my reply to James Patrick Holding's drama-queen babies

This is my reply to the fake-Christians who "support" Holding by getting involved in other people's gossip and drama, their comments which were posted to

I Hate Holding, Inc.

Zachary Cawley 1 week ago

Yep! That's the go-to strategy of a bunch of whiners with no real argument! they just slander you and hope that their own accusations directed towards your character will be enough evade the need to make a sound case to begin with! Fundy atheist strategy in a nutshell!

 Are you high on crack?  I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to get Holding to stop violating his own morals and to therefore "man up " and therefore contact me "one-on-one" about our issues, legal and biblical, since that is what he demands of me.  As I complained similarly in a prior post:

First, Holding is a hypocrite and liar, pure and simple.   In one of his videos that was obviously directed at nobody else but me, “Screwy Moments inScriptural Interpretation 15- Romans 7 and Sin”, starting at time-code 2:00, he says that If I have a problem with anything in his videos, I should deal with him, and “no one else”.

At time code 2:40, he taunts me saying that if I deal with my problem with his videos in any way other than with him personally, then I’d be showing I was too frightened to man up and deal with him “one-on-one”.  Ok, I recently sent a settlement offer to Holding by email and other methods to make sure he got it.  See here.

He never replied “one on one”.  He never “manned up”.  All he did was post more defamatory videos filled with misleading half-truths.

Since he qualified “one on one” with “no one else”, it’s pretty clear that he was asking me to avoid telling anybody else about my problems with his videos, and to simply contact him by direct correspondence.  And Holding is a hypocrite and a liar because his response to my most recent settlement offer was not direct private correspondence, but by cartoon youtube video obviously intended more to entertain his friends and the world than to seriously interact with myself. Only in Holding’s retarded mind does “upload a video for my friends to laugh at” constitute his engaging in "manning up", communicating “one on one” and involving “no one else”.

Like I said, Holding is a hypocrite and liar.  He does not expect from himself what he expects from others.  What the fuck else would a reasonable person take “one on one” to mean, if not direct reply?

 That's from my prior post which provides evidence that Holding perjured himself in court in his attempt to have his attorney-fees imposed on me.  See here.

Yet Holding is such a scumbag, he actually thinks his cartoon video-replies are a sufficient substitute for scholarly dialogue.  When he addresses "me" he always does it indirectly by posting a video and hoping I'll reply.  He has a pathological inability to conform to his own expressed morals and "man up" and resolve his issues with me "one on one".

Can you imagine how much worse Christian theology of today would be in (if that's even possible) if Christian scholars "resolved" their disagreements with each other by utilizing Holding's insulting libelous indirect babyish whiny method?

If you think I have no serious arguments against Christianity, I'll meet you in any online forum of your choice to debate you on any biblical subject of your choosing.  Put up or shut up.

Shelly Blanchard 1 week ago

I love these cartoons. They so point out so many things how people can misunderstand what God says.

 Then you shouldn't love them that much, because all of the name-calling bullshit involved in them goes directly against what Habermas, Licona, D.A. Carson and other Christian scholars consider to be basic New Testament ethics.   And I if I hadn't sued Holding, and forced him to disclose his private emails with such scholars, the world would probably never know the degree to which Holding's own personal Christian scholarly friends find his constantly insulting manner to be not just unbiblical, but clearly so.

Ben Thomason 1 week ago

my friend once told me that if you reach a point in a debate where your opponent stops givign actual arguments and instead starts flinging insults, it's because they don't have any more arguments.

5

tektontv 1 week ago

Some people just skip the arguments too.

 What you missed, Holding, is that you have a 20-year history on the internet of flinging insults at ALL of your critics, including the Christian ones, whenever they refuse to back down after God has thundered his  ancedotes from Holding Heaven.

Alphlond 1 week ago

I heard it was called Sargon's Law, when an ideologue makes a character judgment about a person he's debating, that character judgment is true of the person himself.

Ben Thomason 1 week ago

@Alphlond really? that does not bode well of the fact that I tend to run into a lot of egotistical folks...

 it also doesn't bode well for Holding who doesn't realize he is looking in a mirror when he falsely accuses me of having a superiority complex and a narcissistic personality disorder.  There are no Christian scholars who support Holding's libelous filthy way of dealing with his critics, and the Context Group scholars accuse him of perverting their scholarship.  I'd say Holding has proven his irrelevancy to Christian scholarship plenty, that's precisely why Holding never says or does anything that has caused any Christian scholar to change their minds on any point of doctrine, or at least they don't wish to admit it publicly.

MSOGameShow 1 week ago

What got me was when he accused you of being a homosexual, especially over an accusation about an "anal fixation" since that doesn't even prove someone is gay. Also there's the fact you're married.

 Then apparently you haven't been keeping up on old or current events.  Holding has a 20-year demonstrable internet history of constantly using slurs that involve male buttocks, and other Christian apologists have noticed it to.  When the last one tried to pretend he was just kidding when labeling Holding that way, I shot him out of the sky and proved he was lying.

1

tektontv 1 week ago

One of the articles I link to says: "What lies do BPs tell? Often they revolve around false claims of partner abuse, child abuse, perverse sexual behaviors, drug and substance abuse, mental illness, and criminal conduct. BPs tend to pick false accusations that are difficult to disprove. "

 Then apparently Holding has BP.  He accuses other of bestiality:

  JP Holding says:
Jeffy, you're such a dip! :D State of FL prisons don't offer Internet access on the prison compounds.  Speculation has it that you have intimate relations with farm animals. I guess that wasn't much fun because you're here posting comments. See? Isn't that great?  It's too bad you're reduced to this sort of babbling because not being able to answer actual arguments frustrates you so badly.

 Since the non-Christian amazon.com deleted this (apparently Holding sins in ways that even most infidels don't), it can only be found through the wayback machine and a couple of other websites.  Simply google the highlighted words as a single phrase in quotes.

What are the odds that the Christian scholars Holding is friends with (Licona, Habermas) would approve of THAT bullshit?

And of course, I document all of Holding's sadistic and gross insult-language in my First Amended Complaint in the federal case.


Perhaps you don't wonder anymore why, since my two libel lawsuits against Holding started becoming known, Licona and Habermas refuse to make any public comments in support of Holding anymore?

3

Alphlond 1 week ago (edited)

@MSOGameShow Not to mention the fact that a lot of closeted men are married, and many even have kids. Just because a man is married and has kids doesn't mean he isn't gay. But I have to agree with you here; I don't think there's any proof of Holding being gay or anything like that, and people are only making that statement because they have no argument against his beliefs.

Sorry, my charge that Holding is gay has much in support of it, and you are high on crack if you think I have no argument against his beliefs.  And most Christian scholars would say you aren't proving or defending anything with sarcastic rude insulting cartoon videos, which, like Holding's videos, very often don't even quote scholarly aauthority and simply present Holding's assertions about the sociology of ancient Israel as if his word was the end of the argument.

 

FongLin100 1 week ago

Im a bit new the controversy but what did u do to tick him off?

tektontv 1 week ago

It's a 15 year story so far. I'll reveal it bit by bit.

 What's the matter?  Are you afraid that you might see more of a dark side to Holding than you wish, if you read my lawsuits against him? Ask Holding to email you the First Amended Complaints from the State case and the Federal case.  Find the libelous statement of his that you find to be the most irresponsible, and ask him whether he still believes that way about that alleged "fact".  Prepare to suffer "death by a thousand qualifications".

Peasant Scrublord 1 week ago

The context group? Is this a thing?

tektontv 1 week ago

It was anyway. One of the main founders (Malina) is deceased, and Rohrbaugh is in his 90s and retired.

 Holding, your followers don't even know why "Context Group" is involved in our disputes? Holy shit.
Is your ministry just the nuts of bolts of modern Christan scholarship, or what?

Why doesn't James Patrick Holding publicly call D.A. Hagner a moron?

Christian scholar D. A. Hagner obviously doesn't interpret Jesus' legal commands in Matthew 5 in the evasive way that Holding does: 

 40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
 41 "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
 42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. (Matt. 5:40-42 NAU)

Hagner's commentary clearly disagrees with Holding' hair-splitting bullshit, and shows that it really does mean what it says:

40–41 The second illustration refers to legal action (κριθῆναι, “to be judged,” i.e., in a court), the result of which could be the loss of one’s χιτών (“tunic” or “inner garment”). Jesus teaches not only that one should give up what one is sued for but that one should also voluntarily give up one’s ἱμάτιον (the more essential “outer garment,” i.e., robe or cloak) as well. Cf. 1 Cor 6:7 for Paul’s similar attitude. Along the same lines, in the third illustration, when one is pressed into service by the military authorities to assist in bearing a load (this is the meaning of the semi-technical term ἀγγαρεύειν; cf. its use in 27:32), one should not simply go the required mile but an extra one too. Thus, these unjustifiable requests should be complied with—indeed, the response should considerably exceed the requests. Again the perspective of the kingdom of God is alien to the perspective of the world.
...Jesus again expounds the ethics of the kingdom. What he presents is ethics directed more to conduct at the personal, rather than the societal, level. These directives are for the recipients of the kingdom, not for governmental legislation. Rather than demanding strict justice, or allowing for retaliation of any kind, the disciple of the kingdom defers to others. The disciple does not insist on personal rights. Furthermore, the true disciple does more than is expected. He or she is free from society’s low standards of expectation, being subject only to the will of the Father. The conduct of the disciple is filled with surprise for those who experience it. This element of surprise relates closely to and reflects the grace that is central to the gospel. It is the unworthy who have experienced the good things of the kingdom; and as they have experienced the surprise of unexpected grace, so they act in a similar manner toward the undeserving among them (cf. Luke 6:34–35). Jesus himself provides the supreme example of the fulfillment of this ethic (cf. passion narratives and 1 Pet 2:23), and the disciples are called to follow in his path. Kingdom ethics demands not mechanical compliance to rules but a lifestyle governed by the free grace of God.

cf. confer, compare

Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 131). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

 How can Holding insist that somebody he considers an atheist with zero significant bible knowledge (myself) a "moron" for adopting Hagner's interpretation, and yet the same Holding doesn't call Hagner himself a "moron"?

Logically, isn't it the person who has the far greater knowledge of gospel truth (Hagner) who has less excuse for misinterpreting this part of the gospel?

Why doesn't James Patrick Holding publicly assert that Craig Blomberg is a moron?

Inerrantist Christian scholar Craig Blomberg obviously doesn't interpret Jesus' legal commands in Matthew 5 in the evasive way that Holding does: 

 40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
 41 "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
 42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. (Matt. 5:40-42 NAU)

 Blomberg's commentary clearly disagrees with Holding' hair-splitting bullshit, and shows that it really does mean what it says:

(e) On Retaliation (5:38–42). 5:38–42 Jesus next alludes to Exod 21:24 and Deut 19:21. Again he formally abrogates an Old Testament command in order to intensify and internalize its application. This law originally prohibited the formal exaction of an overly severe punishment that did not fit a crime as well as informal, self-appointed vigilante action. Now Jesus teaches the principle that Christian kindness should transcend even straightforward tit-for-tat retribution. None of the commands of vv. 39–42 can easily be considered absolute; all must be read against the historical background of first-century Judaism.⁴⁷ Nevertheless, in light of prevailing ethical thought Jesus contrasts radically with most others of his day in stressing the need to decisively break the natural chain of evil action and reaction that characterizes human relationships.⁴⁸

Antistēnai (“resist”) in v. 39 was often used in a legal context (cf. Isa 50:8)⁴⁹ and in light of v. 40 is probably to be taken that way here. Jesus’ teaching then parallels 1 Cor 6:7 against not taking fellow believers to court, though it could be translated somewhat more broadly as “do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you” (GNB). We must nevertheless definitely resist evil in certain contexts (cf. Jas 4:7; 1 Pet 5:9). Striking a person on the right cheek suggests a backhanded slap from a typically right-handed aggressor and was a characteristic Jewish form of insult. Jesus tells us not to trade such insults even if it means receiving more. In no sense does v. 39 require Christians to subject themselves or others to physical danger or abuse, nor does it bear directly on the pacifism-just war debate. Verse 40 is clearly limited to a legal context. One must be willing to give as collateral an outer garment—more than what the law could require, which was merely an inner garment (cf. Exod 22:26–27). Coat and shirt reflect contemporary parallels to “cloak” and “tunic,” though both of the latter looked more like long robes. Verse 41 continues the legal motif by referring to Roman conscription of private citizens to help carry military equipment for soldiers as they traveled.

Each of these commands requires Jesus’ followers to act more generously than what the letter of the law demanded. “Going the extra mile” has rightly become a proverbial expression and captures the essence of all of Jesus’ illustrations. Not only must disciples reject all behavior motivated only by a desire for retaliation, but they also must positively work for the good of those with whom they would otherwise be at odds. In v. 42 Jesus calls his followers to give to those who ask and not turn from those who would borrow. He presumes that the needs are genuine and commands us not to ignore them, but he does not specifically mandate how best we can help. As Augustine rightly noted, the text says “give to everyone that asks,” not “give everything to him that asks” (De Sermone Domine en Monte 67). Compare Jesus’ response to the request made of him in Luke 12:13–15. It is also crucial to note that “a willingness to forego one’s personal rights, and to allow oneself to be insulted and imposed upon, is not incompatible with a firm stand for matters of principle and for the rights of others (cf. Paul’s attitude in Acts 16:37; 22:25; 25:8–12).”⁵⁰ Verses 39–42 thus comprise a “focal instance” of nonretaliation; specific, extreme commands attract our attention to a key ethical theme that must be variously applied as circumstances change.⁵¹

Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 112)

  How can Holding insist that somebody he considers an atheist with zero significant bible knowledge (myself) a "moron" for adopting Blomberg's interpretation, and yet the same Holding doesn't call Blomberg himself a "moron"?

Logically, isn't it the person who has the far greater knowledge of gospel truth (Blomberg) who has less excuse for misinterpreting this part of the gospel?

Or is Holding nothing but a mere child trapped in an adult body, inconsistently pretending that the mistakes of his enemies deserve mud-slinging, but the exact same mistakes of his friends deserve no comment?

Well Blomberg has endorsed Holding in the past, gee, that wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it?

James Patrick Holding's lies about that $20,000 debate offer

First, James Patrick Holding has configured his website to reject requests from my ISP.  If I search google for matters related to him, and I click any search hit that goes to tektonics.org, I get this:





Before you drool at Holding's feet again, you should ask yourself what good Holding thought it would do to make his webpage inaccessible to one of my ISPs. 

Holding cannot say he did it thinking that hampering my ability to access his materials would thus hamper my tendency to lie about him. I don't lie about him, and his recent YouTube posts clearly show that he lives for little more than instigating attacks and egging me on.  

It's far more likely that he is just being irrational for no other reason than that he was attacked, as he admitted to one of his own lawyers.  This comes from one of the hundreds of private messages and emails I forced Holding to disclose to me in the discover phase of the 2015 State lawsuit, the lack of precise date is Holding's fault because the original does not show any such date:

I had a very troubling late afternoon and evening. "Bud" is getting more and more obsessed with getting me out there. He wrote today that he would get me before a jury if it was "the last thing he did on earth." Ordinarily that may not mean much, but because he is mentally ill, and his disorder is the type that makes people prone to suicide or violence, I wondered if he wanted to kill himself. Then I began to think that his obsession to get to me in person, which he has had since 2008, was because he wanted to kill ME.

 

I was concerned enough to write some panicked emails to some people in Washington, asking if there was some sort of order or something I could ask for to keep me from having to ever be in the same room with him.

Maybe it was irrational. But I get irrational whenever I feel like something will happen that threatens the people I love.

Intellectually I know Bud's case is junk. I also know he's highly delusional, more so than ever now.

(while it's off topic, notice that in 2015, Holding was sincerely frightened that I was so dangerously mentally unstable I'd try to kill him...but since 2015, he has chosen to continue focusing on me in the exact way that he earlier feared would provoke me to murder him...his constant libelous internet posts.  And you think James Patrick Holding is spiritually mature christian apologist?  What else do you think?  Maybe that buildings talk to you when nobody is looking?)

Thanks, Mr. Holding, for admitting that you get irrational whenever you feel like your loved ones are being attacked (in this context, not physical harm but my litigation against you and your friends through the court system).  If it hadn't been for my success in court that far, the world would never have seen this proof that you believe yourself to be irrational during confrontation with critics.  Now your stupid followers can no longer tell themselves your a good guy.  Our charges that you are unreasonable and irrational are documented from your own mouth, and only because I forced you to disclose such impeaching truths through the litigation process).

Second, my latest googling of Holding indicates that he recently made a blog entry about a $20,000 promise I made to debate him years ago.  The article is entitled:

Monday, December 10, 2018 
Christian Behrend Doscher's $20,000 Promise

Therein, Holding makes various claims such as

While I was engaging him in debate on TheologyWeb in 2008, Doscher challenged me to a debate in front of my church and said he would pay me $20,000 for that debate. Because of a crash, the TheologyWeb version of that thread no longer exists except for a bit of it in an archive. But Doscher preserved a version of those events on an atheist forum that same year. Here’s what he said in a message dated October 6, 2008:

(since Holding, as usual, doesn't give the link to that "archive" so the reader can see the full context, I'll give what wayback has archived.  The first tweb page is here, the second is here.)

Holding gives the same type of misreprsentation in his video on the same subject. See here.

 Standard dictionaries have news for Holding and his babies: "lie" does not always mean "positively asserted falsehood".  The giving of a false impression is also correctly deemed a "lie":

lied; ly•ing \ˈlī-iŋ\ [ME, fr. OE lēogan; akin to OHG liogan to lie, OCS lŭgati] vi bef. 12c

1           : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

2           : to create a false or misleading impression vt : to bring about by telling lies 〈lied his way out of trouble〉

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary.
Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

I accuse Holding of both forms of lying, but for purposes of this blog post, it is the second definition, "create a false impression" that I mean when I accuse Holding's comments about that $20,000 debate offer, to be "lies".

Holding, no doubt worried that I'd expose this lie, did what any good Pharisee would do, and hinted that he had "strung me along" because he was suspicious that my $20,000 debate offer was incincere.

From the linked "archive", supra, this is how it happened: When I offered to debate Holding, HE first demanded this $20,000 fee...then he started adding more and more completely absurd signs of his own bad faith in that offer.  From the linked archive, supra:

It is a waste of time to prepare for and conduct a debate with a cretin like that. (I'd much, much rather sit on stage with a thoughtful reader like shadowmaster and discuss an issue than debate it with a gleeb like Spitball.)

Even worse, gleebs like Spitball have NO IDEA how ignorant they are. They can never get past that Playskool understanding -- for whatever reason.

Why would I want to waste time on an oral debate with someone this knuckleheaded when it comes to exegesis?

Spitball, you'd have to pay at least TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS to make the time wasted worthwhile -- and I'd have you give it not to me, but to my church. Their care center (with stuff like their abortion counseling services) is in the red right now.

But truthfully, I wouldn't want to ask them to accept your filthy money either.

You'd also have to explain your qualifications and degrees first -- just as I have.

And I'd insist that as I come out to debate, Weird Al Yankovic's "Weasel Stomping Day" play on the sound system.
And that you wear a red clown nose,
and a T-shirt that says FUNDY ATHEIST during the debate.

It should be clear, therefore, that because Holding was the one who invented this $20,000 demand, and placed it in a context making it clear that he wasn't being serious, neither was I in my replies to such buffoonery.  Any reader who has the least familiarity with Holding's 20-year history of lying and smearing anybody that he disagrees with, would have little trouble recognizing the inherent foolishness of my offering this bitch any amount of money in actual sincerity.  I was simply pretending to believe his offer was sincere, and I correctly guessed that if I pressed him on it, he'd show his true colors and buckle.

While the wayback machine didn't archive that entire Tweb exchange, not all of the other proofs of Holding's insincerity disappeared.   I'm glad I posted about it in 2008 to another board, because I commented how as the discussion progressed, Holding's signs of insincerity grew out of proportion. At the other board I recalled:

First, he said I'd have to
wear a red clown nose
and t-shirt at the debate that said "atheist fundy" on it,
then he required me to pay $20,000 in advance to his church,
then he started increasing the price for every day I wasn't able to post a response,
then he demanded I advertise the debate at my own expense with a billboard in Florida, etc, etc.  (from here)

Furthermore, one can also safely glean from Holding's absurd extra conditions, that he was genuinely frightened by my offer to debate him live, and therefore went about creating several ways to avoid the debate while saving face. He even expresses his blunt unwillingness to debate with his comment 

"But truthfully, I wouldn't want to ask them to accept your filthy money either."

Not even the stupidest person in the world would think Holding's offer to debate live was the least bit serious.  The context makes clear just the opposite.

So it's also clear why Holding didn't give the readers the full story.  Had he done so, somebody might have asked him "you clearly were not sincere in your communications to Doscher...why would you expect Doscher to have been sincere in accepting your challenge?"

And for the record, yes, I was lying.  I wasn't sincere because I simply didn't have the money...but I wanted Holding to think I was sincere, because I knew he was nothing but a frightened weasel who would start backpedaling at the speed of light as soon as he was told to put up or shut up.  Apparently, my suspicious were correct.

Once again, when the actual facts are given to the viewer and they are supplied the appropriate links so they can examine the surviving source documents for themselves, they are left with a much more negative portrayal of Holding and his credibility, than they are if all they do is breastfeed, break toys, and refresh their webpage 6,000 times per day looking for the latest Holding screed to drool over.

There's always two sides to every story.  Including Holding's story that he is now telling "more" of the story.

I've been advised by counsel that feeding this troll by correcting his factual and legal misrepresentations will also have the effect of helping him prepare his defense to my third lawsuit.  I have no intention of helping my enemy defend himself, so I'm going to be resisting the urge to correct his misleading posts about me.  My proofs of Holding's pathological need to lie will be restricted to the court documents I filed in my third lawsuit against him...where he will be forced to do something more than yap to his babies if he wishes to refute my position.

Percentage of Judges who are reversed on appeal

http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2016/12/20/just-facts-us-courts-appeals