WARNING: Impostering impersonators on the prowl!

As of lately it seems that I've been getting some forms of cheeky mockery from the Holdingnites over at TheologyWeb. As childish as they may be, I can't stand and allow for such conduct to be permissable as I continue to have complete and full administration of this blog and the content within its comments from warm-hearted opengly welcome guests and daily commentators.

Some people apparently can't get over their own insecurities when someone has the nerve to put them up for questioning and ridicule. Way in the beginning of when my relations with Holding as a new member of TheologyWeb had taken place, and our acquaintances had become familiarized with passing time, I had a much higher standard of respect for the likes of Holding. But as you can see, Holding is a hyena bent on breeding his own cult-following just to get more hyenas like himself to form a sort of mob-mentality complex, completely and willfully ignoring the very words of Christ himself: "Those without sin may cast the first stone."

I'll be blunt here, as this here blog's administrator and head author, I'm fed up with dealing with the crap. Those who don't know better are going to fall under the impression that this is some sort of parody blog based on a much older blog that existed a couple of years before this one was even spawned into its own existence. We don't need to get technical here, because it should be obvious to anyone that's beside the point here. What is the point here is that Holding and his groupies are up to no good, and further confirmation of this comes from a comment left by an 'Anonymous' user. Now, unlike the other "DC" blog, I allow for anonymous commentators to leave their food for thought in this little diary of mine and my fellow colleagues/former fundamental devout religionists. But some of the comments are going to leave deceptive impressions of what this blog is all about and its functioning relevance to modern day cultural society. I have no doubts Holding and comrades have something to do with these types of comments (as seen below), but my guess is that such comments come from a motivation to divert our actively-reading audiences in some sort of childish game of sandbox. For someone that is "Holier than art thou", I am beginning to suspect a rat, a very insecure and emotionally disturbed rat:

Anonymous said...

Hi Mike. The book you're after can be found here although there has been a slight delay in publishing it but don't worry as it'll be worth the wait. The previous book was recommended by Norman Geisler amongst others so you can always get that whilst you're waiting. Just ignore the J P Holding groupies here.

May 1, 2008 9:40 AM

Let this post serve as an indication to the audience that from here on out if you come across these types of comments under the alias of 'Anonymous' or anything that may arise suspicision, that these comments are more than likely coming from a propagandist jackle who needs serious dire fufillment in his life.

Another Retarded Review of My Book

I have said that if you want to debate me then get my book and review it, and I will enage you. Otherwise, you're just an ignoramus who wouldn't know philosophy even if it stared you straight in the face. A young disabled cripple named Nick decided to do that. He's not only plauged with physical disabilities, but that's precisely why he's been given moderator priveleges over at TheologyWeb. Anyways he's been reviewing it my book chapter by chapter and I've been making some comments about it from time to time. But today he decided to review my chapter on the atonement and I am speechless. I don't know where to begin with such ignorance. I'm so speechless in fact I don't even offer any responses or rebuttals to his review! See what you think:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Why Did Jesus Suffer?

Our review of Loftus’s book continues with a look at
the atonement. Why did it happen? The theory he chooses to address and I will defend as it’s the one I hold is the penal substitution view. It is the view that Christ took our place on the cross and he received our punishment and we in turn receive his righteousness. There is a brief history of various atonement theories before this (With some left out), but that is not relevant to the point at hand.

He starts out with asking about why this is? If the claim of Christianity is true, then Loftus does admit that he goes to Hell because of his sins. However, what has anyone ever done to deserve that? He states “All through my entire life I have never met, nor even heard of one person, who deserved such a punishment. Never.

I guess that settles it. Judge Loftus has spoken.

I beg to differ of course. First off, let me state my view of Hell. My view is not a fiery torture chamber. It is a place of darkness and isolation. In effect, it is eternal quarantine. God lets people go there and he leaves them alone. The worst suffering will be internal. People in Hell will know for all eternity that they have blown it.

Now who deserves eternal separation from God? I see someone every morning when I get up and look in the mirror who does. And I think this is shocking to some because we’ve lost what sin is.

To begin with, it’s not breaking an abstract rule. It’s violating the person of God. Consider God as the most awesome, holy, good, loving, powerful, intelligent being that there is. As Anselm would say, you can’t conceive of anyone greater than he is.

