Documenting James White...

  • Thread starter Thread starter RyanL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ryan,

I have listened to some of James Whites debates also and in particular have on my computer the Purgatory debate he had with Vin Lewis.

Now this is the most obvious evasion of truth that I have seen James White perform. In the Purgatory Debate you can see how Vin Lewis leads James White exactly down a line of questioning that would prove that Purgatory must exist.
James sees this coming and evades the outcome by lying and smoothly evades having to admit it’s existence.

Though James wins on vocabulary and composure as he is quite calm and well spoken, he presents a beautiful example of how someone can lie, yet seem extremely sincere as they do so. Vin Lewis wins as he stood for truth and honesty regardless of manners.

Vin Lewis doesn’t have very much patience with lies and it shows to the detriment of his presentation(by standards of popular culture), since we are kinda in a wimpy society nowdays. You can’t speak truth for fear of offending people.

In Christ
Scylla
 
More ad hominem attacks. This needs a bit of set-up…
James White:
What strikes me as most interesting is that Sungenis does not take the high road here. There are two ways you can respond… You can either attack the person and impugn his motives, or you can refute their position fairly and thoroughly…
Click to expand...
Source.

Got it? Attacking someone’s motives is a low road and, according to James White, constitutes attacking the person. Got it.

From the same article:
James White:
So why does Robert Sungenis try to make it sound as if the Protestants who are engaged in defending their faith against the claims of Rome are simply in it for the money?
Click to expand...
Remember – “why” goes to motive…the thing which James White says is a personal attack and the “low road”…
James White:
It seems that this is just more of the effort to de-humanize those who dare to take such a stand.
Click to expand...
I’m not convinced that this is an ad hominem (despite James White’s claim that it is, supra), but I thought it was an interesting combination of statements…so I’m posting it.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
James White:
She [Mrs. Bonds] is caught in a difficult dilemma, one she has been put into by her handlers and mentors, and **by **her own desire for attention.
Click to expand...
Source.

More of the motive thing, mentioned above.

From the same article:
James White:
Mrs. Bonds has nothing to say that is truthful that is in any way relevant to the issues at hand, in fact.
Click to expand...
Implication: Mrs. Bonds says untruthful and irrelevant things. Note the comparison with the first quote of Mr. White’s, supra (“Strangely, he refused to call me a liar, while styling a number of my comments lies.”). This is a personal attack which does not address the argument, regardless of the veracity. Mrs. Bonds may very well be a spacey dame and a fibber extraordinaire – that’s irrelevant. Attack the argument, not the person.
James White:
…she [Mrs. Bonds] is simply the current tool used by others…
Click to expand...
She’s a tool. That’s a personal attack, and it would be dishonest to claim otherwise.
James White:
The hypocrisy was almost too much to take.
Click to expand...
Hmm.
 
Oh I got some vintage James White from 1995, before this thread gets locked 😃

James White vs. Raymond Cote

FidoNet BBS circa April 1995

JW> is James White, Raymond Cote replies.

Miki was right, not much has changed.

Enjoy! :eek: 😃 👍

Phil P
 
Phil,
That was a very insightful examination! Thanks for posting it!
JW> …that the honor the papists…
Click to expand...
Code: 
     Every idle word, James, the Lord will hold us responsible for every         idle word. (cf. Matt 12:36). When, it is obvious (as it is at this         stage) that you don't have an argument, name calling is always a fall         back.
…
JW> …they wriggle out…
Click to expand...
Code: 
     yukky snake-like papists?....your images smack of hatred, James.
…
JW> We shall not enter into the many other areas of this
subject that could be addressed – areas such as the supposed mediation of the saints or the Virgin Mary…
Click to expand...
Code: 
     Then why bring them up? Put downs, right? Without evidence, you         accuse.
Click to expand...

Very insightful, indeed.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
It’s ugly, but it is the way of Rome. (James White)

This guy is a real hoot!
 
White must have some influence here at CA.

I posted the email response I got from him last night, quoting him directly and without editing. I also added my return response publically for his edification.

But somewhere during the day… it all disappeared.

Perhaps it was in the joining of the threads… or

Do you suppose that James White could have had anything to do with the crash.smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/3/3_8_14.gif …nah, can’t give him that much credit.

.

can we?😃

[smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb097&pp=ZN](WallpapersbyMyWay)
 
These are some of my notes taken while listening to the Dividing Line program of 26 Sep 2006, so they may not match word-for-word (though in most cases they do). If there are corrections which affect the meaning of what was said, please let me know and I’ll correct immediately. Here is the program.
James White on DL:
…[the e-mail I received said] Anti-Catholic hackers wiped out our forums…$110,000 to upgrade security…nothing unusual about that…[my] biggest complaints about Jimmy Akin…[is] his use of Anti-Catholic…it’s arrogant of Rome to define everyone else’s faith by their own…[they say], “you’re an Anti-Catholic b/c you say we’re not Christians,”…I’m not going to define them on the basis of my beliefs…
Click to expand...
Um…isn’t that precisely what saying “Catholics aren’t Christians” does? Is James White practicing what he preaches?
James White on DL:
…**paranoia **on the CAF which we saw last week with the Miki meltdown…
Click to expand...
Paranoia is irrational fear. Most assertions of Anti-Catholicism are quite rational. Baseless accusations of “irrationality” are ironically irrational, and moreover they are an ad hominem.

