Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lonergan · 01-02-2002, 08:38 AM

I agree with all of Ommedon1's comments about
Holding. What I don't understand is why there is so
little interest in responding to him. Many Christian
sites recommend J.P. Holding's web site as the very
best in Christian apologetics. Holding himself
frequently brags that his opponents will not
respond to his articles, as if they fear his arguments. Perhaps most of the problem is that so
much of Holding's writings involve personal attacks
on his opponents. Why expend a lot of effort
responding to personal attacks ? I not sure what
the answer is, but so many of the skeptics that
Holding attacks seem to have no interest in
engaging him. I find that lack of interest
perplexing since I think Holding seems to show no
understanding of logic and his articles can be
easily refuted. Still I wonder why people such as
DennisM have not made a reply to Holding and made
this reply available to this site. Holding is
particularly disdainful of DennisM. The following
is one of the conclusions Holding's reaches with
respect to DennisM:

In conclusion: This is positively the most corrupt, most incompetent, and most absurd handling of the secular evidence for the historical Jesus that I have ever seen. McKinsey does not even deserve a whiff of credit here - and let what we have seen above serve as warning to those who use his material as a source: Use it at your own risk of profound embarrassment!

Kosh · 01-02-2002, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Omnedon1:


1. Holding writes under a pseudonym; his real name is Robert Turkel - a prison librarian in the Florida state prison system. He has consistently lied about his reason for using such a name. It does not affect the quality of his argument, but it does go to the character of the individual that we are dealing with here.

Is he incarcerated?

Family Man · 01-02-2002, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Holding is
particularly disdainful of DennisM. The following
is one of the conclusions Holding's reaches with
respect to DennisM:

In conclusion: This is positively the most corrupt, most incompetent, and most absurd handling of the secular evidence for the historical Jesus that I have ever seen. McKinsey does not even deserve a whiff of credit here - and let what we have seen above serve as warning to those who use his material as a source: Use it at your own risk of profound embarrassment!

Really? You wouldn't have a link to this, would you? I've heard of Holding, but I certainly don't have the time to waste on silly Christian apologetics, but if he mentions me by name it ought to be worth a laugh.

But who is McKinsey?

Vorkosigan · 01-02-2002, 01:43 PM

Still I wonder why people such as
DennisM have not made a reply to Holding and made
this reply available to this site. Holding is
particularly disdainful of DennisM. The following
is one of the conclusions Holding's reaches with
respect to DennisM:

Biblical Errancy IS a reply to Holding. Further, if you look on the site, especially the later issues of the mag, there are many responses to Holding, Archer, and other apologists.

Family Man · 01-02-2002, 04:15 PM

I found the page, but I'm afraid you have me confused with McKinsey. He's not referring to me.

Lonergan · 01-02-2002, 05:33 PM

I found the page, but I'm afraid you have me confused with McKinsey. He's not referring to me.

Sorry, but Holding was refering to the other
DennisM. I hope you split your sides reading the
article.

Sauron · 01-02-2002, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:


Is he incarcerated?

Unknown. He claims to be a librarian. That information alone does not indicate whether he is

(a) incarcerated and merely working in the library as a way of making a little money or establishing "good behavior", or

(b)a Florida state civil servant working in the prison system.

I tend to think it is (b), however.

Sauron · 01-02-2002, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lonergan:
[QB]I agree with all of Ommedon1's comments about
Holding. What I don't understand is why there is so
little interest in responding to him. Many Christian
sites recommend J.P. Holding's web site as the very
best in Christian apologetics.

Don't despair. Getting lots of votes from fundies is not exactly a criterion for being an effective apologetic. Most fundies also highly recommend McDowell.

Lots of fundies like Turkel. Which is why I suspect that Turkel loves his fundie followers so much in return - they tend to be of the wide-eyed adoring type, which strokes his insatiable ego.

NOGO · 01-03-2002, 12:42 PM

Truly enjoyed this thread although I do have some comments.

On lying ...

Lying is a means of deceiving people, that is definitely different than telling untruths.
Parents teach their children what they believe. Christians teach christianity, Muslims teach islam and buddhist teach buddhism.
If only one religion is true then the others are false. It follows that most parents teach falsehoods to their children.
I don't consider them to be liars.

On the other hand misrepresenting yourself is a lie.
If you pretend to be a Mormon/Catholic/Jew in order to convert Mormons/Catholics/Jews to your faith then you are a liar even if everything that you say is true. What makes it a lie is the deception. It could be the way you dress, the way you gesture, carefully selected words, or even your presence at a religious gathering or all of the above. Anything that you purposely do to deceive others into thinking that you are one of them is a lie.

On dabating ...
I noticed one thing that seems to always be true about religious debates.
Those you seek the truth are not afraid of narrowing the discussion to things that matter most to them and getting to a conclusion.
Those who want to avoid the truth tend to enlarge the debate to include irrelavant material in the hope of confusing the issues.
They tend to thrust their swords in all directions so as to avoid getting pinned down anything.
I have no doubt that readers can discern which is which in this particular thread?

Vorkosigan · 01-03-2002, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:
I found the page, but I'm afraid you have me confused with McKinsey. He's not referring to me.

You're right. For some reason I had developed the idea that you were McKinsey.

Michael

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-02-2002, 08:38 AM	#41
Lonergan Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: plano Posts: 13	I agree with all of Ommedon1's comments about Holding. What I don't understand is why there is so little interest in responding to him. Many Christian sites recommend J.P. Holding's web site as the very best in Christian apologetics. Holding himself frequently brags that his opponents will not respond to his articles, as if they fear his arguments. Perhaps most of the problem is that so much of Holding's writings involve personal attacks on his opponents. Why expend a lot of effort responding to personal attacks ? I not sure what the answer is, but so many of the skeptics that Holding attacks seem to have no interest in engaging him. I find that lack of interest perplexing since I think Holding seems to show no understanding of logic and his articles can be easily refuted. Still I wonder why people such as DennisM have not made a reply to Holding and made this reply available to this site. Holding is particularly disdainful of DennisM. The following is one of the conclusions Holding's reaches with respect to DennisM: In conclusion: This is positively the most corrupt, most incompetent, and most absurd handling of the secular evidence for the historical Jesus that I have ever seen. McKinsey does not even deserve a whiff of credit here - and let what we have seen above serve as warning to those who use his material as a source: Use it at your own risk of profound embarrassment!

01-02-2002, 01:43 PM	#44
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Still I wonder why people such as DennisM have not made a reply to Holding and made this reply available to this site. Holding is particularly disdainful of DennisM. The following is one of the conclusions Holding's reaches with respect to DennisM: Biblical Errancy IS a reply to Holding. Further, if you look on the site, especially the later issues of the mag, there are many responses to Holding, Archer, and other apologists.

01-02-2002, 04:15 PM	#45
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	I found the page, but I'm afraid you have me confused with McKinsey. He's not referring to me.

01-02-2002, 05:33 PM	#46
Lonergan Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: plano Posts: 13	I found the page, but I'm afraid you have me confused with McKinsey. He's not referring to me. Sorry, but Holding was refering to the other DennisM. I hope you split your sides reading the article.

01-03-2002, 12:42 PM	#49
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Truly enjoyed this thread although I do have some comments. On lying ... Lying is a means of deceiving people, that is definitely different than telling untruths. Parents teach their children what they believe. Christians teach christianity, Muslims teach islam and buddhist teach buddhism. If only one religion is true then the others are false. It follows that most parents teach falsehoods to their children. I don't consider them to be liars. On the other hand misrepresenting yourself is a lie. If you pretend to be a Mormon/Catholic/Jew in order to convert Mormons/Catholics/Jews to your faith then you are a liar even if everything that you say is true. What makes it a lie is the deception. It could be the way you dress, the way you gesture, carefully selected words, or even your presence at a religious gathering or all of the above. Anything that you purposely do to deceive others into thinking that you are one of them is a lie. On dabating ... I noticed one thing that seems to always be true about religious debates. Those you seek the truth are not afraid of narrowing the discussion to things that matter most to them and getting to a conclusion. Those who want to avoid the truth tend to enlarge the debate to include irrelavant material in the hope of confusing the issues. They tend to thrust their swords in all directions so as to avoid getting pinned down anything. I have no doubt that readers can discern which is which in this particular thread?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.