Decontextualized Quotes

http://www.tektonics.org/brooksbonked.html

"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."

comment: 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. It's also a metaphor for someone who deserves pity. See here for an example: Liza almost slips and falls during her "Steamheat" number...and sings a strange non-Christmas song. She hits a high note and her eyes cross. And Lorna Luft looks like one of Jerry's Kids. Brookee just isn't up on modern metaphors, but we knew he didn't do homework; if he did, he wouldn't be frustrated into doing stuff like collecting sound bites for his frustrated-Skeptic site.

web.archive...http://www.tektonics.org/saurhead2.htm

"By me, every day, every way, and his rear end has been scattered over more states than the Columbia wreckage."

comment: The Columbia Space Shuttle disaster cost the lives of seven brave astronauts and was a national tragedy, yet Holding uses the tragedy as the punchline in a joke. Sure, and Brooks is a concerned and patriotic American, which is why he only hauled out this quote in the last few weeks where for over a year before he hadn't, even as he had quotes from the same page. "Black humor" is an acceptable way to deal with tragedy, whether constipated faces like Brooks like it or not -- but in reality, it's Brooks who is prostituting the Columbia tragedy to alleviate his frustratiuons.

http://members.aol.com/bbu82/plea.htm

"We need Tekton full time. Mr. Walker's impotence and fish-flopping is plain evidence (only the latest!) of this ministry's effectiveness, of the Holy Spirit's movement through these pages. Please submit your testimony and help make full-time ministry a reality. Free my warrior side from its shackles, and let the destruction of strongholds begin in earnest. Yep. Brookee and all his friends are scared to death of my poetic nuances. Don't turn on pro wrestling -- Brookee thinks it's real. All I have to do is say "Boo" and Brooks jumps out of his pants."

http://www.ctm.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=85
(requires free registration to view)

"My my yes, we ARE important, and I have not a single illusion either. While you sit on your rear end defending the right to gather wives like stamps, Tekton has produced over 1500 articles in defense of critical issues of the Christian faith like the resurrection, the Trinity, and the atonement; it has answered an average of 100 emails a week for the past 5-6 years, many of them from desperately hurting people whose faith is in danger of being damaged or lost; I’ve had material published in major magazines, and the Tekton ministry has been endorsed by major names such as Lee Strobel himself, on a nationwide radio broadcast. Heck, just check this out:"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/...

"The Secular Web, the leading atheist website, considers Tekton such a viable threat that my name is in there along with the likes of Paul Copan, William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Peter Kreeft, C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Alvin Plantinga, R. C. Sproul, and Ravi Zacharias. The only other 'Internet apologist' listed is Glenn Miller of the Christian-thinktank."

comment: Note the ego stroking. Comment: Notice the decontextualization. The person addressed (who by the way, is a serial harrasser who has admitted to breaking laws about recording phone calls in his home state -- let it speak for who Brooks thinks is a respectable personage) directly indicated that he thought I was doing nothing and was nobody. The above is a perfectly legitimate answer, unless Brooks thinks it is "ego stroking" to give your resume' in an interview situation also. Maybe that's why he's in an unskilled trade like photography finishing: He's too huble to recite his qualifications. Besides, if Brooks has issues, he can blame the Secular Web. They're the ones who made the list, not me. And if a single claim I made of myself or this ministry is wrong, he needs to explain why. He won't. Obviously it hurts him to know that he's a pissant in this context.

http://www.tektonics.org/glennall02.html

"As a librarian I conducted classes on the use of the Internet, and I always warned my students that it was possible now for any yahoo with access to a computer -- even in a public library -- to sit down and within a few minutes have a site running selling magic tomato juice that cured cancer. No one would be there to stop them for weeks, and in the meantime they could get away with a hefty stash of financing from 'suckers' who took them for their word. The same thing happens, adjusted for context, with religious information, and Glenn's site is yet another example."

comment: The irony is delicious. No doubt to someone as ignorant as Brooks is, who thinks a teenager is a better authority than a scholar, it would be.

