Showing posts with label Doscher v. Holding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Doscher v. Holding. Show all posts

Friday, August 28, 2020

James Patrick Holding: libelous according to his own domain provider webnic.cc

Here is the email I sent that second domain provider, followed by their emails to me indicating they suspended the website:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 12:40 PM
Subject: one of your websites is hosting illegal content
To: <compliance_abuse@webnic.cc>


Hello,
Please send me a full copy of the "terms of service" that explain what website content you will allow and disallow.
My name is Christian Doscher.  I live at 6435 Doe St. SE Tumwater, WA. 98501, phone: (360) 339-3257.
In 2008 I was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, and I still receive social security benefits for 
this disability.
I am currently suing James Patrick Holding for libel.  
Doscher v. Holding, Florida Middle District, Case No. 6:19-cv-01322
Most of the basis for such lawsuit arises from the content Mr. Holding posted to lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.com.  
See attached Complaint, page 3, footnote 1 ff.  The name of that website appears more than 20 times in that Complaint.
That website was previously suspended and removed from public access back when the domain provider was InMotion Hosting.  Here is their email to me:
InMotion Hosting Legal Admin Team
<legal-trac@inmotionhosting.com>
Tue, Jul 21, 4:32 AM to [External]
Hello, We have reviewed the account and have confirmed that the material or materials listed in the complaint were still present.  The account has now been suspended.
At this time we have closed this complaint.
As you can see, Mr. Holding is incapable of admitting wrong-doing, he simply resurrected this defamatory website by switching domain owners. 
Since InMotion Hosting removed the website because it was central to a currently pending libel lawsuit, I would ask you to do the same.
Mr. Holding actions are egregious, as not only are the comments about me on that website false, misleading and libelous, but Mr. Holding has known since 2015 that I suffer from an emotional disability, and he has previously manifested joy and glee in smearing me like this.  He does the same thing on his YouTube site tektontv, and at his other website tektonics.orgwhich contains a link to the libelous website I'm asking you to suspend.  See http://www.tektonics.org/skepticbud.htm
As I assume you refuse to host websites containing libelous content, especially where the content, as here, is the subject of currently pending litigation, you might consider a lawsuit against Mr. Holding yourself, for fraud.  He likely knew that if he had honestly told you about the content of the site he intended to upload, you would never have accepted his business, so he in effect defrauded you.
Sincerely,
Christian Doscher, Plaintiff
================================

First webnic.cc reply:

WebNIC Customer Support support@webnic.cc

Sat, Aug 22, 8:49 PM (6 days ago)
to me
Dear Team,
Greetings.
Thank you for highlighting this issue to us.

We have notified the respective parties to investigate this issue and take the necessary action.

We will revert back to you once there's any update.
Thank you.
Warm Regards,
Support
WebNIC
=================================


Second webnic.cc reply:

WebNIC Customer Support support@webnic.cc

Mon, Aug 24, 4:03 AM (4 days ago)
to me
Dear Team,
Greetings.
Kindly informed domain has no longer in use.

Should you need further assistance, please feel free to contact us.

Thank you.

Warm Regards,
Support
WebNIC
===============================


I think Mr. Holding's "followers" are equally as thick-headed as himself.  Every one of Holding's victories is a victory even if his follows neither know nor care about the details, and every time Holding gets shot down, this is surely also a victory since it merely proves one or more of God's enemies are unrighteously persecuting Holding.  LOL.

Which is stupid because all Christian scholars who know about Holding's juvenile delinquent antics are in agreement, including Mike Licona and Gary Habermas, that Holding's filthy obsessive libelous language is condemned 100% in the bible...no exceptions for responding to critics who publicly bait, criticize or taunt.

You can talk forever about how I'm "wrong".

But what you'll never prove is that I'm "unreasonable" to agree with all such scholars against Holding.

And if you are the type who thinks Holding has proven that most Christian scholars are just morons, then I guess I understand why you send your money to him, just like I understand the stupid fools who still send money to Robert Tilton despite his deserved downfall.

Saturday, June 27, 2020

James Patrick Holding has committed perjury at least 10 times

My 5th libel lawsuit against James Patrick Holding starts with a Complaint that is 170 pages long, includes most of the content of the previous Complaints, and proves Holding has committed perjury in a court document at least 10 times.  

Update February 9, 2021:
I have since filed a "Third Amended Complaint", which is 534 pages long.  You'll be surprised to know that in Florida, where Holding lives and where I thus filed this lawsuit, truth is not an absolute defense to defamation.  If the truthful comment was posted with a bad motive, that is sufficient to impose defamation liability on Holding, and not merely on his Apologetics Afield corporation, but on Holding personally, as explained in the Complaint.  And what fool doesn't know that Holding, for the last 20 years, has demonstrated little more than an attitude of hostility, spite and ill-will toward everybody who dare challenge his religious opinions?  This Complaint compiles all of the disputed libels and demonstrated that Holding has committed the crime of perjury numerous times.  Download here. (update, October 13, 2021: the Court has since required that I filed a fourth amended Complaint. So I did, but it is less comprehensive than the earlier one.  The details that will satisfy Christians that James Patrick Holding is an unrepentant slanderer are not included in the fourth amended complaint, but regardless, that complaint still highlights Holding's illegal tax schemes.  Download here.

The most egregious of these instances of perjury was what I documented as his "tenth" act of perjury, namely, his having stated in a response to an interrogatory in 2015 that he has "never deliberately intended to insult anyone by his communications", an answer that is followed by his attorney's signature.  See page 486 ff.  You probably don't need to be told that I then use up 30 pages of the Complaint proving that Holding was not only lying here, he KNEW he was lying when he gave that answer.

James Patrick Holding never deliberately intended to insult anybody?  ARE YOU HIGH ON CRACK?

In a prior settlement offer, Holding proposed that I submit my counter-apologetics book drafts to him for editing, then he would assist me in getting them published.

So you might want to contact Holding and ask him what precedent there is in the New Testament for Christians to help anti-Christians publish anti-Christian works. jphold@att.net. His newer email address is: jphold99@gmail.com.   Or contact him by responding to one of his videos here.

Maybe he'll do a video on that subject, and shock the Christian world with an argument that Jesus might very well want a Christian to help a non-Christian publish blasphemy.

Then you might want to ask the world's smartest Christian defender of biblical inerrancy why there seems to be a contradiction between his desire to help anti-Christians publish anti-Christian works, and the apostle Paul's belief that anti-Christian speech must be suppressed (Titus 1:11, Psalm 101:3, Matthew 23:15).

UPDATE:
You may wonder whether Mr. Holding now understands that his prior "insult" style of apologetics was sinful.  I think he does, but he is also aware of the problems that bit of honesty creates.  If he admitted his slandering people in the past was sinful, he'd have to apologize to them, or at least to those whom he slandered the most, like me.

