The current outbreak of slander is due to my critiquing his bogus doctorate. I have done this now three times. The second and third were both as a result of his sidekicks again defending his degree on his blog. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't have given it any additional thought or time since my first critique in 2004. Here they are:
James White's "Doctorate" Degree: Is it Legitimate? (vs. James White and Mark Bainter)
Anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist Apologist James White's Bogus, Non-Accredited "Doctorate" Degree Defended Yet Again (vs. Jamin Hubner)
James White Bogus "Doctorate" Issue Redux: Has No One Ever Interacted With His Self-Defense? / White Takes His Lumps from Baptist Peter Lumpkins
This paper is again in response to his stepping-up of the insults. He only hurts himself. If he would simply shut up about it, or stop allowing comrades to engage in knee-jerk defenses of the indefensible, then he wouldn't be faced with three of my four papers. Manning up and rationally defending his positions (like the scholar he falsely claims to be) is apparently out of the question: always has been where I am concerned, since 1995 and our first debate by US Mail, where he performed very poorly, insulted up and down, and fled for the hills when he had no more answers to straightforward logical questions.
His Dividing Line webcast of 22 February 2011 exhibited the by-now classic and timeworn (YAWN) White attack dog tactics. He described the attack portion in his blog announcement for it as "A few comments at the end about . . . some of the looniness currently being seen out on the net." Here is what he said on the public webcast (you can hear it yourself following the link above):
[53:11] But isn't it nice, in this situation, to be able to answer these questions and to do so in a respectful and biblical fashion. And it really strikes me as an amazing example in contrast to the abject looniness that is going on out in the world today, specifically in the Internet.
[53:55] There is another Muslim out there . . . his nickname is grandverbalizer19 . . . [55:00] Some of you know that right now on certain blogs out there in the blogosphere, there is so much libel, slander, bile, hatred, anger, and the number of lies defies the imagination, being thrown about by people . . . the silliest combox comment I've ever seen in the entirety of my life . . . [56:19] This is on Dave Armstrong's blog. Where else, but on good old DA's blog, will you find something as utterly inane as this?!! [laughs] Here it is [quotes the comment made in my combox on 2-21-11] . . . [57:37] . . . on Dave Armstrong's blog, where , of course, they were recycling stuff that is now, what, 1999 or something like that, from a Mormon; it's nowhere near accurate anymore . . . it's been debunked a thousand times before, but it's the best Dave's got, you know, you gotta give the guy credit; he gets refuted and he keeps repeating himself. It's a sad thing to watch. . . . [58:48] Folks, give these people the amount of weight they have earned. Okay? That means someone like a grandverbalizer19, or a Dave Armstrong, or a Peter Lumpkins, or a Ray or Roy, or any of the rest of these people. Give them the credibility they have earned, which is absolutely, positively none. Keep that in mind.
1) It is beyond silly to blast me for every remark made on my blog by people I don't agree with (this person is a Muslim). It's a little thing called "free speech." I know that White has only a dim familiarity with it because he has never allowed any comments at all on his blog. He used to at least claim that he allowed free debate in his chat room, but I was routinely kicked out within minutes by one of his henchmen (usually David T. King) when I dared to show up. I was banned from his buddy Eric Svendsen's discussion board years ago, and from his crony John Q. Doe's blog a few months back. I've had comments deleted in another fellow anti-Catholic, Steve Hays' blog. But I rarely ban people. Even when I do, they are usually allowed back (e.g., Doe sidekick Ken Temple) if they will talk substantively. So, with that background, it is utterly ridiculous for White to make a big deal over this guy's comment (a person I don't know from Adam), as if it has anything to do with me ("Where else, but on good old DA's blog, will you find something as utterly inane as this?"). I get lots of inane comments, but, curiously, they are always from people I disagree with: whether they come from anti-Catholic zealots (White's crowd), or geocentrists, or radical traditionalist Catholics, or atheists. I don't agree with 'em! But they are allowed to express themselves on my blog.
2) White has great fun noting that the ridiculous remark was made on my blog. What he ignores, of course, was my response, made right below the silly comment about White supposedly becoming a Muslim. I wrote: "That's about as likely as Obama joining the tea party. :-)" I considered a stronger statement than that (such as a Hamas member becoming an orthodox Jew or some such), but my usual policy in the face of ludicrosity is one of three things: ignoring it, resorting to humor, or understatement. I chose the third in this instance; but in any event, I clearly disagreed with it. Yet White thinks it is perfectly ethical to make fun of the fact that it appeared on my blog (that allows free speech), as if this proves anything about me, while ignoring my stated disagreement with it, right below it. That would be context; that would actually be fair, and thus, White doesn't do that, because he has not been noted for his emphasis on being fair to my positions or to me personally (there's another example of my extreme understatement).