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_06.html

"Of course you don't have to 'sort through all this fine stuff' -- this 'fine stuff' is produced as a response to those trying to escape the crystal-clear clarity, trying to get out of the blazing sunshine, by manufacturing excuses and arguments based on thin air. As noted, 'freethinkers' have the unmatchable advantage of being able to throw any argument in the air without backup or investigation (just 'common sense') and claiming implicitly to be an authority. Those of us who are disciplined in our scholarship don't have that option." Hard to say what Brooks thinks is the point here. I really don't have this option -- all the books I read don't have pictures to color like his do.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040217120948/...
(Note: Written by me, not Josh Brister)

"Finally, Lowder refers to Drange's argument (though I am told he has mixed this up with someone else's) that '...the mere fact of reasonable nonbelief in the world is evidence for the nonexistence of the Christian god.' I'll put it succinctly: After years of this sort of work, I find that there is no such thing as 'reasonable nonbelief.' The litany of excuses, wild speculations, and other absurdities ground out by skeptics and critics doesn't deserve the adjective 'reasonable.'" Not clear what Brooks thinks is the point here either. For a guy who swallowed the Leo X quote without blinking, the irony isn't apparent at all.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?...

"It's an example of exactly how Western society has become sick and anemic and worthless, trying to escape the judgment and scorn that it richly deserves." 9/9/04

comment: This comment was made in reply to a poster on TWEB. The poster asked Holding why he was so obnoxious and insulting to people there. No, they did more than that -- they tried to defend their weakness in defending the truth. Holding tried to justify his behavior by referring to something called the "challenge riposte" paradigm, which is cited in this Tektonics.org article. Here is an excerpt: "We shall see that differing rules apply in a situation in which the venue is a public forum, as this site is. Now let us consult Malina and Rohrbaugh to see why." "Many ancient societies (and we shall see below, certain modern social groups) engage in a process known as challenge-riposte. The scene of such processes is public venues in which two persons or groups have competing honor claims: '...the game of challenge-riposte is a central phenomenon, and one that must be played out in public.' [42] The purpose is for each party to try to undermine the honor, or social status, of the other in an exchange that 'answers in equal measures or ups the ante (and thereby challenges in return).' In the Gospels, Jesus 'evidences considerable skill at riposte and thereby reveals himself to be an honorable and authoritative prophet.'" The TWEB poster contacted the author-Dr. Malina-whose work Holding cited in his essay. Here is what the poster wrote to Dr. Malina What this "poster," Lazy Agnostic, wrote, was a tissue of fabrications about himself, to wit: "I'm hopeful I'm not being too presumptuous in contacting you here on such a trivial matter. It's a peeve, really, but I don't like bullies, esp those who claim a divine right to be such." Horse manure. "Lazy Agnostic" is one of the worst intellectual bullies on TWeb, hiding his bullying with a thin veneer of sanctimonious politeness. He refuses to answer arguments, preferring to throw out lame soundbites like, "Well, some would disagree with that" or "I have doubts about your position" and nothing else. He eggs on for "live debate" while refusing to explain why a written one is not more suitable. "There is an apologist(internet and some articles for Christian Research Journal) who cites your writing as justification for what reasonably appears to be abusive comportment with opponents. The only thing he actually cites is the last line in the following paragraph, taken from a short article." I cite far more than that, so this is an open lie. Lazy Agnostic also withheld the proper information that the "opponents" in question are persons like himself and Brooks who are entirely disingenuous and/or ignorant, thus making himself out to be an innocent bystander who did nothing to harm anyone. "'Many ancient societies (and we shall see below, certain modern social groups) engage in a process known as challenge-riposte. The scene of such processes is public venues in which two persons or groups have competing honor claims: "...the game of challenge-riposte is a central phenomenon, and one that must be played out in public.[42]"'" "He's educated, thorough, and really very clever at times but something wrong is lurking there. I can accept a little Schadenfreude but there is too much cruel-intent. The intellectual honesty of his apologetics is another point...but one I haven't the acumen to make." Notice the manipulative drive for symapthy in this and what follows: ... "FYI: I am now an agnostic but I retain a fondness for Christianity. My wife is a sweetly devout voice, and with her, I don't wish to see it go away but rather become more noble." Another disingenuous moment by LA, who wants to mutate Christianity into a Spong-like feather pillow faith that won't threaten his peace. This is what Dr. Malina wrote in reply: "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." In response to this embarrassing criticism, Holding attacked Dr. Malina's statement, attacked the poster's comments and promptly closed the discussion thread-apparently in the hope that it would fade into obscurity. Wrong. Start the thread on the FIRST page (not the second, where Brooks has it) where the true purpose of the thread is shown, and how it can be seen that LA sidetracked it into his own purposes, as well as see (at the bottom of the page) his own noxious arrogance in play, and note message #26 on page 2 where LA ascribes divinity to himself by using an "I am" as a self-reference. My whole answer is not quoted by Brooks, either: That's not an answer in any sense. You will note that he does NOT -- pay close attention now, you embarrssed yourself worse than Till did on this one -- say that I have gotten WRONG what they wrote, or that indeed challenge-riposte was not used back then, which has been the sort of crap YOU have been trying to pull all this time with your vague "I doubt its" and "maybe nots" that aren't worth a hill of beans. All he says here is the same thing you have been saying, which is no argument: That it's not for today, IN HIS OPINION, which is a load of politcally correct BULLDADA. It's an example of exactly how Western society has become sick and anemic and worthless, trying to escape the judgment and scorn that it richly deserves...Talk about it indeed. You failed miserably. You didn't present a single word showing that I was not accurately using the texts. You didn't present a single word showing that c-r was not used by Jesus, the apostles, etc. You did not present a single argument against its use. Calling it "silly" and looking at the clock (temporal provincialist, eh??) isn't an argument. Once again, you have embarrassed yourself worse than even Till, which I hardly thought possible.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?...

"You repost them to make sure that the emotional impact on the irrational and gullible doesn't fade while I'm carving your guts out on the rational end. I got plenty of time, keep it up." 10/7/03

comment: Note the use of the violent imagery, which is likely tied in to Holding's view of himself as a holy warrior fighting for people's souls. Notice Brooks' trembling insecurity, which is likely tied in to Brooks' view of himself as having had the stuffing beaten out of him. You'll hear the same thing at sports events, folks. Brooks was the guy who was always chosen last. And used as the ball.

http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=84

"And you? You’re nothing but a sanctimonious ant with delusions of your own grandeur; you’re nothing but a modern day Hugh waving your swollen member around and knocking people over with it or else disgusting everyone by pointing to it and shouting to everyone to look at it." Context again, folks. This and the statement following were made to the same perverse individual noted above, the serial harrasser, also an endorser of and arguer for polygamy, and one who especially showed misogynist leanings. As one webmaster said of this guy: Further, it's obvious that you use psychological tactics to attempt to frighten, subdue, and control women on the internet. You abhor any woman who so much as speaks back to you. From what I can tell, you like to think that you're to be in control of any woman who crosses your path, and Prakk, that's not really theologically acceptable (or psychologically sane for that matter). When a woman doesn't submit to you, you then proceed to make her life a living hell, simply because you're a pompous jerk who needs to meet a gang of hoodlum evangelists in a dark back alley somewhere. Aside from that, you use bully tactics on just about everyone on the internet, man and woman alike. Seems that Brooks endorses and defends stalking behavior, misogyny, and polygamy, then -- or am I reading too much into it?

http://www.ctm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=89

"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." Ditto.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s...

"Well, that's Crybaby's fault. He's an expert manipulator, and all I did was make him eat his own upchuck." Warning: Don't read 2 Peter 2:22. Context: "Upchuck" here is a metaphor for the dishonest and evasive debate tactics another member of TheologyWeb, which I simply turned back on him. How Brooks thinks this is "illuminating" is difficult to say. I think he has an obsession for bodily fluids, as these next few suggest): 12/15/03

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s...