Further, constantly referring to an oral interchange as a “meltdown” serves to discredit your opponent without actually addressing what (if any) substance there is. This is a form of ad hominem, which James White has engaged in quite often.
James White on DL:
…anti-Catholic this and anti-Catholic that is really silly…
Click to expand...
Would James White say the same thing about anti-Semitic remarks? Silly? My guess is James White would not, although I really don’t know.
James White on DL:
I’ve found it sort of interesting that on JA.O, Michelle Arnold made reference to the pope being an Anti-Luther…reference to Mark Shea’s comments…“where so much poison came from”…whines about the use of the word poison]…
Click to expand...
Using the words like poison and venom is harmful to fruitful discussion, and you find it offensive? Really?
James White:
For now I wish to point out how desperately Mr. Madrid wished to **poison **the minds of the readers of This Rock magazine.
Click to expand...
Source
James White:
I believe his views on Scripture are **poison **to apologetics
Click to expand...
Source.
James White:
critics respond [to me] with the same kind of venom
Click to expand...
Source.
James White:
let the wild-eyed folks [at Catholic Answers Forum] find some new target for their venom
Click to expand...
Source.

Ok. Words like poison and venom are offensive. Got it.

…cont’d…
 
…cont’d…
James White on DL:
…rank liberalism all over the Roman Catholic “system”…Archbishop Milingo reference…laugh laugh…healing ceremonies…heh heh…there you go. I can say without the slightest bit of doubt or hesitation that Milingo would not have lasted long among the Baptists…I feel sorry for these folks b/c they have to defend the infallible Church…on faith and morals…then you have this kind of stuff…heh heh heh…these people are into attacking individuals without addressing the substance at all…
Click to expand...
Here James White attempts to discredit the concept of Papal Infallibility when teaching ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, binding on the whole Church for all time, by pointing out Archbishop Milingo’s excommunication worthy acts. This is both an intentional misrepresentation of Catholic teaching (as infallibility has nothing whatsoever to do with impeccability) and a form of ad hominem; to his credit, however, James White did say that infallibility only extends to matters of faith and morals taught ex cathedra. Given the context, this was merely lip-service to a fair presentation and not intended to aid in a substantive analysis. James White apparently wants you to believe infallibility is wrong based on Archbishop Milingo’s activities, which is why he brought them up together. If that’s not what he was trying to do, why else would he have brought it up?
…RC historians recognize the centrality of the Donation of Constantine [in building the foundation of the papacy]…with the exposure of those things as frauds…destroyed the foundation [of the papacy]…
Click to expand...
This is not an ad hominem, but rather a conflation of issues. Doctrinal foundations are not the same as political foundations, but there would be no clue of a distinction by simply listening to this program. Just thought this was worth noting.
I can be very acidic and acerbic, too! Every time I’ve debated someone who defends the murder of unborn children [for example]…but I have proven repeatedly my capacity to dialog with people in a fair and respectful manner when they reciprocate…no way on God’s green earth that Art Sippo could do that…Art Sippo lacks the capacity [to do so]…
Click to expand...
Ad hominem attack on Art Sippo, and an admission of acerbic and acidic argumentation when people aren’t as nice to James White as he prefers or don’t believe as he wants them to believe. Interesting approach. I wonder what Jesus would say about that?

Matthew 5:46
If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
Luke 6:27
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:32
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them.
%between%
I truly hope James White changes his tactics, as I believe he has a lot of valuable analysis and criticism to offer. A simple mea culpa coupled with a bit of contrition would suffice for most, I believe.

Unfortunately, unless he changes his approach he will continue to be boycotted by the most public Catholic apologists and be forced to interact merely with the anonymous Catholics who happen to frequent a few select message boards.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
To whom it may concern,

This is Dr., Elder, Presbyter, All-knowing Sage, Church Father Whisperer, and Supreme Commander and Enforcer of Sound Biblical Exegesis…James White (not really).

I seriously object to this insidious plan to attack my ad hominems with your ad hominems. This goes to prove that Rome and her papist cohorts seriously lack in originality…

I shall prevail against this Salem-like witch hunt that masquerades as an attempt to point out my own ad hominems, which in reality, they are not ad hominems because quite frankly, I don’t think they are!

Some say that my statements contradict one another. This is ridiculous! They don’t, nor have they ever! If you don’t believe me ask my friends.

I must go now. I am about to channel St. Augustine to discuss a particular passage of his I’m having difficulty with.

P.S. The fact that the Salem Witch Hunts were Protestant based is another lie from Rome. We all know that the Dominicans were in charge…
 
That blog is absurd, how can someone so prideful and boastful claim to be a man of God?
 
kaycee said:
Ad Hominem attack! 😦
Click to expand...
I’m not invovled in apologetics, and I’m not using my attack to dispute James White’s claim against the Catholic Church. You can call it an attack, I call it a simple observation.
 
Having drifted and been abandoned this thread is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top