Yes, PristineKat, the bible DOES promote child-abuse and sexism

James Patrick Holding's followers are up to their usual blissful ignorance again.

PristineKat18 hours ago (edited)

@Logician_Bones Not surprising because he said he found Sunday school boring, so he never paid attention. Did I mention he’s biblically illiterate? Saying the Book condones “child beating” and “sexism towards women”.

See here.

Holding tries to protect his babies from my challenges, by deleting my posts, so here's how I responded to "PristineKat"

He isn't biblically illiterate. 

Child-beating is approved in Proverbs 22:15, the author says bruises from beatings cleanse away evil (20:30), Christian scholars admit the rule of "context" doesn't help much in the case of proverbs which are often strung together without relation to what follows or precedes ("each proverb is an independent unit that can stand alone and still have meaning. Textual context is not essential for interpretation", D.A. Garrett, New American Commentary, Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs, p. 38), which would mean you cannot use the judicial context of 20:30 to pretend v. 30 is restricted to judicial beatings of criminals.  Therefore it is reasonable to say the Proverbs author thought inflicting wounds on children when they disobey is good.

Since Josephus states the obvious in specifying the Israelites killed the women and children of the pagan nations, I'm going to find his commentary on the "massacre passages" more likely true than the stupid hair-splitting trifles of Copan and Flannagan....in which case the fact that the people who told you to beat your kids, were the type to also slaughter children over religious differences, makes it reasonable, even if not infallibly so, to say the author of Proverbs was advising what we today would call child abuse.  The fools who think "use a rod on your child" meant merely "tap them on the butt" are obviously ignorant of the social and cultural context Proverbs was written in.

As far as sexism toward women in the bible, it is reasonable for skeptics to conclude from Leviticus 19:20-22 that the reason the author makes an exception here to the death-penalty he required for adultery in the next chapter (20:10) is because the girl in 19:20-22 had lower social status as a slave (i.e., the author thinks adultery with a slave girl is less sinful than adultery with a free woman, i.e., misogyny).  And worse for you, the fact that Leviticus 19:20-22 neither expresses nor implies the girl has to do anything to atone for her sin, is because the author doesn't think the sex-act he is addressing was consensual (i.e., the man raped the slave-girl).  Even inerrantist Christian scholars admit this was likely a case of rape:

"Since she was still a slave, the guilty parties were not given the death penalty. Rather there was to be “due punishment”...It is worth noting that only the man was considered blameworthy, not the female slave. Being a slave, the woman may have felt she had little recourse in resisting a male who was a free man and thus more powerful both in the social and economic spheres. That the free man must bear responsibility is suggested by the fact the female slave was not required to bring the guilt offering sacrifice."  (Rooker, M. F. (2001, c2000). Vol. 3A: Leviticus (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 260). Nashville: Broadman & Holman)

Gee, how easy would it be to get rid of inerrantist Rooker's interpretation by calling him a black and white fundy?  Where did you learn that empty rhetoric gets you closer to biblical truth?  Peter Ruckman?

The rapist of Leviticus 19:20-22 only has to offer an animal sacrifice to the priests to have his sin forgiven...which isn't much different than limiting the punishment for rape to a "fine"...which means god thinks rape is nowhere near the big deal that today's neo-fundamentalist know-nothings think it is.

But if you carefully restrict your happy blissfully ignorant world to just tektonics and tekton tv, you do a fair job of protecting yourself from getting your teeth kicked out the back of your skull by skeptics who know their bibles better than you.  Whenever you feel like the Holy Spirit is in the mood to do what Jesus promised in Matthew 10:20, consider yourself challenged.  Goto

https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/09/cold-case-christianity-why-would-god.html

and search for "Leviticus 19:20"

Maybe you could gain more from bible study if you knock off the ignorant zeal and exhibit genuine humility when you are actually ignorant of the biblical matter you speak about?

screenshot proving I posted this challenge to tekton tv

My email about James Patrick Holding to Orlando Baptist

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


Hello, 

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

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

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

His email is jphold@att.net

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

 15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
 (Matt. 18:15-17 NAU)

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

Ephesians 5

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

Colossians 3

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

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

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

D.A. Carson notes that the modern church's shocking apathy toward this command of Paul:

The ease with which the present day church often passes judgment on the ethical or structural misconduct of the outside community is at times matched only by its reluctance to take action to remedy the ethical conduct of its own members. We have reversed Paul’s order of things.

Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed.
edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) (1 Co 5:9). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

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

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

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

"The cognate noun λοιδορία, according to BAGD, 479, means “verbal abuse,” or “reproach.” 

D. B. Garlington, "Burden Bearing And The Recovery Of  Offending Christians (Galatians 6:1–5)"
Trinity Journal 12:2 (Fall 1991) 162

Every time this Greek word is used in the NT, it always carries the negative connotation of verbal abuse:

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

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

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

Holding sometimes writes for the Christian Research Journal.  But CRI is also strongly against the sin of slander. 

See https://www.equip.org/article/reclaiming-civility-as-a-christian-virtue/

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

The problem is that Mr. Holding obviously wants the Christian world to believe he is properly qualified under biblical criteria to be a Christian "teacher".

Obviously he's delusional on that point, James 3:1 says:

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

What fool would say a Christian "apologist" who spews filthy language, can still somehow also be spiritually mature enough to qualify as a "teacher"?  

Let's put that another way:  How long can a Christian "apologist" live in direct defiance of Ephesians 5:4, and Colossians 3:8, before we are justified to say his claim to being genuinely born-again is suspect?    

If God really does view all sins as equally wicked (James 2:10-11), then it would not be consistent with the NT to trifle that Holding's slanders are less sinful than the sexual sins of a Christian who constantly commits adultery.  Now if you wouldn't allow a ceaselessly remorseless adulterer to teach Christians, why would you ever allow a ceaseless slanderer to teach Christians?

Holding's slanders became so incessant that two properly qualified Christian scholars, who formerly endorsed Holding's ministry, no longer do so.  I'm talking about Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Gary Habermas.  Both men always advise Christians to avoid insulting people during apologetics discussions.

See here:   https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/04/mike-licona-likely-thinks-james-patrick.html

Attached to this email are two pdf documents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Christian Doscher

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

my reply to James Patrick Holding's idiot-followers

 James Patrick Holding "warned" me that he "wasn't playing anymore" and that he'd post more videos about me should I dare to speak disparagingly of him to third parties.  So I took up his challenge with a prior blog post wherein I show the world that I recently spoke disparagingly about Holding to a church pastor that knew him back in 2007.  See here.  I then advertised this post to the comment section of one of his YouTube videos about me, to make darn sure he knew about my violation of his warning as quickly as possible.

Holding, as usual, makes good on his libelous "warning" by posting yet another defamatory video about me.

This is my reply to various comments James Patrick Holding's followers post to this libelous YouTuBe video.  Because they are libelous videos, this is an exceptional situation where I will not give the link to the original video, otherwise in jury trial Holding will simply argue that the jury should reduce the amount of damages he must pay since I, by posting links to his libels, helped the public find such defamatory posts..

First, in most of Holding's prior videos about me, he included a link to his secondary website devoted exclusively to libeling me.  But in this current video, which I respond to below, he didn't give that link.

I would be reasonable, even if not infallibly so, to conclude that Holding got schooled the hard painful way when he read my current 97-page complaint, and like a mean dog that has been bapped in the eye with a shovel, has decided that changing his ways is probably going to make life easier for him, and maintaining a steady consistent course of libeling me to the degree he did in the past, can only cause the jury to hate him with great passion.  

And since Holding posted this most recent video out of sheer spite and hatred toward me (i.e., he says "I'm not playing anymore"), his followers do not have the option of speculating that Holding voluntarily chose to leave out that link to the secondary libelous website merely because he wished to give me a "break".  

