UPDATE #2: Rather than actually deal with anything written here, James White would simply ignore the evidence below which surely demonstrates he routinely deals unfairly and inadequately with his critics. Yet his emotionally-driven flaming continues to burn in his latest piece here. While the Muslim video has absolutely nothing to do with me or Tim Guthrie--in fact, I flagged the Muslim's IP months ago (the Muslim who apparently created the video) so he could not comment on SBC Tomorrow--James White nonetheless attempts to tie both Guthrie and me with the Muslim. He writes: "But once again, what an incredible example of "focus on irrelevancies, ignore
the central point." The only thing more sad is this: such fallacious
argumentation could very well be picked up by the likes of Guthrie and Lumpkins,
since they, along with this Muslim, show no capacity for logical reasoning and
fairness" (emphasis added).
Sure, James, sure.
On the other hand, I'm afraid it's going to be more difficult in the future for James White to simply say something is so makes it so. Demand for legitimate evidence for his emotionally-saturated charges and moral insults he routinely hurls at his critics, I predict, is going to increase. Either James White will abandon his cheap, offensive rhetoric, along with the "you, sir, are a liar" scorched earth strategy, or he'll continue to lose influence. It's already cost him his teaching post at Golden Gate. What else will he concede before he gets it? I cannot answer that question.
UPDATE: Original post restored below thanks to a kind SBC Tomorrow reader. My deepest regret for the confusion...
Well, I thought I was through responding to James White for a season. Yet I found myself so intrigued by his latest piece on his site, it was more than I could resist, I unhappily admit. Colorfully entitled “Peter Lumpkins: Alexander the Coppersmith Strikes Again” White concerns himself with my piece posted here.
Being a relatively lengthy response I honestly expected more engagement with what I actually wrote. Furthermore, after somewhat softening the “you, sir are a liar” strategy in his last response to me—a strategy for which White has become infamously known (//link)—he unfortunately slips backward into rapid-fire name calling with a vengeance.
Allow me.
First the title. Obviously, White alludes to Paul’s warning to Timothy concerning the “evil man” Alexander (2Tim.4:14), a vocational coppersmith thoroughly set on opposing the Apostolic gospel. Some scholars tag the coppersmith as the same Alexander Paul mentions in his first pastoral letter (1:20). Paul described him as one who made “shipwreck” of the faith, and one whom Paul had turned over to Satan. Whatever the case, Alexander the coppersmith on all accounts was a tremendously evil person who was undoubtedly unsaved and at all costs opposed the Apostle’s work at every turn.
Though he does not come right out and say it, I’m guessing James White stars as the Apostle Paul in his little analogous image while it is more obvious who plays the apostate blasphemer—me (this will be one point concerning which I will not be called a dishonest thug, I assure!).
Hence, James White is doing apostolic work; gospel work; God-called service. As for me, well, I blaspheme; I oppose; I hinder.
Now I’m quite sure White’s analogy pleases White’s community. On the other hand, I’m not so sure many outside his sphere would count his scheme, shall we say, balanced.
Well, enough about the coppersmith from West Georgia. Let’s move on a bit.
I want the reader to note an inevitable pattern in James White’s responses to many of his critics. Consider this sparkling cluster in James White’s present “response” to me:
- proud
- utter irrational
- anti-Reformed
- irascible
- attack anyone who questions
- circle the wagons mentality
- never deal fairly with facts
- never deal fairly with documentation
- always look for any possible way around problems
- lacks honesty and integrity
- agenda-driven
- goals are not honorable or proper
- never discuss facts
- intent on politics of personal destruction
- no road too low to travel
- personal attack is modus operandi
- produce mud and absurdity
- protect position and authority using any means
- worst of the practitioners
- a politico without honesty or integrity
- utter disregard for honesty in false attacks
- unrepentant in irrationality,
- astounding perversity of thinking
- care nothing about Islamic apologetics
- care noting about students
- concern is political power and control, nothing more
- shallow and fallacious in argumentation
- will never face James White
- will never call the Dividing Line
- twists facts and acts brave behind a keyboard
- takes bits and pieces out of videos and makes absurd arguments based upon a biased, prejudiced hearing of what is said
- irrationality of arguments are clear to all who are willing to think honestly
- makes no comments on the actual substance
- has no capacity or ability to do so
- actual purposes and context of original statements are irrelevant
- draws a fantasy picture
- impugns honesty
- holds one accountable for every word written by reporter
- rational persons knows reporters summarize and, often, not so accurately
- mind-set is amazing to behold
- splashes the mud created by others
- have absolutely nothing to show for themselves in fields of ministry under discussion
- wouldn't dare stand before a majority Muslim audience and proclaim Jesus to be the Son of God
- wouldn't dare stand before a majority Muslim audience and proclaim the Qur'an to be in error and uninspired
- wouldn't last 30 seconds in cross-examination with Robert Price or Bart Ehrman
- does not care about such things
- life-blood is political, not theological,
- life-blood is power-based, not servant-based
How is one supposed to engage another when the piece under consideration is splattered throughout with the mindless, empty, emotionally-driven rhetoric as listed above? Yet I assure you, every single one of these are found in the one “response” from James White to me.
