James Patrick Holding, unconscionable liar, guilty of libel, see the third lawsuit

I didn't want to do this because I have an interest in not having the entire world know more about me than I wish to reveal, which makes me about as unacceptably unique as about 6 billion other people.

At the same time, James Patrick Holding has proven himself to be an unconscionable liar in and out of court (yes, that means I am asserting as fact, not opinion or satire, that he intentionally stated falsehoods in court while he was under oath, so that if I'm lying about this, it would be libel).

Since Mr. Holding's butt-fuck followers are so quick to judge that my third libel lawsuit against him was frivolous, I now offer that Complaint in full.

Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, the third libel lawsuit.

Download here.
my email address is barryjoneswhat@gmail.com
James Patrick Holding's email address is jphold@att.net

 UPDATE February 1, 2019:

 Mr. Holding says:

Well, I gave Doscher every chance to drop this nonsense and leave me alone. All he had to do was go his way in peace and let me go my way. Instead, he filed a 97 page complaint with 41 charges of libel per se and demanding $450,000 in damages. Fine. As I told him once, I'm not playing any more. Absolutely nothing will be spared this time around. He'll end up dealing with me, even though he thinks he's being clever by suing my dead ministry org. News will be posted here as it occurs.  

 See comment section here

I'm afraid Mr. Holding is mistaken.  I had no interest in simply dropping my intended third lawsuit against him.  Perhaps someday Holding will stop deluding himself with the lie that I'm in any way "scared" of him. 


If you are miffed that I filed a third libel lawsuit against Holding, and you are "sure" that I've falsely accused him therein, do what would normally be expected of somebody capable of arguing in fair fashion:  State the pages and paragraphs number in the Complaint for the accusations and  legal arguments you think are false, and state your reasons why they are false.  Otherwise, if all you are doing is imitating Mr. Holding's irrational juvenile delinquent crying-fest, such as he or one of his followers did (see below), I will have to make a decision on whether a reasonable mature adult would or "should" dignify such childish outburst with any response, and I might decide that because such outburst is trying to "bait" me to say things that can be dishonestly twisted against me in Court, I might decide to avoid responding.

Or if you are too much of a pussy to confront ME with such argument, be sure to email Holding and give him any advice you feel would be useful to his defense.  That way, when the jury awards me substantial damages, you will have to live with the fact that when the world's smartest lawyer was sued for libel, and was properly represented by his own chosen lawyer the whole time, and was constantly advised by his various friends around the world, he STILL could not prevail.

Then afterward you can consider making "why juries are always wrong" the 28th book of the NT.

For those who are wondering:

I am quite aware of Mr. Holding's pretending I only sue his dead corporation because I'm "afraid" for him to cross-examine me personally.  Mr. Holding is mistaken for several reasons:

a) this contention of his logically implies his fear that his own lawyer will not wish to attack me with all the "dirt" on me that Holding wishes to attack me with.  Holding might wish to seriously consider that the reason no actual real lawyer would wish to grill me that much is because the legal system simply doesn't allow, for purposes of justice, what Mr. Holding's entire life-purpose is built around:  slinging mud.  But if Holding is confident that his lawyer will grill me about every piece of allegedly credibility-impeaching "dirt" Holding wishes to throw at me on the witness-stand...then what is Holding complaining about?

If Holding's own chosen lawyer does NOT grill me on the witness stand with every piece of "dirt" Holding wishes to grill me with, will Holding publicly assert his lawyer's disagreement with him makes that lawyer a "moron", the way he publicly asserts the same about anybody who disagree with him?

I'm guessing "no".

b) I hereby give notice to Mr. Holding that he is advised that while his lawyer prepares notes and evidence to impeach my credibility during trial, Holding should also prepare, starting today, his own notes and evidence so that he can cross-examine me personally, without his lawyer.   If after the close of discovery and at any time before trial I decide that most of the libels alleged in the complaint were the work of Mr. Holding personally and not in his capacity as director of Apologetics Afield (very unlikely since the Complaint provides good evidence the libels were legally the work of the corporation) I will file a motion to amend my complaint, seeking to drop "Apologetics Afield" as Defendant and replace with "James Patrick Holding".

That way, when trial date arrives, Holding will not need a lawyer, he can represent himself "pro se", and will therefore be allowed to cross-examine me personally.  Gee, I'm really scared of Holding, eh?

I'm not saying I won't be objecting to Mr. Holding's "dirt" on me, ALL parties to a lawsuit routinely file a "motion in limine" just before trial, attempting to persuade the judge that certain evidence the other party is likely to bring up in front of the jury, has greater prejudicial than probative power.

What Mr. Holding also failed to note is that Florida law allows juries on libel cases to awared punitive damages even if they award no actual damages.  If therefore I decide to amend my complaint and remove all claims for actual damages, I'd STILL be able to ask the jury for substantial damages.

In Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Brown, 66 So.2d 679, 680-81 (Fla.1953), the court made clear that general damages for defamation per se are "those which the law presumes must naturally, proximately, and necessarily result from the publication of the libelous matter. They arise by inference of law, and are not required to be proved by evidence." Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, 66 So.2d 495 (Fla.1953), agreed that damages are presumed to result from defamation per se and need not be proved.  The singular protection afforded by Florida law to personal reputation in actions for defamations per se is further seen by the fact that punitive damages may be the primary relief in a cause of action for defamation per se. Jones v. Greeley, 25 Fla. 629, 6 So. 448, 450 (1889), held that malice is an intrinsic part of actions for defamation per se in order that the jury may consider punitive damages. In Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803 (Fla.1984), the court added that the express malice for punitive damages under Florida law is present where the evidence shows that an intention to injure the plaintiff was the primary motive for statements defamatory per se.[26]

Lawnwood Medical Center Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So. 3d 710, 727 (Fla: DCA 4th Dist. 2010)

UPDATE February 1, 2019:  The stupidity of Holding and his followers: 

 The "reply" function here does not allow more than about 4,000 words, so I'm "updating" this post to provide a point by point critique of yet another dumbshit who is either Mr. Holding himself or one of his "zeal without knowledge" juvenile delinquent followers:

AnonymousFebruary 1, 2019 at 7:16 AM

Lmao!

 You are rather stupid, given that your below-cited comments support my contention in this lawsuit that Mr. Holding's libels really do cause third-parties to view me with hatred, contempt, disgrace, distrust, etc (i.e., the social opprobrium Florida identifies as libel per se and allowing damages even absent any actual proof of damages, see Lawnwood, supra)..

The latest lawsuit against Holding is a 97-page complaint asserting 41 separate counts of libel per se.  What are the odds that

a) you are educated in Florida libel law, and
b) your "Lmao" results from your educated opinion that this lawsuit is legally and factually frivolous?

not good, obviously.

Sure, you are angry that Holding is tied up in another lawsuit, but honesty would counsel that you first determine for yourself whether the slander-charges are true, not whether I'm getting in the way your Savior's uploading of entertaining cartoon videos to YouTube.  I have charged your savior with slandering me.  If those charges are true, his culpability is great:  it isn't rocket science or post-Nicene trinitarianism...its basic biblical ethics:

...And he who spreads slander is a fool. (Prov. 10:18 NAU)

 21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
 23 "All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."
 (Mk. 7:21-23 NAU)

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

 19. Gossips are treacherous; cf. Instruction of Amen-em-ope: “Spread not thy words to the common people, nor associate to thyself one too outgoing of heart” (ANET 424a).20.

