James White Has Completely Lost It [Akin]

[Ani_Ibi]

… violation of every fallacy of argument, ad hominem attack being the most common. And I guess that’s his last refuge at this point.

People who resort to personal attack do so out of desperation. They have run out of anything substantive to add to the dialogue.

If you will notice earlier on in the one-sided blog kefuffle authored by White, he does exactly what Akin criticized him for. He goes all over the map, while Akin stayed focussed.

It doesn’t seem to be enough for White to win a point (he never does) or even just learn something. He has to drag every grievance he ever had with us and hammer the stuff into ground, right through the center of the Earth, straight up to China and back again.

This, I would venture to say, is disproportionate.

However, it is fair to say that folks who resort to these kinds of tactics of desperation have conceded the debate. it is understandable for him to feel at odds with things, out of sorts. Afterall so much is at stake. His career, his status.

He has left himself with only two choices now. Beat a dead horse. Or swim the Tiber.

 

[Jeanette_L]

When you are confronted with anti-Catholicism everyday of your life, first as an offender, then quite on the other side of things. An honest look in the mirror can be a rude awakening, and very disturbing.

The heart of man is a wicked place, who can know it?

In that verse is reality in focus, and I’m afraid very little humor can be found in it.

 

[Turtullian]

You really don’t know?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

So If I say that White ought to show charity then those images are directed at me? Riiiight…

 

[VociMike]

He has left himself with only two choices now. Beat a dead horse. Or swim the Tiber.

Better hide the horses then.

But seriously James, the Church will welcome you whenever you should decide to come home.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I am puzzled. Can anyone clarify what is happening with the following blog entry from carebear:

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.

I clicked on jamesrwhite.org and it got me to someone talking about computers. That page had a huge banner with the name jameswhite.org

 

[Milliardo]

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!

As I have said before, we can disagree without being disagreeable. There is a difference between fine humour with good taste, and bellow the belt, course humour. This might be funny to anti-Catholics, but to most decent people, even non-Catholics, it’s offensive. Luther’s writings were course and offensive, and even Protestants find it so.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Continuing with the notion that, indeed, White is quite troubled with Dr. Beckwith’s conversion…

From James White’s 5/3/07 post:

“Now that just such a high-profile conversion has taken place, prepare yourself for the flood of substance-less “Come Home to Rome” articles. Let me make a prediction: as is so often the case, the very act of conversion, not the reasons for so doing, will be the primary focus.”

I wonder if he read interviews since then like Ignatius Insight’s interview with Beckwith published 6/5/07. Speaking about early creeds like the Nicene, Dr. Beckwith stated:

That is why it is plain to me that these carefully crafted, well-reasoned creeds could not have arisen from a church that had an understanding of theological knowledge that isolated sola scriptura from the authority of a visible ecclesiastical body. Those who think it is possible to do this are like a son spending his rich father’s inheritance but calling it salary.

So if anyone spots James White retracting what he said in my first quote above, let us know! In the meantime, it’s no surprise that he had steeled himself to deny that Dr. Beckwith could have converted for any substantive reason. After all, in a 1998 meeting (described by White in the 5/3/07 post above), when a woman asked the Evangelical Theological Society why “the Bible alone” was part of their statement of faith, one of the representatives, Roger Nicole, responded, “Because we didn’t want any Roman Catholics in the group.”

And how did James White, who was present at the meeting respond to this? He described it:

“While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause.”

So in James White’s own words, such discrimination against Catholics is laudible. So no wonder he appears so flustered at the conversion of someone he clearly admired.

 

[JBaker45]

I think that James White has a rapier sharp whit, and that his points are valid and binding.

My suggestion is that Catholic apologist stop whining and start addressing the issues that he presents.

(My 2c)

 

[Milliardo]

I think that James White has a rapier sharp whit, and that his points are valid and binding.

My suggestion is that Catholic apologist stop whining and start addressing the issues that he presents.

(My 2c)

Catholics have been addressing his issues; however, we can have a discussion with him without going down to being nasty. Once a nasty attitude is made by one, then all discussions with that person would not amount to anything. That is tried and true in any discussion I’ve been in. One person cops a nasty attitude, and at that point sensible discussion can no longer be achieved. You have this sinking feeling that he’s been making a fool of people all along, that’s why decent conversation cannot be achieved.

 

[JBaker45]

Hello Milliardo,

Catholics have been addressing his issues; however, we can have a discussion with him without going down to being nasty.

By nasty, do you mean that he does not agree with everything you say?

Milliardo:

Once a nasty attitude is made by one, then all discussions with that person would not amount to anything. That is tried and true in any discussion I’ve been in. One person cops a nasty attitude, and at that point sensible discussion can no longer be achieved. You have this sinking feeling that he’s been making a fool of people all along, that’s why decent conversation cannot be achieved.