In Part II, I intend to engage what few points James White actually made in his critique of my pieces here. However, as unpleasant as it was to do, White’s pattern of engagement as seen above needs to be noted by anyone who openly criticizes White’s views and/or actions.
One must weigh whether or not he or she is willing to wade through the swampy literary marsh if you want to engage James White.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
Thank you for your continued excellence in responding to this man. (I use the term loosely) I, myself do not possess the same calmness that you do when interacting with Mr. White and would prefer to handle it as my heritage would suggest and find the nearest batch of fresh concrete to submerse him in. (Tongue FIRMLY in cheek and smile broadly on face here. I told White once that I wished to plant a "boot in his arse" and he ran scared. Who takes someone seriously who uses the word "arse"?)
To me, he is Marvin Martian, wishing to blow up the Earth so he may see the moon. I do not believe for one second that his concern lies with apologetic integrity but strictly with envy and jealousy. The Caners published books that someone actually read. He gives speeches to a few dozen mentally corseted folks while the Caners preach passionate sermons, frequently to thousands. People actually LIKE the Caners...
He speaks of being attacked while viciously attacking anyone who defends Ergun. He ignores...completely...the damage he has done to the Church, both from the inside and to the world outside, and to this man and his young family. But this is a man who attacks his own family for standing against horrible sin. James White is a megalomaniac. His way is best and if you disagree you need to repent. People like that are frightening because they usually wind up screaming loudly in German beer halls and causing trouble.
Disagreement is considered a sin and a cause for repentance.
The first time I responded to James White in any fashion, he wound up hitting my blogs over 240 times in one day, looking for clues as to where I attend church so he could attempt to tell on me to my elders. After the initial thrill of my first cyber stalker...I was alarmed.
Extremists like White make the church an unsafe place. People like you, who approach it with calmness and clarity do my heart good. Because people like me would already be storming his building with oil torches and pitchforks.
Carry on
Posted by: Craig Daliessio | 2010.06.06 at 07:01 AM
Craig,
I must say, you'r putting yourself "out there" by vocally embracing what we're attempting to communicate here ;^)
Lord bless.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.06.06 at 08:44 AM
Amazing, Peter, simply amazing. So, he's calling you a lost heretic. Amazing.
David
Posted by: volfan007 | 2010.06.06 at 10:16 AM
Peter...
I possess three things that White cannot affect and therefore it renders me impervious to his attacks and renders him besides himself with wretchings because he cannot gain a grip on me:
(1) A presalvation past so speckled and tarnished that one glance at my history would have him slinking away before he awoke the beast.
(2) A 20 year walk with Christ which has rendered me confident in Him and who I am in Him while alerting me to the slimy nature of so many "brothers' that I no longer care a whit what anyone in the church thinks of me. His desperate search for my church home was fun to watch but deep down I was tempted to just tell him. Because if I ever thought my elders would involve themselves in an internet squabble I would leave that church and never look back. Perhaps his church is that involved, but mine is not.
(3) I write both faith-based books and article and non faith based. I know better than to secure my financial independence strictly within the world of the church. I have total freedom to speak my mind and my heart because I don't care who uninvites me because of paragraph 2, sentence 3 on April 31 2012, when I wrote about the KJV and it's application to plumbing supplies.
The Church, sadly, is a cold, cruel mistress, more than she is a bride. People like White break the heart of the Christ they claim. THAT spurs my anger and makes me want to personify my personal favorite saint...St. Anthony Soprano or Bergen County.