Mr. Holding is a big-mouth "know-it-all" who has constructed his internet presence to make sure he is constantly surrounded by decidedly less informed and fawning fans who salivate at his every word.  Apologizing would be a blow to his pride.  When you are plagued with the sin of pride as deeply as Mr. Holding is, you will not do anything that would entail that you apologize to anybody, ever.  If Holding was arrested for deliberately running over a small child in anger, he'd probably become a Calvinist before he ever got into the cop car.  If James Patrick Holding did it, then it cannot possibly be a sin.  But notice how the bible condemns Mr. Holding's filthy slanders and "reviling":


 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)


 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; (Matt. 15:18-20 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. (Eph. 5:3-5 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,
 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- (Col. 3:6-10 NAU)

I offer more here.  And here.  And here.

See especially my 2017 blog entry providing all the reasons Holding (a closet homosexual) is disqualified, under biblical criteria, from possessing any Christian "teacher" position.  See here.

I also just advertised this post at Holding's YouTube channel, here's a screenshot:

======================----------------------------

I also disclosed the latest to one of Holding's followers "Zachary Cawley", who surprised me with his wisdom in refusing to draw a conclusion until the end of the case:

The following was posted to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbSUszyDIZQ   on August 4,  about 4 pm Pacific Standard Time.

Barry Jones
2 hours ago
Praise Report:  "Christian" apologist James Patrick Holding was sued for libel due to many false statements he posted to a domain he purchased exclusively for the purpose.  The domain provider, InMotion Hosting, agreed with me that the content violated their terms of service, and accordingly suspended the website.

Just how much do you suppose that's going to hurt Holding's defense at trial?

See the details at https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/08/james-patrick-holding-libelous.html

Maybe the world's smartest Christian apologist can now explain why he thinks InMotion Hosting's lawyers are "morons" or "dumbasses", since those are the epithets Holding has, for the last 20 years, hurled at anybody else who dare disagree with his opinions.  Only in this case, InMotion Hosting's lawyers are also disagreeing with the opinions of Holding's own lawyer, Scott Livingston. 
Zachary Cawley
35 minutes ago (edited)
What Holding's case has to do with this vid, I cannot fathom. Regardless, the types of people he calls "morons" are the ones that would not hesitate to hurl insults at him just for being a Christian. In which case, they receive their just desserts when called out for critcal errors in their exegesis of any given biblical text.
 So far as the civil case regarding "libel," it's probably going to end up the same as all the other defamation cases Doscher filed. Does he even have a reputation to speak of?
 EDIT: I find the fact you chose to bring that up here, when I said nothing of Holding and Doscher in the video, to be extremely telling. You are so eager to bring him and his supporters down, you are willing to disrupt the flow of the actual topic in order to do it. That is the impression I am getting, anyway.
 
 Barry Jones
30 minutes ago
@Zachary Cawley yes, he does.  But perhaps the more important concern for you is the bible's teaching that Christian "brothers" who constantly 'revile' others are not qualified to be "teachers", so that you need to stop viewing Holding as a teacher until he repents of his slanders:

 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. 5:11-13 NAU)

Doesn't it bother you that while Mr. Holding wants to be viewed as a christian "teacher", he fails the biblical criteria for such office? 
 Zachary Cawley
19 minutes ago
@Barry Jones Last I checked, he is not a pastor anyway even if what you say is true. Also, I never said he was a teacher, so I have no idea where this is coming from. You have yet to even establish what those "slanderous" accusations were. I will wait for the close of the case to conclude anything, as I was not even aware of this new case you refer to. Quick to hear, slow to speak, in other words.
 Barry Jones
16 minutes ago
@Zachary Cawley You said "the types of people he calls "morons" are the ones that would not hesitate to hurl insults at him just for being a Christian."

I reply:
If he calls them names for the reason you gave, then he is violating NT ethics, which forbid retaliatory name-calling.   1st Peteter 2:21-23.

You said:  " In which case, they receive their just desserts when called out for critcal errors in their exegesis of any given biblical text."

I reply:
You got it all wrong, bro.  the bible specifically forbids you from fellowshipping with "brothers" who constantly "revile" others, 1st Cor, 5:9-13.

You said:
So far as the civil case regarding "libel," it's probably going to end up the same as all the other defamation cases Doscher filed.

I reply:
If InMotion Hosting's lawyer felt the content was sufficiently libelous to deem it a punishable violation of their terms of service, that counts as the professional legal opinion of somebody other than Doscher, that the libelous comments documented in his latest Complaint really are libelous.

You said:
 Does he even have a reputation to speak of?
  
I reply:
You don't understand Florida's libel law.  Florida does not accept the "libel-proof" doctrine, therefore, Florida does not recognize the notion that someone has such a bad reputation that it cannot be further tarnished by libel. 

You are also manifesting your spiritual immaturity.  the issue is not whether I have a reputation to speak of, but whether Holding has violated any biblical ethic applicable to him in defaming me.  He did.  Go ahead, google "bible defamation gossip slander reviling", the bible says nothing good about these vices.

You also forget that Holding's own mentor Gary Habermas stopped publicly endorsing him because of Holding's foul unChrist-like mouth.  Both Habermas and Licona condemn Holding's insulting-style in no uncertain terms, along with Dr. Rorhrbough, founding member of the Context Group, who said Holding's article justifying insulting speech was an "obvious perversion" of Rohrbaugh's work and the NT itself.  I can provide the documentation if you are interested

Barry Jones
11 minutes ago
@Zachary Cawley You said:
@Barry Jones Last I checked, he is not a pastor anyway even if what you say is true. "
 I reply:
that's irrelevant:  you can be a "teacher" without being a "pastor".  So his failing the teacher criteria continues to condemn his ministry, especially given that the express purpose of his ministry is to create "educational" materials.
 You said:
Also, I never said he was a teacher, so I have no idea where this is coming from.
 I reply:
You don't need to say he is a teacher.  Holding holds himself out as a Christian teacher, that's enough, it doesn't require your acceptance before his claim can be refuted from the bible and his own long list of "reviling" sins.
 you said:
You have yet to even establish what those "slanderous" accusations were.
 I reply,
that's why I gave you the link to that latest 170-page Complaint. Read it.
 Here's the blog page with the link, again:
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/06/james-patrick-holding-has-committed.html
 You said:   I will wait for the close of the case to conclude anything, as I was not even aware of this new case you refer to. Quick to hear, slow to speak, in other word
 I reply:
that's far wiser than most of Holding's followers, who cannot imagine him as anything other than a manga warrior who never does anything worthy of cutting off fellowship.
 
Barry Jones
6 minutes ago
@Zachary Cawley You said:
EDIT: I find the fact you chose to bring that up here, when I said nothing of Holding and Doscher in the video, to be extremely telling. You are so eager to bring him and his supporters down, you are willing to disrupt the flow of the actual topic in order to do it. That is the impression I am getting, anyway.

I reply:
that's the  wrong impression, I had no intention of disrupting a conversation, but I had no other way to get in contact with you, and regardless, if your faith hero is biblically disqualified from holding any office of Christian "teacher", that's probably more important, from a spiritual standpoint, than your youtube notification that you don't want to become involved in a spat between "eso" and "filthy".

