This is my reply to an article by Steve Hays entitled
In 2005, James Patrick Holding manifested his preference for homoerotic illustrations in the title and content of one of his articles:
Steve Hays. Needs to stop passing gas at his betters
Curiously, the google search hit gives that title, but the actual webpage has the different title:
Requiem for a Blockhead: Steve Hays on Marvin Wilson and on Calvinism
Later in 2005, staunch 5-Point Calvinist and Christian apologist Steve Hays posted a response at his blog to James Patrick Holding. In that response, Hays several times bemoans the fact that Holding's choice of wording betrays a preference for "defamatory tirades" and "homoerotic and anal" fixations. See
here.
On July 29, 2015, I complained about Holding's immorality in an email to several others. Therein I said:
At the following link, apologist Steve Hays accuses Holding of having
homoerotic and anal fixation due to Holding's over-emphasizing
flatulence and other gross things:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/05/tektonic-faultlines-1.html
On October 27, 2015, I sent a similar email, saying:
At Daniel Wallace's blog, I had provided links to some websites that
have permanently memorialized many immmoral quotations from Holding,
some of them showing his consistent preference to gear his insults
toward homosexual themes. But us unbelievers aren't the only people to
accuse Holding of homosexuality. That conflicted clown was accused of
homoerotic interest in men's buttocks and basic filthiness by another
Christian apologist, Steve Hays.
See http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/05/tektonic-faultlines-1.html
On August 19, 2016, I sent a similar email to the Habermas, Wallace, the pastor of Holding's Sweetwater Baptist church, and others, and said:
I will have none of it. I will continue aggressively advertising to the Christian internet world
16 "You will know them by their fruits. (Matt. 7:16 NAU)
and (as apologist Steve Hays had to complain, several times, to no avail):
…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 Holding’s recurrent obsessive-compulsive anal
fixation.
…Holding’s personal antagonism towards me is so extreme that he will
pounce on anything I say simply because I was the one who said it. And by being
so utterly reactionary, he backs himself into the most indefensible corners
imaginable. How else can you explain his denial that the Bible was written to
be understood?
<< Wilson did not draw any such distinction
(though he did draw others, between types of expression of block logic -- and
that, we will see, will come back to bite Hays on the behind). >>
This is not the first time that Holding has taken a personal interest
in my backside. Holding would be well advised to resist his unsavory attraction
so many homoerotic illustrations.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/05/tektonic-faultlines-1.html
And
that doesn't begin to scratch the surface of all the other homosexual
and otherwise sexually inappropriate innuendos I have cataloged from
Holding in his dealings with other adult men.
In my 2016 federal lawsuit against Holding, (a summary of the filings is
here, the Complaint can be downloaded
here), I had to defend myself from Holding's complaint that I misrepresent him to third-parties therefore, I had to defend the truth of one such representation, namely, that Holding was a closet-homosexual. One of the many evidences I provided in support was something Steve Hays wrote on his blog in 2005. In the federal Complaint I asserted:
108. Defendant is at least a closet-homosexual despite his public profession of
belief that homosexuality is a sin, and Christian apologist Steve Hays was unsuccessful,
through several tries, to get Defendant to cease being so obsessive/compulsive in the use
of homoerotic illustrations involving male buttocks:
…As a flavor of the level at which Defendant’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.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/05/tektonic-faultlines-1.html
Later I started this blog, and here I quoted and used those admissions from Hays as follows:
Other Christian apologists complain he uses too many homoerotic illustrations
Apologist Steve Hays had to warn Holding to cease and desist so many references to men's buttocks:
…As a flavor of the level at which Holding’s mind
operates, his latest thread is charmingly
headed: “Steve Hays needs to stop passing gas at his
betters.” This is a specimen of Defendant’s
recurrent obsessive-compulsive anal fixation.
…Defendant’s personal antagonism towards me is so
extreme that he will pounce on anything I
say simply because I was the one who said it. And by
being so utterly reactionary, he backs himself
into the most indefensible corners imaginable.
…This is not the first time that Defendant has
taken a personal interest in my backside. Defendant
would be well advised to resist his unsavory
attraction so many homoerotic illustrations.
See my original blog post to that effect
here. Again, I said:
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.
See my original blog posts to that effect
here and
here.
On August 17, 2017, I also complained about Holding in an email to Christian Research Institute, and I said:
Claim #
2:
James Patrick Holding is a closet homosexual despite
his heterosexual marriage, inconsistent with CRI’s evangelical belief that
homosexuality is sin:
Evidence: Steve
Hays is a conservative orthodox
Christian apologist, and he has to advise Holding, several times, to
stop
making so many unnecessary homoerotic illustrations, driving Hays to
conclude Holding has a filthy sinful mind that is out of control:
One
is always of two minds about responding to his defamatory tirades. Holding has
filthy mind and a filthy mouth, and it is judgment call whether one should give
another public platform for his sin.
…As
a flavor of the level at which Defendant’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 Isay
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.
…
Holding’s personal
antagonism towards me is so extreme that he will pounce on anything I say
simply because I was the one who said it. And by being so utterly reactionary,
he backs himself into the most indefensible corners imaginable. How else can
you explain his denial that the Bible was written to be understood?
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/05/tektonic-faultlines-1.html
--------------------------------
Holding recently uploaded a
video about me to YouTube. At time-code 6:25 ff, Holding has my character assert that Steve Hays said Holding had an anal fixation. Holding's character then tries to make Hays' comments seem less harsh than they were, by showing the reader Hays' 2016 "for the record" disclaimer.
That is, Holding wants the world to think that when another
morally conservative Christian brother objects to Holding's overuse of homoerotic imagery, this brother was "just kidding" and thus did not have a serious sincere moral objetion to that kind of language (!?).
Well, aside from hurting Steve Hays' own credibility (he is genuinely repulsed by the sin of homosexuality, but not genuinely repulsed by homoerotic illustrations? How about scholar A who is genuinely repulsed by pedophilia, but
isn't genuinely repulsed when his reputation is characterized with pedophile descriptions by a critic? Make sense? Not at all.)...
In the 2016 article linked at the top of the page, Hays disclaims having said Holding was a homosexual.
Well I never said Hays said exactly that. As the above shows, I only said Hays warned that Holding's constant resort to homosexual imagery was unsavory and that he should stop talking like that so much.
Either way, the issue is not whether Hays called Holding a homo. The issue is
a) Steve's dishonesty, and
b) Holding's using that dishonesty to get away from evidence of Holding's inherent prefernce for homosexuality.
Hays says in the 2016 disclaimer that when he expressed discontent in the 2005 article with Holding's overuse of gay-talk, Hays was merely being sarcastic and satirical. Apparently, he wants the reader to believe that he didn't have a sincerely moral objection to Holding's gay-talk, he only set forth such objection in satire and sarcasm.
That Hays is lying is clear from how the ramifications of his disclaimer don't square with his known presuppositions. Hays in 2005 was a morally conservative Christian and viewed homosexuality as not just sin but one of the more serious sins, exactly the way the bible does.
So, what are the odds that somebody who is genuinely repulsed by homosexuality, would be "just kidding" when expressing concern that his Christain opponent is resorting too often to unsavory homoerotic illustrations? Not good at all.
But aside from this obvious contradiction Hays has now produced, I now respond to Steve's "for the record" disclaimer:
I'd like to take the occasion to debunk a baseless rumor. Recently, it was brought to my attention that I allegedly said JP Holding was homosexual. But that's fanciful.
That's a wild misinterpretation based on something I said in an ancient post, way back in 2005. I haven't thought about that post for many years.
The statement I made in that post, which has given rise to this rumor, was sarcastic and satirical. To impute a serious import to the statement is fallacious.
I don't have any inside information about Holding, so I'd be in no position to opine about his orientation in the first place. Hence, it wasn't even possible for me to intend that statement seriously. I never had access to any public or private evidence to render an informed opinion.
Moreover, homosexuals are a minuscule fraction of the population, so there's a strong standing presumption that someone is straight unless we have evidence to the contrary. Which I don't. I didn't at the time.
So in several respects, the interpretation foisted my statement is groundless.
First, Hays doesn't provide a link to the post where he made the comments at issue. Was he afraid that others might read the original post and suspect that his 2016 disclaimer is bullshit?
Second, I've pasted below the entire 2005 post from Mr. Hays. As the highlighting shows, Hays wasn't being sarcastic but sincere when warning Holding to stop using pro-homosexual slurs. And it wouldn't matter if he really was being sarcastic...Hays cannot deny that a reasonable person could be expected to find that Hays was being sincere. In other words, when Hays says in his 2016 disclaimer that his 2005 warning to Holding to stop using homoerotic terms so much, was mere sarcasm and satire, he is lying.
If it strikes your physical senses as being nothing other than a duck, then it doesn't matter if it is something different, you are still reasonable and blameless for calling it a duck.
Third, Hays and Holding specialize in parsing words and pretending that as long as there's a logically possible way to understand their words that gets them out of trouble, then presto, the reasonable reader has no option except to accept their trifle as gospel. They will likely argue that there's nothing unlikely about a sincerely intended rebuttal that contains a few sarcastic remarks. Indeed, I agree. But as the following analysis will show, too many of Steve's comments were obviously meant sincerely, and his barbs about Holding's homosexual preferences just happen to square perfectly with the evidence of the same that was all over the internet in 2005. So it doesn't matter if it is still possible that Hays could have meant sarcastically only the warning about Holding's homosexual tendencies, they can hardly insist that the reader is
unreasonable to judge that Hays was being sincere in all such warnings.
Finally, courts of law are routinely presented with Plaintiffs who accuse Defendant of libel or defamation, and therefore often deal with Defendants who, unable to deny the existence of the quotes, try to escape the charge by claiming the statements at issue were mere sarcasm or statire, and thus not intended to convey fact. A short review of such case law will reveal the basis upon which court's discern that the "sarcastic" or "satire" excuse is a lie:
The appellate court reversed. It acknowledged the casual forum and it acknowledged that the allegedly defamatory representations of bribery were surrounded by rhetorical hyperbole. Id. at 716, 341 Ill.Dec. 12, 929 N.E.2d 666. However, it reasoned that the "mere fact" that a statement is made on the Internet does not render it hyperbole. Id. The court noted that a false assertion of fact can be defamatory even when couched within apparent opinion or hyperbole. Id. at 715, 341 Ill. Dec. 12, 929 N.E.2d 666 (quoting Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill.2d 558, 581, 304 Ill.Dec. 369, 852 N.E.2d 825 (2006)). It further noted that statements made in the form of insinuation, allusion, irony, or question may be considered as defamatory assertions of fact. Id. It held that the allegation that the Maxons could have gotten the ordinance passed only by bribery could reasonably be interpreted as stating an actual fact. Id. at 716, 341 Ill.Dec. 12, 929 N.E.2d 666.
Hadley v. Doe, 12 NE 3d 75, 90 - Ill: Appellate Court, 2nd Dist. 2014
As well see in a moment, Hays' 2005 warnings to Holding for homo-speak were not "surrounded by rhetorical hyperbole".
I am aware that Hays did not intend to defame. The point of citing this case law is to show that in the Courts where criteria for determining whether a statement was intended factually or satirically, they might still find a reasonable person could possibly conclude that a statement was factually intended even if surrounded by rhetoric.
So when Steve says he intended his warnings to Holding about homosexual talk as mere satire, that does not end the discussion. Disclaimers from Steve Hays are not the word of God, they are the word of a sinner who has clearly discernible motives to spin-doctor his prior comments so as to "reconcile" his obvious hatred of Holding in 2005, with his more liberal friendly attitude a decade later.
Let's also not forget that the issue is not merely "fact". Steve in the 2016 disclaimer also appears to be saying that he did not even have the
opinion that Holding might have genuine homosexual tendencies. So I don't need to show that Hays was talking factually in condemning Holding's homo-talk. I only have to show that Hays had the
sincere opinion that Holding's homo-talk was inconsistent with a profession of holiness, to show that Steve's 2016 disclaimer of seriousness is total bullshit. He may as well disclaim being a Calvinist.
Hays said "
To impute a serious import to the statement is fallacious", but the below-analysis reveals more than 30 contextual clues that Hays was serious not merely in the article in general, but in his negative characterizations of Holding.
What Hays really
believed (whether fact or opinion) is what's at
issue. As the following study shows, in 2005 he had at least the
opinion that Holding had an "unsavory" habit of using too much
gay-talk. So when Hays says in 2016 that he was merely using satire
with those concerns, he is lying. He might not think Holding a piece of
shit anymore, but he certainly did in 2005, if we asume Hays knew in 2005 how
to convey his thoughts properly through written words.
Begin quote:
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Tektonic faultlines-1
A friend of mine has drawn my attention to the fact that J. P. Holding
began a new thread in reaction to my essay on Marvin Wilson’s theory of
block logic.
And given your reputation of answering your critics on the merits, we have to expect that at least some of what you say was intended seriously. Proof of sincerity # 1.
Since Holding has chosen to interpose himself, I
suppose that some sort of reply is in order. One is always of two minds
about responding to his defamatory tirades.
Hays, did you know, at the time you said this, that many Christians and
non-Christians had sincerely accused Holding, in 2005 and before, of constantly engaging in
"defamatory tirades"? By saying this, were you hoping to convince the reader to seriously reconsider when and whether to respond to Holding, or to consider it might be wise to be of a mind to avoid dealing with him? I find it suspicious that you just happened to
use a descriptor that was also the actual truth about Holding. You
were't being sarcastic. And since you speak so confidently about his
defamatory tirades, it would appear that you noticed those even before
you wrote this 2005 post. So, proof of sincerity # 2.
Holding has filthy mind and a
filthy mouth, and it is judgment call whether one should give another
public platform for his sin.
Hays, when you accused your Christian brother Holding of "sin", were you speaking sincerely or in satire/sarcasim? If the latter, I'd love to see reconcile that accusation with the prohibitions on slander and jesting in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 4, which I analyze later in this article. For now, accusing another Christian brother of sin is, at least for conservative Christians, a serious matter.
Hays, did you know, at the time you said this, that many Christians and non-Christians were sincerely accusing Holding of having a filthy mind and filthy mouth? Given your undeniable intelligence regarding apologetics, and Holding's year 2005 well-deserved long-time reputation for being foul-mouthed to boot, you cannot really pretend to have been ignorant in 2005 of these facts about holding that were true back in 2005. Proof of sincerity # 3.
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
Holding’s recurrent obsessive-compulsive anal fixation.
Hays, did you know, at the time you said this, that Holding had shown signs previously of having an obsessive-compulsive anal fixation? It hardly needs arguing that in 2005, Holding had already shown many signs of having an anal-fixation. I remember plenty of it from as early as 2003. Worse, it just so happens that Steve serves a bible-god who thinks homosexuality is an egregious sin making gays worthy of death. If we can assume Hays never kids around and sarcastically accuses others of pedophilia because he finds that sin be particularly revolting, then his finding homosexuality also revolting argues that his warnings to Holding about unacceptable gay-talk were also not kidding but sincere. Proof of sincerity # 4.
