Anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist Bishop James White wrote recently (on 7-11-08):
. . . another example of the kind of rhetoric Art Sippo cranks out with gut-wrenching regularity. Ironically, Sippo was defending his very broad use of the term "lie." Anyone who disagrees with Sippo is a liar, plain and simple. Protestants, in particular, are liars, as we will see, even if they are holding a sincerely held (and perfectly defensible) viewpoint. It's still a lie, and they are liars. Now what is almost humorous is that I have heard this kind of argument before. It came from the lips of...Michael Moore. Yes, the likewise gut-wrenching socialist leftist film-maker was on a program defending his use of the term "lie" and "liar" in the exact same way Sippo does, refusing to recognize the necessary difference between "I disagree with your position" and "you are lying." Ironic, isn't it?
One of the things that came out in Miki's comments on the program yesterday and that is representational of many others in the Catholic apologetics community is this: she mentioned purgatory as an example of where I have misrepresented Rome. Yet, when I pressed, what she really meant was that I say Rome is wrong about purgatory. The fact that in her thinking to disagree with Rome must mean that I am lying and dishonest needs to be understood. This explains the twisting of language itself and why she, and many others, do not even bother to show non-Catholics enough respect to read their primary works or check their facts. This also explains their willingness to use every form of ad-hominem argument, spread rumors without doing fact-checking, etc. It's ugly, but it is the way of Rome.
( 9-20-06 )
Anyone who has read the book cannot help but realize Sippo hasn't, or, if he has, he is desperately dishonest.
( 2-25-05 )
Yesterday we noted further examples of the means by which Roman Catholic apologists in the tradition of Art Sippo engage in simply dishonest and inaccurate argumentation so as to maintain their audiences.
( 8-6-05 )
1) X (above all, a despised "Romanist") performs sinful act A.
2) I (James White) also commit sinful act A (including -- quite hypocritically and ironically -- at the expense of the same person whom I accused of, and excoriated for committing sin A).
3) But when I do it, it ain't a sin, because I am a good Calvinist and we can do the same stuff that other folks who falsely claim to be Christians cannot do.
4) Therefore, sinful act A is sinful and not sinful at the same time.
5) Thus, A does not equal A (the first rule of logic).
6) A is sinful when Romanists do it and A isn't sinful when good Calvinists like me do it.
7) Ergo, ethics and morality are determined by the situation and also depend on who is doing the action (relativism and situation ethics as opposed to absolute biblical ethics).
Mr. Armstrong has provided a reading list on his blog. In essence, this means that instead of blaming ignorance for his very shallow misrepresentations of non-Catholic theology and exegesis, we must now assert knowing deception.
( 12-31-04 )
Any serious or even honest review of my use of the citation would indicate this: Rutland ignores it. . . . What is deceptive is Bill Rutland ignoring the context in which I placed the citation, which removes the ground of his allegation.
( 8-6-05 )
While a picture like that in the article would have been seen as clear evidence of the Pope's deception a hundred years ago, today you will hardly find any serious "Protestant" leader criticizing such activities, . . .
( 9-2-06 )
Phil [Porvaznik] knows he is being dishonest here, and he simply does not care.
( 3-26-07 )
If you want an incredible example of self-deception and suppression of truth, here's one from this morning. You will recall that I noted the less-than-honest and accurate words of one California attorney, Peter Sean Bradley. First, I replied to his comments on the Beckwith situation here. I walked through his entire article and responded to, and refuted, each point. Then, a little later, I replied to another article of his, here, demonstrating he could not even accurately identify the authors of the articles he was addressing . . .
( 5-9-07 )
Speaking of which, I will be playing clips from the 7/31 Catholic Answers Live radio program. They are now advertising the Steve Gregg/Tim Staples "debate" (it was a radio program, not a debate) along with the "Bible Answer Man Debate with noted Anti-Catholic James White." Note that I'm an anti-Catholic, but Steve Gregg isn't. Starting to get an idea of just how malleable, and in fact, simply dishonest CA is about its use of such slurs?
( 8-1-07 )
A Call to Roman Catholic Apologists to Repent of the Use of Simple Dishonesty in Their Presentations [title]
( 8-22-07 )
See the spin? It is not done very well, but when you've been so clearly refuted, there is not much more you can do than to play games like this. Notice he never once accurately represents even his own words (how difficult it must be to engage in such self-deception!) . . . he is willing to dishonestly assert . . . no honest person could ever bring himself to say such a thing, but as I have pointed out, it is the essence of Romanism to defend Rome at all costs, and one's personal integrity and honesty is surely the first casualty. . . . I wonder where the honest Roman Catholic apologists are?