Friday, May 10, 2019

Libel lawsuit: court approves of my request to file ECF

James Patrick Holding assured his readers, in the comment section of a youtube video, that they could consult his channel for "updates" on my libel lawsuit against him.

For unknown reasons, those comments have disappeared. 

My blog won't disappear however, and readers can stay updated here.

Since readers might wish to talk about or dispute any specific update, I will be creating new posts for each update in the future instead of just modifying one post and making it longer and longer.

Here's where we are so far:
  • I filed the original complaint in court.  
  • I sought to have the filing fee waived, which means the court must review the Complaint for possible frivolity or other problems before waiving the filing fee.
  • The magistrate judge threatened dismissal with an Order using vague language accusing my Complaint of "loosely" alleging facts but not in any coherent complete fashion, and gave me a chance to "amend" the Complaint to cure such alleged pleading defects.
  • I filed a motion for reconsideration of that Order, but in an abundance of caution, also filed a 1st Amended Complaint just to leave the Court one less excuse to tank the case.
  • The court denied my motion for reconsideration, without going into why I was wrong to accuse the Order of being directly contrary to clear and binding precedent that requires liberality be extended toward "pro se" litigants.
  • As of today, May 10, 2019, the Court  granted my motion to proceed in forma pauperis (i.e., waiving the filing fee).
  • Granting such a motion means the Court also waived the expense of service of process, and directs the Clerk to assign a federal marshal to serve the papers on Defendant Apologetics Afield. 
  • So if you were wondering why Mr. Mouthy Narcissitic Asshole Apologist suddenly got all demure in the last month or so and stopped yapping so frequently about the lawsuit, now you know why.  It looked for a while like Holding would get his wish and the Court would, again, tank my lawsuit on unjustified grounds.
  • Now that Holding's dreams have had their brains bashed out against the rocks (Psalm 137:9), yes, we fully expect Mr. Mouth to suddenly discover that God has suddenly decided that he go back to being Mr. Mouth again.
  • Then again, I sued Holding in a way that forced him to hire a real lawyer...and since Holding earlier testified on YouTube that his prior lawyer didn't see things his way and had to tell Holding things he didn't wish to hear, there's a fair chance that if Mr. Mouth doesn't return to his insulting ways, its because his lawyer has told him what his prior lawyer told him...Shut the fuck up with all of this online pestering of Doscher, it only makes it seem Doscher's criticism of you as an incorrigable know-it-all unlikely to change his ways, is correct, and might make the jury think only a higher amount of punitive damages has any hope of setting your stupid ass straight for the first time in your life.
(you can also watch the updates for free either at PacerMonitor here, or go to the Florida Middle District "recent opinion" page here and search the case titles for "Doscher", and if they have uploaded any order in the case, you'll get a pdf of the entire order)

For obvious reasons, I won't be making available online all of the material I plan to use or argue; no attorney in the world would say "yeah, just thrust everything in your argument out on the internet to satisfy the Christians infected with the Jerry Springer demon"

The link to my original Complaint is here.

The link to my motion for reconsideration and 1st Amended Complaint is here.

A rather comprehensive list of Holding's gayness and spiritual immaturity was recorded in the extensive Complaint I filed in the 2016 lawsuit. That Complaint and more can be downloaded from here.

I was going to post a bit more commentary, but for reasons I cannot disclose, I decline.  What I've already posted should give a fair clue as to the shit-storm Holding created for himself.  See here.

Since I presume Holding's followers will likely wish to dispute specific case developments that happen to go in my favor, I'll be making separate posts for all future updates.  Then again, Holding has probably already notified his pussy-followers than his lawyer recommends they not engage with me.  Which means they are more willing to follow worldly advice from non-Christian lawyers, than they are willing to act according to the "fuck you" style of apologetics they usually employ everywhere else on the internet.

Saturday, February 23, 2019

My email about James Patrick Holding to Orlando Baptist

(See end for updates:  Holding threatened to post more about me if I talked disparagingly about him to third-parties, so I plan on talking disparagingly about him to as many third-parties as I have time to notify. Of course, ALL factual allegations I communicate to third parties concerning Holding are true).


Hello, 

I'm sure that you yourself as a Christian do not go around insulting everybody who disagree with you.  It's just sort of obvious that such conduct is unbecoming anybody naming the name of Christ.

But there is a Christian "apologist" living near you who does this, and you might find that his pathological need to constantly hurl filthy slurs at his critics might be a case of a sinful brother that could use your prayers.

His name is James Patrick Holding (formerly Robert Turkel). 
His address is  2609 GREYWALL AVE. OCOEE, FL 34761
His email is jphold@att.net

Jesus required you to view unrepentant sinful brothers the way 1st century Jews viewed Gentiles and tax-collectors:


 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)

The bible makes perfectly clear that Christians are to put away abusive speech and filthy language:

Ephesians 5
 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)

Colossians 3
 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,
 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- (Col. 3:6-10 NAU)

The bible also makes it clear that if you know any "Christian" who commits the sin of "reviling", you are to disassociate yourself from him:


 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. 5:11-13 NAU)

D.A. Carson notes that the modern church's shocking apathy toward this command of Paul:
The ease with which the present day church often passes judgment on the ethical or structural misconduct of the outside community is at times matched only by its reluctance to take action to remedy the ethical conduct of its own members. We have reversed Paul’s order of things.
Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed.
edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) (1 Co 5:9). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

The NAU uses the world "reviler".  This word means "to subject to verbal abuse, vituperate, to use abusive language, rail..."
Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.)



"Revile" in the Greek is λοίδορος / loidoros, and the standard lexical authorities say it refers to a person who constantly hurls abusive insulting speech at others:

Kittel-Bromiley
 1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
 2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]



"The cognate noun λοιδορία, according to BAGD, 479, means “verbal abuse,” or “reproach.” 
D. B. Garlington, "Burden Bearing And The Recovery Of  Offending Christians (Galatians 6:1–5)"
Trinity Journal 12:2 (Fall 1991) 162

Every time this Greek word is used in the NT, it always carries the negative connotation of verbal abuse:
NAU Ps. 74:18  Remember this, O LORD, that the enemy has reviled, And a foolish people has spurned Your name.
NAU Jn. 9:28 They reviled him and said, "You are His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.
NAU 1 Cor. 4:12  and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure;
NAU 1 Pet. 2:23  and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;

The NET bible has "verbally abusive" at 1st Cor. 5:11, the NIV has "slanderer"

Mr. Holding generally identifies as Southern Baptist, but they are also strongly against the sin of slander. 
See http://www.sbclife.net/article/1549/acceptable-sins


Holding sometimes writes for the Christian Research Journal.  But CRI is also strongly against the sin of slander. 
See https://www.equip.org/article/reclaiming-civility-as-a-christian-virtue/

I think it appropriate to notify you and warn you of this Mr. Holding, since despite my having sued him for libel 3 times now, he has never once expressed the least bit of remorse for his sins of slander and reviling.  In fact, he appears to have been emboldened by each lawsuit to just go out and revile and slander me even more, hence the repeated lawsuits.  For these reasons, this is one of those exceptional situations calling for employment of Jesus' advice that we should tell the entire church about an alleged brother's consistent sinning and lack of remorse (Matthew 18:17).  