ANET J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (rev. ed.; Princeton, 1955)

Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E.
The Jerome Biblical commentary (electronic ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 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)

"Reviler" in the Greek is  λοίδορος---loidoros, and several lexicons make clear it is talking about the person who goes around insulting and slandering others.  From TDNT:

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]---------Source: here.

Danker:

4004  λοίδορος
λοίδορος,ου,ὁ [fr. a source shared by Lat. ludus ‘game’] insolent person 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10. 
Source:  here.

Don't know what "insolent" means?

in•so•lent \-s(ə-)lənt\ adj

1           : insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct :  overbearing

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary.
Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Gee, since you cannot think of any evidence that Holding has ever been "insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct", you are sure he isn't the kind of "reviler" Paul required you to disfellowship, amen?

What's next?  The standard lexicons are lying to us about what biblical words mean?  FUCK YOU.

If you bother your brain long enough to remember that Holding's achieving dismissal of the prior two lawsuits I filed against him had nothing to do with determining the merits of my accusations, you might hold off showing the world just how far your zeal exceeds your knowledge.  Holding may have died for your sins, but that doesn't mean he can walk on water, he's imperfect, I don't really give a fuck if you see it differently.

Mr. Anonymous continues:

Aside from all your previous lawsuits that failed,

Incorrect.  You appear to be under the delusion that if you cannot find it on Google, then it didn't happen to me.  Such ignorance is consistent with your inflammatory and baseless zeal.   If you were talking about my prior two libel lawsuits against Holding, then apparently you are under the delusion that Jesus approves of the way lawyers exploit technicalities and thereby avoid justice.  You'd be wrong:

 23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. (Matt. 23:23 NAU)

 And since you apparently have more mouth than brain, I filed this Complaint "in forma pauperis" asking for the filing fee to be waived.  So if the Complaint was indeed "filed", it was only after a judge reviewed it to make sure the factual allegations, if true, would state a legally valid cause of action for libel:

From Murray v. Collins, Dist. Court, MD Florida 2019

"A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or fact." Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Battle v. Central State Hosp., 898 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir. 1990)).
A complaint filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is not automatically frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989).
Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are "indisputably meritless," id. at 327, or when the claims rely on factual allegations which are "clearly baseless." Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).
"Frivolous claims include claims `describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.'" Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349 (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 328).
Additionally, a claim may be dismissed as frivolous when it appears that a plaintiff has little or no chance of success. Id.
With respect to whether a complaint "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted," § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) mirrors the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), so courts apply the same standard in both contexts. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997); see also Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008).
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
"Labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" that amount to "naked assertions" will not do. Id. (quotations, alteration, and citation omitted).
Moreover, a complaint must "contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. for Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotations and citations omitted).

 More specifically, the Florida Middle District (which approved of my IFP request) has previously refused to dismiss Complaints for libel where the alleged libels looked far less egregious than the libels Mr. Holding engaged in:

From Dibble v. AVRICH, Dist. Court, SD Florida 2014

What in Tarnation is a Surrogate Dibble, No way this can be a real human beings name, low class redneck pig excrement, redneck asshole, PATHETIC, LOWCLASS, INBRED REDNECK SCUMBAG, venom-spewing, mud-sucking, LOW-CLASS REDNECK, REDNECK LOSERS, SON OF A BITCH, SCUMBAG DRIBBLE, Now do us all a big favor and go play some Russian Roulette with SIX rounds in the chamber

WHAT IN TARNATION IS A SURROGATE DIBBLE, This low-class, inbred, half-witted, redneck, idiot, horse's ass, bully, CHEAPSKATE AND ASSHOLE, venom-spewing, mud-sucking clown, NON-CUSTOMER, pig-farmer, miserable redneck loser, Surrogate Dibble yo-yo, son of a bitch, SCUMBAG DRIBBLE

Defendants contend that Avrich's offending statements amount to nothing more than rhetorical name-calling or expressions of opinion which cannot be construed as statements of fact. Therefore, they argue, the statements cannot constitute actionable defamation. Defendant's comments stem from his apparently strongly-held convictions about Plaintiff's name. This may turn out to be a case about literal name calling. But, Defendant's publications also contain statements about Plaintiff's intelligence, class, ancestry and business-relevant qualities. As examples of the latter, Defendant allegedly stated that Plaintiff might not be a real person, is a cheapskate, a "non-customer," and lacks any credibility. Compl. ¶ 10.

...Construing the allegations in the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court cannot conclude at this stage that Defendant's comments are mere rhetoric and cannot constitute defamatory publications. See, e.g., Presley v. Graham, 936 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1325-26 (M.D. Ala. 2013) (finding, at pleading stage, that statement that plaintiff was "a supervisor's nightmare," even if opinion, could be interpreted by a reasonable reader as a fact-based summation). In our age of anonymous internet trolls and the often-uninformed echo-chamber of the blogosphere, maybe no reasonable reader would take Defendant's statements as asserting facts rather than just one more outspewing of thoughtless rhetoric. But the Court is not willing to say, as a matter of law, that Defendant's insults are incapable of being interpreted as false facts. Visitors of transportreviews.com may understand Defendant to be stating that Plaintiff is in fact inbred, or not a real person, or, at the very least, someone you wouldn't want to do business with. The Complaint fairly and plausibly alleges as much. Whether it is true requires the Court to consider a factual context for the parties to address and develop in discovery. Plaintiff's allegations of defamation will survive Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

You'll excuse me if I note that your anger appears to arise from the fact that Florida law favors me.  If you want Florida to adopt a more narrow definition of libel, and require courts to dismiss any IFP lawsuits where the proof of tort is something less than high-definition videos provided by 10 police officers, direct your concerns to the Legislature. Until that day, you appear to be in need of the following education:  Under Florida law, libel occurs where a false statement of fact is published to third parties in such a way as to possibly motivate such third parties to avoid Plaintiff.  Instead of whining like a baby, try reading the actual Complaint, which sets forth my best case that Holding violated Florida's civil law against libel.

------(Update April 11, 2019:  I did not realize until a few days ago that Florida distinguishes between filing and filing.  PACER indicated the Complaint was "filed" within a few days after I sent it.  But a few days ago I received in the mail a frivolous "Order" from a Magistrate judge threatening to file a Report and Recommendation asking the Court to dismiss the Complaint, for perceived "pleading defects".  So apparently the fact that the Complaint got "filed", didn't mean it got filed "all the way".  I would have figured that the Clerk would do nothing with the Complaint except forward it to the judge, and the Complaint would not be "filed" until the judge approved of the in forma pauperis application.  Regardless, I reacted to the interlocutor Order threatening dismissal, with a "motion for reconsideration" highlighting the judge's legal and factual errors, and, in case he didn't find this compelling, I also filed a 1st Amended Complaint, as the Order invited me to do.  See my blog post to that effect, with links to those documents, here.)

 That fearless spiritual "warrior" known as "anonymous barking child" continues:

maybe this time you'll get lucky!

 No, maybe this time Mr. Holding will do something he didn't have to do in the last two lawsuits: answer the charges on the merits.

Oh Doscher, that big brain of yours just isn't clicking big man.

Quit worrying about my brain and get a second job, your savior needs help with his legal fees.

