally accredited and offers PhDs in religious studies and philosophy. Instead of setting aside several years for the reflection that real doctoral work affords, and from which he would have profited at ASU, White chose Columbia Evangelical Seminary. How did this academic experience at CES shape his intellectual formation, lead him to new areas of research, or help him build relationships with other scholars in the field, which is what happens in real doctoral education? The answer is nil, since CES does not offer real doctorates. It is a notch above a diploma mill.
This does not mean that White does not know anything. It just means that he took a short cut in order to receive the title of “Dr.” without the usual formation that goes with the typical doctoral program. This reveals something of White’s character, his impulsiveness, and his lack of good judgment. This is why the same man who wants you to call him “Dr.” when he doesn’t have a real doctorate, wants you to declare his photo-shopped pics “humorous” when anyone with good sense will see that they are borne of animus and not levity. White, presumably, thinks that forensic justification extends to doctorates and humor as well, as if merely declaring them so is the same as making them so.

Greg McR August 11, 2007 at 10:19 am

Feel free to uncharitably construe my words in the worst possible light Johnathan. I do remember the conversation (although excuse me for not remembering every detail) it turns out my recollection was pretty good. I said I seem to remember he gave you an extended period of time and it turns out it was just under fifteen minutes. http://mp3.aomin.org/JRW/PrejeanCall.mp3
Here is the link so people can judge for themselves.

Greg McR August 11, 2007 at 10:22 am

T.A.
“This does not mean that White does not know anything. It just means that he took a short cut in order to receive the title of “Dr.” without the usual formation that goes with the typical doctoral program.”
Although not quite as fast as calling yourself “Thomas Aquinas” or is that the name your Mama gave you.

Lynchburger August 11, 2007 at 10:23 am

Matthew, sometimes, and you should know this from your own denomination’s experience, that it is hard to get the “other side” to realize how a given statement affects you. I have posted elsewhere that spewing forth denunciations like “moron” are not just hurtful, they are patently sub-biblical. When White does this analogy to jihadism to make his point, I think he does it out of a deep sense of frustration at how the “other side” doesn’t seem to perceive the inconsistency of their own message. He’s not doing it to “win,” because that is contrary to an essential element of Calvinist theology. We never win anything. God does all the winning. We’re just happy to be there when God makes it happen. That’s it. That’s the sum of it. If you look any further, you’ll be missing our point.
So White’s analogy is really intended to just get your attention, to help you feel the frustration he is feeling, to try and get past the “only-morons-doubt-the-institution-that-brought-you-the-Inquisition” mentality that just is so mind-blowing to people like me who haven’t been indoctrinated by it. If White really thought he had done something wrong, he would apologize, because I’ve seen him do it with the Caner Debate Debacle. No, I don’t think I would use the exact same approach, and I have no illusion that he or any other human being is perfect. Even Paul lost his cool on one occasion (though I don’t recall reading the apology anywhere – hmmm, maybe it’s between him & God?).
But I do understand Dr. White’s sense of frustration. I share it. And I think his analogy to jihad is an apropos means of expressing it. When you gulp down the unexamined assertions of any “one-true-agent-of-God-on-earth” organization, you will begin to stumble down a very dark and threatening path. We “protestants” have a collective memory of the horrors of the uncritical acceptance of Rome’s claim to authority, and when the same mentality appears in the modern guise of civilized discourse, we can nonetheless accurately analogize it to jihad-think. It is cut from the same cloth. This is part of what motivates conservative protestants to put such a harsh light on the historic abuses of Rome, because the mindset that occasioned those abuses is still there in latent form. It is an inherent part of both Roman and Islamic epistemology. Think of it as a healthy kind of check-and-balance system. We don’t want to go there again. That’s an act of charity if ever there was one.

Steve August 11, 2007 at 10:50 am

Re: Posted by: LJ | Aug 11, 2007 12:29:25 AM
I would hope that anyone involved in a debate, would do so with the intent of winning the debate. Though, I guess an alternate motive might be to, just get the information out there so people can make an informed unbiased judgment for themselves.
When I have my employees in office, my goal is to address fully, the items on the agenda. It would be unfair for anyone to criticize me in the context of a team meeting for not being much of a coach (one of my other responsibilities).
Christians have many roles. Remember, the body has many members, many gifts. We, depending of context and abilities/gifts, use the appropriate skills, for the task at hand.
I have heard James White in debate also and he has always stuck to the task at hand and done so, in a Christ like manner.

Mary August 11, 2007 at 11:02 am

But I do understand Dr. White’s sense of frustration. I share it. And I think his analogy to jihad is an apropos means of expressing it.
And why do you think it apropos?
Does it convey the information that you claim that he wants to convey, namely: “When White does this analogy to jihadism to make his point, I think he does it out of a deep sense of frustration at how the ‘other side’ doesn’t seem to perceive the inconsistency of their own message.”?
If you believe that, go re-read this thread.
He’s frustrated. He’s angry with us. But all available evidence is that “inconsistency” has nothing to do with his annoyance.

Mary Kay August 11, 2007 at 11:06 am

Lynch, there are several holes in your post.
When White does this analogy to jihadism to make his point, I think he does it out of a deep sense of frustration
Many people can express frustration quite effectively without resorting to photos like those.
doesn’t seem to perceive the inconsistency of their own message.
Again, there are far more effective ways to communicate that one perceives an inconsistency.
He’s not doing it to “win,”
So you’re so close to White that he confides his motivation to you?
Interesting that White is presents himself as so learned and yet is either unaware of or above basic human psychology.
I share it.
Please clarify your frustration for me. Is it the “collective memory” of Catholicism or individual Catholics? If Catholicism as a whole, then those who have stated that White is particularly antagonistic to White are correct.
the horrors of the uncritical acceptance of Rome’s claim to authority
What “horrors” are you referring to?
Whose “uncritical acceptance” are you referring to?
How much of early Church history and/or Church Fathers have you read?
accurately analogize it to jihad-think
Certainly you can make whatever analogy you want, but comparing Catholics to jihadists is not accurate.
put such a harsh light on the historic abuses of Rome
Are you willing to put an equally “harsh light” on the historic abuses of Protestants?
the mindset that occasioned those abuses
What mindset?
both Roman and Islamic
Clearly you do not know either Catholic theology or history if you liken it to Islam.
healthy kind of check-and-balance system
What are you talking about?

Foxfier August 11, 2007 at 11:09 am

Now, Mary, logic is uncharitable!
Or so it seems, from the various wails here…..

CatholicWayne August 11, 2007 at 11:10 am

Steve:
Everyone who is joined to Christ is under the obligation, the call, to stimulate one another to love and good deeds. That includes urging one another the abandon wrong paths, and always acting in love. ie urging one another to fully live the gospel in every aspect of our life.
I’m sure you would agree on this…
…and that is why your reply wrongly neglects the call given to you when you were joined to Christ.

Mary Kay August 11, 2007 at 11:19 am

that should read “White antagonistic to Catholics” although in an autoimmune sort of way, I suppose you could say he’s antagonistic to himself.
Foxfier, :^)
(ps, I go by Mary Kay. There’s another Mary here also.)

Mary Kay August 11, 2007 at 11:20 am

Foxfire, my mistake. I didn’t see that Mary posted just above.

bill912 August 11, 2007 at 11:20 am

It’s useless to try to reason with anyone who could defend those photos. As Francis03 posted near the top of this thread, those pictures represent 2,000 ugly words.

Foxfier August 11, 2007 at 11:26 am

Mary K– we were posting at the same time, but I hereby declare that it applies to you, too.
*grin*

CatholicWayne August 11, 2007 at 11:47 am

Lynchburger: I used to be so much where you are!!
The horrors and dangers of catholicism were judged to be so pronounced as to excuse or require ‘harsh []charity’. Your impression of latent threats comes from an inculcated hermeneutic of suspicion. You are at this probably quite impervious to argument, and logic.
I will, therefore, just urge you 1] to grow deeply in the love and truth of the Lord Jesus Christ, bearing God’s fruit in every field of your life. 2]Cherish and love the Holy Scriptures, being careful to not impose your theological structures upon its message. and 3] learn church history, archaelogy and let that information soften your “collective memory” [which is another word for ’embedded prejudice’. That is what ‘anti-catholic’ is, you know. Thank you for your contribution.
oh…perhaps research the concepts in catholic moral theology of rash judgement.
another oh… Doing evil that good might result is not
good for the soul.

Mary August 11, 2007 at 11:55 am

When you gulp down the unexamined assertions of any “one-true-agent-of-God-on-earth” organization, you will begin to stumble down a very dark and threatening path.
Given that Jesus Himself warned that you should count the cost before becoming a Christian, you have to explain why something being dark and threatening is an argument against it.

Mary August 11, 2007 at 12:04 pm

How horribly uncharitiable we are! Logic! Rebuking the sinner!
We ought to follow the example of Jesus, who, face with liars, said, err, um, err — said “You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.”
If strong language to rebuke a sinner is uncharitable, we have a little problem here.

Paul R. Hoffer August 11, 2007 at 12:20 pm

To all concerned, perhaps all of us, Mr. White and myself included, needs to read more John Henry Newman:
“May no one be less good for having come within my influence.
No one less pure, less true, less kind, less noble for having been a fellow traveler in our journey toward eternal life.” ~from Learning Christ

Clark August 11, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Does it convey the information that you claim that he wants to convey, namely… If you believe that, go re-read this thread.
And a re-read of the thread shows that it has indeed conveyed that message to a number of people.

Laser August 11, 2007 at 12:55 pm

CatholicWayne:
There apparently are two people using the user name Steve. Who are you replying to?

StubbleSpark August 11, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Mary Kay,
With all due respect, I do not think you got the gist of what I was saying.
But that was my fault because I was not clear in my intentions.
We do not deserve the ridicule of White like bad men deserve punishment.
We deserve the ridicule of White like good children deserve cake.
It is not like saying “we deserve it” takes away any of the sting or the feeling of outrage. On the contrary, the greater the outrage, the more delicious the cake.
We deserve it as a badge of honor or a crown of glory and we should wear it with dignity and pride.
Many have said already: White’s actions are designed to deliberately repel the very same people he seeks to convert.
But what about us?
Look beyond the theater.
Beckwith’s conversion is probably the most upsetting thing that happened to White since his sister became Catholic. He has all the time in the world to press Beckwith for answers to his questions but the sense of desperate urgency and impatience in his posts reveals something beyond normal panic. Remember the last time you *actually* did not know whether to laugh or cry? It was not pleasant, was it? It probably was the worst the day of your life. Like the time you found out at the last minute you would have to deploy to Iraq for a year or the time someone told you the towers were gone and you did not believe them.
All this, all this bickering and finger-pointing and anger (justified though it may be), all of this is just part of a drama. We have been sucked into it because White needed something else to direct his attention to. Something to keep his mind occupied from the horror. The lonely hermetic cell is calling him to quiet, prayerful contemplation and he is running from the silence where the voice of God resides.
And the drama is helping to keep him from his salvation.
As his brothers in Christ, we have a higher calling than Cain. We have an earthly duty to be intercessors. So while it is true there is such a thing as the sin of omission, we have to remember that prudence and patience are virtues as well.
The only thing that keeps the trolls here is our inability to honestly express gratitude to White for the credit he bestows upon Holy Mother Church and, by extension, us.

Mary August 11, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Clark — I’m not interested in buying any bridges.

Prophylaxis August 11, 2007 at 1:07 pm

We have been sucked into it because … The lonely hermetic cell is calling [us] to quiet, prayerful contemplation and [we are] running from the silence where the voice of God resides.
A few minor edits help it along.

Mary August 11, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Stubblespark — it might even help the White apologists who seem to fear the same silence.
But what about lurkers?
What about the people who come to here six months from now? Should we leave them the impression that the claims against us are irrefutable?
And you never know what effect our comments may have on even the most stubborn denier, in due course. “I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.”

Clark August 11, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Clark — I’m not interested in buying any bridges.
Then don’t buy your own, because it’s no better.

Anonymous August 11, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Matthew 12:33-37
“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

SDG August 11, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Of course, he knew it would work out well for him in any case. Either Catholics would react, thus “proving” his point, or they wouldn’t, thus implying that it’s a reasonable comparison (after all, the Catholics didn’t object.)

Very insightfully put, Matthew.
Of course if we all took to heart the words Paul Hoffer quoted from Cardinal Newman (“May no one be less good for having come within my influence. No one less pure, less true, less kind, less noble for having been a fellow traveler in our journey toward eternal life”), it would be harder to score points against us in this fashion.
That’s not to obviate your other insightful point:

I’ve seen several Akin supporters in these comments admit wrongdoing, lack of charity, etc., without backing down on their position. (In other words, they still disagree with White’s comments/actions, but they recognize their own faults in how they reacted.) Can you say the same for White supporters? Or is it all about the “win”?

Yes, I think there is something here, and it’s not just among the supporters of Jimmy and James; it begins at the top. Jimmy can admit a mistake; I don’t know whether James can.
In that respect, StubbleSpark, I appreciate your adventurous thinking, though it seems to me that we do need some lumps to go with our cake. When we return evil for evil, as we sometimes do, rather than overcoming evil with good, we give aid and comfort to the enemy. Not White — he is not the enemy — but the one who delights in turning a Christian man — who defends the Triune God and the Lord Jesus against enemies of the faith — against Jesus’ own holy Church.
It’s like Nietzsche said: “His disciples will have to look more saved if I am to believe in their Savior.” Or like Chesterton said: “There is only one unanswerable argument against Christianity: Christians.” In this case, Catholics.
Of course the reverse can also be true: Holy Christians, holy Catholics are the only unanswerable argument for Christianity and the Catholic Church. We will never bludgeon the James Whites or the Steve Camps of the world into the Catholic Church with triumphalist rhetoric or withering sarcasm — and, really, we aren’t trying to. Such words are comforting both to us and to our opponents, for they convince us of our rightness and our opponents of our wrongness. They make the divide wider, thereby reassuring those on both sides that they don’t have to take seriously the other side or those on it. But they don’t make it easier for those on the other side to get across.
Humility, gentleness, courtesy, charity, respect, equanimity, charity… rejecting anything that smacks of superiority, ego, disdain, triumphalism, abusiveness, dismissiveness… ah, there’s an argument that’s very, very hard to refute.
I point out the way. I don’t remotely claim to have walked it myself with any consistency.

StubbleSpark August 11, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Mary,
There will always be lurkers. But if anything has been communicated in the 400-and-counting comments posted here, is that we feel the pictures are offensive and the comparison unjustified. Jimmy’s post points this out very clearly from the outset. Your posts have said it. My posts have said it.
I think it is safe to say any rational person would come to that conclusion. As for those who are not rational, discourse is not the way into their soul. Apologetics cannot do everything, you know.
We still have recourse to mysticism, prayer, meditation, and personal sanctity.
Let me share with you one of the Rules of Strider for Apologetics (and I am making this up off the top of my head):
Be willing to plunge headlong into the endless expanse of murky swamp to get where you need to go but do not be willing to luxuriate in it.
Realize that the only place an omnipresent God cannot be is in the heart of those who refuse Him. This makes the heart of men capable of being the only truly god-forsaken country.
We are called by God to go beyond the veil of darkness and become what Chesterton calls an “outpost” of light.
But our home is elsewhere and we should long to return.
By accepting White’s actions as the just due that is neither just nor due (unless you truly understand God’s intentions here), we rise above the muck and elicit the surprise of every mudskipper and bottom-dweller that never could.
I am certain I have confused you with my hopelessly mixed metaphors but that really is the best I could do at this hour.
God bless James White.
Praise God for the gift of James White.

StubbleSpark August 11, 2007 at 2:36 pm

StubbleSpark’s epiphany for the day:
In preparation for teaching RCIA, I used to think that I needed to wear my Apologist’s hat when I taught but I started to run into annoying problem: people in RCIA *want* to be Catholic. So I ended up feeling frustrated — like I was not reaching my students — because my best verses and salvos of logic went unused.
I realized that apologetics are, by the very meaning of the word, defensive. Kind of like Aikido, if someone does not throw a punch, you really cannot do anything.
I realize now (and I am sure I am not the first) that mysticism is truly offensive (in military meaning of the word).
Just as SGD said, the unanswerable argument for the Faith are holy Catholics.
But one of the problems with being a mystic is that you cannot really go around telling people you are an “amateur mystic” like you can tell people you are a professional or amateur apologist. In the very claiming of oneself a mystic, the cynical paganism of the day would interpret it as unholy pride and therefore the proclaiming would discredit the claim.
But the simplest definition of the word “mystic” only means one who loves God very much. None of us hesitate to proclaim this from the treetops when given the chance, why not at least be concious of the fact we are all trying to attain some degree of mysticism.
It is a bit off-topic, I know. (But what a nice thread it would make, hint hint). Mysticism demands the response that can not be countered.
Thank you Carebear and friends, and God bless you all.
Thank you James White, and God bless you.

Stu August 11, 2007 at 4:18 pm

I appears to me that Dr. White is simply a bit challenged by Dr. Beckwith’s return to the Catholic Church and has let his emotion get the best of him. Pity.
~Stu

LJ August 11, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Well said, SDG.

CatholicWayne August 11, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Laser, asked CatholicWayne on | Aug 11, 2007 12:55:01 PM
There apparently are two people using the user name Steve. Who are you replying to?
The steve that wrote at Aug 11, 2007 10:50:06 AM
And I think steve’s post was in reply to a request that white’s faithful at least not attempt to justify his wrong action(Stubblespark).

Randy August 11, 2007 at 6:52 pm

It has long been the subject of debate what the right response is to anti-catholic excesses. I know Dave Armstrong believes in noting them at least. By noting them it is hard not to characterize them in some fashion. That kind of gets you very close to the mud and sometimes you fall in. We could ignore it altogether. That hardly seems right. Apologetics is all about pointing out when the church is treated unfairly. Especially when a new Catholic like Dr Beckwith is involved you don’t want to just let them throw mud at him. So you respond. Instead of apologizing he makes even more outrageous statements. Now what? Respond even stronger? Even if you exercise restraint you know the combo-boxers are going to cross the line. At some point the one who turns the other cheek wins.

Dozie August 11, 2007 at 7:52 pm

“I appears to me that Dr. White is simply a bit challenged by Dr. Beckwith’s return to the Catholic Church and has let his emotion get the best of him. Pity”
And there lies my bewilderment! For a man who believes in a “savior who saves perfectly and not one who simply tries to save but fails” and one who believes that all that the Father gives will be found by Jesus; in other words, those who will be saved must be saved regardless of what anyone does. How come this individual has no peace of mind?
Why is this man the best known Protestant “a-pugilist” on the net? How is it that he is the most ferocious agitator on the internet worrying about who crossed to Rome or even about Rome’s doctrine? Can Rome’s doctrines affect anyone’s salvation after all, contrary to the belief in irresistible and assured salvation? What is the man afraid of? A person who believes what this man teaches (see his blasphemy against God in his London -Godtube program) should be calm and saying to the rest of the world, “what are these people worried about; God has already saved those who are savable”. He is not doing so, instead, we are fed with his restlessness. Notice that wherever this man’s name is mentioned on the internet, God’s name is insulted – by default. For a man who supposedly has wife and children… I just wonder about his use of time. How does this man feed? Does he give account of his ministry’s collections and how he spends his time and resources? I wonder, I wonder.

Jorge August 11, 2007 at 8:30 pm

James White has *not* completely lost it. What’s so amazing about this whole thing is how many of *you* have lost it. (A quick glance at the content of the comments posted here testifies to this very thing.) Rather than engage the *real issues* in this whole debate, such as the arguments Dr. White has presented to Dr. Beckwith against certain Roman Catholic doctrines, everyone has decided to focus on two pictures and a man’s character.
Thanks, Jimmy, for taking the focus of the 800 pound elephant and drawing everyone’s attention to the fly on the wall! While most are happy with the fly, there are still many of us waiting for the elephant to be addressed.

Mary August 11, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Rather than engage the *real issues* in this whole debate, such as the arguments Dr. White has presented to Dr. Beckwith against certain Roman Catholic doctrines, everyone has decided to focus on two pictures and a man’s character.
You means White’s claims that Beckwith couldn’t really have read the documents from Trent in his twenties? We’ve already engaged that, in the only way possible. Check out the “Amazing. Simple Amazing” thread.

Foxfier August 11, 2007 at 9:07 pm

Jorge– Just as Mary said.
If you are going to consider White calling a man a bald-faced lair a “real issue”…. Well, perhaps you should look elsewhere for those who have lost it.
Perhaps you are not pleased at the entire point of this post and of the previous one isn’t the topic you want, but it’s rather childish to show up and insist that it means we’ve all “lost it” and that Jimmy is trying to deceive or misdirect everyone?

Eric August 11, 2007 at 9:07 pm

Mary,
No that is not the real issue, I think Jorge is refering to White’s serious questions on Indulgences, The thesaurus meritorum, Immaculate conception, Bodily Assumption, Papal Infallibility, and on whether any church bishop taught these things when the Council of Nicea convened, around 318. Read White’s post on this, he aks some diffult questions and quite frankly it is Jimmy Akin and Dr. Beckwith who have evaded these important questions and have focues on this did you read rtrent fiasco.
I want to see the real issues addressed either by Jimmy Akin or Frank Becjkwith!

Eric August 11, 2007 at 9:11 pm

Foxfier,
This is amazing, the trent thing wasn’t the real issue at all. James White asked some legitimate and tough questions. People are acting like all that was said what the trent comment. And I don’t blame them because Jimmy Akin focused upon it instead of the real issues.

Foxfier August 11, 2007 at 9:20 pm

Eric– Judging from the actions of White himself, he disagrees with you. He felt the need to change the topic from actual theology to accusations and insults.

Eric August 11, 2007 at 9:32 pm

Fox,
In the interview Beckwith never indicated that he had ever read trent, he assumed that everyone knew he did – but what he said would easily give you the impression that he hadn’t read it. Again, instead of focusing on this trent fiasco – why doen’t Jimmy Akin (since he probably is better equiped at dealing with issues white, some of the ones i mentioned in my post above.) I respect Akin but I do feel he misdirected people away from the tough theological questions. It’s cool though it’s not like this even matters in the long run, it’s the internet after all.

J.R. Stoodley August 11, 2007 at 9:43 pm

Rather than engage the *real issues* in this whole debate, such as the arguments Dr. White has presented to Dr. Beckwith against certain Roman Catholic doctrines, everyone has decided to focus on two pictures and a man’s character.
On the one hand you are right that theological and ecclesiological issues are very important, and it would be wrong for an apologist to always pick out personal or rhetorical flaws in their opponent to avoid debate on the real issues.
If however you have been reading this blog as long as I have you will know that neither Jimmy nor many of the regular combox contributors are ones to shy away from real meaningful debate on these meaningful subjects. Also, even the more knowledgeable anti-Catholics will recognize that there is no lack of historical, philosophical, or even Biblical support for Catholicism. One I read compared Catholicism to a tall, beautiful, magnificent cathedral whose pillars of doctrine rise and conjoin in the heights into perfectly executed arches. Being an anti-Catholic of course he ultimately interpreted this as a negative thing and said the Protestant Reformation had torn open the ceiling of the cathedral to let the light of God in. I obviously disagree with that last part, believing the undeniable beauty and rationality of the “cathedral” is the very beauty and consistency of the truth and far from keeping the light of God out is filled with and reflects that light, but the point remains that there is no lack of backing or consistency or intelligence in Catholic doctrine or apologetics, and I can speak from experience that Jimmy et al. are quite good at presenting this, and doing it in an easy to understand manner at the same time, when the situation is appropriate for such discussions.
This particular debate therefore is not about avoiding the real issues and focusing on more trivial matters. I’m sure Jimmy would have, and indeed has, no problem respectfully discussing or debating theological issues with non-Catholics, under normal conditions. In this case however, we see an individual Protestant apologist who has humiliated himself and his cause by his attitude and behavior.
It must be pointed out that this behavior does not automatically mean everything he says is false. For one thing I’m sure we Catholics agree with a whole lot of his beliefs on basic Christian truths and on many social issues. Besides, there are nuts in every faith or philosophy. Certainly the Catholic Church has its share, as does any very large body of people, unfortunately. You have to expect to encounter such things with fallen human nature what it is. The existance of such people, whose sin or irrational behavior is generally just the far end of a spectrum we are all on, does not prove or disprove anything.
I would hope that even those who agree with White philosophically and even were previously fans of his based on the similarity of his ideas to theirs, and also for the sake of fairness also we who disagree with him on these larger issues, will be able to separate the sin from the sinner and from the message, not lumping all automatically as bad or good. The issues deserve to be considered on their own grounds, but this reprehensible action and even his bad debating skills should be mentioned when it rises to so inexcusable a level, remembering to do so with charity and perspective and an attempt at understanding of course. We must not sink to the same level he has.

Eric August 11, 2007 at 9:46 pm

I think Jimmy Akin is a brilliant thinker and he can articulate deep and c omplicated subjects in a way that even I can understand. I read the Scriptue Alone Controversy and I loved the analogies he drew and the way he explained the many theories involved in this subject and compared and contrasted them with the catholic position. I’ve also read many of his articles on jimmyakin.com, that’s why I want him to address the real issues White raised.