Holding's pathological hatred of me is well-known.  Unless he had been slapped in the head by me or his own lawyer about the libelous nature of that secondary website, he goddamn sure would have included the link to it with this newly posted video.  He has only chosen to break with his recent pattern of libelous activity because he is genuinely frightened that he really is guilty of libel, he is past the point of no return, and the best thing he can do at this point is to act in ways that might motivate the jury to give him some leniency. 

And like all stupid guilty people, his prior wrongs are so extensive, the jury will be suspicious that he only changed his ways for the better this recently because he was afraid of the damages a jury would impose, NOT because he was genuinely remorseful for defaming me.  People like Holding are incapable of genuine remorse, they are too busy, as Pharisees, trying to morally justify every character flaw they manifest.  

Let me know when you find evidence that James Patrick Holding has ever apologized to anybody for anything he ever did in the last 20 years (yeah right, you seriously think Holding, with his 20 years of slandering people, never crossed the line into the actual sin of reviling or slander?).  I suggest you get a seat cushion and place about 2 weeks worth of water and food near your computer, you'll be on the internet for quite a while trying to locate things that never existed.

here are my replies to the comments Holding's babies posted to said recent video:

Published on Feb 22, 2019


Inari19872 hours ago
I haven’t watched the entire video all the way through, but the thing on John Doe being a fraud is perfectly valid to you. Because it’s an indication of dishonesty. And you can use that to poke holes in his honesty all the way through.

 Yup, just like one would expect, a follower of Holding draws quick negative conclusions about somebody's credibility before viewing any source document in full.  I also commented there with:

Barry Jones1 second ago

It's only an indication of my dishonesty if I invented this John Doe. I didn't, but of course, you cannot distinguish yourself from God, which is why you think there's nothing more to say about the issue after you've drawn your infallible conclusions about it. A reasonable mature respectable adult would first ask for my side of the story. Holding did not serve any discovery on me during that 2015 case, telling you how interested his lawyer in that case was in confronting me with this alleged "zinger".

DecKrash34 minutes ago
It just looks like this guy is so desperate for attention that he's trying to pull any & everything out of his backside to try to take you to court just to find something that sticks.

 Sorry, but my 97-page Complaint is available for free download from this blog (see here), and you don't make any rebuttal to any of its actual arguments.  You just talk shit and posture. 

That's the sign of somebody who is mentally deranged.

Making you are even dumber than a mentally deranged person, because you obviously cannot refute their legal arguments.   I authored 97 pages of legal arguments.  Get to work or shut the fuck up.

Can't the courts look over his past suits and find that he's lobbed so many frivolous lawsuits against so many people that they can give him an injunction against making any more lawsuits?

You've now committed the civil tort of libel per se, because your accusation that I filed "frivolous" lawsuits in the past, is false, and tends to cause others to view me with contempt, disgrace, etc. 

If you don't understand how your comments that my prior lawsuits were "frivolous" constitutes the tort of "libel per se", its probably because you missed the bottom of page 4 of the Complaint.  If I really wanted to, your engaging in libel would justify me to file a John Doe Subpoena to force Google to reveal all information. they have about your real name and contact information.  Go ahead, keep playing with fire, and maybe you'll get first-hand knowledge of what Holding is currently suffering.

Or at least demand that he have psychiatric evaluation?

Unfortunately for you, I've never filed a frivolous lawsuit, so the Courts won't be requiring me to undergo psychiatric evaluation.

Something has to be done to shut down this clown's idiocy for good.

And the fact that you cannot think of a way to do it, might caution the reader to consider that my lawsuits in the past and my current one against Holding are not frivolous, and lead to the further conclusion that YOU are the "idiocy" here.  Holding cannot think of a way to do it either, that's why he's been scrambling around for the last two weeks unsuccessfully trying to convince his Christian lawyer friends to rally in support of his lost cause.  If Holding was smart, he'd realize "Christian" lawyers think him guilty, and he'd use his time more productively finding an non-Christian lawyer who has less more scruples than  Christian lawyer. The secular lawyer only cares about winning.  The Christian lawyer won't defend the Defendant if they feel he is morally and biblically guilty of sin.  They don't want to be defending somebody else's "sin", and of course, Holding's libels of me are the sin of "slander" or  "reviling", which require that other Christians expel him from their fellowship:

 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. 5:11-6:1 NAU)

The Greek word for "reviler" is loidoros, and The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says it refers to those who verbally abuse others:

449 
λοιδορέω loidoreÃoÒ [to revile, abuse],
λοιδορία loidoriÃa [abuse],
λοίδορος loiÃdoros [reviler],
ἀντιλοιδορέω antiloidoreÃoÒ [to revile in return]
 This common word group has the secular sense of reproach, insult, calumny, and even blasphemy. In the LXX it carries the nuance of wrangling, angry remonstrance, or chiding as well as the more usual calumny. Philo has it for mockery or invective. In the NT the verb occurs four times and the noun and adjective twice each.
 1. loiÃdoros occurs in lists of vices in 1 Cor. 5:11 and 6:10. In Acts 23:4 Paul is asked why he reviles the high priest, and in his reply he recognizes a religious duty not to do so. In Mart. Pol. 9.3 the aged Polycarp cannot revile Christ; to do so would be blasphemy.
 2. Christians should try to avoid calumny (1 Tim. 5:14), but when exposed to it (cf. Mt. 5:11) they should follow Christ's example (1 Pet. 2:23; cf. Mt. 26:63; Jn. 18:23), repaying railing with blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). This is the apostolic way of 1 Cor. 4:12: “When reviled, we bless” (cf. Diog. 5.15). By this answer to calumny the reality of the new creation is manifested. [H. HANSE, IV, 293-94]

B. W. Powers, Ph.d is Dean of New Testament and Ethics, Tyndale College, The Australasian Open Theological College (20 years).  This is from his 2009 Commentary on 1st Corinthians


              
The biblically literate Christian lawyer would never agree to defend Holding from the civil charges accusing him of what the bible calls "reviling". 

tektontv43 minutes ago
His state isn't that interested in shutting down frivolous lawsuits. Florida is, though.

Barry Jones1 second ago
And yet a Florida court already found that the allegations in my Complaint, if true, DO state a legally valid cause of action for libel. I filed this 2019 lawsuit "in forma pauperis", which requires the Court to delay approving the case for filing until they decide that the case is not frivolous. See Figueroa v. Orange County Public Schools, Dist. Court, MD Florida, 2019. That is, IF you really did talk about my prior lawsuits the way my Complaint says you did, that really IS "libel per se". In other words, you either respond by saying you never posted the things the Complaint says you did ( a lie), or you allege that the Complaint misrepresents what you posted (a lie), or you pay a lawyer of lot of money to advise you that you'll be losing the jury trial. 

DecKrash33 minutes ago
@tektontv so does Florida have the power to nullify the validity any further lawsuits made by this guy?

Barry Jones1 second ago
Yes, but only if they reach the conclusion that I'm a "vexatious litigant". I'm not, no court has ever found I was, and the fact that a prior court opined I had "abused the discovery process" is about as damaging to my reputation as "we find the lower court judge abused his discretion in excluding this evidence" is damaging to the credibility of the judge whose ruling was overturned. Holding also doesn't tell you that the Washington Court in 2015 ordered him to answer my jurisdictionn and non-jurisdiction related discovery requests before the question of jurisdiction had been settled. So the more Holding chides me for seeking non-jurisdiction discovery before the jurisdiction question was settled, the more he chides the judge.

Peasant Scrublord36 minutes ago
Doscher is a clown.

Barry Jones1 second ago
Yeah, but, can you actually REFUTE any of my ACTUAL legal or factual arguments in the 2019 Complaint? NO. What a fuckhead you must be, you cannot even refute the arguments made by a "clown".

Once again, Holding is a very stupid cocksucker:  If, as he admits, his own lawyer in the 2015 case cautioned him to take down a similarly libelous "Internet Predator Alert" he had posted about me, we have to wonder:  have any lawyers Holding contacted since then, similarly told him what laywers typically DO tell new clients (i.e, to quit making negative public remarks about the case or the other party)?