The problem is that Mr. Holding obviously wants the Christian world to believe he is properly qualified under biblical criteria to be a Christian "teacher".
Obviously he's delusional on that point, James 3:1 says:


Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren,
knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

What fool would say a Christian "apologist" who spews filthy language, can still somehow also be spiritually mature enough to qualify as a "teacher"?  
Let's put that another way:  How long can a Christian "apologist" live in direct defiance of Ephesians 5:4, and Colossians 3:8, before we are justified to say his claim to being genuinely born-again is suspect?    
If God really does view all sins as equally wicked (James 2:10-11), then it would not be consistent with the NT to trifle that Holding's slanders are less sinful than the sexual sins of a Christian who constantly commits adultery.  Now if you wouldn't allow a ceaselessly remorseless adulterer to teach Christians, why would you ever allow a ceaseless slanderer to teach Christians?

Holding's slanders became so incessant that two properly qualified Christian scholars, who formerly endorsed Holding's ministry, no longer do so.  I'm talking about Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Gary Habermas.  Both men always advise Christians to avoid insulting people during apologetics discussions.
See here:   https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/04/mike-licona-likely-thinks-james-patrick.html

Attached to this email are two pdf documents.

The first attachment is my 2016 libel lawsuit against Holding.  It is the most comprehensive documentation of Mr. Holding's sinful slanders, which makes it useful to those Christians who are, somehow, unaware of Mr. Holding's obsession with this sin. Starting at page 23 and paragraph 106 ff, you will find many quotes from Holding, showing that even other Christian apologists have complained about his homosexual tendencies, and that he uses filthy insulting slurs against anybody he disagrees with.


The second attachment is my current lawsuit against Holding.  Holding appears to have gone from "slander with pornographic filth" over to "slander by misrepresenting somebody's legal cases".

Other Christians constantly tell me that they are aware that Holding can be "harsh" in his apologetics, but I hope the above information will dispel that rumor.  "Harsh" isn't necessarily "sinful", so to call his words "harsh" is inaccurate, as it operates as an attempted but false moral defense of his language.  But as you can see, the person who takes the time to collect a comprehensive catalog of Holding's speech can show that it is more accurate to label it as "sin".

Or in this case, constantly repeated sin that Holding not only never repents of, but thinks is actually holy, just and good (!?).

I have extensively documented Mr. Holding's homosexuality and slanders at my blog:
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/01/james-patrick-holdings-quietly-deleted.html

I sincerely hope you will do what Jesus and Paul obviously required you to do.  If Holding has been doing Christian apologetics teaching for 20 years, and yet still manifests the fruit of a demented 12-year old juvenile delinquent, you'd be reasonable to conclude that genuinely born-again Christians, while having occasional problems with sin, more than likely wouldn't have THIS much of a problem with sin.  The "Christian" whose sins are at this level of obstinate pathology are more than likely fake Christians.  The reason they manifest no fruit of the spirit is precisely because they were never born again in the first place.  

You might consider the stupidity of allowing a fake Christian to teach real Christians about the bible.  Feel free to cc this warning to whomever you will.  I had to make the hard choice that warning other Christians away from Holding is more important than is my preference for privacy.

Sincerely,
Christian Doscher

 Update: February 25, 2019
I just forwarded this email to info@karlaelgin.com, this is Karla Elgin, counselor at
http://southorlandobaptist.org/who-we-are-2/church-staff/









Thursday, February 21, 2019

James Patrick Holding's threats are laughable

Last week Holding posted this comment to one of his videos:

DecKrash
If it's possible, you ought to use Weird Al's song, "I'll Sue Ya" as background music for the next video about this scumbag. :-P
tektontv
I actually did refer to that song as exemplary of his work in a TheologyWeb thread in 2015. It offended him so deeply that he referred to it in his home state complaint. Just so everyone knows, I will be putting out at least one video/blog entry on Doscher every two weeks until he stops harassing me with lawsuits. In addition, if I find out or hear that he has written to anyone about me disparagingly, they will be sent links to any relevant documents such as the expert witness testimony on his bus "accident". I'm not playing any more.
First, I think Holding is a being irrational here:  He says he'll be posting one video/blog entry about me per week until I stop harassing him with lawsuits?  That doesn't even make sense: he knows this third libel lawsuit is going to remain in active litigation for at least the next year.  it isn't like I file lawsuits against him on a weekly or even yearly basis.

Second, he's also irrational because now that he has my 97-page Complaint, he knows exactly why I characterize as libelous his reports of my prior judicial proceedings.  If Mr. Holding continues to misrepresent those proceedings in future posts, I will be amending the Complaint to add new charges.  If his future reports on those judicial proceedings are not libelous, I'll be arguing that because Holding knew after February 21, 2019, how to report on those proceedings in a non-libelous way, he likely also knew how to do this in non-libelous fashion before that date, therefore, the libels as currently alleged in the Complaint were not the result of his mistaken understanding of libel law, but his willful flouting of it.

And given Holding's proud boasts in 2015 about what a legal scholar he is with his 7 years of running a law library, and the fact that he was sued twice in the past for libel, he likely won't be telling the jury in 2019 or 2020 that his misrepresentations in 2017-2019 of my prior court cases were because he was honestly ignorant of what the law required of him.  No sir, Mr. Know-It-All cannot plead ignorance...unless he wants the jury to think him dishonest.  That's the price you pay when you are a know-it-all...when you fuck up, you cannot plead ignorance, and at that point you look as culpable as it is possible to look.

Third, I must assume that Holding finally figured out that the cheapest lawyers (i.e., the Christian lawyers Holding went to first, who thus are the most likely to feel sorry for him and offer him a discount on legal fees in the name a' Jesus) felt that he was wrong, told him he was wrong, and as a result, he won't be misrepresenting my prior court cases anymore because he doesn't desire to lose more Christian friends.
(Holding has also already admitted in one of his YouTube posts that his own lawyer during the 2015 lawsuit told him he could gain an advantage by removing a libelous article about me...clearly this lawyer did not agree with Holding's morality or his interpretation of the law...leaving the readers to wonder:  Did Holding then call his own lawyer and 'dumbass' and 'moron', the way Holding calls names at anybody else who disagree with his infallible opinions?  If not, why not?  Is his name-calling arbitrary?  Does he play favorites the exact same way that any atheist would?).