"How's your own upchuck taste?"

(snip)

"Upchuck taste good, Gargy?" 1/6/04

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?...

"Suit yourself, but you look funny standing in a pile of doo doo."

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29388

"My dog made a better agrument (sic) in the yard this morning! I'll skip all the repeated doggy doo...." So, what? Does Brooks use words like "ah ah" around the house? Note that this is a guy who thinks quoting Malachi 2:3 ("I will spread dung on your faces") is an argument against Christianity.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?...

"...nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo." Context: This last one, and the "suit yourself" one, actually ended in a question mark, for which I was asking another member if that was all the answer he was going to give, which amounted to, "I won't answer, nyahh nyahh." THEN came my statement above.

web.archive...http://www.tektonics.org/saurhead2.htm

"For you, your smartest movement is a bowel movement." I wonder what Brooks would make of Elijah's comment to the priests of Baal, "Shout louder. Maybe Baal is on the toliet!"

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_05_01.html

"A wise person once said that foul language is the recourse of those whose arguments lack force otherwise." Whatever the point of this is. I don't use foul language. Of course maybe Brooks is a five year old who thinks "doo doo" is a bad word. Meant to be ironical, perhaps, but it's just Brooks pretending to be a Puritan. Please note, out of 1600+ articles and hundreds of TWeb threads, this is the best he could do.

http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

"But understand instead 'faith' as loyalty and 'unbelief' as disobedience." Whatever. No idea what Brooks finds fascinating about this, though presumably it wasn't the parts about the Greco-Roman meaning of pistis. I'm surprised he doesn't take 'pistis' as a bathroom word.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?...

"You'd be better off going through your daily life and learning to behave like a civilized human being who does not twist, contort, and smear what others say for personal advantage and comfort."

comment: Hypocrisy alert. Retort: Non-example alert.

comment: Brooks loves the YEC issue so much he repeats what he has already done. So we'll return the sound bites. Brooks not only accepts that evolution occurs, but he actually believes that Genesis is not literally true. He is an old earth evolutionist-like the people at the humanist organizations he hangs out with. Brooks does not believe that the Genesis creation stories are true, or that the Adam and Eve story is true, or that the Noah's Ark story is true, and that the earth and all forms of life on it are 10 million skillion years old. Since Brooks devotes a goodly amount of his time to denigrating other people's intelligence, it is ironic indeed that he accepts blatantly false modern myths as undeniable historical truth. There, did I just win the argument?

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-GEN.html

Books to Read

The Discovery of Genesis by Ethel Nelson -- buy this book from Amazon.com -- how Chinese language characaters (sic) confirm the literal truth of Genesis -- see related item here.

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-E.html

Evolution

I'm no scientist, so expect mostly links here. I prefer to refer folks to my friends at Answers in Genesis. Others have recommended TrueOrigin.org and Access Research Network.

• Articles
  • Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins [Off Site]
  • Why I Don't Buy (or Sell) The Evolution Story
  • Inside Darwin's Prpaganda Machine and How Evolutionists are Fooling Us [Off Site]
• Books to Read
  • A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization by Dean Overman --Buy this book from Amazon.com
  • Not by Chance by Lee Spetner -- buy this book from Amazon.com
  • Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe -- Buy this book from Amazon.com -- see review here also [Off Site]
  • The Biotic Message by Walter ReMine -- Buy this book from Amazon.com [Review Off Site]
  • Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati -- Buy this book from Amazon.com [Review Off Site]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?...

"You're a LOSER in life. That must hurt." Aw. Poor baby. I'd best stick with non-offensive statements, like calling believers "brainwashed".

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?...