In the
same vein, he quotes a professor who describes my work as “crap.”
Nothing like an inspirational appeal to lofty standards of secular
academe to drive home your point.
Sure, that sounds like sarcasm, but since it is directed toward the "crap" descriptor, this bit of sarcasm doesn't really tell us what you thought of Holding's forthrightly gay language.
Holding repeatedly accuses me
of “poisoning the well” because I point out that we ought to take into
account the fact that liberals and ecumenists have an ulterior agenda. Actually,
all I’m doing here is to obey the admonition of Scripture. Jesus,
Peter, Paul, and John all warn Christians to be on guard against false
teachers. What I’ve done is to heed their admonition and apply it to the
present.
For obvious reasons, you wouldn't expect readers to think your admission of "following scripture" was sarcastic. Proof of sincerity # 5
But by Holding’s standard, Jesus, Peter, Paul, and
John are all guilty of “poisoning the well” by warning Christians to
beware of false teachers who have an ulterior and anti-Christian agenda.
And I’m happy to plead guilty for having taken their warnings to heart.
This also wasn't sarcastic, you certainly meant seriously your comments about taking seriously the warnings from Jesus and Paul. Proof of sincerity # 6.
It
is no big secret that an ecumenical agenda frequently leads the
ecumenist to minimize or deny fundamental articles of the faith. Look at
the National Council of Churches. Or the World Council of Churches. Or
the Lutheran World Federation. Or Evangelicals & Catholics Together.
Or the views of contemporary Catholicism on the salvation of Muslims,
Jews, pagans, and infidels. Or, most recently, the finding of an
Anglican Commission that the cult of Mary, Immaculate Conception, and
Assumption are “authentic expressions of Christian belief, ” fully
“consonant with the teaching of the Scriptures.”
Sarcasm? I think not. Proof of sincerity #7.
Now, there is
nothing wrong with interfaith dialogue, per se—especially with the
Chosen People. But to simply quote the opinion of the non-Christian
partner as the final authority on the meaning of Scripture is credulous
and naïve. It is precisely this gullible open-mindedness which Scripture
warns us to be wary of.
That was actually true to the scripture. No sarcasm. So, Proof of sincerity #8.
That’s relevant in any argument from
authority, which is the use to which Wilson and Holding are putting
Pinchas and Sandmel. We still need to listen to what they have to say,
but not as an act of blind faith. Rather, their opinion is only as good
as their evidence.
That makes good sense when taken literally, so you weren't kidding there either. Proof of sincerity #9.
Holding then drags in the red herring of The
Purpose Driven Church and the Left Behind series. Since these don’t
figure in Wilson’s analysis, that’s a diversionary tactic on Holding’s
part.
That is literally true. Proof of sincerity #10.
It is also perfectly legitimate for me to summarize my
conclusions at the outset, and then proceed to lay out the process of
reasoning by which I arrived at my conclusions. That’s a standard form
of argumentation in philosophy and philosophical theology. Aquinas does
it all the time. This is not a case of well-poisoning, but cuing the
reader to where you are headed. No ulterior agenda with me. I lay my
cards on the table, face up.
You are either a liar or you were sincere here. I choose the latter. Proof of sincerity #11.
Holding then takes issue with my
statement that “The Bible was written to be understood." Scripture is
the revelation of man’s duty to God and to his fellow man. It is our
duty to believe what is true and to disbelieve what is false.”
Well,
if Holding doesn’t believe that Scripture was written to be understood,
then that explains a lot about the quality of his theology and
exegesis.
You were a staunch 5-Point Calvinist in 2005, and that same year Holding was a staunch anti-Calvinist. If the reader knew these facts about you and him, they would surely have understood literally and sincerely your implied slur on the quality of Holding's theology and exegesis. It his highly unlikely that you'd only be "kidding" when you slur the quality of exegesis given by somebody whose exegesis has been blasted by even his own favorite scholars. Proof of sincerity # 12.
To my statement that “The Bible was written to be understood,” Holding replies that,
<<
There is no such text, and never can be; and it is spoken directly
against by the very text of the OT, which is full of mysteries not
understood by those who read it first, and those who read it for
centuries to come, and is even full at come points of paradox (try the
books of Job and Ecclesiastes for a change). Hays' blind, mouth-foaming
bibliolatry is without a shred of basis in any text. >>
This invites a number of comments:
1.“Bibliolatry”
is, of course, the classic charge which liberals level against
conservatives. When we affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, they accuse us
of “bibliolatry.” When we affirm the necessity, sufficiency, authority,
and perspicuity of Scripture, they accuse us of “bibliolatry.”
That's true. Proof of sincerity #13.
All
I’ve done is to reaffirm my commitment to the classic Protestant
doctrine of Scripture--shared alike by the Calvinist, confessional
Lutheran, and fundamentalist. Holding, by contrast, prefers to take his
stand alongside Brunner and Barr.
This is also factually true. Proof of sincerity #14.