Eric August 11, 2007 at 9:48 pm

Meant to say Salvation controversy by Akin, great book, was also thinkinbg of White scripture alone book which i think is also a great book lol

Eric August 11, 2007 at 10:01 pm

BTW, did anyone see the White/Pacwa debate? Regardless of what has happened behind the keyboard, no one can argue that White is rude to his opponents in his debates and the White/Pacwa debates have proved this. They were very cordial with eachother. Also, I remember one of the Sungenious debates one where he lashed out angerily at White repeatedly and White kinda toned down his “boldnes”, so to speak, as to say that he didn’t want the debate to turn into a slug fest. He didn’t return the vitriol Sungenious was throwing at him. Also, I am thinking of the debate White had with that Muslim Abdul Malik, both cordial…in fact there isn’t a debate I can rthink of(of course havent seen/heard them all) where white hasnt been a true Christian gentleman.
Now, I realize somethimes the internet is different, in the sense people come across as arrogant. For instance, at times White comes across as “sarcastic” or arrogant when writing online but i think that is not a true indicator of his character. It’s easy to come across badly in writing because you can’t see their facial expressions like you can in person if they werte talking to you. But having said that, White has shown he is a gentleman – just look at the debates with Pacwa, for instance.

Foxfier August 11, 2007 at 10:06 pm

So, Eric, you think it’s just a problem with the medium when he’s willing to accuse someone of being a liar, then imply that those who take offense are the same as murderous terror-supporters?
Or, perhaps, like many people he is more polite in reality than online. It’s amazing what having people around does for how one acts.
(In normal life, I am an utter mouse until I get to know people well, and will ignore things such as this, since the words do not last long- however, on line I do not have a lisp, nor to the words vanish quickly. So I will stand up and say when people have boldly crossed the line.)

Eric August 11, 2007 at 10:29 pm

As I see it, the analogy was spot on. Remember people were whipped up into a frenzy by Jimmy Akin’s post “Amazing. Simply Amazing,” and the vitriol (no one can argue the level of hatred) expressed towards White by dozens of posters is fanaticism is fanaticism. Unfortunately, Jimmy Akin insisted on focusing on these issues and misdirect people way from the theological issues.

Foxfier August 11, 2007 at 10:35 pm

and the vitriol (no one can argue the level of hatred) expressed towards
You are wrong. I deny it.
I fully deny that we would wish to chop off his head.
I fully deny that we are a mob of homicidal murders.
I fully deny that telling someone that it is wrong to call a man a liar on flimsy grounds is the same as a violent mob.
I fully deny that White has in even the slightest way held to the high ground, and I deny that he is the most wronged.

Mary Kay August 11, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Eric,
I respect Akin but I do feel he misdirected people away from the tough theological questions.
This is a very vague, generalized statement. Please give a specific example.
It boggles my mind that people pop in, make an outlandish statement and expect to be taken seriously.
FWIW, after reading Jimmy’s posts for a while, I can’t think of a single instance where Jimmy has “misdirected” tough theological questions.
If you’re referring to the photos, as someone mentioned above, it was White who got off topic, initiating those photos.
why I want him to address the real issues White raised
Do you have questions about Catholicism that you want to ask Jimmy? Or are you “helping” White with whatever it is that he wants?
If you have a question, just ask Jimmy directly, the way everyone else does. Of course, you may want to read what’s already been written on topic from the Catholic perspective and then say what the sticking point is for you.
did anyone see the White/Pacwa debate…just look at the debates with Pacwa
Why would I take time out of my day to look up a debate, especially when there hasn’t been the courtesy of a link provided. Some other event has no relevance to this discussion.
I don’t get this whole sense of entitlement. I don’t see how either you or White can demand that Jimmy drop whatever he’s doing to give special attention to White.
During the time that I’ve read this blog, the only times Jimmy posts on White is when he’s been provoked by White. I don’t know the history between the two of them, but it does seem as if White has some obsession about Jimmy. I did look at White’s website. He seems to be collecting debates like they were knick knacks on a shelf.
Anyway, if you want to defend White, that’s your choice. If you have questions about Catholicism, just ask them. If White has his own version of theology, he should just live it and not demand time from those who see things differently.

Mary Kay August 11, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Eric, oh the drama. Do you know that the phrase “drama queen” is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a person given to often excessively emotional performances or reactions.”
As others have observed in this thread, it’s not possible to use reason with someone not being rational. If you want discussion on the “real issues,” cut the drama.

diane August 11, 2007 at 11:37 pm

Although not quite as fast as calling yourself “Thomas Aquinas” or is that the name your Mama gave you.
Good grief, Greg. Do you have any clue how petty this makes you sound? Or how silly and pathetic it is?

A Non August 12, 2007 at 2:27 am

James White is an unstable individual. On IRC he would have the cult of White; he would tell people no one can beat him in debate. However, when non-White followers came into the channel, he would insult them, insinuate things like “I am getting out my gun” as if to shoot at people, then kick and ban them and then say “see, I proved them wrong.” That’s his method. He is rude to the core, and his arguments are invalid from the get go. The best thing to do is to let go and just not respond. You only give him credibility when you do.

My Cat's Name is Lily August 12, 2007 at 4:56 am

OK, let me see if I get what the White supporters are saying: Since Mr White has chosen to make the south end of a northbound horse out of himself, by posting the kind of garbage that would shame a longshoreman…Since he has done this, after a zillion & a half other similar tricks, we all need to…???? apologize to ????him.
Huh??????? What part of “him as done the deed must ‘fess up” does the Reform lot not understand???
I have come to the conclusion that Mr White is in the throes of some complete mental collapse. It’s obvious on the face of it.
Yet people who claim to be his friends are refusing to attempt to help him. It’s all of us, over here, still reeling from those @#&%* pictures, who are showing him enough charity to assume he is, forgive the phrase, a whole pound sack of fries short of a happy meal.
While the people who claim to be on his side are yammering for the next stunt. Ooooo—-kayyyy.

Jihahaha August 12, 2007 at 5:22 am

it’s all of us, over here, still reeling from those @#&%* pictures
_D_R_A_M_A_ _Q_U_E_E_N_

Ani Ibi August 12, 2007 at 6:15 am

We started a prayer thread for Dr White on the Prayer Forum of Catholic Answers.
Please post prayers for him there, keeping in mind that the thread is for prayers only. Please do not post comments on that thread, particularly comments disguised as prayers. Thank you.
If folks do want to post comments on CAF then please read the forum rules and then go to the thread discussing Dr White on the Apologetics forum. Thank you and God bless!

Eric August 12, 2007 at 7:35 am

Mary,
“This is a very vague, generalized statement. Please give a specific example.”
uhm I did post at least one specific theological question that White was asking, let me post onf them them from his blog. And thanks for the personal attacks, mary, I really apprecaite you being mean to me when i havent down anything top anyone on here.
“There is one last thing I would like to note. I would like to ask anyone who claims that the Roman Catholic Church, as it exists today, has existed for nearly 2000 years, to explain something to me. When the Council of Nicea convened, around 318 (by one count) bishops attended. Could a Roman Catholic representative point me to a single bishop at Nicea who believed what you believe de fide? That is, was there a single bishop in attendance who believed, for example, in transubstantiation? Purgatory, as defined by Rome today? Indulgences? The thesaurus meritorum? Immaculate Conception? Bodily Assumption? Papal Infallibility? If these things have been defined de fide, are we to believe that the gospel has “changed” since that time, if, in fact, these things were not defined as part of the gospel at that time?”

bill912 August 12, 2007 at 7:53 am

Thread highjacking attempt.

Mary August 12, 2007 at 8:03 am

Do you mean Mary Kay?
And if you’ve already posted “one specific theological question” it wouldn’t be difficult of you to cut and paste it again.

John August 12, 2007 at 8:25 am

What exactly is the big deal about Beckwiths return to Catholicism anyway? He was born a catholic, like many got hijacked away from the church (just read that droves of Latinos are leaving for the charismatics which does not bode well for the church) and as he has grown a bit older, like all children has decided to return “home”.
Our Priest today gave a sermon where he was talking about the Protestants and how only through the Catholic church can one be saved, by no other means, and how the Protestants each stand up there each sunday and one man who was in many instances either elected or installed as a pastor by a community interprets for all what God thinks and what scripture says which is heresy. And how Luther taught that “if one is to sin, sin great, but believe and pray even greater” which makes the entire concept of Protestanism lunacy to begin with

Mary Kay August 12, 2007 at 10:14 am

Eric,
As Mary noted, she and I are different people.
Your comment uhm I did post at least one specific theological question that White was asking has at least two holes in it. Mary is correct that if you had posted something specific, it would be easy to copy and paste, just as I’ve done with your comments.
The second hole is that your comment was in no way a response to mine. It was a distortion. Here is the context of my comment in my Aug. 11, 11:15 pm post:
(Eric)I respect Akin but I do feel he misdirected people away from the tough theological questions.
(MK)This is a very vague, generalized statement. Please give a specific example.

I asked you for a specific example of when you felt that Jimmy misdirected people. Instead of responding with an example of when you thought Jimmy misdirected, your response was “uhm I did post at least one specific theological question that White was asking.” Do you see the difference?
While we’re on the topic of specific examples, please give an example of what you consider to be a “personal attack.”
Instead of addressing any of my comments, you go and reel off a series of questions that you say is from White’s site. That after I twice said that if you have questions, just ask them. You don’t have to take responsibility for White’s questions. If they are your questions, then take ownership of your questions.
I agree with Bill’s comment of “thread hijack attempt.” It’s also an example of what I see as a sense of entitlement. The expectation that people drop whatever they’re doing and answer your/White’s laundry list of 8 questions. Besides, Bill’s right that it’s a hijack attempt. Those 8 questions belong are enough for several threads.
The answer to your/White’s laundry list is in the Church Fathers, but off the top of my head, I couldn’t give you a specific reference.

Ed August 12, 2007 at 11:12 am

It’s also an example of what I see as a sense of entitlement. The expectation that people drop whatever they’re doing and answer
That could describe you too Mary Kay.

Eileen R August 12, 2007 at 12:07 pm

Ed:
That could describe you too Mary Kay.
No, O Threadhijacker, she’s perfectly on topic.

Ed August 12, 2007 at 12:22 pm

she’s perfectly on topic.
Indeed, her own topic of a nagging, impatient temperament. To put it charitably.

A Non August 12, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Ossius of Cordova.

Anonymous August 12, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Mary,
It is true that there are alternative means of expressing frustration. James White chose an approach I would not have. But the first task in loving someone is to understand them. The numerous innuendos .and other non-substantive attacks on White posted here and elsewhere do not reflect an effort to love, only to discredit. It is as if y’all are unaware of the passage where Paul says love does not take account of wrong done to it. Charity does not write someone off as a moron who is simply impervious to “our brand of truth.” Dehumanizing your opponent is jihadi-think. God made man in His own image. Even sinful man has movements of the spirit that require our respect. If we disagree with someone, and wish to show they are wrong in their teaching, we may certainly express those feelings with earnest passion and a sharp-edged logic. But there are some acts against others that go to disrespecting their equality as a fellow human bearing the clear mark of their Creator in the workings of their mind and soul. I think this must have been the basis for Jesus’ severe condemnation of those who call their fellows fools (aka morons).
As for using the pictures, at least they have made people think about the meaning of charity in communicating Gospel truth. I think Dr. White intended that. Could he have done it more effectively? I am not sure. I have been reading these anti-protestant posts and have been unwilling to dive into the murk, because all I am seeing are hundreds of little barbs, some less well disguised than others, directed at the person, character, intellect, education, motivation, etc., of one non-Catholic guy. That’s all very interesting, and I’m sure God knows who’s winning the ad hominem war, but it bores me to tears and I have no time for it.
And I think this is where White is coming from too. How do I know his motivations? Well, I’ve read them, and I believe them. Am I close enough to him to be sure he’s not just pretending? No, and I’m not close enough to any of you, either. But I have read a lot more of White than I have of you, and I understand the Calvinist mind because I have one. If that’s not good enough for you, so be it. I guess you’ll need to ask him yourself whether it’s about “the win”. I understand he’s real nice in person.
As for the basics of human psychology, I agree that White is more interested in asserting truth than he is in whether it may offend someone who needs to hear it. We’re back to the appropriateness of the jihadi analogy. But Rome’s dominionism is jihadism. There is substantial history to back that up. Including documented wars and death and torture. Or perhaps the collective memory/prejudice of us “protestants” is holographicly generating the artifacts of history in question and we will all be saved once we realize it never happened after all. Incidentally, there are protestant abuses, true, but these were uniformly folk who had absorbed the sacralist/jihadist template uncritically from Rome. See Verduin, Stepchildren of the Reformation. Good read, if you’re allowed.
I have other responses to your post, but later …

Anonymous August 12, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Mary (continued – sorry for the length but I am just trying to be responsive here),
Perhaps I should define sacralism, as I raise it in the previous post out of the blue. Sacralism is a paradigm of absolute unity between church and state that could not, would not distinguish between material, institutional trappings of human magesterial authority and the spiritual realities of the heavenly kingdom. Thank you, Constantine. When that is combined with explicit teaching of a superior human caste that controls and defines truth for such an entity, you have no rational ability to differentiate between that and any other political schema aimed at raw authoritarianism. Jesus confronted the Pharisees as sacralists head-on with the coin problem. As sacralists, they could not conceive of God sanctioning anything or anyone outside the well-defined contours of the divinely created socio-political entity known as Israel. Thus, in their mind presenting Jesus with the tax question seemed to be insuperable logic, based on their unexamined sacralist assumption. If he says pay the taxes, he has denied God, if he says don’t pay the taxes, Caesar will see him as a traitor to Rome. The Pharisees were definitely into “winning,” but here they pulled a loser because they didn’t “get” the kingdom concept, that it’s about the heart, not the “housing,” be it political, institutional, or otherwise. Jesus’ answer separated the two concepts, much to the benefit of lost humanity. Sacralists never tire of trying to recombine them, resulting in inquisitions and other holy wars of modern times. Hence the analogy hold, although I will immediately agree with critics who will says this treatment is deficient. I am sure it is. And I don’t have time to go further, but perhaps someday …
Thus, perhaps you see now at least a potential source of frustration for the Reformed Caucus. We largely agree with Aquinas, in respect to the valuable role of reason in serving as the trusted starting point for rational evaluation of truth claims. We also acknowledge that reason apart from faith is useless. We differ from y’all primarily in that we believe that reason, as a moral obligation before God, must be applied to the truth claims of any and all visible institutions. If I am raised in China, and I am told to worship at the Church of the Three Eyes, do I not have moral obligation, arising under natural law, to question that assertion? But what shall be my reference point? To what shall I compare that truth claim to see if it measures up? Can the Church of the Three Eyes be it’s own reference point? That dissolves to blindly accepting whatever one is told, without reference to the conscience God gave to every human individual, as individuals. That is to suppress the eternal truth within to obtain a short-lived convenience without. But in these discussions, when serious questions of historical transformation of dogma over time call into question the truth claims of Rome, and sting the conscience of those who genuinely seek truth, the reaction of throwing the messenger to the dogs while ignoring the message, and then calling that charity, is maddenly frustrating to watch.
Yes, I know you are all very skilled at flipping this back in our direction. I accept that as part of the problem domain. But I do not know what to do about it, how to overcome it. Hence the frustration. It’s like watching one of those thriller movies where you talk to the TV saying please, don’t go in that room, something terrible will happen if you do, but the hero or heroine cannot hear you, and they go in that room, and something terrible does happen. It is Augustine’s antithesis all over again. The communication barrier betwixt us is real and severe. I do not know how to succeed in telling you that the path you are on does lead to something horrible. I have family that have been involved in authoritarian religious groups (no – not Catholic), where critiquing the “magisterium” was forbidden and punishable. I cannot relate to you the ugliness that came out of that event. And I would not analogize it to Rome, but for the lessons of a well documented history, connecting clearly the dots between sacral thinking and the eventual death and destruction such thinking begets. Perhaps not in your generation, but eventually an idea is known by its children.
Um, I have no idea what your comment, “White is particularly antagonistic to White,” means or is connected with. Sorry.
As for my depth of study in church history (including the Father), I consider it sufficient to justify the statements I am making. Obviously you will probably disagree. Do you want a page count, or perhaps a list of sanctioned books? But at half a century, I cannot even remember everything I’ve read. I must confess, though, I haven’t been able to read Berman (Law and Revolution) since he feminized the Holy Spirit. Rome keeps disappointing me. But I have read the Bible quite a lot. Hope that counts for something.
As for my knowledge (or lack of it, which I freely admit) giving me standing to pronounce a critical similarity between Catholic authoritarianism and Islamic authoritarianism, it really doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the epistemological loop you both employ to assert your authority. Not that I always oppose circular logic. I seem to recall even Aristotle thinking circles in logic might be OK if they were small enough. You know, irreducible tautologies and such. Being good is, well, a good thing. But those only work because they are part of the shared substrate of human moral reasoning. Get beyond that and we need to scrutinize truth claim a lot more carefully.
That’s where “protestantism” is really you friend. Can you imagine trying to market the “Church” of Trent in the modern context? Y’all had to do a lot of reflecting, toning down, and adjusting of your make-up to transform yourselves into the reasonable safe institution you are today. God used the blood of many martyrs to give you a bath you desperately needed. So you should be thankful for the checks-and-balances provided by those of us outside your walls. We have improved your image to the point you really think that you would handle things differently than your medieval forebears. And well you might. But we on the outside can see the similitude. When we do what we can to share it with you, you call us mean. OK. We’re mean. But we do love you, and like Paul, have constant pain in our hearts over the authoritarian blindness that divides us.

Mary August 12, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Sacralism is a paradigm of absolute unity between church and state that could not, would not distinguish between material, institutional trappings of human magesterial authority and the spiritual realities of the heavenly kingdom. Thank you, Constantine.

What does Constantine have to do with Henry VII’s control of the Church of England? Or still more, Calvin’s Geneva? Or the Massachusetts Bay Colony?
Thus, perhaps you see now at least a potential source of frustration for the Reformed Caucus.
Thus, perhaps you see now at least a potential source of frustration for Catholics.

Mary August 12, 2007 at 2:21 pm

When that is combined with explicit teaching of a superior human caste that controls and defines truth for such an entity, you have no rational ability to differentiate between that and any other political schema aimed at raw authoritarianism.
Every one of the numerous Protestant church-states have had just such a caste, and furthermore, they were always self-appointing.

Mary August 12, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Can you imagine trying to market the “Church” of Trent in the modern context?
Market?
Here’s some advice on that matter: “Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.”

Mary August 12, 2007 at 2:43 pm

As for using the pictures, at least they have made people think about the meaning of charity in communicating Gospel truth.
It is wrong to do evil that good may come of it.

Michael August 12, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Perhaps I should define sacralism, as I raise it in the previous post out of the blue. Sacralism is a paradigm of absolute unity between church and state that could not, would not distinguish between material, institutional trappings of human magesterial authority and the spiritual realities of the heavenly kingdom. Thank you, Constantine.
Just in case Mary’s comment was not clear enough. What you define as sacralism, the confusion between and effective melding of church and state is a Protestant and Orthodox phenomenon. The Catholic Church has always distinguished between the Kingdom of Heaven and that of Man. It even goes so far as to deny the idea of an eventual millenial kingdom on earth which gives so much impetus to those protestants dreaming of the immanentization of the eschaton – a very gnostic idea.
The real history is that the Emperor Constantine took the court of Rome east, leaving the Pope to sit in Peter’s chair alone practically forshadowing the whole idea of separation of church and state. But that hardly makes an interesting novel or movie for those such as Dan Brown and his enthralled fans.

Mary Kay August 12, 2007 at 2:43 pm

That could describe you too Mary Kay
Ed, thanks for the laugh. That sounded so much like the playground “nyahh, nyahh, same to you!” that I actually laughed out loud.
of a nagging, impatient temperament
Ed, you really need to stop looking in the mirror so much.
O Threadhijacker lol, Eileen. Reminds me of Bilbo talking to Smaug.

Mary August 12, 2007 at 5:06 pm

And I think this is where White is coming from too.
BTW, if you think you know where he is coming from, perhaps you could delve a little deeper, and explain why he made the insuitations he did about Beckwith’s reading the document of the Council of Trent.

Dale Price August 12, 2007 at 5:23 pm

“a critical similarity between Catholic authoritarianism and Islamic authoritarianism”
Only goes to show those making this assertion know bupkis about either Catholicism or Islam.
There is no such correlation between the two, as anyone with the faintest grip on history can say. Islam is theocratic. Period. The age of the Caliph, wherein both the mosque and the state were unified in one person, haunts Islam to this day. Muhammad was Constantine and the entire Christian episcopate rolled into one person. Ditto his successors, the Caliphs–or at least the first four, the so-called “rightly-guided” Caliphs. But to claim there’s some comparison within Catholicism is a joke. Two questions: who’s the Islamic Pope? And how binding is a modern fatwa?
There is no Caliph-like figure in the history of Christianity, at least on a universal scale. The most political of Popes controlled central Italy and could only occasionally force monarchs to repent for evil deeds. Even in Byzantium the emperors were separate from the Patriarchs. Moreover, no Emperor regarded himself as the priest of his imperium. So much for theocracy. “Caesaropapism” was a much more complex phenomenon with give and take between Church and State than is commonly understood.
Ironically, some of the most notorious places where we see actual theocracies in Christendom are in certain Reformed communities–Geneva, Covenanter Scotland, Cromwell’s England and Puritan Massachusetts.
In fact, on the record of history, one can argue that the Reformed screaming “Catholicism = Islam” are engaged in projection. Compare the iconoclasm, similar views on divine election, disdain for priesthood, and belief that the individual can read scripture outside of any binding authoritative framework, and voila: “Critical similarities” between Reformed Christianity and Islam.
Gee, that was easy. Not to mention facile.

Mary Kay August 12, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Anonymous who I gather is Eric,
“Um, I have no idea what your comment, “White is particularly antagonistic to White,” means or is connected with.”
“that should read “White antagonistic to Catholics” Aug. 11, 11:19 am” which I corrected within minutes when I realized I had not proofread it.
Apparently you looked only at that post and did not read the thread because in that same 11:19 post, I said that Mary and I are separate people.
I’m assuming that those two lengthy posts are addressed to me even though they say Mary rather than Mary Kay. Doing so is a good illustration of what happens when you hang on to something without considering the context.
You’ve asked the questions on White’s site and indeed seem to be interested in resolution of those questions.
Those photos get in the way of discussion. Actions have consequences. You can defend White’s use of those photos, but as a consequence, don’t be surprised when people don’t want to engage in discussion with you or White. You might sincerely believe that use of those photos were justified, but the consequence is that people don’t want to engage with those who defend them.
Beyond that, personally – and this is only my opinion -I think that you and White have gotten so tangled up in intellectualism and multi-syllable words that you’ve lost sight that Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus and the Father and Holy Spirit. That you are a child of God, a much loved child of God.
That means that I don’t think you’ll find your answers in intellectual debates or discussions. The intellectual answers will come in time, but there’s another aspect to consider as well.
When you mentioned that you have family that were involved in authoritarian religious groups and the resulting ugliness, your view of Catholicism made more sense. Not accurate :) but made more sense. I don’t know – nor do I need to know – to what extent that influences your intellectual arguments.
Ugliness that comes from misuse of religion is particularly tricky. However, it is axiomatic that all healing comes from Jesus. I don’t know what group you refer to but Catholics and other Christians have been known to behave badly in ways that affect others. That some people behave badly is not a reflection on Christianity or Catholicism itself. The most commonly cited example is Peter, but I would suggest another example.
In Numbers 21:4-9, the people complained and died when snakes bit them. The instrument of healing that God chose was to direct Moses to mount a bronze serpent on a pole.
This may be overstepping a line also, and if it is I’m sure you’ll tell me. Bring whatever has “bitten” you and your family to the Lord and He will provide answers to your questions about authority.

SDG August 12, 2007 at 6:33 pm

a critical similarity between Catholic authoritarianism and Islamic authoritarianism

This is precisely what I was talking about when I mentioned a disgusting implication of moral equivalency where in fact none exists. This is as preposterous as the fringe left equating serious Christian belief with Islamic fundamentalism. Mark Shea has a whole blogging category, “Because Rome Does Not Issue Fatwas,” ridiculing such facile and paranoid comparisons.
How many videos of Baptists or Calvinists being beheaded by hooded authoritarian Catholics have been uploaded to the Internet? How many authoritarian Catholics riot in the streets when the pope is savaged in political cartoons, as he is on a regular basis? How many photos of mob scenes like the ones White doctored depict mobs of authoritarian Catholics?
The implication of moral equivalency is outrageous and disgusting. The original post by James White was outrageous and disgusting. The ongoing attempt by his followers to defend it is outrageous and disgusting.

Ed August 12, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Ed, you really need to stop looking in the mirror so much.
That’s not Ed you’re seeing in the mirror.

