GakuseiDon

Really? I've seen a few people -- including Christians -- disapprove of JP's use of insults on TheologyWeb.

neilgodfrey

Holding took exception to one of my responses to an argument of his and carried on like a child trying to bully and intimidate me with insults to go over to "debate" the matter on TWeb. I just couldn't take him seriously. He gave a new meaning to Christ's injunction to become as little children.

But he's a reminder of how many Christians really do think of nonbelievers. Fortunately most will be polite in discussion, but we really are "fools" according to the Bible.

Neil

skepticdude

I've actually done written debates with Holding before.

Then why do schools and colleges and seminaries require pupils to pass closed-book tests?

Please read my explanation again. My challenge for Holding to do an oral debate was for the specific purpose of putting his claims of scholarly-level knowledge, to the acid test...a test used in every school classroom: You must know the answer within a few seconds, and you can't look in a book for it. Otherwise, any dummy can look scholarly with a few days to respond and google the answer.

No accredited college in America, including most seminaries, agrees with you. Scholarly abilities and knowledge is predicated upon a history of passing closed book tests. Now tell us how stupid America's schools, colleges and seminaries are, for not realizing that true scholarship is only about ability to research.

Yeah, maybe asking somebody a question on an internet message board, where the other guy has several says to lookup the answer on google or in library books, maybe THAT is the true test....a test that would turn any high-school graduate into a scholar, since it doesn't take too many brains to google and lookup relevent books.

It's good to see that you predicate your response on what Rohrbaugh "seems to suggest". How about what Rohrbaugh actually stated? "people like him give Christianity a bad name."

It matters to J.P. Holding, that everything he does be "biblical". His constant use of invective and insult does NOT have biblical justification, so my arguments against him have force. If you don't care whether Holding's claim to biblical justification can be supported, then my priorities are not your priorities.

skepticdude

But they didn't respond to the point when I raised it in the context of my own critique of Holding. Obviously you cannot stretch my comment to mean that nobody ever disagrees with Holding's insulting style at theologyweb.

Theophage

I think that's very nifty. Thank you for posting this, skepticdude.

skepticdude

The thing to remember about Holding is that for all the scholars he quotes to prove things he then says should be "obvious" to others, (and for which he calls his critics stupid for disagreeing with him), he never can find any legitimately qualified non-self-published bible scholar that agrees with his consistent use of riposte, which of course would be the one thing Holding must think is the most obvious factoid in the bible.

If consistent use of insult toward critics is so clearly justified from the bible, perhaps even by the example of Jesus and Paul, how come no bible scholar, not even those most highly praised and favored by Holding himself (the Context Group) thinks such conduct has biblical justification?

Could it be that Holding's most basic "Christian" characteristic, is one that might actually NOT have biblical justification?

Rohrbaugh thinks one aspect of Holding's theology (partial preterism) is "nonsense." Holding speculates that because Rohrbaugh is a scholar and not a theologian, he might not have heard the better arguments from partial preterism.

Can you imagine a bible scholar performing decades of research, NOT knowing the biblical arguments for a popular eschatological belief that has a strong history in Christianity?

You know...just anything you can dream up in a few seconds so you don't have to lose face and then contemplate suicide.

skepticdude

no problem. if you debate the issue with any of Holding's followers, be sure to ask them why Holding doesn't call Rohrbaugh "stupid", "lame", "moron", "dumb bass", or other insult, for disagreeing with Holding in the same subject areas bible critics disagree with him on, such as Preterism, bible inerrancy, riposte, the Trinity, etc, while Holding insults bible critics for disagreeing with him on those same topics.

Clutch

Written debates are far superior to oral debates, in general.

The point is not who's a better scholar -- and especially not if this is measured in terms of quickness of recall. The point is who has a better position. Time to go to the library is pointless if the facts one would need are not in the library, after all. Taking the time to research one's position and get the facts right is not cheating, for pete's sake!

And oral presentation -- favoured by creationists everywhere, bear in mind! -- is highly susceptible to soundbites and crappy rhetoric.

That Holding is a jackass changes none of that.

skepticdude

One point deserves special emphasis:

J.P. Holding has dedicated his life to reconciling every alleged discrepancy in the bible.

When he debates bible critics, he insults them for being too stupid to realize the bible has no errors. He obviously thinks the full inerrancy of the bible is some "obvious" truth that only idiots, morons, the wilfulfully ignorant, and those of diminished mental capacity would reject.

Holding's favorite and most often cited bible scholar, Rohrbaugh, states that bible inerrancy is a purely modern notion that makes no sense, and says the fact of the bible's human origin is one of the most secure results of modern scholarship.

How long do you think we'll have to wait before we see Holding saying that Rohrbaugh is an idiot, moron, etc, for failing to see the inerrancy of the bible as the obvious truth Holding thinks it is?

If bible critics are idiots for denying inerrancy, why isn't Rohrbaugh?

Could it be that bible inerrancy is NOT an obvious fact, and that opposition to it can be based on serious study and not merely stupidity?

As you contemplate this, keep in mind that Holding has recently qualified that he was serious when he stated, several times in the past, that he doesn't really care whether the bible is inspired by God or inerrant. Yes, that doctrine he obviously dedicated his life to defending, he actually doesn't care about, eh?

skepticdude

Which is irrelevent to my oral debate challenge to Holding. The point of the oral debate is to put his claim to scholarly-level knowledge of the bible to the acid test.

then shut up about it, because that was exactly my point.

Refrain from telling me what my own purpose was, god. I think I know better than you.

It's absolutely nothing but CHEATING in a school "closed-book" test. The questions Holding would get thrown at him would require him to make use of his true level of scholarly knowledge, and just like in a school classroom test environment, he cannot google the answer or look it up in a book. He'd be saying "I don't know" many times, giving the audience rational warrant to be suspicious of his claim to possessing scholarly-level knowledge of the bible.

And it's the audience's job to think critically enough to detect such failings of argument. I told Holding he could choose whatever audience he wished (and he'd want me to believe he'd choose only critical thinking Christians), which then meant that he'd only win more assuredly, if I resorted to sound-bites.

And nothing changes my initial observation: any idiot can produce scholarly -sounding articles on any subject if they have several days to research, go to the library, search google, etc.

Nothing changes my other observation either: All schools and colleges and seminaries require students to pass CLOSED BOOK tests.

Obviously, the entire education system of America and most of the world is against anybody who downlplays the importance of committing facts to memory before a claim to being "expert" can be upheld. The more facts you have committed to memory, the more expert you are according to standard testing environments. The less facts committed to memory, the less expert.