2.As to whether I have a
prooftext to support my claim, by Holding’s criterion it would matter
not--for if he denies that Scripture was written to be understood, then
no prooftext will prove anything all, since a prooftext can only prove
something if it was written to be understood in the first place.
That's literally true. Proof of sincerity # 15.
3.Holding’s
appeal to the OT is self-defeating, for he would only be in a position
to know how it was fulfilled in the NT if it were written to be
understood.
Good point. Also literally true. No sarcasm here. Proof of sincerity #16.
4.What was an OT Jew unable to grasp? Not what was
in the text, but what was not.
That's true. Proof of sincerity #17.
Because OT prophecy and typology did not
spell out the precise who, when, or how of fulfillment, that is
something an OT Jew was in no position to fully grasp. Yet his
incomprehension was not owing to something God did say, but to something
he kept to himself until the fullness of time.
Good argument, not likely you'd intend for what functions as good argument to instead be taken as kidding, or satire. Proof of sincerity #18.
5.Why do Jesus
and the NT writers appeal to the OT to prove the fulfillment of OT
promise?
What are the odds that Steve would be "just kidding" in his answer to such a question? Proof of sincerity #19.
Because the OT was written to be understood. And the writers of
the NT canon also wrote to be understood, which is why they wrote the
OT in the first place—and which is why they reason with the reader from
the Scriptures.
Very supportive of what an apologist literally believes in sincerity. Proof of sincerity #20.
6.As to Job and Ecclesiastes, this is no part of
Wilson’s case. And,in any event, I’ve already addressed that question
in my essay on “Vanity of vanities.”
Did you address it seriously or sarcastically? Proof of sincerity #21.
In answer to Holding’s repeated
objection, I’ve repeatedly pointed the reader to my answer, contained
therein.
Were you being repeatedly sarcastic? No. Proof of sincerity #22.
When a disputant like Holding repeatedly raises an
objection which has been repeatedly answered, without offering any
acknowledgement of the answer, much less a reasoned rebuttal, it is the
disputant who has no answer.
Very true. Proof of sincerity #23.
Holding’s personal antagonism
towards me is so extreme that he will pounce on anything I say simply
because I was the one who said it.
That was easily discernible as a literal truth by anybody who kept up on your disagreements back in 2005. So it's highly unlikely that you meant "personal antagonism" sarcastically. Proof of sincerity #24.
And by being so utterly reactionary,
he backs himself into the most indefensible corners imaginable. How else
can you explain his denial that the Bible was written to be understood?
It wouldn't matter if that was sarcastic, such accusations are also literally true and were even back in 2003. Holding is the very definition of "utterly reactionary", and nobody familiar with him would dare disagree unless they were being intentionally stupid. Proof of sincerity #25.
I said:
<<
For all his talk of paradox, Wilson seems not to know what a paradox
is. In particular, he fails to draw an elementary distinction between a
literary paradox and a conceptual paradox. A literary paradox is a
rhetorical device designed to express the truth in a provocative
fashion. >>
Holding said:
<< Having read Wilson's
material -- indeed, having copied the very pages on block logic for
someone today -- I know this to be a patent deception. Hays is burning a
straw man; Wilson did not draw any such distinction. >>
Due
to Holding’s constitutional incapacity for critical detachment, he
can’t see the obvious staring him in the face.
Plenty of other people were, in 2005 when you said this, also saying Holding had a severe inability to detach emotionally from the subject matter he speaks about, and that he cannot see obvious truths. And you were quoting what you really said and what Holding really said, a factual context. Proof of sincerity #26.
He accuses me of “patent
deception” and straw man argumentation because “Wilson did not draw any
such distinction.”
But, of course, that’s exactly what I said all
along. Wilson “fails to draw an elementary distinction between a
literary paradox and a conceptual paradox.” That’s precisely my point.
And this is a failure on his part, not merely because he didn’t do it,
but because such an omission is fatal flaw in his overall argument.
I
said he didn’t do it. Holding says he didn’t do it. So Holding agrees
with me that he didn’t do it. But if I say it, that’s a “patent
deception” and a “straw man” argument. This is a classic example of
someone so blinded by animus that he can’t hear his own words.
Same reply, plenty of Holding's critics were, in 2005, accusing him of being blinded by animus or words to that effect. Holding has done a good job, however, of making sure his own website doesn't preserve those bits of history. Steve now quotes Holding:
<<
Wilson did not draw any such distinction (though he did draw others,
between types of expression of block logic -- and that, we will see,
will come back to bite Hays on the behind). >>
This is not
the first time that Holding has taken a personal interest in my
backside. Holding would be well advised to resist his unsavory
attraction so many homoerotic illustrations.
Well, Hays is a Calvinist and conservative Christian, so it is only reasonable to expect that he is being serious when warning another person to stop resorting to so many homoerotic illustations. Proof of sincerety # 27.
We have to look at the context of your advice to Holding to back off they homoerotic talk. Satire? I think not. Once again, Hays is a Christian and believes in biblical inerrancy. That means he more than likely thinks that homoerotic talk falls into the category of foul language and jesting that are prohibited in his own inerrant bible. Paul considers filthy talk and jesting to be on the same level as other sins that keep people under the wrath of god and deprives them of inheritance in the kingdom of God.