Well, I will tell you what I would try and do :
Step 1. Enter into the debate with a set of three goals :

1. • Have my material that I want to present at the ready and attempt to deliver it.
   • Have some questions prepared to ask my opponent.
   • Have some answers ready to give to my opponent’s questions.
     (And if not for the during discussion then I would try and answer the questions that I was not ready to answer in our previous encounter.)
   • Step 2. If my opponent cops an attitude with me, my first priority is to attend to my agenda of Step 1 above.
   • Step 3. After my encounter, I evaluate whether or not it would be productive to deal with the individual again. If the encounter was productive and serving to the Lord, then I might choose to continue discussions and debate with that individual in the future. If not, that is the end of it, I would not deal with the individual any more. After my closing comments, I would be done.
   And I think this is good advice for me to pass on to others as well.
   
   Peace to you,
   John

 

[Ani_Ibi]

JBaker45:

Hello Milliardo,By nasty, do you mean that he does not agree with everything you say?

I cannot speak for Milliardo, but I would venture to say that White’s responses are disproportionate. It is not about disagreement. It is about a hyperemotionalism on White’s part that has absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism or even the topic at hand.

This is a man in distress. He makes it about this doctrine and that, but I suspect it has now become completely personal.

]
Well, I will tell you what I would try and do : Step 1. Enter into the debate with a set of three goals :

The very very last thing that anyone should do at this point is to enter into a debate with White.

There is an old axiom which I think applies: if the dog barks then throw him a bone; if the dog growls then get out.

 

[maggieodae]

White is a sad case of bad attitude and a poor representative for Christians. Period. Not to mention his Doctorate degree is a mail in your money and we send you a certificate. Sheese!

For someone who is not accredited to tout himself as having a Doctorate is scandalous and dishonest. God’s representatives do not lie or short sheet the truth.

Nastiness is NOT what Apologetics are about…nor do they who employ Whites tactics bespeak “Christ.”

 

[Mimi]

Who or what was James White?

Just click on the link (highlighted) in the original post.

I just learned about this myself; it’s a scandal for Mr. White. It’ll be interesting to see how he handles. it.

Someone who commented at Akin’s blog site said:
"The fact he is so angry at Catholics and Catholicism could mean his conscience is bothering him."

Ha! I was just thinking the same thing!

Mimi

 

[Milliardo]

Hello Milliardo,

By nasty, do you mean that he does not agree with everything you say?

No, what I mean is what he did in this discussion. There’s no problem with not agreeing with issues as long as it is done in a civil and agreeable way. Once you stoop down to name calling and the like, then one has crossed the line.

Well, I will tell you what I would try and do :

• Step 1. Enter into the debate with a set of three goals :
  1. Have my material that I want to present at the ready and attempt to deliver it.
  2. Have some questions prepared to ask my opponent.
  3. Have some answers ready to give to my opponent’s questions.
     (And if not for the during discussion then I would try and answer the questions that I was not ready to answer in our previous encounter.)

• 
  

  • Step 2. If my opponent cops an attitude with me, my first priority is to attend to my agenda of Step 1 above.
  • Step 3. After my encounter, I evaluate whether or not it would be productive to deal with the individual again. If the encounter was productive and serving to the Lord, then I might choose to continue discussions and debate with that individual in the future. If not, that is the end of it, I would not deal with the individual any more. After my closing comments, I would be done.

  Step 2 good if your opponent will not follow-up on his attitude and return to the discussion. You know it’s over once your plan does not follow through and your opponent is still being nasty; you won’t even go through step 3 anymore because per evaluation, there’s simply no discussion going on. I am not sure about White, but it appears he no longer has any interest in civil discussion and will just descend to something low. That is not agreeable, and with that alone any further discussion with him will only be futile.

 

[Church_Militant]

I think that James White has a rapier sharp whit, and that his points are valid and binding.

My suggestion is that Catholic apologist stop whining and start addressing the issues that he presents.

(My 2c)

We do it all the time and no one here is whining. Just pointing up the fact that White’s sense of humor leaves a lot to be desired.

How would you like it if I photo shopped up those same pictures to apply to you an all your “protestant (reformed)” churches?

Luke 6:31 And as you would that men should do to you, do you also to them in like manner.

 

[MarcoPolo]

My suggestion is that Catholic apologist stop whining and start addressing the issues that he presents.

I don’t think you would have made that statement if you had been reading around here long…
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002fea2.asp
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/06/james_white_res_1.html
bringyou.to/apologetics/a56.htm

Etc…

 

[JBaker45]

JBaker45:

Hello Milliardo,

By nasty, do you mean that he does not agree with everything you say?

No, what I mean is what he did in this discussion. There’s no problem with not agreeing with issues as long as it is done in a civil and agreeable way.

Okay. But speaking of “crossing that line”, was it not JRW who was the one accused of “doctoring”?

And in light of this apparently false accusation, I must admit that I find JRW’s choice of those “doctored” pictures to be, well… to tell you the truth, very funny

Milliardo:

Once you stoop down to name calling and the like, then one has crossed the line.

What name calling?