Carry on my good man
Laughingly-
Posted by: Craig Daliessio | 2010.06.06 at 01:18 PM
Everybody who opposes Jimmy White's tireless crusade to boost his megalomaniac efforts to position himself as the strong man among a few dozen sycophants is clearly evil. Peter, face the music. You are just flat out evil and all because Paul, er ... Jimmy White states as such. Besides, he is a doctor of something and you, well, you're not. He has a dozen or so bloggers behind him in this and that makes all the difference. On top of that he has the Muslims and you don't. Muslims ... good ... non-Whiteheads ... bad .... therefore you are bad.
On a more serious note, the Whitehead assassins may be right about Caner at the end of the day but their beds will smell of Islam and carnal intrique.
Posted by: A.M. Mallett | 2010.06.06 at 01:27 PM
Dr. Lumpkins:
I'll be brief (I promise!). Though I believe that you and volfan have misunderstood the total intent of Dr. White's use of the Coppersmith (I do believe that White considers Dr. Lumpkins a Christian), and though I know that your response to a comment of mine in a previous thread was off the mark (meaning only that you missed a lot of my intention and missed some of its importance), and though I truly do believe you have been less than charitable in your understanding of what White has said over all -- I would be foolish to overlook everything you've said on those bases.
That being said, I'll have to ask Doc about some of those things you've said. I shall not come to any conclusion before then, and I will most definitely not post it here until I've had such a conversation with my brother.
By the way, I never meant to indicate by my questions before that you sir didn't think Dr. White was your brother in Christ. Rather, by asking the question, I expected a negative answer, and hoped it would serve as a corrective, partly for you, more-so for the commenters in the thread. If you would like, I can go through any explain what I mean in the rest of your response. If not, I may write it up anyway as a hope of good communication among brothers.
I'll probably be back.
truly, a worm:
dbh
Posted by: David B. Hewitt | 2010.06.06 at 02:36 PM
David,
I offered a brief context for the 'coppersmith' to whom Paul alludes. If I have missed something relevant about him which bears more light on the analogous connection between him and me, I'd be happy to see it.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.06.06 at 03:08 PM
What is even more troubling to me than anything James White has or hasn't said is Don Quixote and his little trained minion, Cough-man. They made a point of contacts MoKahn for his "information" and never once shared the gospel with him. I mean, that man is lost, dying, and on his way to an eternity in hell and getting Ergun Caner "by gawd" is more of a priority that sharing the gospel with him. Talk about some messed up prioities.
Of course, since they don't believe salvation is exclusivly through Jesus Christ, it would make sense that they don't care to present the gospel to him. After all, in their minds his mulim faith is sufficient to save him
I would be ashamed of myself if I were them, but shame would involve having convictions and a conscience. Neither Don Quixote or Cough-man have that.
Posted by: Joe Blackmon | 2010.06.06 at 03:22 PM
These people just gone right out loopy now.
I'm still astounded at the fact that Calvinist believe that the SBC can be absolutely and totally eveeeeel, full of liars and degenerates, filled with with those who would cover up liars and degererates all for the sake of politics. God will stand by and allow the SBC to be a mockery to Christianty, Christ and a Sovereign God - a God so feckless that he's just been waiting and yes on his knees praying for anyone with integrity to help him cleanse the SBC. Now I see St. White himself appearing to throw the Calvinist view of Total Drapavity under the bus because he is so desparate to prove:
" Hey I'm great and yes a sovereign, all powerful God wants me to team up with a reprobate evil Muslim to take out you hypocrite Christians and you do realize how great and really super d duper smart I am don't ya?"
The question isn't can a nonbeliever speak truth (ie 2+2=4) The question is what kind of heart can a nonbeliever have? Specifically, what kind of heart, motivations, agenda can a Muslim whose mission is to discredit not just liars in general but anyone claiming to be an exMuslim converted to Christianity. Seriously, a Calvinist "apologetic" is saying "Yeah, a Muslim out to discredit Christians can a have pure motive especially when it's a nonCalvinist who may only just barely be saved anyway."
This really shouldn't surpise anyone when you have a woman who claims to be all about women and protecting women from abuse in religion who actually made a statement to the affect of "Sure Muslims treat women poorly, but so does the SBC."