1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children;
2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.
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. 5:1-6 NAU)
When Hays says he was merely using "satire", well, that would have been satire or joking
about homosexuality. Evangelical Scholar A. T. Lincoln's interpretation of 5:4, and that held by other commentators, blasts Hay and Holding to hell:
So in Ephesians, the coarse joking prohibited may well involve the use of suggestive language and double entendres. Again, such conversation is described as not fitting (see above), and again, for this writer, the reason appears to be that to treat sexual matters as a topic of amusement is not to take them seriously enough and is likely to lead to an atmosphere in which the actual practice of sexual vices is also accepted too easily.
Lincoln, A. T. (2002). Vol. 42: Word Biblical Commentary : Ephesians.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 323). Dallas: Word, Incorporated
Of course, that's precisely why it is reasonable to believe Holding is a closet homosexual: Holding makes so many jokes about male buttocks, nudity, him spanking other men, etc, you really have to wonder. You will know a tree by its fruit.
Third, Paul gives instructions for becoming Christian that may be classified as “appropriate conversation,” both in the sense of life-style and in the usual sense of speech (Eph. 5:3). Sexually immoral behavior and any sort of impurity of life are absolutely prohibited. The same is true of greed, which perhaps is partially what is to be understood under “impurity.” At any rate, whereas greed may be far less frowned upon in most congregations than sexual misbehavior is, Paul prohibits both of them. Likewise incongruous with God’s new human family is any ugly coarseness in the form of foul-mouthed joking and foolish talk. Let the Christian’s mouth instead be filled with the natural overflow of a thankful heart (v. 4), something which can scarcely be avoided when Christians keep in their minds the facts of what God has done for them.
Elwell, W. A. (1996, c1989). Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on the Bible.
Baker reference library (Eph 4:25). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.
Hays and Holding enjoy flaunting their
nimbleness of wit and
quickness to engage in repartee, but A.T. Robertson's
Word Pictures In the New Testament, a standard in conservative Christian scholarship, says this is exactly what the Eph. 5:4 is prohibiting:
Ephesians 5:4
Filthiness (αἰσχροτης [aischrotēs]). Old word from αἰσχρος [aischros] (base), here alone in N.T. Foolish talking (μωρολογια [mōrologia]). Late word from μωρολογος [mōrologos] (μωρος, λογος [mōros, logos]), only here in N.T. Jesting (εὐτραπελια [eutrapelia]). Old word from εὐτραπελος [eutrapelos] (εὐ, τρεπω [eu, trepō], to turn) nimbleness of wit, quickness in making repartee (so in Plato and Plutarch), but in low sense as here ribaldry, scurrility, only here in N.T.
Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament.
Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
(Eph 5:4). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
5:4. Improprieties in speech—obscenity (aischrotēs, “shameless talk and conduct”), foolish talk (mōrologia, lit., “stupid words”), and coarse jesting (eutrapelia, “vulgar, frivolous wit”)—are out of place for Jesus’ followers, because such vices often harm (cf. 4:29), whereas thanksgiving is appreciation for others and is helpful. Paul was not intimating that humor itself is sin, but that it is wrong when it is used to destroy or tear down others.
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985).
The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures.
Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
3–7 The previous section warns mainly about sins that come to expression in speech, and the same applies here; talk about sexual sin is not to be entertained, ‘not even to be mentioned’ (correctly, njb, reb, nrsv), far less joked about (4).
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.) (Eph 5:3). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.
What we find in Ephesians we also find in Colossians:
1 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.
3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.
5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.
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. 3:1-10 NAU)
Inerrantist Christian scholar R.R. Melick also blasts Hays and Holding:
Completely Conquer Your Sinful Attitudes (3:8). 3:8 Paul’s attention turned to the Colossians themselves.22 His address included a further description of particular sins.23 The sins are mentioned in a group of five. In contrast to the former list, this list is more social in nature. These sins destroy social relationships and are more expressive of attitudes than specific actions. The five are: “anger” (orgēn), “rage” (thymon), “malice” (kakian), “slander” (blasphēmian), and “filthy language” (aischrologian). Perhaps Paul assumed that the Colossian Christians would have conquered already the temptations regarding sexual sin in v. 5.24 At least they had a conscience. Since the new life is to be lived corporately with all Christians, positive Christian social relationships are mandatory. These five, then, are mentioned not so much because they are more typical of Christians than of non-Christians, but because they are necessary to harmonious relationships in the body of Christ. Respect for all persons should characterize all Christians, but there must be a special regard for the church.