( 8-26-07; against Steve Ray)
Steve Ray Posts His "Reply": A Study in Dishonesty [title]
What he has actually posted in this blog article is more than enough to demonstrate that he is intent upon engaging in the most egregious forms of spin and smoke-and-mirrors to attempt to rescue any shred of credibility he might have as an apologist. . . . It is dishonest at best for Ray to falsely accuse me of saying things I have never said, and adopting positions I have never endorsed, promoted, or enunciated. . . . When representing others, the truthful writer can quote that person, in context. Steve Ray can't do that. Why? Because he's peddling lies, and he is fully aware of it. This is not just a mistake on his part, he is purposefully lying to his readers. . . .
So how do Romanists get around being refuted? Attack the person who refuted you. Call him a "petty pope" and liken him to a "rabid dog." Then change the subject. Make something up like "He thinks its great for there to be division in the body of Christ!" and hope your followers are as utterly unconcerned about the truth as you are, . . .
Of course, the person who is actually concerned about truth, and who wants to know if you will honestly admit that you have been using a number that is over 300% above even the number in your actual source, which you claim to own, now have their response: no, you will not even admit to misrepresenting documented facts! . . . it is always sad to see anyone sell themselves out to error and engage in this kind of gross dishonesty.
( 8-27-07 )
Well, now I know who posted this video: none other than Gary Michuta himself. He joined YouTube just today to post this wonderful example of "As long as it is in the service of Rome, don't worry about the truth thing--it will all come out in the wash." Evidently he views it as his job to protect Steve Ray when Ray makes utterly absurd statements on CA Live. In any case, it is Michuta who now gets to own this mess of half-truths and deception, and own it he will.
( 1-19-08 )
We see, then, the inimitable Bishop White accusing of deliberate deception and lying the following individual Catholics and groups:
Dr. Art Sippo (apologist)Some of Bishop White's best buddies in the anti-Catholic Protestant community exhibit the same bigoted mentality. For example, Dr. Eric Svendsen:
Dave Armstrong (apologist)
Bill Rutland (apologist)
Pope Benedict XVI (the Holy Father)
Phil Porvaznik (apologist)
Peter Sean Bradley (attorney)
Catholic Answers (apologetic organization)
Catholic apologists en masse
Steve Ray (apologist)
Gary Michuta (apologist)
RC apologists will do or say just about anything--true or not--to advance their cause. They engage in the strategy of deception regularly.
(on his Areopagus board: 4-27-03)
[W]e have experience with those who use the "strategy of deceit" to mislead people down the road to a false gospel.
(on his Areopagus board: 6-4-03)
. . . strategy of deceit that he [yours truly] uses all the time . . .
[T]he "nature" of his apology was insincerity . . . That's the "strategy of deceit" that Paul refers to in Ephesians 4.
. . . He has no problem with lying, so long as he thinks he can pin that same charge on someone else;that way he doesn't "appear" to be lying. What a sad spectacle.
. . . DA's strategy of deceit, . . .
What's my "lack of charity" got to do with DA's lack of honesty? Nothing. . . . that's just what DA does best--he deceives, and he usually accomplishes that by focusing on half-truths (that's the "strategy of deceit" that marks the heretic).(1-15-05)
Now that DA knows his criticism is baseless, we can no doubt expect him to respond with the usual weaseling of how hes still right even though hes been corrected.
Every once in a while my mischievous side takes over and ignores my better judgment not to get involved with with apologetic and theological lunatics. It's a fine line when you're involved in apologetics. You must, with the NT writers, sometimes deal with the messenger as well as the message. In the case of DA, it's almost as though his loony statements are a cartoon punchline waiting to happen.
( 5-5-05 )
Pastor David T. King (the rudest, most obnoxious Christian, bar none, that I've ever had the pleasure to encounter) follows suit as well:
I already have a very low view of the integrity of non-Protestants in general, . . . most of you are too dishonest to admit what you really think.All that one can conclude from these remarkable and outrageous juxtapositions is that Bishop White and his anti-Catholic cronies exercise one standard for others and a different one for themselves, when they commit the same sins they excoriate in other people; rather like both the Pharisees of old and the secularist moral relativists of our illustrious times. Pray, folks.
(on Eric Svendsen's Areopagus board, 4-15-03)
It is a typical Roman Catholic tactic to misrepresent one's opponent purposely in order to "name and claim" a victory.
