Wednesday, October 04, 2006

"Meaningful Bad Language": Ridiculous Attacks on James White by KJV-Only Fanatic "ct"

"We're fundy-feminists; we're fierce, and we'll shock you into becoming a bona fide, REGENERATE KJV-reading real Christian by our generous use of profanity and sexual gutter language, thus proving that we are almost singularly bold for God and His truth. Grrrrrrrrr!!!!! Don't mess with me or I'll send ya to hell right quick, you filthy devil!"

This is as hilarious as it is sad: "ct" (affectionately known as "Alexander the Bait" on this blog, the World's Most Notorious Troll and the only person ever permanently banned from this site), has launched some uproariously ludicrous, comical attacks on the anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist apologist James White for the abominable, downright devilish heresy of refusing to idolize the KJV. White is on the side of the angels on this one. I have, by the way, commended him for his work against the KJV-Only Nuts for eleven years (along with his apologetics against Mormonism and Islam, and lots of other good papers he has written). "ct" is a woman. She wrote on her blog on October 3rd, in the comments:

Michael Dries is a fake persona I used for that Puritan Forum. My experience with those Reformed types is they don't interact with female names. Male names, yes. Male names with a .edu in the email - in a big way.

This is her "Full Tilt Self-Righteous Ferocious Judgmental Mode":
White is a pure devil on this subject. He will, until hell freezes over, call anybody who exposes the corrupt manuscripts he champions "KJV-onlists". The boy can't help himself. If he doesn't do this he is put in the position of defending the devil. He willingly does defend the devil, but he doesn't want to be seen in public doing it. He's a wicked soul.
This creep sounds like a Roman Catholic priest circa 1500s.
Succumbing to devilism would be a more honest topic for you. Something you really know about.

I actually do think they are children of the devil, but only because they show by their lack of discernment regarding the corrupt manuscripts they are yet to be regenerated by God. All are children of the devil until we are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit...
. . . everything you write and speak is the devil's demands manifesting through his servants - shows you are warped on this subject) again, that you mock God's elect while defending atheist 'scholars' and manuscripts that oh just so happen to delete and distort the Word of God in areas that the devil would want the Word of God defiled and distorted shows you are working for the darkness.

The Word of God is the foundation of the faith. You'll pay for what you been doing. God comes down hard on any who affect to teach in His name and do as much damage to the faith as you and others like you have done.

Have fun in hell, witch.

. . .
God's elect know the voice of the Shepherd, devil-priest; what you push is the filth and death of the devil. You're not even a Calvinist. Like theonomists and Federal Visionists and other similar knaves within the tent of Calvinism you just use Calvinism to get an audience, but your main effort is to do the work of the devil in pushing the devil's manuscripts. No, you're not even a Calvinist; and if you tried to push those devil manuscripts on Calvin himself he wouldn't even bother to burn you. He'd pin a note to your collar and buy you a ride to Rome...

. . .
You're a shallow, vain (and not a little juvenile) soul who loudly speaks the devil's line.

. . .
You're in spiritual bondage to the devil and to his (and the Vatican's) corrupt manuscripts that mutilate and defile God's Word and will continue in a progressive manner to further mutilate and defile God's Word until the Second Coming of Christ. This is part of the famine of the end time, and you are an active participant in bringingit about.

. . .
Listen you filthy devil: . . . You're what's called a reprobate. You've been hardened by God. You are going to hell. You hold to the devil's line no matter what. Good riddance. Have fun with your filthy, satanic manuscripts in hell. In hell when you can finally meet in person your little spiritualist masters Westcott and Hort. Oh, whatfun . . . The innocents you're currently attemtping to drag to hell with you might catch on that you're a shallow old witch with no connection whatsoever with men like Calvin and Edwards.


You can say White and his type were duped as kids and they are now too vain and prideful to admit they've been duped, but I don't think that's the case. White is consciously devilish on this subject. He knows enough to know better. He's chosen to be a blatant false teacher. I admit my style in taking on these strongholds and individuals is looser than what is the more accepted precedures and styles within a formal church context, what. God's own are direct and bold.
. . . This is the famine of the end time: it is a famine for the Word of God; and White and others like him are doing the devil's bidding energetically in carrying out this corruption of the Word of God.


"ct" makes an astonishing defense of her atrocious manner of speaking:
Listen, devil. You accuse like a cleric of the Roman Beast. Language is relative. Any language I use against your devil manuscript will come across as 'filthy communication' to you. The truth itself is like a knife.
You currently have no discernment to know what is filthy language and what isn't. The language in the modern versions is filthy, perverted language because it pretends to be the Word of God and is the words of the devil.
Again, when you don't know when the devil has you by the throat you won't know what the apostle Paul means when he talks of bad language.
I'm accused of 'bad language' by all Village of Morality Christians all across the web. It's your first and only defense when you're being exposed, and it's hollow. Do you really think God cares more if you say [bleep] than if you mutilate his Word? If that's a hard call for you you have problems...

. . . I know all the verses regarding language. I also know there is empty bad language and there is meaningful bad language. There is also language that will always be considered negative because it is saying something people don't want to hear. There are many possibilities. But the moralists take such things in a formalistic way, and there's no disuading them, so be it.

. . . I'll give you this: I'd feel better physically if I didn't use such language. I do get conscience-stricken regarding it and have remorse, even though it's for dramatic purposes and all that. I can make the same points using more diplomatic language, but people do need shocks adminstered to them on this subject. I'll post some useful links to sites where people use more diplomatic language.

. . .
you're making the assumption my language isn't intentional, or is out-of-control. I use the language I do to shock. People need to be shocked. And there is truth in the langauge I use as well. Else it wouldn't shock. The reaction happens because the shock, or sting, is real. Whited sepulchre or lukewarm language doesn't do anything but allow people to remain comfortable in their conceits. People don't like being called a devil, but you know what? when you champion the devil's manuscripts you're being a devil. And the word stings because they know there is truth in what is being said. Their conscience stings them as much as the words. They're vulnerable on the issue, and they know it, so when you zing them where their vulnerable they react with a massive outrage. Too bad. Stop being vulnerable maybe. Give up your championing of corrupt manuscripts.


But in her comments in a thread of October 3rd, "ct" reveals the game she likes to play:
I engage in hyperbole on this issue... I don't really think you're all devils. Really... Dishonest, in some cases, yes; sophistic, sure... Duped, yeah... But bound for hellfire because you read the NIV/NASB/ESV et al? No... Just at some point find out what is missing or changed. Do yourself a favor...

James White actually tries to interact with this nonsense. I understand the impulse to defend oneself against outrageous charges, believe me, but there has to be some point of refusal. This garbage is far beyond that. I cite it merely for educational (and secondarily, comic) value: to show the extent of some people's "psychotic religious delusions," but White seems to think it is worth his time to try to reason with such a nutcase (see his blog posts: one | two | three).

This is a very sick, hurting, deluded person: on that we can all agree. Pray, pray, pray for her soul.

No comments: