Gary Habermas disapproves of James Patrick Holding's filthy insults

When I sued James Patrick Holding for libel in 2015, I forced him, through the legal process of "discovery", to reveal private emails he had sent to friends and lawyers, and a few of those emails involved apologist Gary Habermas, who had publicly endorsed one of Holding's books in the past.

Thankfully, Habermas started needling Holding about whether the lawsuit made Holding think twice about using "strong comebacks" in the future:






Holding, thinking his private answer to Habermas would never see the light of day, exposed what in his mind were the real reasons for his alleged choice to back off of the filthy slanderous homosexual barbs that Habermas so graciously characterized as "strong comeback":




Several comments are warranted here:

1 - Holding nowhere expresses or implies that it was his getting sued for libel, that might be some of the reason he has backed off the "strong comeback" style.  In other words, when you sue Holding for libel, that does nothing to make him worry that his mouth is unacceptably out of control.

2 - Holding admits in recent times (2015) he wasn't engaging in strong comebacks anymore.  Well then what about all those filthy slanders he publicized for the last 20 years?  Who does Holding think is ultimately responsible for dissauding him in recent years to back off the "strong comebacks", himself or God?  If himself, then he is still obstinately refusing to see the light, since the bible requires Christians to disassociate themselves from any "Christian" (as distinct from an unbeliever) who engages in "reviling":

 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. (1 Cor. 5:9-11 NAU)

  9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers (Greek: loidoros), nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 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]

Holding cannot mitigate the harm to his reputation by saying these bible verses are only forbidding slander of other Christians, since Holding has reviled other Christians just as feverishly as he reviles atheists, as already documented here at this blog.

But if Holding avoids the disastrous first option and chooses the second (it is God who caused him to back off the "strong comebacks"), then he encounters another disaster:  Did God do that because God for his own mysterious reasons wants Holding to act in a different capacity, or because the NT really does condemn "Christians" who routinely vilify and slander others?  The theory that seems best supported by the biblical data is the latter, and Holding cannot call fellow Christians unreasonable to prefer that one, if he cannot show that some other theory better explains his alleged reduced desire to engage in strong comebacks.

3 - Notice that after saying he doesn't engage in strong comebacks too much anymore, he admits he spends more time at a place where he says strong comebacks are expected, Youtube.  Well, I guess the bible doesn't say Christians are guaranteed to be consistent within the space of two paragraphs.  In secular society we call this mental phenomena "cognitive dissonance".  How foolish that Holding acts upon his reduced desire to engage in strong comebacks, by gravitating more and more to the one place on the web where he says strong comebacks are expected!  Yeah, and because I began to diminish in my desire to use prostitutes, I started hanging out in brothels all the more. (!?)

4 - The world's smartest Christian apologist "doesn't know" ('dunno') whether it's new interest in academic writing or simple aging, that explains his backing off the strong comebacks?  I don't know about you, but this is the fruit of atheism:  How could Holding, as a bible-believing Christian, allegedly knowledgable of all those bible verses that prohibit filithy talk and slander and reviling, who allegedly believes himself guided by the Holy Spirit,  not know why exactly he is backing away from the strong-comeback style?  Easy: he's not a bible-believing Christian, he is an atheist who is unable to perfectly mask that fact with all of his Jesus talk-crap.  You shall know a tree by its fruit.

5 - Perhaps worst of all, Holding does not cite to the clear NT prohibitions on slander as his reason for conforming to them a bit more, which means he is so hopeless, the bible is not even his motivation for those times when he does claim to be changing for the better:

  18 He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool. (Prov. 10:18 NAU)

18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
 20 "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." (Matt. 15:18-20 NAU)

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

 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NAU)

 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.
 32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. (Eph. 4:31-32 NAU)

 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. 3:5-10 NAU)

That the revile-prohibition also covers even allegedly "deserved" insults is clear from Paul's own conduct:

 1 Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, "Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day."
 2 The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth.
 3 Then Paul said to him, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?"
 4 But the bystanders said, "Do you revile God's high priest?"
 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'" (Acts 23:1-5 NAU)

The first-century "bystanders" understood Paul's degrading insult to be "reviling".  But if Holding had been Paul, he would have said "the command not to speak evil of a ruler of thy people was only meant in the case of good rulers, not evil gospel-rejecting idiots like you, you moron.  We live in an honor/shame culture, so these types of commands are not absolute, you bigot."
 -----------------------


Moving along....the fact that Gary Habermas, who publicly endorsed one of Holding's books, said he was glad Holding was backing off of the filthy language hissing and spitting matches that characterized Holding for 20 years, indicates that Holding's trifles about riposte are perfect nonsense, even his own favorite scholars seem to think Holding's exaggerated way of doing it violates clear NT ethics that one doesn't need a Phd. in NT theology to properly interpret/apply.

