James Patrick Holding: still a homosexual with unresolved anger issues, apparently

I have extensively documented elsewhere on this blog Holding's inability to suppress the fruit of his own closet-homosexuality.

One of his recent videos has him resorting to his old "butthurt" code language for homosexuality (no, it doesn't always mean gayness, but when coming from Holding, it does).

Second, the numbers in the title of the video constitute the amount of money a court decided to award him after incorrectly deciding it did not have jurisdiction to hear my libel-complaint (i.e., smart guy Holding, despite the fact that he could have made the same legal arguments all the way back at the beginning of gthe case, chose instead to hire a lawyer and take 9 months to make such arguments, costing him $21,000, when in fact if the Court really did lack jurisdiction, this would be something clear from the outset in this case, it wouldn't take 9 months of lawyering).

In other words, Holding is one of those mind-game playing psychos who takes delight in showing the public specific clues as to what he is talking about, and delighting to know that his enemy and some friends areaware of what they mean, but the average public doesn't.  He's no different than Berkowitz, Raider or any other criminal who delights in taunting his opponents with clues.

Third, he has the characters in the video standing next to a bus stop sign that says "Inner City Transit Route 13", which means he is gleefully mocking the fact that I was seriously injured on an Inter-City Route 13 bus a while back.

Fourth, I argued that he doesn't believe in the sufficiency of scripture doctrine because he uses far more than the bible to teach Christianity.  I cited a dictionary definition of "sufficiency" to show that in practice, because he clearly doesn't think the bible alone is "enough" for Christian faith and practice, he logically doesn't think the bible alone is "sufficient" for Christian faith and practice.  Holding responds saying I erred in using a modern English dictionary.  Not so.  Any fool can google the internet and find that "sufficiency of Scripture" is presented as a held doctrine by many church websites.  Nobody is qualifying that they understand "sufficiency" in a particular nuanced way that departs from normative English.

Sixth, Holding's cartoon moose asks his opponent whether he knows how the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture originated.  Again, how the doctrine originated is not the issue; the issue is whether Holding's practice lines up with what his words in English tell others he believes.  If Holding's thirst is not quenched by drinking a glass of water, then he is misleading his audience if he says "that was sufficient to quench my thirst" after drinking one glass of water.

Seventh, Holding and other Christians are, when saying they believe in the sufficiency of scripture, speaking to modern day people who speak modern day English.  Sorry Holding, but modern day people already know what "sufficient" means, so you are guilty of misleading them if you claim to believe in the "sufficiency of scripture" and you don't qualify that you are defining "sufficiency" in a nuanced way that cannot be found in a modern English dictionary.

As expected, Holding, ultimate pussy that he is, has his cartoon character punch me across the street at the end.  Actions speak louder than words.  The next time Holding tells you he doesn't believe in resolving theological disputes with physical violence, call him a fucking hypocrite.  He's scared enough of jail to avoid actually doing it in real life, but the desire to do it is still there, and this desire not having gone away after 20 years of being a Christian "teacher" indicates Holding has not spiritually matured in that long length of time.

Can you imagine Jesus or Paul, today, creating animations that promote the very actions they condemned?

Maybe Holding will  post an cartoon of a woman in the act of committing adultery.  After all, in his mind, if its "just a cartoon", then its promotion of acts that are unbiblical in the real world, cannot be used to draw any conclusions about what's going on in the mind of its creator.