Correcting Craig Blomberg on Matthew 5:22: it;s not *usually* wrong, but *always* wrong, to insult another person

Jesus forbade his followers from referring to each other as "fools" and the like:

 21 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'
 22 "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (Matt. 5:21-22 NAU)

Craig Blomberg says there must be an implied qualification of "where unjustified" to the v. 22 prohibition on calling another a "good-for-nothing".  Blomberg cites to Jesus himself labeling certain others with similar language as the reason to read at qualification into 5:22:

Jesus illustrates his point that not just murder but also anger is sinful in two additional, parallel ways. First, he considers those who accost their fellow believers with the epithet “Raca” (a quasi-swear word in Aramaic). The expression probably meant something like empty-headed.33 So too those who call someone a “fool” commit a sin. This word (mōros) carries overtones of immorality and godlessness as well as idiocy. As with the commands against anger, both of these prohibitions against the use of insulting names undoubtedly carried the implicit qualification of “where unjustified,” since Jesus himself uses the term mōros in 23:17, 19 (in direct address) and in 7:26 (in indirect address) when the label is accurate. Some have seen an increasing severity of judgment as Jesus progresses from the terms “judgment” to “the Sanhedrin” (the Jewish supreme court) to Gehenna (“fire of hell”)—a reference to the valley south of Jerusalem in which children were slaughtered in Old Testament times and traditionally associated with a perpetually burning garbage dump in later centuries. But given the close parallelism among the first clauses of each illustration, the entire sentences should probably be taken as largely synonymous. All three metaphorically refer to the danger of eternal judgment.
Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 107). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

I maintain that common sense refutes Blomberg on this point:

First, Jesus doesn't say the offender would be put on trial in the court for hurling such names at another, he says the offender would be guilty before the Court for saying "raca" and guilty enough to go into fiery hell for calling another a "fool".  Apparently, insulting another in that society was prohibited either without exception, or if exceptions were allowed, Jesus didn't allow for them.  The immediate context thus supports an absolute interpretation and the burden of proof is on any who would say the immediate context supports a relative interpretation.

Second, by saying "where unjustified" Blomberg gives the genuinely guilty offender an alibi:  he's not in the wrong because the person he insulted really was a fool.  Does Blomberg seriously believe that Jesus would approve of Christians fighting amongst themselves on whether or not a specific Christian deserved to be called a "fool"?  Does the immediate context of Jesus' mandate suggest any such exceptions or caveats? Of course not.

Third, the fact that Jesus called others fools provides no contextual backdrop, as Blomberg thinks Jesus is God.  Just because God does something doesn't necessarily mean Christians should imitate it, such as when God inflicts a terrible sickness on a baby and causes it to suffer for 7 days before killing it:

 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. (2 Sam. 12:15-18 NAU)

So without more, a mere "Jesus did it so why can't I do it too!" doesn't provide automatic justification for Christians to imitate it.   Jesus also died and raised himself from the dead, allegedly...does that mean Christians should do this too? Jesus also forgave sins not committed against him.  Can Christians forgive the sins not committed against them?  Catholics say yes, how about you?

Fourth, the NT comes to us from the first-century honor/shame societies of the Jews and Romans.  Had God decided not to start Christianity until 1980, and got pregnant some teen girl named Mary living in Tacoma Washington that year, it is beyond question that the NT arising from this circumstance would contain none of the honor/shame bullshit that it does, as Tacoma in 1980 wasn't an honor/shame society or city.  If that raises problematic questions as to how much of the 1st century NT ways of doing things that God wants modern day Christians to imitate/obey, that's Blomberg's problem, not mine.  If God transcends culture, then we have to believe that the honor/shame crap in the NT has more to do with the people involved in Christianity's origin, and less to do with the God who arbitrarily chose which exact culture and time-period in which to start that religion.  

Seems pretty clear to me that if Jesus was born and raised in Tacoma Washington in the 1980's, and then gave his Sermon on the Mount in 2000, it would be stripped of all honor/shame baggage that sermon currently has.  The bible does not require us to imitate the social realities of dead cultures.

Fifth, Blomberg is an inerrantist, and so he must reconcile what he has to say with the rest of the NT, and unfortunately, there are passages that impose on Christians an exceptionless mandate to avoid insulting words, behavior:

8 To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit;
 9 not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. (1 Pet. 3:8-9 NAU)

Sixth, most Christians, at least in developed countries, were not born and raised in honor/shame cultures, and therefore, dealing with them today the way people were dealt with by 1st century Jews could be psychologically harmful.

Finally, Jude v. 8-10 contradict Blomberg's idea that an insulting accusation is allowed where it describes the target truthfully.  The devil is obviously deserving of many truthful railing accusations, but not even Michael the Archangel dared to accuse the devil with such condescension:

 8 Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.
 9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 1:8-9 NAU)

Well, Mr. Blomberg?  If Michael the Arch-angel had called the devil and foolish stupid idiot moron, would that be an accurate description?  If so, how do you explain Mike's failure to call names even where justified? Could it be that you were too quick to conclude Christians are morally justified to imitate just anything Jesus did?

Like most apologists, Blomberg may say that those outside the church are fools if they know what's being taught and reject it, since he thinks there can be no reasonable skepticism of the gospel, but unfortunately, Christians and especially their leaders are to maintain a good relationship with non-Christians:

 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. (1 Tim. 3:7 NAU)

How could Timothy have maintained a good reputation with those outside the church, if he exercised that right you believe he had (i.e., to label as fools all those who know the gospel but reject it anyway)?

1st century Christianity was a high-context society, so that the mandate to maintain a good reputation with unbelievers more than likely included even specific unbelievers who lived nearest too Timothy, and thus were well aware of, but still rejected, the gospel.

For all these reasons, Blomberg is incorrect to read an implied "where unjustified" caveat into Matthew 5:22.  Jesus didn't want his followers calling anybody "raca" or "fool", ever.  

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?

The Slander-Psychology Challenge to James Patrick Holding

It is my contention that James Patrick Holding, infamous for highly charged inflammatory insults against anybody who disagrees with him, has never bothered to consider the psychological forces put in play in his follower's minds as they eagerly watch him lambaste and verbally abuse atheists and other bible critics.

It is my contention that these psychological forces motivate himself and his followers to no less degree than they do in any other context (i.e., atheist insulting a Christian in an atheist forum, comedian insulting somebody during non-religious stand-up routine, etc).

In other words, it is my contention that the reasons Holding's small band of cash donors find him so entertaining and edifying for insulting critics, is for reasons no less purely naturalistic than when atheists find their group leader so edifying and entertaining when he or she insults critics of atheism.

Which, if true, leads necessarily to the conclusion that there is not the slightest shred of evidence that the "edification" they feel when watching him in action, has any more "Holy Spirit" to it, than the same feelings experienced by atheists who similarly laugh and bond while watching their group leader verbally slash away at critics of atheism.

So that if I am right, that one trait that Holding has worked so hard to hone and perfect, is a trait that can be fully explained in purely naturalistic terms.  Adding "But Jesus insulted the Pharisees too!" doesn't import the least bit of spirituality back into this purely naturalistic phenomena.

With that said, I challenge Holding to write an article listing what mental health professionals say in academic and popular sources, about the purely naturalistic motives people have to either insult others, or to watch their leader insult others.  That is, for what reasons are certain people attracted to that style of communication that constantly belittles one's critics?

When he lists those motives, he should then provide argument for why he believes the theory "this is God in me, causing me to be bold in the Spirit" explains better these traits when found in Christians, than does any non-Christian theory.

I'll start him off so that he doesn't conveniently misunderstand his assigned homework:

First, common sense says Mr. Holding is not god.  Therefore, it is far from certain that when Holding tell the world why he is motivated to belittle his critics, he is telling the truth.  WE have to decide whether his self-serving explanation is true, or if his reasons for insulting his critics are more sinful than this.

Second, common sense says a person can be motivated by anger to insult another.  Holding would be wise to avoid saying yes, he sometimes insults in anger.  He is totally apathetic toward the divine inspiration of the bible, and with such a powerful non-Christian trait about him, it could be argued that the reason he gets angry at critics of Christianity is for no no more significant reason than one professional historian would start talking shit toward another professional historian as they disagree on what happened in the remote past.  The way anger manifests itself when people debate matters that have no definitive resolution anyway, like economics, legal policy, war, constitutional rights, etc, etc.  While anger could possibly ultimately be from the Holy Spirit, Holding will never show evidence that the divine explanation is any better than the naturalistic one.

Third, common sense says a person can be motivated by a selfish desire to dominate others, to insult somebody.  We see that everyday when somebody says "shut the fuck up you fucking fool", and the followers laugh.  So while desire to dominate others could possibly be from the Holy Spirit, Holding will never show evidence that the divine explanation is any better than the naturalistic one.

Fourth, "An insult can thus be interpreted as an attempt to reduce the social status of the recipient and raise the relative status of the insulter." And to this Holding would readily agree, and this is where his case starts to fall apart: Why do you wish to reduce the social status of the insult-recipient, Holding?  Are you afraid that your having allegedly "won" some argument on the merits won't be quite enough to persuade your highly intelligent admirers that your defense really did succeed?  If you trust that these smart people can recognize when you've really won or lost some debate with a critic, then what further benefit are you trying to confer on them by using insult to reduce the social status of said critic? 

Fifth, we cannot discount the possibility that the desire to insult could also chiefly arise from sheer immaturity.  Kids do nothing else better than nag and poke fun at each other, and given that most kids do this without regard to religion, there's a solid argument here that some type of bonding is achieved in the group if they watch with enthusiasm as their leader excoriates somebody who criticized the group or their beliefs, or who otherwise doesn't fit in.  Unfortunately for Holding, he cannot persuasively argue that this theory of insult-motive is unlikely for either himself or his admiring followers.  Insults do indeed usually achieve the benefit of having the group bond just a bit more against the insulted person, and since this happens naturalistically, it will likely aways be a more probable explanation than "I am bold because of the Holy Spirit".

Sixth, we cannot deny that most mature civilized adults counsel us to resolve our differences with each other without shouting matches and insults.  This is a pattern across various demographics of adults in the modern civilized world, both Christian and non-Christians, so we have to take seriously the possibility that, at least for purposes of trying to resolve disagreements about "truth", that part of humanity who are most likely to get it right (the mature), counsel against vitriolic barbs most likely because this type of communication proves to more stifle, than promote,  the prospect of resolving disagreement.  If that is the case, we have to seriously consider that those people who characteristically insult and demean their critics, are either doing this for purely entertainment purposes, or really are more interested in strifling truth, or a combination of both, but the point is that vitriolic insulting certainly does nothing to help one win an argument on the merits.  So the person doing this type of insulting is therefore seeking little more than for his followers to applaud him.

Seventh, some studies indicate that we insult other according to our culture:

Germans, Americans and Italians were especially drawn to anal terms of abuse, such as variations on “asshole”, whereas Spaniards preferred to query the offender’s intelligence. British and Dutch participants leaned towards genital terminology, and Norwegians specialised in satanic expressions. Animal terms and sexual inadequacies and abnormalities were also common.

Since Holding could not make clearer his preference for homosexual and anal references, he must face the daunting prospect that the reason he personally prefers such language has absolutely nothing to do with "God" and everything to do with him being exactly like millions of other Americans, only to a more extreme degree since most heterosexual men don't use homoerotic language nearly as repetitiously as Holding.

That should be enough to get Holding to start working on his assigned homework, the way he "assigned homework" to G.A. Wells and others.

If Holding and his ilk seriously wish to be "godly", how much effort have they put into making sure their sinful lust to insult others is suppressed, so that when they insult others, this is more than likely the Holy Spirit speaking through them?

Or did I forget that Holding and his followers view Christianity is nothing more than an intellectual game?