A 16 year old Muslim girl in Saudia Arabia who has been imprisoned for the crime of being gang raped (see under their system she deserves the crime and the gang rape because she got caught with a boy that was not a close relation - and just putting her in jail was actually lenient cause they could have stoned her for her crimes) see when a women makes a statement that the SBC is equally as bad to women because they won't allow women to preach or OMG the horror a woman lost her job for being a woman and she has absolutely no clue that there is absolutely no moral equilivance between the two and this woman continues her rants and the sycophants still gather round you realize this isn't about integrity, truth and the American way - this is about hatred toward all things SBC no matter how many times or how hard she's hitting the keyboard screaming "I'm a CHRISTIAN WOMAN HEAR ME ROAR."
Ergun Caner could absolutely be guilty of a whole lot of bad stuff. If after all the evidence has been presented which unlike Saudia Arabia and other Muslim societies would include a thing in the US we call the defense - but even after the defence is presented he could be absolutley guitly and I haven't actually seen anyone saying "well yeah if he's guilty we have to cover up it up at all costs" I've seen a lot of people who have passed indictment without all the evidence (ie the defence) and people saying let's wait for everything to fall out before passing a verdict. He could be guilty, but understand those people who are so vehemently going after him have nothing whatsover to do with Christ and Christianity - this is about religious hatred - hatred of all things SBC. These people are going insane and they are looking so ridiculous while doing it.
Oh and for those who think "Oh isn't it great a Muslim is helping us with our problems in the SBC." Wake up, buy a vowel and get a clue - Islam - it ain't so pure. Maybe a Muslim concerned with the "truth" should correct the "misconceptions" that Muslims are you know terrorist and mysogynists. Of course the Muslim would have to recognize and truthfully admit that his religion has plenty of it's own "issues" and you know be brave enough to confront them. Cause Muslims speaking out against Islam outside the US - that don't end so well.
And one more thing before I go to the pool for the summer - Whatever happened to that Muslim guy who was trying to link Saint RC Sproul with one of the "fake" debaters - you think the Calvinist got a hold of him and said "Don't ya be talkin bad bout our Saints now." So much for truth and integrity. Just gotta laugh at the dueling Muslim experts "My expert says XYZ." "Well you're expert's not real cause he proclaims Christ now."
Ya just gotta laugh - Peter, we love border collies in our family, we're on our second after losing our much loved 15 year old Mollie last summer.
God is good. People not so much.
Posted by: Mary | 2010.06.06 at 04:03 PM
David B Hewitt you refer to St White as Doc?? Burleson wrote a post about men calling themselves Dr when they got it through mail order like White did. Too funny!
Posted by: Mary | 2010.06.06 at 04:13 PM
this isn't about integrity, truth and the American way - this is about hatred toward all things SBC no matter how many times or how hard she's hitting the keyboard screaming "I'm a CHRISTIAN WOMAN HEAR ME ROAR."
Ok, you owe me a new laptop for the Diet Dr K that just spewed out of my nose when I read that. I haven't heard a better description of that old hag Cough-man anywhere. Haa haa
Posted by: Joe Blackmon | 2010.06.06 at 05:14 PM
My father worked in our county school system for several years. He was walking down a school hall with one of the principals and the principal addressed one of the teachers as Dr. After they had moved on down the hall, my father commented, "I did not know that ____ had a doctorate." The principal replied, "He doesn't. It is a courtesy I extend to him."
Posted by: Bennett Willis | 2010.06.06 at 05:27 PM
Mary:
Might I suggest you check your facts before commenting further on Dr. White's education or Calvinism for that matter. :)
Joe Blackman:
To suggest (as it appears you are doing if I am reading you correctly) that Calvinists do not believe that salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ is blatantly false. I hope I am somehow reading you incorrectly, but if not, please consider yourself politely corrected. :)
Dr. Lumpkins:
With regard to the analogy with the Coppersmith it isn't so much that you were in error with all of the things that he was to Paul, but rather how far Dr. White was taking it I suspect. If I am reading Dr. White correctly, he was saying that you were troubling to his ministry or ministry in general, as the coppersmith was to Paul. I don't think much more (if anything more at all) was intended than that by using that illustration.
sdg,
dbh
Posted by: David Benjamin Hewitt | 2010.06.06 at 07:17 PM
If Leroy Thompson and Creflo Dollar can go around calling themselves Dr, well, so can Jimmy White!
Posted by: A.M. Mallett | 2010.06.06 at 07:22 PM
Joe, another Debbieism which kills me is "Only Muslims can decide who was/is a Muslim and only I (Debbie) get to decide which Muslim can label who is Muslim and who is a fake exMuslim" if your Muslim doesn't agree with Debbie and St White then they are not really a Muslim. You follow?