StubbleSpark August 12, 2007 at 7:38 pm

In truth the Church is too unique to prove herself unique. For the most popular and easy proof is by parallel; and here there is no parallel. It is not easy, therefore, to expose the fallacy by which a false classification is created to swamp a unique thing, when it really is a unique thing. As there is nowhere else exactly the same fact, so there is nowhere else exactly the same fallacy. … There are some points of resemblance between Christendom and its imitation in Islam; for that matter there are some points of resemblance between Jews and Gypsies. But after that the lists are made up of anything that comes to hand; of anything that can be put in the same catalogue without being in the same category.
— GK Chesterton, The Everlasting Man

Rick August 12, 2007 at 7:39 pm

The implication of moral equivalency is outrageous and disgusting.
In drama, hyperbole is exaggeration not meant as an equivalent.

Mary Kay August 12, 2007 at 7:52 pm

Ed, I wasn’t looking in a mirror. It was a nonsense response to your nonsense comment. Your ad hominem comment had no basis.
That’s something I’ve noticed about the people defending White. They drop ad hominems out of nowhere, probably because they can’t give a substantial answer to the points raised and so express displeasure by throwing mud.
If you have a productive discussion point, then please state it.

ArkieCatholic August 12, 2007 at 8:13 pm

“So you should be thankful for the checks-and-balances provided by those of us outside your walls.”
And who, pray tell, provides the checks-and-balances for those of you outside the walls? Apparently nobody when you consider the following denominations and their doctrines:
1. Jesus wants me to be rich. (Popular TV
evangelists whom I won’t name, but will
if asked specifically.)
2. Claim your healing–Tell your doctor that
you’re not listening to his “Testa-baloney”–
“by his stripes I am healed.” (Same people
as #1.)
3. “God Hates Fags” and apparently wants a
certain Baptist church in Kansas to picket
soldiers’ funerals. (You all know this from
the secular news, who loves to feature these
folks.)
4. We don’t have to follow the Ten Commandments.
That’s the Old Covenant. (Actually said by an
Assembly of God preacher from New York on the
Ask the Pastor show on The Church Channel.)
Dale Price, thanks for your post above. I have thought about this since I heard a radio interview with a truly moderate Muslim who is trying to spread the word through the Muslim world about the way the extremist Muslims totally twist the verses in the Koran and interpret them to suit their agenda. I pray he will have success, but since there is no authority on the interpretation of the Koran, just what the individual imams preach, I don’t know.

Mary August 12, 2007 at 8:34 pm

In drama, hyperbole is exaggeration not meant as an equivalent.
Odd as it may seem — this is not drama.

Warren August 12, 2007 at 9:14 pm

It’s all drama. 24/7.

StubbleSpark August 12, 2007 at 9:26 pm

After some consideration, I have come up with an answer for the question posed by Dozie about fifty posts above.
The question is, why would an OSAS Protestant care about the defection of one person to Catholicism?
I think one good answer could possibly be that a man who is not OSAS Protestant will not raise his children as such, nor will he witness to others about his Baptist faith. Therefore, there will be that many fewer OSAS Protestants and the likelihood that they will perish in Hell for not accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior (as per the normative forms of the OSAS).
So one can not simply wipe their hands of the deal and flippantly reply: “Meh, he’s saved. That’s all that matters.”
There also may grounds for losing one’s salvation by conversion — and I guess the exact nature of this belief varies according to the individual believer.
For example, one may be saved as a Baptist, but not as a Ba’hai (spelling error wantonly ignored) because the religion denies the divinity of Christ. This could constitute a rejection of Christ and His gospel (again according to the believer) and therefore de-Christianizes the saved who falls away from grace (or prove that the person was never saved in the first place, according to Calvinism which was not taught at my Baptist church).
The matter gets even muddier when probing conversions to the majority of Christian denominations which reject OSAS outright or those that go a step further and introduce elements such as liturgy and sacraments.
Does an OSASer lose salvation when he converts to Presbyterianism? What about Lutheranism? What about Anglicanism? Russian Orthodox?
All this depends on whether you draw the line at liturgy, church hierarchy, the definition of salvation, the efficacy of grace, and the role of human free will.
There is no definitive answer.
And there never can be.
It would strain credibility to brag on one hand how your faith does not require membership in a given church or denomination (or “non-denomination” as they are called nowadays) and then come up with a definite list of denominations where your future children would not be saved, should they be raised there. People would notice and begin to question a list of “bad” Christian churches.
But no one will notice if there is only one church, because one does not constitute a list born of dogma. It is merely pointing out an anomaly.

Ed August 12, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Ed, I wasn’t looking in a mirror… Your ad hominem comment had no basis.
The basis is your own reflection. Without it, there’s no ad hominem.

Foxfier August 12, 2007 at 9:30 pm

Ed, do YOU have an urge to say “it depends on your interpretation”?

StubbleSpark August 12, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Another reason there never will be a definitive teaching on whether the salvation of those converting from OSAS will never appear is because it would involve an ecclesial body exercising authority in time regarding matters not settled in Scripture that were always true but never questioned or seriously considered until now.
And that would seriously undermine the argument against the Church declaring things like papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, etc…
On the other hand, I am happy that White and friends characterize Catholic converts as being “emotionally driven” because I have lived so much of my life being accused of the exact opposite. It is good to be lumped in with the “passionate” people for once. ^_^

Mary Margaret August 12, 2007 at 9:52 pm

I am not Mary, nor Mary Kay. Just so you don’t go off on them.
I cannot believe that Christians are defending those caricatures of Catholics as insane people who, if they disagree with you would riot, and cause physical harm to you. How could you! For shame. This is simply NOT funny. I spent a good many years of my youth living with Evangelicals, and none of them would defend this.
James White owes Catholics an apology for this. period. full stop. An apology. It doesn’t hurt that much to say, “I was wrong. I’m sorry”. Really, he should take the high road here, and then, we can discuss his theological points. Until he does, however, it is simply silly of us to even engage in discussion with him or with any of you who think that those pictures are defensible. They. Are. NOT. They are, at the very least, in poor taste, intended to hurt. There can be no excuse for this.
Have there been some very unkind attacks on Dr. White on this thread? Yes, there have been, and they are also indefensible. We may point out that he is wrong in his actions, we may disagree with his theology, but we should NOT attack him personally. I will not do so. I will, however, say that his actions in posting those pictures, and attacking Francis Beckwith personally (insinuating that he is a liar, for instance), are just simply wrong.

Eileen R August 12, 2007 at 10:44 pm

I keep coming back to this thread to see what’ll happen next, because it just gets crazier and crazier. And wow, the standard atheist argument has been reproduced in its Protestant form.
The anonymous post thunders on about the alleged evils of the Catholic Church then notes:
Incidentally, there are protestant abuses, true, but these were uniformly folk who had absorbed the sacralist/jihadist template uncritically from Rome.
Which is practically the exact same argument atheists make when confronted with the fact that atheist states can be nasty. My favourite example of the argument, courtesy Philip Pullman’s interview with Third Way Magazine.
Is it not fair to say that a great deal of bad behaviour in the last century was the work of regimes that were atheistic, if not scientistic? Wasn’t Nazism, for example, based on a twisted reading of Darwinism?
Yes, but they functioned psychologically in exactly the same way. They had a sacred book that provided an explanation of history which so far transcended every other explanation as to be unquestionable. There were the great prophets – Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung – men so far above the human race that they might as well be exalted as gods. They were treated in just the same way as the Pope. Every word they said, every thing they touched, was holy; their bodies had to be preserved and filed past in reverential silence. The fact that they proclaimed that there was no God didn’t make any difference: it was a religion, and they acted in the way any totalitarian religious system would.

So basically, if you believe that (pick one: Catholicism/Religion) is the embodiment of evil, and someone points out that (pick one: Protestantism/Atheism) is historically connected to the same evil, you just have to accuse (pick one: Catholicism/Religion) of having corrupted (pick one: Protestantism/Atheism).
The Law of Have-Your-Cake-And-Eat-It-Too will cover any eventuality. Splendid stuff.
Mary Kay:
O Threadhijacker lol, Eileen. Reminds me of Bilbo talking to Smaug.
Very well-spotted. Not that it makes much sense as a reference/joke, but yes, that diction *was* in my mind for some reason.

Eileen R August 12, 2007 at 10:45 pm

Oh dear. I forgot Jimmy’s blog doesn’t carry formatting through paragraph breaks. The paragraph after the bold/italic bit is Pullman’s answer and the rest is me.

Lynchburger August 13, 2007 at 2:43 am

A few things. First, I am the Anonymous that Mary (of Kay) thinks is Eric. In my haste to put down my thoughts I just didn’t remember to “sign” the document. Sorry, Mary. Second, my apologies for not noticing there was more than one (now three?) Marys on this thread. I will try to be more circumspect in identifying my addressee.
Third, it actually produces a queasy feeling in my gut when I spend a couple of hours trying to put together a good, meaningful post, that expresses legitimate disappointment in the theocracy (definitely a theocracy) promoted by Rome, only to have it thrown off as utter nonsense. I have a twilight zone feeling about it. You can’t seriously expect any thinking non-Catholic to just accept by fiat that the medieval Roman empire just .. didn’t happen, can you? Is everything in Foxes book of martyrs a mere fabrication? Or perhaps recalling a handful of protestant killers really does serve as proof that Rome’s killers weren’t so bad? Your people killed our people for hundreds of years, and you think our heartfelt disgust with those events is some kind of joke you can easily blow off by just uttering the words that nothing is really inherently wrong with your system, it’s all just in our head, just old prejudices. CAIR uses that argument too. But in two thousand years of history my denomination, as a denomination, has never killed anyone. Organizations that do that are not functionally Christian; they have denied the faith, have denied Christ Himself. I really don’t care if you’re talking Geneva or Rome. Honestly. I am not a “protestant.” I am not a Catholic. I am a Christian. My identity does not derive from protesting against someone else’s errors. My identity is bound up with Christ and the people of Christ, whoever they are, wherever they may be found, not in some dead hierarchy. The Lord knows those that are his.
Mary Margaret, to the extent I understand you, I think I may agree with you. Atheism is a religion, and because it relies solely on human powers of manipulation and domination for its vitality, it does bear an eerie resemblance to those allegedly theistic religions that give lip service to the supernatural, but in fact are just as reliant on concrete manipulative techniques as any other autocratic system; fear, guilt, ambition, etc. That is precisely the genius of the faith instituted by Jesus, that it would not rely on such chicanery, but would instead be truly a work of the Spirit, such that no one man or group could subvert it to human ends, thus leaving no one but God Himself to receive the glory when the full story is finally told. In our mortal being we crave mortal evidence of divine sanction, we seek a sign. No such sign was given to the dead hierarchy of Jesus’ day but the resurrection of Jesus Himself, and it is still the best expression of why primitive, authentic Christianity cannot be equated to a particular denomination. How do you manipulate the resurrected Christ? How do you control Him, contain Him, market Him? You can’t. False religion has no tools but marketing or force to exert its influence. It cries out for a Caliph or a Pope or a Poll-Driven Ministry, whatever will work. Whereas true religion is solely a work of God’s Spirit, to make an eternal people for Himself. God uses the foolish to confound the wise. He takes things that are not and uses them to put to nothing the things that think themselves to be something. The first will be last, the last first. Some humble someone mopping a floor in Guam may end up with rewards greater than the most “visible” believers in human history. God will ultimately make a mockery of our misguided sense of self-esteem, grounded as it is in the spiritual weakness produced by our sin. And He will do it because He loves us.

Eileen R August 13, 2007 at 5:50 am

Lynchburger:
Is everything in Foxes book of martyrs a mere fabrication?
Pretty much actually. It gives us a *very* queasy feeling in the gut to have someone bring up a mostly fabricated book that was used to justify the persecution of English Catholics and the enslavement of Ireland. Most infamously, Foxes book of martyrs passed off the baseless libel that the Irish had been murdering Protestants, so it was absolutely just to invade them, strip them of citizenship, and persecute them for their religion.
Your idea that Roman Catholics were killing “your people” for hundreds of years and then a *few* bad apple Protestants killed some people in return is so unhistorical that one doesn’t know where to begin. Plenty of people died for their religion during and after the Reformation. Before not so much! Now you may say, “Oh what about the Cathars?” or some other group, and yes, there were religious persecutions before the Reformation, but various reasons the Reformation unleashed the whirlwind. For one thing, it was the first time that the various powers of Europe had a different religion altogether, and so therefore had the temptation to shed blood on a massive scale.
But why is it that you’ll use the phrase “our people” for those who were killed, but disown any stock in those who killed? They aren’t a few bad apples.
This is the sort of thing that makes *us* queasy.

Dale Price August 13, 2007 at 6:23 am

“Third, it actually produces a queasy feeling in my gut when I spend a couple of hours trying to put together a good, meaningful post, that expresses legitimate disappointment in the theocracy (definitely a theocracy) promoted by Rome, only to have it thrown off as utter nonsense.”
Not utter nonsense. Just historically untenable. You haven’t read enough history–and by that I mean history uninfluenced by denominational precommitments (Foxe’s?)–to construct a remotely persuasive argument. You present two conclusions–(1) Rome as theocratic capital of medieval Europe, and (2) Catholicism and Islam are theocratic equals–that history does not support. Your problem is with the historical record, not us.

Russ72 August 13, 2007 at 7:08 am

Is it possible to be a troll on your own blog / website?

Matthew Siekierski August 13, 2007 at 7:37 am

Russ, absolutely. It’s the behavior that’s troll-like, not the location.

Esau August 13, 2007 at 10:29 am

Mary Kay,
Thank you for your kind sentiments and defending me against the ‘false witness’ of that Bear-ish brood.
Let’s examine the demented musings of the disingenuous CareBear:
1. At the very beginning of this thread, CareBear had practically bragged about his supposedly superior logic which he compares with those of the inferior “Roman Catholic fanbois” here.
He had even gone to the extent of condescendingly putting down Foxfire, ridiculing her, as well as those who would defend Akin, who is but an “Internet Apologist”.
Yet, if he considers Jimmy Akin but an “Internet Apologist”, what does that make James White?
And if he truly looks down on folks who would defend an “Internet Apologist”, what of the fact that he is defending James White, who is also an “Internet Apologist” by the same virtue?
2. Interesting to note that CareBear has attempted to make this out to be a Protestant v. Romanist affair by his deliberate use of pejorative terms (e.g., the Roman Catholic fanbois, those who follow “the guy with the pointy hat”) with the calculated effect to invoke the age-old prejudice. He purposely used these terms to refer to those who share Akin’s opinion IN SPITE OF the fact that there are actually PROTESTANTS who have voiced similar opinions about James White and share the same disgust over White’s behaviour.
One need only look to CareBear’s initial comments on the thread and observe how they are very much in keeping with the theme of White’s photo, even reinforcing the negative image White was intent on conveying
With such comments as “such a thing fits the logic and attitude of the mob though” and “I think this characterizes the attitude of Akin’s crew well and, oddly enough, corresponds with the general attitude of ignorant zeal held by those in the doctored photographs.“; is there any doubt as to what CareBear’s motives were from the very start?
Furthermore, for somebody who, on the surface, professes a distaste for ad hominems; how interesting to note that the majority of his comments were, all in all, ad hominems!

Any more conspiracy theories you want to lay down on us, or is the cannabis plant calling? Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:22:53 PM
I give up. Foxfier defies Aristotillean logic and that does it for me. Keep it up with the category errors, maybe the laws of logic will change and afford you the ability to rightfully get indignant over something that never occured. Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 11:02:08 PM
bill912, Anymore ad hominem onel iners or are you actually going to deal with the picture issue and refute me? Assuming you conclusion is circular reasoning, but this IS a RC webpage afterall. Posted by: CareBear | Aug 10, 2007 11:30:58 AM
“And, as he is becoming more stupid, I can only imagine it as a sign that he is moving closer to Rome”
A quote for the ages. Perhaps you should all look to your own for blanket, ad hominem attacks against Roman Catholicism proper. Posted by: CareBear | Aug 10, 2007 2:01:32 PM

3. Of course, this is no surprise.
Examine the situation with the url —
When a Catholic is open to the idea that perhaps a Protestant was the one responsible for it, he is quick to put it down as a silly “conspiracy” theory.

When one happens upon a URL that leads direcrtly to Catholic Answers, what is one to assume? I’m not to apt to jump on the “conspiracy train” as you are. My bad for thinking Elivs is dead, the Loch Ness Monster is a fairlytale, and that James White and co. didn’t buy up that domain name and redirect it to Catholic Answers. I’ll ammend my positions and habits post haste. Posted by: CareBear | Aug 10, 2007 2:04:40 PM

4. Finally, look to what this self-important, supposed Master of Logic said concerning the controversial url:
“… As I already stated, I assumed the url was their doing, because any able-minded, reasonable person would firgure that a url naturally belongs to the site it displays. Again, my bad for not crying wolf when a dog barks. ” Posted by: CareBear | Aug 10, 2007 2:43:59 PM
Yet, where is the logic in his argument:
“Since the url http://www.jameswhite.org leads to Catholic Answers; therefore, Catholic Answers owns (is responsible for) it!”
Just how reasonable, how even logical can this argument be when, in fact:
Anybody (other than Catholic Anwers) can seize and own a url???
As I mentioned on this thread and on the “Amazing. Simply Amazing.” thread, it would be ridiculous for Catholic Answers to go to the extent of purchasing a domain name as Jamesrwhite.org just to trick the visitors into visiting Catholic.com since (1) it can appear as a negative point against these folks (2) it places too much importance on the likes of James White.
Catholic Answers is more thoughtful in what they do and I’m more than certain that they wouldn’t sink down to CareBear’s level and commit something as underhanded as that!
— especially when you consider that Catholic Answers depend on donations, they would thus be very fastidious in keeping their name clean and reputable!

John August 13, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Well, so much for the liberalization of the church, her mass, customs and teachings to bring in the Protestants, they still hate the church!
So let us continue to pray for a “reform of the reform” and restore back to all things in Christ including a reverent Traditional Latin Mass and true teachings that not all faiths can lead to salvation, only the One True Church, the Catholic Church
Pope St Pius X pray for us!

Inocencio August 13, 2007 at 12:58 pm

John,
Yes, let us all pray that those who claim to be Catholic will be obedient to the Magisterium instead of making up what they mistakenly believe to be the teachings of the Church.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

White gloves August 13, 2007 at 1:33 pm

especially when you consider that Catholic Answers depend on donations, they would thus be very fastidious in keeping their name clean and reputable!
Much of the church depends on donations but that doesn’t mean it’s exempt from hanky panky.

Okey August 13, 2007 at 1:57 pm

“The only thing that keeps the trolls here is our inability to honestly express gratitude to White for the credit he bestows upon Holy Mother Church and, by extension, us.”
Luke 10:25-
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
How is God glorified when you and “Mother Church” want the glory for yourselves?

Okey August 13, 2007 at 2:13 pm

“…how only through the Catholic church can one be saved, by no other means…”
Acts 4:10-12
“…It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is ” ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” ”

Esau August 13, 2007 at 2:16 pm

“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18)
Speaking of a stubborn man, He said: “If he refuse to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen” (Matt. 18:17).
Christ sent them forth to teach His doctrines, saying, “As the Father has sent me, I also send you.” (John 20:21)
The Apostles were the foundation of the True Church. Christ gave them all power and authority, saying, “He who hears you hears me: he who rejects you rejects me.”(Luke 10:16) and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven” (Matt. 18:18)
The successors of the Apostles, the Bishops of the True Church, is found in the Catholic Church, as even countless writings of the early christian church affirms!

Gary August 13, 2007 at 2:21 pm

I read through a lot of these posts and didn’t see anyone interact with Dr. White’s positions. I’d have to give the victory to Dr. White.

Okey August 13, 2007 at 2:21 pm

“…not all faiths can lead to salvation, only the One True Church, the Catholic Church…”
Acts 4:10-12
“…It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is ” ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” ”

Okey August 13, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.
Jesus.
Amen.

Jerry August 13, 2007 at 2:27 pm

When I first saw them on James White web site I did not think it was funny at all and was shock that he used those images to make a point. I think he made a error in judgement.
The conversion of the greatest early Church Father, St. Augustine of Hippo.
The Confressions, chapter 12 “The Voice as of a Child.
“Such words I spoke, and with most bitter contrition I wept within my heart. And lo, I heard from a nearby house, chanting and repeating over and over, “Take up and read. Take up and read.” Instantly, with altered countenance, I began to think most intently whether children made use of any such chant in some king of game, but I could not recall hearing it anywhere. I checked the flow of my tears and got up, for interpreted this solely as a command given to me by God to open the book and read the first chapter I should come upon. For I had heard how Anthony had been admonished by a reading from the Gospel at which he chanced to be present, as if the words read were addressed to him: “Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me.” and that by such portent he was immediately converted to you.
So I hurried back to the spot where Alypius was sitting, for I had put there a the volume of the aspostle when I got up and left him. I snatched it up, opened it, and read in silence the chapter on which my eyes first fell.(Rom 13:13) Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in strife and envying; but put you on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences.” No futher wished I to read, nor was there need to do so. Instantly, in truth, at the end of this sentence, as if before a peaceful light streaming into my heart, all the dark shadows of doubt fled away.

Esau August 13, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Speaking of a stubborn man, He said: “If he refuse to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen” (Matt. 18:17).
1Tm 3:15:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
2Thes 2:15:
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
It was Christ Himself, and no one else, Who chose His Apostles and disciples, and commanded them to teach His doctrines to all the world.
Romans 10
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach unless they be sent
St. Paul says: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a Gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).
St. Paul himself refers to the Church as “built upon the foundation of the Apostles” (Eph. 2:20).
It was St. Ignatius (50-107 A.D.) appointed Bishop of Antioch by Saint Peter, who first used the Greek word Katholicos, meaning “universal,” when referring to the Church founded by Christ; this he did in order to distinguish the True Church, already being preached throughout the world, from heretical churches that had arisen.
In the fourth century certain sectarians protested against the True Church, yet still called themselves Christians. And so Catholics began to call themselves “Catholic.” In that same century St. Augustine said: “All heretics wish to call themselves Catholics; yet if you ask any of them to direct you to a Catholic church, he will not direct you to his own!”
In the Catholic Church is fulfilled the prophecy of Malachy: “From the rising of the sun to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation; for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts” (Mal. 1:11).

Okey August 13, 2007 at 2:30 pm

Jesus,
Name above all names
Beautiful Savior
Glorious Lord.
Emmanuel,
God is with us.
Blessed Redeemer
Living word.

Okey August 13, 2007 at 2:33 pm

“…It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is ” ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” ”

Esau August 13, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Christ said: “If he refuse to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matt. 18:17) “He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16)

Okey August 13, 2007 at 2:34 pm

“…It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is ” ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” ”

*sigh* August 13, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Christ said: “If he refuse to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matt. 18:17) “He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16)

Jerry August 13, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the holy Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church” (The Council of Nicea 787, Acts of Session I).

Okey August 13, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Jesus,
Name above all names
Beautiful Savior
Glorious Lord.
Emmanuel,
God is with us.
Blessed Redeemer
Living word.
I praise You Lord Jesus and magnify Your Name above all names.

Kelson August 13, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Jesus,
Name above all names
Beautiful Savior
Glorious Lord.
Emmanuel,
God is with us.
Blessed Redeemer
Living word.
I praise You Lord Jesus and magnify Your Name above all names.
Posted by: Okey | Aug 13, 2007 2:36:07 PM

Something all Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) can affirm together.
To His name be all glory.

Esau August 13, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Christ said: “If he refuse to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican” (Matt. 18:17) “He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16)
“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18)
And He promised his disciples: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matt. 18:18) Surely something must be visible to bind and loose, to be heard and obeyed. And Christ referred to this visible organization as a city set on a mountain, that cannot be hidden (Matt. 5:14).
St. Paul urged the Corinthians: “By the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ … that there be no dissensions among you” (1 Cor. 1:10).
And St. Cyprian in the third century wrote: “Whoever is separated from the Church is separated from the promises of Christ … One cannot have God as a Father who has not the Church as his mother.”
St. Peter and St. John confimed the newly baptized in Samaria.
“They laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:17)
The deacon Philip asked the Ethiopian reading Holy Scripture, “Dost thou then understand what thou art reading?” But he said, “Why, how can I, unless someone shows me?” (Acts 8:31).
The Catholic Church is founded on the Apostles, to whom Our Lord gave the commission to baptize Matt. 28:18-20); by Baptism one is made a member of the Church:
Christ said: “Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into, the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
Our Saviour and His Apostles taught that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ: “Take and eat; this is my body … All of you drink of this, for this is my blood” (Matt. 26:28). “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the sharing of the blood of Christ? And the bread that we break is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?” (1 Cor. 10:16).
John 6
53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
The Apostles were empowered by our Saviour to forgive sins:
“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them” (John 20:23).
“God,” says St. Paul, “hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 7:10,11)
Christ said: “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it remain on the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he bears much fruit; for without me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me, he shall be cast outside as the branch and wither; and they shall gather them up and cast them into the fire, and they shall burn” (John 15:4-6).

Christopher August 13, 2007 at 2:49 pm

500!
Just because…;-)

Greg McR August 13, 2007 at 2:54 pm

500 posts, Hmmm. It seems like “the lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

Okey August 13, 2007 at 3:02 pm

1 Corinthians 10:17&18
“Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.” For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.