Don't you get it? There's a reason why you never win in court,

 If the 2015 lawsuit has anything to do with it, it is because the Court unlawfully dismissed that case "without cost to either party", then violated that Order by granting Holding's post-dismissal petition for attorney fees.  Lest you stupidly speculate that maybe 'costs' are different than 'fees', the Washington state case law, which was binding on that Court in 2015, said:

Attorneys for both parties signed a stipulation that "all causes herein, as between Roberts and Bechtel, have been fully settled and compromised and that this matter should be dismissed with prejudice and without costs." …Ms. Bechtel contends the award of expenses is precluded by the terms of the release and settlement. We agree....It is undisputed Ms. Roberts, through her counsel, stipulated the matter should be dismissed without costs. Attorney fees are considered costs of litigation. Detonics ".45" Assocs. v. Bank of Cal., 97 Wn.2d 351, 644 P.2d 1170 (1982). The court was bound by the stipulation precluding an award of costs. Roberts v. Bechtel, 74 Wn. App. 685, 687 (Wash: Court of Appeals, 3rd Div. 1994)

 Mr. Anonymous continues on like a toddler whose toy was taken away:

there's a reason why your own father stabbed you in the back a few years ago

 You might want to consult with Mr. Holding. Since the subject of that meeting will be "what is a John Doe Subpoena and how does it relate to Doscher's ability to unmask my true identity and have a process server come knocking on my door?", you might schedule that appointment so Holding can confer with you for several hours.

Google the relevant topics beforehand, here's a starter:  Matthew Mazzotta, Balancing Act: Finding Consensus on Standards for Unmasking Anonymous Internet Speakers, 51 B.C. L. REV. 833 (May 2010) (addressing the various standards formulated by courts in determining whether to issue subpoenas "unmasking" anonymous internet posters, including the balancing of First Amendment rights of the anonymous speakers against the strength of the plaintiff's claim and the need for unmasking, and collecting cases); Ashley I. Kissinger and Katharine Larsen, Untangling the Legal Labyrinth: Protections for Anonymous Online Speech, 13 No. 9 J. INTERNET L. 1 (March 2010)(same); Stephanie Barclay, Defamation and John Does: Increased Protections and Relaxed Standing Requirements for Anonymous Internet Speech, 2010 B.Y.U. L. REV. 1309 (2010)(same); Charles Doskow, Peek-A-Boo I See You: The Constitution, Defamation Plaintiffs, and Pseudonymous Internet Defendants, 5 FLA. A&M U. L. REV. 197 (Spring 2010) (same); Nathaniel Gleicher, John Doe Subpoenas: Toward a Consistent Legal Standard, 118 YALE L. J. 320 (November 2008); and Victoria Smith Ekstrand, Unmasking Jane and John Doe: Online Anonymity and the First Amendment, 8 COMM. L. & POL'Y 405 (Autumn 2001) (same).

Persuasive authority would be TRAWINSKI v. Doe, NJ: Appellate Div. 2014

Mr. Anonymous continues:

and there's a reason why you're alone.

 I'm not alone.  But apparently there are stupid people in the world who base arguments from silence upon the fact that they couldn't find something through Google.

Don't worry, Holding is going to show everything next time in court including all your previous lawsuits.

No worries, my latest lawsuit draws the Court's attention to those prior lawsuits on multiple pages.

Unlike stupid boistrious juvenile delinquents such as you, the people who created and maintain America's court system have recognized for many decades there is a great danger that allowing one party to confront the other with every possible bit of "dirt" they can find, might cause the jury to decide the case not on the merits, but solely upon the "dirt":

 Rule 403 – Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons  
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

From Moore v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2018

 Rule 403 provides that "[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." A Rule 403 determination is committed to the district court's discretion. See United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1345 (11th Cir. 2018), petition for cert. filed, No. 18-6917 (U.S. Nov. 29, 2018).

Evidence of claimants' settlement with Peak certainly had some probative value...
On the other hand, the probative value of this evidence was diminished because the claim Peak settled was not identical nor even substantially similar to the claim GEICO was handling.
...Continuing then to the balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice, required by Rule 403, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the probative value of Peak's settlement was outweighed by "the danger of . . . unfair prejudice" to GEICO and of "confusing the issues [and] misleading the jury." Fed. R. Evid. 403.

 Mr. Anonymous continues:

Maybe this time you'll get your mind out of the gutter you socially inept freak.

But alas, it's my social ineptness that causes me to find bible study more fun than socializing with friends.  This is good because it ensures that I continue to smack down idiot Christian claims with that level of scholarly biblical acumen that a more socially active atheist probably wouldn't have.  Between friends and bible study, I choose bible study. 

Pull it out, it's error free, so I have nothing to give.

I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about just now.

This is up to you, whistle dick. I'll get the treats ready.

Same answer, however, your intentional violation of NT ethics is noted:

 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.    (Eph. 5:3-5 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)

 Gee, maybe the Context Group can prove that "whistle dick" wasn't considered "filthy" speech by 1st century Christians?

 UPDATE:  February 5, 2019, 11:05 a.m. Pacific Standard Time:

Since Mr. Holding has falsely asserted that I only sue his Apologetics Afield Corporation because I'm "scared" for him to cross-examine me personally, I notified him today that if I am satisfied, before trial, that the libels he committed, as recounted in the 2019 lawsuit, were posted in his individual capacity, then I might be changing the Defendant to "James Patrick Holding, in his personal capacity", so that he is no longer forced by law to hire a lawyer, and he can then cross-examine me personally at trial:





 If the screenshot is unclear, here's the text:

Barry Jones 1 second ago

I hereby give notice to Mr. Holding that he is advised that while his lawyer prepares notes and evidence to impeach my credibility during trial, Holding should also prepare, starting today, his own notes and evidence so that he can cross-examine me personally, without his lawyer. If after the close of discovery and at any time before trial I decide that most of the libels alleged in the complaint were the work of Mr. Holding personally and not in his capacity as director of Apologetics Afield (very unlikely since the Complaint provides good evidence the libels were legally the work of the corporation) I will file a motion to amend my complaint, seeking to drop "Apologetics Afield" as Defendant and replace with "James Patrick Holding". If the corporation is no longer the defendant, Holding will no longer be forced to have a lawyer represent him, and he can then cross-examine me for himself at trial. But like the 2019 Complaint says, Holding' committed the libels alleged therein while acting within the course and scope of his capacity as "director" of the Apologetics Afield corporation. I told Mr. Holding years ago to back the fuck off and quit smearing me, or I would react with more legal force than the average person might be expected to...but no, this belligerent pathologically obsessed asshole just doesn't have the requisite genetic hard-wiring to appreciate the trouble his mouth gets him into, he only cares about impressing his few babies with his infallible intellect, so FUCK HIM, iIf anybody deserved to reap the consequences of their own thoughtless uncharitable hateful spiteful actions, it is the director of Apologetics Afield, Inc. Apparently, when I tell Holding he picked the wrong victim when he picked on me, he conveniently forgets how to communicate in English.

Cold Case Christianity: Is God Real? Evidence for God from Objective Moral Truth

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: Is God Real? 

Evidence for God from Objective Moral Truth

Posted: 30 Jan 2019 01:56 AM PST

There are several compelling arguments for the existence of God, and many of them are rooted in science (i.e. thee Cosmological Argument) or philosophy (i.e. the Transcendental Argument). Sometimes these disciplines are foreign to our everyday experience, however, and not many of us are prepared to debate (or even describe) scientific details or esoteric philosophical concepts, especially as they might be related to God’s existence.

  Should we blame that on the Holy Spirit, who apparently wants to be known as your teacher?  Sure is funny that we have no problems blaming the teacher if the kids remain uneducated, but when it comes to "god", then suddenly, any and all imperfections seen in "his" work can never never never be blamed on him.  Feel free to take comfort in your insanely inerrant security blanket, but don't expect the atheist's goosebumps to rise up from their skin as high as your goosebumps do.

Another set of evidences may be far easier to assess and communicate. Is God real?

