James Patrick Holding discovered several days ago that I had filed a third libel lawsuit against his "Apologetics Afield" corporation. I'm not going to give you the link because, as usual, the way he shows this is by libelous and defamatory means.
Since I sued his corporation thus forcing him to hire a lawyer, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that any lawyer would tell him that he needs to stop doing, in the future, what he is accused of in the past...reporting on my prior litigation in a way that voids the "fair-report" privilege, and subjects him to liability for libel.
ALL lawyers tell their clients to shut the fuck up when litigation is pending. That's because stupid retarded people have a nasty habit of saying things they will be forced to account for in front of a jury...yeah, jury trial, a time in the Defendant's life when his retarded tweb friends are not available to create the happy snark-bubble world that Holding lives for every second of the day.
But today, February 8, 2019, Holding, as usual, proved that he really is a pathologically obsessed asshole who would rather die than do the smart thing and shut the fuck up...he has to continue reporting about my prior judicial proceedings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qkV76_4XAk
I don't think that particular video is libelous, but that conclusion of mine only gets Holding in more trouble with the jury, since this video shows that Holding does indeed realize that the inaccurate, unfair and biased way he had reported in the past on my judicial proceedings, the ways that are described in the 2019 lawsuit, were indeed at variance with Florida law. Sure is funny that, after he got schooled the hard way by the legal arguments in my Complaint, suddenly, Holding's next bit of pathological obsession doesn't contain the same degree of manipulation and photoshopping that his other libelous judicial proceeding reports did.
Regardless, I'm sure Holding's lawyer will have something to say about his client continuing his obsession even after getting kicked in the head.
Anybody wanna make a bet? I'll bet $50 that after Mr. Holding's lawyer files his first document with the Court, Mr. Holding will not be posting to the internet anymore comments about my prior lawsuits. Perhaps I'm stupid, since I just made a case that Holding likely wouldn't even listen to his own lawyer.
Friday, February 8, 2019
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
Cold Case Christianity: Is the Bible True? The Value (and Limits) of the Early Church Fathers
This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
If you disagree with conservative Christian scholar Craig Evans' theory that John often puts words in Jesus' mouth that Jesus never actually spoke, then yes.I had the great pleasure and privilege several years ago to speak to students (and visitors) at Rutgers University. Ratio Christi hosted the three hour event. Julie Miller (RC’s Chapter Director at Rutgers) and her husband Buzz did an amazing job organizing and hosting the event. I was asked to defend the reliability of the New Testament Gospels, and afterward we opened the floor for a one hour question and answer session. As part of my case for the reliable transmission of the key claims of the Gospel authors, I retraced the New Testament Chain of Custody for the audience. This sequence of early believers links the eyewitness authors with their immediate students in an effort to examine the content of the original claims of the Gospels. Early Church Fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement play an important role in this chain of Gospel stewards; the writings of these students of John and Paul help us verify the content of the 1st Century teaching related to Jesus.
Fallacy of Generalized question: Is the Koran true?The ancient letters of these three Church Fathers have great value for this reason. Is the Bible true?
Nope, that's inadmissible hearsay. You'd have to therefore respond to the objection by citing to a court rule allowing hearsay in certain specific circumstances.These letters are an important piece of evidence.During the Q and A session, a young man asked an important question, echoing concerns I’ve addressed on other campuses around the country. Here’s the paraphrase: “The Church Fathers wrote about more than what John or Paul taught them about the historical activities and claims of Jesus; they also wrote about theological issues, and many of their theological positions are rejected by non-Catholics. If we reject the theology of some of these men, how can we trust anything else they said? How do we know where to draw the line, and are we just ‘cherry-picking’ as we use what happens to serve our cause (while rejecting the stuff we don’t like)?”Once again, the best analogy here is a courtroom analogy. There are many times when a witness is asked to describe what he (or she) saw or heard, but there are important limits. I might ask a witness, “What did the suspect say to you?” This kind of question is appropriate and the witness’ response will be allowed in the trial.
But if I step beyond this and ask, “Why do you think the suspect said that?” the defense attorneys will likely object to my question before the witness even gets a chance to respond: “Your honor, that’s an inappropriate question, the witness is being asked to offer an opinion, and it’s irrelevant what the witness thinks in this regard. This witness can’t read the mind of the suspect.” It’s one thing to ask a witness to strictly recall what he or she heard, another to offer an opinion about what this means or what may have motivated the statement in the first place.
That would fall under the "present-sense impression" exception to the hearsay exclusion rule.
But the case usually doesn't center on how different people interpret something somebody wrote.When there are multiple eyewitnesses used in a criminal trial, there’s a good chance these witnesses will come from a variety of worldviews and lifestyles. They will probably hold a divergent set of beliefs, attitudes and opinions.
Yes, like Irenaeus insisting that Jesus lived into his 50's and had a 10 year ministry.In fact, they may even have varying opinions about the guilt of the defendant in the case. None of these varying views will be apparent to the jury, however, because our questions on the stand will be limited to the actions or statements of the defendant. In a similar way, the Early Church Fathers provide us with key information related to the statements of the gospel authors.
Just one problem: the NT says Christians have the seal of the Holy Spirit and are otherwise the temple of God, so you run a very serious risk of denying what the Holy Spirit says, when you reject the theological opinions of the church fathers. I would argue that because apologists like you evince not the slightest interest in viewing somebody as speaking inerrantly by the Spirit, you are effectively nullifying that NT doctrine. Probably because you live in a modern culture that scoffs at the idea that somebody should be viewed God's mouth-piece.That’s the limit of their testimony and the evidential boundary for which they have value. They may disagree with each other (or later theologians) about what they think we ought to interpret from the life and teaching of Jesus, but that’s outside the scope of their testimony.
Then you should be, because there is a possibility that what they said was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and if so, there's no guarantee that standard rules of hermeneutics will help you figure out who spoke for god and who didn't. If the NT authors often gave OT texts new twists, then standard rules of hermeneutics will not be sufficiently reliable to justify confidence that your interpretation of a NT statement is the correct one. They were all over the map.We simply want to know what John and Paul said about Jesus so we can make sure the Gospels and New Testament letters we have today contain the same information as the originals. I’m not interested in the political, social or theological inclinations of these men;
You also overlook that the church fathers wrote for churches to guide them as spiritual leaders. You might glibbly dismiss any such person today, but back then it was a bit more serious. And given the general lack of literacy, you really have to wonder: why did god allow those congregations to be led by these men who allegedly held incorrect theological opinions? Could it possibly be that there appears no infallible check on their theology because there actually isn't one? Gee, you can't accept that, cuz the bible is inerrant, right?
It also opens doors of possibility to gospel authorship denial that you cannot easily close.I simply want to know, “What did John and Paul say about Jesus?”The content confirmation of the Early Church Fathers is yet another way to verify the trustworthy nature of the New Testament.
I've notified Christian Research Institute of James Patrick Holding's sins
Just now I sent a warning message to Christian Research Institute.
They sometimes allow James Patrick Holding to author articles in their CRI Journal.
I find in 2019, what I found in 2015, that CRI needs to be notified that Mr. Holding's libels of me constitute an on-going sin of Mr. Holding that has defined him for 20 years and which he has absolutely zero intention of ever repenting of. Back when Walter Martin was heading CRI, Holding would have been tossed overboard like chum. Here's the message:
They sometimes allow James Patrick Holding to author articles in their CRI Journal.
