James White Has Completely Lost It [Akin]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Opinion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
heisenburg said:
Not that I plan on going over there… but did I actually read that someone said people are defending this?

um…

k…

In Christ
Click to expand...
Oh, good gracious, yes.
One particular soul who has:rolleyes: [ahem, cough, cough] amusingly named himself for a :rolleyes: [cough, cough, choke, splutter] stuffed toy, has been firing back quite loudly on Jimmy Akin’s blog.
(You can’t place a comment on Mr White’s blog, because Mr White has no combox… )
 
Wow, it’s been a while since I’ve posted here 🙂 I had to comment on this whole situation, though. My impression is that White feels that Beckwith is obligated to justify himself, as evidenced in this post.
In his latest post,
White writes the following: “This is nothing less than intimidation, an effort to shut up those who would dare question Rome and, in this case, her newest prize ‘convert.’” I have not commented on Akin’s blog, or on this forum until now on this issue, so I cannot speak for everyone, but in my mind, White is welcome to write whatever he wants. But given his behavior, I would say that Beckwith is under no obligation to respond to him any longer, if he was in the first place. Just my :twocents:

More…
 
It occurs to me that since White has lashed out this strongly, Beckwith’s conversion must have touched a nerve.

It must really bother him that someone of Beckwith’s reputation, scholarship, and obvious intelligence has crossed the Tiber.

Consider: Psychologically speaking, it’s a lot easier for White to respond with ad hominen attacks than to allow Beckwith’s conversion to force him to re-examine his own position.
 
shrug It’s a joke. It isn’t funny and doesn’t seem to have an intelligent point to it, but I don’t think it’s anything to make a big deal over.
 
Really people with an open mind you can read White and think he doesn’t have a point?
 
Vile as Mr. White’s style of argument may be, one cannot use it as an occasion of allowing the debate to slip still further into the realm of grade school hysteria.

Mr. Akin wishes to invoke Godwin’s Law against Mr. White, but it is notable that in order to do that he must first expand the law to cover Islamists, rather than just boring, old Nazis. Secondly, he must appeal to the traditions of online discussion groups to transform his conveniently expanded application of Godwin’s Law into a child’s version of “gotcha.” At this point, Mr. Akin concludes his work as an apologist and defender of the Faith has come to an end in the case of Mr. White and that he is absolved from any further attempt to instruct Mr. White’s ignorance or, presumably, apply any other Spiritual Work of Mercy on Mr. White’s behalf.

There may be many reasons for discontinuing a conversation with Mr. White on this topic, but the argument given here is shallow at best. The Islamist corollary to Godwin’s Law is one that seems only to exist in the minds of those online scribes who wish to quickly end a contentious discussion rather than do the work necessary to argue rationally. It does not even appear in the Wikipedia article linked to in order to define the Law as of this morning and, one would think, that if this corollary had any form of widespread acceptance, one of the many users of Wikipedia would have edited the page to at least mention it. Moreover, it would appear that, as a professional apologist, Mr. Akin has voluntarily forfeited the right to avoid discussion with the likes of Mr. White. One cannot claim on one hand to defend the Faith while, at the same time, passively assisting in the ignorance of others by shutting down any further discussion.

Let’s also dispense with the arrogance of claiming to be able to look upon two arguments and infallibly discern, with our fallen imaginations, which one is more “Christ-like.” The validity of an argument does not rise and fall on whether or not it happens to be “nice” and less still on whether it wounds the overwrought emotions of a few. St. Jerome managed to behold the Beatific Vision after not having been “nice” to much of anyone. Further, since there are more than a few who seem to make a career out of being offended, one cannot go around assuming that the level of offense taken is any kind of accurate gauge concerning the validity of an argument.
 
White is a sola scriptura person that will try to take things out of context to justify his ungodly behavior. He’s a straight-up anti-Catholic and always has been. Who does White think he is? He’s not Beckwith’s Daddy and fact is Beckwith doesn’t “owe” him any explanation. (although Catholicism can defend itself very well because it’s the truth) It’s between God and Beckwith that is at the heart of the issue. Baptists always go on and on that it’s a “personal relationship”, which it is/as well as a community of believers, so why can’t White leave Beckwith alone? Why is he on this tirade of anti-Catholic hate? He just shot himself in the foot if you ask me. “Have a personal relationship but you OWE us a reason or reasons why!!!” “EXPLAIN YOURSELF!!” “NOW!!” “I’m being uncharitable???!!” “OH ok I’ll post vile terrorists portraying Catholics!!” “HMMFF”

Fact is, White is seeing that sola scriptura and 10,000+ denonminations leads to confusion and fighting, and instead of humbling oneself and going with the biblical view of scripture AND tradition. (Which is what Beckwith has done) It leaves White in the cold with his sola scriptura, and calvinism. And nobody likes the cold…really.