Fourth, for those who wish to know how "scared" I am of Holding's threat to post more about me every time he finds out I talked about him with some new third-party, here is my response:

I recently did a google search for Holding, found out he gave a speech in 2007 at the Shepherd's Fellowship Baptist Church, so I emailed the senior pastor there and warned him about Holding, and we had a discussion, which included me providing said pastor with a copy of the 2019 Complaint.  When the pastor said he knew Holding's apologetics were harsh but didn't know he did anything wrong, I then sent the pastor a copy of the 2016 Florida Complaint...you know...the one which extensively documents Holding's repeatedly employing pornographically filthy slurs that show him to have the emotional maturity level of a demented 12-year old juvenile delinquent.

You know..the sins of abusive speech and slander that Holding has never, and will never, repent of?

Here is the email exchange so far:

a 3rd libel lawsuit against James Patrick Holding
Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com>
Feb 17, 2019, 3:33 PM (4 days ago)
to clifflea, pastor
Hello,
I understand that James Patrick Holding is or was a member of your church, according to
http://www.sfofgso.org/apologetic.asp.

Don't know if you are aware, but Mr. Holding's sins of reviling and slander are utterly out of control.

I had to file a civil lawsuit against him for libel.  You can keep up with the case here
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26884971/Doscher_v_Apologetics_Afield,_Inc

The 97-page complaint is attached for your convenience.

I would ask that you start the Matthew 18 process, given that Mr. Holding's sins of slander have been on-going without ceasing for the last 20 years, he isn't known for much more.

 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)
 Attachments area
Cliff Lea           
Feb 19, 2019, 12:09 PM (2 days ago)
to me
Barry,
                I’m sorry for what you are going through in this case.  I know JP, but he has not been associated with our church in several years.  He attends a church in the Orlando area now…so I don’t sense the need for church discipline from us.
Sincerely in Christ, Pastor Cliff

Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com>  
Feb 19, 2019, 1:15 PM (2 days ago)  
to Cliff
Thank you for your response.
Well, do you have any ideas about what I might do?  Has Mr. Holding done anything that would warrant Christians in praying that God move him to repentance?

Cliff Lea        
Feb 19, 2019, 1:23 PM (2 days ago)  
to me
I don’t really have much to offer.  I have heard that he can be harsh in his apologetics, but I’ve never observed anything personally that caused me concern…

Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com>  
AttachmentsFeb 19, 2019, 1:40 PM (2 days ago)     
to Cliff
Ok, then FYI, attached is the 2nd libel lawsuit Complaint I had filed against Holding in 2016.

Go to page 23, paragraph 106 and following, I had to document Mr. Holding's immoral language.

Holding is not merely "harsh" in his apologetics, but so pornographically filthy that even other Christian apologists such as Steve Hays and Dr. James White have objected to it.
Any conservative evangelical would likely find Holding's slanderous abusive speech to be in violation of Ephesians 5:4 and Colossians 3:8----

 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,
 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--   (Col. 3:6-10 NAU)

Once you read the attached 2016 Complaint, you'll likely find that Holding for the last
20 years has been that "brother" who constantly slanders or "reviles" others, the "brother"
whom Paul said must be expelled:

 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. 5:11-13 NAU)

I am constantly flummoxed at how Holding can have such a filthy reputation and yet so many upstanding evangelical conservative Christians apparently either don't know or don't care about his many sins of slander.
    

Feb 20, 2019, 7:55 AM (1 day ago)
to me
HI Barry,
Thanks for reaching out. I haven't had a chance to look at your complaint yet, but I just wanted to let you know that the link you sent is just to a conference that took place back in 2007 in which he was one of our speakers. He was not then, nor has he ever been a member of our church. As far as I am aware, we have had no contact with him nor have we promoted him or his ministry in probably ten years. Sorry to hear about your situation though, I pray it is resolved.
Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com>  
Feb 20, 2019, 11:16 AM (1 day ago)
to Jeff
Might I get your scripturally based opinion then?

Do you believe the morality requirements in Ephesians 5:4 and Colossians 3:8 are absolute upon all genuinely born again Christians in all times, places and circumstances?

Or would you side with Mr. Holding and argue that such passages are limited in scope, and that using pornographically filthy language to slander and revile critics of Christianity is allowed for in the bible?  And thanks for praying about the situation.
------------------------------------------

Let's be generous:  I responded to this pastor FOUR times.  Therefore Holding can feel free to create 4 new posts/videos about me...as long as they show that he has, since I filed this latest lawsuit, learned how to stop violating comment F to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611.  (Once again, if his future posts report on those prior court cases in a fair, accurate and impartial manner, I will be arguing that Mr. Know-It-All knew how to do this between 2017-2019, the time when he composed the libelous posts now at issue in the current Complaint.  If his future posts about my prior court cases continue his pattern of misrepresentation, I'll be amending the Complaint to add new chargesHe will either comply with my wishes, or suffer legal penalties).

For obvious reasons, I fear Holding's threat to continue posting about me, about as much as I fear a newborn gazelle might possibly brutalize a pack of hungry lions.

Once again, James Patrick Holding is a remorseless obstinate pretentious cocksucker, who clearly thinks preserving his pride is always more important than honestly admitting his sins of slander and reviling.  But like a rabid pit bull, not even recent experience with getting kicked in the head ($21,000 in legal fees to get rid of my 2015 lawsuit) has any effect on him.  He bites the live electrical cords, sparks fly, he eyeballs melt, but animal instinct compels him to just keep chomping down regardless.


Like a reptile, he can do no other except repeat the past behavior that resulted in him sustaining serious injury.   I'd have more luck teaching an alligator to stop being a carnivore, than in convincing Holding to quit playing with fire.

I also strongly suspect that the Christian lawyers he's already contacted, conveniently became "too busy" to represent him after they read the 2019 Complaint.  While Holding has a lot of contacts within the Christian world, I'm betting $50 the exact lawyer that he ends up hiring in this case won't themselves be a Christian. Defending this bitch would require the services of a person who cares more about generating billable hours and less about whether his client is actually guilty as charged.  You won't find too many "Christian" lawyers like that.

What a scumbag, not even Christian lawyers will take his case!

Thursday, January 31, 2019

James Patrick Holding, unconscionable liar, guilty of libel, see the third lawsuit

I didn't want to do this because I have an interest in not having the entire world know more about me than I wish to reveal, which makes me about as unacceptably unique as about 6 billion other people.

At the same time, James Patrick Holding has proven himself to be an unconscionable liar in and out of court (yes, that means I am asserting as fact, not opinion or satire, that he intentionally stated falsehoods in court while he was under oath, so that if I'm lying about this, it would be libel).

Since Mr. Holding's butt-fuck followers are so quick to judge that my third libel lawsuit against him was frivolous, I now offer that Complaint in full.

Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, the third libel lawsuit.