Sin is telling that one that he is not what he says he is. In fact, every sin is ultimately the sin of Satan. Every sin is choosing your own good over the good of God. In effect, it is you telling yourself that you will be God instead of him. It is divine treason and it cuts one off from the source of goodness and life. God simply cannot allow that sin in his presence.

Now Loftus says that in our modern society we are humane in our punishments. Perhaps we are, and perhaps that is the problem. C.S. Lewis wrote on how we seek to cure criminals rather than punish them long ago. http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html

The question is, is it just?Loftus mentions the death penalty. I support it. I know I probably lost some readers for that, but I do. I believe man is in the image of God and to murder a man is an attack on that image of God. I believe the murderer is to pay the price by having his own life be forfeit. Of course, this is when it’s shown beyond theshadow of a doubt that the accused did commit the crime. I have this strange belief that crime should be punished.

Loftus goes on to ask if it’s fair that he suffer eternally for one little white lie.

I’d like to meet the person whose only sin is one little white lie.

Loftus’s sins are at the beginning of his book. I have no need to go into them. My stance has been that they really don’t matter as long as one doesn’t live in them. I think they need to be confessed and repented of and the blame squarely accepted, but after that, I do believe in divine forgiveness. I know my sins and they’re not just little white lies either. We have all lived in constant rebellion against the Almighty and what we get is what we deserve.

Loftus says that we see in Scripture that God is willing to forgive if people will confess.

Yes. Absolutely. Getting out of Hell is quite simple. Just trust Christ. God does desire mercy and not sacrifice, but God is also just. He gives mercy to those who want it.

Loftus also wants to know since he became like us, why he can’t see sin from our perspective.

Let’s not consider that we shouldn’t want God to see it
from our perspective. I don’t want him to. I want him to see it from his perspective. Why? It’s the true one. How do I want to view something like myself even? Do I want to see me as I see me or do I want to see me as God sees me? It would obviously be the latter because that would be the true view.

Now we may intend God no wrong in sinning, but it does not matter. We have sinned and it cannot be ignored. Even Levitical Law had a sacrifice for unintentional sins. Death was still the price. (And frankly, I know I’ve committed sins in the past knowing they were sins and I seriously doubt anyone reading my blog is in a different position.)

For the third one, did Jesus pay an infinite price?
First off, Jesus did pay the price. Hebrews tells us that. The Son went and offered up his blood in the holiest sanctuary of all and God was pleased. What was the one who offered the sacrifice allowed to do with what was offered to him? Whatever he wanted. God restored the sacrifice he was given of the Son and
glorified him.

How does this work? I can only imagine that on some
level, there is an eternal reality in God of what happened on the cross. The Son is spoken of as the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. Do I understand this entirely? Of course not. I doubt anyone does. It doesn’t mean though that I throw out the whole thing as nonsensical. (Makes you wonder if
since there’s no understood theory of naturalistic evolution out there why that isn’t thrown out as well.)

The next point is that supposedly, forgiveness doesn’t
require punishment.

On a human court, that’s true, however, there are still
consequences. If someone hits my car for instance, I can forgive them and tell them not to worry, but that car will still be damaged and someone will still have to fix it. On a divine level, we are violating justice itself and the price for being cut off from life is death. Someone has to die. God can’t put his holiness on a secondary level. He must treat himself as the greatest good of all.
So what happens at the cross? His justice is satisfied
and his mercy is offered to all.

The fifth objection is really along the same lines.

He then asks if we die outside of the faith, what reason does God have to punish us?

Ooooooh. Let me guess. We’re sinners? Sounds like a good reason to me.

And yes, God does understand us perfectly and he does
know about the moral law on our hearts. If there were any circumstances that put the sin in a lesser degree, God would know them better than we would. In the end, there is no one biblically who will be able to say “It was not fair.” Creation shows us that God exists plainly and the moral law on our hearts tells us that some things are right and some are wrong.

Loftus also asks where sin abides in us. This is one of
those things that just makes me wonder what kind of theology was being taught. Sin is an action. Actions do not abide in us. They affect our character though and our souls. The same happens with good actions. It is those of us that do not choose to live to be what we were meant to be who get eternity apart from God.

