Showing posts with label slander. Show all posts
Showing posts with label slander. Show all posts

Sunday, August 1, 2021

I have notified Lee Strobel of James Patrick Holding's slanders

 Back in 2016, Lee Strobel on Twitter gave other people links to James Patrick Holding's articles.

That was one year after my original lawsuit against him.  

So I recently sent Strobel the following email:

It is my understanding that you sometimes recommend James Patrick Holding's apologetics materials.  For example:

https://twitter.com/LeeStrobel/status/737039671688060928

Lee Strobel

@LeeStrobel

May 29, 2016

Hey @NelsonKingHD -- Here's rebuttal the atheist didn't want you to know about: http://ow.ly/6kHE300HGXO

=======================================

Apostle Paul required you to disassociate yourself from so-called "brothers" who commit certain sins, one of them being "reviling".  1st Cor. 5:11-13.

Mr. Holding has "reviled" me so much, I had to sue him for libel, and the Complaint was required to be 534 pages long merely to document it all.  You can download it for free here.

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/06/james-patrick-holding-has-committed.html

or here

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16r_O0yRBKrFNfZR7DVG9d2NknOM1LuX7/view

Since you clearly supported Holding's work in the past, and I don't know whether you've withdrawn such support since 2016, I might need to secure your under-oath testimony for purposes of trial.  I rather prefer to gain that testimony by email and thus spare everybody some expense.  The slanderous language of Holding which I documented in the Complaint, is sometimes sexually vulgar, so this is notice that you should make sure no kids are near the computer when you read this Complaint.

Since around 2016, Holding has been intentionally ambiguous about the exact legal basis upon which he can solicit and receive "tax-deductible" donations, and he says this is somehow allowed because of the fact that he works with other organizations that have 501(c)(3) status.  But he never publicly names these other organizations, leaving the donor to guess as to how exactly the money will be used, and to guess about whether the money will go to some other ministry Holding has refused to disclose.  So for all I know, he might do work for you, or you do work for him, or did in the past, etc, and perhaps Holding's tax-scheme has some relation to you or your ministry.  Your supporting of his work certainly raised an eyebrow.

Because I claim actual and presumed damages in this lawsuit against Holding, this gives me the right in the discovery-phase of the litigation to find out just how extensive Holding's slanders about me were.  Thus the extent to which you do or don't work with Holding, is relevant, discoverable and admissible.

This is a good faith effort to gain facts within your personal knowledge for purposes of currently pending litigation.  I can subpoena you, of course, but I'd rather avoid doing that.  If it be true that you have ceased recommending and/or supporting Holding, a simple comment to me by email explaining what motivated you to cease that activity will be sufficient.  

It is truly mystifying how in my experience,  most of the people who name the name of Christ and recommend Holding's apologetics, find his consistent 20 years of sinful libels and slanders against me and even against other Christians to be utterly unimportant....as if the bible would justify them keeping in their ministry a Christian teacher who lives in perpetual sin, because his great knowledge of apologetics somehow "outweighs" those actions in his life that biblically disqualify him from ministry (!?)

If there is anything I can do to minimize the degree to which you are involved in this lawsuit, please let me know.   Your emphases on spiritual maturity cause me to presume in good faith that you do not knowingly support ministries led by people who mistake spiritually evil conduct for holy conduct.

Sincerely,

Christian Doscher

barryjoneswhat@gmail.com



 

I have reported James Patrick Holding's sins to Kris Jordan of scripturesubjects.net

James Patrick Holding, the guy I'm suing for libel for about the 4th time, has at his tektonics.org advertised the link to another apologetics ministry website.  I found out who published that site and sent them the following email.  







Barry Jones barryjoneswhat@gmail.com

to office
Hello,
At his website tektonics.org James Patrick Holding has provided links to your scripturesubjects.net site.  

Tekton Website Updates
January 10, 2021
The site review continuies. Meanwhile here are some external notes:
An up and coming apologetics website; sample here and here.
Special notice: Nick Peters now has a Patreon account.
---------------------------------------from ---http://www.tektonics.org/newstuff.php

Even assuming you don't "partner" with or otherwise work with Holding in any Christian activity, the apostle Paul requires you to disassociate yourself from so-called Christian 'brothers" who commit certain sins, one of them being "reviling":

 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:11-13 NAU)

The Greek word for "reviler" there is λοίδορος / loidoros.  BDAG says it means "abusive person".  

TDNT explains:

 2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]

("calumny" means using misrepresentations used for the purpose of harming another's reputation. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calumny)

DANKER says loidoros means "insolent person".

