Plenty of Christian scholars think rambo apologetics is total bullshit,
including specifically Holding's incompetent insult-fests.
12 "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. (Matt. 7:12 NAU)
So perhaps Holding seriously wants his critics to insult him with cartoon videos that help incompetent buffoons mistake entertainment for education?
Holding, in yet another cartoon video (telling us about the mentality of the people he takes money from) argues that
Jesus' command in Matthew 18 about how the Christian should react when sinned against by another Christian, does not apply to the situation of the Christian sinning against a non-Christian.
Here's the text in dispute:
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)
Here are the problems with Holding's interpretation:
Before I even get started, how about the Golden Rule? "Do unto
First, as usual, Holding sets forth his interpretation in a cartoon video that appears to have been created for not much more purpose than for Holding to see some type of real-world realization of his mental fantasy that he is far superior to his critics. In this video, Holding pretends to be the "judge", I am characterized by the ugly and stupid sounding criminal headed to jail, and Holding's interpretation of Matthew 18 becomes the basis for this fool judge to send me to "debtor's prison" where I am bludgeoned to death by a fellow inmate.
(!?)
Second, Holding's cartoon presentation is obviously geared to impress gullible idiots, it is not geared to impress academics or scholars, and thus is a valid basis for accusing him of being more worried to keep fleecing his idiot followers by dancing to their juvenile tune, than being worried to make persuasive argument in a serious context.
Third, sure, Matthew 18 isn't talking about the specific case of Christians sinning against unbelievers, but nothing in the bible is specifically talking about Christians living in 2018.
Can Holding think of any bible passage that gets
closer to the issue of Christians sinning against unbelievers, than Matthew 18? Or did the all-knowing God of classical theism think that Christians weren't capable of sinning against unbelievers?
Fourth, what is Holding's advice to Christians who are guilty of having slandered an unbeliever in a way justifying a libel lawsuit? Since Holding didn't dare attempt to get my two lawsuits against him dismissed on the merits (i.e., arguing that his factual allegations about me were true), Holding's answer to this particular dilemma will be interesting. One thing we can be sure of, Holding doesn't think he should be held morally or civilly accountable for violating Romans 13 and libeling another person in modern day America, which has laws allowing the defamed person to sue for damages. Perhaps Holding will now do a Looney Tunes video on how only idiots think America's laws against defamation and libel fall under Romans 13, because those laws make illegal the type of shaming that God approved of in the bible.
Fifth,
Holding twice offered to settle my first libel lawsuit against him. Some might argue that an especially pretentious trifling asshole like Holding would never attempt such a thing if he seriously felt the lawsuit in question was the stupendously frivolous thing he trumpeted it to be. The point is that Holding, at the time he offered to settle, apparently thought some damn thing or other in the bible applied to the situation of a modern-day Christian being sued by an unbeliever. If so, then apparently Holding doesn't need to be convinced that a bible passage is directly addressing problems between Christians and unbelievers, before he will be willing to apply their reasoning to his own problems with unbelievers.
Sixth, now the question is: If Matthew 18's reasoning shouldn't be applied to the situation of a modern-day Christian libeling and thus sinning against an unbeliever, then does Holding seriously think that because the bible doesn't directly address that situation, his god finds it morally good for Holding to run away and hide from the merits of legal accusations against him?
If a Christian stole the life-savings of an unbeliever, would Holding argue that there is nothing in he bible requiring the Christian to pay the money back, given his black and white fundy view that the bible also doesn't specifically require Christians to rebuke other Christians who have sinned against third-parties?
Seventh, did Jesus's teachings harmonize or contradict? If they harmonize, as Holding would insist given his absurd obsession with "inerrancy", then Jesus required Christians to love their enemies:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48 NAU)
Nothing could be more obvious from Holding's obsessive reactionary stance against me that he and his followers view me as an "enemy", they think my lawsuits against Holding were frivolous and therefore I was "persecuting" him through the Court system, they also think my blog exposing his homosexuality and other obvious moral failings constitute similar "persecution", and both he and they view me as "evil" and "unrighteous".