Okey August 13, 2007 at 3:05 pm

2 Corinthians 10:17&18
“Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.” For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.
Sorry, 2nd not 1st Corinthians.

Brian Day August 13, 2007 at 3:07 pm

“In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.”
Genesis 1:1
.
.
What? Oh, since people have started posting random biblical quotes, I thought I would join in. :)
_____________
Esau,
I know your heart is in the right place, but why to you feed the trolls?

Okey August 13, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Acts 13:38&39
Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

Mel August 13, 2007 at 3:09 pm

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church
Have you told the church yet Esau? What did you tell it?

Mary Kay August 13, 2007 at 3:12 pm

500 posts, Hmmm. It seems like “the lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
Yet another illustration, nay a shining example of how White’s supporters start from their bias always, always slamming Catholics without considering that there might, just might possibly be an alternate explanation. Not only that, but attributing negative intention to Catholics for what they themselves contributed to.

Vance August 13, 2007 at 3:18 pm

without considering that there might, just might possibly be an alternate explanation
White supporters have been pointing alternate explanations.

Mary Kay August 13, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Enough of this nonsense. While there has indeed been sharp and/or snarky comments from both sides, White’s supporters are either unable or unwilling to participate in a serious discussion.
Since this is going nowhere, I’m outta here.

Mary Kay August 13, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Missed Vance’s post before I got out the door.
Vance, you missed what I was said. There a very benign reason for the comment about 500 posts, but Greg, in his eagerness to slam Catholics didn’t even consider it.
Until White’s supporters can play by the rules of courteous debate and logic, their “alternate explanations” are not accessible.

Okey August 13, 2007 at 3:32 pm

2 Corinthians 11:3
I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Ella August 13, 2007 at 3:38 pm

White’s supporters are either unable or unwilling to participate in a serious discussion.
More ad hominem.

Gary August 13, 2007 at 3:40 pm

500 posts and still no one has interacted with Dr. White’s assertions. People are just talking past one another.

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Gary, White’s assertions HAVE been interacted with.
Assertion 1) Beckwith is a liar.
Assertion 2) Those who take offense to that assumption are like Islamist terror supporting mobs.
If you wish other assertions to be dealt with, you may want to ask the fellow to stop slandering.

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Those pictures are not assertions, Gary. But I bet you already knew that.

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 3:54 pm

More ad hominem.
Ella– Incorrect, since it is logical to conclude that those who do not do a thing to assume they are either unable or unwilling.
Actually, I’d be obliged if you could think of a third option? Seeing as you can’t do something if you don’t know about it– which would be unable– and if you know of something, but don’t want to, you’re unwilling, and if you know of something but can’t do it, you are unable….
Well, the only defense you can offer is of someone on this thread having a serious discussion, presumably about the bad behavior of White, given that the topic of both posts have been his bad behavior.

Esau August 13, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Esau,
I know your heart is in the right place, but why to you feed the trolls?

Brian Day,
Brother, I guess it’s out of a vain hope.
I appreciate the kind comment though.
Speaking of which, I sincerely hope that’s not the “Ella” I know.
If it is, I was hoping you finally converted to Catholicism or, at the very least, left our church.

Ella August 13, 2007 at 4:06 pm

it is logical to conclude that those who do not do a thing to assume they are either unable or unwilling.
White supporters have come to this board for “serious discussion” only to be dismissed with hostility or claims that it’s “off topic.”

Esau August 13, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Ella,
Have you even seen the posts from the Pro-White supporters?
Or do you deliberately overlook those in order to make your (biased) case?

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Ella, even *if* your claim is true, then it would mean that it was an unable.
That’s a rather large base assumption, since I can’t call to mind a single supporter of White who showed up without insult, but *even given that* you are highly incorrect.

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 4:12 pm

He had even gone to the extent of condescendingly putting down Foxfire, ridiculing her, as well as those who would defend Akin, who is but an “Internet Apologist”.
Thank you for the defense, Esau– I spent the weekend with my folks, and didn’t even see “Aristotillean” comment. (Wonder if he knows that logic has developed since Aristotelian logic? I only have a single logic class, and I know that.)
Most especially, thank you for the defense of Mr. Akin and all of his defenders.

Esau August 13, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Foxfier ;^)

Matthew Siekierski August 13, 2007 at 4:18 pm

White’s assertions destroy his own position. Would the Bishops at Nicea recognize and accept sola scriptura? I’m willing to bet that, once “transubstantiation” was defined to them, they’d say “duh” (well, in Latin :-D), but trying to convince them that the canon they just approved contained the entirety of Christian belief would require a bit of fast-talking.
How’s that, Gary? Do you think I should take the time for the rest? Because I don’t really think it’s worth the time. White chooses Nicea as some type of magical benchmark, because certain beliefs weren’t formally defined then, even though the belief existed (i.e., transubstantiation).
Oh, and Daisy, while I appreciate the Biblical quotes, you really need to do two things:
1. Read Esau’s response verses, without the filter of thinking that the Catholic Church and its members are seeking glory. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church is not a person, it’s the church founded by Christ. Salvation through the Church IS salvation through Christ, not salvation through Benedict XVI or John Paul II.
2. Stop twisting things. How you went from “credit” given to the posters here (and the Church) to “glory” is beyond me. I get credit for the work I do at my job, but it doesn’t involve taking glory that belongs to God.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 4:25 pm

5 days and counting and no one has interacted with Dr. White’s points. Akin has not scheduled a debate, at least publicly. Akin has not interacted with Dr. White to anyone’s knowledge as far as the public is concerned.
The only thing that has gone on here is 6 or 7 people posted anwhere from 50 to 60 posts each, whipping each other into a mob frenzy, which is what Akin appears to have wanted as he has remained silent through it all, even silent to allegations of him totally jumping the gun.
Silence is the word of the day, it would seem, yet only in relation to pertinent issues.

Ella August 13, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Esau, the claim was “White’s supporters are either unable or unwilling to participate in a serious discussion.” Such a claim is based on a negative view of SOME of his supporters on this forum and ignores the existence of supporters, perhaps to include those who haved posted on JA, who have been and/or are otherwise willing to participate in “serious discussion” were it not for the hostilities and dismissiveness present on the JA forum.
One might argue that Dr. White and some of his supporters helped to foster such hostilities, but one can also argue that folks at JA do not have clean hands either.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 4:28 pm

I have a question Matthew, if the Catholic church is salvation through Christ, why must one confess to a Catholic priest to recieve absolution?

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 4:29 pm

“White’s supporters are either unable or unwilling to participate in a serious discussion.”
Really Esau? You ducked my accusations until I got sick of it and then started bantering on about how wrong I was. Brave behind a keyboard when your opponent isn’t here aren’t you?

Matthew Siekierski August 13, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Heh…CareBear, that’s your 50th post in this thread, by my count.
Guess that makes you a part of the mob. Of course, you’re a part of the mob that refuses to see all of the issues, or any refutation of alleged issues.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Matthew,
Care to address my point or hide behind post counts? If you spent more time researching your claim then you might have been able to refute me instead of counting my posts.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 4:34 pm

“The only thing that has gone on here is 6 or 7 people posted anwhere from 50 to 60 posts each, whipping each other into a mob frenzy”
Unless for some reason I swam the Tiber and didn’t know it, then I couldn’t be the one in a mob frenzy, as I’m not exactly in the majority here. Wanna try that one again?

Esau August 13, 2007 at 4:35 pm

White’s assertions destroy his own position. Would the Bishops at Nicea recognize and accept sola scriptura? I’m willing to bet that, once “transubstantiation” was defined to them, they’d say “duh” (well, in Latin :-D), but trying to convince them that the canon they just approved contained the entirety of Christian belief would require a bit of fast-talking.
How’s that, Gary? Do you think I should take the time for the rest? Because I don’t really think it’s worth the time. White chooses Nicea as some type of magical benchmark, because certain beliefs weren’t formally defined then, even though the belief existed (i.e., transubstantiation).
Oh, and Daisy, while I appreciate the Biblical quotes, you really need to do two things:
1. Read Esau’s response verses, without the filter of thinking that the Catholic Church and its members are seeking glory. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church is not a person, it’s the church founded by Christ. Salvation through the Church IS salvation through Christ, not salvation through Benedict XVI or John Paul II.
2. Stop twisting things. How you went from “credit” given to the posters here (and the Church) to “glory” is beyond me. I get credit for the work I do at my job, but it doesn’t involve taking glory that belongs to God.

Matthew Siekierski:
God bless you, Sir, for your stalwart attempt at spreading the ‘Genuine’ Gospel of Our Lord.
Hopefully, the seeds will finally reach fertile soil; if not, then so be it.
Mt 13:15:
15 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 4:37 pm

“‘Genuine’ Gospel of Our Lord.”
I’m happy you put genuine in quotation marks, so as you differentiate the Gospel of Romanism from the Gospel of Christ.

Gary August 13, 2007 at 4:39 pm

I don’t remember Dr. White saying that Dr. Beckwith was a liar. Actually, I think it was Dr. Beckwith who threw the first stone by calling Dr. White an uncharitable reader.

Esau August 13, 2007 at 4:40 pm

*YAWN*
Please go to:
My Reply
Oh, and your most recent comment:
I’m happy you put genuine in quotation marks, so as you differentiate the Gospel of Romanism from the Gospel of Christ.
… just further proves my point.

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 4:41 pm

I have a question Matthew, if the Catholic church is salvation through Christ, why must one confess to a Catholic priest to recieve absolution?
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 13, 2007 4:28:08 PM

Um…. This is a little not nice, but:
Duh, that’s already been covered in this very thread.
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This might help.
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap050200.htm

Esau August 13, 2007 at 4:42 pm

*YAWN*
Please go to:
My Reply
Oh, and your most recent comment:
I’m happy you put genuine in quotation marks, so as you differentiate the Gospel of Romanism from the Gospel of Christ.
… just further proves my point.
Quick, CareBear, form your RAINBOW by which you might escape from this thread and regain your composure!!!
QUICK!!!!
Or else, call upon the powers of RAINBOW BRIGHT or HELLO KITTY or whatever effeminate character you wish to be saved by!

Al August 13, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Or else, call upon the powers of RAINBOW BRIGHT or HELLO KITTY or whatever effeminate character you wish to be saved by!
When did CareBear claim he was saved by effeminate characters?

Matthew Siekierski August 13, 2007 at 4:45 pm

CareBear: I have a question Matthew, if the Catholic church is salvation through Christ, why must one confess to a Catholic priest to recieve absolution?
Peter was given the Keys, and the power of loosing and binding. That authority has been passed down through Apostolic succession. Why would I ignore this way to know that my sins are forgiven? It’s not the priest who forgives me in the Confessional, it’s Jesus.
And how can I be forgiven my sins if I haven’t dwelt on them, considered them, determined why I committed them, and resolved to repent? How can the priest know that I’ve really done so?

Esau August 13, 2007 at 4:46 pm

I have a question Matthew, if the Catholic church is salvation through Christ, why must one confess to a Catholic priest to recieve absolution?
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 13, 2007 4:28:08 PM
As I’ve stated previously:
The Apostles were empowered by our Saviour to forgive sins:
“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them” (John 20:23).
“God,” says St. Paul, “hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 7:10,11)

Gwen August 13, 2007 at 4:50 pm

The Apostles were empowered by our Saviour to forgive sins
His disciples were empowered.

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 4:52 pm

I don’t remember Dr. White saying that Dr. Beckwith was a liar.
…. Dude, you are *really* reaching.
Actually, I’m sorry. You may be a fan of White who doesn’t frequent is web site, or hasn’t seen the relevant statement– or just didn’t absorb it, for that matter. No human can recall *everything.*
What would you say if I told you that the only logical response to that quoted statement was that you had obviously not never listened to White at all? That would be me calling you a liar, yes?
(Sorry for the awkward phrasing, I wanted to tweak it to be more parallel.)
Please read Jimmy’s post found here. http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/08/amazing-simply-.html

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 4:55 pm

The Apostles were empowered by our Saviour to forgive sins

His disciples were empowered.

Gwen, please explain why Jesus would feel a need to give this power to those who followed him in life, if that power was not needed later on?
I believe in a rational God. I believe that if he did something to those who were to succeed him, passing the torch, so to speak, that those who took the torch could then pass it on.

Bill August 13, 2007 at 4:57 pm

What would you say if I told you that the only logical response to that quoted statement was that you had obviously not never listened to White at all? That would be me calling you a liar, yes?
It might be saying the person was not being logical or didn’t understand. Is that the same as being a liar to you?

Gwen August 13, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Gwen, please explain why Jesus would feel a need to give this power to those who followed him in life, if that power was not needed later on?
I didn’t say it wasn’t needed later on. Disciples are followers.

Gary August 13, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Actually, Matthew, your comment doesn’t hold much water. While you believe that they would have taken to transubstantiation, I believe that they would have believed in Sola Scriptura. I think we’re even. But all of that was a deflection of his assertion.
I think you should read his book – The Roman Catholic Controversy and see what Dr. White has to say concerning the development of doctrine.

Esau August 13, 2007 at 5:05 pm

I think you should read his book – The Roman Catholic Controversy and see what Dr. White has to say concerning the development of doctrine.
Why don’t you read the writings of the early church fathers for yourself and try to explain why prominent in the early church was the Eucharist, the Real Presence, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, among other things “Catholic”?
Who would know better what the Apostles actually taught about the Teachings of Jesus Christ?
Those to Whom they personally Handed down they Faith and their Authority?
Or James White who was born several centuries later?

Matthew Siekierski August 13, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Gary, what makes you believe that they would believe Sola Scriptura? There is plenty of early documentation of belief that the bread and the wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, but I haven’t seen anything to substantiate a belief in Scripture Alone, especially since there wasn’t a definitive list of authentic scriptures (i.e., the controversy over what was valid scripture and what wasn’t was a part of the reason for the convening of the council.)
I’ll choose to not read Dr. White’s book at this time. Why don’t you just summarize it for me, if you think it has bearing on this issue.

W August 13, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Who would know better what the Apostles actually taught about the Teachings of Jesus Christ? Those to Whom they personally Handed down they Faith and their Authority? Or James White who was born several centuries later?
They died long ago, so they don’t know anything. But James White and you can read what they wrote.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 5:14 pm

“I haven’t seen anything to substantiate a belief in Scripture Alone, especially since there wasn’t a definitive list of authentic scriptures ”
“I’ll choose to not read Dr. White’s book at this time.”
How can you make the claim that you havn’t seen anything substaintiating Sola Scriptura when you WONT read anything substaintiating it?
I’ll fix your quote for you.
“I refuse to read anything to substantiate a belief in Scripture Alone, especially since Rome says there wasn’t a definitive list of authentic scriptures”

Esau August 13, 2007 at 5:16 pm

They died long ago, so they don’t know anything.
Amazing — so since they’re dead, they don’t know anything???
Uhhhh… does that mean that since the Apostles are ‘dead’, they don’t know anything as well and, therefore, perhaps we should simply discard the New Testament, or even the Old Testament for that matter, since the Patriarchs, the Prophets, etc., are also ‘dead’!

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 5:17 pm

“Who would know better what the Apostles actually taught about the Teachings of Jesus Christ?
Those to Whom they personally Handed down they Faith and their Authority?”
Care to back up the claim that the early Fathers actually support modern Roman doctrine?
Also, would you care to explain why I just got finished watching a clip from a debate where a Roman Catholic priest, holding two doctorates, purposefully misquotes Augustine in a bid to defend magesterium and is corrected by White?

Mary August 13, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I believe that they would have believed in Sola Scriptura.
On what evidence do you make this assertion?

W August 13, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Amazing — so since they’re dead, they don’t know anything???
Yes, dead people don’t know anything.

Mary August 13, 2007 at 5:20 pm

“I’ll choose to not read Dr. White’s book at this time.”
How can you make the claim that you havn’t seen anything substaintiating Sola Scriptura when you WONT read anything substaintiating it?

Why on earth should we read White’s book in addition to Scripture?

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 5:21 pm

“I have a question Matthew, if the Catholic church is salvation through Christ, why must one confess to a Catholic priest to recieve absolution?
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 13, 2007 4:28:08 PM
As I’ve stated previously:
The Apostles were empowered by our Saviour to forgive sins:
“Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them” (John 20:23).
“God,” says St. Paul, “hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 7:10,11)”
Even assuming your conclusion and giving you everything you demand regarding reading those texts, it does not neccessitate the Romanist doctrine of the neccessity of confession to a priest. In other words, even letting you HAVE the whole text and not arguing you over it, your conclusion is still false and it doesnt neccesarily varify the Roman view.

Jill August 13, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Why on earth should we read White’s book in addition to Scripture?
When did you turn Sola Scriptura?

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 5:23 pm

“I believe they would have believed in Sola Scriptura.”
Why would they have believed in Sola Scriptura? It’s not in the Bible.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Mary:
Classic Romanist response to Sola Scriptura is to intentionally misrepresent the doctrine in order to defeat it.
Sola Scriptura is Scripture used as the sole measure of faith.
Scripture is not, me and my Bible alone under a tree or, Soli Scriptura.
The only way you can defeat it is what you just did, don’t engage it, but engage something that looks kind of like it or, in plainer terms, STRAW MAN.

Esau August 13, 2007 at 5:23 pm

…especially since Rome says there wasn’t a definitive list of authentic scriptures…
Note to CareBear:
It was at the Council of Rome (382 AD) where the Canon was ultimately decided and subsequently reaffirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD).
Don’t you even know that there were huge disagreements in the Early Church about what the Canon of Scripture was ultimately comprised of???
Even between St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, for example!
I’ve read, especially in ecclesiastical history, where many rejected Revelations, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews as part of Scripture and said that they were not, in fact, inspired.
Many in the early church actually accepted the Epistle of Clement as Scripture — it was read in Corinth for over a hundred years as Sacred Scripture after Clement died. There were disagreements as well over the Old Testament Canon. Whether books like Baruch was inspired and others. So there were disagreements.
That is a matter of historical fact.
You cannot go to the individual books of the bible to determine just which books actually belong to the bible.
Martin Luther is an ally on this question.
In his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16, he says this:
“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it”

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Jill,
See above comment. Keep your fallacy out of my doctrine if you don’t want my logic in your Church.

Esau August 13, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Okay, CareBear, tell me then, which books do you consider ‘inspired’ and tell me exactly why????

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Esau,
What in the world does that have to do with anything, other than you assume Divine insufficiency?

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Esau,
Engage my posts from 5 days ago and then we’ll get to yours.

Jill August 13, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Keep your fallacy out of my doctrine if you don’t want my logic in your Church.
You have your own doctrines?

Esau August 13, 2007 at 5:27 pm

I’m asking you since you believe in Sola Scriptura, how do you determine what is Scripture and what is not???

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Good question, Esau. The evasion in the answer is obvious.

Esau August 13, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Engage my posts from 5 days ago and then we’ll get to yours.
Already did:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/08/james-white-has.html#c79351988

Saul August 13, 2007 at 5:29 pm

how do you determine what is Scripture and what is not???
Probably the same way the “Romanists” decided.

Esau August 13, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Good question, Esau. The evasion in the answer is obvious.
Thanks, bill912; although, I doubt there’ll be an answer.

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 5:35 pm

I didn’t say it wasn’t needed later on. Disciples are followers.
Would the Disciples not choose their own disciples?

Gwen August 13, 2007 at 5:41 pm

Would the Disciples not choose their own disciples?
Are you a disciple? If so, who chose you?

Gary August 13, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Matthew, Esau and Foxflier
I really hope that you would read Dr. White’s book. There’s too much going on in my life tonight to focus. I have two kids to watch and put to bed. But thank you for your interaction.
Foxflier, I did read Jimmy’s response to Dr. White’s comments. I do think you have a point.

Matthew Siekierski August 13, 2007 at 5:54 pm

CareBear:
How can you make the claim that you havn’t seen anything substaintiating Sola Scriptura when you WONT read anything substaintiating it?
I’ll fix your quote for you.
“I refuse to read anything to substantiate a belief in Scripture Alone, especially since Rome says there wasn’t a definitive list of authentic scriptures”

Nice try, but I reject your mischaracterization. I asked for a summary. Instead of requesting that I just go read the book, why not provide the salient points for me? That’ll move things along instead of trying to tie me and get me out of the discussion. I won’t be shoved aside by such a tactic. “Oh, he refuses to read the book that was recommended. Until he does, I don’t have to answer his questions.” That won’t work on me.
So the ball’s in your court. I haven’t read the book by Dr. White. I don’t have a copy handy. How about you summarize it for me, so I at least have something to work with, instead of just rewriting what I said and ignoring the willingness to hear the arguments, if not through reading the actual book in the next 5 minutes.
In other words, I’m willing to read something that attempts to substantiate Sola Scriptura, but it’s not practical, nor reasonable, for you or others to expect me to run out and read your part of the discussion in someone else’s book.

Mary August 13, 2007 at 5:54 pm

What in the world does that have to do with anything, other than you assume Divine insufficiency?
Oh, that’s an interesting response. Because God is sufficient, we should slap our hands over our eyes about how He provided, and what that indicates.

Matthew Siekierski August 13, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Gary, I’m willing to read the book. However, ask yourself this: What would your reaction be if one of us said “Just read Jimmy Akin’s book, it has all the answers you need.”? Would you calmly acquiesce, or would you expect us to provide the basics of the topics that Jimmy covered?
I have four of my own to get in bed. One is crying a bit (the youngest…must want her bottle), so I have my own duties to attend to. Have a good night.

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Foxflier, I did read Jimmy’s response to Dr. White’s comments. I do think you have a point.
*bows* That’s enough for me. Thank you for considering, if not agreeing.

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Would the Disciples not choose their own disciples?
Are you a disciple? If so, who chose you?
Ah, you are looking the wrong way. Your original question was why we go to Priests to have our sins loosed.
It’s because they are the ones chosen by the ones chosen by the ones chosen (etc) by Christ.
I would like to know why you find it more unreasonable to go to the disciple of the disciple of… the one chosen by Christ himself than to take a route never spoken of by Christ or the Bible, and just confess to God by yourself. Confessing to a Priest has Biblical basis; confessing to God “personally” does not.
(If he’d meant for *all* of his followers to be able to bind and loose their own sins, he would have told the Disciples to tell them so. It is a rather important thing, being forgiven your sins.)

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 6:13 pm

I’d like to note something amusing:
The exchange Esau and I are in is outlined in James R. White’s book “Scripture Alone”. Using White’s own arguments I will respond to Esau.
Some of you “choose not to read” White, too bad, you’re about to.
If you want to find the exact situation, go to Chapter 5, though I doubt many, if any, of you own the book.
First it must be established that that canon you are attempting to define is not the only canon in existence.
“When an author writes a book, a “canon” of his or her writing is automatically created as a result of the simple consideration that he or she has written at least one book…”
“If the author continues writing, the canon changes with the completion of each project. It should be noted that even if an author does not write down a list of his or her works, a canon exists nonetheless, which he or she knows infallibly. No one else can know infallibly know this canon outside of the author’s attempt to comunicate it to others…Even those closest to the author cannot know with utter certainty whether the author has used anyone else in the writing process or borrowed from another source…Therefore, the originator of a book has an infallible knowledge of the works, while anyone else has a mediated knowledge, dependent upon the honest and the integrity of the author and the author’s desire to make the canon known to others.”
“When we apply these considerations to Scripture, we are able to see that canon (infallible) is a neccessary result of God’s freely chosen act of inspiration. Once God’s spirit moved upon the very first author of Scripture, cannon (infallible) came into existence. Before anyone knew the state of what God had done (canon mediated), God infallibly knew the current state and content of canon (infallible). With each passing phase of His unfolding of revelation in Scripture, canon (infalible) remained current and infallible, fully reflective (by necessity) of the ongoing work of enscripturation.”
“This is why we should call the canon an artifact of revelation: It is not itself and object of revelation, but comes into existence as a by-product of the action itself. God inspires, and the canon expresses the limitation of that action.”
“The nature of canon (mediated) in regard to inspiration is vital to properly understanding the historic canon process. Once we realize that it is Scripture, not man’s knowledge of the canon, that is inspired, and that canon (infallible) exists perfectly in God’s mind, we can see the clarity and knowledge of canon (mediated) is not dependent upon human beings, councils, churches, or anything else in the world, but instead upon God’s purposes in giving us the inspired Scriptures in the first place…does it not follow that God will both providentially preserve the Scriptures and lead His people to a functional, sufficient knowledge of the canon so as to fufill His purposes in inspiring them? Indeed, will He not exercise just as much divine power in establishing and fufilling His purpose for the Scriptures (their functioning as a guide to the church) as He has in inspring them? The two actions are neccesarily linked in fulfilling the one purpose of God.”
In short, right here is where it is clearly established that canon is not a product of tradition, but a product of divine revelation. As I don’t feel like quoting the rest of the chapter, I am safe in resting my case here. You’ll need to prove that canon is a product of tradition in order to corner me into the “Well since you believe the canon is right you need to submit to Tradition” routine. As it stands, canon as a product of tradition has been destroyed.
White, J. R. “Scripture Alone”, Bethany House Publishers, Bloomington, MN, p.100-103.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Matthew,
I apologize for my mischaracterization then and my ignoring of your request for a summarization.
Above, you’ll find an excerpt I have posted in reply to Esau trying to pull an old trick on me. If you want more, the book isn’t expensive. 😛

Gwen August 13, 2007 at 6:18 pm

Ah, you are looking the wrong way. Your original question was why we go to Priests to have our sins loosed.
I did not ask why you go to priests. I asked if you are a disciple and if so, who chose you.
I would like to know why you find it more unreasonable to go to the disciple of the disciple of… the one chosen by Christ himself
Christ did not choose only one disciple. He chose many disciples.
than to take a route never spoken of by Christ or the Bible, and just confess to God by yourself.
I’ve made no mention of that.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 6:20 pm

“Good question, Esau. The evasion in the answer is obvious.”
Really bill 912? My answer is above and didn’t evade anything.

