Reacting to an insightful and funny You Tube video that we both posted (here's mine), White launched into his usual ad hominem salvoes on his blog (the bolding is my own):
Sola Scriptura, Bad Roman Catholic Apologists, and More on The Dividing Line
07/31/2008 - James White
Used a recently posted Roman Catholic YouTube video, posted by both "Jerusalem Jones" Steve Ray and Dave Armstrong, as the jumping off point to listen to portions of past debates with Gerry Matatics, comments on sola scriptura, etc. Took some calls, one on sola scriptura and the early councils, the other on the idea of an "inspired interpretation." For those dealing with Roman Catholic claims of authority, this program will be helpful. For those dealing with those Roman Catholic apologists who really are not serious about truth but do what they do for less-than-noble reasons, you will find more information about that "ilk" as well. Here's the program (free/high quality).
If you go to this post on his blog you can "see" the whole show as well as hear it (courtesy of You Tube). White fancies himself as the anti-Catholic fundamentalist version of Rush Limbaugh.
Here are a few highlights, to save you the tedium of enduring the entirety one of White's inane Dividing Line shows:
He starts in at 5:06 on the tape, talking about myself and Steve. He blessed me with yet another nickname: "the chihuahua of Roman Catholic apologetics" (at about 5:18). This adds to his massive array of existing epithets; the most recent being "the Wall-E of Catholic apologists." Well, hey, my wife Judy always said I was a "cuddly and cute" kind of guy. What can I say? White continues:
The little yip yip yip yip yip dog? That's Dave Armstrong, because he never does anything original on his own. He always borrows from somebody else. So when Steve posts this video, it's not long before Dave Armstrong throws it up there.That's me, folks! More than 2000 articles, 16 books, scores of radio appearances and published articles, but not one of them, alas, "original"! That would be quite a feat, wouldn't it? The only problem with White's wishful thinking scenario is that I never saw it on Steve Ray's blog before I posted mine. I posted my piece because the man who made the video (whom I didn't know from Adam) wrote to me directly and told me about it, on the same day that he posted it.
Moreover, I find it hilariously funny (in light of White mocking and reprimanding me for borrowing), that this person borrowed two things from me for this very video. He wrote in his letter:
In need of an image for the montage, I photographed the attached images. After a while, I realized that Bishop White was not really a "bishop" per se. And trying to remember where I first heard it, I finally realized I got it from your blog. When I went back to look, I decided to use the image you had of James White as part of my video. I thought I would forward you the images of the white bishop [chess piece] since that inspiration came from you . . .The "bishop" thing, of course, does completely originate with me. I've used it ever since White called himself a bishop, in a futile "dialogue" we had on 10 January 2001. Here's what he himself wrote (I didn't make any of this up):
I am an elder in the church: hence, I am a bishop, overseer, pastor, of a local body of believers.White stated it. Not wishing to offend anyone by not giving them their proper title, I have obliged ever since. I alone among Catholic apologists show White the proper reverence, deference, and respect, by referring to him with his self-proclaimed ecclesiastical title. But back to White's continued DL rant. As usual, he is seriously offended by my posting of his own picture, that he himself posted on his website. He states (at 7:20):
. . . same thing, Dave Armstrong . . . blow up a big picture of me and show the top of my head or something. I mean, that's always real deep, brilliant, wise type of thing, and very compelling type of argumentation. . . . I guess that's why I wear caps now . . . . .Imagine that: a deliberately bald guy (trying to be cool and "with it" according to present fashion), ashamed of the top of his head? So now White is reduced (in his embarrassed shame over having a shiny head) to wearing golf caps, Dion-style? Once again (all humor aside), this business about my 'blowing up" his photograph is so much blather and nonsense. It's very simple.
I went to White's resume / "bio" page. At the top it says "click here for media bio and photos." The curious, wide-eyed, awe-inspired follower of the bishop then goes over to that page and sees four formal photographs on the left side. I had the unmitigated gall and irreverence to choose one of these to accompany an article of mine ("Hi-resolution photo #3"). One then clicks on the title for a larger version. But then one notices that the little "plus" sign is indicated when scanning the larger photo, meaning that an even larger version is available. So, a left mouse-click and one arrives at the humungous "jumbo" version (which is the actual size of the picture). All I did was select the head portion only. I didn't "blow up" anything; I didn't mess with it; I simply cropped it: a thing that happens all the time in the use of photographs. It was White's own publicity photo, utilized for a mug shot taken from it, yet White objects to that.
The same man thinks nothing of commissioning his artist to do two lying caricatures of me (see them here). He can't take any humor directed at himself. He can't even take his own publicity photos, for heaven's sake. I can laugh at myself, which is why I'm having fun with his latest insults, posting images (at the top) that he suggests characterize me. I think it's the funniest thing in the world. But White can't take the slightest suggestion that he is not all that he cracks himself up to be.
At the end of his rant (59:00), he states:
. . . try doing it truthfully. Try presenting both sides; maybe try listening to both sides sometime. You're not gonna get that kind of example following Dave Armstrong and Jerusalem Jones [Steve Ray], but I call you to a higher standard.Right. This, from the man who has run from substantive written debate with me for 13 years now: the one who has left unanswered eight major challenges (as I've documented). This is the man who fled from our one lone live chat encounter when I asked him some difficult questions: the one who has turned down two challenges to do further live chats, with a double cross-examination format: the one who has left 36 pages of my challenges in our first postal debate completely unanswered since 1995; the one who kicks me out of his chat room as soon as I show my "face" in there, for fear of what might happen, and who never allows comments on his blog.
And I have probably close to 500 posted dialogues and debates, where I document all of my opponents' words, so that the reader can judge for himself. But Bishop White informs his adoring audience that I have the most difficult time "presenting both sides". Yes, we all know that. The truth is the exact opposite.