 You'd serve the cause of truth more efficiently if you narrowed the debate proposition, so you can focus your attention more to less issues  Don't ask whether God exists.  Ask whether Kalam's first premise is fatally ambiguous.  Don't ask whether Jesus rose from the dead.  Ask whether a non-Christian can be reasonable to find apostolic authorship of Matthew's gospel too obscure and problematic to be granted.  See how that works?

The presence of objective moral truth validates the existence of God and this evidence may be much easier to communicate to others.

 So since burning teen girl prostitutes to death was commanded by God (Leviticus 21:9), you are forced to view that form of justice as objective morality.  You can assert that not everything God commanded through Moses was morally objective, but you'll find yourself in theological gridlock in no time.  The end of the Mosaic theocracy appears to have less to do with God's will and more to do with naturalistic historical circumstance.  If killing all the gays was good for the Mosaic society, how could it possibly be bad for any other society?  Would it be true that in every such execution, the people were "putting away the evil from among them"?

We live in a world filled with moral truths and most of us, whether we are aware of it or not, believe these truths are more than a matter of personal opinion, evolutionary development or social convention. “Torturing babies for fun” is (and has been) morally repugnant regardless of the time in history, place on the planet, or identity of any particular people group.

 But there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for the common human aversion to torturing babies.  The natural mammalian desire to protect the young.  Furthermore, there is the fact is that torturing babies doesn't appear to serve any mammalian purpose, and contradicts mammalian genetics.  If the whole purpose of life is to procreate, then obviously the parents are going to view anything that inhibits the life of the newborns, as something to be shunned.

Torturing babies does not keep the food supply stable, it does not replenish needed water, it does not tell you which person would be good for the company, etc, etc. You also forget that many older siblings do indeed torture their younger brothers or sisters.  "Torture" doesn't have to be water-boarding or smashing knees with hammers, to be torture.  Your own bible consistently affirms the goodness of physically harming children with a "rod", and one could easily argue that this is a form of torture even if it doesn't last very long.  Torture doesn't require a minimum length of time.

You also forget that plenty of people throughout history have engaged in child torture via slavery, hard work, harsh discipline, or placing them out in open territory to let them die slowly.  You are not very scholarly if you just automatically exclude such adult opinions from your analysis.  One could also argue that if morals come from God, we probably wouldn't find anybody in history torturing babies or children.

Moral truths of this nature transcend and precede us.

 Sorry, but there you go again, preaching the choir, since you know perfectly well no atheist is going to agree that any truth we exhibit "transcends" us.

We don’t invent or construct them, we discover them.

 In the sense that we were raised by parents who imposed on us the morals they discovered from their own caretakers, yes.  In the sense of the moral truths existing outside of humanity?  No.  Go work in a daycare for a few days, them come back and tell me God put his laws into our hearts.  No, he only puts his laws into our hearts when our caretakers put their laws into our hearts.  I'd say the timing is suspicious.

Transcendent, objective moral truths such as these form the foundation of the Axiological Argument for the existence of God. “Axio” means the “study of values” and the Axiological Argument uses the existence of objective values or “mores” to prove the existence of God:

(1) There is an Objective (Transcendent) Moral Law

 No.  I already grilled Matthew Flannagan on this:  when he told me that we shouldn't torture babies to death solely for entertainment, I asked him what moral standard he was using to condemn the practice, and he skipped town.  The best he could do was to simplistically bleat that if any person needs to be told why such act is wrong, then they have something wrong with their brain.  That's nothing but an appeal to emotion.  Flannagan knows the basis for saying such act is wrong, but is rightfully fearful that if he admits what it is, he will infuse his argument with more subjectivity than he wants his viewers to think is necessary.  So he just skips town instead of honestly admitting that his argument for God from objective morality is fatally subjective.

(2) Every Law Has a Law Giver

Not when the law in question is merely the name we attach to patterns of thinking we observe in mammals.  There is a "law of gravity", but that's obviously something far different from "law says you can't drive over 55 mph."

(3) Therefore, There is an Objective (Transcendent) Law Giver

(4) The Objective (Transcendent) Law Giver is God

Dream on.

If objective, transcendent moral truths exist, an objective, transcendent moral truth giver is the most reasonable inference.

No, the concept of "god" as an immaterial intelligence is incoherent, so since naturalistic explanations are at least coherent, they will always be better than this appeal to 'god'.

Living in a world filled with moral choices, we often confuse description with prescription. It’s one thing to describe “what is”, but it’s another thing to prescribe “what ought to be”. Humans are good at the former, but have been historically uneven with the latter.

And Christians have always been divided on the latter, i.e., what ought to be.  Your trifles about how this doesn't get rid of god, really don't accomplish much.  If you people ARE that divided on morality, and have been for 20 centuries, the mere possibility this could still be consistent with God's existence does precisely nothing to enable the atheist to figure out which Christian morality is from god. If you couldn't attain like-mindedness on this for 20 centuries, its pretty reasonable to conclude you aren't going to be achieving that goal with an internet post.

Individuals and groups often allow their own selfish interests to color the way they evaluate moral truth.

Sort of like the greed involved in a land-grab conveniently has the grabbers suddenly discover that grabbing land is more holy than allowing its original occupants to live there.  Sure is funny that you think every group doing a land-grab in the ANE was immoral to do so...except of course, conveniently, the Hebrews.

When this happens, we sometimes come to very different conclusions about the “rightness” of our beliefs or actions. When we disagree about the moral value of a particular action, we usually try to convince the other side to accept our position. But why would this be necessary if all moral truths come from individuals or groups? If humans are the source of moral truth, why should we consider one group’s values to be any better than another?

 This usually takes place in the context of showing how your particular moral stance is more likely to achieve your opponent's goals, than his own moral stance.  That's why.  Last I checked, you don't require your little daughter to wear matching clothes to school because God hath decreed it so, yet her obedience to her parents is a "moral" issue.  If morality comes from God, then there you go:  God has an opinion about what clothes she should wear to school. Let me guess:  you've always asked God about this matter, amen?

Nope, you believe your sky-daddy only gives a fuck about the big issues, and doesn't really care what color your shoes are, despite the fact that the biblical teaching that Christ holds all things together would imply that God is ultimately responsible for how the neurons fire in your brain, in ways that often manifest as you choosing a certain color of shoe.  Your bullshit idea that God doesn't care about your personal details, is theological heresy.  God could no more be apathetic toward what you'll have for dinner tomorrow night, than he could just remove his presence from rocks.

When we argue for what “ought to be” we’re not simply asking someone to accept our subjective opinion; were asking them to see the “rightness” of the objective moral truth we happen to hold.

When a group of societies come together to discuss the moral value of a particular action (as is often the case at meetings of the United Nations), they are appealing to a standard transcending the group in an effort to convince any one member of the group.

No, one group is trying to show how their unique morality will more efficiently achieve the common goals of the united nations, than the morality of any other group.

When one nation asks another to conform to some form of moral behavior, it’s not saying, “Do it our way,” it’s saying, “Do the right thing.”

 Correct, the "right" thing being the subjective view held by the nation whose representative is doing the talking.  

Our appeal to a particular behavior isn’t based solely on our collective, subjective opinion; it’s based on an appeal to objective moral values transcending our opinion.

 I find that to be rather disingenuous given that even conservative Christians disagree on morality so much they will accuse each other of defying common sense.  Forgive me if I refuse to believe that one of them speaks from the Holy Spirit and the other doesn't.  Your God could fix this stupid bullshit by just waving his magic wand to get people to believe whatever he wants them to believe, as he allegedly did in Ezra 1:1.  You always blame the parents if they allow their stupid kids to starve themselves to death.  Do you call God a "father"?  

