Released from the Holding Cell
A Response to the Apologist, J.P. Holding

Every once in a while, someone comes by my site and tells me that they are going to set me straight. They tell me that I am misinterpreting the Bible or taking things out of context. They tell me that Satan is leading me and I am going to wind up in hell. They tell me that if I only had the Holy Spirit in me that I would not be so theologically blind and I would see the truth about Christianity and the Bible as God's Word.

This did not happen with J.P. Holding.

Apparently, some time around the end of 1998 or the beginning of 1999, Mr. Holding was informed about my website here and decided that it was worth examining and critiquing on his website (be prepared to wait… Holding's website is one of the slowest loading sites on the net - due to poor design). The only thing that Mr. Holding forgot to do was to let me know that he had stopped by and attempted to save me. I was informed a little more than a month ago that Holding had done this work on me at the beginning of the year. Oh, yeah! He also forgot to pay attention.

Once he got back to his site, the apologetics began. He did what all "good" apologists do; he attacked, he belittled, he used ad hominem arguments, he ignored the issue at hand, and he was largely dishonest. Mr. Holding should be congratulated on a job well done as he did exactly what he set out to do.

The first thing that Mr. Holding did in his examination of my site is call me ignorant. We do not have to get more than a paragraph into Holding's work to find a lack of respect and professionalism. When I first read this I assumed that he was stacking the deck and I stand by that initial impression. What he is doing is appealing to his readers that this is how they should approach me and my work - as though I were ignorant.

Moving on, we see a very long tirade from Mr. Holding in regards to my ordination in the Universal Life Church. Mr. Holding accuses me of being dishonest with my readers in that I assume that they will not do any investigation into the ULC. What he has failed to tell his readers, however, is that I do not take this certificate of ordination at all seriously. Mostly I see it as a joke, but what I was going for in presenting it at the site is to show that we have stood by as a civilization for thousands of years and listened to men (and fed them) because they told us that they were some sort of conduit for their god. That Mr. Holding does not get this is not really surprising. He is a Christian and one who would continue to support these conduits.

At the very end of the tirade Mr. Holding does admit that I say that the credentials are meant as a joke. He fails to mention this as a possible solution but accuses me of dishonesty from the start. This is the ultimate in hypocrisy. He knows from the start that the certificate is meant as a joke but is still accusatory. I will say nothing more than to point out that he offers me some completely ridiculous advice in that I should "post them wearing funny nose glasses!" Since we find many such images of what appears to be "funny nose and glasses" at his site, are we to conclude that his site is meant as a joke? I would hope that this is the case, but Mr. Holding is serious, even if he is deluded.

Now that I have been called ignorant and a liar and shown to be unworthy of attention by Mr. Holding, let us turn to the matter at hand.

Mr. Holding picks several of the 70 contradictions at the site and tries to pick them apart. I have had several apologists come and try to refute the contradictions and in each case they have been shown the errors in their assertions even if they did not admit them. I have left one of those pages up and it can be viewed HERE. Because of this I will not attempt to answer every contradiction that Mr. Holding has chosen to examine, but select a couple of those to show the nature of apologia (defense of the faith).

We start with my contradiction #11. From here on out, Mr. Holding's work will be in red and my response will be bold:

Moving to item #11, "Is monetary wealth good or bad?", we have Sam quoting yet another proverbial verse as an absolute:

Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord... Wealth and riches shall be in his house... - Psalms 112:1-3

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. - Matthew 19:24

We agree with Sam that Psalms does not refer to "spiritual riches" (and who says that, I know not), but even so, how is it reckoned that in the latter, Jesus is "telling the wealthy to sell all that they have, for the rich can not go to heaven," as Sam insists that it does? The verse says no such thing: It indicates --- using typical rabbinic exaggeration -- that it is difficult for the rich to enter heaven; and in context (the story of the rich young ruler) shows that this is because they find their wealth so alluring. On the other hand, even without noting the proverbial nature of the Psalm, it is obvious that the person referred to is one who "fears the Lord" and thus would not have a problem with the wealth as a sort of lure.

