![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/05\/WhiteJames2-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
[originally posted on 4-5-09]<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Just as in his treatment of me, Bishop White claims repeatedly that Steve Ray is dumber than a door nail and completely unimportant in matters apologetic (and exegetical, etc.). Yet on the other hand, White is literally obsessed with personally attacking Steve and impugning his character, and going after his research at every turn, invariably accompanied by the most rank insults (White seems as utterly unable to refrain from these as a leopard is powerless to escape its own spots). It\u2019s obviously a high priority.\u00a0The\u00a0fact\u00a0of the obsession is undeniable. If you don\u2019t believe me, I\u2019ll let White speak for himself. All of the posts in the first two sections below come from his blog, from his own hand, and most were primarily devoted to Steve Ray.<\/p>\n
*****<\/p>\n
[8-22-07<\/a>] What is clear is that Ray has not seriously interacted with anything other than this kind of \u201cJack Chick\/Dave Hunt\u201d style fundamentalism. His writings prove the point. . . . Many before me have noted that the converts to Catholicism who have then taken up the apologetic sword in defense of Catholicism tend to bring their Protestantism with them. Ray does so with a vengeance. And when it comes to his sources and his arguments, once again,\u00a0the parallels between himself and men like Chick and Hunt are undeniable.<\/p>\n [8-27-07<\/a>]\u00a0What he has actually posted in this blog article is more than enough to demonstrate that he is intent upon engaging in the most\u00a0egregious forms of spin and smoke-and-mirrors\u00a0to attempt to\u00a0rescue any shred of credibility he might have as an apologist.<\/span><\/p>\n [9-25-07<\/a>] Soon Ray mentioned he was going to post a lengthy refutation, co-authored by Gary Michuta. This appeared on August 21st in pdf format. It is 30 pages in length, though, the actual material directly relevant to the topic is a minority of the information. Instead, the response begins with pages of standard, oft-refuted Catholic claims, stated in such a fashion as to leave the knowledgeable reader without any reason to believe Ray and those involved in the production of his response are either fully aware of, or concerned about, the refutations that have been offered of this kind of apologetic materials. . . .\u00a0does Ray ever come\u00a0close<\/i>\u00a0to recognizing the level of argumentation required to substantiate Rome\u2019s position? Or is Ray content to do the \u201ckeep the troops happy, don\u2019t worry about those who don\u2019t already bow the knee to Rome\u201d routine?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [9-29-07<\/a>] OK, so which is it\u2026am I important enough to respond to, not important enough to respond to, or am I so easy to refute? Can Ray figure it out?<\/p>\n [12-17-07<\/a>] As I noted in my last installment,\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0has dismissed my replies, ignoring them completely, dismissing me as irrelevant and unimportant. Which explains, of course, why he wrote the original article! His evident inconsistencies aside, . . .<\/span><\/p>\n [12-17-07<\/a>]\u00a0<\/span>Again we can only smile as\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0demonstrates his\u00a0inability to show meaningful understanding\u00a0of the positions he denies; . . .\u00a0<\/span>but Steve Ray\u00a0pretends to be a professional, doesn\u2019t he? How can he reproduce this kind of\u00a0tripe\u00a0and\u00a0expect it to be accepted and have an impact, unless, of course, he is only writing for the kind of audience who finds this kind of rhetoric encouraging and likely to produce donations.<\/span><\/p>\n [2-26-08<\/a>] If you thought there was a \u201crenaissance\u201d of Roman Catholic apologetics a few decades ago, I believe you can see\u00a0this entry<\/a>\u00a0by Roman Catholic apologist Steve Ray as the tomb stone of any such renaissance. . . . Given the string of apologetic blunders Steve Ray has committed of late . . . I figured Ray would just keep\u00a0busy riding around Israel on a bus\u00a0and hope his constituency would not notice that once again he had been shown to be\u00a0less than honest\u00a0in his comments and publications. . . . While he pretends expertise in the early church, he lacks the training and ability to respond in any coherent or meaningful fashion to the simple contextual reading of Ignatius\u2019 words.<\/p>\n [8-17-07<\/a>]\u00a0One man tried to reason with\u00a0Ray<\/span>, who can\u2019t seem to see the difference between saying \u201cPerson X is wrong about matter Y, and here is documentation Z,\u201d and \u201cPerson X is a rabid dog and a waste of time.\u201d This seems to be a problem endemic to RC apologists, as he is not alone in suffering from it. . . .\u00a0<\/span>Well, I won\u2019t be long winded\u2014wouldn\u2019t want to delay Mr.\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0in\u00a0making more money selling his wares!<\/span><\/p>\n [8-17-07<\/a>]\u00a0As to hanging out with\u00a0Ray<\/span>, or any of his buddies, that\u2019s right. I have no interest in so doing. Why? It isn\u2019t because I don\u2019t think Jesus \u201cate with sinners.\u201d However, when Jesus ate with sinners, he called them to repentance, and that isn\u2019t why\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0would want to get together. Secondly,\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0is a false teacher, not just a regular ol\u2019 \u201csinner.\u201d And as I\u2019m sure I explained to him at the time,\u00a0the point is that if someone comes with another gospel, another message, you are not to even greet the person, let alone hang out at Starbucks with them. See the previously linked article for samples of what\u00a0Steve<\/span>\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0has said about me in the past. He can\u2019t produce similar invective.\u00a0Would you want to have lunch with someone who has spoken of you in terms like this: . . .\u00a0<\/span>It\u2019s all about\u00a0Steve<\/span>\u00a0Ray<\/span>, isn\u2019t it? He does not seem to understand that the only reason I am quoting him is that I am addressing\u00a0the issue of Rome\u2019s teachings.<\/i>\u00a0But for him, it is all about\u00a0Steve<\/span>\u00a0Ray<\/span>.<\/span>\u00a0. . .\u00a0Is there any inanity these folks will not post in cyber-space, I wonder?<\/span><\/p>\n [8-22-07<\/a>] Steve Ray is still a fundamentalist. Now, I use that term not in its historical sense, but in the sense Ray himself uses it, descriptive of his \u201cformer life\u201d before his conversion to Rome. But Ray\u2019s mindset has not changed an iota from that which he describes as his own. In fact, as I was considering his recent behavior, his response on the Assumption, etc., I suddenly realized who Steve Ray reminds me of: Dave Hunt. Yes, good ol\u2019 Dave Hunt, the man who can keep repeating long-exploded arguments ad nauseum [sic] . . .\u00a0Steve Ray is Dave Hunt in papal garb.<\/p>\n [8-25-07<\/a>]\u00a0. . . men like\u00a0Steve<\/span>\u00a0Ray<\/span>, that my forefathers were right all along. These men are Romanists. Rome is all that matters to them. Service to Rome is their highest goal. All facts, arguments, and thoughts, are to be\u00a0twisted\u00a0to the service of\u2026Rome. . . .\u00a0<\/span>And how do you accurately describe men who will\u00a0sacrifice their integrity, their logic, their rationality, and put forth such monumental efforts in defense of Rome? They are Romanists.<\/span><\/p>\n [8-26-07<\/a>]\u00a0We see it every day as politicians demonstrate that\u00a0truth is not their highest goal. And we see it when proponents of false religions spin the truth in the service of falsehood.\u00a0Steve<\/span>\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0has begun\u00a0the spin process\u00a0on his blog . . .\u00a0<\/span>It is simply\u00a0deceptive.\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0may well have been misled by someone else, and simply did not bother to look it up himself. It doesn\u2019t matter. It\u2019s a falsehood, and that has been documented beyond all question.<\/span>\u00a0. . .\u00a0when you\u2019ve been so clearly refuted, there is not much more you can do than to\u00a0play games like this. Notice\u00a0he never once accurately represents even his own words\u00a0(how difficult it must be to engage in such\u00a0self-deception!)\u00a0<\/span>. . .\u00a0as I have pointed out, it is the essence of Romanism to defend Rome at all costs, and\u00a0one\u2019s personal integrity and honesty is surely the first casualty.<\/span>\u00a0. . .\u00a0will\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0ever actually deal with the facts in an\u00a0honest fashion? Given what we\u2019ve seen from him so far, there is little reason to hope for much better.<\/span>\u00a0I wonder where the honest Roman Catholic apologists are?<\/span><\/p>\n [8-27-07<\/a>]\u00a0When representing others, the\u00a0truthful\u00a0writer can quote that person, in context.\u00a0Steve<\/span>\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0can\u2019t do that. Why? Because\u00a0he\u2019s 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. He is banking on them never checking him out, trusting him implicitly, sort of like they trust their priest, or the Pope.\u00a0<\/span>. . .\u00a0Fundie Romanist apologists don\u2019t have to quote sources. \u201cRome is Right\u2013Be Happy\u201d doesn\u2019t require a very high standard of documentation and argumentation. . . .\u00a0<\/span>hope your followers are as utterly unconcerned about the truth as you are, and that they will just applaud your brilliance and move on to the next pilgrimage, buy the next DVD you crank out, order your next convert-story book, and keep the donations coming.\u00a0<\/span>. . .\u00a0it is always sad to see anyone\u00a0sell themselves out to error and engage in this kind of gross dishonesty. But you see, the kind of person who will be influenced by this kind of\u00a0outrageously facile rhetoric\u00a0isn\u2019t going to be overly impacted by what I have to say anyway. Those are not the folks I believe I am called to help. The serious minded person who truly wants to think through the issues\u00a0and hear both sides<\/i>\u00a0cannot help but be\u00a0repelled by the specter of a\u00a0Steve<\/span>\u00a0Ray<\/span>. If his behavior is representative of what it takes to be a catholic convert, he has done a great service to\u00a0those who love the truth\u00a0by warning them off.<\/span><\/p>\n [8-27-07<\/a>] Obviously,\u00a0we will not get any honesty out of Ray about his error. He is willing to\u00a0throw his integrity under the bus\u00a0in the face of overwhelming documentation and respond with laughter and mockery. It is the way of the Catholic Convert, evidently.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n [9-15-07<\/a>]\u00a0<\/span>As we look at Steve Ray\u2019s attempt to give a defense for the\u00a0dogmatic<\/i>\u00a0teaching of Rome regarding the bodily assumption of Mary, . . . we once again see the \u201cattack Scripture\u00a0as a means of smuggling your false teachings into the faith\u201d motif.<\/span><\/p>\n [9-24-07<\/a>] And, as is usual for Steve Ray, his reply is bombastic, mean-spirited, insulting, condescending, and hypocritical\u2014all at the same time! . . .\u00a0If a man does not love the truth, he will be willing to behave in any fashion necessary to continue to love a lie. But I know fellow believers have benefited from seeing his errors documented, so I press forward with my replies, as time allows.<\/p>\n [9-29-07<\/a>] . . . just\u00a0how cavalier Ray is with the truth. . . . again we see the double-standard: in the service of Rome, all insults are allowed. No one will call him on it, to be sure. In any case, the comments of his supporters found in this combox give us a somewhat startling insight into the mindset of those who buy into the twisted reasoning of Ray and others.<\/p>\n [11-14-07<\/a>]\u00a0Even if\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0has taken note of the\u00a0easy refutations\u00a0<\/a>of this article that have been around for a long time, and how even referring to such reprehensible writing\u00a0decimates one\u2019s credibility, I truly doubt he would allow that to stop him. Cheap shots are easy and quick, and as long as you\u00a0have no respect for your audience, they are quite useful.<\/span><\/p>\n [1-16-08<\/a>]\u00a0Here is a tremendous example of the kind of scholarship put forward by Ignatius Press and\u00a0Catholic Answers<\/i>\u00a0in the person of\u00a0one of their \u201cexperts,\u201d\u00a0Steve<\/span>\u00a0Ray<\/span>. This kind of\u00a0gross misrepresentation\u00a0is simply too easy to refute, yet it is so very popular amongst Rome\u2019s adherents.<\/span><\/p>\n [1-19-08<\/a>] Where are the serious Roman Catholic apologists these days? It is truly amazing. . . . Evidently he views it as his job to protect Steve Ray\u00a0when Ray makes utterly absurd statements\u00a0on CA Live. In any case, it is Michuta who now gets to own\u00a0this mess of half-truths and deception, and own it he will.<\/span><\/p>\n [1-25-08<\/a>] Four years ago I addressed the abuse of the words of Ignatius of Antioch by Roman Catholic apologists, . . .\u00a0Steve<\/span>\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u00a0repeated this\u00a0abuse\u00a0on\u00a0Catholic Answers Live<\/i>\u00a0recently, . . .<\/span><\/p>\n [2-26-08<\/a>] Ray has to keep beating the \u201canti-Catholic\u201d drum, seeking to fire up the emotions of his readers through\u00a0bigotry; and then\u00a0he simply lies to his readers. . . . willing to\u00a0lie out of his arrogance and ignorance, one of the two. . . . the facts are plain:\u00a0Steve Ray is about as truth challenged as you can get. . . . he is\u00a0lining his pockets with the money of gullible people who follow him around Israel, hanging on his every word . . . Steve Ray and his ilk\u00a0line their pockets\u00a0by turning Ignatius into a Roman Catholic.\u00a0One side speaks the truth, the other side serves Mother Church with dishonesty and, in this case, simple cowardice. . . . one of the most promoted Roman Catholic\u00a0\u201capologists\u201d\u00a0today, a regular guest on Catholic Answers Live, will be allowed to get away with\u00a0documented, public dishonesty\u00a0. . .<\/p>\n [2-26-08<\/a>] I launched into\u00a0Steve Ray\u2019s now completely documented dishonesty, . . . I reviewed Ray\u2019s blog article (noted below), documented its\u00a0obvious dishonesty, . . . Another amazing display of\u00a0just how far Rome\u2019s apologists will go\u00a0in service to \u201cMother Church.\u201d [3-11-08<\/a>] Thanks again, Steve, for proving that there is\u00a0no limit to how far you will go to avoid facing up to the truth! Then again, who has the time to back up their\u00a0wild claims\u00a0when they are\u00a0running about Israel on a bus filled with pilgrims! Tough job, but someone has to wear the safari hat!<\/p>\n Bishop White made a veiled reply to this paper\u00a0on 4-20-09<\/a>:<\/p>\n Recently I have noted, in the context of his unscrupulous behavior and actions, the many errors of Steve Ray. Examining his writings and claims with knowledge of the Bible and history puts a Protestant apologist in a \u201ctarget rich environment,\u201d to be sure. We have only scratched the surface of the refutations to be offered of Ray\u2019s claims. But some have suggested that I am picking on Ray because of his shameless promotion of Patty Bonds. But there is a bit of a historical problem with that claim, similar to the anachronism inherent in Roman historiography relating to such things as the Papacy. It doesn\u2019t fit the time line. You see, Mrs. Bonds contacted me anonymously on July 15, 2000. And it was not till November of 2000 that I learned of her apostasy to Rome (and even later that I put two and two together and realized that the e-mail I had responded to in July of 2000 was from her). Yet, the following section about Steve Ray is from an article I posted in April of 2000, months before the Bonds situation became known to me. Hence, I have identified Ray\u2019s work as shoddy, shallow, and easily refuted independently of his impudent involvement in Mrs. Bonds\u2019 activities.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As so often in White\u2019s case, he is setting up a straw man and knocking it down. It has become his trademark response.\u00a0Most\u00a0unimpressive . . . I didn\u2019t state that White\u00a0never\u00a0dealt with Steve Ray till the latter befriended his sister, Patty Bonds. That was the unforgivable sin. I said White was\u00a0obsessed\u00a0with Steve. I wrote in the post related to this one, that I linked to near the top:<\/p>\n White and his cronies have been making relentless personal attacks on Steve Ray for many months (even years by now). It never lets up.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course, he wrote about Steve before all that. But that\u2019s beside the point. The\u00a0obsessive\u00a0response to Steve Ray dates to more recent times, and that coincides with Steve\u2019s defense of Patty Bonds. I only documented back to August 2007, which is just one year and nine months.<\/p>\n The interactions of Steve and myself with White go back to the late 90s, online (I first encountered him in 1995, via snail mail). But note the frequency of attack in the last 21 months, from White on his blog, personally attacking Steve Ray and impugning his integrity at every turn. It\u2019s clearly a strong emphasis. In those 21 months there have been no less than 42 such attacks or two per month average (counting many others from White\u2019s cronies also). That comes out to an average of an attack on Steve every two weeks for the last year and nine months. That surpasses, I think, even White\u2019s ratio of personal attack against me<\/em>, which is really\u00a0saying\u00a0something, believe me! :-)<\/p>\n And that, my friends, is an\u00a0obsession, no matter how you want to look at it or spin it. It\u2019s all entirely predictable. Steve has to be \u201cpunished\u201d and smeared. It\u2019s all White can do (exactly as in my own case as a target of White\u2019s derision and contempt for over a dozen years). In fact, Patty Bonds recently mentioned that she had told Steve that this would be the result if he dared to befriend her and believe her (as opposed to considering her a malevolent liar, as White does):<\/p>\n Steve and Janet Ray have also been there for us over and over again. I warned him many times that involvement in my life would earn him the wrath of my brother. Any time he has been willing to help me promote my writing I\u2019ve<\/span>\u00a0cautioned him that he would pay dearly in persecution if he showed himself supportive of what I do. He has stood by me and taken the full frontal attack several times and has helped me reach many people who have expressed thanks for the insight that \u201cOut of Darkness\u201d has brought them. (4-15-09<\/a>; link now defunct)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Steve can take White\u2019s insults (as can I). It\u2019s all part of being a Catholic apologist. Anyone who ever refutes White\u2019s arguments receives this treatment. Ho-hum, yawn, zzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZ\u2026\u2026\u2026..<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\nJames White: Steve Ray is a Non-Entity, Yet I\u2019m Obsessed With Him and Must Observe and Put Down His Every Move and Besmirch His Character<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n***<\/div>\n
\n
\n[3-6-08<\/a>]\u00a0<\/span>Given\u00a0Ray<\/span>\u2018s dishonesty, the possibility that he\u00a0made the entire e-mail up\u00a0cannot be dismissed.<\/span><\/p>\nMy Reply to Bishop White\u2019s Sophistical \u201cReply\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n\n\n