Today, Friday, April 26, 2019, at 11:42 a.m. PST, I posted the following challenge to one of Holding's latest videos: Admittedly it was off-topic, but I posted there to make sure I'd get noticed, not because the video had anything remotely challenging to bible critics.
This was designed to be considered by his followers, who seem to think that none of Holding's faults are sufficiently serious as to consider him disqualified under biblical criteria from the office of Christian "teacher":
---------------------
Let's put your stupidity to the test, Mr. Holding: If you are so sure
that when calling me a moron or otherwise impugning my character, you
a - aren't committing any sin, and
b - aren't doing anything illegal, and
c - are promoting a biblical and godly rebuke to those who publicly criticize Christianity,
...then let's see you prioritize god's ways over man's ways...by taking court documents mentioning me, adding your own vitriolic criticisms therein, then uploading these to your DL website....you know, similar to what you already did in the case of certain of my "interrogatories".
After all, doing so wouldn't be a sin, and would actually promote further godliness on your part....so why not do it?
I'm not giving you permission to libel me. I'm merely asking that you
act more consistently with the way you have in the past, IF you continue
to presently claim that none of your comments about me in the past were
sinful or illegal.
If you never committed any sin and only promoted Christian godliness with all your online comments about me since 2015, then why have you changed your ways? Where's that vitriolic mouthy asshole that pranced around Tweb like a juvenile delinquent on crack? Or did I forget that you already told Habermas you don't really know what it was that caused you to back off of the "strong comebacks"? Gee, it wouldn't have anything to do with the reasons that motivated you to stop asking for tax-free money for yourself, would it?
Or is this another opportunity for you to give one of your dishonest excuses, and cover up your inability to answer by saying "I'll let him be surprised by the answer." ?
FUCK YOU.
---------------------------------------
See here.
Since Holding will probably remove the comments from public viewing, here's a screenshot:
The purpose of this blog is a) to refute arguments and beliefs propagated by Christian "apologists" and b) to restore my reputation after one homosexual atheist Christian apologist trashed it so much that he got slapped with four libel-lawsuits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5
Bart Ehrman, like thousands of other skeptics, uses Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to argue that Jesus' virgin birth (VB) is fiction. Jason Eng...
-
I challenged "annoyed pinoy" at his blog as follows: 1 comment: barry November 7, 2019 at 4:01 PM I'd like to d...
-
"Annoyed Pinoy" regularly posts at Triablogue. See here . He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs. I posted t...
-
https://twitter.com/barry35962347 #lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding
No comments:
Post a Comment