In English "reviler" means a person who subjects another to "verbal abuse"

Chrysostom thought those who committed the sins Paul listed there were dishonoring God:

Chrysostom: The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Timothy, Titus, and Philemon: Homilies on 1 Timothy
And, "If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater" (1 Cor. v. 11.), such a man honors not God.

Origen says the person who reviles is not a true brother:

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, ch. 30
as the Apostle says, "If any one that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, etc., with such an one not to eat;"14 for no one who is an idolater, or a fornicator, or covetous, is a brother; for if he, who seems to bear the name of Christ, though he is named a brother, has something of the features of these, he would not rightly be called a brother.
 
Clement of Alexandria noted that you shouldn't even eat with a reviler:

Clement of Alexandria: The Instructor, book 2, ch. 1
Thus the apostle, in his solicitude for us, discriminates in the case of entertainments, saying, that "if any one called a brother be found a fornicator, or an adulterer, or an idolater, with such an one not to eat;"5 neither in discourse or food are we to join, looking with suspicion on the pollution thence proceeding, as on the tables of the demons.

Apostle Paul says abusive speech indicates the speaker is acting according to their old unredeemed nature:

 6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,
 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them.
 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.
 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices,
 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--   (Col. 3:6-10 NAU)

Paul says filthy talk is a sign that the speaker is under the wrath of God:

 3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;
 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Eph. 5:3-6 NAU)

Jesus said slanders defile the person who speaks them:

 18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
 20 "These are the things which defile the man; (Matt. 15:18-20 NAU)  

The bible forbids you from associating with a person who gossips or otherwise "reveals secrets":

 19 He who goes about as a slanderer reveals secrets, Therefore do not associate with a gossip. (Prov. 20:19 NAU)

Why did I give you all that biblical precedent?

Because since 1998, James Patrick Holding has engaged consistently in filthy speech, insults, abusive talk, gossip and slander, and he has never stopped, including into the present.  I have sued Holding for libel, that lawsuit is currently pending, and his slanders of me were so extensive, my Complaint had to be 534 pages long just to document it all.

That Complaint is attached to this email as a pdf for your convenience.

Ever since 2015, Holding has posted to the internet numerous libelous comments and videos about me.  He even got hold of the video of my bus accident, photoshopped it, replaced the original audio with a fast-paced comedy song, then looped it so that the viewer would see me getting injured repeatedly about 500 times in a single minute. He posted that to YouTube.

When I complained that this video was libelous and caused me emotional distress, YouTube refused to take it down, and Holding refused to remove it.

My Complaint also documents Holding's tax scams.  When I sued him in 2015, he dissolved his Tekton Apologetics corporation.  When I sued him in 2016, he dissolved his Apologetics Afield corporation.  And yet he has, ever since, been asking for "tax-deductible" donations at his website.  For a couple of years he said he works with other 501(c)(3) organizations, but he never identifies these, and recently he changed the statement so that whether he still does or doesn't work with third-party ministries is ambiguous, and yet up until recently he said the donations would be used to support the "urgent work that we do here" (i.e., at tektonics.org... which to my knowledge Holding doesn't have tax-exempt status for, and which to my knowledge is not claimed by any legitimately tax-exempt organization to be their own ministry work product).

For years I tried to get the few Christian scholars that ever publicly endorsed Holding to engage in a Matthew 18 discussion since he was clearly committing sin toward me and was clearly unrepentant of it.  While none of them cared to do this, they have stopped publicly endorsing him.  

It gets worse.  Holding does not merely repeatedly commit the sin of slander...he has posted a long article attempting to show biblical justification for it.  And yes, in 2016 he libelously redacted a frivolous court order and appended it to this article.  Holding cannot be satisfied to stab me, he finds it necessary to twist the knife.

It gets worse:  During my 2015 lawsuit against Holding, he stated under oath that he has never deliberately intended to insult anybody.  That was his "tenth act of  perjury"  See Complaint pp. 451 ff.  My blog page explaining this, including link to free download of said Complaint, is:

It gets worse:  since 2015, Holding has repeatedly communicated to multiple people his allegedly good-faith belief that I have a very serious emotional disorder.  In other words, when Holding was posting all the libels about me between 2015 and 2021, he strongly believed that I was particularly susceptible to emotional distress.  A recent manifestation of his ill-will and hostility toward me (which the State of Florida says will make him liable for slander even if the comment he published about me was factually truthful) was his creating several websites each exclusively devoted to slandering me by means of libelously photoshopped court documents.  Just google "Christian Behrend Doscher" and/or
"Doscherleaks".  My lawsuit accuses him of misrepresenting my prior court cases.