Melick, R. R. (2001, c1991). Vol. 32: Philippians, Colissians, Philemon (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 293).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Colossians 3:8
But now (νυνι δε [nuni de]). Emphatic form of νυν [nun] in decided contrast (to ποτε [pote] in verse 7) in the resurrection life of 2:12; 3:1. Put ye also away (ἀποθεσθε και ὑμεις [apothesthe kai humeis]). Second aorist middle imperative of old verb ἀποτιθημι [apotithēmi], to put away, lay aside like old clothes. This metaphor of clothing Paul now uses with several verbs (ἀποθεσθε [apothesthe] here, ἀπεκδυσαμενοι [apekdusamenoi] in verse 9, ἐνδυσαμενοι [endusamenoi] in verse 10, ἐνδυσασθε [endusasthe] in verse 12). All these (τα παντα [ta panta]). The whole bunch of filthy rags (anger ὀργην [orgēn], wrath θυμον [thumon], malice κακιαν [kakian], railing βλασφημιαν [blasphēmian], shameful speaking αἰσχρολογιαν [aischrologian]). See somewhat similar lists of vices in Col. 3:5; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 4:29–31. These words have all been discussed except αἰσχρολογιαν [aischrologian], an old word for low and obscene speech which occurs here only in the N.T. It is made from αἰσχρολογος [aischrologos] (αἰσχρος [aischros] as in I Cor. 11:6 and that from αἰσχος [aischos], disgrace). Note also the addition of “out of your mouth” (ἐκ του στοματος ὑμων [ek tou stomatos humōn]). The word was used for both abusive and filthy talk and Lightfoot combines both ideas as often happens. Such language should never come out of the mouth of a Christian living the new life in Christ.
Robertson, A. (1997). Word Pictures in the New Testament.
Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.
(Col 3:8). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
Anger is, of course, a strong spirit of dislike or animosity, a vengeful spirit, a settled feeling of hatred. Wrath describes an intense form of anger, probably involving violent outbursts. Malice is wicked conduct toward another with the idea of harming his person or reputation. It is an unreasonable dislike that takes pleasure in seeing others suffer. Blasphemy here means reviling, ÿÿÿthat is, strong, intemperate language used against another person. It means scolding in a harsh, insolent manner. Filthy language means shameful speaking, and describes that which is lewd, indecent, or corrupt. It is disgraceful, impure language. In this catalog of sin the apostle goes from motives to acts. Bitterness starts in the human heart and then manifests itself in the various ways which have been described.
MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible Commentary :
Old and New Testaments (Col 3:8). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
7–8 Using a ‘once–now’ contrast, the readers are shown how their present behaviour is to be different from their pagan past. Formerly their lives were characterized by the very vices on account of which God’s wrath is coming. (On the term walk to describe the Christian life, see on 1:10.) 8 They are to get rid of (lit. ‘put off’) their old, repulsive habits, including evil speech, like a set of worn-out clothes: anger and rage destroy harmony in human relationships. Malice is a general term describing an evil force that wrecks fellowship. Slander here means the insulting of human character but elsewhere can mean blasphemy against God (Rom. 2:24; 1 Tim. 6:1). Filthy language, as the last in the series, is emphasized: it ought to be stopped before it comes out of their mouths.
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.) (Col 3:5). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.
I think this is the part where Holding insists that these conservative Christian scholars are "dumb asses" for not realizing that a) Ezekiel talked all disgusting, so b) Christians have automatic license to do the same. Sort of like citing Elijah's calling down fire to consume his enemies, then insisting Christians have automatic license to do the same. Sorry, that doesn't follow:
54 When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"
55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of;
56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." And they went on to another village. (Lk. 9:54-56 NAU)
Apparently, Holding's juvenile delinquent followers need to realize that you don't show biblical license to do something merely because you find some godly person doing the same thing in the bible. But no, these idiots would probably go live in the local park and bake bread over dung all beacuse "Ezekiel did it, so why can't we!?"
These Christian scholar quotes show Hays was likely being sincere when rebuking Holding for too much pro-homosexual talk. Proof of sincerity #28.
Returning to Steve Hays' 2005 remarks about Holding. He quotes Holding:
<< Hays next
strives for more bigotry and well-poisoning, muttering on about "Jewish
liberals like Lapide and Sandmel." >>
Ah, yes, by all means
accuse your opponent of “bigotry.” When a pastor preaches against
sodomy, he’s accused of “homophobia.” When a theologian teaches against
radical feminism, he’s accused of “sexism” and “misogyny.” When a
Republican speaks out against quotas and reparations and amnesty, he’s
accused of “racism.” These epithets are the last resort of the scoundrel
who can’t mount an honest argument for his own position.
But you literally do preach against sodomy, teach against radical feminism, and in 2005 you were a Republican who agreed with them against reparations and amnesty. Since it is foolish to think you were just being sarcastic here, you likely weren't being sarcastic when you called Holding a "scoundrel
who can’t mount an honest argument for his own position. Proof of sincerity #29.
I’d add that if anyone is guilty of “bigotry,” it is Holding, with his highly reductive analysis of “Hebrew” psychology.
Hays surely knew that in 2005 when he said this, plenty of other people were accusing Holding of bigotry too. Proof of sincerity #29.