Another theory is commented on later, but it is not the atonement theory I hold, thus I will stick to what has been said thus far. I do not find anything here that really gives me pause. I look and see “Did Jesus die on the cross? Did he rise from the dead?” Then even if I don’t understand it all, I understand that it does work, for God has told us so himself.

Ancient People Was Stupid, Part Duh!

One of the tenets of skepticism is that the ancients were idiots. It really helps us bolster our faith in atheism to believe that we're the cream of the evolutionary crop and so much more enlightened than those knuckle-dragging sheepherders that lived several thousand years ago. Then something like the Antikythera mechanism comes along and rocks our world:

When it came to making cogs and gears, the ancient Greeks got there more than a millennium before anyone else, scientists say.

Using advanced new imaging techniques, scientists have reconstructed the gear structure of the mysterious Antikythera mechanism—one of the world's oldest computers.

. . .

The device employs an elaborate arrangement of more than 30 gears for its calculations. The level of miniaturization and complexity is remarkable, with some parts resembling those used by 18th-century clockmakers.

"It is extraordinarily sophisticated," said Stephen Johnston, an expert on astronomical calculators from the Museum of the History of Science at the University of Oxford in England.

"In its complexity it exceeds medieval cathedral clocks, which were developed over a thousand years later."

-National Geographic News

Wow! What do we say about that? Obviously the ancients weren't quite as stupid as some of us would like! Well, don't worry. A genius by the name of Harry McCall addressed this point so eloquently that I have to quote his words in full:

the ancient Greek were MUCH more intelligent than the dumb Biblical writers. Classical Greeks such as Plato, Socrates, Aristotle were the exceptions. I web noted that this gadget was Greaco-Roman and not Biblical.

It reads like poetry, doesn't it? So now we can safely conclude that not all ancient people was stupid, just the ones we need to be.

How I Make Sure I’ll NEVER Believe the Resurrection Happened!

There are two chief reasons I do not believe that the resurrection happened in history. First of all, God never got me a girlfriend. Second, because I set the bar so high that supernatural/miraculous claims require what I call supernatural/miraculous forms of evidence to support them. (Actually, that may just be one reason if you think about it; if you knew what a jerk I was, you’d know why I never had a girlfriend!) If you think this is too demanding criteria, well, let me just put it this way, I don’t care what you think, quite honestly!

First, I have to explain what I mean by natural and the "supernatural" as well as the logical axiom that I made up out of thin air, that "supernatural" claims require "supernatural" forms of evidence. (Actually, Carl Sagan made it up, but who cares?)

The Natural and the Supernatural

I believe that the only honest way of conducting investigations for any historian is deny miracles can ever happen and to make up as many rules for accepting something as historical as we can – especially if we don’t like what happened. I’d kill myself if anyone ever proved that Jesus rose from the dead, so I have a bunch of rules I’ve made up to ensure that no one can ever prove to me it happened.

The critical-historical method (the one I like most) must be based on what I call the "Principle of Uniformity". This principle states that only things we have personally seen and experienced ourselves, or only things like those sorts of things, can be historical. This makes it easy to dismiss the resurrection, since I have never seen one. In fact, even if I do see one, I can dismiss Jesus’ resurrection because I might see a resurrection happen, say, in a Corvette; but Jesus’ resurrection happened in a tomb, so seeing a resurrection in a Corvette doesn’t help prove Jesus rose. As you can see, using your own personal experience as a gauge for what is historical makes it convenient and easy to not believe what you don’t want to believe!

Anyway, if I go to read the Histories of Herodotus or any of the works of Livy, I assume that my experience governs what they say happened, and that if they report something I’ve never experienced (like a resurrection, or a healing, or a date where the girl didn’t walk out within 5 minutes after the guy burped in her face) then I assume that they’re either lying or stupid. This axiom, that my limited sphere of experience is the ultimate test of historicity, is what I use when I study history, science, or philosophy. This principle of uniformity is to me a necessary axiom that underlies all my scientific, historical, and philosophical study. It underlies all rationality and anyone who doesn’t use these same rules is an idiot. This axiom, the principle of uniformity, is one that I assume a priori in my approach to studying history, and if you don’t like it, you can go &^%$# yourself.

Anyway, the founding of the United States of America, to me is an event that I attribute solely to the actions of mere men acting collectively as I do the founding of the Roman Republic, Egyptian dynasties, the victories of certain battles fought in war. None of this do I attribute to the actions of any divine, angelic, or spiritual beings. I should point out that I do not rule out the possibility of the “supernatural” or the “miraculous,” I just make up so many rules before I’ll believe in it that it’s the same thing as ruling it out. That’s the essence of being a freethinker: You come up with the best ways you can to obscure your a priori assumptions from ignorant Christians. (That means all of them, of course.) I don't see the logical necessity of the principle of uniformity of ruling out the existence of anything regarded as “supernatural.” I just don’t like it, and have never seen any personally, and since the world revolves around me, I automatically dismiss it.

However, I do operate on a further axiom: that the standard rules of evidence used in places like courtrooms ought to be discarded when it comes to supernatural stuff, and we should instead use the rule made up by Carl Sagan that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” What this means is, if I decide an event is extraordinary – using my limited experiential horizon as a gauge – then I can demand more evidence that any standard rules would require to believe it is true. If I was told by a friend of mine that my friend saw a being coming out of the sky and claiming that it was “Ahura-Mazda” (the Zoroastrian god of Japanese vehicles) and that it had a warning that a nuclear war was going to happen in the year 2015 between the United States and Iran and that it could be averted if all Americans in the state of California prayed to Ahura-Mazda asking that it be averted, I would be skeptical of my friend telling me this. The reason I would be skeptical is that I am a social misfit who doesn’t have any friends, and anyone claiming to be my friend is obviously a loony toon.

But the point is, Christians are obviously all stupid people who believed stuff like the Resurrection based on no evidence. I’m a smart freethinker who checks these things. I’d ask questions like, Is my friend under the influence of some intoxicating substance? Is my friend going insane, perhaps the sad victim of a hallucinatory mental disease? Is my friend's mind being affected somehow by an external cause such as radiation, poison, or some substance that is causing my friend to hallucinate and seriously believe that a Persian deity visited him with this apocalyptic message? Perhaps my friend saw a vision of what appeared to be “Ahura-Mazda” but was fooled by some kind of very advanced holographic projection system. Perhaps my friend's drink was drugged or my friend was hypnotized by someone or multiple people acting in concert. Maybe someone is trying to convince my friend that s/he is going crazy and these people are working to have my friend committed- what better way than to have my friend convinced that s/he was the recipient of a divine message? But if I was to rule out the possibility of delusion whether by natural or human means, I'd then have to consider the possibility that my friend is suffering a delusion that is paranormal in origin. If the cause is not natural or human, then perhaps it is superhuman in some sense. Perhaps my friend is being subjected to testing by alien visitors who are doing experiments on human brains for their scientific curiosity, or perhaps it is a mean or amusing prank being carried out by alien visitors who are infatuated with the idea of making human beings think that they're crazy.

Ruling out natural causes of these sorts would buy me so much time that I’d never have to come to the conclusion that a miracle actually happened, if I play my cards right. The bottom line is, I would have to have this same deity reveal himself/herself/itself to me and persuade me that s/he/it revealed him/her/itself to my friend. I would, of course, demand that I be supplied evidence of some sort that I wasn't, myself, hallucinating in some way or that I wasn't the victim of a prank or scientific experiment. But if I was to receive such a “revelation”, I would look for more ways to put off a decision. I would write up the event as I believe I experienced it and I would submit it to scientists, historians, philosophers, to Skeptics and skeptical organizations and scientific organizations. I would submit such a report to the Scientific Community for the Investigation of the Paranormal and I would ask that any such supernatural being reveal him/her/itself to these scientific and skeptical organizations and be willing to provide any such proofs that they request of him/her/it that I would. I would demand that the Scientific Community for the Investigation of the Paranormal prove that they are not aliens, a hallucination, or didn’t drug my drink, or covert Christians. I would ask that any such being be willing to provide adequate proofs of some sort that I and others are, indeed, the subjects of any supernatural revelation. I’d go through every name in the New York City phone book, asking for their opinion. This is what I mean by raising the bar as high as I can to avoid believing something.

This is one of the chief reasons I disbelieve that miracles have occurred in history. If I read in the New Testament that Jesus rose from the dead, that he was transfigured on a mountain in front of his disciples, that he walked on water, that he raised Jairus' daughter or that he healed folks who were blind, I see no reason to believe that such events occurred because they are supernatural events and to claim such events occurred requires all the evidence I demand in order to validate them. If Yahweh really did appear to Moses, then for me to believe that this happened, I would require that Yahweh appear to me as well and provide me with supernatural evidence that he really does exist and really did appear to Moses. If he doesn’t appear, he can go %^$# himself.

I don't see any miracles happening today. I asked God for a girlfriend and He never gave me one. I prayed for a new sports car once and nothing happened. God is obviously a selfish jerk if He even exists. So ^%$ Him. I want more. That bastard owes me big time. I have never seen a miracle happen all of my life and so I will conclude with a uniform degree of probability that such, in all likelihood has never happened, and probably will never happen, because the universe revolves around me. So there.

I’ll be back later to explain why else you Christians are so stupid for believing in the Resurrection.

Kissing Hank's WHOOP!

This is a great piece by James Booger, and citing it is much easier than answering arguments!

This morning as I was picking the wings off of flies to see if I could get evolution moving a little faster, there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

Fred: "Hi! I'm Fred, and this is Wilma."

Wilma: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come express loyalty to Hank with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to express my loyalty to him?"

Fred: "If you are loyal to Hank, He'll give you the natural reward for loyalty; just like if you work for a company for long time and do well, they rightly reward you. And if you aren't, He won’t give you any rewards, but He will just leave you on your own to your own shame.”

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

Fred: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a reward for loyalty, but He can't until you are loyal to him."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Wilma: "What do you mean, ‘that doesn’t make any sense’? Do you think these houses built themselves? Don’t you think you should be thankful to the person who built it and let you live here?”

Me: "Well no, I think these houses just sort of flew together in a storm one day."

Fred: "I can see why this doesn’t make sense to you then."

Me: "Do you show loyalty to this ‘Hank’ often?"

Wilma: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

Fred: "Well no. We don’t serve Hank for the reward. We serve Hank because He has earned our trust and loyalty.”

Me: "Huh? But I wanted money."

Wilma: "I suppose if you think these houses came out of nowhere, that’s to be expected."

Me: "Well gosh. It sounds like there’s really nothing in it for me. Do you know anyone who was loyal to Hank, left town, and got the rewards?"

Fred: "Does it really matter? The rewards are not the issue; it is that Hank is a real person who did real things like build your house.”

Me: "Yeah, but I want money, man. Have you seen the price of beer lately?”

Fred: "I’m sorry, but your priorities seem a bit skewed. Remember, if you don't follow Hank he’ll leave you alone…but you won’t be able to achieve your fullest potential that Hank intends. He’ll leave to spend the rest of your existence in boredom and disgrace.”

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Wilma: “What makes you think you’d hear any different? Aren’t you just fudging to create a problem?"

Me: "Then how do you show loyalty to Hank if you don’t see him?"

Fred: "We serve Him and His interests. Don’t tell me you need to see and talk to a person to work for them. Have you ever seen the President of this country?”

Me: "Well, no, but --"

Wilma: "We learned about Hank by the record of what He did in history. The records taught us all about Hank and why we should be loyal to Him – because of all that He did, and because He is who He is."

Me: "Huh. And you just took these records at their word when they said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to be loyal to him, and that Hank did all this stuff?"

Fred: "No, we checked out the validity of the record and what it said, and compared it to other records. One of Hank’s officers, Karl, wrote down some of it; there were others, too, but here's a copy of what Karl wrote; see for yourself."

From the Desk of Karl
Be loyal to Hank for He has earned your loyalty by providing you with life and all you have.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Pursue righteousness. Don’t misuse this as an excuse to define “righteousness” in your own image.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list Himself.
The moon is white and shining.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't use alcohol if it becomes too strong.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Be loyal to Hank or He'll leave you to your own devices.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Wilma: "What’s your point?"

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

Fred: "So what? When Karl wrote this 95% of people in this town couldn’t read anyway. Most communication was by dictation. Do you have a problem with that? Why not just address the epistemic validity of what is written?"