Posted by: Mary | 2010.06.06 at 07:58 PM
Some White devotee by the name of Debbie Kaufman wrote a hit piece on this post earlier today and seems to really be on an anti SBC crusade. She went on a bender about Craig Daliessio's post although I think Craig was not at all out of line in his comments. White strikes me as an enemy of the body of Christ and if we were to follow Christ's example, it would be whips rather than a boot (just kidding Debbie cuz I know you are reading all over this thread). We should pray for these souls, if not for salvation, for a dramatic blessing of sanctification.
Posted by: A.M. Mallett | 2010.06.06 at 08:34 PM
By the way, Dr. Lumpkins, one other question if I may:
Am I correct in concluding that the point of this particular post was to address how Dr. White addresses/responds to people rather than what he actually says that is meant to rebut the position?
Want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.
sdg,
dbh
Posted by: David Benjamin Hewitt | 2010.06.06 at 08:35 PM
Well I know you have no knowledge or experience with coppersmithing. Perhaps copper piping ;^), but metallugist, give me a break. Besides, the Spirit bears witness my brother, not that you need my endorsement. Seems someone is getting the harvest of their sowing and aint like'n it in a Georgia minute. Keep pecking on my dear brother..If one can't take the research one dishes out, perhpas one ought to quite dishin' it out.
Posted by: Chris Gilliam | 2010.06.06 at 08:40 PM
"I'm still astounded at the fact that Calvinist believe that the SBC can be absolutely and totally eveeeeel, full of liars and degenerates, filled with with those who would cover up liars and degererates all for the sake of politics."
Hey now, not all calvinists are like that... I'm a 5-pointer (of the young, reformed, and restless kind, in fact) and I have a lot more respect for men like Page Patterson, Jerry Vines, and Adrian Rogers and what they have done in their lives than I do for James White (in fact, I have no respect for James White).
Granted, I'm not a fan of the Caner bro's either, for other reasons, but this thing between White, the Caners, and whoever else gets thrown in the mixed shows how far away some are from 1 Timothy 5:1-2... whatever happened to disagreeing and/or rebuking in a spirit of love, gentleness, and humility? Where's the concern about wanting to build others up instead of tearing them down?
Yes, we are supposed to be men and women of the truth... but my gosh, we're also supposed to be men and women of love, joy, peace, and service.
Some of what I read on blogs/hear about from others... good grief... we're supposed to be shining lights to the world, yet we're acting worse than the world.
It seems that some people out there want to win the award: Best Attempt at Grieving the Holy Spirit. (wood, hay, and straw... wood, hay, straw)
Posted by: mlb | 2010.06.06 at 08:51 PM
David,
You write, "it isn't so much that you were in error with all of the things that [Alex] was to Paul...[White] was saying that you were troubling to his ministry...I don't think much more...was intended than that by using that illustration."
Nice try. The difficulty is, the summary you just gave has little to no resemblance to the contextual profile of the coppersmith. Few if any make Alex out to be a mere aggravation to Paul which is what you're basically saying, David. Compounding the difficulty to your attempt to soften White's analogy are the non-stop, personal trajectories I listed in the OP.
Hence, your impression I'm afraid is entirely unconvincing.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.06.06 at 09:02 PM
David,
My point was and is simple: James White enters a room slinging his literary fists. When so much personal innuendo is continually splattered on his opponent, there remains little hope for normative exchange, much less meaningful exchange. Like I said in the OP, every single one of the descriptions I listed are in one--ONE--response, not a series over time--ONE response.
James White may be the best thing that ever happened in a formal debate setting. However, from my reading on his site, he spends much of his time flaming rather than responding.
With that, I am...
PeterPosted by: peter | 2010.06.06 at 09:21 PM
To suggest (as it appears you are doing if I am reading you correctly) that Calvinists do not believe that salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ is blatantly false.
Nope. I'm a 5 pointer myself and I do not believe that there is any hope of salvation other than faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, I'm not saying that Calvinists believe that.
I'm saying Don Quixote and Cough-man must. Otherwise, they would have shared the gospel with MoKahn...which they did not.
Posted by: Joe Blackmon | 2010.06.06 at 11:46 PM
Mary,
You have got to stop it. This is my work laptop I'm on. I can't be getting stuff all over it from where you're making me laugh so hard I choke.