Matthew Siekierski August 13, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Thank you for finally providing something with which to work. I’ll read it after the kids are in bed and dishes are done.
And please stop mischaracterizing what I said. I choose not to rn out and buy White’s book. That doesn’t mean I refuse to read it (or excerpts of it). Really, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to request that information beyond “go read this book” be provided when having a discussion.

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Where does it say in the Bible that the Canon of the Bible (which books belong in the Bible and which don’t) has been divinely revealed?

Matthew Siekierski August 13, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Cross-post. Ignore my above complaint.
Every book is expensive to one with 4 (soon to be 5) kids, 1 income. Thank God my wife wants to stay home…I couldn’t imagine daycare for 4.

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 6:24 pm

You answered how you determine what is scripture and what is not? What was your answer?

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Scripture is what it is in its current form due to the revelation of God concerning infallible canon, not as a result of Roman Catholic councils 300 years after the cessation of written revelation.

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Sorry, Gwen, but your post style so so like Carebear’s that I didn’t notice when you jumped into a conversation.
Might want to go back to the start of it to follow the argument, rather than going off on tangents.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 6:30 pm

“And please stop mischaracterizing what I said. I choose not to rn out and buy White’s book. That doesn’t mean I refuse to read it (or excerpts of it). Really, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to request that information beyond “go read this book” be provided when having a discussion.”
I don’t think it’s unreasonable either. I apologize for jumping the gun and mischaracterizing you.

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 6:30 pm

How, where, and to whom did God reveal the infallible canon?

Gwen August 13, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Might want to go back to the start of it to follow the argument, rather than going off on tangents.
I have not gone off on a tangent, though you have. Your original claim was that the Apostles were empowered. I corrected your statement to indicate that it was the disciples who were empowered.

Thomas Aquinas August 13, 2007 at 6:35 pm

“Sola Scriptura is Scripture used as the sole measure of faith. Scripture is not, me and my Bible alone under a tree or, Soli Scriptura.”
Why can’t it be me and my Bible alone? Does the Bible come with an owner’s manual?
Question: if the Bible is 100% God’s Word (as I believe as well), why do we talk about Paul, Peter, Matthew, etc. as being authors of particular books? Why not just say, “God did it,” since to attribute God’s work to man’s work is “unbiblical.” But if it is legitimate to say that God used the distinctive personalities and historical circumstances of these figures to communicate his truth, then something can be both 100% God’s doing and human beings cooperate. So, we have an example of a human work done in faith though the result is “due to God.” (CC 2009).

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 6:37 pm

Through the church, couldn’t tell you the location and I’d be interested to see your answer, and to the church yet again.
To quote White, yet again;
“The foundation of the certainty of our knowledge of the canon is based upon God’s purposes in giving Scripture, not upon the alleged authority of any ecclesiastical body. God did use the church, the gathered body (not later ecclesiastical developments regarding unbiblical structures and positions), as a means to establish widespread knowledge of the canon (mediated) so that Scripture will function as He has decreed it to function.”
Ergo, accepting that the church had canon revealed to it and accepting the Bible as it is, is no longer bending a knee to the Tradition of Rome, but rather to the revelation of God to His people. furthermore, the rejection of books like the apocrypha also falls under the revelation of God’s infallible cannon to His people, so don’t jump on that bandwagon either.
White, J. R. “Scripture Alone”, Bethany House Publishers, Bloomington, MN, p.107.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 6:41 pm

Question: if the Bible is 100% God’s Word (as I believe as well), why do we talk about Paul, Peter, Matthew, etc. as being authors of particular books? Why not just say, “God did it,” since to attribute God’s work to man’s work is “unbiblical.” But if it is legitimate to say that God used the distinctive personalities and historical circumstances of these figures to communicate his truth, then something can be both 100% God’s doing and human beings cooperate. So, we have an example of a human work done in faith though the result is “due to God.””
I fail to see how the Bible being 100% God’s word neccessitates the rejection of the FACT that God employed human authors to convey His Word.
Also, those of us in Protestantism do just say “God did it” as you so immaturely put it. We call it the sufficiency of Scripture as the Divine Revelation of God.

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Can anyone translate into plain English that gobbledeguck of White’s that was quoted above?

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 6:48 pm

It’s pretty clear bill912, it would only take light reading to understand White’s book. Are you saying it is over your head?

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 6:48 pm

I have not gone off on a tangent, though you have. Your original claim was that the Apostles were empowered. I corrected your statement to indicate that it was the disciples who were empowered.
Gwen, go back to the post I quoted. You are diving into a tangent. I was responding to a post by Carebear.

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Why don’t you try to explain it in plain English?

Matthew Siekierski August 13, 2007 at 6:53 pm

CareBear:
White has a few errors in his logic, some important, some insignificant. (Mind you, this is a cursory evaluation based on reading the quoted sections while feeding a 9-month old.)
Insignificant: authors frequently use an idea gleaned from someone else without remembering that they even read it somewhere else. Their memory isn’t infallible. Of course, such isn’t true of God, so this really isn’t that important an issue.
There is nothing wrong with White’s assertion that God would know what he wrote (or inspired to be written), and that if he chose to he could name them all. And, yes, we would know that list through divine revelation, or guidance of the Holy Spirit.
However, no matter how infallible God is, us men are fallible. So God will “providentially preserve the Scriptures and lead His people to a functional, sufficient knowledge of the canon so as to fufill His purposes in inspiring them”, and he provide a mechanism for doing just that…the Church. Otherwise, how is one to judge between one list of books and another?
God knows the true Canon (he knows what he wrote). We don’t have that luxury, since we’re not God. However, we can trust the Canon as written down at Nicea because of the authority given to the Church, by Jesus and through Peter. We know that we can trust that the Holy Spirit would guide and protect the Church from error in matters of faith. So, my question to you is “to whom was the Canon divinely inspired?”
By the way, I don’t see where it was asserted that trusting the Canon meant you must believe in Tradition, so I think you’re arguing a point that wasn’t made here in this thread. And you might be surprised at how many things called “Tradition” are really biblically-based.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 6:53 pm

That is in plain English. What other language is it in, as I only know how to read plain English and write plain English, therefore I don’t understand what you mean here.
I mean, I’m a cessationalist, and I don’t believe speaking in tounges to still go on. You might prove me wrong here though as I assume I’m speaking the same language as you are, yet you claim to not understand.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 6:56 pm

“However, no matter how infallible God is, us men are fallible. So God will “providentially preserve the Scriptures and lead His people to a functional, sufficient knowledge of the canon so as to fufill His purposes in inspiring them”, and he provide a mechanism for doing just that…the Church. Otherwise, how is one to judge between one list of books and another?”
I don’t disagree at all. I believe God’s mechanism for revealing the canon of Scripture was the body of believers, and White agrees too, even so much as to say so in the text I provided:
“God did use the church, the gathered body (not later ecclesiastical developments regarding unbiblical structures and positions), as a means to establish widespread knowledge of the canon (mediated) so that Scripture will function as He has decreed it to function.”

Gwen August 13, 2007 at 6:59 pm

I was responding to a post by Carebear.
And I was directly responding to the content of your post, to correct it.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 7:00 pm

“God knows the true Canon (he knows what he wrote). We don’t have that luxury, since we’re not God. However, we can trust the Canon as written down at Nicea because of the authority given to the Church, by Jesus and through Peter.”
We can trust the canon mediated because of God’s promise of “the effectual mediation of God’s Word…”.
It might help to pick up the book as each point you raise is dealt with by White, as you can see. 😛
I feel if I quote anymore Dr. White is going to sue me.

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 7:03 pm

And I was directly responding to the content of your post, to correct it.
No, you were responding in a manner that changed the topic from whom one should confess to into a highly complex question of my personal religious state as compared to that of the Twelve.
And, it is becoming obvious, you were just trying to make a fight.
In which case, I’m sorry I mistook you for a reasonable person.

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Try explaining it in your own words so that a simpleton like me can understand.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 7:05 pm

bill912,
You’re not taking the time to read through White’s points, and you’re not a simpleton. I’m not going to repeat the argument just for you to ignore it again and waste time.

Foxfier August 13, 2007 at 7:06 pm

I feel if I quote anymore Dr. White is going to sue me.
Then don’t quote. Rephrase. That’s a basic exercise to show one understands what one has read, so it should be very simple to do– a web forum is much different than a book, so the phrasing doesn’t have to be identical.
Paraphrasing of the argument what was originally asked, anyways.
(By the way, where’s your reply to my “interaction” with your question? The one Gwen tried to hijack.)

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 7:08 pm

“Paraphrasing of the argument what was originally asked, anyways.”
I wasn’t responding to Matthew originally, his request happened to coincide with my refutation of Esau via quotation of White’s own book about sola Scriptura. Therefore no, I wasn’t asked to summarize and, as I recall, Matthew was replying to someone else entirely in his request for summarization.
Therefore:
He wasn’t talking to me.
I wasn’t replying to him.
We just happened to stumble into each other providentially.

Gwen August 13, 2007 at 7:09 pm

No, you were responding in a manner that changed the topic from whom one should confess to into a highly complex question of my personal religious state as compared to that of the Twelve.
No, you did that. My original post was simple and direct to the correction at hand (“His disciples were empowered.”) It said nothing more than that. It was your imagination which took off on a tangent as you erroneously presumed I was arguing something I wasn’t.
And, it is becoming obvious, you were just trying to make a fight.
Again, you imagine. I’m not fighting with anyone. I am expressing the truth. If you have a battle with the truth, that’s your battle.

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 7:20 pm

Forget it, Foxfier; you’re getting replies that keep coming across as variations of: “I know what you are, but what am I.”

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Repeat what argument? I asked for your explanation of White’s quote, which I can’t make heads or tails of. So far, you have declined to explain.

tiber jumper August 13, 2007 at 7:23 pm

I once posted a blog about the illogic of sola scriptura
using James White’s own words but disguised as a Islamic fundamentalist. He was not amused at all and later ripped me up on his no comment blog.
here

bill912 August 13, 2007 at 7:24 pm

And the illogic of sola scriptura is so simple: It’s not in the scriptures.

Joseph Fromm August 13, 2007 at 7:50 pm

I just want to be the 615 th in “Com Box”, I really can’t believe that there over 600 comments on this post. Let’s all shot for a thousand!
Joe

Mary August 13, 2007 at 8:03 pm

I fail to see how the Bible being 100% God’s word neccessitates the rejection of the FACT that God employed human authors to convey His Word.
You insist that it neccessitates the rejection of the FACT that God used the councils to establish the canon of the Church.

Dale Price August 13, 2007 at 8:04 pm

I’m trying to figure out what the precise objection or objections White’s fans have to the concept of papal infallibility.
After all, they ascribe infallibility–indeed, impeccability–to White in all his dealings with Catholics, as this thread amply bears out.
Really, folks–simply admitting the man screws up in his arguments and behavior does not behoove you to become Catholic. Honest. Try it just once and you’ll see. If you can’t, then I humbly suggest you have way too much invested in the man.
Oh, and I see White has followed the template over at his blog: (1) stir up trouble with a bonehead statement; (2) act the victim when called on it; (3) change the subject by proffering some hobbyhorse topic/argument; (4) shake his head sadly while professing his allegiance to “the Gospel [sic]” and noting his opponents’ assumed allergy to the same; and (5) claim victory, after noting throughout, sotto voce, his obvious merits.
He has a gift, really.

Mary August 13, 2007 at 8:12 pm

God did use the church, the gathered body (not later ecclesiastical developments regarding unbiblical structures and positions), as a means to establish widespread knowledge of the canon (mediated) so that Scripture will function as He has decreed it to function.
Which was this “gathered body” that you refer to? When was it gathered? How do we know what decisions were made at it? What knowledge of the canon was established?
What answers can be given except the councils, the fourth century, the documents from it, and the canon that we — and you — accept?

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 8:22 pm

“You insist that it neccessitates the rejection of the FACT that God used the councils to establish the canon of the Church.”
No I don’t and I never did so I’d appreciate it if you’ll write a recantation to that accusation. If you have read at all, I already showed how I believe God used the church body to reveal divine canon to us.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 8:23 pm

“And the illogic of sola scriptura is so simple: It’s not in the scriptures.”
Yes it is, have you read at all?

mary margaret August 13, 2007 at 8:25 pm

OK, CareBear, I’ve read the James White excerpt, and I still don’t get it.
Please correct my misunderstandings of this argument. It appears to be that God ordained Holy Scripture, so it must be as God ordains (no problem here). And that, having ordained what is Holy Scripture, God will not allow us to misunderstand it. (big problem here). Clearly, some of us do misunderstand it, as there are many different understandings of Holy Scripture. A simple example, many Christians interpret God’s wrath on Sodom and Gemmorah, as a judgement on homosexuality and general sexual immorality. Now, I have also read that it was a judgement on “inhospitability”. In other words, forcing people to engage in sexual acts when they did not wish to. Some of us believe that Jesus fed the 4,000 with a few fish and seven loaves through a miracle of God. Some belive that is a miracle of “sharing”. Which is correct, and to what authority shall we go for the correct interpretation?
Is Jesus truly God, truly Man, both, or some combination of the two? Even I could read Scripture in a variety of ways. Which is correct? How can we know? Jesus did not write, in a physical sense, any of the books that are included in Holy Scripture — surely He could have nade it clear to even the most dense of us (me). Why did He choose not to so do?
To simply say, that God will guide us, individually, to the Truth is patently untrue. How could he lead so many astray? I have no doubt that many believe, truly believe, one way, and others another. Surely, the OT is just as infallible as the NT. God is, after all, the author. Jesus himself existed outside of time–the Holy Trinity was not established 2000 years ago– after all Jesus himself said that before Abraham “I am”. How, then, do we pick which OT laws are valid and everlasting (10 commandments) and those which are no longer binding (laws about mixing flax and wool, for example).
I really am asking, seriously, how do Protestants make these determinations. And, why it is not clear to all of us who seek God’s will? I will do us all the honor of believing that it is truly God’s will that we wish to do, On Earth as it IS in Heaven. We are all searching for God’s way, and all who are RC, OC, or Protestant know that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, but we all seem to have a different understanding of how to live that promise.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 8:26 pm

“I once posted a blog about the illogic of sola scriptura
using James White’s own words but disguised as a Islamic fundamentalist. He was not amused at all and later ripped me up on his no comment blog.”
1. How could you, as no one has ever proven the actual real doctrine illogical, only misunderstood illustrations of it and straw-man arguments. *see above posts for examples*
2. It was very gracious of you to paint Dr. White as an Islamic fundamentalist. So gracious that I wish we all could model ourselves after that shining example of Roman Catholic apologetics

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Note also:
This fellow painted Dr. White an islamic fundamentalist before Dr. White ever made the pictures in question.
Where was the big long post by Jimmy Akin condemning this fellow? Can someone point me to it, because surely you all don’t hold a double standard around here…
I mean if Dr. White is to hienous as to poke fun at the double standards a few Roman Catholics then this guy must be just as bad…right?

Dale Price August 13, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Actually, CB, thanks to your shining example we don’t have to. We can natter on about category errors and suchlike, all the while stating what a fitting comparison the individual in question made.
Quite liberating, actually.

Sandy August 13, 2007 at 8:41 pm

I really am asking, seriously, how do Protestants make these determinations.
How did you determine you’d follow “Rome”?

Eric August 13, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Carebear said,
“This fellow painted Dr. White an islamic fundamentalist before Dr. White ever made the pictures in question.”
Double standards? Nah, :). Actually, the fellow may have been right, I mean not in the actual analogy but i did notice that Dr. White said he has been studying Islam and arabic maybe he really is an islamic fundementalist!

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 8:43 pm

“Actually, CB, thanks to your shining example we don’t have to. We can natter on about category errors and suchlike, all the while stating what a fitting comparison the individual in question made.
Quite liberating, actually.”
Did you have something of substance you wanted to say, or were you just going to back me up in a sarcastic manner.
Usually I’ll employ sarcasm + substance in order to make a point.
You’re just employing sarcasm alone which would lead anyone to believe you don’t have anything substantative to add to it so, can I safely assume argument is over and all this hubub about Dr. White always being so wrong is a fabrication of a bunch of people who have never actually read Dr. White to begin with? I mean, after reading him, i see no real refutation or engaging with his points. Was all of this just a bunch of show and now all the air got let out of the tires?
Sorry to ruin ya’lls frenzy fest.

Dale Price August 13, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Oh, and for the record, I think sockpuppetry, silly parodies and similarly goofy tactics (like people who insist on being called doctor while at the same time using moronic photoshops) have no place in serious debate and/or dialogue.
There–happy?

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 8:45 pm

“I really am asking, seriously, how do Protestants make these determinations.”
Answered in the White quotes in the most basic, brief, and surface manner. There’s way more to Sola Scriptura then that, but what was cited was enough.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 8:46 pm

“There–happy?”
I said substance, not opinions. Your opinions don’t matter.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 8:47 pm

“This fellow painted Dr. White an islamic fundamentalist before Dr. White ever made the pictures in question.
Where was the big long post by Jimmy Akin condemning this fellow?”
I’m waiting.

Eric August 13, 2007 at 8:52 pm

I didn’t really get his analogy, carebear. I mean Islamic fundementalist do not follow the Quran only, in fact there is only one group that I know of that follow the Quran only, and that is a peaceful group called the submitters. Fundementalists follow the Hadith and traditions of Islam which explain put the Quran in it’s context.

Dale Price August 13, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Did you have something of substance you wanted to say, or were you just going to back me up in a sarcastic manner.
Usually I’ll employ sarcasm + substance in order to make a point.

Good for you! And you do it using a goofy identity-hiding handle, too. Multitasking, I suppose.
Then again, being hoist on one’s own petard can be…uncomfortable, I imagine.
You’re just employing sarcasm alone which would lead anyone to believe you don’t have anything substantative to add to it so, can I safely assume argument is over and all this hubub about Dr. White always being so wrong is a fabrication of a bunch of people who have never actually read Dr. White to begin with?
“Would lead anyone to believe”? Would it, now? The fact you’re spitting a few dozen indignant syllables indicates that the dart hit home. Petard, meet hoist. Hoist, petard.
The actual point is that White posted an asinine photoshop making an asinine comparison between his Catholic opponents and violence-threatening Islamofascist fanatics. The next Catholic who calls for the beheading of James White will see me join you in denunciation. Not to mention a call to the authorities.
But all your laborious pixel-squirting has failed to obscure the fact White made a hideously stupid comparison. Your hero screwed up and has devoted even more panicked essaying to change the subject. The fact he–and his fans–are incapable of acknowledging any moral or factual error in dealing with Catholics is why we’re still at it four days later.

CatholicWayne August 13, 2007 at 9:01 pm

A few obseravations:
re: Gwen’s differentiation between disciples +/- apostles who forgive: there is a movement within protestantism that we confess our sins to one another and receive forgiveness. When I was graduating from my Baptist Seminary, I heard of a small group like that about thirty miles away.
re: White’s arguments posted by carebeer:
in short: scripture exists. its history, developmemt, and definition is immaterial
if scripture exists, by definition it is authoritative, that authority comes from God,it’s ultimate author, and not from those used by God to deliver and protect the scriptures until the printing press was invented.
the fundamental philosophical flaw is its functional commitment to a nominalism that denies connection or categories.
White is using a sort of vanTilian presuppositionalist declaration to ‘make’ his case.
But: Parse his phrases. examine the logical dependencies. The carefully worded phrases are contracepted. they don’t go anywhere. they are isolated, connected only by inference and grammer to the world we live in.
He is building a castle in the air, connected to nothing.
It ignores the giant elephant in the room: Throughout biblical history, God did things incarnationally, through stuff- people, prophets, creatures, nations. His incarnation is consistent with that. In fact I would argue that by the act of creating, God demonstrated that practice.
but that’s just my opinion
wayne
(CatholicWayne)

Dale Price August 13, 2007 at 9:04 pm

I said substance, not opinions. Your opinions don’t matter.
Well, of course they do. Especially when the fellow braying about “substance” has all the heft of helium.
You can’t even read yourself correctly, CB.
Dr. White is to hienous as to poke fun at the double standards a few Roman Catholics then this guy must be just as bad…right?
Which is why I rebuked it. It was silly and unworthy to posit White as some goofball imam. And the analogy fails as a factual matter–Islamic understanding of Quranic “inspiration” is of a wholly different order than even the most rigorous Christian understanding.
Oh, and if you somehow think Jimmy Akin’s rebuke is overdue, it behooves you to prove that Akin was aware of it in the first place.

mary margaret August 13, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Sandy, Short answer, because Christ Himself gave the Church authority. I follow the Bishops, because they are the successors to the Apostles (IOW, I believe in Apostolic succession, which, BTW, is in the Bible). I follow, specifically, the successor of Peter, because Christ gave to Peter (and only to Peter) the keys of the Kingdom, and promised that the gates of Hell should not prevail against Christ’s Church. Thus, I follow the Bishop of Rome (the successor to St Peter on earth), because the Catholic Church is, I believe, truly Christ’s Church. You may think that I am misguided, but that is what I truly believe. I will follow Christ, through His choice for the leader of His Church on earth, the Vicar of Christ, currently PBXVI. May God grant him wisdom, patience, and good humor as he juggles us rabid Cat(holic)s and hands down the faith with the graces he has been given. May God Bless you, Papa!

Sandy August 13, 2007 at 9:15 pm

Sandy, Short answer, because Christ Himself gave the Church authority…. the Catholic Church is, I believe, truly Christ’s Church
You may be missing my point, which is, how did you make your determination that Christ’s authority is in the Catholic Church? Did you decide that yourself or did someone decide it for you?

CatholicWayne August 13, 2007 at 9:18 pm

Why did I choose to follow the pope?
because the Bible told me to.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 9:21 pm

CatholicWayne,
Read your post and I’m not sure you make any point at all. Care to read the entire work and compose a critique of it? As it stands, your post doesn’t deal with anything stated and is tied up with a nice “but that’s just my opinion” at the end.
I’m not trying to offend you but, that’s not pertinent, what about the points made. How do your accusations against the purported points stand firm? Taking your word that he’s wrong is something no one should be prepared to do. Taking my word that I’m right is something I wouldn’t want anyone to do, that’s why I back up what I’m saying.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 9:23 pm

“Why did I choose to follow the pope?
because the Bible told me to.”
Isn’t this the kind of answers that Roman Catholic apologists hate? I thought Roman Catholicism had better answers to offer than that. This is the same type of answer Dr. Beckwith was giving in his interview with Koukl.

Sandy August 13, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Why did I choose to follow the pope? because the Bible told me to.
So you decided, in your judgment, it told you to?

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 9:27 pm

“I follow the Bishops, because they are the successors to the Apostles (IOW, I believe in Apostolic succession, which, BTW, is in the Bible).”
That’s been refuted time and time again. Have you heard the other side of the story? Does anyone have an answer to the Protestant position? As I have asserted before, I doubt few here have actually ever litened to a White debate. White debates on these very subjects yet I havn’t seen someone raise their hand and say “I listened to him and he’s full of hot air and here’s why.”
The only thing I’ve heard is “I wont read him/I’ve never read him, but he’s full of hot air.”
Ok, if he’s full of hot air, why? If Papal infalliability is true, then why?
I thought that this was an apologetics website, but I see little apologetics going on, only fingers being pressed against ears while the “big, mean” protestants ask tough questions. Apologetics is the giving of a logical defense, yet I’ve seen little of that. What gives?

Thomas Aquinas August 13, 2007 at 9:30 pm

I asked:
“Question: if the Bible is 100% God’s Word (as I believe as well), why do we talk about Paul, Peter, Matthew, etc. as being authors of particular books? Why not just say, “God did it,” since to attribute God’s work to man’s work is “unbiblical.” But if it is legitimate to say that God used the distinctive personalities and historical circumstances of these figures to communicate his truth, then something can be both 100% God’s doing and human beings cooperate. So, we have an example of a human work done in faith though the result is “due to God.””
CareBear Replies
“I fail to see how the Bible being 100% God’s word neccessitates the rejection of the FACT that God employed human authors to convey His Word.
Also, those of us in Protestantism do just say “God did it” as you so immaturely put it. We call it the sufficiency of Scripture as the Divine Revelation of God. ”
Sigh…. CareBear, you’re missing my point. Perhaps I was too subtle. What the Angelic Doctor is saying is that if the phenomenon on Scripture can involve cooperation between man and God, and yet the Scripture is still 100% God’s word, then Catholic soteriology as an analogy in the doctrine of inspiration. Think about this way: what if, in reply to the doctrine of inspiration, an unbeliever were to say to us: it’s either God or man; it can’t be both. To say that man cooperates with God in writing Scripture takes away from God’s sovereignty.