Apparently, Mr. Holding is not as smart as he claims he is. Here we see Mr. Holding saying that the "person referred to is one who "fears the Lord" and thus would not have a problem with the wealth as a sort of lure." How does Mr. Holding know this? If this person is not having a problem with his wealth, why would Jesus tell him to get rid of his wealth and then tell the disciples that the rich will have a problem gaining entrance to heaven? I think that it is Holding who has not read the contradiction in context, for Jesus says quite clearly, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

When Mr. Holding asks "how is it reckoned that in the latter, Jesus is "telling the wealthy to sell all that they have, for the rich can not go to heaven," as Sam insists that it does?" he should have read the preceding verses and never asked this question.

We can move now to item #28 before we find one we haven't looked at before. Under the title, "Who can be forgiven?" are cited these verses:

He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness. - Mark 3:29

And by him that believe are justified from all things. - Acts 13:39

There's been a ton of concern by various parties over this verse in Mark, with some wondering if they have committed this "unpardonable sin" of blaspheming the Holy Ghost. Others like Sam suggest that "Paul is saying that through belief in Jesus the Christ, all things are forgivable. No exception is made, making me think that Paul was not aware of Jesus' teachings." But the discussion really warrants no consternation by the believer, and Sam is off the mark because the "unpardonable sin" is this and nothing more: UNBELIEF. Thus, there is no contradiction with Acts 13:39 at all, for it sets as a pre-condition, "those who believe" -- and once you believe, you are of course "justified" from your unbelief!

This is apologia at its finest. Here, we see that Mr. Holding has completely ignored the contradiction. In the Markan verse, Jesus clearly says that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. Mr. Holding does not address this at all, but goes off to discuss unbelief. What else does he do? He says that believers should not be concerned with it but offers absolutely no explanation for why they shouldn't be! Mr. Holding seems to think that the four gospels are not the only ones around and that his every utterance is also to be taken as "good news". Unfortunately for him, however, the world's population of critical thinkers is growing and arguments (and websites) like his become less and less convincing.

Mr. Holding touches on one or two more contradictions and then goes off to tackle some of the questions from the Hierophant's Proselytizer Questionnaire. I am not really concerned with dealing with his answers here. He has shown that he is not interested in dialogue of any sort. He has attempted to belittle me and convince his readers that I am not someone to be concerned with. My contradictions still stand. Mr. Holding has resolved nothing. Further, he has made no effort to contact me to let me know that he disagrees with my position.

I am e-mailing this piece to him in the hopes that Mr. Holding will come out from behind his HTML editor and deal with the people whom he takes issue with. I am inviting him to come and participate in the online forum at my website to deal with the issues of apologia. If he is as sure of his position as he claims to be, he will pay us a visit and we will engage in open and civil debate.

Lastly, I want to thank Mr. Holding. He has put me in some very fine company. In his Rogue's Gallery I am listed with some great thinkers like Dan Barker (author of Losing Faith in Faith which contains the Easter Challenge), Steven Carr (the best Atheist website from the UK - see my links section), Earl Doherty (author of the Jesus Puzzle - see my links section), Lloyd Graham (author of Deceptions and Myths of the Bible), Jeffrey Jay Lowder (of Internet Infidels - The Secular Web fame), Hyam Maccoby (who wrote the great book The Mythmaker - Paul and the Invention of Christianity), Dennis McKinsey (of the awesome website Biblical Errancy - see my links section), Thomas Paine (a man who needs no description), John Shelby Spong (author of countless books, leading scholar and Episcopalian Bishop), and Farrell Till (a leading Atheist thinker and strong critic of the inerrant position). That I would be included in such a group of such brilliant minds is truly an honor. Mr. Holding does me a great service.

Cygnus

UPDATED 8.7.99

Mr. Holding has refused my invitation to discuss his treatment of my site at my forum. He has claimed that online forums are filled with master debaters and thus, would not waste his time. Well, we can take that to mean that Mr. Holding is not a good debater and bows out early. Further, I personally take it to mean that Mr. Holding does not have the conviction that he claims.

I will waste no more time on Mr. Holding. Anyone with a critical eye who has read his treatment and my response will see that this is a victory for the Swan-Shaped Skeptic.

Cygnus