Oh, and what about "Every Christian that claims to be a Christian is a Christian no matter what they believe--unless they're conservative".
And someone seriously needs to take a trimmer to her nose hairs. She's got a forrest growing up in there.
Posted by: Joe Blackmon | 2010.06.07 at 07:21 AM
Little bird told me that some of the major news outlets who have been covering this are now doing some digging into the biggest protractors ie; White and Khan. I also heard these probably non believing outsiders were shaking their collective heads at the lunacy. I feel like singing show tunes!
Posted by: Craig Daliessio | 2010.06.07 at 09:01 AM
For the record...if Tighty Whitey is Don Quixote, doesn't that make Cough-man Dulcinea?
Posted by: Craig Daliessio | 2010.06.07 at 09:02 AM
No, no, Jammes White is not Don Quixote. That's Wade Burleson. Another blogger coined that name for him. It's in reference to his "saving" jobs at SWBTS when Patterson was supposedly going to fire Calvinists and SEBTS when Les wrote asking about the stance of professors there on tithing and obviously wasn't trying to get anyone fired. It's mocking the fact that he acts like he saved jobs--"If they didn't get fired it's because I broke the story. I turned the light of day on their dastardly plot." Whatev
Oh, Craig, someone is going to roll your house tonight. Now, if it happens you heard it here first. If it DOESN'T happen it's because I made the plot public. Haa haa
Sorry for the confusion as to who Don Quixote was.
Posted by: Joe Blackmon | 2010.06.07 at 10:07 AM
Joe,
You need to get your priorities right.
Being able to take credit for taking down a seminary president is far more important than trying to save a soul. This is the chance of a lifetime to bolster one's resume. Don't mess it up with this concern for someone's soul.
Please blot Mark 8:36 and Luke 9:56 out of your Bible. They do not apply when one is attempting to build a name for themselves by bringing about the destruction of someone else.
Posted by: Don Johnson | 2010.06.07 at 10:29 AM
Peter,
I want to know if you actually have a doctorate degree as everyone is calling you "Dr. Lumpkins." I wouldn't want to violate any rules laid down by Wade on how I should address you in Orlando. :)
Les
Posted by: Les Puryear | 2010.06.07 at 01:17 PM
Les,
Please. Whatever you do, don't tell you know who. I'll be busted for sure.
Grace. Perhaps Orlando will be a marvelous meeting after all. I plan to put up some thoughts soon.
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.06.07 at 02:24 PM
Dear Les,
Now you've gone and done it. I'll never speak to you again...but I will speak about you. :^)
With that, I am...
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.06.07 at 02:29 PM
Don Johnson,
How are things going now that they cancelled Nash Bridges? It's not even syndicated anymore, is it? Just kidding, man.
You comment was hilarious. Add to the fact that he's a seminary president the facts that he's a complimentarian, he's dispensationalist, and he's anti-calvinist and Enid's own Don Quixote has MORE than enough reason to want to take him out. LOL
Posted by: Joe Blackmon | 2010.06.07 at 03:02 PM
Hello again, Dr. L. Your said:
"Nice try. The difficulty is, the summary you just gave has little to no resemblance to the contextual profile of the coppersmith. Few if any make Alex out to be a mere aggravation to Paul which is what you're basically saying, David. Compounding the difficulty to your attempt to soften White's analogy are the non-stop, personal trajectories I listed in the OP."
My point was that some but not all of the attributes in the coppersmith's profile were what he was ascribing to you. That point included excepting that of lostness. Further, I too think it would be an understatement to say that Alexander was a "mere aggravation" to Paul, as I would think it an understatement that your comments have been "mere aggravations." :)
sdg,
dbh
Posted by: David Benjamin Hewitt | 2010.06.07 at 03:07 PM
A second comment, as you posted two. :)
"My point was and is simple: James White enters a room slinging his literary fists. When so much personal innuendo is continually splattered on his opponent, there remains little hope for normative exchange, much less meaningful exchange. Like I said in the OP, every single one of the descriptions I listed are in one--ONE--response, not a series over time--ONE response."
I read his post. I am aware that the words you bulleted in the OP were in his post. The contexts were removed of course in your list, but that doesn't mean that they were not there, to be sure.