CareBear August 13, 2007 at 9:35 pm

You’re mischaracterizing divine inspiration to fit your meaning in order to draw that conclusion, either you or Aquinas was.
In response to the unbeliever I would say it was all God, through man. Not man’s cooperation, but God’s sovereign control over the man.
You’re arguing with a monergist here Thomas, not a synergist. Those Jedi mind tricks don’t work on me.

Tim August 13, 2007 at 9:57 pm

CareBear says
“I thought that this was an apologetics website, but I see little apologetics going on.”
I disagree. There have been some wonderful posts with many great insights (at least for me personally).

CatholicWayne August 13, 2007 at 10:03 pm

Heh i will say this in favor of cb’s white’s book excerpts:
by differentiating between revelation and artifact of revelation he deals with those gentle souls I’ve encountered who lift up their Bible and say that 1.the Bible is the Word of God
2.John 1:1,2 says…
3.therefore the Bible is God?
(and yes I’ve helped them see the difference)
but white really isn’t proving anything …
lemmetry to summarize his points:
Author==>writes book Canon==>canon contains 1 book(artifact of Revelation)
canon contains 1+ n books known only to Author
God=Author
therefore God will protect the writings(artifact) and ensure that the canon of the writings is complete.
the process of doing that is deemed not relevant
because it is God’s revelation and His authority and he does not share or mediate that authority ever.
have I missed or misstated anything?

Dispositor August 13, 2007 at 10:05 pm

“I didn’t really get his analogy, carebear. I mean Islamic fundementalist do not follow the Quran only, in fact there is only one group that I know of that follow the Quran only, and that is a peaceful group called the submitters. Fundementalists follow the Hadith and traditions of Islam which explain put the Quran in it’s context”
in Judaism the same type of traditions exist and they are known as Talmud (Oral Torah). They try to argue that this goes back all the way to Moses, however there is no proof for that, the writings of Talmud come into existence after the destruction of the Temple. The Talmud in Rabbinic eyes is the infallible “interpreter” of the Old Testament- and it leads them away from Christ, when if they would read it, like passages from Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 and myriads of others on their own, praying for God to illuminate scripture, they would come to Christ, as many have. The traditions actually cloud the truth of the scriptures in Modern Judaism.
Something to think about.
Proverbs 3:5

CatholicWayne August 13, 2007 at 10:10 pm

CareBear says
“I thought that this was an apologetics website, but I see little apologetics going on.”
for Apologetics go to Catholic.com
this is a blog where we chat.
apologetics might happen, but only as a byproduct of our chatting
peace

CatholicWayne August 13, 2007 at 10:28 pm

CareBear says
“Those Jedi mind tricks don’t work on me.”
Heh
CB, It is called Truth. Reality.
You just don’t want to go there.
Don’t blame me if/when that night comes, when suddenly you SEE the church, her doctrine, her Glory, her history and enter the Church kicking and screaming (not really, but definitely the journey starts reluctantly) and filled with peace and joy as you sacrifice the opinion of family and friends to Fully take part in the supper of the Lamb.
I sacrificed all to obtain a great treasure: The Church, her theology, her history was the treasure. Salvation is free,but following Christ requires all of me on the tree, burried with him, working with him daily, like Paul says.

mary margaret August 13, 2007 at 10:29 pm

This is obviously a waste of time. I said that it was pointless to discuss with people who thought that what James White did with those cartoons was defensible. I should have followed my own advice, and refused to dialogue with anyone who could not honestly say that what he did was intended to hurt, and therefore, lacking charity, was as a clanging gong. I do not in any way, retract that statement.
OK, Sandy, choose a side. Either you believe what the Bible says, or you do not. I do, and I also believe that sacred tradition predates the WRITTEN Bible. It predated the physical writing of the OT, and it predated the physical writing of the NT. “In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. Jesus did not give us a physical book, he gave us the Church. Through the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Bible was canonized.
I don’t know what you are asking when you say, “did you decide this yourself, or did someone else decide it for you?” I am a Catholic–I believe in free will, as a gift of God Almighty. I make my own choices, and God allows me to do so. Yes, I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of my own free will, through the grace of God, who has written the natural law on the hearts of all humankind. My choice is to accept or reject that grace.
Look, it is you Sola Scriptura Protestants that protest that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. When we Catholics agree, and point out that St Peter was given the authority by Christ Himself, according to the Bible, and we believe it, you disagree (or at least you disagree that that authority is passed down through the ages to the successors of St Peter). We are not Sola Scriptura, but that does not mean that we do not believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. We do, we really, really do. We just don’t believe that it each of us is free to interpret every word that it contains. We believe that His Word continues to guide the Church and protect her from teaching error. I don’t ask that you agree, but I do wish that you would try to understand that we are truly trying to do God’s will.
(Fellow Catholics, if I, in any way misrepresent the teachings of Christ or the Church, feel free to correct me. Charitably, please. As you know, all of us Catholics believe in Caritas in all things :) )

CatholicWayne August 13, 2007 at 10:40 pm

mary margaret:
good post
every denomination and every independent church has its own magesterium, tradition.
for example, you wouldn’t be permitted to preach dispensationalism of any sort in my home church.
nor anything disagreeing with T.U.L.I.P.
in the Baptist church up the road they would only allow dispies and anti-TULIPS (heh)
CB, Sandy, Gwen and the others have a filter through which they view the church, church history, and arguments against the church.
Pray that one day they accidently drop the filter.

Sandy August 13, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Sandy, choose a side. Either you believe what the Bible says, or you do not.
You believe what it says to you, and the Protestants believe what it says to them.
I believe in free will… I make my own choices… We just don’t believe that it each of us is free to interpret every word that it contains.
You either make your own choices or you don’t. Which is it? At some point you either decide what it means for yourself or you decide to let someone else make the choice for you.

Sandy August 13, 2007 at 10:49 pm

CB, Sandy, Gwen and the others have a filter through which they view the church, church history, and arguments against the church. Pray that one day they accidently drop the filter.
Everyone has a filter. For some, the filter includes Rome.

Eileen R August 13, 2007 at 10:54 pm

Carebear:
“I thought that this was an apologetics website, but I see little apologetics going on.”
And there’s your essential problem. This isn’t an apologetics website, and frankly, most of us aren’t here to talk apologetics.
Apologetical discussions often take place in the comment boxes here, since Jimmy is an apologist and posts on related topics, but that’s not their only function, and if it was, I wouldn’t enjoy it half so much. This is the water cooler where people chat with each other about whatever they’ve a mind to.
And most of the people don’t come here to debate. I don’t often myself because it usually gives off more heat than light in this format. Unless it concerns history, which is my pet topic, then I’m in there like a flash.
But it’s rather annoying when com-boxers ask “Why has no one addressed my argument? You must be afraid/confused/arrogant/stupid etc.” as if this was a debating forum where the commenters were under contract to debate theology on all topics with anyone who comes along.
CareBear:
Have you heard the other side of the story? Does anyone have an answer to the Protestant position? As I have asserted before, I doubt few here have actually ever litened to a White debate.
I certainly haven’t, and don’t intend to. I don’t think these sorts of debates at all useful, even if I like the thinking of the debater. Much the same goes for the combox debates. Sometimes, when an issue is so big, it’s hopeless to carve it up into little soundbytes or hastily posted zingers. In a big way, I think that someone looking for an answer about what “the other side” thinks should actually go read what the other side’s intellectuals have written. Demands for combox explanations are usually futile. No one has the *time* to write a book on the issue, even if they do have an answer.
Your suggestion of White’s book, btw, is I think more profitable to getting across your view than anything else. Recommended reading can be taken up by those inclined. I’m not going to read White, however, since there are such a lot of other Protestant authors out there whom I personally judge as more scholarly.

Eileen R August 13, 2007 at 10:57 pm

Guys, Sandy’s our Gnostic Troll, not a sincere Bible Christian.
Sandy: You believe what it says to you, and the Protestants believe what it says to them.
Sounds familiar, eh? Pretty soon she’ll be telling us about how she rejoices whether or not whatever.

Sandy August 13, 2007 at 11:01 pm

There’s nothing gnostic about it. It’s simply the way it is. Catholics and Protestants both believe what they say it says.

CatholicWayne August 13, 2007 at 11:03 pm

“You either make your own choices or you don’t. Which is it? At some point you either decide what it means for yourself or you decide to let someone else make the choice for you.”
I’ll bite :)
When I decided to obey Christ’s call for me to follow him into the Catholic Church I said that “When I discovered that the pope agreed with all of my theology and teaching I had discovered in the Bible, I felt it better that I go with the group that had been reflecting on those teachings for almost 2000 years.
It was that, or start yet another denomination.

Eileen R August 13, 2007 at 11:03 pm

I’ll admit there’s nothing gnostic about *that*. It’s just your usual springboard for the gnostic gobble-de-gook.
Keep on rejoicing.

Sandy August 13, 2007 at 11:10 pm

When I discovered that the pope agreed with all of my theology and teaching I had discovered in the Bible, I felt it better that I go with the group
So you decided for yourself what it says and then decided you’d go along with a group that agrees with you.

CatholicWayne August 13, 2007 at 11:28 pm

“So you decided for yourself what it says and then decided you’d go along with a group that agrees with you.”
i’ll bite again…
yes
against my desires, mind you. I had no wish to align with the whore of babylon, I didn’t [then] get ‘litugy’, the singing and preaching generally sucked, they had no concept of evangelizing, and way too many inside didn’t believe were amazed that I would.

CatholicWayne August 13, 2007 at 11:31 pm

missed an “and”
as in:
too many inside didn’t believe and were amazed that I would.

Sandy August 13, 2007 at 11:33 pm

So you, like the Protestants, decided for yourself what the Bible says.

CatholicWayne August 14, 2007 at 12:03 am

Biting again… :)
I saw what I saw in the scriptures, I saw the theology that arose from that, I saw the devotional, spiritual growth that flowed from that, and saw in the checkered history of the church with all her saints that theology and teaching relected again and again. I realized then that I could not anymore ‘choose what the Bible says’, I had to choose to be consistent with what the church has always said: I had to choose to submit to the authority of the church.
Did I/Do I think it reasonable to do so? Yes!

Sandy August 14, 2007 at 12:14 am

And the Protestants see what they see and think it’s reasonable to do what they do in order to be consistent with what they believe Christ wants.

StubbleSpark August 14, 2007 at 12:16 am

Too many people throwing around the word gnostic here. To quote a great Spaniard: “You keep using that word, I do not think you know what it means.”
Gnosticism, that ancient heresy that the Church has constantly fought, is mainly characterized by two ideas:
1) Believe in secret, private revelation. Communication of this revelation is extremely limited or in the case of Shingon Buddhism — impossible.
2) A presumption that the spiritual and the material are at odds. The material is evil and corrupting and the spiritual is pure and corruptible.
The accusation that the Church bases her Theology on a secret is nuts. Western civilization simply would not have grown the way it has if this were the case. The Church invented the very study called theology and has from the beginning sent out missionaries to convert the Pagan.
Every single non-denomination of Protestantism, on the other hand, is a doctrine of salvation unto itself open only to her vaunted members who have the cunning to see Pastor So-and-so is right. But for the past 2000 years? Nope. You cannot even get a 500-year-old Calvinist to sit down with a 20-year-old Adventist. Every day someone new stands up wild-eyed and excited that they finally figured it out.
So much for the perspicuity of Scripture.
Then of course you have the Protestant disdain of the material; irrational and unbiblical though it may be. This was one of the hardest parts for me in my conversion. I had to get over this idea that a material Church existing in time and place was somehow able to communicate spiritual blessings.
The gnostic Baptist in me in wanted to run away. How can something I can *touch* penetrate into my soul? I had always presumed an inferiority of the material that precluded its use in God’s plan.
But from Genesis to Revelations, the Bible is full of nothing but story after story of God using His creation to help us, His created, come closer to Him. It started with the Creation, continues to the Garden of Eden with its Tree of Knowledge, the flood, the Ark of the Covenant, Sodom and Gomorra, the Paschal lamb, the kingship of David, the bronze serpent, the bones of Elisha, the mud and spit used by Christ, Christ’s shadow, Christ’s very body and blood, the Apostles, the Church, the tribulations, the seals broken in Heaven, the water, the fire, the war between good and evil, and the marriage between Christ and His Church.
The most unbiblical thing in the world would be a belief in a vague and purely spiritual church.
It is also gnostic.
A true gnostic could never believe in things like holy water, regenerative baptism, the eucharist, and confession.
But all these are rejected outright by many American evangelicals by their preexisting and unbiblical gnostic philosophies.
The Bible nowhere records that the gift of divine revelation would be lost. Nor is there any hint of a purely spiritual church. God became man. That means the material cannot be evil. You and I were created by God. That means that we can be confident that His shepherds also exist in this time and this place to guide us.
Just as all generations have known since Christ personally walked this Earth.

Foxfier August 14, 2007 at 1:00 am

Catholic Wayne- I know that one shouldn’t bite to trolls, but… you did very well.

CatholicWayne August 14, 2007 at 1:59 am

Foxfier: :)
Sandy: I’ll be praying for you…

My Cat's Name is Lily August 14, 2007 at 2:03 am

5 days and counting and no one has interacted with Dr. White’s points–CareBear, August 13, 2007
___________________________________________
Mr White has no points. Mr White, like the Emperor in the children’s story, is meandering down the main pike in his skivvies, afraid to admit that he can’t see “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
I, on the other hand, being only a child, & having espied a naked man in the middle of the highway, am unafraid to say, once again: “The Emperor is as naked as a jaybird!”
Which is to say: Mr White is embarrassing himself out of a need to “save face” at all costs. I can only say, that the spectacle of a man who names the name of Christ, wandering about in a pair of aged boxer shorts, is not one which is inclined to impress anyone.
He would have been better off to have admitted, some time ago, that he had made a grave error. He did not so admit.
No one is doing him any favors, when they refuse him the loan of a bathrobe & slippers….But then, the Catholics he so despises have made the offer; he was too busy to notice. God help him; his friends clearly aren’t going to do so.

bill912 August 14, 2007 at 4:07 am

I pointed out that sola scriptura is not in the scriptures. Someone replied that it is. He could have proved me wrong by citing the verses that teach sola scriptura. He didn’t.

Foxfier August 14, 2007 at 4:54 am

Bill, don’t you know that they’re here to yell for us to “interact” with the (their) issues, not to actually respond when we do so?
Ah well. I know when I first found this site, I read through a lot of the older posts, if I was interested in the topic. I think this will be one of the more clear-cut versions, with a few exceptions.

Dale Price August 14, 2007 at 7:43 am

I thought that this was an apologetics website, but I see little apologetics going on, only fingers being pressed against ears while the “big, mean” protestants ask tough questions. Apologetics is the giving of a logical defense, yet I’ve seen little of that. What gives?
Yet another substance-impaired snit. Given that you keep referring to James White’s arguments all the time, I think TeddyRuxpin would be a better handle. One loaded up with Dr. James White’s Olde Fashioned Debate Tapes/Fungal Treatment Bands and set on a permanent loop.
Ecce sockpuppet.
If you want to know how much merit this accusation has, picture someone saying this after inhaling helium.
Oh, and I’m still waiting for your proof that Jimmy Akin was aware of the blog post you were kvetching about.
Remember now–substance. When I want your opinion, I’ll go to White’s blog.

CareBear August 14, 2007 at 8:20 am

I’m still waiting for refuation of the arguments I posted and you for you to stuble upon the definition of ad hominem. I guess we’re all waiting for something.
If we’re going to play that game though, please prove to me James White was aware that the pictures would yield said results and that he didnt post them in jest, as on that premise rests all the argument of your wolf criers and alarm monkies.
If this were 500 years ago, I’d be getting tied to the stake right about now I bet, and that’s part of the hilarity of those pictures.

CatholicWayne August 14, 2007 at 8:31 am

CB:
I tried to summarize the arguments that you posted.
did I?
what can you add?
then we can deal with it
IMHO, White’s arguments aren’t based upon anything but his declaration of what arises from God’s sovereignty. White also ignores that God has always worked incarnationally, (the scripture recounts that) that Scripture mediates the authority through the Church and her overseers (bishops).
the ediface of his argument is an illusion

Mr. Spock August 14, 2007 at 8:35 am

I apologize to everyone for the long post, but CareBear seems to wish that the quotations from Mr. White be addressed. Thus I wanted to lay out some of my thoughts briefly. Please note I’m only an average layperson (and I never really post online), so what I say might be in error.
“If the author continues writing, the canon changes with the completion of each project. It should be noted that even if an author does not write down a list of his or her works, a canon exists nonetheless, which he or she knows infallibly. No one else can know infallibly know this canon outside of the author’s attempt to comunicate it to others…Even those closest to the author cannot know with utter certainty whether the author has used anyone else in the writing process or borrowed from another source…Therefore, the originator of a book has an infallible knowledge of the works, while anyone else has a mediated knowledge, dependent upon the honest and the integrity of the author and the author’s desire to make the canon known to others.”
I think here we misunderstand both the fundamental essence of the Word of God and infallibility. First, the above allegorical example of author writing a book dies a hard death of insufficiency when applied to the Word of God. This is primarily due to the fact that it assumes the Word itself did not exist previous to its incarnation in literary form. In other words, it assumes either the Author first wrote a portion and then attained infallible knowledge of the canon, or attained both at the same time. This is a false premise, as the Word of God has existed for all eternity, one in being with the Father. My point is: God (both the Father and the Word) are eternal, unchanging and extemporal. Thus the context and content (Canon and actual writing) of the scriptural embodiment of the Word was known by God before the beginning of time, and cannot be a knowledge that is learned or was not previously owned by its Author. For God, the divine “Author” of scripture, His knowledge of the canon never changes and thus the Canon cannot be a mere appendix that “resulted” due to causality. Thus the illustration is flawed at its most basic lever.
However, as we move on, other questions arise: Could not the omnipotent almighty God, by his sheer willpower, communicate this charism of infallibility to an individual or organization, if he so wished? I don’t see why everyone else (necessarily) has mediated knowledge. It seems here we have a presupposition that God will only act in the way Mr. White conjectures. A rash assumption, but perhaps he’ll handle it later in the next paragraph? (Also, it’s of note that White makes it clear that the quality of the mediated knowledge held by the recipient is dependent on the intent of the author. Theoretically, wouldn’t God perfectly intend for us to know, oh say, the Canon of Scripture if indeed Scripture was to be our sole Authority? Wouldn’t he want us to know the bounds of said authority? I wonder if that’ll be dealt with as well?)
“When we apply these considerations to Scripture, we are able to see that canon (infallible) is a neccessary result of God’s freely chosen act of inspiration. Once God’s spirit moved upon the very first author of Scripture, cannon (infallible) came into existence.”
False, this is why I made the above distinction regarding the knowledge of the Canon. The Canon did not spring into being as a result of some random act of an Author. God, in writing the scriptures through the hands of men, seeks to express, present and incarnate Himself to the world in a new way. He fully knows ahead of His actual writings exactly what will be said/written, and the limits and extent of all scripture throughout all time. It’s not as if His “(infallible)” knowledge can simply *pop* into existence. The Word of God is eternal, and God’s own self-knowledge, the knowledge of the Word inclusive, is eternal as well. It seems a bit strange to hear (Especially from a Calvinist) that the Canon of Scripture was borne into existence and unbeknownst to God before the writing of scripture proper. Simply put, God knew both the Rule of Scripture and the Text of Scripture before it was ever written. He also knew what the Canon’s status would be at different stages of “human time”, but that certainly doesn’t mean the total Canon was an evolutionary project dependent upon a process of revelation. To infer such is illogical.
“Before anyone knew the state of what God had done (canon mediated), God infallibly knew the current state and content of canon (infallible). With each passing phase of His unfolding of revelation in Scripture, canon (infalible) remained current and infallible, fully reflective (by necessity) of the ongoing work of enscripturation.”
Wrong again. I argue that Canon (infallible) is dependent purely upon the knowledge of God, and thus does not unfold, but is known before it is written. It’s not as if God sits on His Throne in Heaven and yells to some Cherubs “Hey guys, it’s time to update that Canon, I’ve just written another book through John”. I see what Mr. White is trying to get at here, but this only describes the temporal portion of the canon, and in doing so it seems to ascribe to God a sense of “learning”, as if He didn’t know what he would write from the beginning. This is all pertinent to the next little blurb, which reads:
“This is why we should call the canon an artifact of revelation: It is not itself and object of revelation, but comes into existence as a by-product of the action itself. God inspires, and the canon expresses the limitation of that action.”
Again, this is flawed because it was constructed on from the basic assumption that the Canon in totality “necessarily” flows from the creation of scripture, and was not previously known infallibly before. At best, Mr. White can say that the Canon is secondary to the primary quantity of Scripture, much like Gasoline is to a Car, but anyone who’s versed in logic can tell you that secondary does not denote lesser. He (White) comes close to this when he says: “God inspires, and the canon expresses the limitation of that action.” However, his central argument is errant in that the infallible knowledge of the Canon (held by God in eternity) can neither proceed from or precede Scripture itself. They in turn necessitate each other from God’s frame of reference.
Again, these are only cursory thoughts… I’ll finish more when I get back from Mass. Pray for me!
In Christ

CatholicWayne August 14, 2007 at 8:36 am

“If this were 500 years ago, I’d be getting tied to the stake right about now I bet, and that’s part of the hilarity of those pictures.”
I get it now. The pics were to appeal to the anticatholic. to polarize and rally support.
We are now praying for your conversion to the fullness of the faith.
Love Jesus and His word.
Thoroughly.
it is easier that way.

Esau August 14, 2007 at 9:06 am

CareBear,
I see you “mindlessly follow an Internet Apologist” such as James White!
Again, I ask you, how do you know that the books that are in the bible belong there?
How do you know that those books are, in fact, “Scripture”?
Or are you going to evade the question once again by “mindlessly following the ravings of an Internet Apologist”!

Esau August 14, 2007 at 9:15 am

Oh, by the way, how convenient that you have the benefit of hindsight, since the Canon of the New Testament that Protestants have was due to the “Romanists”!
Even Martin Luther acknowleged this:
In his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16, he says this:
“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it”
But WHAT IF the Romanists made an error since, after all, the Catholic Church is nothing but a front for Satan!
What is your criteria for accepting the books that comprise the New Testament, if you do not trust or acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church that decided its Canon???
Do you also REJECT all those books that the Catholic Church rejected as NOT being part of that New Testament Canon? If so, why???
You should, by your own authority (since you don’t acknowledge that of the Church), re-consider all the books that are currently in the bible, but also, in addition, take up all those other books that the Catholic Church rejected time and again in the Councils of Rome (382 AD), Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD). I mean, who’s to say that the Catholic Church might not have made a mistake in rejecting all those books that they threw out in deciding the Canon of the New Testament???
How about these books that they rejected as NOT being part of Scripture:
The Book of Jasher
The Book of the Wars of the Lord
The Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel
The Books of annals of the Kings of Israel
The Books of annals of the kings of Judah
Books of Chronicles
The Book of Shemaiah
The Covenant Code
The Manner of the Kingdom[2]
The Acts of Solomon[3]
The Annals of King David[4]
The Book of Samuel the Seer[5]
The Book of Nathan the Prophet[6]
The Book of Gad the Seer[7]
The History of Nathan the Prophet[8]
The Prophecy of Ahijah[9]
The Visions of Iddo the Seer
The Book of Shemaiah the Prophet[10]
Iddo Genealogies
The Story of the Prophet Iddo
The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel[13]
The Book of Jehu[14]
The Story of the Book of Kings[15]
The Acts of Uziah[16]
The Vision of Isaiah[17]
The Acts of the Kings of Israel[18]
The Sayings of the Seers[19]
The Laments for Josiah[20]
The Chronicles of King Ahasuerus[21]
The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia[22]
The Epistle of Jude
The Epistle to Corinth
The Earlier Epistle to the Ephesians
The Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians
The Earlier Epistle of John
Missing Epistle of Jude
The Wisdom of Solomon
The Wisdom of Sirach
Maccabees (I)
Maccabees (II)
Maccabees (II)
Maccabees (IV)
Esther
Judith
Tobit
Adam
Enoch
Lamech
The Patriarchs
The Prayer of Joseph
Eldad and Modad
The Testament of Moses
The Assumption of Moses
The Psalms of Solomon
The Revelation of Elias
The Vision of Isaiah
The Revelation of Zephaniah
The Revelation of Zechariah
The Revelation of Ezra
The History of James
The Revelation of Peter
The Circuits and Teachings of the Apostles
The Epistle of Barnabas
The Acts of Paul
The Revelation of Paul
The Teaching of Clement
The Teaching of Ignatius
The Teaching of Polycarp
The Gospel according to Barnabas
The Gospel according to Matthias
The Canon of Scripture (i.e, just what books actually belong in the Bible) can’t be found in the individuals books that comprise the bible.
You can’t go to the individual books of the bible to determine just which books are authentically inspired and can be deemed as Scripture. There were so many other books in addition to those that actually became part of the bible that the Church had to decide which of these formed Scripture.