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Wilma: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist hurts of people just because they're different?"

Wilma: "So you think that Hank ought to give rewards to ungrateful people?"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

Fred: "So prove it. We did our research and we found that all that Karl wrote is sound.”

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is white and shining,' which is just plain wrong."

Fred: "See, you haven’t done your homework at all. 2 and 9 were both written before alcohol was strong enough to knock your socks off. As far as 6 goes, I suppose you don’t use the word ‘sunset’ in your vocabulary.”

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon reflects light, not that it shines..."

Wilma: "They’ve also established that the sun doesn’t ‘set’. So what is the problem, exactly? Do you have a problem with phenomenological language?"

Me: "I'm not really an expert. I don’t even know what that word means."

Fred: "Obviously not.”

Me: "Item 7 is a real trip, though.”

Wilma: "Why?”

Me: "You can use it to say Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

Fred: "Well, sorry to disappoint you, but we did check out the claims and as far as we have found, item 7 is valid. If you think it isn’t you need to explain why.”

Me: "Maybe later. I need a beer. What's the deal with wieners?"

Wilma: She rolls her eyes.

Fred: "Oh, yes., Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It was written at a time when there were serious problems with condiments being poisoned by poor processing methods, so Hank included a ban on condiments. Buns are required because when this was written, there were no napkins, and people got the grease from the wieners on their fingers and it caused a lot of accidents. These days since we have napkins and better sanitation, we don’t worry about that law.”

Me: "What if I didn't have a bun?"

Fred: "What kind of silly question is that? I told you why the bun was needed. Are you so selfish that you’d risk hurting people just so you don’t have to put up with a bun?"

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Wilma: “Didn’t you hear a word he said? Relish and mustard at the time this was written was deadly.”

Me: (I stick my fingers in her ears.)"I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

Fred: "I can see we’re wasting our time with someone who lives in his own little world.”

With this, Fred escorted Wilma to their waiting car, and sped off. I went back inside for a beer.

I Hope JP Holding DIES! Several times!

That did it! I'm so mad now! That J. P . Holding and his buddies are making fun of my kiss kiss hero John Locust again (see last lovable blog entry by my dear sweet buddy)! And he called my other kiss kiss hero Dr. Hectoring Avalost a name -- "Dr. Stupid"! What an intellectual crook!

Hey, look! I see no problem in apologizing for errors, whether slight or serious, and I am open-minded to accepting legitimate criticisms from people should I make an error as long as people are civil in their criticisms. By that I mean, I won't accept correction until you agree to let me roll down my pants so you can plant some lip gloss! You better be super nice to me when I make a mistake, or I'll kill you!

I don’t claim to be an intellectual nor do I try to pass myself off a serious scholar. I try to make people think I am one in more subtle ways than that. It's how I got away with stuff as a kid. Sometimes.

Aw heck, I'm getting off topic! Let me get to the main point. Holding's slip-up. I mean,

Holding’s Slip-Up

That's better! There was a time on TWeb when I asked Holding to explain what he meant by something, and Holding explained it, and even changed his article to make it clear in case someone else had the same question I did. Well, you see the slip-up? Come on, it's right there! Holding was so stupid he didn't anticipate my problem with comprehension before I explained it to him!

I am so sorry that I pointed this out to him! If I had never pointed this out to him, I could use this as deadly ammunition to destroy his apologetic argument for the resurrection. The atheist community has one less club to beat Holding with no thanks to me!

But here's the real point! I am confident that this will not be the last time that Mr. Holding slips up! There will come a time in the future where Mr. Holding will slip-up and make such a damaging error that it will completely destroy a big argument of his for the Christian faith. It may not be on the topic of the resurrection but it will be sufficient to damage, irreparably, his apologetics for the Christian faith. I am predicting that he will slip-up big time again! I'm going to check his stupid Tekton website 100 times a day waiting for that to happen! I am quite confident that this will happen! When it happens, I will e-mail Hectoring Avalosost and show him it! Perhaps with a confident declaration of scholarly expertise, Dr. Avalos will judge Mr. Holding to be not just an amateur but an “intellectual crook”. When Mr. Holding makes his slip-up, I will be right here waiting to rub his nose in it. I'll take out ads in the New York Times! I'll tattoo a description of the slip-up on my rear end and take photographs and post them all over the world! I'll tell John Locust! I'll tell my mommy! I'll dance in the street and scream about it! Wheeeeeeee!

Huh? Where was I?

Oh. Never mind. See you next time.

The Uncritical Thinking of TWeb!

As some of you may already know, TWeb (an abbreviation for "TheologyWeb") is a pro right-win Christian conservative website that is hostile to almost every type of skeptic or non-Holding supporter you can think of. Every time I go onto those forums, I get ganged up on, asked tough questions that are hard to understand, and my arguments get treated as if they were idiotic.

I'll tell you what's idiotic! Holding and his supporters, THAT'S WHO! Holding likes idiots. He caters to them. He feeds off of them. They think he's something else. Well he is; he lives in the sewer.

Recently I decided to entertain their lusts for insults against me, being that I myself, am a skeptic of Christianity and an opposer of JP Holding (the filthy scum that runs Tektonics.org). If anyone wants to know why I don't link to TWeb where Holding squats, check out the thinking skills they exhibit. Here is a thread where Holding asked people to come up with mock slogans about DC. He's fixated on us. I'm Doubting John. You can pick up the debate that ensued on this page, and read though the next few pages by successively clicking on the next numbered one.

As you can plainly see, TWeb is not a place for civil discussion. Most if not all who are skeptical of their beliefs and in disagreement with them will not be tolerated, especially if you disagree with Holding. TWeb is perhaps the only Christian website I can think of where believers will gain up on you and try to intimidate you to conform to their mores and behaviors. TWeb is a catalyst for the cult following of Tektonics.org. Christians like ApologiaPhoenix, Mountain Man, JB, lilpixieofterror (all moderators of TWeb, respectively but not in any respective order), JonLanceBarker, Teluog, and especially one particular user known as "Truth be Told" (a loving and altruistic Christian that created an anti-Acharya S website filled with nothing but vinegar and vitroilic comments) are nothing more than Holdingnite jackels. It's sad to know that so many of them are duped into following someone who worships dead animals (a prohibited act as commanded in the Bible!).

If anyone takes the time read further they will see that the moderators deleted some of my comments because I accused Holding of lying. The sad thing is I don't have any evidence to prove it. But he did. I consider him to be a liar. Then they deleted another coment because I argued against deleting my prior comment. There's no fairness there. They are a pack of hyenas; idiots. Is there something truly wrong with accusing someone of lying and not being capable of providing evidence? Well, apparently on TWeb, it certaintly is. That's a problem. Holding is crafty like a fox, he is able to shake your hand in the darkness, and somehow withdrawing that handshake in the brightness of light.

And if you read further you'll see where Holding supports one of his ignorant followers when he argued that in order for me to criticize God for creating this universe I must be able to create a better one...in one week! Is that not ridiculous? I can criticize a contractor for his work without being able to build a house! But rather than telling this stupid supporter of his that he was wrong, which is the decent educational thing to do, Holding thought his argued was a good one!

Nevertheless, would I get them back for their childishness. This time, I was not going to stand by and play the role of innocence and humility, and I would get them good this time. I entered the fray one page earlier than I linked to where I provided my own slogan for DC:

Give us the guilt ridden, the brow beaten, the outcasts, the wounded soldiers, and we shall heal thee. Give us the religiously wicked, the victimizers, and the defenders of Biblical atrocities, and we shall beat thee down. Give us the brainwashed, the superstitious, the ignorant, and we shall teach thee. Give us the masters of gerrymandering who are exhausted from intellectual feats like spinning several plates up on several sticks, and we shall give thee rest.

The way things are going at this point, I may start considering putting this slogan into effect. This will demonstrate the digusting acts of Holding and his supporters, and will thus further my case in debunking Christianity.

Almost every time I go there I say to myself "never again." And then I somehow find the forgiveness to humble myself before them giving them their crave for attention returning to the boards typically around little more or just around a week when I'll say "I'm outta here" or "I'm leaving you all."

That's all I got to say, but hopefully this post will speak out to anyone with a clear thinking mind and a good moral conciousness. Regardless of whether you are a believer or skeptic.