Meaning, Jesus puts Holding under a duty to "love" his enemies, one of which is me, a person he says is evil.
Now all that needs to be addressed is how Jesus defined the specific sort of "love" he wanted the disciples to express toward evil people who persecute them.
Let's indulge Holding's dogshit obsession with inerrancy: Jesus and Paul surely must have agreed on what constitutes "loving one's enemies", right?
10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;
11 not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord;
12 rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer,
13 contributing to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
16 Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation.
17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.
20 "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Rom. 12:10-21 NAU)
To make sure Holding and his followers further breach the existing fracture that already divides them from the conservative inerrantist Christian scholarly community, I supply below a lengthy quote from inerrantist evangelical scholar R. H. Mounce, writing for the inerrantist-driven
New American Commentary:
12:17–21 The natural impulse is to return injury for injury.
But retaliation for personal injury is not for those who claim to follow the
one who told his disciples to turn the other cheek and go the second mile (Matt
5:39, 41; cf. Gal 6:10; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9). Instead, believers are to be
careful to do what is honorable in the sight of everyone (cf. Prov
3:4). The early church understood the necessity of having a good reputation
with outsiders (1 Tim 3:7). Although it is imperative that believers take pains
to do what is right in God’s sight, it also is important that what we do, as
long as it does not violate Christian ethics, is well thought of by the world
(cf. 2 Cor 8:21). In so far as it is possible, we are called to live at peace with
everyone. Wickedness is to be opposed and righteousness lauded, but Christians
must be careful not to allow their allegiance to God to alienate them from the
world they are intended to reach with the gospel. Jesus pronounced a blessing
upon the peacemaker (Matt 5:9), and the author to Hebrews wrote that we are to
“make every effort to live in peace with all men” (Heb 12:14).
Christians are never to take vengeance into their own hands
(v. 19; cf. Lev 19:18). Rather, we must allow the wrath of God to follow its
own course. After all, it is written: “It is for me to avenge. I am the one who
will repay.” Christians are not called upon to help God carry out divine
retribution. God has promised to “pay back trouble to those who trouble you” (2
Thess 1:6). He has no need of our help or advice. Genuine trust will leave
everything in his hands. Rather than to take revenge we are to feed our enemies
if they are hungry and give them something to drink if they are thirsty. In
this way we will “make him feel a burning sense of shame” (Moffatt). Verse
21 summarizes much of what has just been said. Instead of allowing evil to get
the upper hand and bring defeat, win the victory against that which is wrong by
doing what is right. Bruce comments, “The best way to get rid of an enemy is to
turn him into a friend.” Our most powerful weapon against evil is the good.
To respond to evil with evil is not to overcome it but to add to it. Believers
are called upon to live victoriously in a hostile world by continuing to live
as Jesus lived. Right will inevitably prevail against wrong. God is on his
throne, and though all is not right in this world, he is the one who will
avenge the wicked and reward the righteous.
Mounce, R. H. (2001,
c1995). Vol. 27: Romans (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 240).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Because America has laws allowing lawsuits for defamation/libel, it is clear that, without argument that such secular laws contradict the bible, Romans 12, supra, is requiring today's Christians to do what is right in the sight of modern America (i.e., to refrain from libel and slander). Maybe Holding will be sure to remind his readers, while he is contradicting Mounce, that Mounce is a "moron" for seeing things differently than Holding.
What's worse, most conservative Christian scholars see nothing in the bible justifying ceaseless vitriolic attacks on bible critics, so that Holding's doing this means he isn't just contradicting what's right in the sight of all men,
he lives in contradiction to what most genuinely born-again and thus Spirit-filled conservative Christian scholars think is the right way.
The Samaritans were bitter enemies of the Jews in the first century and before, so it is significant that Jesus teaches that the Christian's "neighbor", whom the Christian is supposed to "love", is a Gentile and a bitter enemy of the Jews:
He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?"
27 And he answered, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
28 And He said to him, "You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE."
29 But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30 Jesus replied and said, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead.