We can argue about the identity of these values, but we must accept the transcendent foundation of these moral truths if we ever hope to persuade others to embrace them. Nations may dislike one another and resist the subjective values held by other groups. That’s why we argue for the transcendent moral value of an action, rather than appealing to a subjective national opinion.

 I don't find a UN speaker's appeal to "divine rights" or similar to be any more compelling than a terrorist's speech that says Allah wills the massacre of thousands of Americans.   I'm sorry Wallace, but bellowing out moral commands in the name of Jesus does precisely nothing to "show" that they come from god.  Which you probably don't care about since you didn't intend to do apologetics here anyway, you are simply preaching the choir with all the smug blindness of a 1940's teacher in a Book of Mormon class.  In our little world, we can tell ourselves whatever we want and feel good about it the whole time, amen?

The evidence from the existence of objective moral truth points to God as the most reasonable explanation.

No, "god" is an incoherent concept, and if he is the most infinite thing in existence, as you classical theists are forced to allege, then Occam's Razor would slice away the god-hypothesis long before it would slice away any less complex explanatory theory.  What now?  Did you suddenly discover that Occam's Razor isn't quite as bright as most Christian apologists say it is?

Now you start in with the irrelevant questions that arose only because you formed an illegitimate theological foundation:

If transcendent moral truths exist, from where do they come? Is God real? The evidence from the existence of objective moral truth points to God as the most reasonable explanation.

An atheist kills mind-body dualism

This is my reply to an article by Peter Saunders entitled

THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM

PETER SAUNDERS

CMF FILE NO 18, 2002

Are the mind and the body separate entities, or one and the same thing?

They are one thing.  There is no such thing as "immaterial" or "non-physical" in the sense of real existence that is other than physical.  That's just the result of a toddler smooshing different parts of words together to come up with fun entertaining nonsense.

If they are separate, how do they relate?

See above.

If they are one 'substance', is this substance mental or purely physical in nature?

 False distinction, the mental is nothing BUT physical.  That's why wthen the physical starts eroding away (i.e., Alzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases), so do those things you think are "mental", like memories and thoughts.  Not a whole lot different than what happens when computer drives get old and start losing memory.  It's all physical, even if you cannot see the electrons involved in the process of decay.

The 'mind-body problem', the difficulty of understanding how mind and body (or brain) relate, has fascinated philosophers for centuries and has profound implications for how we think about and treat other human beings. This File introduces some key aspects of the debate.

Stories of out of body experiences, beliefs in life after death, or diseases affecting the brain all raise questions about whether our minds and our bodies are separate entities that have the ability to exist independently.

Out of body experiences can occur under the influence of drugs, as part of religious experience, or close to death. During an out of body experience the person has the impression that their mind (or soul) is somehow leaving their physical body. Some people believe that these experiences are just 'a trick of the mind', but others see them as evidence that the body and mind really can exist independently.

The latter are delusional.  2,000 years of Christian history and scholasticism, and yet nobody has been able to demonstrate that intelligence can exist apart from a physical body.   Except perhaps the fool fundies who insist that certain reports of demon possession are true.

Belief in life after death is common in many religious and cultural traditions.

Grieving over the death of a loved one creates an extreme state of mind that is more prone than normal to think up ways to ease the pain, such as by conjuring up theories that death isn't the real end of this person.  Notice also that a refusal to believe our existence ends at death forever, can be linked to pride and vanity, not mere comfort.

Some people, particularly in the Western world, believe that death is the end of existence. Others believe that we continue to live after our body has died, either as dismembered spirits, or to be 're-clothed' with a new body, either reincarnated in this world or resurrected into a new world.

And Christians cannot even agree on whether the bible teaches that the person continues to exist in the "spirit" after their body dies.  Compare Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists, with traditional Protestantism and Catholicism.

Schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease are two examples of diseases affecting the mind where only the 'shell' of the original person appears to be left. Relatives and carers are left caring for those who appear utterly different from the people they once knew and loved. What actually happens when the mind goes?

Nothing much different than when a computer hard drive goes.  The drive ages, the physical stuff the memories are planted in starts to erode, and presto, you lose data. Sure, the human mind is more complex than a computer hard drive, but the analogy is still useful even if not exhaustively infallible.

Mind and matter

The 'mind-body problem' centres on whether the mind and the body are separate things or one and the same. There are two main competing theories, dualism and monism.

(snip) .

Questioning materialism

Of course these various views of how mind and body relate cannot all be equally correct. In fact, some are mutually exclusive. So which view best explains the diversity of 'physical' and 'mental' phenomena that we experience in the world about us? The answer has eluded some of the greatest minds in history, but we can start by assessing the predominant world view in Western society, before bringing a Christian perspective to bear on the issue.

Materialism has been criticised because it fails to explain everything and it has unfortunate implications for the way we treat human beings.

 Failure to explain "everything" is a defect plaguing any theory any human being ever had, simply because of the imperfection of knowledge.  You cannot condemn the physicalist denial of mind-body dualism on this score unless you condemn every theory anybody ever had about anything.

Second, physicalism doesn't have unfortunate implications for the way we treat human beings...unless you are a bleeding heart liberal.  Think about how the terrible wars and plagues of the centuries past contribute to why your town is currently not horrifically overpopulated, before you pretend that massive human death is always a bad thing.  Looked at from a long-term perspective, apparently this is something that prevents us today from having to stand in line at the store for 6 hours just to buy toothpaste.  Imagine how much more populated our towns would be if nobody in history ever died from anything other than old age.  The more you like the non-overpopulated status of your town, the more you approve of the past centuries of warfare and disease that wiped out hundreds of millions.  Nobody ever said you were consistent in your morality.  You're only human.

Explanatory power

Materialists have difficulty explaining how their theory can account for such psychological phenomena as desires, intentions, sensory experiences, thoughts and beliefs.

Then you must think bugs and reptiles have an immaterial nature, since its obvious that they too have desires, intentions, sensory experiences, thoughts and beliefs, even if on their level such things are not quite as complex as with us.  But since it is clear that the level of complexity increases as you move up the food chain, it makes reasonably good sense to say that humans are going to have the most complex basis for beliefs and intentions, but regardless, there's no reason to insist that our not having figured out every mystery of human consciousness somehow leaves the door open for our real self to originate in another dimension.  The sheer stupidity of the religious explanation (another dimension!?) would help promote the physicalist theory as having more explanatory power and scope.

Most of us believe that we have freedom to make choices, and that the 'I' that chooses somehow stands outside the chain of cause and effect.

 That popular view of freewill is obviously wrong.  Getting drunk means physical alcohol has affected a physical brain.  Since people who are drunk make freewill decisions differently than they do when sober, it is perfectly clear that whatever the "will" is, it is a physical thing that can be affected by physical things no less than a hammer can affect a nail.  Otherwise you wind up with stupid shit like "well maybe the will isn't affected by physical things but only seems to because it has to come into this dimension through a brain soaked in physical alcohol?"

Then I suggest you force a dog to drink one shot of whiskey.  When the dog starts wandering around aimlessly and seems "chill" and  less interested in life than he normally is, tell yourself that maybe it's just his spirit coming into this world from another dimension through the interface of an alcohol-soaked brain.  And if your bible told you that dogs have immaterial spirits, then yes, you'd be quick to pretend that such a theory is "obvious" and in no way refuted by the fact that physical things can cause the will to act differently than it normally does.

If not, our choices are determined as Skinner and Ryle, two influential twentieth century writers, believed. But, if we have no option when faced with a choice, surely it was never a choice in the first place?

