Friday, March 04, 2005

An anonymous feedback suggested that I should be criticizing JP Holding of as well as Joe. I can't really see how Joe's profanity compare to JP's satire and assume that Anonymous was just looking to score some points.

That said, JP Holding does get a lot of people's goat and I am fairly regularly criticised for linking to him and praising him. The first conclusion to draw from this is that he is effective in what he is trying to do and his detractors are just looking for another angle of attack. The material which JP refutes are websites from internet scribblers who simply do not deserve to be treated with respect. Anyone who still seriously believes that Jesus is based on pagan myth is clearly beyond the reach of reasoned argument and should be satirised mercilessly. The sheer self righteousness of the delusions of sites like this and this stick in the craw and we should all be grateful to JP for taking them down a peg or three.

Also, I find his site extremely useful. Every so often I get an email from a distressed Christian who has read some rubbish and isn't sure how to react. 99 times out of 100, JP has already trashed the material in question and his apologetics encyclopedia makes it easy to find out where. I suppose you could describe JP as the Michael Moore of Christian Apologists. Both are heroes to much of their own constituencies (they gave Moore an Oscar, after all) but can cause some unease for their lack of subtlety. And they both drive their opponents up the wall. As a fan of movies such as The Life of Brian and Dogma, I fall into the category of Christians who have no problem with satire and certainly can't fault JP for indulging in it.

So, I make no apologies for supporting JP Holding's apologetics. That atheists can't stand him is to be expected but he is only reacting against the drudgery they are producing. After all, JP only got into this business to counter the Secular Web's The Jury is In.


Anonymous said...

If Holding (aka Robert Turkel) was only responding in abrasive fashion to ridiculous assertions by atheists that would be one thing, but he dismisses well thought out critiques of Christianity with the same lack of common courtesy. That you find a certain pleasure in his pot shots at critics will only serve to enhance the negative attitudes that non believers have about christians.

Layman said...

What Holding does is incomparable to the type of "input" Bede to which Bede was referring.

As for Holding, I can only imagine the feces he has to wade through in his morning email.

Anonymous said...

some satire from Bede's hero

'For you, your smartest movement is a bowel movement'

'Just paste that face on a few posters in the neighborhood, along with some writing samples. Maybe that will help pass you as one of Jerry's Kids."

'Note that the term "Jerry's Kids" is used by Holding as an insult. "Jerry's Kids" are children who are afflicted with muscular dystrophy, a fairly common disease that disables children at an early age and is often fatal at an early age. Such is the design of a loving God'

here is what one of Holding's sources (Dr. Malina) wrote about how Holding used him

'It sounds as though the person you refer to is using my description of behavior in the Mediterranean world of antiquity to sanction his behavior in the 21st century. If that is the case, then he is being silly. We live neither in the 1st century nor in the Mediterranean."

"People have been citing the bible for centuries in the name of some 'My Will Be Done' project (or religion). That some are doing this with my writings is no surprise."

Holding then said the following about Holding's own source writing about Holding's work 'Tat it's not for today, IN HIS OPINION, which is a load of politcally correct BULLDADA.'

I wonder if Bede would ever cite sources, and when his sources say he is misusing him, turn around and say that they are talking BULLDADA

Anonymous said...

Amusingly, after being forced to trash his own source as talking BULLDADA for pointing out how Holding misused him, Holding then asked for the debate that *he* started to be closed.

More satire from a Bede hero :-
'In your arrogance you missed it; you were so busy waving your giant pee-pee around that you bonked yourself on the head with it and didn’t even notice.'

Anonymous said...

More of the faeces that Layman says Holding has towade through.

'..nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.'

That was Holding on 26/11/2003.....

No wonder Bede and Layman lap up Holding!

Mark 7:20 'He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him unclean.

James said...


I do appreciate that as someone who has been on the receiving end of Holding's satire, you probably have a bit of a crocked vision of him. If I had had my work pulvarised in the way he destroyed some of yours, I'd not be a happy bunny either. But calling him my 'hero' is rather childish as is your continually trolling my blog.

Rather than making yourself look foolish here and on other discussion boards (even on the Sec Web no one really takes any notice of you), why not go back to maintaining your website and actually constructing arguments? I cannot tell you how bad you look at the moment (and remember I have the experience of going over the edge at the Sec Web myself).

Just some thoughts. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

documents some of the tactics of the apologists of Christianity - people that Bede is very happy to associate himself with

Anonymous said...

Bede writes 'Both are heroes to much of their own constituencies....'

and then claims that saying Holding is a hero is 'childish'......

If there is one thing Bede hates more than people telling lies about him, it is people quoting him accurately.

Anonymous said...

The least Turkel could do is take some lessons on manners from his apologetics buddy Glenn Miller, at least Miller has good manners. As the saying goes when you disrespect others you disrepect yourself.

Anonymous said...

Also Turkel is a young earth creationist a view Bede does not support.How about explaining that one away Bede?

Anonymous said...

I bet Turkel would label you as a heretic for your views on young earth creationism, (not to mention how you think everything up to Abraham is myth), and be quite happy to send you to eternal damnation for your views. How would that make you feel? Also you make the mistaken assumption that because Turkel touches a raw nerve in many people that therefore he must somehow be correct in his views. Let's say you run across a website that says the holocaust never happened. Would you be outraged? I hope so. Does the fact that it outraged you then make you believe there must be some "truth" to it? Of course not. See my point?

Layman said...

"why not go back to maintaining your website and actually constructing arguments?"

Too much work. And perhaps too vulnerable. Clear positions with detailed arguments? Not his style.

Layman said...

"I bet Turkel would label you as a heretic for your views on young earth creationism, (not to mention how you think everything up to Abraham is myth), and be quite happy to send you to eternal damnation for your views."

Where does Holding say old earth creationists are going to hell?

Anonymous said...

What continues to elude me is how Carr and Till and their sycophants can whine about Holding's lack of courtesy in debate, but refuse to respect his wishes about the use of his real name. That seems to me to be a hypocrisy of spectacular proportions. And Mr. Carr, I fail to see why a few offhand comments made by Holding (that you copied and pasted off of refute the rest of Holding's work. I don't even really like Holding, and I definitly don't agree with the majority of what he says, but your slander and bumper sticker quips get very old.


Anonymous said...

I think we can leave the last word to Holding :-

'....nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo'

As Eric Morecambe once said, there's no answer to that, and many sceptics can't answer such apologetics.