Martin, if you can’t see this as vile and as uncharitable and unCHRISTIAN as it is I would say you are bound to an anti-Catholic attitude just like White himself.
 
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
 
I’m getting the idea. Charitable = in support of Mother Rome, uncharitable = in support of biblical Christianity and the Reformation
Click to expand...
.

The above quote is from White on his website. He mocks Catholics and then tries to justify (of course) his nastiness with the above. Biblical Christianity is the CATHOLIC FAITH. The reformation were a bunch of “I know what the bible says it says this” all disagreeing with eachother hence Lutheran and Calvinist etc. etc. etc. churches. That’s “biblical Christianity” huh? I thought I read somewhere “ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism,” which one can claim to have the first one but if the others don’t follow is he really your Lord?

:confused:

I think I would follow Jimmy Akin on this one. Titus 3:10-11 says it best.

👍
 
White is a brilliant theologian, with a superb understanding of the biblical languages, an excellent grasp of church history, and a great sense of humor; one with which he can laugh at himself, and at you—get a grip!

And once you’ve gotten a grip, get a sense of humor! 😃
 
defenderoftruth said:
He’s not Beckwith’s Daddy and fact is Beckwith doesn’t “owe” him any explanation. .
Click to expand...
Beckwith owes the legions of followers INDEPTH reasoning to each and every question which arises, salvations and beliefs depend on it!
 
Kay_Cee said:
It occurs to me that since White has lashed out this strongly, Beckwith’s conversion must have touched a nerve.

It must really bother him that someone of Beckwith’s reputation, scholarship, and obvious intelligence has crossed the Tiber.

Consider: Psychologically speaking, it’s a lot easier for White to respond with ad hominen attacks than to allow Beckwith’s conversion to force him to re-examine his own position.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right, but it also exposes an immaturity on White’s part.

Religion is not politics, with “defections” and jersey-waving and the like. If one truly believes in religious liberty, how can you (not you, Kay Cee—you in general) justify excoriating someone who’s chosen to return to the faith of their youth?
 
sandusky said:
White is a brilliant theologian, with a superb understanding of the biblical languages, an excellent grasp of church history, and a great sense of humor; one with which he can laugh at himself, and at you—get a grip!

And once you’ve gotten a grip, get a sense of humor! 😃
Click to expand...
Oh please—Catholics have thicker skins and better wits than anybody out there. White’s a joke, I’ll give you that, though.
 
I haven’t been a part of this discussion, so pardon me for butting in, but it occurs to me that the more we Catholics make an issue of Mr. White, the more we put his back against the wall.

I’ve read some of his arguments and can see that he simply cannot and will not consider that the Catholic Church can possibly be right about just about anything.

When a person is that deeply into denial, beating him about the head and shoulders only makes he dig in his heels all the more.

Frankly, I think our apologists ought to shake the dust from their feet and move on. If Mr. White has no one to debate he loses some of his power. So, don’t debate him–he’s not listening and is only using Catholic apologists’ answers as ammunition.

I see it as a battle of egos not of theologians. So fellow Catholics, show that you truly believe in “turning the other cheek” and let Mr. White go on his merry way. That’s my advise. 🙂
 
sandusky said:
White is a brilliant theologian, with a superb understanding of the biblical languages, an excellent grasp of church history, and a great sense of humor; one with which he can laugh at himself, and at you—get a grip!

And once you’ve gotten a grip, get a sense of humor! 😃
Click to expand...
I believe you forget your Bible. Proverbs 26 to be exact:
17
Like the man who seizes a passing dog by the ears is he who meddles in a quarrel not his own.
18
Like a crazed archer scattering firebrands and deadly arrows
19
Is the man who deceives his neighbor, and then says, “I was only joking.”
Click to expand...
 
I think James White has completely lost any sense of Christian charity. For his actions, I have no longer could respect him as an example of a good Christian.
 
sandusky said:
White is a brilliant theologian, with a superb understanding of the biblical languages, an excellent grasp of church history, and a great sense of humor; one with which he can laugh at himself, and at you—get a grip!

And once you’ve gotten a grip, get a sense of humor! 😃
Click to expand...
Humor is one thing…Mad Cow disease is quite another matter. :rolleyes:
 
Turtullian

17
Like the man who seizes a passing dog by the ears is he who meddles in a quarrel not his own.
18
Like a crazed archer scattering firebrands and deadly arrows
19
Is the man who deceives his neighbor, and then says, “I was only joking.”
Click to expand...
You miss the point; White is not joking; he is not retracting his blog post; however, he is using humor to illustrate the actions of some Catholics. 🙂
 
sandusky said:
You miss the point; White is not joking; he is not retracting his blog post; however, he is using humor to illustrate the actions of some Catholics. 🙂
Click to expand...
You miss the point my friend. Any Christian worth their salt doe’s not stoop to such ugly humor to get a point across. Jame’s is an angry man who would not know humor if it hit him square in the eye. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top