A fine example of why James Patrick Holding uses cartoons to teach his supporters

Apparently some follower of James Patrick Holding, using the pseudonym "Victor Polk" just can't stand the heat, and is now following me around the web replying to my posts about James Patrick Holding.

Polk's latest was in reply to what I said at another Christian webpage entitled Apologetics Harms and Offends People.

Here's what I argued there, and how Polk replied:

barry says:  Thanks for the reply.Mr. Holding attempts to show biblical justification for his insulting style, with the article at the link i provided, www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.... Since you clearly disagree with Holding's conclusions, I was wondering what flaws you believe are present in the arguments he sets forth in said article to support his vitriolic name-calling. What I'm still trying to process is that the Context Group scholar he cites most there, Richard Rohrbaugh, has already read the article and told me it is an "obvious perversion" of Context Group work (personal email to me), and although I've been repeatedly reminding Mr. Holding of that criticism for more than a year, he has refused to change the article!

Victor Polk
He insults others who were either mean to him or showing some intellectual dishonesty towards theology. While he may uses some attacks to call out their misinformation, he is still what I call a gifted apologist.
 Wouldn’t that be ironic to say that he insults others while you basically insulted him? Whoops.

As usual, there are multiple problems with Polk's attempt to save Holding's reputation:

First, the only reason I mentioned something about Holding at that webpage, was because that was the writing of another Christian whose view was directly opposite to Holding's, and I was seeking another Christian opinion.  Polk found that post and now apparently wants to soil that webpage with his own faulty arguments that he is apparently hoping I will reply to there.  I won't participate in helping Polk throw his shit around on other people's websites, so instead I answer him here.

Second, like most of Holding's minions, Polk's attempted defense of Holding's integrity involves no scripture quotes.  I sued Holding for libel, twice.  One would expect that if a supporter of Holding wished to defend his reputation this late in the game, one would show Holding's conduct didn't violate the many NT commands against slander.  Nope, as predicted, Holding panders to intellectual lowlifes who seek him out for a verbal thrill-fest, not because they give two-shits about their alleged faith.

For these losers, Christianity is not reality, it is instead a fun game to enter so as to give them something to bitch about, not too different from football or wrestling.  For obvious reasons, there are no spiritually mature people who give the least fuck about Holding's ministry, the only people who donate their cash to him are immature juvenile delinquent "20-something-going-on-12" types who get a psychological high from his cocky confidence, nothing more.

Third, Jesus said slander is among the evils that proceed from the heart,

 18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.

 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.

 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." (Matt. 15:18-20 NAU)

and there is nothing in the context to limit it to slanders against other Christians (that wouldn't matter anyway, as Holding slanders his Christian opponents like Hays and White no less than he slanders unbelievers, see here).  and nothing in the context allowing an exemption for slanders based on "truth".

And you cannot use other parts of the bible as an interpretive lens through which to see this verse since

a) Jesus apparently gave that saying orally before the NT was written, so what it meant to the original hearers its original context form is a more objective way to exegete, and

b) bible inerracy is hotly debated by Christians themselves, from what its scope and extent are, to outright denial of the doctrine (i.e., the position taken by most Christian scholars on it).  Because bible inerrancy has nowhere near the universal acclaim that other tools of interpretation have, such as "grammar" and "context" and "genre" (i.e., tools that everybody agree are valid), using bible inerrancy to get away from what Jesus said (i.e., limiting the scope of his slander-prohibition in Matthew 15 by merely running away to some other bible verse you think justifies Christians in slandering others) is nothing short of dishonest.

Third, at least one of those defamation prohibitions was interpreted by Holding's favorite scholars, the Context Group, as forbidding Christians from engaging in verbal insult-for-insult even when talking with unbelievers.  As I pointed out in another blog piece:

Holding lauds the Context Group (or did before he found out they think he is a dishonest immoral perverter of basic biblical morality, and yet the Context Group thinks Peter requires modern Christians to avoid insulting the unbelievers who insult them:
... this is what John H. Elliott, chair of the Context Group, had to say about riposte when discussing the instruction given by Peter to the addressees of 1 Peter.

First, the addressees are warned not to engage in the usual spitting match of riposte and retaliation. They are not to return "injury for injury" or "insult for insult" (3:9; see also the proscription of slander in 2:1), just as Jesus when insulted did not retaliate (2:23, echoing Isa 52:7and details of the passion narrative [Mark 14:61//Matt 26:63; Mark 15:5//Matt 27:12-14; Luke 23:9; John 19:9]). Rather, they are urged to bless their insulters (3:9c) and to disprove their slanderers with honorable and irreproachable modes of behavior within and beyond the community (2:12), for actions speak louder than words (3:1-2).

See here for this quote from the original source. 

Jesus' slanderers were unbelievers, yet he still did not return insult-for-insult.  Yet Holding's 20-year history of internet-based slanders is too well known, as I document extensively here, and as documented even more extensively in my First Amended Complaint from my federal lawsuit against Holding, a full copy of which I will gladly give to anybody who asks, you can contact me by reply to this blog or request by email to barryjoneswhat@gmail.com

I'll now answer Polk point by point:

He insults others who were either mean to him or showing some intellectual dishonesty towards theology. 

-------------The problem is
a) there is no biblical justification for Christians to do this,
b) the bible clearly prohibits Christians from insulting others,
c) as documented extensively here, every Christian scholar with a Ph.d that I've been able to contact (including Blomberg), thinks Holding's slanders violate basic NT ethics,  and
d) as documented extensively here the Context Group said the same and worse, specifically, Dr. Richard Rohrbaugh, who said Holding's magnum opus argument to justify vicious insults (which Holding has changed about 10 times following my lawsuits against him), constituted an "obvious perversion" of all Context Group scholarship as well as the NT itself.