Yes, and I'm not going to shove this scientific hypothesis under the rug merely because it would seem unfair to punish people who could not have chosen otherwise...it may very well be, and likely is, that America's ideas about justice and civil government arose from concepts having more to do with blind religion than confirmed scientific fact.  I don't toss science out the window merely because it would force us to say our national sense of justice was founded upon a false theory of the mind.  Maybe we need to change so our theories about justice are in closer alignment with scientific truth.  Either way, it doesn't follow that it is unjust to punish people who cannot help the way they act.  Rabid put bulls cannot help the way they act when mauling children, but you probably don't give a fuck about trifles of justice when using a chainsaw to protect your children from jaws of lesser life-forms.

Most of us naturally believe that there is actually an 'I' that feels and is conscious - an 'I' that knows guilt, pleasure and pain.

 That would seem true of the higher order mammals.  Do you suppose their true "selves" only come into their brain from another dimension?  Or does the bible forbid you from saying the animals were made in God's image?  Just so you know, your feeling constrained to interpret reality so that it conveniently always harmonizes with and never contradicts the bible, causes my atheist self to wake up in the middle of the night all scared.  And when Mormons preach at me, I look for dust, ashes, and an opportunity to repent and talk about how good it would be if another man was grinding my wife doggy style (Job 31:10).

These sensations are of course accompanied by electric signals in the brain that can be measured, and body and facial movements that can be observed.

The same is true for most of the higher-order living things.  Do they have spirits that survive physical death?  Or does the little white lie "all dogs go to heaven" achieve a higher good in your life if you "just" allow your little girl to believe it when Fido is found dead in the backyard?

But while we can measure and observe signals and movements, we can never know another person's private subjective experience.

 You also cannot ever know what a bug is thinking.  That hardly argues that the bug's true "self" is spiritual.

Even if we can deduce what they are feeling we will never experience it ourselves, in the way that they do. Similarly, although we can perceive our own bodies (see, touch and feel them) that is quite different from seeing and touching through them.

In the same way, you may be aware that others exist by reading their thoughts as they appear on paper or on a screen, but having their thoughts is something unique to them.

 You also cannot know for sure what a dog or cat is thinking.  Does this suggest cats and dogs have spirits?  Why not?  The bible says?  FUCK YOU.

I cannot experience your thoughts. Even if I am able with some technical device to know what you are thinking, that is quite different from actually experiencing your thoughts as you do.

We all have an intuitive sense that we are more than just bodies ruled by physical and chemical laws; more than just complex stimulus-response machines.

Sorry, but going off into what humans find "intuitive" is shaky territory, because human intuition obviously isn't presumably accurate enough to settle debates about reality, we have to search and probe and decide when hypotheses are more likely or less likely.

Yes, the concept that we are more than mere biological machines is popular, but then again, must of us were not raised by staunch atheists, nor did we learn in schools that forbid anything but scientifically demonstrable conclusions.  How we think goes back to how we were raised and the degree to which we found truth in our early education.  The fact that many atheists agree there's no ghost in the machine opens the door to the possibility that the contrary human intuition isn't quite the arbiter of truth you think it is.  Believing we are just molecules in motion is also consistent with one's innate sense of self.

There is something about materialism that doesn't quite ring true with our experience.

 If you are talking to people who were mostly raised in a generally religious society, yes.

This intuition could all be an illusion produced by brain biochemistry, but it could equally be true that there is some aspect of human existence which stands outside simple cause and effect, that human beings are in some sense 'supernatural'.

Sorry, but you cannot demonstrate the existence of such a thing as "outside simple cause and effect", therefore any notion of nature that is "super" or "beyond nature" is incoherent (i.e., can be dismissed immediately without further consideration).

We already know that in the natural world things exist beyond our immediate perceptions, but within the perceptions of other species. For example dogs can hear high pitch sounds that are inaudible to humans, and birds can see colours we can't. Could it be that 'mind' is something that human beings will never be able to measure or fully.

 Yes, but that doesn't mean what remains unknown is something incoherent such as the immaterial or non-physical.  The higher pitch only cats can hear is still physical.  The subtle distinctions of colors birds sense better than we can, are still physical.  First come up with a confirmed case of the existence of any non-physical or immaterial thing, then I'll be intellectually obligated to place your ghost-in-the-machine theory upon the table of logical possibilities.   But not before.

 Snip

But there is also a deeper logical problem with materialism. If we believe in a closed universe, where nothing but matter exists, then the human mind, by implication, becomes part of that closed cause and effect system. This leaves us having to believe that all our thoughts, including our belief in materialism, are simply determined by physics and biochemistry. But if we are simply determined to think that materialism is true, then how can we be sure that it really is true?

 I believe the question is illegitimate in that it automatically assumes that truth can only be correctly detected by an agent whose will is free from the laws of physics, itself a rather stupid theory.

Calculators don't have freewill, yet they manage to achieve mathematically correct conclusions to the problems you input.  We obviously discern that bugs are capable of correctly determining reality sufficiently to survive, even if not infallibly so.   Unless you wish to pretend that bugs must have an immaterial aspect to their nature because they can correctly discern reality (you won't because the bible doesn't tell you any such thing), then apparently the bug-analogy destroys your argument.  Being predetermined in our thinking does indeed open the door to our possibly being wrong, and indeed we are wrong plenty of times about reality, but you are incorrect to pretend that such predeterminism casts all hope of correct perception out the window.  There is nothing about being subject to the laws of physics that throws all of our knowledge into a state of perpectual uncertainty.

If we wish to retain any claim to objective knowledge, we must accept that the human mind has some independence from nature. But that would deny materialism!

Nope.  You deny that bacteria consist of anything more than material physicality (i.e., they don't have a spirit that survives physical death), yet they obviously are capable of correctly discerning reality, or else the original bugs would have died off permanently thousands of years ago.  The question could be thrown back in your face with your own bible, which says God will send strong delusion to certain people (2nd Thess. 2:11)....Gee...how do you know you are correctly orthodox in your beliefs and that you aren't being deceived by this higher deluding influence?   Don't the heretics quote the bible to support their beliefs just as often as you do?  Gee, should we despair about your inability to be certain?

Basis for respect

Another problem with materialism is that, it has led to a tendency to judge a person's worth by how clever they are.

 Christians suffer the same imperfection, only the know-it-all apologists have the biggest audience.  The churches with the largest Sunday attendance are always those lead by a charismatic pastor who seems to know it all.  The churches who take a more scholarly approach to the bible have far less attendance.

This results in us having no real basis for treating brain-damaged human beings any differently from animals.

 No, because inherent in the materialist reality of human life is the mammalian reality that we bond with others in our group and thus experience trauma if they stop responding to us through brain injury or death.  Higher mammals mourn their dead in various ways, but you deny they have a spirit that survives physical death.

Bioethicist Peter Singer has put it quite starkly:

'Once the religious mumbojumbo surrounding the term human has been stripped away, we may continue to see 'normal' members of our species as possessing greater qualities of rationality, selfconsciousness, communication and so on than members of any others species, but we will not regard as sacrosanct the life of each member of our species, no matter how limited its capacity for intelligent or even conscious life may be'.(3)

When the average person doesn't think they'll be quoted in the press, they usually DO want the pedophile to get beaten to death in main population, they usually don't want mentally retarded people to procreate, they usually don't give a job to the convicted felon on parole, they really don't like the idea of scores of minorities coming to live in their town....Fuck you...we live in a meritocracy where blind compassion is the exception, and harboring complete apathy to the misfits is the norm.

Based on this belief Singer has been an advocate for infanticide, euthanasia and placing animal rights alongside human rights.

Only emotion-based arguments could make an opposing view seem reasonable.

These attitudes may shock us, but they do follow naturally from the belief that human beings are 'less than persons' if they have lost, or never gained, reasonable mental faculties.

 I don't see the problem as anything bigger than modern society with its mistaking its emotional viewpoint with scientific reality.

The hard truth is that we really don't give a fuck about it when we hear on the news that some child in a far away country was killed in a robbery (or you cry a bit less about that than you would about your next-door neighbor's kid dying).  So the extent to which we care appears to be little more than emotion.   We also know that more we are exposed to shocking things, the less shocking they are, which is some of the reason why society today as utterly crazy compared to what existed in the 1930's.  You won't find many bleeding heart liberals working as prison guards.  America wouldn't be America if most of its people were seriously fair toward their fellow human beings in all ways.

Christian perspectives

The mind-body problem is complex. While Christians do not all agree on its solution, many take a dualist rather than a monist position. Christian researchers believe they are students both of the book of Nature (science) and the book of God (the Bible).

Then this is the precise point where your arguments lose whatever force they once had, and you start preaching the choir.  Atheists believe they are students of the book of macro-evolution.   Did that blast of education just knock you for a loop?  Hardly.

A Christian solution will be consistent with the science and also with the teaching of the Bible.

Which doesn't mean much given that the ambiguity of biblical statements has keep the church in doctrinal disarray for 2,000 years.  You may as well say that the true compassionate solution to sociatal problems will take into consideration all viewpoints.  That's true, but does precisely nothing to cause a real workable solution to emerge. You wholly impractical idealism is noted.

What light does the Bible have to shed on the nature of human beings, and hence the mind-body problem?

If the bible wasn't so fatally ambiguous about most of its subject matter, that might be a legitimate question to explore.

It tells us that human beings are godlike, complex, responsible and eternal - but also limited.

Godlike

God has a mind and yet doesn't need a body to act in the world.

 An incoherent concept.  First demonstrate any confirmed existence of intelligence apart from physicality, then the possibility you argue for here will remain upon the table of valid options.  Now what?  Your grandma heard a demon walking around in her kitchen, and she'd never lie about something like that?

Similarly, although human bodies are part of the natural world, human beings also have minds, which to some extent, transcend the natural order, and yet can affect what happens in it.

 Another incoherent idea:  nobody questions that physical object 1 can influence physical object 2, when but you assert that a non-physical something-or-other can also influence physical objects, you are talking about a scenario for which you don't have the least bit of persuasive evidence.  Worse, the concept doesn't even make sense.  By what mechanism does a non-physical thing cause a physical thing to move?  Telekinesis?

Being 'made in the image of God'(4) confers on us godlike qualities of creativity, rationality, personality, free will, selfawareness and consciousness and also gives us a special dignity, which deserves respect.(5)

 First, preaching the choir.  Second, the originally intended addressees of Genesis would likely have understood "image of God" as physical resemblance to god, despite later evolution in Judaism, reflected in the bible. But that involves something I might not wish to waste my time doing...pretending that the specific details of Genesis 2-4 are worthy of my time to trifle about.  Nope.  I decide when to bother with such bullshit, and today isn't that day.

Complex

The Bible describes man as consisting of spirit, soul and body.(6)

 And whether that means three parts or something else, has been dividing the trichotomists from the dichotomists for centuries.  Methinks you won't exactly be "cornering" me with anything.

But these components are not separate parts stuck together as in a 'lego kit'. Whilst Greek culture liked to separate spirit, soul and body, the Bible is strong in presenting human beings as a complex unity.

 A doctrine of unity you destroy as soon as you allege that the mind can continue conscience self-awareness after physical death.

Man was created by God to be a 'living being' composed both of the 'dust of the ground' and the 'breath of life'.(7) This tells us that we have both material and non-material aspects, but that they exist and belong together. Materialism, in contrast, tends to look for the simplest solution to issues.

 You have a bible.  We have Occam's Razor.  Let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor.

Accountable

The Bible teaches that human beings can make real decisions, and are accountable for them. We are not simply ruled by nature or fate.

 Then you don't know your own bible, which says some people aren't meaningfully distinguishable from brute animals:

 12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, (2 Pet. 2:12 NAU).

And how long should I study the in-house Christian debate on whether neanderthal man was or wasn't a full human being, before I know enough about it to justify drawing conclusions about which side got it right?

What if I die in a car wreck while on my way to the library to check out Christian apologetics books on the subject of the mind-body problem?  What should I be doing?  Considering the arguments of apologists? Or something more anti-intellectual like repenting and believing the gospel regardless of my level of knowledge?

This is why God can justifiably judge us. If we were just automatons and thereby the product of forces beyond our control, it would be unfair for God to hold us accountable for sin(8) (literally 'missing the mark'). This again implies that our minds are in some way outside the natural order.

 Then you don't know your bible.  Apostle Paul insisted that God's right to judge is entirely beyond any commentary or criticism man might make (Romans 9:20).   That is, your apostle Paul would not agree that our being freewilled creatures made in God's image is "why" God is just to judge us.  For Paul, the justness of God is not even open for commentary.  God would not be unjust to judge anybody under any circumstances whatsoever.  So quit pretending that God can have a sufficient "reason" for doing something.  It's incoherent.

Eternal

Our bodies die and yet the Bible teaches us that, despite this, human beings are eternal and live forever.

 All that shows is that you aren't a Jehovah Witness or 7th Day Adventist, two Christian schools of thought who affirm soul-sleep and deny self-awareness can continue apart from the physical body.

The person survives death, implying that we are more than just bodies. But death does not lead to life as a disembodied spirit, or reincarnation. Rather, the Bible teaches that man's destiny is to die once and then face judgement(9) and either heaven or hell depending on our response to Jesus Christ.(10)

 Which means you aren't doing the best evangelism you can if you ask atheists to read books or web articles.  They might die in a state of unbelief while on their way to the library, and according to you, since they weren't faithful upon death, they go to hell.  So if you don't want unbelievers to go to hell, you cannot talk to them as if salvation's importance is equal to the importance of their voting upon a local initiative.  If they are always a heartbeat away from the gates of an irreversible eternal hell, then the best you can do is to insist that they repent now, RIGHT NOW, the way you would if they were hanging over a cliff for dear life.  If the situation is that desperate, desperate measures are called for.

Of course, every act comes at cost...and here the act of urgent evangelism comes at the cost of intellectual suicide (i.e.,. if you do repent right now, then you are making a choice to believe Jesus is all he said he was, whether you actually have a solid understanding of gospel issues or not).  But if, like Lydia McGrew, you invent a non-existent bit of mercy the bible nowhere teaches, and insist that atheists who die while in the act of studying their bibles, will get a second chance in the spiritual world, then I obviously have nothing to worry about, as I study my bible 10 times more than any 100 'Christians' combined.

People who have a relationship with God through Jesus will experience resurrection and live with God forever in a perfect 'new heaven and new earth',(11) with new resurrected bodies like that of Christ's after his resurrection.(12) This is clear from Jesus' pronouncement to the thief on the cross - 'Today you will be with me in paradise'.(13)

 Do you think Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists have never seen that verse?  Unless you claim they are just rock-stupid, maybe you shouldn't classify your interpretation of it as "clear".

Limited

Finally, unlike God, human beings have finite power and knowledge. Despite our abilities we are limited in time and space.

Something that the more fanatical fundies might keep in mind as they continue to mistake their cocky confidence for god's own voice. 

Even with sophisticated technology there are many things about the universe that we will never know.