Dale Price August 14, 2007 at 9:16 am

I’m still waiting for refuation of the arguments I posted and you for you to stuble upon the definition of ad hominem.
That’s nice. I’m not interested in those arguments, nor in the well-blasted trenches of apologetics warfare, which I have avoided throughout, thanks. The original post goes to White’s moronic photoshops, which is all I’ve focused on. I’m not interested in White and his fanboys’/fangals’ diversion into Nicaea, sola scriptura and whatnot.
I guess we’re all waiting for something
Your continuing inability to offer proof that Akin was aware of the blog post above is noted.
If we’re going to play that game though, please prove to me James White was aware that the pictures would yield said results and that he didnt post them in jest, as on that premise rests all the argument of your wolf criers and alarm monkies.
Here’s the thing: It has never mattered if it was a joke or not. The last refuge of the scoundrel who offends is “hey, it was just a joke.”
So what? Don Imus intended his racist comment about “nappy-headed h*s” as a joke. Intent is not dispositive.
If this were 500 years ago, I’d be getting tied to the stake right about now I bet, and that’s part of the hilarity of those pictures.
Fascinating. You even share White’s clueless arrogant martyr complex. That’s the problem with re-fighting 500 year old battles: it makes you look like an obsessive crank.

AV August 14, 2007 at 9:57 am

We are now praying for your conversion to the fullness of the faith.
Do Catholics get better seats in heaven than the Protestants?

Matthew Siekierski August 14, 2007 at 10:05 am

CareBear:
You have said multiple times (quoting Dr. White) that God would divinely reveal the Canon. To whom did he reveal this? Luther? Calvin? Athanasius? The synod at Hippo? The Councils of Carthage? Augustine? Pope Damasus? His Council of Rome? James White? You? (He certainly hasn’t directly revealed it me through personal revelation.)
White’s explanation leaves that unanswered. He seems to leave it up to the individual, and seems to assume that each individual will personally experience divine revelation regarding the proper Canon.
Now, on to another topic. You have claimed (again) that nobody is responding to White’s points. Which ones? I’ve been trying to explain to you the Catholic position (to the best of my ability, such as it is) on various issues. Do they not apply, or are you choosing to ignore them in order to post another “gotcha!” by claiming that we’re not responding? To be honest, it troubles me, because I feel like I’ve been wasting my time in talking to you (although I hope it’s not been a waste).
No, I haven’t read White’s books. I haven’t listened to him. I have, however, read some of his recent posts, and the excerpts which you kindly supplied (which, to my mind, at least give us a basis for things to discuss). Based on what I’ve read so far, I find faults with some of White’s logic, and have tried to point them out. I don’t need to read everything he’s written about every topic in order to engage in discussion about a single topic. Nor do I need to have read everything he’s said about a single topic in order to discuss portions of that topic. So if the above questions about divine revelation of the proper canon of scripture were answered by White elsewhere in his book, then explain it…don’t just say “you need to read his book”. Else I’ll stop bothering to respond with actual information and just point you to documents of the Early Fathers, the Catechism, and books by various Catholic Apologists. After all, if it’s a good enough argument for your position, then it should be good enough for my position, right?
Heh…I just had a mental image of Akin and White in a debate, each posing questions to the other, and each responding with “I answered that in my book insert title.” and never actually responding beyond that. That’d be a really uninformative debate.

Esau August 14, 2007 at 10:06 am

Do Catholics get better seats in heaven than the Protestants?
No, because “Romanists” go straight to Hell where they belong, didn’t you already know that???

AV August 14, 2007 at 10:09 am

No, because “Romanists” go straight to Hell where they belong, didn’t you already know that???
No, I was saving them seats.

Esau August 14, 2007 at 10:11 am

No, I was saving them seats.
AV,
Unfortunately, not everybody thinks as you do.
Had we more folks like you, then perhaps we could live together as brethren in the Faith rather than the viscious venom you find in the age-old prejudice: Prots v. Romanists.

CareBear August 14, 2007 at 11:13 am

“White’s explanation leaves that unanswered. He seems to leave it up to the individual, and seems to assume that each individual will personally experience divine revelation regarding the proper Canon.”
Quick question, can Rome tell ou who wrote Hebrews without questions?
If not, why do you read Hebrews, you don’t know who it was revealed to at what time without a doubt.

Esau August 14, 2007 at 11:16 am

CareBear,
That’s a great question!
How do you know that Hebrews is actually Scripture?

CareBear August 14, 2007 at 11:17 am

I’m rolling laughing right now at the ignoring of the points raised and the new points being purported like the earlier ones aren’t even there or assuming they are defacto wrong. Bravo.
It’s getting hot in here.

Foxfier August 14, 2007 at 11:17 am

Hey, I know how you can tell if you’ve made a *really* good response!
None of the folks who demanded a response will answer your statements.

Esau August 14, 2007 at 11:18 am

Ohh, again AVOIDING the question!
Will you still EVADE the question???
I’m asking you — HOW DO YOU KNOW HEBREWS IS ‘SCRIPTURE’???

Esau August 14, 2007 at 11:20 am

And, CareBear, please don’t make this out to an INFOMERCIAL FOR JAMES WHITE by AGAIN DODGING the question by the silly, evasive response:
“Read James White Book, [insert title here]”

Matthew Siekierski August 14, 2007 at 11:48 am

CareBear:
Absolutely. God wrote Hebrews, divinely inspiring the author (disputed though that individual may be). My reason to believe this involves trusting the authority of the Church to determine authentic scripture. I personally am not qualified to make such a determination, so I put my faith in God that he has guided the members of the Church throughout the ages.
Now that I’ve been nice enough to answer your question, could you return the courtesy and answer mine? To whom was the Canon of Scripture divinely revealed? How are we mere mortal men to know who to believe when they claim to have been so inspired? How does one handle the existing situation where different people/groups disagree on what books are a part of the Canon? I, as a Catholic, rely on the authority of the Church, as vested in Peter by Jesus.
In other words, I have a list of books I say was divinely inspired. You have a different (although overlapping) list of books that you say was divinely inspired. Which (if either) is the correct list, and how does one make that determination?

bill912 August 14, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Amen, Foxfier!

Mr. Spock August 14, 2007 at 12:29 pm

CareBear:
To continue to address your White quotations:
“The nature of canon (mediated) in regard to inspiration is vital to properly understanding the historic canon process.”
True! Unfortunately for us though, Mr. White seems to demonstrate a less-than-adequate understanding of God’s inspirational work and his process of revelation. Hopefully his understanding of history will fair better.
“Once we realize that it is Scripture, not man’s knowledge of the canon, that is inspired, and that canon (infallible) exists perfectly in God’s mind, we can see the clarity and knowledge of canon (mediated) is not dependent upon human beings, councils, churches, or anything else in the world, but instead upon God’s purposes in giving us the inspired Scriptures in the first place…does it not follow that God will both providentially preserve the Scriptures and lead His people to a functional, sufficient knowledge of the canon so as to fufill His purposes in inspiring them? Indeed, will He not exercise just as much divine power in establishing and fufilling His purpose for the Scriptures (their functioning as a guide to the church) as He has in inspring them? The two actions are neccesarily linked in fulfilling the one purpose of God.”
This snippet begins with a rather bizarre straw-man argument subtly disguised as a jab at the Church. Namely, it seems to say that Catholics hold that the Canon of Scripture as proclaimed by the Church is “inspired” in the same sense as that of Scripture itself. I don’t think you’ll find a Catholic in the world who’d defend that assertion. It’s probably best to move on. White then argues that the “clarity of the Canon (mediated) is not dependant upon human beings, councils” etc. I find this strange because it seems to me that he has set up the concept of “Canon knowledge (mediated)” as something which humans possess, something they understand due to the communication of the author. How could understanding and knowledge in a mediated sense (read: human knowledge of the Canon) not be in some way dependent on the humans or the Church which is said to possess it? I think White momentarily confuses his predefined terms. Knowledge infallible is purely dependant upon God, but in the scheme of Author to reader as devised in his example, there is also a component of human reception and explanation that needs to be addressed. As for the rest of the portion, I basically agree with the rest of the logic, but as others have pointed out, the overarching problem with Mr. White’s entire argument stems from the question “HOW?”
Mr. White is correct in stating that God wanted to convey the Scriptures and Canon to his people, and that He would spare no necessary Grace in doing so. But HOW does he do this? Mr. White is never really explicit in this. If in fact the “gathered body” of the Church was lead together to affirm the Canon as he suggests, then there should be some historical record to attest to it. If indeed Grace poured out via the Holy Spirit, completely independent from Church Tradition and Ecclesiastical Action, was the arbiter involved in the discernment of God’s infallible Canon, wouldn’t the documentation and history surrounding the council bear witness to this? Wouldn’t a cursory reading of history reveal that everyone just showed up, and then upon coming to a simple agreement of what they all know to be true, headed home? Minor arguments would have been resolved by the awesome power of the Holy Spirit bearing witness to the true Canon, and history would witness to the fact that most Christians just spontaneously/miraculously agreed on the texts of the scriptures themselves. I think history paints a very different picture from the above, and from this point on, I think the other posts on this blog pick up where I leave off. How (historically and logically) did God reveal this Canon and the Scriptures to his flock? Be specific, and examples from the councils themselves would be appreciated.
Now, as I believe, I’ve addressed Mr. White’s quotations. Will you in turn address one of my “issues”?
To paraphrase the Westminster Catechism:
1)The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule given by God to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.
To this end, and if the above premise is true, then the question “How do we know this to be Authoritatively True?” must be answered:
2) Because the Word of God contained in the Old and New Testament given by God as the sole rule teaches that this is true.
To which we must ask the same question, “How do we know this to be Authoritatively True?”, which leads us back to 1). It undeniably “Begs the Question”.
I have not yet met a good answer as to why we should accept such a logical fallacy as one of the central tenets of the Christian Faith. To say that God would place such an error at the heart of His revelation is to say that He asks us to place our reason aside and assume that He does not play by logical rules. At this point, I humbly submit that with reason and logic rendered irrelevant and useless to probe the mystery of God, we would have no applicable tools to interpret scripture either personally or otherwise. Perhaps you can shed some light on this topic?
Again, apologies for the long post, but I intend it to be my last.
God Bless

Tim J. August 14, 2007 at 12:31 pm

“I’m rolling laughing right now at the ignoring of the points raised”
No one has addressed White’s points because he hasn’t made any. Wordy and vague, his take on the canon is basically, “Well, it’s all very electrical and scientific…”.

Foxfier August 14, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Hehe, found out something amusing…. http://www.jamesrwhite.org now points at White’s site.
Suspicious, eh?
*salutes Mr. Spock* I’ve always thought that Vulcans would make great Catholics.

Donald Casadonte August 14, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Dear All,
MY HEAD HURTS. MY HEAD HURTS. PLEASE, STOP, NOW. PLEASE.
BRAIN IMPLODING.
I’m a lurker here, ordinarily, but by the nature of the topic of this thread, I thought I might say something (I am sorry for any formatting problems — I rarely post in comboxes). I had a much longer post analyzing Dr. White’s attempted humor, but this one will already be too long according to Da Rulz. Because of the nature of the issue and the points I will address, I ask for clemency for what will surely be both a long and late-in-the-game post.
Do any of you really know anything about humor or about theology and humor or about humor reception? If you don’t, then why are you making these extended comments that have nothing to do directly with the thread? I do know something about these areas and your comments are making my head hurt. I don’t care to read about James White’s brilliant forays into apologetics in this thread. This thread was about his humor, not his theology. If people had stuck to the topic, there would not be nearly 700 mostly off-topic posts (what is this, Slashdot?). Don’t talk to me about his theological positions or his possible lack of charity in other areas. Talk about the pictures. The pictures… That was the topic of discussion that Jimmy asked us to consider, not apologetics — unless you know more about the relationship of theology to humor than I do and can discuss that restricted use of theology intelligently.
A note to Dr. White: you have written on you blog:
“Could It Get Any Loonier?
James R. White
Yesterday I posted two pictures that any rational person knows had one point and one point only: it is hypocritical to rant and scream and threaten in religious matters while claiming to be charitable and peaceful.”
Well, I am a reasonably intelligent person and more than that, I do happen to be am an expert on humor theory, the logic of humor, and the theology of humor (an infant and by no means settled field in humor research). It seems only fair, then, that just as you would like people to listen to you for your expertise in apologetics, so you owe it to me to listen to my expert, although necessarily brief, evaluation of your blog pictures which is what Jimmy asked to be the topic under
discussion in this thread. Since you have probably never heard of me, as you do not, as far as I know, have a scholarly interest in humor, you can check out my research on the web (google my last name and the word, humor). I have twenty-five years of experience in the field and I know most of the state-of-the art research and researchers.
Would any rational person know that the pictures that Dr. White posted had only one aim, as he claims? If so, then why did they fail to communicate that point. Why did the miscommunication occur? This is the point at which humor research enters.
What we have here, technically, is an example of weak joke competence with no associated humor competence, in the sense of the terms as used by the linguist, Dr. Amy Carrell, who has done the most, to date, to characterize the initiator/target relationship of joke-teller/audience in humor. In simple words, Dr. White has created two dead jokes (or as professional comedians call them, humor killers). A humor killer is an attempt at humor that defeats itself by using contextual elements that are horrific or defeats the ability of an audience to access certain areas of mental space safely. Those who share a certain world view (i.e., who are not emotionally invested in the context) might find the joke text humorous, but not other groups.
In 1930 and to an academic audience, Dr. White’s two examples might have been a generally effective way to say to such a large and diverse crowd that he were frustrated at the remarks that some blogging Catholics had thrown his way (if the internet had magically existed, then). Under current religious and political climates, it is reasonable to assume (and a fairly easy experiment to do to prove) that the context of his pictures could upset the sensitivites of many people, religious and non-religious, and so, in general, using them would not be his most effective means of communicating his frustration.
The context evoked by the pictures is also, not really germane. They were borrowed from a previous post of his involving Salmon Rushdie and, as such, were perfectly appropriate in the context of what he had to say. In this context, it is a weak connection that can be made between Catholic bloggers and Moslem radicals, at best, and an insulting connection, at worst, given the number of christians, both Catholic and Protestants, who are dying by the sword in the Middle East. It is the wrong time, the wrong audience, and the wrong sentiment to be re-using these pictures. Use the right background for the right humor. Using Dilbert would have been just as funny, if not more and then, if Catholics failed to laugh, Dr. White really could accused them of not having a sense of humor.
I cannot do more of an analysis here and certainly not a technical one without taking a lot more time (I’m not waving my hands so much as saying that Da Rulz would not allowed such an
extended post, since I would have to get into counterfactual logic, Ramsey Theory, Possible World Logic, the sociology of humor, and a whole host of other technical things) — this is combox post, not a scholarly paper.
Dr White has created something that has the structure of a joke (he has joke competence), but it is not realized as a joke by a large portion of the audience (he has failed to elicit humor competence). The word competence here has a technical meaning in linguistics (to paraphrase the redoubtable Wikipedia): Communicative competence is a linguistic term which refers to a learner’s L2 ability (in general, the ability to process a second language as a native would — in the case of humor, to process a joke utterance as a natural example of a joke). It not only refers to a learner’s ability to apply and use grammatical rules, but also to form correct utterances, and know how to use these utterances appropriately.
Jimmy’s analysis of Dr. Whites pictures is not mean-spirited at all. It would be accepted in almost any peer-reviewed humor journal (with modifications for academease). It is not complete, but it does make one of the acceptable points in this sort of a study of humor reception: if you want something to be generally appreciated as a joke, then put yourself in the audience’s shoes, first (its called, empathy or just plain common sense). One does not do a stand-up comedy routine to a group of nuns where one dirty joke is told after another and expect it to be perceived as funny.
We recently had an international conference on humor where we had a session that analyzed these types of failed jokes. We spent a lot of time analyzing why Don Imus was fired, but Sarah Silverman goes on, why some find Imus funny, and why some go ballistic when they hear him — it has to do with what the Germans call “reception geschichte” — how a performance act is received by various audiences, over time. I can understand that Dr. White may see these pictures as funny, but he must bow to the larger view, at least in the short term, if he is to demonstrate that he is charitable. I will not argue this point with him. Romans 14:13 is clear:
Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.
Scandal (skandalon) – something that gives offense or causes revulsion, that which arouses opposition; the cause of ruin or destruction (Isaiah 8:14; Romans 9:33; 1 Peter 2:8)
[definition from
http://209.85.135.104/search
q=cache:583a468Hf_IJ:www.christchurchreformed.com
/matthewsermonoutlines/Matthew662004.pdf+romans+
9+scandal&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
A more technical definition may be found in any number of treatises on moral theology. I chose this because it was handy.].
This thread should not attempt to pass judgment on Dr. White’s character (as some seem to have done), only his attempt at humor, but likewise, he should not seem to be passing
judgment by virtue of his humor on some of the blogging Catholics who have contacted him about what they perceive as a lack of charity (and his humor is doing this or could be taken
by a reasonable man who did not know Dr. White, to be so doing). Just because Dr. White may personally see his pictures as levity and humorous sarcasm, in a Christian sense, he is
obligated in charity to consider the sensibilities of the audience before creating the joke. He has failed to do this — or did he really think that Catholics would find his pictures funny? I can see that
he has filled in a joke template, but I can also see that it may have no humor in it, at least for many people. One does not have to (nor should one) bow to the masses in matters of faith, but this attempt at humor is a matter of the expression of a state of mind and one does have to bow to the prevailing sensibilities, here, as in all polite discourse. St. Paul said
that, “to the weak, I became weak…” Dr. White, even should he think that Catholics are merely unredeemed fallen human beings, in order not to give scandal to his own ministry,
should have bowed to those weak Catholic sensibilities in this matter of humor. He will not win any to his way of thinking by using these pictures.
I know that a great deal of technical analysis is left out, here. To do a thorough job would take time far beyond this combox and as I am not a sociologist of humor, I would certainly want to consult Christie Davies in England (he is not Catholic, so there could be no charge of bias), because he is a sociologist of humor and would have a better handle on that aspect of things. I am a theorist — I merely analyze humor — he has to consider its impact.
Given the evidence I see, so far, and without assuming a lack of charity on anyone’s part, this is how I would analyze Dr. White’s his attempt at humor: It is a classic example of a joke which is cognitively dissonant to a Catholic readership — it has the form of a joke, but not its manner, for that audience. As an audience, they are not required to recognize it as humor, merely a failed attempt.
The more important and interesting point is whether the humor passes the common man test: would a common man, independent of theological connotations, find the joke funny? Pluck a man out of 1950. Would he? Is this attempted humor time or context bound?
I will not claim that
he has lost the right to debate in theological matters. I will claim that he has done the deadliest thing for a humorist: failed to make his audience laugh. Sarcasm is fine, but only within restricted groups. I hope Dr. White learns that one take-home message. His blog is accessible, worldwide, not merely to his friends. He must either make the sarcasm gentler
or accept the harsh criticism. It is his choice.
I consider the discussion way off-track with regards to the original topic of this thread. I have tried to state what I hope may be a consensus analysis of humor scholars: Jimmy is more right in his analysis of the humor of these pictures than Dr. White is. I implore Dr. White to revise his pictures.
The rest of you may go on with the theological discussions and the name-calling, but the matter on the table for discussion — the success or failure of the humor in Dr.
White’s posted pictures should be(have been) over (long ago), in my opinion, unless there is anyone here who would care to go further in the analysis than I.
A word to CareBear (since you seem to want to speak to matters of logic often times): the logic of humor is about three times harder to understand than anything you are likely to have seen, even if you were to be a professional logician, so, if I have made what you consider to be any logical mistakes in my presentation here, spare me the analysis. This is old knowledge in the humor field and at worst I may have stated things in a compressed and hasty fashion because of limited space. You are not in a position to offer any sort of informed criticism. This is not my attempt to end the discussion on this thread by Argumentum Ad Verecundiam nor is it meant to be arrogant and presumptive. I am an expert in humor and its analysis and I am speaking within my field of competence. The locus of discussion in this thread, properly speaking, is humor, not theology, per se, except as to how it applies to Dr. White’s attempt at humor in these pictures. Jimmy asked for a discussion of the pictures and I, for one, have done so, however cursory. To the extent that I have been overbearing, I apologize. Humor does have consequences, both emotional and theological — it can wound and it can heal. I would be doing a disservice to my collegues who have spent their lives trying to understand humor and its effects if I did not speak for at least part of the humor community.
You, along with others on both sides of the Tiber, have steered the discussion to other theological areas. I do not need to address any of the theological issues you wish addressed or asked for an answer to in this thread, because neither I nor anyone else was asked to do so in this thread. Exercise patience. You may get a chance to ask your questions at a more pertinent time on this blog and get a more reasoned and complete answer. Shouldn’t this thread now be declared over?
I suspect it won’t be. Somehow, I see visions of Wyle Coyote and a steamroller.
Donald Casadonte
P.S. If anyone wants to discuss the matter of the humor in Dr. White’s picture in a serious and polite manner, please, feel free to e-mail me. I do not post freely in comboxes. I also do not wish to argue or debate. I wish to put my expertise at the service of the wide community of believers. I have a responsibility to serve both Jimmy Akin and Dr. White. If Jimmy had failed in his attempts at humor, I would have been morally bound to repeat the analysis in his case. It was a specific instance of a humor piece by Dr. White that was at issue, here. That is the data I have used for analysis, nothing more.
I am sorry for my tone. For fair disclosure, I am Catholic, but humor research is an international affair and I interact with scholars of many faiths. We have to learn to do our work as independently of these considerations as possible. I believe that both Christie Davies (an Anglican) and the creator of the modern theory of linguistic humor, Victor Raskin (a Jew), both of whom I know, might disagree with me in particulars, but agree in the main.
D. C.

Jason August 14, 2007 at 3:16 pm

To say that God would place such an error at the heart of His revelation is to say that He asks us to place our reason aside and assume that He does not play by logical rules.
His revelation? When did you authoritatively establish what His revelation is?

bill912 August 14, 2007 at 3:37 pm

“This thread was about his humor…”
You must have a funny definition of “humor”.

Q August 14, 2007 at 3:46 pm

I have a list of books I say was divinely inspired. You have a different (although overlapping) list of books that you say was divinely inspired. Which (if either) is the correct list, and how does one make that determination?
If you’ve already said your list of books is divinely inspired, then you (i.e. “one”) have in fact already made the determination. Beyond that, it’s a game.

SDG August 14, 2007 at 4:04 pm

“Q”: Not the gnostic thing again, please. We’re all tired of it.

Q August 14, 2007 at 4:21 pm

I didn’t say your personal determination was right. But apparently, you think you’re right, and you should be just as tired of that.

SDG August 14, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Your first sentence is a non sequitur. As for your second, some other day perhaps you can tell me what you think “should” means. Not that I’m asking right now.

William August 14, 2007 at 4:36 pm

This must be some kind of blog record!

Foxfier August 14, 2007 at 4:43 pm

William: check out Cy the Cyclopes kitten. I think that has us beat.

Q August 14, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Your first sentence is a non sequitur.
The first sentence relates to your “secret, private revelation” as to what you think I was saying. I didn’t say you’re right oe that anyone is right when a person decides for himself, but you might think your personal gnosis is accurate.
As for your second, some other day perhaps you can tell me what you think “should” means.
What you claim to be tired of is your own gnosis, your own personal determination of what I said. If you’re tired of gnosis, you’re simply tired of yourself.

Esau August 14, 2007 at 4:57 pm

you think you’re right
How can you ‘think you’re right’ when you don’t know what ‘right’ is?
your own personal determination of what I said
How can you say it is SDG’s ‘personal’ determination when it is you who says it is?

Esau August 14, 2007 at 5:05 pm

William: check out Cy the Cyclopes kitten. I think that has us beat.
It says CY has only 426.

Mark Johnson August 14, 2007 at 5:06 pm

A reminder: Please identify whom you are responding to so other people can follow the discussion.
Also: HEY JAMES WHITE (and all his supporters here)! WHY DON’T YOU ALLOW COMMENTS ON YOUR BLOG LIKE JIMMY? AT LEAST HE ALLOWS PEOPLE TO DISAGREE WITH HIM PUBLICLY. FOR PEOPLE TO ARGUE WITH YOU, THEY HAVE TO COME HERE TO DO IT. WHAT’S UP WITH THAT?

Q August 14, 2007 at 5:08 pm

How can you ‘think you’re right’ when you don’t know what ‘right’ is?
Same way you can think something is right and be wrong.
How can you say it is SDG’s ‘personal’ determination when it is you who says it is?
It was SDG who said it’s gnostic. I wasn’t saying anything more than if you say (i.e. conclude, judge) something is X, you’ve determined it’s X. It’s a simple restatement of the obvious, not some gnostic private secret.

Esau August 14, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Same way you can think something is right and be wrong.
And just what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’?
It was SDG who said it’s gnostic.
Did SDG actually say it’s gnostic or is it only what you say he said?

Q August 14, 2007 at 5:40 pm

And just what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’?
In whose eyes?
Did SDG actually say it’s gnostic
It is a thing and “gnostic thing” were his words.