I said:
<<
On the face of it, Wilson’s description of historical theology is
ill-informed at the very point where it needs to be well-informed
regarding the long history of Jewish philosophical theology and its
impact on Scholastic theology and beyond (e.g., Philo, Saadia, Gabirol,
Costa ben Luca, Halevi, Isaac Israeli Maimonides, Gersonides, Crescas,
Spinoza). >>
Holding said:
<< Given the patent
miseducation Hays showed with respect to other philosophers in his prior
effort, we doubt he knows Halvei from Havati, and suspect that all of
this name-dropping came after a few hours of slumming some years ago
through some title like The Story of Jewish Philosophy, which he picked
up only because he needed to write a paper at 11 PM that was due at 8
the next morning and knew he needed to work hard for a C. >>
As usual, Holding offers a lot of huffy-puffy invective as a substitute for a reasoned reply.
"huffy puffy invective" is a factually accurate descriptor, and even your "as usual" was factually accurate since in 2005 it was Holding's typical demeanor and nothing has changed since. Proof of sincerity #30.
Holding
is staking his whole case on three pages of a popular-level paperback.
That is correct. Proof of sincerity #31.
He has obviously not bothered to read any of the standard scholarly
literature on the historical interplay between Greek, Jewish, Islamic,
and Christian philosophical theology.
That might have been slightly sarcastic since Hays cannot really say something like this for sure. But regardless of the exaggerration, Hays would still say Holding misunderstood those sources even if Holding had read them, since Hays finds those sources to contradict the position Holding takes. Proof of sincerity #32.
Hays now quotes a lengthy section from Holding and comments:
But before we get to that,
let’s once again quote Wilson’s antithesis between “Hebrew thought” and
Greek philosophical reasoning:
<< The use of what may be
termed block logic is another important contour of Hebrew thought. Greek
logic, which has to a large extent influenced the Western world, was
different. The Greeks often used a tightly contained step logic whereby
one would argued from premise to a conclusion, each step linked tightly
to the next in coherent, rational, logical fashion. The conclusion,
however, was usually limited to one point of view—the human being’s
perception of reality.
Our Father Abraham, 150. >>
Before
proceeding further, we’d like to know what this description is based
on. It is more Scholastic (e.g., Scotism, Thomism) than Aristotelian,
and more Aristotelian than Platonic. Is this the form of a Platonic
dialogue? No.
<< By contrast, the Hebrews often made use of
block logic. That is, concepts were expressed in self-contained units
or blocks of thought. These blocks did not necessarily fit together in
any obviously rational or harmonious pattern, particularly when one
block represented the human perspective on truth and the other
represented the divine.
It is particularly difficult for
Westerners—those whose thought-patterns have been influenced more by the
Greeks and the Romans than by the Hebrews—to piece together the block
logic of Scripture. When we open the Bible, therefore, since we are not
Orientals, we are invited…to “undergo a kind of intellectual conversion”
to the Hebraic world of the East.
While philosophical and
structural divisions of learning obviously have an important role to
play in contemporary education, our Western culture—especially on most
levels of secular and Christian instruction—has provided little
understanding concerning the nature of Hebrew thought. Thus we have the
natural tendency to impose more rational and systematic categories of
thought on the Bible. Ibid. 150, 152. >>
This totally
ignores the considerable degree to which Jewish philosophical theology
was in dialogue with Greek, Islamic, and Christian philosophy and/or
philosophical theology, and the considerable degree to which it has had a
shaping influence on Western philosophy and Scholastic theology.
Correct. Proof of sincerity # 33.
If
either Wilson or Holding had bothered to dip into the extensive
literature on this subject,
This might be sarcasm since Hays cannot know whether Holding did no such dipping. But if we keep reading, Hays makes a factually valid point:
both in the form of scholarly monographs and
standard reference works, they would never indulge in such palpably
false generalities.
Does Hays believe Holding's take on Hebrew block logic was a palpably false generality? The context sure doesn't evoke thoughts of sarcasm or rhetoric, this is a valid scholarly observation. Proof of sicereity # 33.
And since Holding persists in denying what is
demonstrably the case, I’d simply draw the reader’s attention to some of
the academic literature of which he is so proudly ignorant:
Hays then lists several scholarly references, so it is clear that he thinks if the reader reads those, they will agree that Holding denies reality.
Summary and Conclusion:
In 2005, Hays complained of Holding's overuse of homoerotic illustations, things Holding didn't confine to just his interactions with Hays. An analysis of the entire context of Hays' 2005 article in point by point fashion shows less than 3 signs of sarcasm/satire, and more than 30 signs that Hays was being sincere, including various times when he portrayed Holding as superficial in scholarship.
In 2015 I started quoting Hays' criticisms of Holding's homosexuality. Recently, Holding tried to duck the obvious import of Hays' words with a disclaimer Hays posted in 2016.
But Hays' own spiritually justified hatred for homosexuality
acts makes it impossibly difficult to believe that he'd merely be employing "satire" and "sarcasm" when rebuking another allegedly conservative Christian brother's overuse of homosexual
talk.
So when Hays backpeddals in his 2016 "for the record" article, it's clear from contextual analysis and from Hay's own conservative morality that he thought Holding's gay-talk was
truly unbecoming a Christian.
And the more Hays insists his "satire" excuse is the truth, the more he is condemned under Ephesians 5's prohibition on jesting and the similar prohibitions in Colossians 3, but perhaps less so than they condemn Holding, whose jesting knows no limits, if 20 years worth of internet history has anything to say about it.