The Slander-Psychology Challenge to James Patrick Holding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Patrick Holding: indifferent to the bible's divine authorship, but pathologically obsessed with defending bible inerancy anyway. WTF?

I accuse Holding of harboring such an apathetic attitude toward the bible that it places him outside the pale of NT Christianity.  The "teachers" in the NT did not have justification to be indifferent toward the divine inspiration of the scriptures. 

Holding affiliates himself at least partially with the Southern Baptist Convention ('SBC'), as he claims to have received an apologetics instructor certification from SBC’s North American Missions Board (‘NAMB’) Convention.  Link.  Link.

The SBC asserts that the scriptures are the trustworthy word of God:

The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

 
Holding not only doesn't "care" whether the bible is the inspired word of God, he specified, when asked to explain, that he wasn't being sarcastic, but genuine, in the 20 or so times he's said this in the past.

-----me: I just found out that you made a statement several years ago that you personally don't care if the bible is the inspired word of God or not, so that your gargantuan efforts to "defend biblical inerrancy" were all in the name of finding a way to beat up other people and had nothing to do with your personal convictions whatsoever. Better break out that "I-was-just-being-saracastic" excuse again, you're gonna need it to back out of that blooper.
-----Holding: I wasn't being sarcastic. Each of the 20 times I have said something like that, it was genuine. Which one did you have in mind? 

For obvious reasons, Holding's friend who owns the website where Holding made this admission, deleted that thread, but it is still available through wayback. See the link.

 Sure, SBC allows members to differ on eschatology, but has SBC gone so liberal that you can now be a member without caring whether the bible is the word of God?

So Holding’s apathetic attitude toward the divine inspiration of the bible makes it just a bit deceptive for him to claim any degree of affinity with the SBC.  Indeed, Holding appears to have a mental illness, because for the last 20 years, he has been the most obnoxious asshole defender of bible inerrancy on the internet…and then we find out that he doesn’t “care” whether the bible is the word of God…?  

 Ok, then what?  Is he just a fake Christian who gets involved in Christianity for no other reason than the fact that membership gives him a way to vent his dysfunctional obsessive need to dominate everything he gets involved in (similar to other fake Christians who involve themselves in it solely to make money)?  What would you think of a Roman Catholic who “didn’t care” whether Catholicism was the right version of Christianity? 

You’d probably conclude such a person's faith in Catholicism wasn't exactly sincere, would you not?

Isn’t is true that when you seriously “don’t care” about something, the one thing you don’t do is obsessively defend it as absolute truth?  Is there any area of your life where for 20 years you have obsessively engaged in some act or defended some theory, while the whole time not “caring” about it?

Holding sometimes writes for the Christian Research Journal, and in a 2011 issue, apologist James R. White concluded that yes, it does matter whether the bible is in fact the word of God.   Dr. White has publicly accused Holding of being a "nasty apologist", and refuses for that reason to communicate with him:

The man is a master at mockery of Christians—is that the attitude of one who is still “availing” himself of “further resources”? I think not. In any case, I will post my response, without referring to Mr. Holding’s ancestory, but only to his claims, as soon as I can. And then I shall be done with it, for while I have to engage the claims of nasty apologists from various groups, I do not have to respond to “evangelicals” who act in the exact same manner.

Therefore, Holding’s apathetic attitude toward the divine inspiration of the bible would seem to justify the assumption that in actual life and belief, he is not a Christian, Christianity is merely something he “does” because it provides endless opportunities to vent his pathological need to belittle other people, no other reason. 

In other words, Holding is plagued with the same "your-actions-don't-square-with-your-alleged-faith" problem that we saw in the likes of Benny Hinn, Ted Haggart and others.  In all cases, they were loudmouths who boisterously advocated for Christianity, and put on such a good dramtic show that their followers were deceptively prevented from detecting that these men were nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing.

For those who staunchly defend Holding’s integrity, let me know when you find a bible verse that will support the notion of a person who can legitimately hold the office of Christian “teacher” while not caring whether the bible is the inspired word of God or not.