« That Catholic Show #7 | Main | Confessions of a BBC Liberal »
August 09, 2007
James White Has Completely Lost It
(Jimmy Akin)
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):
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):
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.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Non-Catholic Apologists | Permalink
Comments
:0(
Posted by: AnnonyMouse | Aug 9, 2007 6:30:47 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.
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 9, 2007 6:36:13 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.
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 9, 2007 6:44:09 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.
Posted by: francis 03 | Aug 9, 2007 6:49:18 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?)
Posted by: Eileen R | Aug 9, 2007 6:51:14 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.
Posted by: Constantine | Aug 9, 2007 7:07:19 PM
The outrage here seems a little melodramatic
Posted by: Jeremiah | Aug 9, 2007 7:07:27 PM
"By their fruits, you will know them."
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 9, 2007 7:09:01 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.'"
Posted by: Mary | Aug 9, 2007 7:19:41 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!
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 9, 2007 7:21:32 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.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 9, 2007 7:26:15 PM
Islamists are the Nazis of the post-9/11 world
You smear with a broad brush Jimmy.
Posted by: Alex | Aug 9, 2007 7:26:35 PM
Alex-- Islamist= radical Muslim, not to be confused with the non-murderous Muslims.
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 9, 2007 7:28:16 PM
Foxfier: it seems like convenient outrage. This is a neat easy way to end discussion and avoid any further diuscussion of the issue.
Posted by: Jeremiah | Aug 9, 2007 7:32:49 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.
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 9, 2007 7:33:57 PM
Jeremiah-- gee, the Angelwing Consperacy must've hacked into Mr. White's site and posted the pictures.
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 9, 2007 7:34:26 PM
sorry, I don't know what you mean by "Angelwing Consperacy"
Posted by: Jeremiah | Aug 9, 2007 7:35:50 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????
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 7:38:35 PM
Islamist= radical Muslim, not to be confused with the non-murderous Muslims.
Radical <> murderous.
Posted by: Alex | Aug 9, 2007 7:39:01 PM
Alex- yes.
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 9, 2007 7:40:59 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
By their fruits you will know them". Thanks, Jeremiah.
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 9, 2007 7:42:28 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?
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 9, 2007 7:44:18 PM
Francis 03: It didn't take long, did it?
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 9, 2007 7:47:09 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.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 9, 2007 7:48:50 PM
Oh, no! Ray found out about the albino monk assassins we've sent out to stone James White! What'll we do?
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 9, 2007 7:51:19 PM
Bill, I guess figure of speech is lost on you?
Posted by: Ray | Aug 9, 2007 7:53:01 PM
Ray: LOL!
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 9, 2007 7:54:43 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.
Posted by: Beth | Aug 9, 2007 7:55:17 PM
BTW: I was "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 9, 2007 7:55:50 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.
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 7:56:42 PM
Your point, Beth?
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 9, 2007 7:57:03 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.
Posted by: Mary | Aug 9, 2007 8:02:01 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 ;)
Posted by: GLowe | Aug 9, 2007 8:30:23 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.
Posted by: Katherine Therese | Aug 9, 2007 8:42:29 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.
Posted by: My Cat's Name is Lily | Aug 9, 2007 8:48:19 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.
Posted by: Brett Cooper | Aug 9, 2007 8:53:08 PM
GL, Brett-- Jesus forgave those who repented.
Soon as White says "Look, I'm sorry"-- I'll be cool with 'im.
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 9, 2007 9:16:01 PM
Let us not forget that Jesus treated those who had not repented with Charity.
Posted by: Shane | Aug 9, 2007 9:18:21 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.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 9:31:13 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.
Posted by: Lane | Aug 9, 2007 9:44:11 PM
Soon as White says "Look, I'm sorry"-- I'll be cool with 'im.
HAHA!!!! FAT CHANCE!!!! OLE' JIMBO WHITE APOLOGIZE?? NEVER!!!!
Posted by: Guardian | Aug 9, 2007 9:50:28 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.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 9:51:31 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.
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?
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 9:52:26 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.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 9:55:11 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.
Posted by: Tim H. | Aug 9, 2007 9:55:29 PM
Lane,
"why do they not seriously deal with the issues that are presented by Protestant apologists".Case in point please.
Posted by: Dean | Aug 9, 2007 9:56:18 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.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 9:57:53 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?
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 9:59:48 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?
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:01:04 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.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 10:02:36 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,
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"????
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 10:04:39 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.)
Posted by: M Burke | Aug 9, 2007 10:04:49 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.
Posted by: | Aug 9, 2007 10:04:56 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.
Posted by: | Aug 9, 2007 10:07:06 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... :)
Posted by: Tim H. | Aug 9, 2007 10:07:41 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.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 10:07:48 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?
Posted by: netnet | Aug 9, 2007 10:08:01 PM
By the by, 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
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.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:11:28 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?)
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 10:11:59 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?
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 10:12:44 PM
So in your mind, Carebear, Catholics have no reason to feel outrage at being compared to terrorists when they call for charity?
