Catholicism represents the historic Christianity against which prots are protesting. Our claims to authenticity are unsurpassed and the prot cults enviy [sic] us for them.
   Last year I crticized [sic] Mr. White's trashy book Mary-Another Redeemer? because he asserted the exact opposite of what we Catholics teach in the doctrine of the Co-Redemptrix. He did his usual superfical [sic] job of misrepresentation which I demolished i8n [sic] a paragraph or two. Mr. White (aka Pseudopodeo) reacted violently to my criticism, but he did not deny or refute what I said. He couldn't, because I was right and he knew it.
   There has been a cottage industry of anti-Catholicism among those of the Calvioid [?] tradition form [sic] the very beginning of the Deformation. It has been necessary because they feel threatened by Catholicism. And IMHO, Calvin himslef [sic] was a man of dubious morals and motives who was a murderous religious megalomaniac. There is something of the demonic about him. It also seems to me that the same is true of those who follow him. To me every year Pseudopodeo looks more and more like Anton LaVey (the founder of the Church of Satan). It is frightening.

I just completed reading your email exchange with the Caners. I am floored by your lack of understanding of the proposed Thesis. Could it be that you are so caught up in your own intellectualism that you miss the simplicity of the Thesis. I had my 13 yr old look at it and he got it right without any coaching or assistance. You guys can only hope that your ingnorance does not get out to the general community. I know why the Caners did not answer your question about their view of your salvation - it was a trap thrown down, waiting to attack them - which you did even with a NO ANSWER. You guys are unbelievable. What is really sad, is that I was enjoying your material until I read your email exchange and saw the purposeful attempts by you and Tom to change the subject, trap the Caners, and claim your superior intellectual gifts and appraoches. You guys are George Pattons - only you are on the losing side of this one on all fronts! P.S. Why would God create anyone destined for or pre-chosen for hell. Would that not be a violation of the biblical principle of making the most of your time and doing all to the Glory of God? Get a grip guys - this stuff is crazy!!!!!!!!!

I have just been fired as a Jr. High Sunday School teacher at the First Presbyterian Church in Oak Ridge, TN, because I would not represent the Bible as perfect and infallible to the children. I have lots of proof to the contrary: I have many versions of the Bible on my hard drive and can search any of them for any word or phrase in a fraction of a second. It is possible that I have found ugly and evil content of which you are unaware. I would be pleased to send you a list of what I have found. Apparently "The Sins of the Scripture: Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love' is exactly what I need. I intend to procure a copy soon.

Mr. White indeed did make an offer to debate me, but his offer was unacceptable. We could not come to terms concerning the conduct of the debate and White acted in a discourteous and un-Christian manner towards me. He refused to discuss the terms of the debate with me personally and selected a venue that was completely unaceptable (sic). I informed James that I would not debate him unless it was done in mutual respect. He then sent me a long note filled iwth (sic) lies and insults confirming to me what I have known for years. The man is delusional and has serious mental problems. He needs professional help which I have counseled him to seek for many years. Sadly in the prot cults, you apparently like demagogues and so you facilitate irrational and sub-Christian behavior instead of love of neighbor.

If Sippo seeks in any forum whatsoever to misrepresent this situation, I will post, en toto, every bit of the correspondence that has been written over the past two days. Those with the slightest bit of familiarity with Sippo's long history of anti-Protestant harangues will be able to see the truth of the situation instantly.

I believe it is possible that Jesus did not exist.
I believe there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ that dates to the time of his alleged life.
I believe there are no written eyewitness accounts of the existence of Jesus Christ.
I believe the names of the Gospels were added well after their composition, and there is no good reason to believe that these names correspond to the original writers.
I believe there is no good reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus Christ, or that any eyewitnesses to Jesus were involved in their composition.
I believe the Bible is not infallible.
I believe it is common for religious cults to make things up.
I believe it is common for religions to influence each other, and for young religions to be derived from older religions.
I believe that any claim can be part of Christian tradition and also be false.
I believe that no figures such as "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "Satan" performed any supernatural actions that had any significant effect upon the formation of early Christianity.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

If you are unable to sign the Statement, we cannot talk any further, for one or both of the following reasons:
1) You are not familiar enough with the facts to be ready for a meaningful discussion at this time.
2) Your capacity to understand the facts is so compromised by your religious ideology that a conversation with you would be pointless.

James White, I'm not reformed in my theology, but I did want to ask you a sincere question. How do you reconcile God not being omnibenevolent with simplicity. When you claim that God only wants some people to be saved, you are really claiming that God is only partially loving. By doing this, you are destroying God's simplicity and really saying that God has parts. But you cannot have an actual infinite number of parts, thereby reducing God to a finite being. Whatever God is, He is wholly and completely. If God is love, then He loves infinitely, wholly, and completely, but in your theology, you destroy the metaphysical attributes of God by really implying God is only partially loving. You might reply by claiming that God has more power than He uses, but this is a category mistake. Omnipotence is a metaphysical attribute, not a moral attribute. How do you reconcile this situation?

   Theologians are wrong when they think that the centrality of their favorite attribute excludes the centrality of others. These writers are (as often among theologians) right in what they assert, but wrong in what they deny. Ritschl is right to say that love is God's essence, but wrong to deny that holiness is. And that kind of error is sometimes linked to other theological errors. Often when a theologian makes God's love central, in contrast to other attributes, he intends, contrary to Scripture, to cast doubt on the reality or intensity of God's wrath and judgment. (p. 52)