So merely pointing out that Holding insults critics who were mean or dishonest with him, proves nothing, except perhaps that Holding never graduated from Christian kindergarten.

Also, Holding's illegal slanders of me in 2015-16 did not arise from me being mean to him or me showing any intellectual dishonesty toward him.  They arose solely from my making sure plenty of Holding's supporters at theologyweb knew that the scholar Holding relied on the most to justify insults, said Holding gives Christianity a bad name, deserves no respect, and that nobody should pay any attention to him.

As I said in another piece:

The first disowning

----In 2008, I had a debate with Holding at Tweb, in which he engaged is his usual unnecessary amounts of spite and invective.  I emailed Dr. Rohrbaugh in 2008, sent him a sample of Holding's highly insulting unnecessarily vituperative language toward me, and asked him in several different ways whether a modern-day Christian could justify using that kind of language from the bible.  Rohrbaugh replied that such words indicate Holding gives Christianity a bad name, he needs serious psychological help, he has no manners, and neither Rohrbaugh nor any other scholar he could think of, would wish to be associated with Holding.

----I posted Rohrbaugh's answer to Tweb in my defense.  As predicted, Tweb, like any jailhouse lawyer or politician, invoked the trifling technicality that I didn't first get Rohrbaugh's permission, and thereby deleted the post (as if violation of their rule was more frightful to them than the obvious truth that their faith-hero Holding was proven to be a dishonest scumbag). But, asshole that I am, I knew that would happen, so I posted the same to the old FRDB boards, and it is thankfully still preserved in full.  Check it out.

 THAT is what made Holding go crazy with his "Internet predator alert" obsession, which he was forced to take down because his lawyer told him it constituted genuine libel.  Holding is a fucking asshole in every way, he doesn't extend mercy to his critics, especially those he considers the most vile, like me.  So when you ask Holding why he took down his Internet Predator Alert on me despite believing sincerely that it was factually and legally justified, you can be sure that "I wanted to extend barry some mercy" won't be one of his excuses.  He got slapped in the head with a legal 2x4, that's the only reason an obsessed know-it-all asshole like Holding would ever back down from any verbal assault.  

While he may uses some attacks to call out their misinformation, he is still what I call a gifted apologist.

Holding didn't insult me in that limited way, he spread provably false lies about me and my history with other people, even saying 7 police reports showed I had definitely not been a good boy, when in fact those 7 police reports never expressed or implied that I was accused of, arrested for or convicted of any crime or civil infractions.

And you'll be horrified to learn that under NT criteria, Holding's intentional sins of slander and homosexuality would continue disqualifying him from any "teaching" position even if one could prove Holding was a super smart scholar of the bible.  Apparently, you supporters of Holding have not much more than a cartoon-level understanding of the bible (which might explain why Holding tries to teach you theology by means of cartoons).  A teacher's level of smarts cannot ever trump his moral failings.  But you blind bats apparently don't give a fuck, Holding is fun to read and watch, thus testifying to the unspeakably shallow nature of your "faith".  

Wouldn’t that be ironic to say that he insults others while you basically insulted him? Whoops.

-------Is there no end to your thickheadedness?

a) I never subscribed to a bible or ethical system that identifies slander as sin or always immoral.  Holding did. America forbids slander and libel, that's why lawsuits for such are allowed.  And since these laws of America don't contradict anything in the bible, Holding's profession of "biblical" faith requires him to obey Romans 13 and thus obey all civil authorities where they don't conflict with the bible, such as America's laws against libel.

So either find those bible verses that allow Christians to spread lies about unbelievers (the way Holding spread lies about me, justifying my two lawsuits against him) or admit that Holding not only sinned against me, but did so willfully (the smarter he is, the less excuse he has spreading lies about me).  No, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not the only unforgivable sin, any sin that is done intentionally is also unforgivable, Hebrews 10:26.

No, Holding has never apologized for telling such lies about me.  Gee, maybe there's a bible verse in your head that says Christians who spread lies about others, don't have to apologize to the victim?  But Paul said the Christian teacher was to do all that is possible to live peaceably among all men (Romans 12:18), and that would obviously include the peace-making gesture of apologizing for his wrongs,  a thing most mature adults require their small children to do.

And my lawsuits documented multiple times in which Holding intentionally lied in circumstances where any reasonable person with even half of his professed intellect would have known the truth.  But you won't be asking me for a copy of those Complaints, because of how scared you are of the truth yourself.  Just keeping telling yourself that Holding is a gifted apologist, while carefully turning away from any evidence to the contrary.  That's how battered women convince themselves to stay in situations to stay with men who are obviously no good to them.

b) You aren't taking any of the heat off of Holding by pointing at your enemy and telling the teacher "but he does it too!?"  Holding is still a foul-mouthed hypocritical asshole.  What other people do doesn't change the facts about Holding.

c) My insults of Holding do not rise to the level of defamation or libel that is actionable in a lawsuit, while Holding's insults toward me did.  Be sure to ask him why he didn't seek to have my lawsuits dismissed on the merits with a motion to dismiss, if he seriously believed, as he publicly asserted so many times, that his words about me were factually and legally justified truth.  Motioning to dismiss on the merits (i.e., proving his words about me were truthful and thus not defamatory) could have been accomplished within one month of his receiving the Complaint in each case, especially given Holding's boast at Tweb in 2015 that my lawsuits against him were as frivolous as if somebody sued Colorado merely because it looked like Wyoming.

Yet Holding didn't dare attempt dismissal on the merits.  That's because he is a lying conniving pig, more worried to escape justice by means of dishonest technicalities invented by non-Christian Pharisee-types,  than in doing the morally right thing.

The facts are not on your side, and if you support Holding, you deserve to be fleeced and fucked accordingly.