James Patrick Holding's quietly deleted homosexual fantasies

 Update, April 25, 2018:  see end

Several people have asked whether Holding really did create fantasy fiction about cartoon characters shoving their faces into their asses.  Yes, he did, and that blog piece had him describing people banging their faces on Holding's kneecaps (i.e., Holding is an internally conflicted clown, with his genetic defects hard-wiring him for homosexuality, while having chosen to defend a religion that calls it a sin, hence, his homosexuality manifests itself in ways that are not as forthright as they could be).

That webpage conveniently disappeared shortly after it's existence was pointed out in my federal lawsuit against Holding.   The timing was no coincidence.

Fortunately, I preserved the entire page, with the disgusting parts underlined.  The following comes from

http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/greentrial.html

extracted in August 2015

Yes, wayback preserved this page, but did so in 2013 when it had different content, access that here.

Holding's pretentious trifling faggot fantasy bullshit runs afoul of the following bible passages:

 13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:13 NAU)

 3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (Eph. 5:3-5 NAU) 

 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Tim. 6:4-5 NAU) 

 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. (Col. 3:8 NAU)

-------at the end of the article, Holding can't resist indulging his gayness one last time, in describing his enemies has shoving their faces into their asses...again:





 It would appear that Holding is the "Sheila" who has the superior arguments (Holding once passed himself off in another chat forum as Sheila Rangslinger) and the "Mattchu" character is representing Farrell Till, John Loftus or any of a number of skeptics that have raked Holding over the coals in the past.

Notice also that he has the skeptic "Mattchu" bang his face into Sheila's kneecaps.  That is, Holding wanted his followers to envision a man banging his face into Holding's kneecaps.

To ward off rumors that I only showed a little bit of this defunct webpage because I'm taking something out of context, that's bullshit, here's the full content of this juvenile faggot fantasy.  If Holding took it down, he has a Christian duty to explain why.  If he thought it was morally acceptable, why did it disappear completely?  If he thought the article needed correction or updating, why did he remove it completely?

If he noticed that it made him look more like a fag than he intended the public to know, he has a Christian duty to admit this blog piece was sinful.  But of course Holding's sin of pride causes him to mistake his mental processes for god's own presence.

When you get done reading this crap, you will have no illusions about why no legitimately credentialed Christian bible scholar wishes to associate with Holding.  Both Blomberg and Habermas have pulled their support too.

WEDNESSSSDAYSSES, JULY 4, 2007
The Jeremiah Duh-Lemma
In a world we all know, Mattchu is once again busy with his annual armpit inspection. It is the end of the year and it is time to do his inventory of fleas. As he does so, he hears footsteps behind him. He tries to hide by curling himself up tightly into a ball, with his head between his legs - so far indeed that it seems that his head is tucked into his buttocks. But it is of no use. Despite his best attempt, he is detected at once. He peeks one eye out from between his buttocks and groans. It is that stupid rabbit thing again.
 SHEILA: Happy New Year! I see you're celebrating in the usual place.
 MATTCHU: Grrr. What stupid rabbit want now?
 SHEILA: Well, we've been waiting to see if you'd produce something Mr. Holding hasn't answered yet. I mean, those last entries on the Trilemma and the Land Promise - you just didn't interact at all with his arguments which address what you say.
 MATTCHU (growling, rubbing head): Didn't knows about them - so sure me, dumb rabbitsses.
 SHEILA (shrugs): Not interested. I know all we'd get is your bills. (Pauses.) Anyway, I'm here about this, um...thing you wrote on Jeremiah 7:22. It's pretty stupid, as usual.
 Mattchu rises, and spite of past experience, runs screaming and pounding his fists into Sheila's legs. Mattchu just doesn't ever learn, it seems, and as before he just bounces off with no reward other than a pounding headache. The only difference is that this time, Sheila is not engrossed in the article she is holding; she sees him coming and watches, nonchalantly, and he bangs his face into her kneecaps. After he bounces off, she glances down critically and frowns.
 SHEILA: You bent a strand of my fur. Don't do that. It takes hours to groom this coat. (She brushes the strand back into place, then proceeds to read the article silently. Mattchu is still groaning and rubbing his injured forehead.) You know, dear, you really should take a hint from your own words. You say There are sometimes, where, honestly, I just cannot tell one way or the other, whether a solution is good or not. Well, doesn't this suggest to you that you need to shut up and learn more before you mouth off?
 MATTCHU (moaning): Uh uh.
 SHEILA: I didn't think so. But what's all this about Jer. 7:22?
 MATTCHU: HA! Holdingsses answer an interesting solution or an explanation that is may be good in terms of textual criticism but silly as an apologetic solution designed to salvage inerrancy.
 SHEILA: Inerrancy as you define it - in terms of your ultra-fundamentalist past - or inerrancy as he defines it, in terms of what readers of the time of the Bible would say?
 Mattchu stares stupidly for a few moments.
 SHEILA: You don't know the difference, do you?
 Mattchu shakes his head. There is a sound like a BB rattling in a boxcar.
 SHEILA: And look, dearie - all this rot about how it's hard to believe that any divine being would've let the solution be discovered as late as it was -- he's answered that before to you. You need to get over yourself and stop pretending God owes you something. You whine about this over and over and over again, as though God is obligated to cover your ignorance.
 MATTCHU: He do TOO owe me something! Butt kissing!
 SHEILA: Hmph. Looks to me like you can get John Loftus to do that for you if you really want it. (Sheila reads further.) Well, dear, first off, Mr. Holding doesn't dispute that Jeremiah was part of an anti-cultic faction was actually the theory of some well-respected scholars in the field. He knows that, likely better than you. In fact, I'm sure you didn't notice the further link to here in which Mr. Holding cited Hopper, and also showed why his argument was bogus. I don't suppose you actually care to defend this view, though, do you - that Jeremiah was part of some anti-cultic faction?
 (Mattchu shakes his head violently and backs off a step.)
 SHEILA: All right. And you failed to notice Mr. Holding's more detailed link, so shame on you. Now he also says, The simple answer to this notes that this is rather the use of hyperbole to effect a point. The purpose of this phrase is to show the relative importance of sacrifices, etc. in terms of inward attitudes. Indeed, were this not so, we would be constrained to ask how such an obvious "condemnation" of the sacrifices survived the so-called "cutting" since the very priests that Skeptic X accuses of creating the sacrificial law for their own benefit were the ones who made the "cuttings" in the first place! But history knows of no such opposition to the sacrificial system in Israel; while the temple machinery was often corrupt (as in the time of Annas), there is no indication at all that the actual sacrificial practice was disdained. This isn't his whole answer to the likes of Hopper - you missed that - but what do you say to it?
 MATTCHU: Grah -- This is something I find a bit silly. Holding asks how such an obvious condemnation would've survived since the priests were the ones who made the "cuttings" in the first place! This is almost like asking how could discrepancies exist in any part of the Bible since the early Church fathers would've known they existed and would've discovered them and tossed them out and since this didn't happen we can trust that they truly are inerrant.