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 10:13:24 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???
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 10:15:41 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?
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:17:03 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.
Posted by: | Aug 9, 2007 10:18:41 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!
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 10:20:28 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.
Posted by: | Aug 9, 2007 10:21:52 PM
Guys, ignore CareBear. He's trolling.
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 9, 2007 10:22:09 PM
Esua,
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
Somebody bring me up to speed.
Essau, what are you talking about?
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 10:23:48 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.
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 9, 2007 10:25:20 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.
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 10:25:32 PM
White has responded on his blog to Jimmy's post.
Posted by: Ray | Aug 9, 2007 10:26:17 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.
Posted by: | Aug 9, 2007 10:26:19 PM
Stubblepark,
Visit the "Amazing. Simply Amazing." thread.
You can observe for yourself how this ruse was initiated from start.
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 10:26:52 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!
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 10:28:53 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....
Posted by: | Aug 9, 2007 10:29:24 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?
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 10:30:00 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...
Posted by: | Aug 9, 2007 10:30:13 PM
The no name is me. I apologize for breaking the rules I will strive to remember to include a name in the future.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:31:49 PM
Quid significat hoc verbum?
Benigne dicis.
Id non faciam, definitum est.
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 10:32:06 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.
Posted by: labrialumn | Aug 9, 2007 10:35:43 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.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:36:22 PM
Malumus pugnare, non recedere.
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 10:37:29 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.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:39:17 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?
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 10:42:29 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
Posted by: John | Aug 9, 2007 10:42:55 PM
That illustration forsakes the context of the present situation.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:43:17 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.
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 10:43:32 PM
Esau,
You're again committing that same category error. Clear that up and you might score one on me.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:45:23 PM
Get your popcorn and enjoy the freak show!
Posted by: Edward | Aug 9, 2007 10:45:52 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".
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:47:32 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?
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 10:50:32 PM
CareBear,
What makes you think I am refering specifically to Catholics. It takes more than a few monkies to to consitute a cirus!
Posted by: Edward | Aug 9, 2007 10:51:15 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.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:52:10 PM
And I cant spell! hehe
Posted by: Edward | Aug 9, 2007 10:52:57 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.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:53:14 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?
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 9, 2007 10:53:44 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.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 10:54:02 PM
Stubble,
I'm glad to hear God led you through!
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:54:27 PM
Universi X sunt Y.
Z est X.
Ergo Z est Y.
no?
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 10:55:55 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.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:56:17 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 :(.
Posted by: Edward | Aug 9, 2007 10:57:29 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.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:58:47 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.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 9, 2007 10:59:57 PM
No, that's because I am dense but thats another issue.
Posted by: Edward | Aug 9, 2007 11:00:37 PM
CareBear, you are incorrect.
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 9, 2007 11:00:46 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
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???
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 11:02:55 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.
Posted by: Edward | Aug 9, 2007 11:03:29 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."
Posted by: Edward | Aug 9, 2007 11:05:28 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.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 11:08:01 PM
Tell me about it, StubbleSpark.
Thanks for your above post.
Posted by: Esau | Aug 9, 2007 11:11:17 PM
Stubble called me a troll, so I call him a goblin!
Posted by: Edward | Aug 9, 2007 11:25:58 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.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 11:27:24 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).
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 11:33:33 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.
Posted by: StubbleSpark | Aug 9, 2007 11:42:07 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.
Posted by: Edward | Aug 9, 2007 11:42:25 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.
Posted by: M Burke | Aug 9, 2007 11:49:53 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.
Posted by: M Burke | Aug 9, 2007 11:53:45 PM
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)".
Posted by: WWW | Aug 10, 2007 12:00:17 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.
Posted by: brian | Aug 10, 2007 12:00:25 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.
Posted by: Esau | Aug 10, 2007 12:08:40 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
Posted by: No Comment | Aug 10, 2007 12:19:32 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.
Posted by: David Smart | Aug 10, 2007 12:28:31 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).
Posted by: My Cat's Name is Lily | Aug 10, 2007 12:34:57 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.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 10, 2007 12:39:36 AM
Seriously, folks, ignore the Trademarked toy. I fully expect him to start into "depends on your interpretation" at any time now.
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 10, 2007 1:09:24 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!!!!!!!!!"
Posted by: Jonathan Prejean | Aug 10, 2007 2:12:57 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.
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 10, 2007 2:57:58 AM
Whose fruit is this squabbling between Jimmy and James?
Posted by: Ellen | Aug 10, 2007 3:29:48 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,
Posted by: terry | Aug 10, 2007 3:33:13 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.
Posted by: Tom | Aug 10, 2007 3:40:44 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?
Posted by: jt82 | Aug 10, 2007 3:45:38 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.
Posted by: Mary | Aug 10, 2007 4:16:59 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.
Posted by: SDG | Aug 10, 2007 4:23:51 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?
Posted by: Scott W | Aug 10, 2007 4:42:01 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."
Posted by: SDG | Aug 10, 2007 4:42:49 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.