I find in 2019, what I found in 2015, that CRI needs to be notified that Mr. Holding's libels of me constitute an on-going sin of Mr. Holding that has defined him for 20 years and which he has absolutely zero intention of ever repenting of. Back when Walter Martin was heading CRI, Holding would have been tossed overboard like chum. Here's the message:
========================February 6, 2019, 1:00 p.m.One of your occasional CRI Journal authors, James Patrick Holding, is now being sued a third time for libel.You can get a copy of the 97-page Complaint at the following blog:https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/01/james-patrick-holding-unconscionable.htmlMr. Holding has been persistently insulting, slandering and libeling everybody he disagrees with for the better part of the last 20 years, in diametric opposition to CRI's own rules prohibiting Christians from insulting others. Seehttps://www.equip.org/article/reclaiming-civility-as-a-christian-virtue/Here is the email I sent to Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg NAMB and other people that are either Holding's spiritual mentors, or have in some way told the world that Mr. Holding is qualified under biblical criteria to hold the office of Christian "teacher":------begin quote:Dr. Habermas and all others,This notification is sent to you in the hope that you will start the Matthew 18 process of formally disassociating yourselves from a so-called Christian "brother" whose sins of slander and reviling have reached pathological heights and appear to know no bounds.15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17 NAU)If you think James Patrick Holding has the least bit of credibility or honesty, I'll have you know that he has a Patreon account wherein he asks others for money to create YouTube videosfrom www.tektonics.org/support.php"If you're a fan of our TektonTV YouTube videos, you can sign up to support them via Patreon."At some point in the past, Mr. Holding obtained a video showing me falling during a bus accident, he photoshopped the video in various ways, he "looped" the part showing me falling, then he replaced the original audio track with a commercial soundtrack so that I get up and fall down about 500 times in the space of this 1-minute loop of video-tape, and I do so while reacting in sync to a childish sound bit of fast-paced music, and Holding deleted everything else in the video that happened about two seconds after I started falling, for no other reason than to cause me emotional distress.(link deleted)By the way, Holding agreed, when receiving this video via public records request, NOT to put the video to any commercial use. So since Holding has a Patreon account and begs for money to produce his Tekton TV videos, and since at the time of uploading this video he did not have tax-exempt status, he clearly wanted his viewers to give him money, for profit, to produce or upload such video, even if he never formally asked them for any such thing. Circumstantial evidence is allowed in Court. So Holding was also violating the law when photoshopping this public record to the delight of his typically retarded followers, in his effort to profit from my tragedy.Before that video was posted, I previously complained at another one of Holding's videos mocking that bus accident, that "Holding is gleefully mocking the fact that I was seriously injured on a local bus a while back"Holding intentionally overlaid those comments of mine onto the portion of the video that shows me getting up and falling 500 times during the tape "loop" he created. That is, Holding is horrifically belligerent in his efforts to make fun of my painful accident.What fool would say Jesus wants his modern-day apologists to engage in conduct like THAT? Posting videos to YouTube that have been photoshopped and looped so as to make belligerent mockery of another's person's tremendously painful traffic accident?What he doesn't show you on the video is that I fell all the way forward to the front of the bus while it was screeching to a halt, I was in severe sciatica pain laying on the floor, I could not move, I had to be lifted by paramedics to an ambulance, Lawyers for the defense refused to answer the question of why the bus didn't stop moving until after it illegally went past the cross-walk, etc, etc.)Must the ways of modern Christian apologists always be defended regardless of how plainly vicious and unbiblical they are?Go ahead, ask Holding why it is that he didn't post that video until after I filed my third lawsuit against him. It's perfectly obvious that he posted that video for no other reason than sheer spite, hatred, hostility, ill-will, and intent to harm me. Not even the average atheist or unbeliever goes to such lengths to mock another person's tragedy. A jury would be more than likely to believe Holding's primary motive in posting this video was to harm me in one way or another. He even ends the video by showing a screenshot of the legal calendar showing I had filed this third lawsuit against him.And lest you ask, let me answer: No, Holding has not made the least bit of effort to respond to my settlement offers or otherwise communicate directly with me in the way the courts suggest to try and settle.FYI: Attached is my third lawsuit against Mr. Holding, for libel (it was filed before Holding posted aforesaid video) and one can only wonder how long you people will sit in the shadows hoping this Holding-scandal will just blow over, before you finally do what Christians are required to do, and publicly disassociate yourself from this unconscionable scoundrel: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)3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Eph. 5:3-6 NAU)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, (Col. 3:6-9 NAU)Do you think that if Holding continues to violate basic NT ethics until the year 2024, you might start thinking there's a sin problem that requires apologists to do something more than boast that skeptics cannot explain the empty tomb?The third libel lawsuit is Doscher v. Apologetics Afield, Inc, 6:19-cv-76-Orl-37GJK, Florida Middle District Court.you can keep track of the case here. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/26884971/Doscher_v_Apologetics_Afield,_IncThe "Complaint" is attached to this email, so that you discover why it is that Holding's choice to libel me through the use of dishonestly edited Court records, does not automatically shield him from defamation-liability. The law imposes conditions on the "fair-report" privilege, and Holding violates every one of them with this video and with the vast majority of the photoshopped court records about me which he has posted elsewhere.In my book, which I hope to have published before 2021, I'll be arguing that skeptics are reasonable to point to an alleged Christian person's complete apathy toward the NT ethics that require them to make difficult decisions (i.e, Matthew 18, 1st Cor. 5, disassociation from sinful remorseless "brothers") and conclude that such Christians are not genuinely born-again. There's a reason why most apologists care for little more in Christianity than just making arguments and selling Jesus: they are just naturally drawn to intellectual challenges. If they were truly growing in the spirit, then they'd have far less tolerance for spiteful intentional sinners like James Patrick Holding.At some point, you are reasonable to say that the lack of the fruit of the spirit in a Christian's life (love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, meekness, kindness, temperance, indifference) reasonably justifies concluding they aren't really saved to begin with. You cannot just continue forever making excuses about how sanctification in the Christian is a lifetime process.Yes, Christians are sinners.No, Paul and Jesus didn't forget that fact when they admonished the church to expel the remorseless immoral brother.Sincerely,Christian Doscher-------endquoteI'm sorry, CRI, but Mr. Holding's sins of slander and libel have gone completely out of control BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO BUSY MARKETING YOUR APOLOGETICS BELLS AND WHISTLES TO THE WORLD AND OTHERWISE SELLING JESUS, TO ACTUALLY ENGAGE IN THE TOUGH DECISION MAKING THAT JESUS AND PAUL REQUIRED WHEN FACED WITH AN OBSTINATELY SINFUL "CHRISTIAN".Yes, I will be discussing in my book how suspicious it is that the most popular apologetics organizations that allow Holding to be a "teacher", pretend to love Jesus, but do not obey Jesus. I will be arguing that any naturalistic explanation for your alleged love for Christ is probably a better explanation for your sense of "salvation", than any excuse you can conjure up about how you aren't responsible to discipline Mr. Holding.You cannot deny that Holding's sin of slander is great and thus you need to stop allowing this unrepentant sinner, so blind he thinks sin is holy conduct, to continue using your organization to convince the world he is qualified for Christian ministry. If you don't mind naming names, let's see you get objective and turn the guns on your own CRI journal authors....unless of course CRI has gone liberal?https://www.equip.org/contact/?__cf_waf_tk__=00002776530080000008838MgHiz5KeSYCp6RMw4YS9lqxINUk
I obtained lots of information from CRI back in the early 1990's, and I've respected them even after I became an atheist, but they appear to be no less afflicted with the sin of apathy toward sinful remorseless brothers, than most other "apologetics" ministries. Perhaps they will blame Holding's latest sins upon themselves (i.e., if they would have paid attention to the alarm bells I was sounding in 2015 and chastised or disfellowshipped Holding, he probably wouldn't have committed the latest sins of slander and libel that are now the subject of the present and third libel lawsuit against him).
Once again, Holding is apparently literate, but when advised that he has chosen the wrong victim to fuck with, he suddenly forgets how to communicate in English, and goes his merry way, utterly oblivious to the serious problems his slanders create for himself. Holding is a stupid bastard; I like the idea of having friends follow me on the internet, but I would never seek so much approval from retards that I would descend to the immoral and unlawful depths that he has, just to make sure they keep sending money.
Saturday, February 2, 2019
Cold Case Christianity: Morals cannot be "objective"
This is my reply to an article by J. Warner Wallace entitled
When we praise a child for getting good grades, we are not presuming that conformity to modern social convention like public schooling is based on some objective moral standard, we are only praising them from within the relative standard of our society and century.
And once again, yes, we often talk as if we are invoking objective standards, but that is mere convention, our doing this doesn't mean such objective standards actually exist. If my grandpa curses at the ACLU because they fight so hard for gay-rights, he might be implying he relies on an objective standard, and maybe he wants the hearers to believe such standard is real, but in the final analysis, that standard is not objective.
Sorry, that's just stupid. Those terrorists do what they do, often successfully, despite your own belief that their version of moral reform is contrary to the real objective moral truth. Therefore terrorists who engage in moral reform are a proof that seeking more reform does not imply the existence of a transcendent moral truth. They are just ruthless bigots who have lots of power.
One person thinks their opinion on how America should be run is "self-evident", but such confidence is not a reliable criteria of truth. Many men think the goodness of dying for one's country is self-evident, but others maintain that their personal commitment to family outweighs any obligation they have to die for other people.The Axiological Argument for the existence of God relies on the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths (i.e. “It’s never morally permissible or virtuous to torture babies for fun”). But not everyone agrees these truths exist in the first place, even though they often seem self-evident.
Some atheists think that way, and I say they are inconsistent. If atheism is true, then no moral would have a basis any deeper than genetic predisposition flavored with environmental conditioning. I am, of course, discounting the bare possibility that earth and humans were created by advanced space aliens. Dan Barker often talks about objective morals with his "we recoil from pain" speech, but alas, since we also recoil from the pain at a doctor's office where the pain is part of what's necessary to heal, not even our recoiling from pain implies the existence of some objective moral standard.Many who do accept the existence of transcendent moral truths still deny a transcendent moral truth Giver.
Yes, many atheists do, and I say they are inconsistent. When I say my neighbor shouldn't slash my tires, I recognize that I can only appeal to his own morality and the threat of legal action to persuade him to comply. But the truth is that if he doesn't share at least some of my general moral beliefs, then I will be deprived of any way to convince him to see things my way. Indeed, you cannot do much with a person who does not respect the law, doesn't respect normative social conventions, and doesn't really care if they get put in jail. For such people, ordering them even in the name of god to stop committing some act will prove futile.Some skeptics believe these moral truths come from our evolutionary development as a species, are embedded in our DNA, or are simply a matter of social convention. If this is the case, moral truth is relative to the individual making the claim. Moral relativism is, however, difficult to actualize consistently. Those who argue against the existence of transcendent, objective moral values, typically advocate for such values when push comes to shove (especially when they’ve been victimized).
Yes, we do often live as if our relative morals were absolute, and yes this is an inconsistency. But the mistake of some atheists of living as if their personal moral outlooks are absolute transcendent truths, does not open the door to the possibility that such morality is indeed objective.We accept many values and mores as if they were transcendently true, even as we might deny the existence of such overarching truths.
Only if you allow for the reality of objects whose description is incoherent. God's non-physical nature is one problem, as you cannot even show that any "non-physical" thing even exists. And apologists are mostly to blame for toying with words and pretending that "physical" is something that can have an opposite.Is God real?
Since you are preaching to the choir, I don't mind saying "Amen". When you come up with anything that even remotely threatens something atheists believe, let me know.Our common acceptance of an objective moral standard is yet another evidence of God’s existence.
No, you are assuming moral relativity saps importance from everything we might say or do. Not true. Going to the store to get something to eat would still maintain its inherent significance, relative to your own life, even if all morality was relative. As mammals, I'm sure Christian mothers would likely continue caring for their children even if such moms became convinced there was no objective morality. Indeed, purpose in life is quite "relative" anyway. You don't need to believe that God gives a fuck about how many cookies you eat before dinner, in order to experience a sense of fulfillment of purpose in eating them or resisting the temptation. But if you are a Christian, I can understand how you think moving around in the world without linking everything back to God's sovereign purpose implies nothing but utter chaos. But it doesn't. I don't put gas in my car because I think there's some higher intelligence who wills it. Most Christians probably also lack this view when fueling up at the service station. So you are wrong, significant and sufficient sense of fulfillment of purpose in life can easily be achieved without pretending that god exists or that morals are objective. Only those who are already Christians, cannot bear to think about living life in complete disregard for 'god'. If you stopped praying at meals, you might overcome some of your brainwashing. And if you wish to continue praying before meals, then just remember that because you think God is infinitely wonderful, no length of prayer would be too long. Classical theist Christians cannot meaningfully object to the person at the dinner table who takes 5 hours to say grace. Isn't god worth that much?If there are no objective, transcendent moral truths, we lose the ability to make many significant decisions and judgments.
I don't see the problem. There is no moral that is objectively virtuous, vile or benign. The closest you can get is that it is no coincidence that we mammals just happen to agree with each other, for the most part, that conduct which threatens our ability to survive and thrive, should not be tolerated.Without the existence of such truths, nothing can be considered objectively virtuous, vile, or benign.