Milliardo:

JBaker45:

Well, I will tell you what I would try and do :

• Step 1. Enter into the debate with a set of three goals :
  1. Have my material that I want to present at the ready and attempt to deliver it.
  2. Have some questions prepared to ask my opponent.
  3. Have some answers ready to give to my opponent’s questions.
     (And if not for the during discussion then I would try and answer the questions that I was not ready to answer in our previous encounter.)
  4. Step 2. If my opponent cops an attitude with me, my first priority is to attend to my agenda of Step 1 above.
  5. Step 3. After my encounter, I evaluate whether or not it would be productive to deal with the individual again. If the encounter was productive and serving to the Lord, then I might choose to continue discussions and debate with that individual in the future. If not, that is the end of it, I would not deal with the individual any more. After my closing comments, I would be done.

• 
  Step 2 good if your opponent will not follow-up on his attitude and return to the discussion. You know it’s over once your plan does not follow through and your opponent is still being nasty; you won’t even go through step 3 anymore because per evaluation, there’s simply no discussion going on.

• 
  I understand what you are saying. That is part of the function of step 3, to evaluate whether or not continued discussions would be glorifying or not. Sure Milliardo.
  
  And if the decision is to end it, then it should be ended. Does this not sound sensible?
  
  
  Milliardo:
  

  I am not sure about White, but it appears he no longer has any interest in civil discussion and will just descend to something low. That is not agreeable, and with that alone any further discussion with him will only be futile.

  Well, from what I have seen of JRW’s long history of formal debate, I believe that he really would love to have a substantial discussion if one were offered to him.
  
  Gee wiz guys, this is what he does

 

[Milliardo]

Okay. But speaking of “crossing that line”, was it not JRW who was the one accused of “doctoring”?

And thus that would mean that White has crossed that line between decency and disagreeableness.

And in light of this apparently false accusation, I must admit that I find JRW’s choice of those “doctored” pictures to be, well… to tell you the truth, very funny

Where is it shown that this is false?

What name calling?

In a way, these pictures are a way of name calling, though I think the more proper term is lampooning in this instance. In any event, in civil discussions this is already taking it to low levels.

I understand what you are saying. That is part of the function of step 3, to evaluate whether or not continued discussions would be glorifying or not. Sure Milliardo.

My point is that it will not even go on to step three, as already by step 2 such discussions have ceased to be civil, and thus any form of further talk would prove to be unprofitable until the guilty party repents, which I think in this case is highly unlikely.

And if the decision is to end it, then it should be ended. Does this not sound sensible?

Very much so; thus I think discussing with White would not prove anything other than making it even more pointless.

Well, from what I have seen of JRW’s long history of formal debate, I believe that he really would love to have a substantial discussion if one were offered to him.

By his actions, particularly this one, I don’t think he really has any interest in that.

 

[jj2011]

At times like this, it’s easy to get wrapped up in all the polemics, and forget that the great triumph of the Sacred Heart would be for White to become a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.

I pray that some day we will see this man next to us at the communion rail.

 

[JBaker45]

JBaker45:

Okay. But speaking of “crossing that line”, was it not JRW who was the one accused of “doctoring”?

And thus that would mean that White has crossed that line between decency and disagreeableness.

JBaker45:

And in light of this apparently false accusation, I must admit that I find JRW’s choice of those “doctored” pictures to be, well… to tell you the truth, very funny

Where is it shown that this is false?

I have heard the explanation that was offered by JRW (it’s sitting right there on his home page for all to see aomin.org/)). And I have seen the original post that is in question (JRW has always maintained a link to the origonal post). And it concurs with what JRW is saying.

Milliardo:

JBaker45:

What name calling?

In a way, these pictures are a way of name calling, though I think the more proper term is lampooning in this instance. In any event, in civil discussions this is already taking it to low levels.

Naw, there is no name calling on JRW’s part. But accusing someone of “doctoring” when they did not is certainly not charitable.

Milliardo:

JBaker45:

I understand what you are saying. That is part of the function of step 3, to evaluate whether or not continued discussions would be glorifying or not. Sure Milliardo.

My point is that it will not even go on to step three, as already by step 2 such discussions have ceased to be civil, and thus any form of further talk would prove to be unprofitable until the guilty party repents, which I think in this case is highly unlikely.

Well sure, step 2 can end at any time. That makes sense.

Milliardo:

JBaker45:

And if the decision is to end it, then it should be ended. Does this not sound sensible?

Very much so; thus I think discussing with White would not prove anything other than making it even more pointless.

Fine.

But my point is this, that once one has made that determination to end the discussion, then that should really be the end of it. No more “stoking of the coals” if you will.
If one is really ready to walk away, then one should walk. Don’t turn and resume fire.

Milliardo:

JBaker45:

Well, from what I have seen of JRW’s long history of formal debate, I believe that he really would love to have a substantial discussion if one were offered to him.

By his actions, particularly this one, I don’t think he really has any interest in that.

So much for charity I suppose.

But if you must go, then please… go in peace,
John