31 "And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 "Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
33 "But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion,
34 and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him.
35 "On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.'
36 "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers' hands?"
37 And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same." (Lk. 10:26-37 NAU)
Inerrantist R. H. Stein says Jesus' teaching here requires Christian love to transcend natural and religious status:
10:33 But a Samaritan. The term “Samaritan” is in an
emphatic position in the sentence. Jesus deliberately chose an outsider, and a
hated one at that, for his hero in order to indicate that being a neighbor is
not a matter of nationality or race. The mutual hatred of the Jews and the
Samaritans is evident in such passages as John 4:9; 8:48... Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.So great was Jewish and Samaritan
hostility that Jesus’ opponents could think of nothing worse to say of him
than, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”
(John 8:48; cf. also 4:9)...Jesus and Luke sought to illustrate that the love
of one’s neighbor must transcend all natural or human boundaries such as race,
nationality, religion, and economic or educational status.
Stein, R. H. (2001,
c1992). Vol. 24: Luke (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;
The New American
Commentary (Page 317-319).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers
Holding, being a fundy trapped in the very black and white thinking he trashes everybody else for, will trifle that I have "missed" the fact that this bitter enemy of the Jews showed a kindness to the disciple.
No, I haven't missed that. I showed a kindness to Holding in suing him twice for libel, so I'm not really that much different from the otherwise hated Samaritan who similarly showed kindness to a Christian.
Some would argue that, given how utterly out-of-control Holding's mouth was at the time I filed the two lawsuits against him, my doing so was a kindness to him. After all, he was genuinely guilty as charged (which is why he didn't dare attempt to seek dismissal on the merits), and I sought punitive damages in both cases, and the legal purpose of punitive damages includes deterrence and to educate:
The arguments for punitive damages have generally been
delineated as these four: compensation, punishment and deterrence, revenge, and
promotion of justice. Long, Punitive Damages: An Unsettled Doctrine, 25 Drake
L. Rev. 870 (1976).
In Florida,
the rationale is that of punishment and deterrence:
Punitive or exemplary damages are awarded as
punishment to a defendant and as a warning and example to deter him and others
from committing similar offenses in the future.
citing Miami Beach
Lerner Shops, Inc. v. Walco Mfg. of Fla.,
Inc., supra at 236.
While I am not a deadly threat to Holding, it isn't really that hard to figure out where some shit-talking fool lives. See here.
That even Holding is aware his shit-talking campaign was likely to induce people to murder him is proven from the way he expressed his genuine fright that I would try to murder him in a courtroom, in an email to his lawyer that Holding didn't think would ever see the light of day, even though the only basis for his fear was my having filed the lawsuit against him (i.e., my anger over his shit-talking):
From: J. P. Holding <jphold@att.net
Sent: " Tuesday, October 06, 2015 3:17 PM
Subject: I think this guy wants to kill me!
Seth, I really need some input on this. If he weren't 3000 miles away I'd go buy a gun right now to protect myself and my loved ones.
I'm serious. This is getting scary. He has borderline personality disorder, and I've worked in a prison with a mental health unit full of guys like this. He also had a restraining order put on him 20 years ago by his thenwife, over a domestic violence issue. For years now he's had this "thing" about getting me in front of my church, or in a live debate, or in some way confronting me in person. I didn't think much of it before, now it's starting to take on a darker light. "The last thing I ever do on earth"???? There's no way I can be in the same room with this guy. He'll try to strangle me with his bare hands!
What do I need to do? Motion for protection order? Declaration to the court expressing my concerns?
From : Raphael
ΤΟ : jpholding
mossrose
One Bad Pig
Sparko
Date : 2015-10-O6 19:39
Title: Re: I think Bud wants to kill me!
[OUOTE=jpholding--|No, I'm serious. I thought about this last message he sent me where he says he wants to get me in front of jury if it's the last thing he does on earth. He's had this "thing" to debate me in person since 2008 and now trying to get me in a courtroom no matter what, even if there's arbitration???No way I'm getting in the same room with him unless he's sedated or under heavy guard. I knew inmates like this, worked in places with psych inmates and a mental health unit. And then there's the fact that his ex-wife had to put a domestic violence order on him.
See the blog piece where I
originally quoted these.
See also the last part of his
email to Gary Habermas, where Holding says I'm a "crazy" similar to the dangerous psychos in a prison ward.
See also Holding's "Internet Predator Alert", where Holding himself falsely assumed, despite criticism and despite my own contrary clinical diagnosis showing no such tendency, that my borderline personality disorder made me dangerous. Wisely, Holding, despite being the type of pretentious obsessive asshole that would never extend critics any mery, took this Alert down before the first lawsuit was dismissed.
Addendum, 8/18/2015:
“Dangerous”
Doscher denies that he is
dangerous because of his mental instability. Once again, clinical sources
disagree with his claim.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3342993/“Individuals with borderline personality disorder are
diagnostically and clinically characterized by self-harm behavior, as indicated
by the criterion in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision,
“recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating
behavior.” However, individuals with borderline personality disorder can display externalized aggressive
behavior, as well. In an area characterized by considerably less research,
empirical evidence indicates that individuals with borderline personality
disorder may exhibit physical violence
toward partners, physical violence toward known but nonintimate
individuals, criminal behaviors that embody externalized violence (e.g.,
property damage), and, on very rare occasion, murderous behavior (either of
family members or anonymous others through serial killing).”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790397/
-------------
So it is reasonable to argue that in light of Holding doing his best to put himself on a deathlist, it was "loving" of me to attempt to get him to change his ways through a means that most mature civilized adults think is valid and possesses significant likelihood of deterring him from running off at the mouth.
Finally, Holding's black and white fundy view that Matthew 18 doesn't obligate Christians to rebuke other Christians for sins against unbelievers, is opposed by somebody who used to publicly endorse Holding, Dr. Craig Blomberg, who said, commentating in Matthew 18:
There are times, of course, when it is both appropriate and
necessary to correct believers for sins affecting third parties, but this can
easily turn into meddling.
Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic
ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 278). Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers.
The fact that Gary Habermas tactfully told Holding, in a conversation about my lawsuits, he is glad Holding is allegedly backing off of the "strong comebacks" indicates that Habermas believed it was proper for him to address Holding about the language that landed Holding in Court, and that Habermas believed he didn't involve himself in this third-party dispute to the point of "meddling".
Maybe Holding will say Habermas is a "stupid moron" for thinking this way?
Craig Blomberg's commentary on Matthew 5 demolishes Holding's entire purpose of ministry:
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48 NAU)
Blomberg opines that these passages are requiring Christians to be loving and gentle toward those who
mistreat them:
Almost all people look after their own. The true test of
genuine Christianity is how believers treat those whom they are naturally
inclined to hate or who mistreat or persecute them. Whatever emotions may be
involved, “love” here refers to “generous, warm, costly self-sacrifice for
another’s good.”52 “Greet” (v. 47) refers to more than a simple hello,
namely, heartfelt “expressions of desire for the other person’s welfare.”53
People who so love and greet their enemies and pray for their persecutors thus
prove themselves to be those, as in v. 9, who are growing in conformity to the
likeness of their Heavenly Father (v. 45).
52 Carson, “Matthew,” 158.
53 R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and
Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 99.
Blomberg, C. (2001,
c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).
Logos Library System;
The New American Commentary (Page 114).
Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
From Holding's utterly reactionary cartoon videos that appear to be the only way this internally conflicted clown can see any real-world fulfillment of his desire to get rid of me, it is clear that Holding thinks my blog exposing his immoralities and my libel lawsuits against him (which he says were frivolous) constitute "mistreating" him, and he never had any problem seeing "falsely accused" as "persecute" until he found out that such belief would require him to "love" me.
For all these reasons, it would appear that Matthew 18 obligates a Christian in the know to involve themselves in third-party disputes where another Christian has sinned against an unbeliever.
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/how-should-christians-respond-attacks-and-insults/