Download here.
my email address is barryjoneswhat@gmail.com
James Patrick Holding's email address is jphold@att.net

 UPDATE February 1, 2019:

 Mr. Holding says:
Well, I gave Doscher every chance to drop this nonsense and leave me alone. All he had to do was go his way in peace and let me go my way. Instead, he filed a 97 page complaint with 41 charges of libel per se and demanding $450,000 in damages. Fine. As I told him once, I'm not playing any more. Absolutely nothing will be spared this time around. He'll end up dealing with me, even though he thinks he's being clever by suing my dead ministry org. News will be posted here as it occurs.  
 See comment section here

I'm afraid Mr. Holding is mistaken.  I had no interest in simply dropping my intended third lawsuit against him.  Perhaps someday Holding will stop deluding himself with the lie that I'm in any way "scared" of him. 


If you are miffed that I filed a third libel lawsuit against Holding, and you are "sure" that I've falsely accused him therein, do what would normally be expected of somebody capable of arguing in fair fashion:  State the pages and paragraphs number in the Complaint for the accusations and  legal arguments you think are false, and state your reasons why they are false.  Otherwise, if all you are doing is imitating Mr. Holding's irrational juvenile delinquent crying-fest, such as he or one of his followers did (see below), I will have to make a decision on whether a reasonable mature adult would or "should" dignify such childish outburst with any response, and I might decide that because such outburst is trying to "bait" me to say things that can be dishonestly twisted against me in Court, I might decide to avoid responding.

Or if you are too much of a pussy to confront ME with such argument, be sure to email Holding and give him any advice you feel would be useful to his defense.  That way, when the jury awards me substantial damages, you will have to live with the fact that when the world's smartest lawyer was sued for libel, and was properly represented by his own chosen lawyer the whole time, and was constantly advised by his various friends around the world, he STILL could not prevail.

Then afterward you can consider making "why juries are always wrong" the 28th book of the NT.

For those who are wondering:

I am quite aware of Mr. Holding's pretending I only sue his dead corporation because I'm "afraid" for him to cross-examine me personally.  Mr. Holding is mistaken for several reasons:

a) this contention of his logically implies his fear that his own lawyer will not wish to attack me with all the "dirt" on me that Holding wishes to attack me with.  Holding might wish to seriously consider that the reason no actual real lawyer would wish to grill me that much is because the legal system simply doesn't allow, for purposes of justice, what Mr. Holding's entire life-purpose is built around:  slinging mud.  But if Holding is confident that his lawyer will grill me about every piece of allegedly credibility-impeaching "dirt" Holding wishes to throw at me on the witness-stand...then what is Holding complaining about?

If Holding's own chosen lawyer does NOT grill me on the witness stand with every piece of "dirt" Holding wishes to grill me with, will Holding publicly assert his lawyer's disagreement with him makes that lawyer a "moron", the way he publicly asserts the same about anybody who disagree with him?

I'm guessing "no".

b) I hereby give notice to Mr. Holding that he is advised that while his lawyer prepares notes and evidence to impeach my credibility during trial, Holding should also prepare, starting today, his own notes and evidence so that he can cross-examine me personally, without his lawyer.   If after the close of discovery and at any time before trial I decide that most of the libels alleged in the complaint were the work of Mr. Holding personally and not in his capacity as director of Apologetics Afield (very unlikely since the Complaint provides good evidence the libels were legally the work of the corporation) I will file a motion to amend my complaint, seeking to drop "Apologetics Afield" as Defendant and replace with "James Patrick Holding".

That way, when trial date arrives, Holding will not need a lawyer, he can represent himself "pro se", and will therefore be allowed to cross-examine me personally.  Gee, I'm really scared of Holding, eh?

I'm not saying I won't be objecting to Mr. Holding's "dirt" on me, ALL parties to a lawsuit routinely file a "motion in limine" just before trial, attempting to persuade the judge that certain evidence the other party is likely to bring up in front of the jury, has greater prejudicial than probative power.

What Mr. Holding also failed to note is that Florida law allows juries on libel cases to awared punitive damages even if they award no actual damages.  If therefore I decide to amend my complaint and remove all claims for actual damages, I'd STILL be able to ask the jury for substantial damages.

In Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Brown, 66 So.2d 679, 680-81 (Fla.1953), the court made clear that general damages for defamation per se are "those which the law presumes must naturally, proximately, and necessarily result from the publication of the libelous matter. They arise by inference of law, and are not required to be proved by evidence." Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, 66 So.2d 495 (Fla.1953), agreed that damages are presumed to result from defamation per se and need not be proved.  The singular protection afforded by Florida law to personal reputation in actions for defamations per se is further seen by the fact that punitive damages may be the primary relief in a cause of action for defamation per se. Jones v. Greeley, 25 Fla. 629, 6 So. 448, 450 (1889), held that malice is an intrinsic part of actions for defamation per se in order that the jury may consider punitive damages. In Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803 (Fla.1984), the court added that the express malice for punitive damages under Florida law is present where the evidence shows that an intention to injure the plaintiff was the primary motive for statements defamatory per se.[26]

Lawnwood Medical Center Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So. 3d 710, 727 (Fla: DCA 4th Dist. 2010)


UPDATE February 1, 2019:  The stupidity of Holding and his followers: 

 The "reply" function here does not allow more than about 4,000 words, so I'm "updating" this post to provide a point by point critique of yet another dumbshit who is either Mr. Holding himself or one of his "zeal without knowledge" juvenile delinquent followers:
Lmao!
 You are rather stupid, given that your below-cited comments support my contention in this lawsuit that Mr. Holding's libels really do cause third-parties to view me with hatred, contempt, disgrace, distrust, etc (i.e., the social opprobrium Florida identifies as libel per se and allowing damages even absent any actual proof of damages, see Lawnwood, supra)..

The latest lawsuit against Holding is a 97-page complaint asserting 41 separate counts of libel per se.  What are the odds that

a) you are educated in Florida libel law, and
b) your "Lmao" results from your educated opinion that this lawsuit is legally and factually frivolous?

not good, obviously.

Sure, you are angry that Holding is tied up in another lawsuit, but honesty would counsel that you first determine for yourself whether the slander-charges are true, not whether I'm getting in the way your Savior's uploading of entertaining cartoon videos to YouTube.  I have charged your savior with slandering me.  If those charges are true, his culpability is great:  it isn't rocket science or post-Nicene trinitarianism...its basic biblical ethics:

...And he who spreads slander is a fool. (Prov. 10:18 NAU)
 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
 (Mk. 7:21-23 NAU)
 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip. (Prov. 20:19 NAU)
 19. Gossips are treacherous; cf. Instruction of Amen-em-ope: “Spread not thy words to the common people, nor associate to thyself one too outgoing of heart” (ANET 424a).20.
ANET J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (rev. ed.; Princeton, 1955)
Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E.
The Jerome Biblical commentary (electronic ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 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)
"Reviler" in the Greek is  λοίδορος---loidoros, and several lexicons make clear it is talking about the person who goes around insulting and slandering others.  From TDNT:
449 
λοιδορέω loidoreÃoÒ [to revile, abuse],
λοιδορία loidoriÃa [abuse],
λοίδορος loiÃdoros [reviler],
ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
 1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
 2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]---------Source: here.
Danker:
4004  λοίδορος
λοίδορος,ου,ὁ [fr. a source shared by Lat. ludus ‘game’] insolent person 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10. 
Source:  here.
Don't know what "insolent" means?
in•so•lent \-s(ə-)lənt\ adj
1           insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct :  overbearing
Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary.
Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Gee, since you cannot think of any evidence that Holding has ever been "insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct", you are sure he isn't the kind of "reviler" Paul required you to disfellowship, amen?

What's next?  The standard lexicons are lying to us about what biblical words mean?  FUCK YOU.

If you bother your brain long enough to remember that Holding's achieving dismissal of the prior two lawsuits I filed against him had nothing to do with determining the merits of my accusations, you might hold off showing the world just how far your zeal exceeds your knowledge.  Holding may have died for your sins, but that doesn't mean he can walk on water, he's imperfect, I don't really give a fuck if you see it differently.

Mr. Anonymous continues:
Aside from all your previous lawsuits that failed,
Incorrect.  You appear to be under the delusion that if you cannot find it on Google, then it didn't happen to me.  Such ignorance is consistent with your inflammatory and baseless zeal.   If you were talking about my prior two libel lawsuits against Holding, then apparently you are under the delusion that Jesus approves of the way lawyers exploit technicalities and thereby avoid justice.  You'd be wrong:
 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. (Matt. 23:23 NAU)
 And since you apparently have more mouth than brain, I filed this Complaint "in forma pauperis" asking for the filing fee to be waived.  So if the Complaint was indeed "filed", it was only after a judge reviewed it to make sure the factual allegations, if true, would state a legally valid cause of action for libel:

From Murray v. Collins, Dist. Court, MD Florida 2019
"A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact." Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Battle v. Central State Hosp., 898 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1990)).
A complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is not automatically frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989).
Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are "indisputably meritless," id. at 327, or when the claims rely on factual allegations which are "clearly baseless." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
"Frivolous claims include claims `describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.'" Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).
Additionally, a claim may be dismissed as frivolous when it appears that a plaintiff has little or no chance of success. Id.
With respect to whether a complaint "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) mirrors the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), so courts apply the same standard in both contexts. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008).
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
"Labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" that amount to "naked assertions" will not do. Id. (quotations, alteration, and citation omitted).
Moreover, a complaint must "contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotations and citations omitted).
 More specifically, the Florida Middle District (which approved of my IFP request) has previously refused to dismiss Complaints for libel where the alleged libels looked far less egregious than the libels Mr. Holding engaged in:

From Dibble v. AVRICH, Dist. Court, SD Florida 2014
What in Tarnation is a Surrogate Dibble, No way this can be a real human beings name, low class redneck pig excrement, redneck asshole, PATHETIC, LOWCLASS, INBRED REDNECK SCUMBAG, venom-spewing, mud-sucking, LOW-CLASS REDNECK, REDNECK LOSERS, SON OF A BITCH, SCUMBAG DRIBBLE, Now do us all a big favor and go play some Russian Roulette with SIX rounds in the chamber
WHAT IN TARNATION IS A SURROGATE DIBBLE, This low-class, inbred, half-witted, redneck, idiot, horse's ass, bully, CHEAPSKATE AND ASSHOLE, venom-spewing, mud-sucking clown, NON-CUSTOMER, pig-farmer, miserable redneck loser, Surrogate Dibble yo-yo, son of a bitch, SCUMBAG DRIBBLE
Defendants contend that Avrich's offending statements amount to nothing more than rhetorical name-calling or expressions of opinion which cannot be construed as statements of fact. Therefore, they argue, the statements cannot constitute actionable defamation. Defendant's comments stem from his apparently strongly-held convictions about Plaintiff's name. This may turn out to be a case about literal name calling. But, Defendant's publications also contain statements about Plaintiff's intelligence, class, ancestry and business-relevant qualities. As examples of the latter, Defendant allegedly stated that Plaintiff might not be a real person, is a cheapskate, a "non-customer," and lacks any credibility. Compl. ¶ 10.
...Construing the allegations in the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court cannot conclude at this stage that Defendant's comments are mere rhetoric and cannot constitute defamatory publications. See, e.g., Presley v. Graham, 936 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1325-26 (M.D. Ala. 2013) (finding, at pleading stage, that statement that plaintiff was "a supervisor's nightmare," even if opinion, could be interpreted by a reasonable reader as a fact-based summation). In our age of anonymous internet trolls and the often-uninformed echo-chamber of the blogosphere, maybe no reasonable reader would take Defendant's statements as asserting facts rather than just one more outspewing of thoughtless rhetoric. But the Court is not willing to say, as a matter of law, that Defendant's insults are incapable of being interpreted as false facts. Visitors of transportreviews.com may understand Defendant to be stating that Plaintiff is in fact inbred, or not a real person, or, at the very least, someone you wouldn't want to do business with. The Complaint fairly and plausibly alleges as much. Whether it is true requires the Court to consider a factual context for the parties to address and develop in discovery. Plaintiff's allegations of defamation will survive Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
You'll excuse me if I note that your anger appears to arise from the fact that Florida law favors me.  If you want Florida to adopt a more narrow definition of libel, and require courts to dismiss any IFP lawsuits where the proof of tort is something less than high-definition videos provided by 10 police officers, direct your concerns to the Legislature. Until that day, you appear to be in need of the following education:  Under Florida law, libel occurs where a false statement of fact is published to third parties in such a way as to possibly motivate such third parties to avoid Plaintiff.  Instead of whining like a baby, try reading the actual Complaint, which sets forth my best case that Holding violated Florida's civil law against libel.

------(Update April 11, 2019 I did not realize until a few days ago that Florida distinguishes between filing and filing.  PACER indicated the Complaint was "filed" within a few days after I sent it.  But a few days ago I received in the mail a frivolous "Order" from a Magistrate judge threatening to file a Report and Recommendation asking the Court to dismiss the Complaint, for perceived "pleading defects".  So apparently the fact that the Complaint got "filed", didn't mean it got filed "all the way".  I would have figured that the Clerk would do nothing with the Complaint except forward it to the judge, and the Complaint would not be "filed" until the judge approved of the in forma pauperis application.  Regardless, I reacted to the interlocutor Order threatening dismissal, with a "motion for reconsideration" highlighting the judge's legal and factual errors, and, in case he didn't find this compelling, I also filed a 1st Amended Complaint, as the Order invited me to do.  See my blog post to that effect, with links to those documents, here.)

