I could not have scripted a more accurate portrayal of the mindset of so many who populate Roman Catholic web boards and forums than what was displayed on the program today. Miki called. In fact, she called an hour early, just to make sure of the time. And as you will hear on the program, I let her have all the time in the world. I let her say all sorts of things that I could easily have challenged her on, but finally, we had to get down to business. Remember the character of her e-mail:
Incidentally, when I was young and stupid and didn’t have a proper religious education, I used to listen to you and read your books and articles–and *then* I read the Early Fathers and Eusebius and discovered the *real* truth…that you don’t (and never have) have a clue what the “truth” is. The Truth, Love, is Catholic(since that *is* the New testament Church)–and the sooner you quit with the arrogant, misological pride and shenanigans, the better off you will be. So,my actual purpose for writing, I just wanted you to know that I just finished reading your site section on Catholicism and, minus the *egregious* errors and misrepresentations which you present as “facts”, I found it to be uproariously entertaining! Not very informative, but *blissfully* funny for all of its ascerbic ranting blowhard-ness and Scriptural cluelessness. The reason your audience is “getting smaller”, James, is because they *are* listening to GOD–and He doesn’t like His lambs being poisoned with lies like yours. If your audience is as small and smaller, as you say it is, it’s because that is *His* Will. Praise GOD for small favours!!! Anyway, thanks so much for the laughs–it’s been very entertaining–this site is as funny to read as a Watchtower magazine! (I’m in tears and my jaw aches! ;O) )…. In His Grace, and praying for your conversion, Miki
I was going to edit that down to just the lines with insults and put-downs, but that did not end up shortening the note at all. Every line contained them. So anyway, I had half expected something along the lines of, “Oh, by the way, let me apologize for the character of my e-mail. I’m very sorry. I went way over the line.” Well, we did not get that. Nothing close. In fact, she would later glibly accuse me of lying that I had received e-mails from Roman Catholics who complained about my having posted her rude e-mail (obviously, she hasn’t bothered read my blog, or, maybe, she thinks I make these things up). When I finally broke in I began asking for the only thing that would warrant her e-mail: examples. Documentation. Where have I egregiously misrepresented Rome? And that’s when the wheels came off. No matter how long I waited, how many different ways I asked, one thing became painfully clear: the woman who claims to have talked to Jimmy Akin and other leading apologists before calling the program, the woman so willing to write nastigrams filled with mockery and insult, did not have a clue about what she was talking about. She could not give the first example, on anything. She mentioned purgatory, so I asked her if she had listened to my debate with Stravinskas. She admitted she has not listened to any of my debates. She kept saying she would not debate, which means, of course, that debate is a rather malleable word in her mind that can also mean “reason” or “answer necessary questions to back up my nastigram.” And finally she had the temerity to offer to debate me in a month! I could barely suppress the laughter at the hubris of this woman who has not listened to any of my debates, evidently never read a single book, has no care or concern to even realize that I am doing three major debates a month from now, and yet she would dare to ask for a month to back up her nastigram’s claims in a “debate”? Oh my goodness, please, folks, whatever you do, no matter what Rome’s apologists say, never write to them and treat them the way their folks treat us. Learn from Miki’s meltdown and take the high road. Anyway, then she started the “I’m going to keep talking over you and monopolize this though it is your program thing” which, I point out, is really silly, since I have control of the phone lines. We moved on to the next call from an Eastern Orthodox priest, followed by calls on Calvinism and the upcoming Caner debate in Lynchburg. A full program to be sure!
One other thing. One of the “laughable” things Miki mentioned was that I’m saying the same things today I was saying in the early 90s. Now, I can only imagine that what that is supposed to mean is that from her perspective I’ve been refuted on all that, and therefore, I’m beyond reason. But, of course, she then admitted that she hasn’t bothered to listen to the debates to know if I’ve been refuted or not! She is only going on what she reads from Roman Catholics. I take it as a badge of honor that I’m saying the same things today I was saying back then. I was focused upon the key issues then, and I’ve stayed focused on them till now, and I intend to remain focused upon them. It is not a mark of solid apologetics to be wandering about the landscape changing your tune ever few years just to attract some new market! Anyone who compares the debates I did back then to the more recent ones will, I hope and pray, see growth, but the topics cannot change, since the truth does not change. God help us to remain consistent in defense of the Gospel!