 Meaning the naturalistic explanation of these will never be decisively disproved.

This does not give us an excuse for failing to ask questions or invoking God to explain the gaps in our knowledge. But we will recognise humbly that some things will always remain mysteries and beyond our understanding. Perhaps the mind-body problem is a mystery that is impossible for human minds to solve.

 Nope.  The difference between the mind of a human and the mind of a reptile is one of degree, not nature.

Sure is funny how the further you move up the food chain, the more these ultimately material physical creatures come closer and closer to the human level of self-awareness.

Cold Case Christianity: Bible contradictions and how not to deal with them

This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled

Cold Case Christianity: Quick Shot:
“The Bible is full of contradictions”Posted: 28 Jan 2019 01:10 AM PST

Our “Quick Shot” series offers brief answers to common objections to the Christian worldview.

Leaving us to wonder what you'd think of atheist bible criticisms that were equally brief.

Each response is limited to one paragraph. These responses are designed to (1) answer the objection as concisely as possible, (2) challenge the objector to think more deeply about his or her claim, and (3) facilitate a “gospel” conversation. In this article, we’re offering “Quick Shot” responses to the objection, Quick Shot: “The Bible is full of contradictions.”

Response #1:
“I hear that a lot, can you show me what you’re talking about?

 Sure:

King David had several wives and servants and a fireplace to keep him warm while he reigned as king.  So any story about him curing his chills by sleeping next to the scantily clad body of the prettiest virgin in town, you know perfectly well that story contradicts reality and is nothing but a cover-up for a king who couldn't keep his pants zipped.  Now read 1st Kings 1:1-4 and thank the Holy Spirit for moving through an atheist like me to make you see the light.

Does God love the workers of iniquity (John 3:16) or hate them (Psalm 5:5)?
(Psalm 5:5 doesn't say God hates the works of sin, it says he hates the "workers").

Do good works have something to do with the basis of salvation (Matthew 5:17-20 ff, Luke 1:6), or do good works have nothing to do with the basis of salvation (Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 11:6)?  Dispensationalism would hardly have come into existence if the harmony between Jesus and Paul's doctrines were anywhere near "obvious".

Is God love (1st John 4:16) or does God threaten women with rape (Isaiah 13:15-17)?  Gee, because threatening a women with rape is not the logical opposite of "love" why doesn't YOUR "love" ever threaten women with rape?  Are you ungodly?

I could not get to the rest of Wallace's article if I degraded the discussion into a back-and-forth with every trifling asshole inerrantist in creation who thinks they can "harmonize" these contradictions.  Feel free to reply.

Wallace continues:

How familiar are you with the Bible to begin with?

 Very, I'm writing the book that lays modern Christian apologetics to rest, permanently.  It will probably run about 700 pages.    Therein I accuse the bible-god of approving of rape and pedophilia, I show that the differences between the Synoptics are best accounted for under a theory of progressive fiction, and that there are so many real problems with the biblical testimony to Jesus' resurrection, that we can be reasonable to view the doctrine to be false on the merits, no need to invoke a Humean smart-bomb against miracles.  My book includes my rebuttals to arguments made by Mike Licona, William Lane Craig, Steve Hays, J. Warner Wallace, Frank Turek, and other "apologists".

Have you examined all the alleged ‘contradictions’?

 Yes, and I have detailed scholarly arguments for why the harmonization scenarios given by Archer and other inerrantists are wrong or less likely to be true than the contradiction-theory.

I’m happy to look at something with you, and if I don’t have an answer for you, I’ll do some research and get back to you.

One wonders whether Christians think the "I'll get back to you" attempt at objectivity would be objective if employed by an atheist bible critic. Wouldn't you, the Christian, merely insist the atheist giving such response is merely intent on employing the clever tricks of the devil to get away from the truth?

But, there’s a difference between a contradiction and a variation. Just because two people report something differently, it doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a true contradiction.

 It doesn't have to "necessarily" be a contradiction.  The alleged contradictions arise from ancient historical testimony.  If it is reasonable to believe two such statement are contradictory, that complies with the standard canons of historiography.  If you think you escape the contradiction merely because harmonization scenarios of some sort or other will always be logically possible harmonization scenarios, then you are prioritizing apologetics over proper historical method.  I've been challenging Christian apologists for years to hit me with the biggest authentic contradictions they can possibly find in Mormon scriptures and Mormon history.  Under Christian standards, such contradictions aren't necessarily real because of how easy it is to conjure up logically possible harmonization scenarios. 

By the way, Wallace, juries in courtrooms are tasked with deciding whether somebody's harmonization scenario to account for an inconsistency, is truthful or just a clever ruse. So since you always apply court room standards to biblical issues, then you are required to admit that the jury deciding your claims, a jury that includes atheists, are not intellectually, legally or morally bound to automatically trash any claimed contradiction merely because you showed the contradiction wasn't absolutely proven.

If the apologist says "so it depends on whose theory on the alleged statements are more likely to be true, not merely whether harmonization is logically possible", that's an apologist who is starting to see the light.

When you and I return home and tell our family members about this conversation, I bet we’ll highlight different aspects of what was said.

 And sometimes people highlight certain parts of their previous discussions because they are dishonestly biased and wish to give the hearer a misleading impression of what actually happened.  Funny how you don't highlight the obvious fact that people can also be dishonest.

Those differences might appear to be contradictory, but they’re actually the kinds of variations we would expect when two people have varying interests and perspectives.

 And since two different eyewitnesses have never contradicted each other in the entire history of earth, it should be obvious that bible inerrancy is safe harbor by logical necessity.

Have you considered the fact that the Bible writers were real people who had personal interests and perspectives that may have shaped how they reported their observations?”

 Have you considered the fact that the Bible writers were real people who had personal interests and perspectives that may have motivated them to spin the historical facts in ways that give the reader a false impression of what happened?

Response #2:
“I’m not sure why you wouldn’t expect the Bible authors (like those who wrote the New Testament gospels), to report things in precisely the same way.

 Then let me clear up your confusion:  If you merely said the bible was written by people, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  But since you claim the bible writers were inspired by God and never contradicted each other despite it's many authors speaking on common subjects of history and theology, you are insisting on a state of affairs for the bible that you admit is not true about any other book in the world, thus putting yourself under the burden to make a prima facie case for the inerrancy of the bible before anybody is placed under any intellectual compulsion to think the biblical authors were any different in objectivity than the Egyptians or the Hittites.

Why wouldn’t there appear to be contradictions?

 If God himself were speaking to you, should you expect to see apparent contradictions?

This is the nature of all reliable eyewitness testimony. Witnesses to a crime (or other significant event) never seem to agree on details. That’s why detectives start by separating eyewitnesses as early as they can. They don’t want the witnesses to line up their stories and report the same thing.

Some biblical authors did try to line up their stories and report the same thing, and they failed miserably with a showing of many inconsistencies best explained under a theory of progressive fiction.  It's called the Synoptic Problem.

Detectives understand that there will appear to be differences in the witness accounts, but they know it’s their job to investigate the claims to understand why these differences exists – even when all the witnesses are accurately reporting the events. Have you ever thought about approaching the Bible authors in a similar way?”

 No.  The biblical authors are not alive, cannot be interviewed to explain why they phrased things in the words they chose, and now we are stuck forever with reading their words through our imperfect eyes and trying to decide which explanatory theory to account for the words is most likely to be true.



Whatever your "quick shot" is, it doesn't appear to be sniper fire, and doesn't appear to be a tiny glass full of hard liquor.  I won't be losing any sleep about perfectly consistent bibles anytime soon.  Cheers.