False. When we praise our military members, we are not claiming their defense of this corrupt nation, called America, was in conformity to objective moral values, we are only expressing gratitude toward them that they played a significant part in helping America remain free of military threats. After all, many Christians believe God disapproves of America for the most part. So then if we are praising those who defend this corrupt nation, we stand a very good chance of praising in total absence of any underlying objective moral truth.Greg Koukl, my ministry partner at Stand to Reason, has written an excellent book on this topic: Relativism; Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Greg makes several key observations, some of which are summarized here:All True Praise Requires An Objective Moral StandardMost of us recognize the importance of praise, particularly when someone has performed nobly or has behaved sacrificially to improve the world in some way. But it’s impossible to truly praise anyone for such behavior without the existence of a transcendent, objective moral standard. Our accolades for those who have acted sacrificially for the good of others are meant to be more than subjective compliments. When we praise someone, we are praising them for something we believe was objectively virtuous, and would be considered so by everyone and anyone, regardless of personal opinion.
When we praise a child for getting good grades, we are not presuming that conformity to modern social convention like public schooling is based on some objective moral standard, we are only praising them from within the relative standard of our society and century.
Yes, most people offering praise aren't that specific about its realities, but that is the more honest way to praise regardless. You are a fool if you think you can argue from the socially acceptable mistaken inaccurate way that people say things, over to objective moral truth.We seldom say, “We praise you for doing something we happen to value in this culture; something we personally think is good, even if it may not be good to anyone else.”
No. Praising a toddler when she manifests an act of kindness, like sharing a toy or food, only signifies that the praisers think she conformed to modern social convention, nothing more. They can be Christians and add "Jesus wants us to be kind to each other" to the mix, but that hardly transforms the relativity into objectivity. Whether a toddler "should" be kind to another toddler is ultimately relative to the situation and the expectations of the parents, caregivers and society. You lose.True praise assumes an overarching standard of goodness transcending all of us as humans.
No, there is no objective standard for teen beauty or handsomeness. So if anybody remarks that you are pretty or ugly, it isn't like they can show your looks fail to match up to some objective standard. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.Do you remember growing up as a teenager and hearing your mom tell you that you were handsome or pretty? We accept such compliments with a degree of hesitancy, don’t we? Was her statement true, or simply her biased, subjective opinion? We are left wondering if we are truly handsome or truly pretty. True praise requires an objective standard related to what is good or bad; ugly or beautiful.
And once again, yes, we often talk as if we are invoking objective standards, but that is mere convention, our doing this doesn't mean such objective standards actually exist. If my grandpa curses at the ACLU because they fight so hard for gay-rights, he might be implying he relies on an objective standard, and maybe he wants the hearers to believe such standard is real, but in the final analysis, that standard is not objective.
So when we condemn a child for unwillingness to share a toy, we are necessarily proving there's an objective morality, somewhere out there, that says "all children must share their toys in this circumstance". Wrong.All True Condemnation Requires An Objective Moral StandardIn a similar way, it is also impossible to truly condemn anyone unless there is a transcendent, objective moral standard.
Correct, that is what we "think". But it is also inaccurate. Lots of people are belligerently dogmatic in their attempts to call somebody evil, stupid or criminal. But in the final analysis, their invoking objective standards doesn't mean those standards exist, or are objective, anymore than the Mormon invoking the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon implies that book is historically accurate.We often condemn those we think embody evil in our world (Hitler is a good example). When we say we believe someone (or something) is evil, we think we are expressing more than our personal opinion.
Because our genetics and environmental conditioning were very different from Hitler's. Had we been born in Germany 1915, we would be just as likely to join the Nazis as today's high school boy is likely to join the US Army. Nothing is more popular than a citizen thinking his country's specific ways are the "right" way.We think this person (or thing) is truly evil and worthy of everyone’s condemnation.
Correct. But needing one to exist in order to justify reliance upon the standard, doesn't mean such standard exists. It could just as easily be that the person is mistaking their dogmatic but relative opinion for objective moral truth.But such transcendent condemnation requires an objective, transcendent moral standard defining both good and evil.
No, you are now telling us what morality "should" prevail if in fact none of it is "objective". But if no morality is objective, then you are deprived of any objective basis to morally condemn anything...like bigots who condemn the moral acts of others. If all morality is relative, then there is no objective moral basis for declaring "you should allow the other person to do what they want". No. There are no objective morals, so there can be no objective moral criteria to decide what level of intolerance is "wrong". In such a world, if two people meet and have exactly opposing moral intentions, often there is no way to resolve it except physical violence (fighting, or getting arrested for harassment, etc).If we reject such a standard, we must accept what one person might see as evil, another might see as good.
Now you are just repeating Frank Turek's fallacy of immediately equating opinion with uselessness. That is a factual falsehood. I have an opinion that tomorrow I should work on my legal case instead of studying the bible. That opinion is not meaningless. A father has an opinion that the kids need to go to bed on school nights at 10 p.m. That is not meaningless, useless or equal to the opinion that says just let the kids stay up 24 hours per day and constantly imbibe pepsi and pizza. Some opinions are clearly more likely to result in achieving normative American societal goals, than others. For that reason, not all opinions are equal.In a world like this, statements of condemnation are meaningless. They are nothing more than mere opinion,
No, in a morally relative world, we do not condemn out of any sense of "right" to do so, we condemn because hatred of certain conduct is hard-wired into our mammalian brains. We have become sophisticated enough to create a democracy whereby we seek to justify our personal morality by appeal to law and the Constitution which just happen to reflect our personal morality, but those sources are still equally as morally subjective as any moral opinion is. Appeal to an external source of moral authority hardly implies that any such source is going to be "objective".and, in the end, they presume the condemner has some right to judge others who simply hold a differing opinion.
So? You don't have an objective moral that says "thou shalt not be arrogant or self-righteous".In this kind of world, firm condemnation is arrogant and self-righteous.
No, you are just blindly assuming that because he was successful in creating something America now views as normative and good, therefore, he must have been doing something that was an objective moral good. Nope. What he did was good for America, in my opinion, but the goodness of what he did does not reside in any "transcendent" moral truth.All Moral Activism Requires An Objective Moral StandardWe recognize the virtue of moral reformers like Martin Luther King Jr.
And he or she can attempt such reform for no other reason than that they get a personal thrill out of trying to convince others to forge society in their own personal view. Nothing objective here. And once again, the reformer's invoking god or inherent human dignity or some such qualifier doesn't automatically require that objective morality exists. Terrorists invoke their god Allah in the name of their brand of social change which we call "terrorism". Are you convinced therefore that god's name is Allah? Hardly. Any fool can invoke non-existent authority. It is better to skip their invocation and go directly to the alleged proofs that this authority exists or is objective.There are times when an activist sees the need for improvement within a society and feels compelled to propose reform.
No, there is nothing illogical about a small group of people taking their subjective moral point of view and convincing others in the culture that adopting said view would constitute a change in conformity to the nation's higher goals. Such naturalistic explanation is sufficient and therefore leaves no room to pretend that this state of affairs is best accounted for by a higher intelligent being who has objective morals..But if moral truths are formed by cultural consensus, moral reform is illogical (and, indeed, immoral).
His own personal moral opinion, whereby he says the status quo needs to be changed.When a society decides something is morally virtuous (and the vast majority of its members agree on this), on what basis can a lone reformer, disagreeing with the cultural consensus, make a call for change?
His own, and if he campaigns, he will likely argue that the change he seeks is also in furtherance of the general goals his hearers likely have. Nothing morally absolute here.To what standard is this moral reformer appealing?
But not in an absolute sense. Therefore the subjectivity of the majority moral viewpoint is also subject to change. And the world of humanity has done little more in 100,000 years, than continually change their views about the worth of human beings and what goals nations should pursue.If moral truths come from the society, whatever the society believes is, by definition, morally right.
The source of relative moral truth, yes, if you are going to use a watered-down version of "truth".If the majority rules, this group is the source of moral truth.
But only subjectively so.In a world like this, the minority position is immoral by definition.
Indeed, the only way to be successful at moral reform is to convince the hold-outs that their voting in favor of the change will be an act furthering their own more general goals. The fact that you convince somebody to join the Moral Majority doesn't imply the existence of a god, anymore than an atheist convincing his girlfriend to snort coke implies the existence of an invisible space alien who wants people to do drugs.Moral reformers cannot argue for a moral truth unless they are agreeing with the society.
Not in an absolute or objective sense. There is no objective morality. The moral majority might rule and have final say on moral matters in our society, but that doesn't make their views absolute or objective in the sense of implying that their standards are grounded in something "transcendent".In short, anyone who advocates reform in this kind of world is morally mistaken.
So the only way Muslim terrorists can argue for their "transcendent moral truth" that Americans deserve to be massacred, is if such "truth" comes from something (or someone) other than the culture.A moral reformer like a Martin Luther King Jr. simply could not exist (as a person holding a minority position) and argue for a transcendent moral truth, unless of course, such truth comes from something (or someone) other than the culture.
Sorry, that's just stupid. Those terrorists do what they do, often successfully, despite your own belief that their version of moral reform is contrary to the real objective moral truth. Therefore terrorists who engage in moral reform are a proof that seeking more reform does not imply the existence of a transcendent moral truth. They are just ruthless bigots who have lots of power.
Then count me out. I'm not one of those wishy-washy card-carrying ACLU radicals or newagers who think tolerance is always good.All Tolerance Requires An Objective Moral StandardFinally, let’s take a look at the much loved attribute of tolerance.
So if a friend comes to your house which smells like "dog", but politely tolerates the revolting smell for the duration of their visit, this is supposed to imply the existence of an objective transcendent moral standard? Sorry, try again.Without an objective, transcendent moral standard, true tolerance is impossible.
That's a good rebuttal to the stupid liberals who embrace absolute tolerance. You say nothing to refute my own views.When two people disagree, tolerance is the behavior employed to coexist in spite of their disagreement. When we agree with each other, there is nothing to tolerate. Tolerance is reserved for those with whom we disagree. But if we are living in a society in which all diversity is to be embraced with equal status and value (as equally true), there is nothing with which we can disagree. And without disagreement, there is no need for tolerance.
Not at all, our common acceptance of such truths would first imply we had either similar genetic predispositions, or similar environmental conditioning, or both. Our both being "mammals" is also why we'd agree on some moral duty. Unfortunately for you, these naturalistic explanations are reasonable and not sufficiently stupid or unlikely so as to make any room for you to pretend that any morals "necessitate" god's existence.While some may continue to deny the existence of transcendent, objective moral truths, our common acceptance of such truths reveals a contradiction.
No, we typically tell ourselves that we stand upon objective morals when we praise, condemn, reform or tolerate. But we aren't really standing on any such thing, we simply have a nasty persistent habit of mistaking our personal views for objective moral truth.We typically accept the foundation of objective moral standards as we praise, condemn, reform and tolerate the behavior of others.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
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:
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.
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:
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:
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:
From Murray v. Collins, Dist. Court, MD Florida 2019
From Dibble v. AVRICH, Dist. Court, SD Florida 2014
------(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:
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:
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":
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:
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:
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)..AnonymousFebruary 1, 2019 at 7:16 AMLmao!
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.
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;"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:
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)
449Danker:
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.
4004 λοίδοροςDon't know what "insolent" means?
λοίδορος,ου,ὁ [fr. a source shared by Lat. ludus ‘game’] insolent person 1 Cor 5:11; 6:10.
Source: here.
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?1 : insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct : overbearing
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:
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:Aside from all your previous lawsuits that failed,
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)).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:
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).
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 chamberWHAT 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:
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.maybe this time you'll get lucky!
Quit worrying about my brain and get a second job, your savior needs help with his legal fees.Oh Doscher, that big brain of yours just isn't clicking big man.
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:Don't you get it? There's a reason why you never win in court,
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:
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.there's a reason why your own father stabbed you in the back a few years ago
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:
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.and there's a reason why you're alone.
No worries, my latest lawsuit draws the Court's attention to those prior lawsuits on multiple pages.Don't worry, Holding is going to show everything next time in court including all your previous lawsuits.
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 ReasonsFrom Moore v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2018
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.
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).Mr. Anonymous continues:
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.
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.Maybe this time you'll get your mind out of the gutter you socially inept freak.
I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about just now.Pull it out, it's error free, so I have nothing to give.
Same answer, however, your intentional violation of NT ethics is noted:This is up to you, whistle dick. I'll get the treats ready.
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.Gee, maybe the Context Group can prove that "whistle dick" wasn't considered "filthy" speech by 1st century Christians?
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)
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:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My reply to Bellator Christi's "Three Dangerous Forms of Modern Idolatry"
I received this in my email, but the page it was hosted on appears to have been removed ===================== Bellator Christi Read on blo...
-
I challenged "annoyed pinoy" at his blog as follows: 1 comment: barry November 7, 2019 at 4:01 PM I'd like to d...
-
"Annoyed Pinoy" regularly posts at Triablogue. See here . He defends the Trinity doctrine at one of his own blogs. I posted t...
-
https://twitter.com/barry35962347 #lawsuitagainstjamespatrickholding