"James White may be the best thing that ever happened in a formal debate setting. However, from my reading on his site, he spends much of his time flaming rather than responding. "
Here is a concern I think is valid. (paraphrase) From what you have observed, he spends a lot of time flaming people. The implication that follows is that he has failed to be loving toward brothers (and sisters) in Christ and therefore has violated the Second Greatest Commandment by his actions.
Would that be an accurate summary of what you are saying?
an inquisitive worm,
dbh
Posted by: David Benjamin Hewitt | 2010.06.07 at 03:14 PM
Peter,
It doesn't take much to get an outburst from little Debbie, does it? Pa.the.tic.
Les
P.S. Look for the White Knight to ride in soon to rescue her.
Posted by: Les Puryear | 2010.06.07 at 03:39 PM
David,
Begging pardon, but you have not the least idea “some but not all of the attributes in the coppersmith's profile were what [White] was ascribing to [me].” Did White tease the analogy out to substantiate what you’re suggesting? Has he written it on a public blog somewhere? While he teased the analogy out, he surely did not tease it out substantiating what you’re saying. Relook at the massive list in the entire post which, in total, is far more indicative of David Worley’s statement than yours.
Nor is it clear the usage definitively includes “excepting that of lostness.” Why? Given the undeniable description of me as a “politico” who has no moral integrity, incapable of being honest and truthful, etc which James White repeatedly describes me personally, how is one to take seriously the assertion “excepting that of lostness”? Please respond only if you have something definitive to say, David.
Again you write: “The contexts were removed of course in your list, but that doesn't mean that they were not there, to be sure.” What do you mean the “contexts were removed”? Did I purposely rip them from their original setting to make people think he said I was politico without honesty or integrity or I never deal fairly with facts or documentation or I make no comments on actual substance because I have no capacity or ability to do so? Please, David, get real.
Know this: I will not—*will not*—exchange with you concerning whether the list must be seen “in context” to make sense of them. The number of moral insults in White’s “response” remains so overwhelming, no plea for “context” could overturn a fairly established interpretation of them. You want context? How about the entire piece? Because of its size, to have placed the entire list “in context” would require virtually me quoting his entire piece! What are you thinking?
Now, before you respond, consider: already a professed expert who also happens to be a JW admirer has logged on and given an initial evaluation of White’s “list.” Perhaps you’ve already read it. I realize he could come back on at any time and post something like, “Peter, it’s true James White’s language is largely emotionally driven. However, yours is 10 times worse.”
Granted. And, if he does, I’d be willing to discuss with an expert some blind spots of my own in my communication with others.
Nevertheless the present issue is not my language but White’s. Hence, here’s what one JW fan wrote concerning White’s list on me, a fan who appears to be an expert in debate theory:
You finally write, “From what you have observed, he spends a lot of time flaming people. The implication that follows is that he has failed to be loving toward brothers (and sisters) in Christ and therefore has violated the Second Greatest Commandment by his actions.”
I won’t discuss with you whether or not White has “violated the Second Greatest Commandment,” especially when you have yet to admit White’s moral insults are entirely unfair, grossly emotional, and that his analogy surely implied I am an evil person. Believe it or not, David, I didn’t ride in on a turnip truck.
With that, I am…
Peter
Posted by: peter | 2010.06.08 at 08:42 AM
David Hewitt,
Don't you see it, yet? Here's an example: White hasn't merely said 1) Lumpkins is not telling the truth. He has said that 2) Lumpkins is incapable of telling the truth.
Are you seriously going to try to defend proposition #2? Or deny that White has said that? If proposition #2 is correct, you shouldn't even be trying to talk with Peter, or seek to get Peter to change his thinking. He would be "incapable" of doing that, as one who is, by the very nature of his faculties [not merely his moral propensities], determined to lie and/or to err.
This kind of emotional exaggeration and unfairness from White is nothing new, though you either refuse to see it or acknowledge it. Check out this portion of one of White's responses to me. Among other distortions and caricatures, White said:
If this is true, David, then I don't even allow context for myself, since I am an "anybody." See it yet, David?Lumpkins' almost exhaustive list of White's abusive descriptions above is accurate, David. Even if you think Peter has been in error or even lying sometimes, you should still be appalled by White's public descriptions of Peter, especially as it is coming from an elder and a leading apologist on his blog that hundreds of people are viewing. It is shameful behavior and cannot be justified, despite the problems with Caner.
Posted by: Tony Byrne | 2010.06.08 at 11:55 AM