(on Eric Svendsen's Areopagus board, 6-5-03)
I obviously hit a nerve. Here is the good Bishop's reply ( 7-11-08 ). When White's atrocious ethics and hypocrisies are exposed from his own words and behavior, he attacks. What else could he do? Well, he could repent of the sin, but that's not happening soon. Don't anyone hold their breath for that. Here's some stone classic "anti-DA" White boilerplate rhetoric / sophistry (with my humorous fisking in red and brackets):
I couldn't help but notice [right. Of course no one alerted White to my post] Dave Armstrong had to demonstrate that he, like Sippo, lacks the same basic cognitive capacity [it took less than one sentence for Jimbo to get to his usual attacking of my "basic" intelligence]. Once again using his "play with pictures" technique of apologetics [how did I "play"? I simply posted! I didn't do one thing with his photo!], Armstrong accused me of doing the very thing Sippo was doing [of course, because it happens to be undeniably true. I'm kind o' fond o' truth]. But, to make his case, he actually had to cite me [wow! imagine that!], and the truly sad and embarrassing thing for Armstrong [yes, I'm always embarrassing myself] is, anyone who reads what I said will notice that Armstrong "just doesn't get it." [that's right. Few who disagree with the good bishop ever do "get it"] Being able to differentiate between a difference of opinion and saying someone is a liar does not require you to believe that dishonesty does not exist in the world. All the examples he gave lacked the one thing they needed to be relevant: a logical parallel to the actual case at hand. [prove it (preferably without your usual sophistry)] This is why I do not bother with Armstrong any longer [White is so intent on ignoring me altogether that he has done posts about me on 7-14-06 / 4-7-07 / 4-12-07 / 6-14-07 / 6-15-07 / 6-21-07 / 7-12-07 / 8-3-07 / 8-25-07 / 9-7-07 / 12-29-07 / 2-19-08 and 2-20-08. His sidekick John Q. Doe has also been allowed (weirdly enough) to write about me on White's blog on 4-26-07 / 6-18-07 / 6-24-07 / 10-4-07 / 1-4-08 and 5-30-08. That's only 14 articles in the 16 months from April 2007 till July 2008 (or 20 if we count Doe too: more than one per month average). But it's obvious that White no longer "bother[s]" with me.]: not only has his incapacity as a serious writer or apologist been documented far too many times over the years here [White playbook code for "I ran from Armstrong's challenges by using my trademark 'he's too stupid to bother with' excuse"], but the simple fact is that he is sort of like the Wall-E of Catholic apologists [yet another new insult. Congrats, Jimbo! I was wondering what the next one would be; endless variety!]: he gathers bits and pieces from here and there and cobbles them together [sort of like the Epicureans accused St. Paul of doing, on Mars Hill in Athens], often without sufficient background or knowledge to understand how they should or could be related [because I'm such an inveterate dolt, dunce, and dope], and then adds a generous helping of self-citation and a mountain of excess verbiage [you mean like your buddy Turretinfan's 56,000 word, 182 page response to an "anti-Calvinist" on the parable of the sower?] to give the appearance of substance [always. This is standard White polemic where I am concerned: "if you can't answer, obfuscate and divert attention from the actual subject"] Unfortunately, he lacks Wall-E's adorable personality, or, at least, big eyes. [hey! my wife would dispute that!] Armstrong knows he only has one "safe" place in this world, behind his keyboard [is that like the old Simon and Garfunkel song, I am a Rock?]: he will never, ever venture out in the real world [ah, yes. Writing ain't the real world: an odd observation indeed, coming from a guy who has some 15 or more published books, just as I do. White spends lots of time in the "fake" world, too] to face those he so confidently mocks in real debate [who determined that all debate is non-written? I've never heard such a thing. Besides, I've challenged Bishop White twice to a real-time debate in a chat room and he refused twice. Knowing his fear of such things, I even offered him an exclusively "double cross-ex" format (that he praises all the time) and more time for questioning than I would get. Why did he say no? What's he so scared of, anyway? Here's his golden opportunity to make mincemeat of me before the world and prove I am an idiot and an imbecile, like he's been saying for 13 years, and he refuses?]. So while I'm sure he will get his six-months worth of satisfaction for having been noted again [I'm ecstatic! Being noticed by an intellectually-suicidal coward and master of every kind of personal insult has made my day. How can I top this?], I truly wonder if he realizes just how often he documents his own failure to provide a consistent and compelling case? [there's some classic White put-down, folks. Hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Meanwhile, my criticism remains intact and untouched for all to see. White has shown the world once again that he is a moral relativist]