 That fearless spiritual "warrior" known as "anonymous barking child" continues:
maybe this time you'll get lucky!
 No, maybe this time Mr. Holding will do something he didn't have to do in the last two lawsuits: answer the charges on the merits.
Oh Doscher, that big brain of yours just isn't clicking big man.
Quit worrying about my brain and get a second job, your savior needs help with his legal fees.
Don't you get it? There's a reason why you never win in court,
 If the 2015 lawsuit has anything to do with it, it is because the Court unlawfully dismissed that case "without cost to either party", then violated that Order by granting Holding's post-dismissal petition for attorney fees.  Lest you stupidly speculate that maybe 'costs' are different than 'fees', the Washington state case law, which was binding on that Court in 2015, said:
Attorneys for both parties signed a stipulation that "all causes herein, as between Roberts and Bechtel, have been fully settled and compromised and that this matter should be dismissed with prejudice and without costs." …Ms. Bechtel contends the award of expenses is precluded by the terms of the release and settlement. We agree....It is undisputed Ms. Roberts, through her counsel, stipulated the matter should be dismissed without costs. Attorney fees are considered costs of litigation. Detonics ".45" Assocs. v. Bank of Cal., 97 Wn.2d 351, 644 P.2d 1170 (1982). The court was bound by the stipulation precluding an award of costs. Roberts v. Bechtel, 74 Wn. App. 685, 687 (Wash: Court of Appeals, 3rd Div. 1994)
 Mr. Anonymous continues on like a toddler whose toy was taken away:
there's a reason why your own father stabbed you in the back a few years ago
 You might want to consult with Mr. Holding. Since the subject of that meeting will be "what is a John Doe Subpoena and how does it relate to Doscher's ability to unmask my true identity and have a process server come knocking on my door?", you might schedule that appointment so Holding can confer with you for several hours.

Google the relevant topics beforehand, here's a starter:  Matthew Mazzotta, Balancing Act: Finding Consensus on Standards for Unmasking Anonymous Internet Speakers, 51 B.C. L. REV. 833 (May 2010) (addressing the various standards formulated by courts in determining whether to issue subpoenas "unmasking" anonymous internet posters, including the balancing of First Amendment rights of the anonymous speakers against the strength of the plaintiff's claim and the need for unmasking, and collecting cases); Ashley I. Kissinger and Katharine Larsen, Untangling the Legal Labyrinth: Protections for Anonymous Online Speech, 13 No. 9 J. INTERNET L. 1 (March 2010)(same); Stephanie Barclay, Defamation and John Does: Increased Protections and Relaxed Standing Requirements for Anonymous Internet Speech, 2010 B.Y.U. L. REV. 1309 (2010)(same); Charles Doskow, Peek-A-Boo I See You: The Constitution, Defamation Plaintiffs, and Pseudonymous Internet Defendants, 5 FLA. A&M U. L. REV. 197 (Spring 2010) (same); Nathaniel Gleicher, John Doe Subpoenas: Toward a Consistent Legal Standard, 118 YALE L. J. 320 (November 2008); and Victoria Smith Ekstrand, Unmasking Jane and John Doe: Online Anonymity and the First Amendment, 8 COMM. L. & POL'Y 405 (Autumn 2001) (same).

Persuasive authority would be TRAWINSKI v. Doe, NJ: Appellate Div. 2014

Mr. Anonymous continues:
and there's a reason why you're alone.
 I'm not alone.  But apparently there are stupid people in the world who base arguments from silence upon the fact that they couldn't find something through Google.
Don't worry, Holding is going to show everything next time in court including all your previous lawsuits.
No worries, my latest lawsuit draws the Court's attention to those prior lawsuits on multiple pages.

Unlike stupid boistrious juvenile delinquents such as you, the people who created and maintain America's court system have recognized for many decades there is a great danger that allowing one party to confront the other with every possible bit of "dirt" they can find, might cause the jury to decide the case not on the merits, but solely upon the "dirt":

 Rule 403 – Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons  
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
From Moore v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2018
 Rule 403 provides that "[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." A Rule 403 determination is committed to the district court's discretion. See United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1345 (11th Cir. 2018), petition for cert. filed, No. 18-6917 (U.S. Nov. 29, 2018).

Evidence of claimants' settlement with Peak certainly had some probative value...
On the other hand, the probative value of this evidence was diminished because the claim Peak settled was not identical nor even substantially similar to the claim GEICO was handling.
...Continuing then to the balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice, required by Rule 403, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of Peak's settlement was outweighed by "the danger of . . . unfair prejudice" to GEICO and of "confusing the issues [and] misleading the jury." Fed. R. Evid. 403.
 Mr. Anonymous continues:
Maybe this time you'll get your mind out of the gutter you socially inept freak.
But alas, it's my social ineptness that causes me to find bible study more fun than socializing with friends.  This is good because it ensures that I continue to smack down idiot Christian claims with that level of scholarly biblical acumen that a more socially active atheist probably wouldn't have.  Between friends and bible study, I choose bible study. 
Pull it out, it's error free, so I have nothing to give.
I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about just now.
This is up to you, whistle dick. I'll get the treats ready.
Same answer, however, your intentional violation of NT ethics is noted:
 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.    (Eph. 5:3-5 NAU)
  5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
 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,
 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--     (Col. 3:5-10 NAU)
 Gee, maybe the Context Group can prove that "whistle dick" wasn't considered "filthy" speech by 1st century Christians?

 UPDATE:  February 5, 2019, 11:05 a.m. Pacific Standard Time:

Since Mr. Holding has falsely asserted that I only sue his Apologetics Afield Corporation because I'm "scared" for him to cross-examine me personally, I notified him today that if I am satisfied, before trial, that the libels he committed, as recounted in the 2019 lawsuit, were posted in his individual capacity, then I might be changing the Defendant to "James Patrick Holding, in his personal capacity", so that he is no longer forced by law to hire a lawyer, and he can then cross-examine me personally at trial:





 If the screenshot is unclear, here's the text:

I hereby give notice to Mr. Holding that he is advised that while his lawyer prepares notes and evidence to impeach my credibility during trial, Holding should also prepare, starting today, his own notes and evidence so that he can cross-examine me personally, without his lawyer. If after the close of discovery and at any time before trial I decide that most of the libels alleged in the complaint were the work of Mr. Holding personally and not in his capacity as director of Apologetics Afield (very unlikely since the Complaint provides good evidence the libels were legally the work of the corporation) I will file a motion to amend my complaint, seeking to drop "Apologetics Afield" as Defendant and replace with "James Patrick Holding". If the corporation is no longer the defendant, Holding will no longer be forced to have a lawyer represent him, and he can then cross-examine me for himself at trial. But like the 2019 Complaint says, Holding' committed the libels alleged therein while acting within the course and scope of his capacity as "director" of the Apologetics Afield corporation. I told Mr. Holding years ago to back the fuck off and quit smearing me, or I would react with more legal force than the average person might be expected to...but no, this belligerent pathologically obsessed asshole just doesn't have the requisite genetic hard-wiring to appreciate the trouble his mouth gets him into, he only cares about impressing his few babies with his infallible intellect, so FUCK HIM, iIf anybody deserved to reap the consequences of their own thoughtless uncharitable hateful spiteful actions, it is the director of Apologetics Afield, Inc. Apparently, when I tell Holding he picked the wrong victim when he picked on me, he conveniently forgets how to communicate in English.






















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...