3) "on Dave Armstrong's blog, where , of course, they were recycling stuff that is now, what, 1999 or something like that, from a Mormon." I wasn't "recycling" anything. As I stated above, I had no thoughts about this stuff at all. I knew nothing about the threads on Peter Lumpkins' blog. I merely happened to check in on White's blog, and I ran across statements about the fake doctorate degree from his buddy Rich Pierce:
We have never hidden this from anyone but have yet to have a single critic actually interact with Dr. White's reasoning for following the path that he did.
This is a flat-out lie, since I did exactly that in 2004, in my first article on the topic, listed above. It is because of the falsehood that I again wrote about it. When people lie, it only gets them into more trouble than the initial issue has already caused them. I have two photographs that were taken by a Mormon. Nothing is inaccurate about them. The Columbia Evangelical Seminary was in this building and this room that were shown in the photos. I had some fun with it; it was obviously semi-humorous. But White has never taken well to any humor at his expense -- while he dishes out a ton of it at others' expense: often involving falsehood somewhere along the line. Here's some more humor. I wrote on Lumpkins' blog tonight:
Proud to be a fellow loon, Peter! . . . I dared to note that White got his "doctorate" by mailing in 100 proof-of-purchase labels from boxes of Cheerios.
White is quite irrational enough to be capable of thinking that I actually literally believe this. :-)
4) White and his followers haven't "debunked" anything in this regard. He has given a rationale for his reasoning in getting a degree from an unaccredited school, but he hasn't shown that his degree is legitimate, or that he has earned the right to call himself a "Dr." as if he is an academic, with all that that entails.
5) I need not respond to his endless personal, merely juvenile rank insults towards me (loony, no credibility and so forth, ad nauseum); I never do. I merely expose them, and they refute themselves. The more extreme the better, from where I sit; he only hurts himself. I have pointed out a few matters of fact in this paper, and how White has distorted them. It's standard White tactics, sad to say. I know: as a persistent target of his for 15 years.
Baptist pastor Peter Lumpkins (a thoughtful, reflective Protestant not burdened by a ridiculous and irrational anti-Catholicism as White is) was kind enough to write the following about me on his blog:
From one loon to another, thanks for logging on ;^). More seriously, I've read some of your stuff. And, you're no loon, I assure. Obviously, we'd have some profound disagreements in certain theological areas. But there is also much in which we could agree.
One thing seemed certain from my brief reading of your material, Dave--you're careful in your language and you appear to disagree with restraint.
Thanks for your kind words, and for reading some of my writing.
There is, of course, much we agree on. The irony is that the same is true between White and myself. We could work together against abortion, homosexual "marriage," KJV-only, Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, atheism, liberal theology (of all stripes), defense of the inspiration of the Bible and the Trinity and Grace Alone, etc. I've written about all these things, excepting KJV-onlyism.
But White can never acknowledge any of that (I have, the other way around). And that is because he defined me from the beginning of our interactions (in 1995) as never a Christian at any time (I used to be an Arminian evangelical before I became a Catholic), and certainly not now. Therefore, nothing I do, even when he agrees, can possibly be of any worth.
If there is anything "loony" here (I don't return his insult; I'm being rhetorical), it is that foolish attitude. The devil absolutely loves dividing and conquering. It's one of his most successful strategies.
I have always said that if White is ever to be corrected, it would have to come from his fellow Baptists or even his inner circle. The sad thing, though, is that he seems to respond no more to critique from Baptists than anyone else. He attacks Protestants who disagree with him just as irrationally and unscrupulously as he attacks Catholics like myself.
Curious, though, isn't it, how White regards me as dumber than a doornail (so he says), yet has challenged me three times to an oral debate (in 1995, 2001, and 2007). It seems to be a cyclical thing (he's due again in 2013). So how can this be? Does it mean that he seeks out the very worst opponents he can find? Or does he look for the best, most able opponents?
I always interact with the sharpest opponents I can find, myself, if I am looking for an intelligent, constructive debate.
Look for more obscurantist, sophistical, obfuscatory, paranoid, irrational, insulting replies from White. He always claims to not care about these things, but his extreme replies put the lie to that. He even was perhaps subtly conspiratorial in his webcast, referring to an allegiance of "Muslims, Arminians . . ." against him. He didn't include Catholics, but of course he mentioned me, and people who know me online at all know that I am a Catholic. So it's the grand conspiracy of Muslims, Arminians (he didn't want to say Baptist; that wouldn't sound too good), and Catholics: all motivated by (how did he put it?): "libel, slander, bile, hatred, anger, and . . . lies." That's us, folks! All who disagree with White must be liars and evil people and loons and utterly lacking in all credibility, you see. How could it possibly be otherwise?
Martin Luther would have consented to White being drowned by the local magistrate for sedition and heresy (since he did so with the Anabaptists, on the grounds of their belief in adult believer's baptism). I say he is a fellow Christian and recipient of two valid sacraments (baptism and marriage). But I am supposedly filled with hatred and an inveterate liar, just like all his other critics.