Updated links here.
=================
Mr. Holding made rather weak unsupported arguments in a video he made to address the skeptical contention that according to Numbers 31 and Deut. 21, the ancient Hebrews allowed adult men to get married to prepubescent girls.
I replied to that video with critique.
Holding responded to said critique with yet another cartoon video in rebuttal (making it obvious what level of intellect he expects of his followers). In that video, he uses a disheveled looking bum as his caricature of me, he asks questions of this character, and he has me begin all of my answers with a retarded sounding "duh".
So that's the level of maturity we deal with when we deal with James Patrick Holding, or Robert "no links" Turkel as he was known before he changed his name.
If one samples the audio of this character's voice and slows it down, it is clear that it is Holding doing the talking, he or somebody else simply changed the pitch.
===============
I now reply to Holding's rebuttal. However, I need to spend significant time on the side-issue of Holding's ceaseless deep-seated need to fill his responses to critics with insults and demeaning invective, since according to the bible, this is a sin, and therefore, consistent employment of it would morally disqualify Holding from the office of "teacher" that he obviously wants his followers to believe he legitimately holds.
"You shall know them by their fruits..." (Matthew 7:16)
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." (Jas. 3:1 NAU)"But the things that proceed out of the mouth come
from the heart, and those defile the man. (Matt. 15:18 NAU)
First, although Holding asks questions and makes various critiques of his fictional representation of me, Holding never contacted the real me before posting this rebuttal video, to find out what my answers would be, despite the fact that first checking with me to find out what my reply would be, would have been the more objective scholarly approach. In other words, Holding disdains the type of investigatory activity that would normally guard a bit better against him making misrepresentations, strawmen, and the other assorted oversights and fallacies contained in his latest video against me.
Second, that this is not just something he does uniquely in my case, is graphically proved from the fact that he never bothered to check with the Context Group scholars to see if his use of their bible scholarship for his intended ends, was accurate. Holding, for the last 20 years, has been citing the work of Context Group Scholars, such as Richard Rohrbaugh, to defend his proposition that he has biblical license to reply to his public critics with the sneering insulting invective that obviously takes up the most space in his heart. But as I've proved in an earlier blog post here, Dr. Rohrbaugh says
- Holding gives Christianity a bad name
- He does not deserve to be given the time of day
- Nobody should listen to him
- He is a boor with no manners, and
- Holding's magnum opus where he argues biblical justification to demean and insult his critics, constitutes an "obvious" perversion of ALL Context Group scholarship in general, Rohrbaugh's scholarship in particular, and Holding here also perverts the New Testament itself, and does so in such an irresponsible manner that Rohrbaugh doesn't feel Holding's work even deserves any reply.
Third, despite my concrete proof that the Context Group scholars see no biblical justification whatsoever for modern Christians to insult their critics, and despite Holding having been made aware since 2008 that this is so, his current video against me is still filled with sneers and insults toward me, for example:
- "fundy atheist moron", at 3:40,
- says at 8:00 that my level of brain damage is high
- at 9:00 calls me a stupid fundy atheist.
- at 10:20, suggests that I am too over-sexed to know that marriage at an early age might not have immediately allowed for sex. This shows, once again, his inability to avoid filthy talk. He could have made the same point with the same force without the sexual innuendo.
- Calls me a moron again at 12:38
Fifth, that Holding is a dishonest person and willing to lie to others where he thinks he can make money, can be seen from his 2015 email to apologist Gary Habermas. When the lawsuits were pending, I emailed many supporters of Holding, including Habermas, with much proof that Holding's speech online was even worse than that of most infidels. In an email to Habermas, Holding asserted that he no longer desires to engage in the "strong comebacks" that he used to, and tries to convince Habermas that this change of heart is real, by pointing out that he doesn't really attend theologyweb.com that much anymore, and chooses to focus primarily on his Tekton TV youtube ministry. I will make that email available to anybody who asks for it.
And yet despite this alleged "change of heart", Holding's latest video is filled with insults directed toward me and my level of intelligence. Only fools who blindly follow Holding wherever he goeth, would trifle that those insults are something different than the "strong comebacks" Holding said he didn't wish to engage in anymore.
The point is that because Habermas was once a supporter of Holding, it would appear that Holding only tells Habermas how he doesn't prefer "strong comebacks" anymore, not because that's the truth, but because he needs to convince Habermas that he shares with him the same moral outlook, if he wishes Habermas to continue endorsing him (i.e., lying for the sake of making money, and Habermas' endorsement certainly makes Holding's book worth a slightly higher price).
Sixth, Holding's email to Habermas naturally begs the question of how Holding can today have less desire to engage in "strong comebacks" than he did for the majority of his internet history: Does Holding believe God was working through him all those years that he was using foul disgusting language to insult his critics, yes or no? If yes, then Holding's alleged lack of enthusiasm for those "strong comebacks" today can only mean that Holding lacks enthusiasm for a manner of ministry that he thinks God blessed. If he answers "no", well gee, he opens the door to the distinct possibility that his 20-year career of using insulting and sexually inappropriate language to demean his critics, was something that God had always disapproved of. What...does God change his mind about ministry tactics as much as Holding does? But let's not forget that Holding hasn't really changed, he's still the asshole he always was, but apparently the libel lawsuits forced his more ignorant followers to reexamine whether they wish to continue publicly supporting him.
Seventh, a further proof that Holding's insulting "fuck you" sneering attitude is not something he adopts because of the bible, but adopts because that's just how he is naturally anyway, may be seen from the fact that even other Christian apologists, who have more formal education in biblical matters than Holding, have complained that Holding is a pretentious filthy person who feels the need to pounce on every little thing any of his critics have to say:
One is always of two minds about responding to his defamatory tirades. Holding has filthy mind and a filthy mouth, and it is judgment call whether one should give another public platform for his sin.Read the entire correspondence Holding had with apologist Steve Hays, then decide for yourself whether you will side with Holding and call any of his critics "morons", or if the fact that other Christian apologists speak so negatively of Holding's morals just might count as legitimate evidence from within the orthodox Christian camp that Holding has a serious problem with sin here. The point is that Holding's followers, who think it is only spiritually dead atheists/liberal Christians who have a problem with Holding's sneers, are sorely mistaken. There's plenty of evidence, that, if Christianity be true, Holding's incessant use of insulting invective really is "sin" which he engages in to such an extreme degree that whether he is even subject to spiritual growth (whether he is even saved to begin with) is legitimately open to question.
...Holding’s personal antagonism towards me is so extreme that he will pounce on anything I say simply because I was the one who said it. And by being so utterly reactionary, he backs himself into the most indefensible corners imaginable. How else can you explain his denial that the Bible was written to be understood?
Eighth, Holding's slanders are condemned everywhere in the bible:
18 He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool. (Prov. 10:18 NAU)Gee, has Holding ever "spread slander"? Before you answer, check out Holding's shockingly inappropriate mock suggestion that one of his critics engages in bestiality.
JP Holding says:Since the non-Christian amazon.com deleted this (apparently Holding sins in ways that even most infidels don't), it can only be found through the wayback machine and a couple of other websites. Simply google the highlighted words as a single phrase in quotes.
Jeffy, you're such a dip! :D State of FL prisons don't offer Internet access on the prison compounds. Speculation has it that you have intimate relations with farm animals. I guess that wasn't much fun because you're here posting comments. See? Isn't that great? It's too bad you're reduced to this sort of babbling because not being able to answer actual arguments frustrates you so badly.
Jesus included slander in a list of sins he said originated within an evil heart, and which defile a man:
21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,The Greek word for slander is blasphemia, and the lexicons define it in a way that assures the reader that Holding is as guilty and culpable of sin here as any person can possibly be:
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)
Friberg:Holding's extreme problem with the sin of arrogance/pride is easy to document. A liberal selection of such soundbytes from him are found in a 2008 internet post of mine which was posted specifically to prevent that evidence at theologyweb.com from disappearing, as it did.
27445 ὑπερηφανία, ας, ἡ as a conscious effort to appear conspicuously above others arrogance, pride, haughtiness (MK 7.22), opposite ταπεινοφροσύνη (humility)
More immaturely arrogant rantings are documented by Holding himself.
Baur-Danker:Paul forbade slander:
a. gener., of any kind of speech that is defamatory or abusive, w. other vices Mk 7:22; Eph 4:31; Col 3:8. πᾶσα β. all abusive speech Hm 8:3; cp. Mt 12:31a. Pl. (Jos., Vi. 245) Mt 15:19; 1 Ti 6:4.
31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. (Eph. 4:31-32 NAU)
8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. (Col. 3:8 NAU)
20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances; (2 Cor. 12:20 NAU)
1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, (1 Pet. 2:1 NAU)In 1 Peter 2:1 ad 2nd Cor,. 12:20, "slander" in the Greek is katalalia, and the lexicons make it clear this is the type of sneering insulting language Holding is so infamous for:
Baur-Danker:
3998 καταλαλιά • καταλαλιά, ᾶς, ἡ (s. prec. and next entry; Leontius 18 p. 36, 9; Wsd 1:11; TestGad 3:3; GrBar; AscIs 3, 26; AcPh 142 [Aa II/2, 81, 8].—The ancients preferred κατηγορία. Thus Thom. Mag.: καταλαλιὰ οὐδεὶς εἶπε τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀλλ᾽ ἀντὶ τούτου κατηγορία) the act of speaking ill of another, evil speech, slander, defamation, detraction in lists of vices (s. on πλεονεξία) in sing. and pl. (to denote individual instances) 2 Cor 12:20; 1 Cl 35:5; B 20:2; Pol 2:2; 4:3; Hm 8:3; s 9, 15, 3. ἀποτίθεσθαι πάσας καταλαλιάς put away all slanders 1 Pt 2:1. φεύγειν καταλαλιάς avoid evil speaking 1 Cl 30:1; cp. vs. 3; πιστεύειν τῇ κ. believe the slander Hm 2:2; πονηρὰ ἡ κ. 2:3; κ. is injurious to faith s 9, 23, 2; cp. 3.—DELG s.v. λαλέω. TW.
...to which Thayer, Gingrich, and the standard lexical resources agree, especially that it constitutes "defamation".
Holding lauds the Context Group (or did before he found out they think he is a dishonest immoral perverter of basic biblical morality, and yet the Context Group thinks Peter requires modern Christians to avoid insulting the unbelievers who insult them:
... this is what John H. Elliott, chair of the Context Group, had to say about riposte when discussing the instruction given by Peter to the addressees of 1 Peter.See here for this quote from the original source.
First, the addressees are warned not to engage in the usual spitting match of riposte and retaliation. They are not to return "injury for injury" or "insult for insult" (3:9; see also the proscription of slander in 2:1), just as Jesus when insulted did not retaliate (2:23, echoing Isa 52:7and details of the passion narrative [Mark 14:61//Matt 26:63; Mark 15:5//Matt 27:12-14; Luke 23:9; John 19:9]). Rather, they are urged to bless their insulters (3:9c) and to disprove their slanderers with honorable and irreproachable modes of behavior within and beyond the community (2:12), for actions speak louder than words (3:1-2).
Even assuming for the sake of argument that these references were only intended to apply within the limited context of Christian fellowship (as Holding will surely trifle), Holding is still guilty of prolonged obstinate refusal to cease sinning in this way, with his bitter spiteful insulting words to his Christian brother, apologist Steve Hays (as documented above), a trait that anybody familiar with Holding knows that he has exercised abundantly when dealing with critics from within the Christian faith.
Apologist and Calvinist James White says he is glad to wash his hands of the "nasty apologist" Mr. Holding:
The man is a master at mockery of Christians—is that the attitude of one who is still “availing” himself of “further resources”? I think not. In any case, I will post my response, without referring to Mr. Holding’s ancestory, but only to his claims, as soon as I can. And then I shall be done with it, for while I have to engage the claims of nasty apologists from various groups, I do not have to respond to “evangelicals” who act in the exact same manner.Steve Hays and James White are regarded in the Christian scholarly community as "intellectuals", they are not mere dimwits or loudmouths, so Holding's followers need to do some serious reexamination of their faith-hero and consider the great likelihood that their own bible requires that Holding's moral failures totally disqualify him, under biblical criteria, from the office of teacher, for which reason his allegedly superior knowledge of the bible becomes irrelevant. And if that is true, then donating financially or otherwise to his ministry constitutes donating to a biblically disqualified teacher, which would then constitute sin no less than it is sin for any idiot to donate to Benny Hinn or similarly disqualified person.
For those who wonder, the lack of moral development and the obstinate blindness of Holding can also plausibly be explained by the fact that, if some of his statements about his beliefs are true, he probably isn't a true Christian in the first place. You don't expect to see spiritual growth in unbelievers, do you? For example, as I documented earlier, Holding admitted he wasn't being sarcastic when he had previously said he didn't "care" whether the bible was the word of God:
-----me: I just found out that you made a statement several years ago that you personally don't care if the bible is the inspired word of God or not, so that your gargantuan efforts to "defend biblical inerrancy" were all in the name of finding a way to beat up other people and had nothing to do with your personal convictions whatsoever. Better break out that "I-was-just-being-saracastic" excuse again, you're gonna need it to back out of that blooper.Naturally, the owner of theologyweb (who is also Holding's good buddy), got rid of this embarrassing blooper, but thankfully it is still preserved by the wayback machine, which is thus an example that a godless secular machine has more concern for actual historical truth than Mr. Holding himself. Check out the link.
-----Holding: I wasn't being sarcastic. Each of the 20 times I have said something like that, it was genuine. Which one did you have in mind?
In Holding's quest to justify his insulting demeanor, he overlooks the obvious psychological fact that name-calling is more often associated with immaturity and childishness, and usually isn't present among mature people debating their differences. Holding may not like it, but he cannot completely eliminate the legitimate possibility that the reason he engages in name-calling so much, is because he suffers from lack of emotional or spiritual development (or, more likely, he is like Alex Jones, and his online persona is nothing but an act intended to draw the interest of potential donors whom he thinks deserve to be fleeced). If making money sitting on his ass and letting his blind wife get up and go to work every day is his intent, then the fact that money is the central concern might explain why Holding doesn't have the least bit of concern for the fact that no other Christian scholars, including those who supported him in the past, see any biblical or moral justification for his insulting demeanor. Something has to explain Holding's ridiculously absurd obstinacy, and with even the Context Group scholars, and every other conservative scholar finding no justification for modern Christians to run off at the mouth like Holding does, its a pretty fair bet that he is just a fake Christian. That would be a reasonably and rationally justified conclusion for anybody else to draw, even if by some magical reason it wasn't the truth. "By their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:16), "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks...slanders...and these are they which defile a man..." (Luke 6:45). These kinds of people usually don't exhibit any spiritual growth.
So when Holding's followers say "yeah, but can you answer Holding's arguments?", they betray how lacking they are in biblical instruction and wisdom, and reveal their zeal far exceeds their knowledge. Their stupidity helps us understand why they apparently cannot learn too much without watching Holding's cartoons. If Holding really is, for biblical reasons, disqualified from the teaching ministry because of his moral failings (sins of slander, defamation and pride), then his followers are participating in his gross sin by continuing to donate to his ministry financially and otherwise.
That's no different than the logic that says those who donate to Benny Hinn thus participate in his sin known as the prosperity gospel heresy.
Before we close this section, it must be noted that Holding's sin isn't limited to slander, he also has a serious sin of "pride". For example, many years ago, Holding wrote a rebuttal to an article by skeptic Farrell Till. Holding titled his rebuttal "Spitting into the Hurricane as your clothes get blown off". How prideful is that?
Has Holding learned to temper his sinful pride in the near 20 years since he wrote that article? No: In the video where he responds to me, he still exhibits his high opinion of himself as a “train”
that I was trying to stop “headfirst”. He then ends the video by having me standing on the track and getting run over by the speeding train. Apparently, Holding remains incapable of distinguishing his limited sinful commentary from God's own voice, and his sin of pride has existed unabated for a solid 20 years during which hundreds of Christians and his own favorite scholars have disowned him.
No, those are not the only examples of Holding's sin of pride. I wrote an earlier blog post where more of his exalted view of himself and his abilities are documented and referenced. The reader is warned that the post is rated "R" and even "X" because Holding's language was truly disgusting. Send the kids out of the room before you click the link.
Having destroyed any pretense that Holding is morally qualified to hold the office of Christian "teacher" (in the bible, your intellect is secondary, it is your moral failings that will disqualify you from office), let us move on to direct reply to Holding's rebuttal to my critique:
First, Holding does not inform the reader of where they can find my critique that he is responding to. That's not scholarly. Apparently, something else that hasn't changed in 20 years is the accuracy of skeptics who labeled him as "Robert No-Links Turkel", because years ago, he was refuting criticisms without providing links for the readers so they could go evaluate his opponent's material for themselves. Holding's excuse in the present case is that if he showed the readers where they could access my critique, he would be giving me more attention than he thinks I deserve:
What would Holding think of an atheist who adopted the same logic (i.e., she critiques Holding, but doesn't provide the reader the link to Holding's material)? Holding can continue dreaming about how he won't help me promote this blog, because he picked on the wrong victim; I'm going to aggressively promote this blog on the internet to the best of my ability, and since I associate it with the proper tags, it WILL show up in Google search results whenever anybody googles anything unique to Holding or Turkel or tektonics.org or theologyweb.org.ukchristian283 days ago (edited)Where did the fundy atheist post these comments?
Email me on that if you would. :) I don't want him to get any attention he doesn't deserve.
Second, to my criticism that Holding provides no scholarly support for his assertion that the age of 12 was the age of marriage in the ANE, Holding asks
“where did you get the blithering idiot idea that if it isn’t actually said in the bible it can’t be the way it is?”But I did not ever express or imply that a) something had to be stated in the bible to be true, or b) that scholarship disagrees with this age. I was only pointing out that Holding did not cite any scholarly sources for it. In fact, in my critique, I admitted that Holding was likely drawing on the majority view of scholarship that places the age of marriage for ANE girls at 12:
Holding here is probably merely drawing upon a generalization by ANE scholars that 12 was the average age of marriage,So Holding's question is, true to form, nothing but a trifle. Given that the whole debate is about the minimum age a girl had to be, in the eyes of Moses, to be allowed to marry, Holding was unscholarly to try to establish that age by asserting without argument or citation to authority that this age surely was 12.
Furthermore, to my comment that because the Hebrew god hates the pagans, it is unwise for Holding to assume anything that is true about the ANE peoples can be safely assumed true about the Hebrews, Holding at time-code 4:35 responds
"what kind of stupid reasoning is that?"
Well then, because the bible is the best source we currently have for answering such nuanced questions about the ancient Hebrews, and it doesn't declare the minimum age of sexual consent/marriage, the social research Holding mentions which led scholars to the "12 years old" hypothesis as the normative age of consent in the ANE, was drawn from non-Hebrew sources.
Update: June 12, 2017: Worse, in a 2015 theologyweb posting that has since disappeared, Holding and his ilk argued that because the Hebrews thought puberty was the age of consent (citing Ezekiel 16:7-8), and because girls back then didn't hit puberty until their late teens, it was "clear" that for the Hebrews in Moses' day, the age of consent was likely 16-18. In other words, Holding would have to admit he no longer thinks 16 was the age Hebrews believed to be the proper age of consent, in order to sustain his current belief that because pagans thought the age was 12, so did the Hebrews.
Third, he tries to avoid the significance of the Mosaic silence by saying the bible doesn’t say at what age kids should start eating solid food either. But he has missed the point: Holding doesn't claim God has an opinion about when a child should be started on solid food, but Holding does say God thinks sex within the marriage of an adult man to a prepubescent girl, is "sin". How does Holding know this, if, as he admits, the bible doesn't give the minimum age a girl must reach before she can be married? Telepathy? Visions? God must have thought the Israelites were unbearably stupid, because God gives a specific prohibition against more "obvious" sins such as bestiality and homosexuality (Lev. 18:22-23), so if they were so stupid, we'd expect God wouldn't have any confidence they would refrain from pedophilia without a specific prohibition against this too, yet no such prohibition appears. So Holding cannot argue that God thought pedophilia too obviously sinful to justify a specific prohibition against it, unless he wishes to argue that among the ancient Hebrews, sex with animals wasn't considered an "obvious" immorality, and needed a specific law against it to help the Israelites know what was right and what was wrong.
Furthermore, history proves that humanity has disagreed very much on what the minimum age of sexual consent should be, so does it really make sense to argue, as Holding implies, that where God doesn't specify something in the bible, this is because God expects humans to figure it out? Ok, we've disagreed on the minimum age of consent for more than 2,000 years, why does God expect sinners to figure out the "proper" minimal age of consent? Does God also expect birds to get good grades in trigonometry?
Perhaps the most devastating rebuttal against Holding's belief that his Jewish god hates pedophilic marriage, is apostle Paul's unqualified language that the secular powers over Christians are put there by decree of God, Romans 13:
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.If there are no secular authorities except those which are established by God, then Who was ultimately responsible for the secular authorities of Delaware in the 1800's setting the minimum age of sexual consent for girls at 7 years old?
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (Rom. 13:1-5 NAU)
Holding may resort to his "that's just Greco-Roman rhetoric of exaggeration", but a) he won't be giving any evidence that this is indeed exaggeration, b) you will have great difficulty convincing the vast majority of inerrantist evangelicals that Paul's language here was exaggeration, proving that Holding's predictable comeback has less scholarly rigor than his sneering would suggest, and c) if it was exaggeration, then Paul was using exaggeration when making an important theological point, and that's a can of worms Holding will never close again if he decides to open it: How many other theologically important statements from Paul were similarly a case of exaggeration?
Fourth, if Holding thinks Romans 7:7 is inspired by God, then Paul's language there giving criteria for identifying sin, is so strong it leaves no logical possibility of being able to identify sin where the Law is silent on the act:
6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.Does Holding agree with Paul, that Paul would not have known coveting was a sin, except this act had been prohibited in Mosaic Law, yes or no? If yes, then because the Mosaic law doesn't prohibit sex within adult-child marriages, Holding cannot have a biblical justification to call that act a "sin". Holding will say the bible teaches we can know sin through our conscience, but the only reason our conscience tells us what sin is, is because God wrote his law on our heart, as Paul said:
7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. (Rom. 7:6-8 NAU)
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;In context, the "Law" that is on the heart of the Gentile (v. 15) is no different than the written Mosaic Law that is otherwise exclusive to the Jew (v. 17), and that contextual link cannot be undone by citing to commentators who think "work of the law" is something different than the "law".
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
17 But if you bear the name "Jew " and rely upon the Law and boast in God, (Rom. 2:12-17 NAU)
Fifth, Holding's followers sometimes say that because pedophilia hurts the child, God expected people to know it was sinful by simply using their brains. But Americans in the early 1800's in Delaware had set the minimum age of sexual consent at 7, and other States in that era were similarly low:
“…this society had urgent need to pronounce itself on the subject of the so-called age of consent laws. Girls are deemed capable of controlling property only at their majority, but States decide not so with their persons. In four States the age of consent is fixed at the shockingly low age of ten years, in four others at twelve, in three at thirteen, and so on, increasing, except in Delaware, where the original statute pertaining to the crime of rape is still unrepealed, fixing the age at seven years.”In other words, people disagree too much on what age is proper for marriage and sex, to justify saying that mere "using our brains" will tell us whether god thinks some act is sinful or not. Picking up children and slamming them to death against rocks (Psalm 137:9) is also obviously harmful according to common sense, yet because inerrantists believe this language of David was inspired by God, they are quick to denigrate our "common sense". For these reasons, the "just use your brain" comeback is strongly ill-advised, and the apologist will have to find another way to prove that his or her god disapproves of sex within adult-child marriages.
----Source, "Purity Meets Congress”, New York Times, October 15, 1895, p. 16.
Sixth, I noted that Holding's denial of the marriage motivation in Numbers 31:18 was contradicted by many conservative Christian scholars who think marriage was some of the motive for sparing those little girls. Holding at video time-code 9:30, tries to get around by asking what their arguments were for taking this position. Excuse me, the issue was not whether their arguments for their reasoning were valid. The issue was whether there are, in fact, any Christian scholars who, contrary to Holding, assert that concerns of marriage were part of the motive for what happened in that verse. Holding had set forth his denial of the marriage possibility, as if his opinion was obvious truth. It wasn't. If Holding had a bit more concern to be objective and scholarly, he wouldn't pop off with statements that contradict the beliefs of many conservative Christian scholars, unless he provided argument to back up his contrary position. He provided no argument to justify his denial position, so he is hypocritical to demand that the scholars who disagree with him on the point, do more than him. If he provides no argument, he cannot rationally claim to have morally or intellectually obligated anybody to believe his interpretation. Let him justify his marriage-denial interpretation, then we can talk further.
Holding also thinks my evidence that King Ahaz was 10-11 years old when he fathered a child, does nothing to disturb his position that 12 years old was the general age for marriage back then. But my point in giving that evidence was not to say the normative age was lower, but that the ancient Jews found prepubescent marriage acceptable, even if not normative. Consequently, they are not as opposed to kids having sex, as we are today, and this means they were significantly more open to sexual ethics opposed to our own today, than apologists say was the case. In which case, it is nowhere near "obvious" that the ancient Jews found sex within adult-child marriages unacceptable or sinful. Holding retains his black and white fundie logic, and thinks arguments are all or nothing, when in fact I'm only preventing him from closing the door on the possibility that his god approves of marital pedophilia sex.
Seventh, I pointed out that the Christian translation GNT characterizes the sexual act in Deut. 21:14 as rape despite the fact that God allegedly gave this marital regulation. Holding tries to duck the GNT saying “forced her to have intercourse with you” by asking what their arguments are for that. But this is another obfuscation: the point is not whether their reasons for the translation are good, the point was that it is Christian scholars, who otherwise have a high bias against making God look bad, who still apparently felt constrained to believe the "rape" rendering of 21:14 was the most objective way to translate it. The point is that Holding constantly demeans the skeptical position here as "moronic" and "stupid" and "idiot", and I simply demand that he be consistent and also label the OT scholars behind the GNT as moronic, stupid and idiot too, since they obviously translate it in a way that makes it quite easy to prove from the bible that its god approves of rape. Then when Holding decides to be more consistent, it will be easier to show how often he willfully defies the NT prohibition against slandering other Christians. And if Holding doesn't wish to insult the GNT translators, then he is leaving open the possibility that viewing 21:14 as a case of rape can be justified on the basis of serious academic arguments, and not merely the wishful stupidity of moronic atheists. Does Mr. Holding wish to leave such option open, yes or no? If yes, why does he argue so strenuously against that interpretive option? If no, what prevents him from taking his insults toward atheists who adopt that interpretation, and hurling them with equal gusto toward those Christian scholars who adopted the same interpretation? Did he finally discover after 20 years of those verses hitting him in the face, that the NT prohibits Christians from insulting each other? If interpreting Deut. 21:14 to be talking about rape is "stupidity" for atheists, why isn't it also stupidity for Christian translators who interpret it the same way?
Eighth, Holding flashes the text on the screen:
“Fundy Atheist Tactic: Shop around for a translation that says what you want to hear…that way you don’t have to defend arguments made by your source!”This is dishonest of Holding because my article contained plenty of grammatical argument for why the anah in Deut. 21:14 should be translated to convey the sense of forced intercourse/rape, I did not merely cite the GNT and then leave the grammatical issues without defense. Goto that prior article and search for the phrase "There are grammatical reasons to support the rape interpretation". Contrary to Holding, I did defend my interpretation.
Ninth, I had asserted that there is scholarly support for the rape interpretation, and Holding then asks when I plan to convert to resurrection-belief because many scholars believe Jesus rose from the dead. This is a straw-man, I never expressed or implied that the scholarly support for the rape-rendering of Deut. 21:14 meant that said rendering was thus accurate. My point was that because they were Christian scholars, they must have had an existing bias against translating something in the bible that made God look bad, and therefore, when and if they do render the text in a way that makes God look bad, it is likely because the academic reasons for doing so were more persuasive to them than their existing presuppositions about God’s goodness.
I know perfectly well the fallacy of argument by authority, and I never committed it here, and since Holding bills himself as a smart guy, his choice to mischaracterize what I was doing constitutes deliberate lying on his part. Holding simply refuses to deal with the sad fact that despite Christian scholars not wanting to translate the bible in a way that makes their God look bad, they still did in Deut. 21:14 anyway, and since they are Christians, Holding cannot call them stupid fundy atheists already predisposed to find something wrong with God, so the scholarly integrity of my position has not been swept off the table of possibilities, as HOlding's demeaning insulting sneers would suggest to his intended spiritually immature audience.
Tenth, Holding at 11:17 impatiently asks whether I have any serious arguments here, or if I’m just making up this stuff as I go along. If he would have contacted me, he could have gotten the answer to that question, as there is much more to buttress my beliefs on these matters than what I am arguing online.
Eleventh, Holding at 11:40 tries to get rid of the Deuteronomy-authors lack of concern over the woman’s possible lack of desire to get married, by saying "all" marriages back then were arranged". But he is just digging his hole deeper, as he has now admitted that the ancient Hebrews did not require "consent" for adult marriages, and if they didn't think the adult woman needed to consent before the sexual activity could be morally justified, then they are far closer to finding acceptable other sexual relationships that likewise lacked authentic consent, such as the sex that occurs in adult-child marriages.
Have you ever seen a man physically abuse a woman? If so, did you draw general conclusions about how he must act in other similar situations, yes or no? So again, if "consent" wasn't necessary for ancient Hebrews to morally justify a sexual relationship among adults, then it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, absent specific evidence to the contrary, that they weren't bothered by lack of consent in other sexual or marital situations.
Twelfth, I had argued that the female war captive of Deut. 21:10-14 would be unlikely to desire sex with the army man who would need to follow this law, since such army man could well have been part of the group that had recently murdered her family, descreated her religion, and kidnapped her. Holding at 11:50 tries to duck this point by asking what makes me think sexual feelings were ever considered important in that culture. Holding at 12:01 puts up the text:
"Fundy Atheist Screwup: These bozos are worried about “sexual feelings”. People in the biblical world were worrying about 1) personal honor and 2) the survival of themselves and their families!!”So let's begin our own advertisement campaign to other atheists:
"Fundy Christian Screwup: These bozos think sexual feelings were not of importance to the ancient Hebrtews. Well gee, why did God give women a clitoris? Has Holding never read the Song of Songs?"Or maybe he thinks that book wasn't written in an ancient Semitic culture? Or will he shamefully pretend to himself that the book isn't describing literal sexual passion of a literal married couple? If Holding thinks sexual satisfaction wasn't important in marriages among ancient Hebrews, maybe he'd like to explain why sexual satisfaction is a command of God in the bible?
19 As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love. (Prov. 5:19 NAU)Update: June 11, 2017: In an old theologyweb thread from 2015 that I started, which the site owner deleted, one of Holding's devotees similarly pretended, with dogmatism, that "we know" that in ancient Hebrew culture, the purpose of marriage was procreation, not sexual pleasure:
03-23-2015, 08:21 PM #9 Chrawnus
spirit5er: I did not forget to include it. I deliberately excluded it, because asserting that these spared girls would by marriage or slavery be brought into the covenant of Israelite faith would not contribute to resolving the disagreement the resident fundies have with me: whether the female war captives taken as brides in Numbers 31:18 included girls at or below prepubescent age.
It is not stated in the text that all of them were taken as brides, which even the commentary which you cite acknowledges. But more importantly we are justified in thinking that they would not have taken as brides girls that had not yet reached puberty, given that we know that the main concern of marriage and sex in the ANE was childbirth, not the pleasure derived from it. The notion of sex solely for the reason of pleasure would have been quite a strange notion for the vast majority of Hebrew males. In other words, why on earth would God need to tell them not to have sex with prepubescent girls when it wouldn't even have been a thing that they would have been inclined to do in the first place?(emphasis added by me). So by this guy's logic, the reason God specified a prohibition against bestiality in Leviticus 18, a far more "obvious" immorality than pedophilia, was because the Hebrews were a bit more inclined to bestiality than they were toward pedophilia. Nice going. ----------end of update.
Thirteenth, Holding at 12:30, calls the grammatical argument a “stupid objection”. But he offers no counter argument based on grammar. In his mental delusion, the fact that he vibrated his vocal cords was all the audience needed to recognize that they just heard absolute divine truth.
Fourteenth, Holding says the mere fact that that the anah of Deut. 21:14 can mean rape, doesn't automatically mean that it does, but I never argued that because it "can", it thus "does". I argued that it means rape so many other times in similar contexts that, given the contextual consideration that the women's feelings weren't considered, the GNT rendering "you forced her to have intercourse" had scholarly justification. Apparently Holding willfully blinds himself to about half of my original critique.
Fifteenth, Holding at 12:38, says the anah/humbling in 21:14 would be the shame in being sent away by her husband, and calls this an “obvious contextual clue, moron.” This is the fallacy of argument by assertion. It is a possibly correct interpretation, and Holding automatically concludes it must be correct for no further reason than this. He does not attempt to show that the "divorce=humbling" interpretation of the anah has greater justification grammatically or contextually. And regardless, since he called me a moron for disregarding what he calls a "contextual clue", then he must think the translators of the GNT are no less moronic, since the alleged contextual clue was there for them to deal with.
Sixteenth, Holding says there were a heck of lot more ways in an honor-based society to humble someone, than by forcing them into sex. I don't see the point: Rape certainly qualifies as dishonoring all by itself, whether other actions could also dishonor someone or not.
Finally, Holding then refuses to answer my argument that the barbarity of the Hebrews in being willing to burn children to death strongly suggests that they also had barbaric views about sex. Again, I did not hastily conclude that their barbarity in other areas automatically turned them all into pedophiles and rapists. All I was doing was providing the reader with legitimate evidence and argument that because the ancient Hebrews lived by a more barbaric moral code than white Christian evangelicals do in America today, it is correspondingly more difficult for "apologists" to sweep the rape-interpretation of Deut. 21:14 off the table, or characterize it as an obviously false interpretation. That is, my evidence makes Holding an idiot to set forth his position with dogmatism, as if disagreeing with him is to disagree with God himself.
Bishops also have the function of "teacher" so the morals the bible requires for Bishops would also be required for teachers, even if the teacher didn't wish to take on all duties of pastor. I end this article by highlighting the criteria for teachers which Paul gives in the Pastorals; criteria that Holding fails:
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,
9 but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
10 These men must also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach. (1 Tim. 3:1-10 NAU)
Holding not "above reproach" (v. 2), as plenty of Christians and not just skeptics, find him to be a reproach and have washed their hands of him, including Steve Hays and James White.
Holding is not "respectable" (v. 2) even in the estimation of many Christians, including the members of the "Context Group" whom Holding lauds so loudly about, and especially because he continues to make his magnum opus (to justify his insulting demeanor) available to the public despite his having known since 2008 that the Context Group, whom he cites therein, find said magnum opus to be an "obvious perversion" of their scholarship.
Holding is neither "gentle" nor "peaceable" (v. 3), and it doesn't matter if Holding argues this is only talking about how Christians should treat each other, as his besmirching Christian apologists Steve Hays and James White constitutes violation of even that nuanced interpretation. Other Christians have written Holding off and washed their hands of him too.
It is questionable whether Holding fulfills the "manage his own household well" criteria in v. 4, as his moral and biblical disqualification as Christian teacher means the money his idiot followers donate to him to finance his teaching efforts, he doesn't deserve to have, so that in an objective sense, Holding hasn't been carrying his share of the financial load of his household. Otherwise you could praise robbers for paying their bills, when they use money they don't deserve to have, to pay their bills. I'm not impressed that some prosperity gospel preacher always pays his bills on time, and I'm not impressed that Holding pays his bills on time either, because in both cases, the teacher doesn't deserve the money in the first place.
Holding fails the "good reputation with those outside the church" criteria in v. 7 like gangbusters on crack. There are too many non-Christians who think Holding is a piece of shit scumbag cocksucker.
For all these reasons, Holding's reply-video was only good in the negative sense that it provides the reader with an example of how not to rebut an argument. The evidence against Holding's moral and biblical qualification as Christian "teacher" is extensive and compelling, and that is fully sufficient, by itself to rationally and reasonably justify other Christians to regard him as a false teacher. Regardless, one thing we can be sure of, he came nowhere near sweeping pedophilic marriages off the table of biblical possibilities.