Holding might know a lot about the bible, but in my 35 years of reading it, I cannot find any verse that says there is ever a time when it would be spiritually virtuous to use lies and gossip to subject severely emotionally disabled people to severe emotional distress.  For all of Holding's endless screeds about how "Jesus insulted the Pharisees, so we have automatica license to insult people too!", he appears to have overlooked, or else to not care about,  "thou shalt not lie".  Lies are not only direct falsehoods.  It is also lying to knowingly give somebody a false impression.

It gets worse:  Holding had to create the DoscherLeaks website several times, because every time I complained to the domain host that the site contained libelous material, they suspended the site.  The first host was a Christian company InMotion Hosting, the provider that Holding had used for nearly 20 years to also host his tektonics.org website.  After finding a Canadian host company that doesn't care about libelous content, he switched his tektonics.org site over to another and non-Christian host.

One might say those actions bespeak a mentally unstable individual who has a pathologically obsessive need to slander his critics.

You may contact Holding at jphold99@gmail.com, the address he gives the readers who might want to give him tax-deductible donations, even though he doesn't ever name the 501(c)(3) organizations that he is required to work with before that tax-exempt status can be lawful.

You may contact his lawyer Scott Livingstson at slivingston@cplspa.com.  Livingston used to be equally as boistriously mouthy and insulting toward me as Holding was, and didn't simmer down until the court entered an order admonishing him to quit using childish and stupid comments.

Perhaps the worst part is that Holding first paid a lawyer more than $20,000 to get my original lawsuit dismissed on the technicality of lack of jurisdiction, which means that he continued slandering me between 2016 and the present despite losing most of his life-savings to answer the legal action.  I have a reasonable belief that if the jury in the currently pending case awards me nothing, Holding will boast that this is because God made them see the light.  And if they award me substantial damages, Holding will merely insist the judicial system is controlled by the devil.  All of the consequences that would otherwise motivate mature adults guilty of libel to cease slandering mentally ill people, happened to Holding, yet these events did nothing but embolden him to increase his libelous harassment of me.  So because his spite and ill-will toward me are so clear, my lawsuit is asking for substantial punitive damages.

My current lawsuit has so far cost Holding what I conservatively estimate to be about $10,000, if his attorney's latest fee-disclosure is truthful.  And yet Holding refuses to remove any of the libelous postings about me.  Holding has thus spent nearly $30,000 answering my legal actions, and shows not the slightest hint that he might perhaps be in the wrong.

If in your opinion Holding's comments about me as documented in the Complaint did at some point transfer from "justified rebuke" over to "sinful slander", I would ask you to either ask him to stop advertising your ministry at his website (I'm assuming you agree with the bible, supra?) or demand that he participate in a Matthew 18 meeting.  He is, without any doubts whatsoever, that "reviler" from whom the apostle Paul says you must disassociate yourself.  

Every legitimately credentialed bible scholar that ever endorsed Holding in the past says there is ZERO biblical justification to either use insults to react to those who publicly criticize the gospel, or to use insult to repay insult.  Even Gary Habermas rebuked him for it.  Holding will have none of it.  Nope, if Jesus insulted the Pharisees, Holding thinks this grants automatic carte blanche to modern-day Christians to slanderously hiss and spit at anything they disagree with. 

The language of Holding that the Complaint documents as slanderous is also sexually filthy and sounds like it came from a demented juvenile delinquent, so make sure no children are with you when you read the Complaint.

Sincerely,

Christian Doscher
=====end of email=====================
Holding once commented on one of his YouTube videos that if he ever found out I had spoke disparagingly about him to anybody else, he would send them links to his posted comments about me.  So here's the stakes:
---- if Holding makes good on that promise in reaction to the above-quoted email, the jury will most certainly conclude that Holding's spiteful ill-will toward me is flying at truly pathological heights, thus motivating them to think only a higher amount of punitive damages has the slightest prayer of successfully deterring Holding from libeling me in the future.
---- If he doesn't make good on that promise in reaction to the above-quoted email, I will be arguing to the jury that 
a) Holding more than likely came to believe during this litigation that his posted comments about me were libelous, but 
b) because he has never removed his comments about me from the internet, it must be that Holding intentionally left up comments that he knew were libelous...thus motivating the jury to think only a higher amount of punitive damages has the slightest prayer of successfully deterring Holding from libeling me in the future. 
Once again, Holding lives in Florida, and that state has a peculiar law:  if you live there and publish comments about somebody to the internet, you could still be sued for libel even if the comment was factually and legally truthful.  Florida holds that truthful comments constitute actionable libel, if the person who posted them did so with motive to harm:

Publication of a true statement if done with ill will can be defamatory. See Fla. Const. Art. I § 4 (statement not libelous if true and published with good motive); Lewis v. Evans, 406 So.2d 489, 492 n. 2 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) ("In Florida, truth is not always an absolute defense to defamation.  In order to avoid liability, a `good motive' must also be shown."). Armstrong does not assert that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude he acted with ill will.

Finch v. City of Vernon, 877 F. 2d 1497, 1504 (11th Cir. 1989)


 The parties argue over whether truth is an absolute defense to defamation under Florida law. Florida's Constitution provides, "In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for defamation the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as defamatory is true and was published with good motives, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated." Fla. Const. art. 1 § 4 (emphasis added). Florida courts, as we have previously noted, have interpreted this provision to mean that truth is not an absolute defense in a defamation action; "good motives" are also required. Finch v. City of Vernon, 877 F.2d 1497, 1504 (11th Cir. 1989) ("In Florida, truth is not always an absolute defense to defamation. In order to avoid liability, a `good motive' must also be shown." (quoting Lewis v. Evans, 406 So.2d 489, 492 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)); see also id. ("Armstrong does not assert that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to conclude he acted with ill will."). Schiano responds pointing to an unpublished federal district court case in which the court opined that "[s]ubstantial truth is a complete defense to defamation, regardless of the motives of the defamer. It is a common tenet of First Amendment law that true statements are inactionable." Carroll v. TheStreet.com, Inc., No. 11-CV-81173, 2014 WL 5474061, at *11 (S.D. Fla. July 10, 2014). In light of Finch, the Carroll court incorrectly remarked that the "good motive" requirement "is not recognized" by the federal courts.

Friedman v. Schiano, Court of Appeals, fn. 16 (11th Cir. 2019)

 


U]nder Florida law, truth is only a defense to defamation when the truth has been coupled with good motive."

Lispig v. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170, 183-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) 

For the people who are thinking about donating money to Holding, you'd rightly fear that your money might go not for ministry work but to pay me damages.  Yes, I sued Holdings corporation, but Florida law is explicit that where the corporation has been found guilty of wrong-doing, the corporation's officers and agents who committed the wrongs will be personally liable to pay the damages even if the Plaintiff doesn't ask the Court to pierce the corporate veil:

Under Florida law, "officers or agents of corporations may be individually liable in tort if they commit or participate in a tort, even if their acts are within the course and scope of their employment." White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 918 So. 2d 357, 358 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (citations omitted). The same rule applies to limited liability companies. Cannon v. Fournier, 57 So. 3d 875, 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); see also Candyman Kitchens Inc. v. Sandcrafters LLC, 2018 WL 6434058, *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2018) ("Under Florida law, a member or manager of a limited liability company is personally liable for torts committed within the scope of the employment."). "Liability will attach `even if no argument is advanced that the corporate form should be disregarded.'" Bradenton Motorsports Park, Inc. v. Long, 2011 WL 13244036, *1 (M.D. Fla. June 21, 2011) (quoting Fla. Speciality, Inc. v. H 2 Ology, Inc., 742 So. 2d 523, 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)).

Skypoint Advisors, LLC v. 3 Amigos Productions LLC (D.C. MD Florida 2020)

The smart person doesn't donate jack shit to Holding.  The smart person demands that Holding either repent of his obvious sins of slander, or tells Holding to consign himself to be viewed by other Christian ministries to be just as corrupt as 1st century Jews thought tax-collectors were: 
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17 NAU)

Download my 534-page Complaint against Holding  hereHolding's lawyer has already told him that there is no meritorious defense against my charges.

Remember, I filed my Complaint in November 2020, so that was the time when Holding first started reading it.  Due to the Court not ruling on my case and due to the Corona virus epidemic causing the Florida court litigation to slow down, this means these events caused Holding to be given what is now about 8 extra months to review the Complaint, when in fact in normal circumstances he'd be required to file an Answer to Complaint within 30 days of it being served on him. 

So Holding's followers need to listen up: If the jury awards me any damages, you will not be able to trifle that maybe Holding was somehow prevented from making rebuttal arguments as powerful as he possibly could have.  No, Holding and his lawyer have been working together trying to brainstorm how they will answer my charges on the merits, and they've been given 8 extra months beyond the normal 30 day responsive window required in the Court rules.  If then Holding loses this lawsuit, it will only be AFTER he brought to bear on it all arguments he and his lawyer of 20+ years of corporate litigation experience thought would most powerfully exonerate him of the charges.  

Which would probably lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is only one reason Holding lost:  there simply ISN'T any possible defense on the merits, and Holding was undeniably guilty as charged.

The reasonable Christian at that point would insist that Holding has been committing the sin of slander for more than 20 years, and was so spiritually blind, he seriously thought a sinful act was a holy act.  Sure, authentically born-again Christians can sin, but if you wouldn't think Holding truly possessing salvation if he committed adultery every day for the last 20 years, why would you think he could possibly be saved in spite of his sins of slander every day for the last 20 years?

YOU might think reviling is "less evil" than adultery, but NT theology says commission of any type of sin makes you guilty of breaking ALL the commandments:

9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

 11 For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT REVILE." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do revile other people, you have become a transgressor of the law. (Jas. 2:9-11 NAU)

Inerrantist K. A. Richardson:

2:11 ...every sin constitutes a state of opposition to God. Sin is never a question of breaking a single command but of violating the integrity of the whole law. Each command is integral to the whole law.... We offend the whole through every single trespass because we are actually refusing submission to the being and person of God rather than simply the instrument itself (cf. 4:11f.).

Richardson, K. A. (2001, c1997). Vol. 36: James (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; 

The New American Commentary (Page 122). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Monday, March 22, 2021

my attempt to warn people that James Patrick Holding is a spiritual midget

 I posted the following to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5zo6UOGl4k:


1st Corinthians 5:11-13 requires you to disassociate yourself from any so-called Christian "brother" who is a "reviler"

----
11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:11-13 NAU)
--
(note esp. v. 13, Paul equates the "reviler" with the "wicked man" which Deut. 13:5 and 17:7 say should be removed from the congregation). So any attempt on your part to trivialize the biblical seriousness of Holding's sin, will under biblical logically be equal to trivializing the seriousness of sinful activity which god through Moses said requires the congregation to excommunicate the member.

Holding is currently being sued in court because his "reviling" nature has caused him to commit libel (what the bible calls the sins of slander and gossip). A complaint that uses 534 pages to document Holding's sin of slander (including his numerous acts of lying under oath in court documents (perjury) can be downloaded for free here https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/06/james-patrick-holding-has-committed.html.

...do not associate with a gossip. (Prov. 20:19 NAU)

He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, But he who is trustworthy conceals a matter. (Prov. 11:13 NAU)

Jesus condemns slander, Mark 7:22
Paul requires Christians to cease all slanderous activity, Ephesians 4:31
Paul condemns abusive speech, Ephesians 5:4, Colossians 3:8
Peter forbids slander, 1st Peter 2:.
He also condemns "insult for insult", 1st Peter 3:9, which Holding has made a living out of for the last 20 years.

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.
-------------
"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)."
-------------------
See my entire argument here:
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-fine-example-of-why-james-patrick.html

Holding has never "blessed" anybody who insulted him or did him wrong. Every time he can be documented to reply to somebody speaking negatively about him, he violates the Context Group's view, supra, and simply bites back at his opponent with hissing and spitting and verbal abuse.

Peter says the example Jesus left you was to avoid reviling others who revile you, 1st Peter 2:21 ff.

If you wouldn't attend the church of a pastor who committed adultery every day and seriously denied that this was sin, why would you accept arguments from an "apologist" who lives in the sin of "reviling" every day?

If you would speak out against any "Christian" who routinely engaged in the sin of theft, why don't you speak out against Holding for his ceaseless sins of "reviling" ?and slander?

Holding wrote an article defending his stupid trifle that the bible allows Christians to hurl insults at skeptics who publicly attack Christianity, but I've refuted that article in point-by-point fashion.
https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/06/new-reply-to-james-patrick-holdings.html

What we can be sure you WON'T be doing is pretending that you seriously believe Holding's trifling sinful bullshit.



 

Saturday, February 27, 2021

I guess we can see how poorly James Patrick Holding will do in trial

 James Patrick Holding posted this point by point answer to another critic, and I show how fucking absurd Holding's logic is

tektontv1 day ago

All of these whines seem to designed to avoid engaging real arguments rather than answering them. It also hoists itself on its own petard repeatedly.

Empty rhetoric that any fool could use, but I'm sure your followers do what you do, and mistake rhetoric for actual substance. 

>>>"1. The vast majority of Jesus nation didn't accept him, despite the miracles he may have done.

So? the vast majority of the Egyptians, Moabites, Canaanites, etc never accepted Judaism in spite of the miracles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, etc.

Probably because the Egyptians, Moabites and Canaanites never had any reason to think Moses, Joshua or Elijah could do real miracles. 