Rudy August 14, 2007 at 5:45 pm

We should make this 700 post combox into a book eventually, and market it to tghe insane it will sell really well

Matthew Siekierski August 14, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Apologies for not being clearer in my statement earlier. It was supposed to be a hypothetical, as follows (changes in bold):
In other words, if I have a list of books I say was divinely inspired and you have a different (although overlapping) list of books that you say was divinely inspired, which (if either) is the correct list, and how does one make that determination?

Mary August 14, 2007 at 6:18 pm

“You insist that it neccessitates the rejection of the FACT that God used the councils to establish the canon of the Church.”
No I don’t and I never did so I’d appreciate it if you’ll write a recantation to that accusation.

Yes, you do so insist, so I’d appreciate it if you write an apology for saying you are owed an recantation.
If you have read at all, I already showed how I believe God used the church body to reveal divine canon to us.
No, you haven’t. The church body that revealed the divine canon to us was the Councils. You have not even adduced any other body, let alone any evidence that it was indeed that body and not the Councils.

Mira August 14, 2007 at 7:07 pm

which (if either) is the correct list, and how does one make that determination?
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “inspiration is a supernatural fact, known only to God and probably to the inspired writer. Hence human testimony concerning inspiration is based, at best, on the testimony of one person who is, naturally speaking, an interested party in the matter concerning which he testifies… It is true that miracles and prophecy may, at times, confirm such human testimony as to the inspiration of a work. But, in the first place, not all inspired writers have been prophets or workers of miracles; in the second place, in order that prophecies or miracles may serve as proof of inspiration, it must be clear that the miracles were performed, and the prophecies were uttered, to establish the fact in question; in the third place, if this condition be verified, the testimony for inspiration is no longer merely human, but it has become Divine. No one will doubt the sufficiency of Divine testimony to establish the fact of inspiration; on the other hand, no one can deny the need of such testimony in order that we may distinguish with certainty between an inspired and a non-inspired book.”
In short, you either need to be divinely inspired yourself to know, or you need (Divine) testimony which is beyond doubt.

Mr. Spock August 14, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Jason Wrote:
His revelation? When did you authoritatively establish what His revelation is?
Obviously I was unclear. In the “logical” argument previously posted I assume a Protestant standpoint as a basis for my conjecture, and thus I am full within my rights to adopt the Protestant view of revelation. This was implied in the paraphrase of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, where God’s revelation is understood to be contained in full in the Old and New Testament. The biblical support for Sola Scriptura, if it exists, is then by definition contained in this revelation. Sola Scriptura is a central tenet of most of Protestant Christianity due to the fact that all operating Protestant doctrines must conform to its principles. So, in the interest of being extremely clear and explicit: I assume that the Westminster Catechism and its related system of beliefs is true, therefore in my argument revelation is not defined by me, but by the Protestant Churches who uphold said Catechism. I hope that helps.
Also, I’m in full agreement with Mr. Donald Casadonte. I’m definitely guilty of collaborating to sidetrack this combox, and I apologize to the Jimmy and everyone else for doing so. I simply felt that it would be best if the questions asked did not continue to go unanswered (in this particular blog entry,as they’ve previously been answered elsewhere), and I lament that there is no combox forum on James White’s blog to hold an actual discourse on his writing. So, in the interest of halting the growth of these comments, I’ll take my permanent leave, and following Donald’s example, I’ll leave an email address for anyone who wishes to politely continue to discuss other matters. (Though I suggest a cursory search of either http://www.catholic.com or http://www.phatmass.com will eliminate most inquiries)
God Bless

CatholicWayne August 14, 2007 at 9:08 pm

“Do Catholics get better seats in heaven than the Protestants?”
The wholly holy get the better seats
ya know
a faith that works
true faith is alway accompanied by works.
etc

Eileen R August 14, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Hey, I know how you can tell if you’ve made a *really* good response!
None of the folks who demanded a response will answer your statements.

Further confirmation that my post pointing out this wasn’t an apologetics blog was absolutely brilliant!
But I don’t think it *hurts* anyone to debate apologetics in this thread, Mr. Spock. I found your posts quite interesting, even though by now I’m mostly reading, God forgive me, for the train wreck.

Dennis August 14, 2007 at 9:35 pm

I am Catholic.
I like this blog a lot and Jimmy personally (from what I know of him, I never met him)
BUT I do think he exxagerrated this one.
Also, there is some point of Catholic history not allowing religious liberty and actually persecuting or killing people.
I accept that the photos and captions were jokes. Maybe not the best nor accurate but nonetheless tongue in cheek.
I do not agree with the theology or conclusions.
But 716 comments!!!???
and the indigination is too much
I respectfully disagree with Jimmy

Foxfier August 14, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Dennis– most of the comments are either trolls saying random things, or folks refuting them.
Very few are actually about the pictures.

Sal August 14, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Jimmy’s post spoke a good bit about the pictures.

Uhura August 15, 2007 at 3:51 am

So Dennis – been living under a rock for the past week?

Mike Petrik August 15, 2007 at 8:55 am

“So Dennis – been living under a rock for the past week?”
Why do so many blog posters respond to earnest posts with which they disagree with sophomoric sarcasm? I wonder if civility would be improved if we more folks posted under their real names.
For the record, I think White did behave poorly in questioning Beckwith’s honesty. And then, when he was called on it, he behaved poorly again by posting the pictures. But Dennis’s post was measured and fair, and it is not helpful to discourse to resort to ridicule. Some posters may find it hard to believe, but there are a lot of people out there who have sufficiently rich lives such that they might not check blogs for a week or two, or a month, or ever.

Fury August 15, 2007 at 9:05 am

Hehe, found out something amusing…. http://www.jamesrwhite.org now points at White’s site…Suspicious, eh?
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 14, 2007 1:10:05 PM
HA!
Where now are all those who have cried out:
This is DISHONEST folks! It is DECEPTION! Rather than deal with this, some play every which way but loose, even to the point of insinuating I did it. GOD knows who did it, but one thing can be certain, NO PROTESTANT would go through such extremes let alone steer folks to Catholic Answers.”
… and had sinisterly maligned Catholic Answers gone off to???
Churchmouse??? CareBear???
One thing is certain:
These folks who have deviously perpetrated the entire affair here are a DISGRACE to Protestants!!!
Indeed, the Prince of Lies whom they have served must be so very proud of them!!!
Jn 8:44:
44 You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

My Cat's Name is Lily August 15, 2007 at 10:00 am

Hehe, found out something amusing…. http://www.jamesrwhite.org now points at White’s site…Suspicious, eh?
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 14, 2007 1:10:05 PM
********************
And why am I not surprised??
Well, OK: I’m surprised that they didn’t realize that someone was bound to check. I’m just amused, no end, that what I suspected about that teeny particular piece of this entire mess was true.
It was obvious from the start. (Stuffed animals notwithstanding…..).

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 10:50 am

MCNiLily– the really funny thing? I was just trying to find the IP addy to see if I could find ownership that way….
Mike Petrik- Dude, chill. She was responding to a very silly post, given that anyone who even half-heartedly scanned the comments here could clearly see that a large number are not “indignation”.
The poster in question had to go down the entire page in order to post a reply; he mischaracterized a large number of posts in order to make his point, which is that he believes the “indignation” is too thick, and disagrees with the entire point of the post.
Yet you characterize this as “measured and fair,” and mockery of it as “sophmoric.”
As far as real names go:
My web name is acutally much more personal than my given name, since there are over 500 people will my name– Amanda Hicks– and at least 200 who are named Amanda L. Hicks. That is from a free service as of 1995, and did not include myself. There are only two other Foxfiers I have found, and one is on a single, defunct website.

Esau August 15, 2007 at 10:56 am

Isn’t ‘Foxfier’ the name of a Clint Eastwood movie having to do with a so-named secret fighter jet or something like that?

Esau August 15, 2007 at 10:58 am

Hehe, found out something amusing…. http://www.jamesrwhite.org now points at White’s site…Suspicious, eh?
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 14, 2007 1:10:05 PM
********************
And why am I not surprised??
Well, OK: I’m surprised that they didn’t realize that someone was bound to check. I’m just amused, no end, that what I suspected about that teeny particular piece of this entire mess was true.
It was obvious from the start. (Stuffed animals notwithstanding…..).
Posted by: My Cat’s Name is Lily | Aug 15, 2007 10:00:39 AM

What’s worst is that these are the kind of folks that make Protestants look bad!

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 11:13 am

Heh, it’s a mispelling of the word “foxfire” which is AKA swamp gas, kitsunebi, will’o’th’wisp, a series of books on nature-y stuff, countless books, a movie…. and a card from Magic: the Gathering, which had a really, really pretty drawing and this quote: “only a fool fears foxfire.”
*grin*

Mike Petrik August 15, 2007 at 11:13 am

Foxfier, thanks for your thoughtful response. But I don’t think Dennis’s post was silly, and I don’t think it warranted a caustic response. No need for me to chill — I’m chillin’ just fine, Amanda.

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 11:24 am

Mike– Please use Foxfier, to prevent confusion.

Mike Petrik August 15, 2007 at 11:41 am

Sure. And you can use Mike.

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 11:58 am

Mike, you *sign* as Mike Petrik. If you must do something to feel more familiar, call me Fox like Esau has.

Esau August 15, 2007 at 1:42 pm

call me Fox like Esau has.
Actually, I like ‘Foxy’ — sounds more appealing — not to mention, ‘seductive’! ;^)

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Let’s put up a few more posts to get the porn sites off the “Recent Comments” column.

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 1:48 pm

Another.

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 1:48 pm

And another.

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 1:49 pm

And another.

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Esau, if you’re still around, help me out, brutha. My fingers are hurting.

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 1:50 pm

*waggles her eyebrows at Esau*
Trying to help, Bill.

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Another.

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 1:51 pm

One more.

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Thanks, Foxfier.

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Not a problem.
Might be time for some kind of update to these….

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 1:56 pm

In the meantime, we’ve pushed this thread up near 750.

Esau August 15, 2007 at 2:03 pm

bill912: huh? What’s happenin’?
Foxy: *waggles her eyebrows at Esau*
Now, don’t get me in trouble with your hubby, Foxy! I still think it’s your fault — going all the way back to your ‘well endowed’ post! ;^)

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Esau– there was a BIG burst of the nasty spam, and it was most of the links in the little “recent post” sidebar.
And my guy is quite self-assured enough to be reasonable– part of why I adore him so much.

Theo August 15, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Someone in this thread wrote:
“GL, Brett– Jesus forgave those who repented.
Soon as White says ‘Look, I’m sorry’– I’ll be cool with ‘im.”
My brothers and sisters in Christ:
Jesus also prayed for those who crucified him saying, “Father forgive them, they know not what they do.” Does the vitriol of James White compare with the great injustice done Christ?
Where do we see that Pilot and Herod who falsely judged him, the Roman soldiers who executed him, the crowd of witnesses who called, ‘Crucify him!’, the leaders who plotted to arrest and try him, or those who falsely testified against him first said, ‘Sorry Jesus.’?
Which beatitude says “Blessed are you who hold a debt and refuse mercy until the debtor first repays in full?”
Is our Catholic faith true only when we are not offended? Did Jesus tell us to forgive only those who ask forgiveness?
With fearful knowledge that Jesus our Lord shall judge my poor imitation of Christ in this and all my doings, I nevertheless remain your servant and brother in Christ,
–Theo

CareBear August 15, 2007 at 2:54 pm

*high fives everyone in the room*
Way to…what did ya’ll do anyway?

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 2:56 pm

We have to be prepared to forgive those who have wronged us, and are commanded to forgive those who repent of their wrong-doing. Even God does not forgive those who do not repent; therefore, He does not command us to do what He doesn’t do. But just as He is prepared to forgive, so are we to be so prepared.

Anonymous August 15, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Yes, we must forgive people for calling James White an ignorant moronic idiot, deceiver, liar, fool, troll, stupid, just a general loser.

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Annon– just as soon as you find them.

Theo August 15, 2007 at 3:23 pm

Humbly, I offer a contrary opinion.
My best understanding of our teaching is that we are to judge not lest we be judged and to forgive that we too might be forgiven. It’s not conditional. I don’t see that we’re taught to forgive only those who repent. Pope John Paul the Great did not wait for his would-be assasin to repent before he forgave him.
I ask this with great personal fear, being myself guilty. I am one who in fact still holds a debt against someone who once intentionally did me great harm and never repented. Thus, I also ask you to pray for me.
Humbly, I remain your servant, your brother and your fellow seeker of God’s mercy,
–Theo

Theo August 15, 2007 at 3:25 pm

ummm–that was in response to Bill912. Sorry. I’m new at this blog.

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Theo– no worries, we’re not very formal here.

Theo August 15, 2007 at 3:37 pm

An unnamed poster wrote:
“Yes, we must forgive people for calling James White an ignorant moronic idiot, deceiver, liar, fool, troll, stupid, just a general loser.”
Dear No Name:
If you wish to follow Christ, yes, you must. Take up your cross and follow him. Today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart.
May God grant us the grace and send the Holy Spirit to lead us to be ever more like Jesus.
Poor imitator of Our Lord that I am, I remain your servant and brother in Christ,
–Theo

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 3:53 pm

It took a while, but I found it:
“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and *if he repents*, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven, and says, ‘I repent’, you must forgive him.” Luke 17:3-4.

Tom August 15, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Jesus says, “if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.” (Matthew 6:15)
The “if he repents” phrase in Luke 17 is not indicating that one should wait to forgive.

Esau August 15, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Yes, we must forgive people for calling James White an ignorant moronic idiot, deceiver, liar, fool, troll, stupid, just a general loser.
Of course — we hold these truths to be self-evident!
Oh yeah, by the way:
As Foxfier reported earlier, interestingly enough, http://www.jamesrwhite.org now points to White’s site, this definitely shows evidence of very suspicious activity — especially considering that just a few days earlier, accusations were flung on this blog by “White” disciples, maligning Catholic Answers, claiming they were the ones who DECEPTIVELY owned this url since just before the accusations, this url pointed to Catholic Answers!
Come on, Carebear, Churchmouse!
Aren’t you guys going to protest regarding THE DECEPTION by White & Co. as you did when you originally accused Catholic Answers!? Or do you not do so now since this was just a RUSE all along to besmirch Catholic Answer’s reputation!?
Can somebody say LAWSUIT???
Or should the followers of the Prince of Lies not be held accountable for their underhanded deeds???

Eric August 15, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Aren’t you guys going to protest regarding THE DECEPTION by White & Co.
Is making such a claim excused by someone else’s previous claim?

Esau August 15, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Is making such a claim excused by someone else’s previous claim?
It just goes to demonstrate how INEXCUSABLE someone else’s claims were!

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 4:19 pm

“if he repents” doesn’t seem to require us to forgive those who do not repent.

Mary Kay August 15, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Mary Kay August 15, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Huh. Whaddya know, I was lurking and it posted. I can’t keep up with the comments, but this thread must hold the record for number of posts.

Jed August 15, 2007 at 5:15 pm

“if he repents” doesn’t seem to require us to forgive those who do not repent.
No, not required if you don’t want your sins forgiven.

Eric August 15, 2007 at 5:16 pm

It just goes to demonstrate how INEXCUSABLE someone else’s claims were!
Is that Catholic teaching?

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Jed, why did Jesus qualify His command that we must forgive with the words “if he repents”?

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Does God forgive those who don’t repent?

Jed August 15, 2007 at 5:49 pm

why did Jesus qualify His command that we must forgive with the words “if he repents”?
Because if he repents, you should forgive him. That doesn’t say not to forgive him otherwise. Afterall, how do you know if he’s repented or not? Maybe he repents but you don’t know it.
And there’s Paul, who says in 2 Cor, “If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent—not to put it too severely. The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.” Where did Paul say to wait until he repents?
And then there’s Luke 11, “Forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive EVERYONE who sins against us.”
And Mark 11, “If you hold ANYTHING against ANYONE, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”
Does God forgive those who don’t repent?
God can do as He pleases.

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 6:05 pm

“Because if he repents, you should forgive him.” Exactly.
“That doesn’t say not to forgive him otherwise.” Correct. It also doesn’t say we have to forgive one who does not repent.
As I pointed out above, and you reitterated, we must be prepared to forgive at all times. The offer to forgive must be there, as it is with God.
While God offers His forgiveness, He does not force it on anyone. He allows those who do not repent to choose freely to go to hell.

Jed August 15, 2007 at 6:38 pm

It also doesn’t say we have to forgive one who does not repent.
Jesus says, “And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins,” and “we also forgive everyone who sins against us.” That’s everyone, anyone and anything.
And Pauls says “the punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient for him. Now instead, you ought to forgive”. There it says punishment is sufficient, now forgive. The judge who sits in the courthouse can forgive people after they’ve been punished even if the punished have not changed.
He allows those who do not repent to choose freely to go to hell.
He allows those who don’t forgive to do likewise, as in “if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

Jessica August 15, 2007 at 6:47 pm

Jesus said, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Who doesn’t want his sins forgiven? Let him be the first not to forgive. Everyone else, you know what you need to do.

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 7:11 pm

Seeing as how this does kind of touch on Jimmy’s day job, and since I vaguely remembered a prior post, I used the search option and found that Mr. Akin had, indeed, already covered this most recent argument:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/10/forgiveness_rev.html
In that post, Jimmy links to http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309bt.asp
Y’all that are tossing the verses, you might want to read the whole thing. Especially the last two sections.

Okey August 15, 2007 at 7:20 pm

“I am one who in fact still holds a debt against someone who once intentionally did me great harm and never repented.”
Dearest Heaven Father, Lord Jesus, and Holy Spirit who resides with us now,
I come before You, in humble adoration and awe of Your power, might and majesty. I ask You Father to comfort my brother Theo, as he enters Your Courts trembling and contrite. Please Lord God, heal the wounds he once received by the wrongful acts of someone else. Please help him to sense Your presence in removing the chains that hold him to that pain. Please Father, give Theo Your strength to do what he himself cannot do. And dearest Father, sweet Abba, I pray that if this pain is to Theo, as the thorn in the flesh was to Paul, that You in Your mercy would allow Theo to recognise that. . . so his path towards You would be made clearer.
In Your precious Name I pray, Lord Jesus.
Amen.

bill912 August 15, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Thanks, Foxfier

Jessica August 15, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Y’all that are tossing the verses, you might want to read the whole thing. Especially the last two sections.
Already read the whole thing before posting. And I’ll forgive you and Jimmy and anyone else nonetheless.

Foxfier August 15, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Jessica– if you feel a need to “forgive” myself and the host of this site for being Catholic, go for it. Wish more folks who find a wrong in such a thing would do it.
Welcome, Bill.

Matthew Siekierski August 15, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Bill said:
Does God forgive those who don’t repent?
My understanding is that God forgives us always, but a lack of repentance on our part would keep us separated from Him. I suppose it has to do with free will and whatnot.
CareBear: Nice drive-by. Plan on explaining to me how, if Bob claims to have a divinely-inspired Canon of Scripture, and Fred claims to have a slightly different divinely-inspired Canon, one is to determine which (if either) Canon is truly divinely-inspired and therefore the real Canon?
Or can I just copy and paste your repeated (para-)phrase of “nobody has addressed White’s points”, and put my name in place of White’s?

J.R. Stoodley August 15, 2007 at 11:03 pm

Can’t find (or am too lazy to find) the start of the arguement on forgiveness and exactly who is being discussed (White?) but I have this thought. Forgiving doesn’t mean being fine with the wrong done against you. Whether or not we have a responsibility to forgive someone who has not repented, I think we should still forgive them in the sense of wishing them well and seeking no revenge. This does not at all mean we should stop condemning a sinful action. I have forgiven White for his insult against Catholic Christianity, but that does not mean I will say the insult was just fine and nothing to worry about. It was quite the horrendous act and I pray White comes to see that and to repent, for his own spiritual wellbeing. Same goes for the generally less intense venom seen to some degree on both sides of the debate on this thread, except that I don’t pretend to forgive offences that were commited against someone else not me, I just hope they come to repentance (we’re probably just talking venial sin here but it is still important).

Donald Casadonte August 16, 2007 at 6:57 am

Dear All,
I apologize, especially to Dr. White and to CareBear, for the heavy-handedness of my post above. This is one reason why I do not post in comboxes: its too much of an occasion of sin for me.
Donald Casadonte

Mary Kay August 16, 2007 at 8:48 am

Donald Casadonte, I take my hat off to you.
I did do a Google search and found you indeed have credibility.
Out of your long post, I found the following nugget of gold that cuts through everything else here and goes to the heart of the matter. White claims that the photos were a humorous way to make a point. Your brilliant response:
I will claim that he has done the deadliest thing for a humorist: failed to make his audience laugh.
Thank you, Donald Casadonte. I look forward to reading more of your work.

Tim J. August 16, 2007 at 10:08 am

Donald Casadonte –
Your post was very interesting, but I had the mischievous temptation – as in Finding Nemo – to say something like “You know, for an expert in humor, that wasn’t very funny”. 😉
Humor theory is fascinating, like music theory. Just what is it about certain combinations of notes that make us feel sad, where others make us feel happy? Why should sound DO that?

Esau August 16, 2007 at 10:36 am

Just what is it about certain combinations of notes that make us feel sad, where others make us feel happy? Why should sound DO that?
It’s all ‘mathematical’!

Mary Kay August 16, 2007 at 10:51 am

Tim, I had to laugh at your comparison with Finding Nemo, so that was funny :) I don’t know about his long post as a whole, but I thought that one sentence really captured the essence of the thread.
I have to admit that I was reminded by the saying that if you have to explain the humor, it wasn’t funny. I agree with you that those areas are fascinating.

LJ August 16, 2007 at 10:56 am

Donald,
I think you are right about the point of this thread and I wouldn’t even think of arguing your analysis of the humour or lack of humour in Dr. White’s posts.
I would only add that I think I know where this comes from, or at least where the frustration comes from.
For those who argue Sola Scriptura with Catholics the stakes are high. For the run-of-the-mill Protestant, the issue doesn’t come up that often, but for Dr. White and Carebear as two examples and I’ve known others intimately, there is an intense need to win this argument, regardless of what convolutions of logic are required, whether it requires thousands of angels dancing on pin-heads. It doesn’t matter, because the consequences of losing the argument are disaster.
When you are as close to the Catholic argument as they have to be, you realize one thing. If you are wrong about Sola Scriptura, then you are in a state of rebellion against Jesus Christ. That is a horrendous thought, and much as we might dislike White or Carebear, they do not want to be disobedient to Christ. And that is why they are so intense. There can be no middle ground on this because it is the authority of the Church that is at issue. Most deep thinking Protestants come to this issue eventually and their continued “Protest” depends entirely upon Sola Scriptura.

Harold August 16, 2007 at 11:02 am

Most cartoons don’t leave me laughing. That makes me laugh.

Naeva August 16, 2007 at 11:26 am

I will claim that he has done the deadliest thing for a humorist: failed to make his audience laugh.
A humorist is a person who writes or performs humorous material. The material written and/or performed by humorists tends to be more subtle and cerebral than the material created by stand-up comedians and comedy writers. The intention is often to provoke wry smiles and amusement rather than outright belly laughs. Was his audience limited to Catholics? No. Did his pictures provoke wry smiles and amusement among his audience? Yes, to an extent they did.

Anonymous August 16, 2007 at 11:37 am

Well if wikipedia says it…it must be true…

Pace August 16, 2007 at 11:45 am

The difference between a humorist and a comedian is that a humorist doesn’t have to be funny all the time!

StubbleSpark August 16, 2007 at 8:29 pm

I love cheese!

Theo August 17, 2007 at 11:03 am

Dear Okey:
Thank you so much for your prayer. I am both edified and humbled. May our merciful Lord spare us from the test. May we be made ever more like Him, even through our resistance.
Humbly,
–Theo

John August 18, 2007 at 8:29 am

I like turtles.

Jeremiah August 18, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Bartholomew the disciple came to me in a vision and revealed to me a secret special knowledge: Q reads too many Ehrman and Pagels books.

Jerry August 18, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the holy Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church” (The Council of Nicea 787, Acts of Session I).

glowe August 19, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Jerry, yet the same council says:
“If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God, to be higher than every creature whether visible or invisible, and does not with sincere faith seek her intercessions as of one having confidence in her access to our God, since she bare him, etc.”
If ya hold to one…

SDG August 19, 2007 at 7:03 pm

Q reads too many Ehrman and Pagels books.

Maybe Q borrowed them from Art. Or Elmar. Or maybe it’s just a game.

Jerry August 19, 2007 at 7:29 pm

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place….Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present….Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.”
Council of Ephesus,Session III (A.D. 431),in GILES,252

Devalos August 21, 2007 at 9:45 am

Sad.
But Catholics really need to stop paying James White any attention. Any arguments he can raise against Catholicism have been rebutted a thousand times by Catholics. In this very thread, I see people getting into the same old debates about sola scriptura etc, saying nothing new.
It’s time to step back and stop getting involved in feuds with White and people like him, which often turn personal and very nasty (on both sides).
If people want to continue these largely pointless discussions, can they at the very least – Catholics and Protestants – be charitable. Perhaps SOMETHING will be achieved that way.

Previous post:

Next post: