James Patrick Holding, aka Robert Turkel, is a closet-homosexual

Update January 30, 2018: see ending comments
-----------------

James Patrick Holding (formerly "Robert Turkel"), owner of tektonics.org and a Christian "apologist" is a closet-homosexual, which would, under New Testament principles, utterly invalidate him as a teacher.  Unfortunately, Holding's homosexuality and his atheism make him worry about living in contradiction to the bible, about as much as Hitler worried about living in contradiction to the Book of Mormon.  You have to care about your stupidity, before you'll be motivated to correct it. 


To Blogger.com:  All assertions about Holding in this blog post are fact, not opinion, all of them were alleged against him in a libel lawsuit, and Mr. Holding never attempted to deny their truth.  They are supported by quotes of his own words that are verifably referenced, and they are presented to educate the reader to steer clear of a person whom the author characterizes as the Benny Hinn of apologetics.  Proving that a publicly known Christian is a hypocrite is hardly "hate language", and banning this post will only incite me to further publicize and disseminate its contents.

"You shall know them by their fruits..." (Matthew 7:16)

"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing  that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." (Jas. 3:1 NAU)

  "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come 
from the heart, and those defile the man. (Matt. 15:18 NAU)

  Holding publicly professes that the bible declares homosexuality to be a sin.  See

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.php 

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.php 

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gayjude.php   

It is also clear that Holding/Turkel views himself as a teacher of Christianity and the bible:

Mission Statement Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the Holy Bible. We also believe that it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences, and to carefully evaluate issues which are relevant to the Church as a whole.                                                           

See his more explicitly asserted goals to be such a teacher.

Jesus apparently thought the person who acted opposite to his professed beliefs had no excuse, but deserved rebuke and to be classified as a hypocrite:

  41 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
 42 "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. (Lk. 6:41-42 NAU)

As long as Mr. Holding and his band of admirers and paying customers continuing believing what Jesus said, they will not be able to escape the very reasonable conclusion that, by reason of Mr. Holding's known "fruits" which the internet and his critics are forever protecting from destruction, Mr. Holding is a homosexual hypocrite (i.e., he is a practicing homosexual despite his public profession that he thinks such acts are sinful).


Other Christian apologists complain he uses too many homoerotic illustrations
Apologist Steve Hays had to warn Holding to cease and desist so many references to men's buttocks:

…As a flavor of the level at which Holding’s mind operates, his latest thread is charmingly

headed: “Steve Hays needs to stop passing gas at his betters.” This is a specimen of Defendant’s

recurrent obsessive-compulsive anal fixation.

…Defendant’s personal antagonism towards me is so extreme that he will pounce on anything I

say simply because I was the one who said it. And by being so utterly reactionary, he backs himself

into the most indefensible corners imaginable.

…This is not the first time that Defendant has taken a personal interest in my backside. Defendant

would be well advised to resist his unsavory attraction so many homoerotic illustrations.[1]

Holding uses a female sock puppet:

Holding was caught hiding behind the sock puppet "Sheila Rangslinger".  Holding was using that sock puppet some years back.  It was a fantasy cartoon character he created, and he describes her as being just as wonderful as Holding thinks himself to be.

Furthermore, somebody asserting their name to be "Nels Aston" created the email account  sheilarangslinger@yahoo.com, and spammed people with porno ads so much that it was caught by a spam lister:

From: "Nels Alston" <sheilarangslinger@yahoo.com> 
Subject: New Pleasure with New Bigger cock

While there is still a possibility that Holding didn't create that email account, its penis-centered spam is curiously consistent with Holding's other publicly posted comments, quoted later in this post, where he speaks like a sick juvenile delinquent about the penis of other men.

Holding comments in a way that ensures his reader's minds will have images of graphic homosexuality:

Holding cannot comment on the gay movie “Broke-Back Mountain” without giving in to his obviously sinful temptation to fill his readers’ allegedly pure Christ-like minds with images of homosexual intercourse (i.e., he doesn’t think biblical descriptions of the act are sufficient):

"Because nothing is a grater (sic) witness for Christ than causing others to get an instant mental image

of Cowboy man-on-man backdoor action."[3]

Holding writes fantasy fiction about people putting their heads up their butts:

Holding in another Tektoonics webpage (and no doubt in the name of Jesus) writes fantasy fiction that includes references to cartoon characters shoving their heads into their own buttocks:

Tektoons on the Trail 

Wednessssdaysses, July 4, 2007 

The Jeremiah Duh-Lemma 

In a world we all know, Mattchu is once again busy with his annual armpit inspection. It is the end

of the year and it is time to do his inventory of fleas. As he does so, he hears footsteps behind him. He

tries to hide by curling himself up tightly into a ball, with his head between his legs - so far indeed that

it seems that his head is tucked into his buttocks. But it is of no use. Despite his best attempt, he is

detected at once. He peeks one eye out from between his buttocks and groans. It is that stupid rabbit

thing again…posted by Sheila.

(since I began using this quote against Holding, he has removed it, 
but I preserved the original, available by request)

Holding insults his critics by similarly saying they have stuck their heads up their asses:

On a theologyweb.com debate from 2008 that Holding's buddy John Sparks, owner of theologyweb, conveniently deleted, Holding responded to me as follows: 

....me: his rebuttal first if he is so confident of the stupidity of bible skeptics, that he can accurately predict what evidence I will set forth to substantiate my case.
----Holding: Actually, no, I can't predict anything you might say; I can't see your arguments with your head stuck in the way up your bum. Your answers would come from plain-English, decontextualized readings you picked up in Fundyville, and there's no telling what sort of contorted rationalizations you may come up with. Something like what John Goddard produces, I expect.

....me: and places a very extreme burden on my shoulders in the debate, at least in your opinion, does it not?
----Holding: Not really, since you don't care about the facts in the first place. Not much "burden" involved in pulling claims out of your bum while you ignore scholarship, after all.

(since Holding has, after I exposed it, deleted the particular Tektoon cartoon dialogue he invented which said somebody's head was up their ass, it is rational to suppose that today, Holding no longer approves of this filthy language, thus raising the legitimate question:  if he thought his filthy language was consistent with his Christian walk back when writing that dogshit, what motivated him to remove it?  Does he admit now that his earlier view was wrong?  Gee, his getting sued for libel and my explosive exposing him as an obnoxious bastard far more than anybody else ever did, wouldn't have contributed to that motivation, would it?  No, of course not.  Holding is like the child who gets a black eye during a fight, and when somebody says "hurts doesn't it!" he says "no", seriously wanting others to believe him while his eye twitches involuntarily from the pain. 

Holding is unable to resist making unnecessary and childishly shameful reference to the penis
Holding characterizes his opponents' arguments as their exposing their giant penises in a public and shamefully childish way:demeans his opponents by accusing them of having giant penises and committing the crime of exposing their genitals to the public in a rather crude way:

"And you? You’re nothing but a sanctimonious ant with delusions of your own grandeur; you’re nothing but a modern day Hugh waving your swollen member around and knocking people over with it or else disgusting everyone by pointing to it and shouting to everyone to look at it." 

 Holding, putting unnecessarily sexualized images into his reader's minds:

Holding accuses other men of using their giant penises to hit themselves on the head: 

"In your arrogance you missed it; you were so busy waving your giant pee-pee around that you bonked yourself on the head with it and didn’t even notice."

It was language very similar to that which caused the one scholar he's been appealing to for 20 years, to assert that Holding gives Christianity a bad name.

Holding used Context Group scholar Richard Rohrbaugh's work to write an article attempting to justify modern Christians insulting their critics.  Dr. Rohrbaugh evaluated that article and said it is an "obvious perversion" of his work and of the New Testament as well (his response is at the bottom)

Holding characterizes his opponents as "farting":

Holding clearly desires to be viewed by others as spiritually mature, but he tells people to stop “farting” when he disagrees with their arguments.  A guy named “Jimbo” had asked what evidence Holding would accept as showing a true contradiction in the bible.  Holding sneered:

"It's simple, Jimmyboy: Any problem that doesn't find a reasonable solution rooted in contextual

scholarship. Now go fart elsewhere. The adults are trying to have a conversation."[4]

Holding likes to characterize his rebuttals as his "spanking" other men:

Interesting that he had to spank you much as I did about keeping in mind the societal context...

 Holding cannot suppress his desire to put visuals of him spanking other man, into the heads of his followers:

Tors reminds me of Farrell Till. Especially the mile-long rants. (Can you imagine if TektonTV had been around while I was still spanking Till?) 

Update:  July 9, 2017:

Holding, consistently with his homosexual interest in other mens' asses, already documented here, just cannot resist causing his Christian followers to get filthy mental pictures.  He has recently posted a video that says any atheist work that gets wrong the Tactian reference to Jesus, is not worthy to be used to wipe one's ass with (video at 0:45 ff)

Update: July 27, 2017:

In a 2008 debate I had with Holding, which Theologyweb tried to suppress, which remains preserved by wayback, Holding shows once again how much he likes the idea of him spanking other men:

Me: Maybe the schoolyard bullies were correct after all, and we should resort to our kindergarten understanding: the kid who insults and bullies the most, is faster, stronger, smarter and better than us?

Holding: In this case, that would be wise. The case here, however, is one of a bully -- YOU -- being paddled by the principal -- ME.

Holding wants to be known by a slang name for gay men:
Holding did a live debate with atheist Richard Carrier in 2011, which was recorded, and at the beginning where the moderator introduces him, Holding attempts a bit of humor that ended up betraying his homosexual tendencies:

Moderator:  I’m gonna come over here to Mr. Holding who said we could call him “J.P.”, is that ok?

Holding:  Nah, I’ve changed my mind.

Moderator: Ok, what would you like?

Holding: Mary  (audience laughter), that was your joke.

Moderator:  And you realize that even though we are going to be, people on both sides, we’re on the same team when you make me look stupid right? (audience laughter)[2]

 "Mary" is a slang term for a gay man.  Of all the female names Holding could have chosen for a joke, what are the odds that it was by sheer coincidence that he happened to pick the one that is slang for a homosexual man?  And what idiot would just pop off in front of a crowd in a live setting that he suddenly wants to be referred to by a female name?

Holding admits he would kill women and children:
Holding bluntly admits he would be willing to kill women and children during war raids, and refused to qualify such admission when he later chose to “explain” this shocking admission: question:

Question: "Would you go on war raids with specific orders to kill women and children?"
Holding: "Yup. Pass me my Hackenstabber 3 Iron, boy." 
"All the answer Brooks deserved for his non-argument "preaching".

What do you think of a "Christian" apologist whose conduct would unnecessarily and voluntarily turn a G-rated discussion into something you have to filter from your child's internet activity?

See also http://the-anointed-one.com/hold.htm

---

[1] Steve Hays, at http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/05/tektonic-faultlines-1.html

[2] time code 1:48 – 2:07, video athttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuPf143aA50

[3] http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/oct06scr.html

[4] Documented in Federal Complaint at 23, par. 107


Update January 30, 2018


Holding himself, or one of his minions, going under the obviously false name "Victor Polk", responded to three of my posts, but the third reply, despite showing up in my email, didn't show up on this blog:  "Polk" said it was sarcasm with which Holding said he would like to kill women and children:


Several problems:

1 - As noted, I received this email notification, but the reply doesn't exist at my blog, though Polk's other two replies, sent around the same time, came through just fine.  Apparently, "Polk" changed his mind and decided that the sarcasm excuse wasn't the truth, and went back and deleted his reply, which would remove it from my blog, but wouldn't be able to undo the email notification.

2 - the original context of Holding's admission indicates the questioner wasn't simply asking generically if Holding would be willing to kill women and children under orders.  Holding would likely have said "no".  The original context was a discussion about whether biblical characters like Joshua can morally justify their killing of women and children with the infamous "god ordered me to" excuse.  Since Holding says yes, the questioner naturally applied it to Holding to try to corner him, and Holding failed that test with great gusto.  Yes, if Holding sincerely believed God was telling him to kill women and children, he would kill them.  Typical delusional thinking of a dangerous religious fanatic.  Thankfully though, Holding takes more delight in sitting on his ass fleecing stupid people and creating cartoon videos to express his rants, than he takes in getting serious about Yahweh's scorched-earth policies.

3 - Apparently the all-knowing Holding believed, about 15 years ago, that the bible is speaking literally when saying Moses and Joshua killed scores of women and children.  Since Holding is, like God, not allowed to change his mind, we can be confident he still believes this way despite evangelical Christian apologists arguing that such language in the Pentateuch is hyperbole and the conquest of Canaan consisted more of "dispossessing the Canaanites" and nearly zero "killing women and children".  While I disagree with the Copan Flannagan thesis, the point is that not even Christian apologists within the evangelical camp who otherwise confess the same basic theological convictions, can agree on whether god's word is speaking literally or non-literally, despite the question being one about God's nature.  I have excellent reasons for accusing Holding of thinking the third person of the Trinity is absolutely nothing more than ad hoc afterthought.  Holding seems to think that nothing embarrassing is implied when evangelical Christian apologists, despite praying sincerely and carefully going about their biblical exegesis, still end up disagreeing with each other about how the bible describes God.  Holding couldn't take such attitude in sincerity unless his view of the Holy Spirit was intentionally made this esoteric for the express purpose of disabling skeptics from using such fracture in the body of Christ as evidence that the Holy Spirit is an utterly gratuitous fiction.  One wonders why Holding thinks Mormons are outside the body of Christ.  After all, he thinks the bible doesn't give sinners any promises whatsoever that God will always keep the sincere born-agains from going off into error.  So maybe Paul was just kidding when saying:

 10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you.
 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:10-13 NAU)

Is Paul a jailhouse lawyer who sometimes contradicts himself just to make sure he always has an escape route?  Yes:

 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. (1 Cor. 11:18-19 NAU)

How can Paul be consistent in telling the Corinthians to avoid being divided (1st Cor. 1), but then tell them that their factions are good (11:18)?  Apparently, Paul's idealogical fantasy didn't come true for them, their factions and divisions did not make it manifest which people among them were "approved", they remained divided.

4 - Mr. or Ms. "Polk" should repent, since by disobeying Holding's command that they avoid contact with me, they have therefore disobeyed God himself.