>>>So accepting the claims of small cult (of Jesus) is less rational than accepting the decisions of vast majority of the people back then.

You mean like Judaism, the small cult that came out of Egypt to found what, politically speaking, was a puny and insignificant nation?? Do tell.

That wasn't a rebuttal.   

>>>2. The Old Testament doesn’t prove Christianity, because we do see that Jews explain the same verses completely different. When you have more than one way to interpret something, it can't be a proof.

I don't know what he means when he refers to the OT "proving" Christianity. I would never say it does.

Then you never read 2nd Timothy 3:16.  It is talking about the OT when it says the scripture is profitable to the Christian for "doctrine", and apostle Paul curiously grounds doctrine always in the OT, never on the words of Jesus.  Paul's allegedly grounding completely obvious common sense on something Jesus said (1st Timothy 5:18) is less about grounding something and more about telling the world just how little Paul thought of the pre-resurrection Christ.  

>>>3. Christianity is no valid more than Islam or other religions, because that if God changed the religion so drastically (Old Testament commandments does not required anymore, and so on) - why stay there? Let's accept that God came again to Muhammad, or Joseph Smith.

Non sequitur.

No, your non-sequitur is a non-sequitur:  he wasn't arguing that God surely did change religions.  he was only arguing that it would be reasonable for a person to believe that was the case.  The only time "non-sequitur" can validly apply is when the critiqued argument was saying a certain conclusion "necessarily" followed.  You'd be surprised at how often apologists say "non-sequitur" to a skeptical argument, when in fact the argument is not about what is necessarily true, but what is reasonable to believe. 

>>>4. The trinity sounds absurd when you believe in monotheistic God, in comparison to the way Judaism see their God.

Too bad this dumbass never heard of Trinitarian precursors in Judaism like hypostatic Wisdom.

Except that Judaism's hypostatic Wisdom is equally absurd as Trinitarianism, unless you kick the Christians out of the room and stop pushing the personification of wisdom so literally.  But the jury will find it interesting that with the remark "dumbass", the world's smartest Christian apologist cannot stop insulting people.  Download the 534-page Complaint here, then start at page 486.  There's about 35 pages of proofs that Holding lied when he testified under oath that he has "never deliberately intended to insult anyone by his communications", a statement that both he and his lawyer choose to leave unqualified. 

>>>>5. Judaism apologists disprove Christianity proofs easily. As Judaism is non-missionary religion, they have no motive to religion debate everywhere. That’s why most of the "proofs" over internet are one sided and you miss the Jews real point of views in the matter.

I smelled the elephant he hurled but I don't see it.

Then read 2000 years of church history, that's how long the Jews have failed to be impressed by Christian arguments, so apparently, the OT statements that NT authors use to prove something about Christianity, are not quite as rock-solid as the tearful inerrantist on Sunday morning would like to think. 

>>>Most people are not resisting to Christianity or any other religion because they are evil or stupid or stubborn. There are many rabbis, priests, Muftis and others that knows the truth and can win any debate.

Basically this guy has nothing but slogans to offer.

That would hardly matter.  I could kick your fucking head off in a debate about bible inerrancy and Jesus' resurrection, and the most you could do about it is post a defamatory cartoon video to YouTube.  Then YOU accuse other adults of having the mentality of a two-year old (!?) 

By the way, Mr. Holding, if you are so fucking serious that God approves of you calling your enemies "dumbasses", do you plan on calling ME a dumbass when you take the witness stand in front of the jury?  It doesn't matter if the earthly judge prohibits this, the true Christian obeys the higher spiritual moral where it conflicts with an earthly secular rule.  Acts 5:29, "we must obey God rather than men", so you can forget about pretending that Romans 13 requires that you obey secular authorities.  The earthly judge would be violating your idea of higher spiritual ethics in telling you to address me in a courteous manner.

Tuesday, August 4, 2020

James Patrick Holding: Libelous according to his own website domain provider InMotion Hosting

Recently i sent the following email to the company hosting the website that Holding had used to libel me, InMotion Hosting, the website that forms a large part of the current libel lawsuit:
---------------------------------------------------------

request for removal of a libelous website you are hosting
Barry Jones <barryjoneswhat@gmail.com>
Thu, Jul 16, 3:43 PM
to quality, abuse, legal

Hello,

Your Acceptable Use Policy prohibits your customers from posting libelous information to the websites you host:

from https://www.inmotionhosting.com/acceptable-use-policy

4. Prohibited Uses
---c. Utilize the Services in connection with any tortious or actionable activity. Without limiting the general application of this rule, Customers and Users may not:
Utilize the Services to publish or disseminate information that (A) constitutes slander, libel or defamation, (B) publicizes the personal information or likeness of a person without that person’s consent or (C) otherwise violates the privacy rights of any person. Utilize the Services to threaten persons with bodily harm, to make harassing or abusive statements or messages, or to solicit the performance of acts or services that are illegal under applicable law.

Before that, you said:

The Acceptable Use Policy below defines the actions which IMH considers to be abusive, and thus, strictly prohibited. The examples named in this list are non-exclusive, and are provided solely for guidance to IMH customers. If you are unsure whether any contemplated use or action is permitted, please send mail to abuse@InMotionHosting.com and we will assist you. Please note that the actions listed below are also not permitted from other Internet Service Providers on behalf of, or to advertise, any service hosted by IMH, or connected via the IMH network. Furthermore, such services may not be advertised via deceptive marketing policies, as defined by the Federal Trade Commission Deception Policy Statement.

So one reasonable interpretation of this would be that you will remove any content from any website you host, if you feel that content to be libelous. What else is implied by the phrase "strictly prohibited"?

My name is Christian Doscher. I am suing James Patrick Holding for libel.
Doscher v. Holding, Florida Middle District, 6:19-cv-01322

My prior lawsuit against him proceeded upon many of the same facts published at the same website:
Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, et al, 6:19-cv-00076

That suit is currently being appealed. 11th Circuit: Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, et al, Case No. 20-10736-

The vast bulk of Mr. Holding's libelous statements are found on a website you host:

http://www.lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.com/

I initiated the latest lawsuit with a 170-page complaint, see attached. All of the statements about me on that website are libelous either in direct fashion, or by juxtaposition, or by failure to disclose relevant facts thus giving a defamatory impression. You can tell from reading the site that Mr. Holding has perused Court records to gratify his insatiable appetite for spite. While I have not yet sought the sealing of my prior court records, Holding's use of these judicial records is contrary to the Courts' intent:

from Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 440 (Dist. Court, SD New York 2018):

Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes" such as using records "to gratify spite or promote scandals" or where files might serve "as reservoirs of libelous statements for press consumption." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); see also Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1051 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ("Courts have long declined to allow public access simply to cater to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure.").
It appears from your own articles that your company tends to be "Christian" or to view Christianity favorably:

https://www.inmotionhosting.com/employment/latest-news/imh-gives-back

Jesus said slander is a sin that comes from the heart:
19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
20 "These are the things which defile the man; (Matt. 15:19-20 NAU)

The apostle Paul required you to disassociate yourself from any so-called Christian 'brother' who engages in the sin of "reviling":
11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:11-13 NAU)
This is a request that you remove the website http://www.lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding.com/ from public access until this suit is resolved.

I strongly suggest you read the attached Complaint in full before you respond. All of the trifles you might have about ways to spin the website's statements so that they are not necessarily libelous, are false. Holding has no immunity, he cannot use the "opinion" defense, he cannot prove the "truth" of the libels, the libelous statements actually are false in every way that case law says statements can be libelous, and the suit was filed within Florida's two-year statute of limitations. The only reason my prior identical libel lawsuit against Holding didn't go to trial was because the judge falsely accused me of failing to follow the rules, an order that is currently being appealed (but the order of dismissal was "without prejudice" thus allowing me to file the same case again). So not even the prior dismissal can possibly suggest the current suit lacks merit.

Rest assured, Mr. Holding's website contains properly actionable libel, and no trifle of law is going to save him this time. You could not possibly do anything bad, and you could only do good, by removing that website from public access until this case is resolved.

I will be happy to answer any question you might have about the possible truth of the statements. You can become better informed of the best arguments thereto by contacting Mr. Holding's lawyer Scott A. Livingston at:

slivingston@cplspa.com
201 East Pine Street Suite 445 Orlando, Florida 32801
Phone: 407-647-7887

Thank you for your understanding.

Christian Doscher
barryjoneswhat@gmail.com
Attachments area





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

This was InMotion Hosting's reply:

-------------------------------------------------------------------


[IMH Legal] #3187: Update to 'request for removal of a libelous website you are hosting'
Inbox
x
InMotion Hosting Legal Admin Team <legal-trac@inmotionhosting.com>
Tue, Jul 21, 4:32 AM
to
[External] Hello, We have reviewed the account and have confirmed that the material or materials listed in the complaint were still present.  
The account has now been suspended. 
At this time we have closed this complaint. 
Our office hours are from 9 AM to 9 PM, Monday through Friday, Eastern time. If you have additional questions or concerns you may respond to this message and we will address those matters. Your correspondence will be responded to in the order that it was received so please allow 1-2 business days to receive your response. Best Regards,InMotion Hosting Legal Admin Team
-------------------------------------------------------------


The "Complaint" with which I've started the new libel lawsuit against Holding (the one which convinced InMotion Hosting that Holding had violated their terms of service, is 170 pages long, and conclusively proves that Holding has committed perjury in Court at least 10 times, as well as shows that all comments about me which Holding uploaded to that website and elsewhere, were indeed libelous "per se".  Download Complaint here.

Maybe the world's smartest Christian apologist can now "explain" why InMotion Hosting's law firm are "dumbasses" or "idiots" or "morons" for finding his excuses unpersuasive, you know, the epithets that he hurls against anybody else who dare to disagree with his stupid pretentious trifling bullshit.

Or maybe you should ask him whether he plans to make good on his previous threat to simply move the content on the website to another domain, should the first domain remove the material in question.

Or maybe you should ask him how you can be sure your donations to him aren't being used to pay his lawyer to fight this lawsuit.  But read the downloaded Complaint, supra, first, as Holding appears to the be type that will lie about his finances when he thinks he won't get caught.

you can contact Holding at tektonics.org, or his email jphold@att.net

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

The sanctification argument for refusing to listen to certain Christian apologists

Here is an argument I posted at another forum.  I argue that despite the fact that many bible scholars are consistently Christian in their faith, their unwillingness to break fellowship with other Christians they know are living in sin, proves that such scholars probably aren't true Christians to begin with.  The internet allows Christians who live in the sin of slander/reviling to run wild with little to zero chance that their local pastor, will ever know, and when the pastor is told, he typically brushes this off without employing the admittedly emotionally difficult disciplinary measures required in Matthew 18 and 1st Corinthians 5:9-13
==============================

In my experience, while some Christian might have a lot of knowledge of bible scholarship, they are often shockingly lacking in sanctification.  I've known really smart Christians who are routine drunks, really smart Christians who routinely engage in pre-marital fornication, etc.  God only knows how many Christian "internet apologists" there are who download pornography while posting defenses of biblical inerrancy to debate forums.

The problem is bigger than just the Christians who "live in sin" as we typically use that phrase.  The problem includes Christian scholars and leaders who exhibit zero motive to fulfill the harder parts of the bible, like obeying Matthew 18 and excommunicating the so-called "brother" who refuses to repent of some sin committed against another. 

For example, many "internet apologists" routinely hurl insults at whoever they are debating.  Apostle Paul told Christians to stop communicating with so-called Christian "brothers" who constantly "revile" other people:

  9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. (1 Cor. 5:9-13 NAU)
But how good are the odds that any such sinful Christian's pastor knows about this, and can therefore implement this biblically necessary discipline?

I've witnessed plenty of cases where well-known conservative christian scholars became knowledgeable that one of the Christians they fellowship with routinely "reviles" everybody including other Christians, using language that is in clear violation of Ephesians 5:4 and Colossians 3:8...but these scholars did precisely nothing to address it.  They simply never attempted the least bit of biblical response.

How long can a Christian scholar turn away from the more demanding morals the bible requires of him, before the skeptics can be justified to say such scholar is likely lacking in sanctification?  Does 1st Corinthians 5:11 place a burden upon all Christians, or only on local pastors?

I'd like to know what the Christians here would think of the skeptical argument that says a Christian can be safely deemed to lack salvation, if despite a scholarly-level knowledge of the bible, they carefully refrain from addressing issues of sin in their own lives, or in the lives of other Christians whom they regularly fellowship with.

I'm not saying nobody can be a Christian unless they are sinless.

I'm saying the more you disobey the biblical requirement to reprove sinful brothers and disfellowship the unrepentant, the more the outsider is justified to conclude your lack of sanctification testifies to your lack of salvation. 

Sure, the the bible will allow for the husband who commits adultery to still be a Christian.

But does the bible allow a husband to be a Christian if he has been committing adultery every day of the week for the last 20 years?

So the ultimate question is:  even if the skeptical attack is not infallible, can the attack still be "reasonable" in concluding that where Christian scholars either live constantly in sin, or sheepishly run away from a need to rebuke a sinful brother, this lack of evidence of sanctification increases the odds such Christians are not authentically born again?

Jason Engwer doesn't appreciate the strong justification for skepticism found in John 7:5

Bart Ehrman, like thousands of other skeptics, uses Mark 3:21 and John 7:5 to argue that Jesus' virgin birth (VB) is fiction.  Jason Eng...