Posted by: Foxfier | Aug 10, 2007 4:50:48 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.
Posted by: Chris | Aug 10, 2007 4:51:37 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.
Posted by: SDG | Aug 10, 2007 5:08:31 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.
Posted by: Dale Price | Aug 10, 2007 5:21:17 AM
There seems to already be plenty of paper flying between the two feuders.
Posted by: Good Morning | Aug 10, 2007 5:22:54 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.
Posted by: Jerry | Aug 10, 2007 5:43:19 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.
Posted by: Alissa | Aug 10, 2007 5:48:25 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.
Posted by: Matthew Siekierski | Aug 10, 2007 6:02:47 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
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!
Posted by: Christopher | Aug 10, 2007 6:42:50 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.
Posted by: Memphis Aggie | Aug 10, 2007 6:50:41 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.
Posted by: AnotherCoward | Aug 10, 2007 7:11:57 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
Posted by: Matthew | Aug 10, 2007 7:27:18 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" .
Posted by: Martin | Aug 10, 2007 7:38:25 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.
Posted by: Greg | Aug 10, 2007 7:50:25 AM
Re: the photo mentioned above that Dave Armstrong posted; he apologized for it and replaced it.
Posted by: Richard Froggatt | Aug 10, 2007 7:53:14 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?
Posted by: Brian Walden | Aug 10, 2007 8:04:00 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
Posted by: heisenburg | Aug 10, 2007 8:07:07 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"?
Posted by: Seamus | Aug 10, 2007 8:32:17 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.
Posted by: SDG | Aug 10, 2007 8:36:46 AM
Godwin's Law is limited to comparisons with Nazis and Hitler. It's Akin's Law that includes comparisons with Islamists.
Posted by: Harry | Aug 10, 2007 8:40:36 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.
Posted by: SDG | Aug 10, 2007 8:47:38 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."
Posted by: Harry | Aug 10, 2007 8:57:04 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.
Posted by: Mary Kay | Aug 10, 2007 8:57:21 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.
Posted by: JohnD | Aug 10, 2007 8:58:06 AM
There's a little too much moral equivalency going on here.
And mayb3e a little too much moral relativism going on here too.
Posted by: Cindy | Aug 10, 2007 9:01:03 AM
Except that Bob also said: So neener, neener, I won ... and everyone else should back me up.
Posted by: AnotherCoward | Aug 10, 2007 9:04:07 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.
Posted by: JohnD | Aug 10, 2007 9:07:47 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.
Posted by: JimBo | Aug 10, 2007 9:11:15 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)
Posted by: Greg McR | Aug 10, 2007 9:14:06 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.
Posted by: JohnD | Aug 10, 2007 9:19:00 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.
Posted by: Esau | Aug 10, 2007 9:20:09 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!
Posted by: | Aug 10, 2007 9:20:17 AM
By the way, How exactly are Islamists the National Socialist Workers of the post 9/11 world?
Posted by: | Aug 10, 2007 9:22:33 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.
Posted by: Ed Peters | Aug 10, 2007 9:23:11 AM
Nameless,
You really don't know? Think "fanatically murderous".
Posted by: JohnD | Aug 10, 2007 9:24:39 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.
Posted by: JimBo | Aug 10, 2007 9:26:29 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.
Posted by: JohnD | Aug 10, 2007 9:29:11 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.
Posted by: Esau | Aug 10, 2007 9:31:34 AM
As I posted earlier, White's defenders have displayed their fruits, by which we now know them. They have revealed themselves clearly.
Posted by: bill912 | Aug 10, 2007 9:37:32 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.
Posted by: francis 03 | Aug 10, 2007 9:38:27 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?
Posted by: Paolo | Aug 10, 2007 9:38:41 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.
Posted by: JimBo | Aug 10, 2007 9:44:11 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.
Posted by: francis 03 | Aug 10, 2007 9:46:12 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.
Posted by: francis 03 | Aug 10, 2007 9:47:59 AM
Posted by: francis 03 | Aug 10, 2007 9:48:16 AM
So no one should respond to Hittchens or Dawkins because they are sometimes offensive? That's a weak objection.
Posted by: Greg McR | Aug 10, 2007 9:52:09 AM
Sorry for all the posts; I re-posted when my first one didn't show up. The first can be deleted.
Posted by: francis 03 | Aug 10, 2007 9:53:45 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.
Posted by: JohnD | Aug 10, 2007 9:55:54 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.
Posted by: francis 03 | Aug 10, 2007 9:56:39 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.
Posted by: CareBear | Aug 10, 2007 9:57:08 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?
Posted by: Thomas Aquinas | Aug 10, 2007 9:57:46 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?
Posted by: Clarence | Aug 10, 2007 9:59:18 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?
Posted by: Esau | Aug 10, 2007 10:03:30 AM
Trent, in many ways, is irrelevant to the Reformation. The Reformers weren't reforming against Trent.
Posted by: Jay D | Aug 10, 2007 10:04:25 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.
Posted by: