They sometimes allow James Patrick Holding to author articles in their CRI Journal.
I find in 2019, what I found in 2015, that CRI needs to be notified that Mr. Holding's libels of me constitute an on-going sin of Mr. Holding that has defined him for 20 years and which he has absolutely zero intention of ever repenting of. Back when Walter Martin was heading CRI, Holding would have been tossed overboard like chum. Here's the message:
========================February 6, 2019, 1:00 p.m.One of your occasional CRI Journal authors, James Patrick Holding, is now being sued a third time for libel.You can get a copy of the 97-page Complaint at the following blog:https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/01/james-patrick-holding-unconscionable.htmlMr. Holding has been persistently insulting, slandering and libeling everybody he disagrees with for the better part of the last 20 years, in diametric opposition to CRI's own rules prohibiting Christians from insulting others. Seehttps://www.equip.org/article/reclaiming-civility-as-a-christian-virtue/Here is the email I sent to Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg NAMB and other people that are either Holding's spiritual mentors, or have in some way told the world that Mr. Holding is qualified under biblical criteria to hold the office of Christian "teacher":------begin quote:Dr. Habermas and all others,This notification is sent to you in the hope that you will start the Matthew 18 process of formally disassociating yourselves from a so-called Christian "brother" whose sins of slander and reviling have reached pathological heights and appear to know no bounds.15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17 NAU)If you think James Patrick Holding has the least bit of credibility or honesty, I'll have you know that he has a Patreon account wherein he asks others for money to create YouTube videosfrom www.tektonics.org/support.php"If you're a fan of our TektonTV YouTube videos, you can sign up to support them via Patreon."At some point in the past, Mr. Holding obtained a video showing me falling during a bus accident, he photoshopped the video in various ways, he "looped" the part showing me falling, then he replaced the original audio track with a commercial soundtrack so that I get up and fall down about 500 times in the space of this 1-minute loop of video-tape, and I do so while reacting in sync to a childish sound bit of fast-paced music, and Holding deleted everything else in the video that happened about two seconds after I started falling, for no other reason than to cause me emotional distress.(link deleted)By the way, Holding agreed, when receiving this video via public records request, NOT to put the video to any commercial use. So since Holding has a Patreon account and begs for money to produce his Tekton TV videos, and since at the time of uploading this video he did not have tax-exempt status, he clearly wanted his viewers to give him money, for profit, to produce or upload such video, even if he never formally asked them for any such thing. Circumstantial evidence is allowed in Court. So Holding was also violating the law when photoshopping this public record to the delight of his typically retarded followers, in his effort to profit from my tragedy.Before that video was posted, I previously complained at another one of Holding's videos mocking that bus accident, that "Holding is gleefully mocking the fact that I was seriously injured on a local bus a while back"Holding intentionally overlaid those comments of mine onto the portion of the video that shows me getting up and falling 500 times during the tape "loop" he created. That is, Holding is horrifically belligerent in his efforts to make fun of my painful accident.What fool would say Jesus wants his modern-day apologists to engage in conduct like THAT? Posting videos to YouTube that have been photoshopped and looped so as to make belligerent mockery of another's person's tremendously painful traffic accident?What he doesn't show you on the video is that I fell all the way forward to the front of the bus while it was screeching to a halt, I was in severe sciatica pain laying on the floor, I could not move, I had to be lifted by paramedics to an ambulance, Lawyers for the defense refused to answer the question of why the bus didn't stop moving until after it illegally went past the cross-walk, etc, etc.)Must the ways of modern Christian apologists always be defended regardless of how plainly vicious and unbiblical they are?Go ahead, ask Holding why it is that he didn't post that video until after I filed my third lawsuit against him. It's perfectly obvious that he posted that video for no other reason than sheer spite, hatred, hostility, ill-will, and intent to harm me. Not even the average atheist or unbeliever goes to such lengths to mock another person's tragedy. A jury would be more than likely to believe Holding's primary motive in posting this video was to harm me in one way or another. He even ends the video by showing a screenshot of the legal calendar showing I had filed this third lawsuit against him.And lest you ask, let me answer: No, Holding has not made the least bit of effort to respond to my settlement offers or otherwise communicate directly with me in the way the courts suggest to try and settle.FYI: Attached is my third lawsuit against Mr. Holding, for libel (it was filed before Holding posted aforesaid video) and one can only wonder how long you people will sit in the shadows hoping this Holding-scandal will just blow over, before you finally do what Christians are required to do, and publicly disassociate yourself from this unconscionable scoundrel:9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater,OR A REVILER, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Eph. 5:3-6 NAU)6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, (Col. 3:6-9 NAU)Do you think that if Holding continues to violate basic NT ethics until the year 2024, you might start thinking there's a sin problem that requires apologists to do something more than boast that skeptics cannot explain the empty tomb?The third libel lawsuit is Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, Inc, 6:19-cv-76-Orl-37GJK, Florida Middle District Court.you can keep track of the case here. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26884971/Doscher_v_Apologetics_Afield,_IncThe "Complaint" is attached to this email, so that you discover why it is that Holding's choice to libel me through the use of dishonestly edited Court records, does not automatically shield him from defamation-liability. The law imposes conditions on the "fair-report" privilege, and Holding violates every one of them with this video and with the vast majority of the photoshopped court records about me which he has posted elsewhere.In my book, which I hope to have published before 2021, I'll be arguing that skeptics are reasonable to point to an alleged Christian person's complete apathy toward the NT ethics that require them to make difficult decisions (i.e, Matthew 18, 1st Cor. 5, disassociation from sinful remorseless "brothers") and conclude that such Christians are not genuinely born-again. There's a reason why most apologists care for little more in Christianity than just making arguments and selling Jesus: they are just naturally drawn to intellectual challenges. If they were truly growing in the spirit, then they'd have far less tolerance for spiteful intentional sinners like James Patrick Holding.At some point, you are reasonable to say that the lack of the fruit of the spirit in a Christian's life (love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, meekness, kindness, temperance, indifference) reasonably justifies concluding they aren't really saved to begin with. You cannot just continue forever making excuses about how sanctification in the Christian is a lifetime process.Yes, Christians are sinners.No, Paul and Jesus didn't forget that fact when they admonished the church to expel the remorseless immoral brother.Sincerely,Christian Doscher-------endquoteI'm sorry, CRI, but Mr. Holding's sins of slander and libel have gone completely out of control BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO BUSY MARKETING YOUR APOLOGETICS BELLS AND WHISTLES TO THE WORLD AND OTHERWISE SELLING JESUS, TO ACTUALLY ENGAGE IN THE TOUGH DECISION MAKING THAT JESUS AND PAUL REQUIRED WHEN FACED WITH AN OBSTINATELY SINFUL "CHRISTIAN".Yes, I will be discussing in my book how suspicious it is that the most popular apologetics organizations that allow Holding to be a "teacher", pretend to love Jesus, but do not obey Jesus. I will be arguing that any naturalistic explanation for your alleged love for Christ is probably a better explanation for your sense of "salvation", than any excuse you can conjure up about how you aren't responsible to discipline Mr. Holding.You cannot deny that Holding's sin of slander is great and thus you need to stop allowing this unrepentant sinner, so blind he thinks sin is holy conduct, to continue using your organization to convince the world he is qualified for Christian ministry. If you don't mind naming names, let's see you get objective and turn the guns on your own CRI journal authors....unless of course CRI has gone liberal?https://www.equip.org/contact/?__cf_waf_tk__=00002776530080000008838MgHiz5KeSYCp6RMw4YS9lqxINUk
I obtained lots of information from CRI back in the early 1990's, and I've respected them even after I became an atheist, but they appear to be no less afflicted with the sin of apathy toward sinful remorseless brothers, than most other "apologetics" ministries. Perhaps they will blame Holding's latest sins upon themselves (i.e., if they would have paid attention to the alarm bells I was sounding in 2015 and chastised or disfellowshipped Holding, he probably wouldn't have committed the latest sins of slander and libel that are now the subject of the present and third libel lawsuit against him).
Once again, Holding is apparently literate, but when advised that he has chosen the wrong victim to fuck with, he suddenly forgets how to communicate in English, and goes his merry way, utterly oblivious to the serious problems his slanders create for himself. Holding is a stupid bastard; I like the idea of having friends follow me on the internet, but I would never seek so much approval from retards that I would descend to the immoral and unlawful depths that he has, just to make sure they keep sending money.
Make sure you also send them this, so they have a fuller picture of the bus "accident."
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, the video of the incident demonstrates that contrary to the movement of the other passengers, Mr. Doscher keeps gathering momentum and increasing the severity of his physical reaction while the other passengers come to rest. This can only occur if another interfering force is introduced to account for Mr. Doscher's movements. This other force that was introduced is the voluntary movement input from Mr. Doscher. The inconsistencies in movements and reactions between the other passengers and Mr. Doscher raises questions as to whether his movements were contrived, exaggerated, and staged."
"The forces generated during this event were insufficient to thrust plaintiff from his seat. Furthermore, my review and study of the video in conjunction with my field testing establishes plaintiff's movements were voluntary and responsible for him leaving his seat and somersaulting down the bus aisle to the operator's compartment."
http://www.lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.com/Affadavit1.pdf
Well first, if you are a Christian, as seems likely given that you seem to obsess about defending Holding at any cost, I should think God is far more concerned about Holding's violation of Romans 13 and his constant sins of slander, and God is likely LESS concerned about the reasons an atheist lost a civil action for damages.
DeleteSecond, you didn't make any specific rebuttal of my contentions in that lawsuit, but I'll grant an exception since your posting of such content is in violation of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611, comment f, which I quoted in my 2019 Complaint as follows:
"The rule stated in this Section requires the report to be accurate. It is not necessary that it be exact in every immaterial detail or that it conform to that precision demanded in technical or scientific reporting. It is enough that it conveys to the persons who read it a substantially correct account of the proceedings. Not only must the report be accurate, but it must be fair. Even a report that is accurate so
far as it goes may be so edited and deleted as to misrepresent the proceeding and thus be misleading. Thus, although it is unnecessary that the report be exhaustive and complete, it is necessary that nothing be omitted or misplaced in such a manner as to convey an erroneous impression to those who hear or read it, as for example a report of the discreditable testimony in a judicial proceeding and a failure to publish the exculpatory evidence, or the use of a defamatory headline in a newspaper report, qualification of which is found only in the text of the article. The reporter is not privileged under this Section to make additions of his own that would convey a defamatory impression, nor to impute corrupt motives to any one, nor to indict expressly or by innuendo the veracity or integrity of any of the parties."
But you'd have to download the Complaint if you wish to be educated in why you are committing actionable libel by posting what you did the way you did and with the motives you had. How any fool could think such one-sided reporting is "fair" is beyond me.
Finally, since you've now committed libel, you can look forward to my discovering your true identity. I'm going to file a John Doe Subpoena in court, and argue a number of legal theories to show that you libeld me just now, so I have a right to learn enough truth about your identity to confront you with summons and complaint.
And if you are really just Mr. Holding himself, then thanks for so much more evidence of your "express malice", you know, that factual truth that destroys the "fair reporting" privilege?
OK then. Help me understand, if you would. How is quoting the sworn testimony of an expert witness in quite a bit of context in one of your trials libel? Because it didn't post your side of the story along with it?
ReplyDeleteSee Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611, comment f, which I already quoted. If you think supplying "context" is all that matters, than apparently, you haven't read this Restatement. Or... you read it...but you have difficulty retaining new knowledge for longer than 5 minutes.
DeleteAnd I'm gonna start having trouble with your stupid ass if you continue to ask me stupid questions, since your hatred of me makes it reasonable to infer you DID download the 2019 Complaint against Holding, gleefully perusing it for anything that could even remotely be considered "frivolous". The chances are great that whatever your question might be, was already answered, several times, in said Complaint.
That expert witness testimony seems pretty conclusive. But what's your side? Could you post or summarize how you responded to it? Where did he err?
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you really are the dipshit that you appear to be. You either downloaded the Complaint already, in which case you are stupid because it answers your question, or you are an irrational fuck because you hate me so much, yet you never managed to download the Complaint which would obviously give you more information about my side of the story.
DeleteOr...you already know what my answers are, you are just a stupid fuck trying to "bait" me into saying something that could be twisted against me in court.
Either way, I revert you back to my original condition: either cite the page and paragraph numbers of the Complaint that you think show me making any faulty legal or factual claim, or fuck off.
OK. I've been reading a bit more and see why you might construe it as libelous. I shall withdraw and wish you best.
ReplyDeleteSmart move. But I'm still going to need your current legal name and current address, regardless, since you've manifested a belief that Holding's misrepresentation of the bus accident lawsuit was "pretty conclusive". You will either voluntarily reveal that information, or Google will give this to me after I serve on them a John Doe subpoena asking for all IP or ISP information associated with your posts to this blog.
ReplyDelete