 SHEILA (shakes head): No, dear, it's more complicated than that. You're missing the point again. The hypothesis is that there were two parties, pro-cultus and anti-cultus. We're talking about a strong rivalry between two major parties. Hopper and his friends hypothesize that loyalty to both parties was so strong that they HAD to include portions of Jeremiah, an anti-cultus prophet, to give themselves legitimacy. Now in a situation like that, you need hard proof that there was an anti-cultus party to begin with. Mr. Holding's last sentence is the most crucial there, and you missed the point because you were so busy drawing a false comparison. Mr. Holding is not talking about some absent-minded failure to notice. And your analogy to the Gospels still being in the canon in spite of discrepancies is not relevant, because there were not opposition parties over each Gospel. What we're talking about here is a case where the pro-cultus party is supposed to have won, and despite being careful enough to include parts of Jeremiah, was also evidently careless enough to leave this rather obvious anti-cultus verse. You can't have it both ways, dear. You can't posit a carefully-crafted conspiracy by the pro-cultus party while also arguing that they were careless and included a honking obvious anti-cultus statement. In essence you are saying they were careful when it suits your theory to say so, and careless when it suits your theory to say so. The theory is driving the facts. NOW do you get it?
 MATTCHU (scratching head): Duh....no.
 SHEILA (rolls eyes): I'm not surprised. Well, look - we can shift out all this rot about Ezekiel; that has nothing to do with Jer. 7:22. (She takes several pages out and throws them to the wind. Mattchu, horrified, runs after them screaming as Sheila continues to read. As he does, Sheila sighs.) Oh, please. More of this crybaby whining. "By what criteria do we determine whether a given passage is to be read "plainly" and when it is not? Come now, dear, this is ridiculous. Stop being lazy and stupid. It might surprise you to know that Mr. Holding is very much in support of the idea of tailoring translations for each culture - or at least providing deep explanatory notes. But that's still no excuse for you being lazy.
 But let's get to the point. You say you agree with Mr. Holding about the hyperbolic nature of teaching in that time. Right?
 (Mattchu, returning with papers stained with mud clutched in his hand, groans but nods agreement.)
 SHEILA: Now past all this whining about how God should allow you to be lazy, and all this whining about how you think this means God "hid" the solution - which Mr. Holding has called you down on before (though he does not think in this case that Whitney and the others did anything more than bring to the fore what other people already knew) - so you have any actual reason to say that Mr. Holding's answer is wrong?
 MATTCHU Uh....If Holding is right and Jeremiah 7:22 is a negation idiom and is fully consistent with the law of Moses in the Pentateuch, he is left with a serious problem- that of a prophecy in Jeremiah and other places where an eternal kingdom is promised to David and an eternal priesthood is promised as well!
 SHEILA (staring): Say WHAT? What the heck does one have to do with the other?
 MATTCHU: HA! In some places in the Hebrew Bible, an eternal throne is promised to king David. In 2 Samuel 7: 11-16, we find written:
 8"Now therefore, thus you shall say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people Israel. 9"I have been with you wherever you have gone and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make you a great name, like the names of the great men who are on the earth. 10"I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly, 11even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. 12"When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. 13"He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14"I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, 15but My loving kindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16"Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."'"
 SHEILA: Hold it.
 MATTCHU: WHAT? I is genius explaining something!
 SHEILA: Have you seen Mr. Holding's material on the word 'olam - which is the word usually translated "forever'?
 Mattchu stares blankly.
 SHEILA: Mr. Holding's study follows the conclusions of James Barr'sBiblical Words for Time -- which concludes that the word does not mean "forever" but "in perpetuity" or basically, "as long as". "Forever" in English implies something unconditional and unchanging, but as Barr showed, 'olam does not.
 So your argument that says that:
 Again, we see here the promise that "David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne before the houses of Israel" and, interestingly, enough, the Levitical priests shall never lack a man before Yahweh to perform burnt offerings. Yahweh compares the covenant with David to a covenant that he established with the day and night. If the former can be dissolved, then it's possible that the covenant with David and the priesthood can be dissolved. Apparently, the throne and kingdom of David were meant to be understood as being eternal as well as the sacrificial system. If Holding is right and Jeremiah 7:22 is consistent with the Pentateuch, he has an even bigger problem: not only is there an eternal throne to David which never materialized but Christ could not have ended the sacrificial system because Yahweh is promising that the sacrificial system is eternal and will last forever
 ...is wrong from the start. Mr. Holding has no dilemma as you say; it's just that as usual, you get your foot stuck in your mouth because you haven't read all that he's written. He's also addressed that point from Cross about the "unconditional" nature of the promises - in the Land Promise materials answering Till which you didn't interact with. It's right here, in fact - Mr. Holding quotes from the same place you do. And he answers why it is not a problem for him. All this means in this context is that the sacrificial system is in suspension. Sorry, dear - you've made a fool of yourself again.
 At this, Mattchu throws his papers into the air and runs, screaming, towards Sheila. She sighs and at the right moment, raises her knee and delivers a stunning blow to his chin. His head and chest arch backwards, and in amazing feat of acrobatics, his forehead becomes jammed between his buttocks. In this position he somehow manages to land on his feet, and toddles off, screaming curses against J. P. Holding.
 SHEILA (sighs): Well, that's the way it goes...either way, he ends up with his head in the same place.
 Posted by Sheilaat Fun time0 comments -- no one cares!

------------------------end

 Holding's sinful fixation with the anus shows up again:

This came from the People in Need of Preparation H:
You sir are a nasty and twisted person. Flush the bile out of your system once a day and before every public display and then maybe we can learn to appreciate your thoughts!

Taken alone, this might not indicate homosexuality, but it does in Holding's case because he has such a long and distinguished history of manifesting his unsavory appetite for male ass, even other Christian apologists have had to chastise him about it.  From a prior post:

Holding pushed his use of homoerotic illustrations to such extreme levels in his debate with Christian apologist Steve Hays, that Hays had to complain and rightly observe that Holding has a filthy mind:

 …As a flavor of the level at which Holding’s mind operates, his latest thread is charmingly headed: “Steve Hays needs to stop passing gas at his betters.” This is a specimen of Defendant’s recurrent obsessive-compulsive anal fixation.
…Defendant’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.
…This is not the first time that Defendant has taken a personal interest in my backside. Defendant would be well advised to resist his unsavory attraction so many homoerotic illustrations.    

 UPDATE:  February 23, 2019
Since I originally posted this, it came to my attention that the apologist who authored the above words, Steve Hays, issued a disclaimer, insisting that he was just kidding about Holding when saying those things.  I quote the disclaimer and provide a comprehensive rebuttal showing that Hays is a liar...he might be backpeddeling now, but back when he originally posted those words, he meant them with all holy sincerity.  See here.
-----------------------------

 So when such a person as Holding consistently makes reference to buttocks, anus, and the like, remember you are not dealing with the average heterosexual man who only occasionally talks like this, and that puts a different spin on his words.  Holding really is a fag at heart, but because he has a female wife, it's probably more accurate to call him a closet homosexual.  The great irony is that I'm an atheist critic of Holding and I find male homosexuality revolting.  Holding is allegedly an apologist who defends traditional Christian morality, and yet exhibits more signs of homosexuality than even some atheists.  How fucking sad is that?

James Patrick Holding, aka Robert Turkel, is a closet-homosexual

Update January 30, 2018: see ending comments
-----------------

James Patrick Holding (formerly "Robert Turkel"), owner of tektonics.org and a Christian "apologist" is a closet-homosexual, which would, under New Testament principles, utterly invalidate him as a teacher.  Unfortunately, Holding's homosexuality and his atheism make him worry about living in contradiction to the bible, about as much as Hitler worried about living in contradiction to the Book of Mormon.  You have to care about your stupidity, before you'll be motivated to correct it. 


To Blogger.com:  All assertions about Holding in this blog post are fact, not opinion, all of them were alleged against him in a libel lawsuit, and Mr. Holding never attempted to deny their truth.  They are supported by quotes of his own words that are verifably referenced, and they are presented to educate the reader to steer clear of a person whom the author characterizes as the Benny Hinn of apologetics.  Proving that a publicly known Christian is a hypocrite is hardly "hate language", and banning this post will only incite me to further publicize and disseminate its contents.

"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)

  Holding publicly professes that the bible declares homosexuality to be a sin.  See

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.php 

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.php 

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gayjude.php   

It is also clear that Holding/Turkel views himself as a teacher of Christianity and the bible:

Mission Statement Tekton Apologetics Ministries is committed to providing scholarly answers to serious questions which are often posed on major and minor elements of the Christian faith. We believe in the importance of sound Christian doctrine which is based on a careful exegetical analysis of scriptures from the Holy Bible. We also believe that it is important to incorporate the findings of various theological and scientific disciplines in order to properly assess the veracity of scriptural evidences, and to carefully evaluate issues which are relevant to the Church as a whole.                                                           

See his more explicitly asserted goals to be such a teacher.

Jesus apparently thought the person who acted opposite to his professed beliefs had no excuse, but deserved rebuke and to be classified as a hypocrite:

  41 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
 42 "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. (Lk. 6:41-42 NAU)

As long as Mr. Holding and his band of admirers and paying customers continuing believing what Jesus said, they will not be able to escape the very reasonable conclusion that, by reason of Mr. Holding's known "fruits" which the internet and his critics are forever protecting from destruction, Mr. Holding is a homosexual hypocrite (i.e., he is a practicing homosexual despite his public profession that he thinks such acts are sinful).


Other Christian apologists complain he uses too many homoerotic illustrations
Apologist Steve Hays had to warn Holding to cease and desist so many references to men's buttocks:

…As a flavor of the level at which Holding’s mind operates, his latest thread is charmingly

headed: “Steve Hays needs to stop passing gas at his betters.” This is a specimen of Defendant’s

recurrent obsessive-compulsive anal fixation.

…Defendant’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.

…This is not the first time that Defendant has taken a personal interest in my backside. Defendant

would be well advised to resist his unsavory attraction so many homoerotic illustrations.[1]

Holding uses a female sock puppet:

Holding was caught hiding behind the sock puppet "Sheila Rangslinger".  Holding was using that sock puppet some years back.  It was a fantasy cartoon character he created, and he describes her as being just as wonderful as Holding thinks himself to be.

Furthermore, somebody asserting their name to be "Nels Aston" created the email account  sheilarangslinger@yahoo.com, and spammed people with porno ads so much that it was caught by a spam lister:

From: "Nels Alston" <sheilarangslinger@yahoo.com> 
Subject: New Pleasure with New Bigger cock

While there is still a possibility that Holding didn't create that email account, its penis-centered spam is curiously consistent with Holding's other publicly posted comments, quoted later in this post, where he speaks like a sick juvenile delinquent about the penis of other men.

Holding comments in a way that ensures his reader's minds will have images of graphic homosexuality:

Holding cannot comment on the gay movie “Broke-Back Mountain” without giving in to his obviously sinful temptation to fill his readers’ allegedly pure Christ-like minds with images of homosexual intercourse (i.e., he doesn’t think biblical descriptions of the act are sufficient):

"Because nothing is a grater (sic) witness for Christ than causing others to get an instant mental image

of Cowboy man-on-man backdoor action."[3]

Holding writes fantasy fiction about people putting their heads up their butts:

Holding in another Tektoonics webpage (and no doubt in the name of Jesus) writes fantasy fiction that includes references to cartoon characters shoving their heads into their own buttocks:

Tektoons on the Trail 

Wednessssdaysses, July 4, 2007 

The Jeremiah Duh-Lemma 

In a world we all know, Mattchu is once again busy with his annual armpit inspection. It is the end

of the year and it is time to do his inventory of fleas. As he does so, he hears footsteps behind him. He

tries to hide by curling himself up tightly into a ball, with his head between his legs - so far indeed that

it seems that his head is tucked into his buttocks. But it is of no use. Despite his best attempt, he is

detected at once. He peeks one eye out from between his buttocks and groans. It is that stupid rabbit

thing again…posted by Sheila.

(since I began using this quote against Holding, he has removed it, 
but I preserved the original, available by request)

Holding insults his critics by similarly saying they have stuck their heads up their asses:

On a theologyweb.com debate from 2008 that Holding's buddy John Sparks, owner of theologyweb, conveniently deleted, Holding responded to me as follows: 

....me: his rebuttal first if he is so confident of the stupidity of bible skeptics, that he can accurately predict what evidence I will set forth to substantiate my case.
----Holding: Actually, no, I can't predict anything you might say; I can't see your arguments with your head stuck in the way up your bum. Your answers would come from plain-English, decontextualized readings you picked up in Fundyville, and there's no telling what sort of contorted rationalizations you may come up with. Something like what John Goddard produces, I expect.

....me: and places a very extreme burden on my shoulders in the debate, at least in your opinion, does it not?
----Holding: Not really, since you don't care about the facts in the first place. Not much "burden" involved in pulling claims out of your bum while you ignore scholarship, after all.

(since Holding has, after I exposed it, deleted the particular Tektoon cartoon dialogue he invented which said somebody's head was up their ass, it is rational to suppose that today, Holding no longer approves of this filthy language, thus raising the legitimate question:  if he thought his filthy language was consistent with his Christian walk back when writing that dogshit, what motivated him to remove it?  Does he admit now that his earlier view was wrong?  Gee, his getting sued for libel and my explosive exposing him as an obnoxious bastard far more than anybody else ever did, wouldn't have contributed to that motivation, would it?  No, of course not.  Holding is like the child who gets a black eye during a fight, and when somebody says "hurts doesn't it!" he says "no", seriously wanting others to believe him while his eye twitches involuntarily from the pain. 

Holding is unable to resist making unnecessary and childishly shameful reference to the penis
Holding characterizes his opponents' arguments as their exposing their giant penises in a public and shamefully childish way:demeans his opponents by accusing them of having giant penises and committing the crime of exposing their genitals to the public in a rather crude way:

"And you? You’re nothing but a sanctimonious ant with delusions of your own grandeur; you’re nothing but a modern day Hugh waving your swollen member around and knocking people over with it or else disgusting everyone by pointing to it and shouting to everyone to look at it." 

 Holding, putting unnecessarily sexualized images into his reader's minds:

Holding accuses other men of using their giant penises to hit themselves on the head: 

"In your arrogance you missed it; you were so busy waving your giant pee-pee around that you bonked yourself on the head with it and didn’t even notice."

It was language very similar to that which caused the one scholar he's been appealing to for 20 years, to assert that Holding gives Christianity a bad name.

Holding used Context Group scholar Richard Rohrbaugh's work to write an article attempting to justify modern Christians insulting their critics.  Dr. Rohrbaugh evaluated that article and said it is an "obvious perversion" of his work and of the New Testament as well (his response is at the bottom)

Holding characterizes his opponents as "farting":

Holding clearly desires to be viewed by others as spiritually mature, but he tells people to stop “farting” when he disagrees with their arguments.  A guy named “Jimbo” had asked what evidence Holding would accept as showing a true contradiction in the bible.  Holding sneered:

"It's simple, Jimmyboy: Any problem that doesn't find a reasonable solution rooted in contextual

scholarship. Now go fart elsewhere. The adults are trying to have a conversation."[4]

Holding likes to characterize his rebuttals as his "spanking" other men:

Interesting that he had to spank you much as I did about keeping in mind the societal context...

 Holding cannot suppress his desire to put visuals of him spanking other man, into the heads of his followers:

Tors reminds me of Farrell Till. Especially the mile-long rants. (Can you imagine if TektonTV had been around while I was still spanking Till?) 

Update:  July 9, 2017:

Holding, consistently with his homosexual interest in other mens' asses, already documented here, just cannot resist causing his Christian followers to get filthy mental pictures.  He has recently posted a video that says any atheist work that gets wrong the Tactian reference to Jesus, is not worthy to be used to wipe one's ass with (video at 0:45 ff)

Update: July 27, 2017:

In a 2008 debate I had with Holding, which Theologyweb tried to suppress, which remains preserved by wayback, Holding shows once again how much he likes the idea of him spanking other men:

Me: Maybe the schoolyard bullies were correct after all, and we should resort to our kindergarten understanding: the kid who insults and bullies the most, is faster, stronger, smarter and better than us?

Holding: In this case, that would be wise. The case here, however, is one of a bully -- YOU -- being paddled by the principal -- ME.

Holding wants to be known by a slang name for gay men:
Holding did a live debate with atheist Richard Carrier in 2011, which was recorded, and at the beginning where the moderator introduces him, Holding attempts a bit of humor that ended up betraying his homosexual tendencies:

Moderator:  I’m gonna come over here to Mr. Holding who said we could call him “J.P.”, is that ok?

Holding:  Nah, I’ve changed my mind.

Moderator: Ok, what would you like?

Holding: Mary  (audience laughter), that was your joke.

Moderator:  And you realize that even though we are going to be, people on both sides, we’re on the same team when you make me look stupid right? (audience laughter)[2]

 "Mary" is a slang term for a gay man.  Of all the female names Holding could have chosen for a joke, what are the odds that it was by sheer coincidence that he happened to pick the one that is slang for a homosexual man?  And what idiot would just pop off in front of a crowd in a live setting that he suddenly wants to be referred to by a female name?

Holding admits he would kill women and children:
Holding bluntly admits he would be willing to kill women and children during war raids, and refused to qualify such admission when he later chose to “explain” this shocking admission: question:

Question: "Would you go on war raids with specific orders to kill women and children?"
Holding: "Yup. Pass me my Hackenstabber 3 Iron, boy." 
"All the answer Brooks deserved for his non-argument "preaching".

What do you think of a "Christian" apologist whose conduct would unnecessarily and voluntarily turn a G-rated discussion into something you have to filter from your child's internet activity?

See also http://the-anointed-one.com/hold.htm

---

[1] Steve Hays, at http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/05/tektonic-faultlines-1.html

[2] time code 1:48 – 2:07, video athttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuPf143aA50

[3] http://www.tektoonics.com/test/parody/oct06scr.html

[4] Documented in Federal Complaint at 23, par. 107


Update January 30, 2018


Holding himself, or one of his minions, going under the obviously false name "Victor Polk", responded to three of my posts, but the third reply, despite showing up in my email, didn't show up on this blog:  "Polk" said it was sarcasm with which Holding said he would like to kill women and children:


Several problems:

1 - As noted, I received this email notification, but the reply doesn't exist at my blog, though Polk's other two replies, sent around the same time, came through just fine.  Apparently, "Polk" changed his mind and decided that the sarcasm excuse wasn't the truth, and went back and deleted his reply, which would remove it from my blog, but wouldn't be able to undo the email notification.

2 - the original context of Holding's admission indicates the questioner wasn't simply asking generically if Holding would be willing to kill women and children under orders.  Holding would likely have said "no".  The original context was a discussion about whether biblical characters like Joshua can morally justify their killing of women and children with the infamous "god ordered me to" excuse.  Since Holding says yes, the questioner naturally applied it to Holding to try to corner him, and Holding failed that test with great gusto.  Yes, if Holding sincerely believed God was telling him to kill women and children, he would kill them.  Typical delusional thinking of a dangerous religious fanatic.  Thankfully though, Holding takes more delight in sitting on his ass fleecing stupid people and creating cartoon videos to express his rants, than he takes in getting serious about Yahweh's scorched-earth policies.

3 - Apparently the all-knowing Holding believed, about 15 years ago, that the bible is speaking literally when saying Moses and Joshua killed scores of women and children.  Since Holding is, like God, not allowed to change his mind, we can be confident he still believes this way despite evangelical Christian apologists arguing that such language in the Pentateuch is hyperbole and the conquest of Canaan consisted more of "dispossessing the Canaanites" and nearly zero "killing women and children".  While I disagree with the Copan Flannagan thesis, the point is that not even Christian apologists within the evangelical camp who otherwise confess the same basic theological convictions, can agree on whether god's word is speaking literally or non-literally, despite the question being one about God's nature.  I have excellent reasons for accusing Holding of thinking the third person of the Trinity is absolutely nothing more than ad hoc afterthought.  Holding seems to think that nothing embarrassing is implied when evangelical Christian apologists, despite praying sincerely and carefully going about their biblical exegesis, still end up disagreeing with each other about how the bible describes God.  Holding couldn't take such attitude in sincerity unless his view of the Holy Spirit was intentionally made this esoteric for the express purpose of disabling skeptics from using such fracture in the body of Christ as evidence that the Holy Spirit is an utterly gratuitous fiction.  One wonders why Holding thinks Mormons are outside the body of Christ.  After all, he thinks the bible doesn't give sinners any promises whatsoever that God will always keep the sincere born-agains from going off into error.  So maybe Paul was just kidding when saying:

 10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.
 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you.
 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:10-13 NAU)

Is Paul a jailhouse lawyer who sometimes contradicts himself just to make sure he always has an escape route?  Yes:

 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. (1 Cor. 11:18-19 NAU)

How can Paul be consistent in telling the Corinthians to avoid being divided (1st Cor. 1), but then tell them that their factions are good (11:18)?  Apparently, Paul's idealogical fantasy didn't come true for them, their factions and divisions did not make it manifest which people among them were "approved", they remained divided.

4 - Mr. or Ms. "Polk" should repent, since by disobeying Holding's command that they avoid contact with me, they have therefore disobeyed God himself.