"Just take your licks and be resigned to it. You'll end up on the list of the Five Most Embarrassed, Unskilled, and Unaware of It. Up from Ten." Ditto. Of course this is taken from the middle of a discussion in which the lack of skill was amply demonstrated. But that part is too hard for Brooks to answer.

web.archive...http://www.tektonics.org/saurhead2.htm

"Darn right I am. Responding, rebutting, lashing, destroying, making them cry and whine and get frustrated. You're victim #2,456, Bilbo...Sure has you running for cover, coward. Sure has you in denial. Sure has you refusing to enter the ring. Stay under your rock, burying beetle, the stench of dead meat becomes you." Aw. Poor baby again. Don't read Matt. 23:27 if this offends you.

comment: The following few quotes are from e-mail exchanges Holding had with fellow Christians.

Letterbox

question: "I have a couple of questions for you, the first of which is this -- how exactly did you come to be interested in apologetics, and what have been your biggest influences in getting to where you are now?"

"JP sez: It's hard to say. Being that I was always something of an anti-socialite who preferred a good book to the company of my 'peers' I think it was only to be expected that I'd engage some sort of academic pursuit. This and the fact that I have worked in libraries for almost my entire 13 years in the workforce are the most likely 'worldly' influences which got me here...that says nothing about 'other-worldly' influences, of course! ;-)" Context: I should have hung out with the kids who drank, took drugs, and had sex with everything in a skirt. Then I would be normal and healthy like Brooks now is.

question: "Also, what is it that possesses you to continually exchange arguments with the Farrell Tills of the world, despite the fact that they're clearly playing out of their league? I've exchanged e-mails with a number of skeptical folks on the creation-evolution issue, and it's very often frustrating because we both have our minds made up and it quickly degenerates from rational argumentation into haggling over definitions of terms or nitpicking about irrelevant details. Does this type of thing happen often in your dealings with skeptics, and if so, how do you handle it?"

"JP sez: My major motivation is to help people who don't realize that the likes of Till are the academic equivalent of a Disney character, but think that because they mouth off so loud, and sound authoritative, they must know something. A sad symptom of post-modernism! At the same time, I have a bit of a "mean streak" (heh heh) that approaches the whole process with the same tenor of a leopard approaching a mouse...."

comment: Hypocrisy alert. "Hypocrisy" in what form? Brooks does not say; he just likes to use the word. As for delusions of grandeur, which is what used to be in here: it's too late -- the high ground has eroded from under Brooks and his pals: photofinishers, furniture salesmen, and English professors from puny community colleges who think that they can outdo Ph. D.s with peer review and vitae longer than Brooks' tongue.

(snip)

"Re analytical skills: Here again, it may be part of my personal history. I was always encouraged to think for myself and question things, and go find out answers to things for myself to see if they were correct. (Being a son of a member of the 60s crowd may have been a boon in this regard!) At the same time, I had some 'odd' entertainment preferences...when most of the kids my age were reading magazines with pictures of rock stars, I was buying magazines with puzzles and word games in them. Got me teased out the wazoo, but most of those kids are in jail now. :-)"1999

comment: Note the ego stroking. comment: Note the insecurity and paranoia. It's "ego" to explain that you like puzzle magazines? And aren't Skeptics always noting that they think for themselves? I guess there must be a lot of egotism out in SkepticLand.

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BOC.html

"One must face the fact that eternal punishment is taught in the Bible, and deal with it." On this and the next one, I've since the original quote adopted a view of eternal punishment that makes it into shame, not flame. Still, Brooks didn't get this, and we spent days trying to get him to explain how one "tortures" a boat.

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BOC.html

"This argument asks: How can those who make it into eternal joy be happy knowing that the unsaved are locked forever into eternal torment? It's another heartbreaker, but one suggests that we will, at that point, see things exactly as God sees them -- and realize the justness of the condemnation."

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/reply2jph.htm

question: "Can you think of any crime so horrendous that it would justify eternal, unrelenting torment, with no second chances ever being given, even if the criminal honestly repents and is completely forgiven by his victims?"
      "Yes (x) No ( )"

Holding: "Aside from the misdirected and incomplete description of 'torment' (see link in 5 above), the matter is simply that before infinite holiness, ANY crime is horrendous enough to justify eternal and equitable response. When the yardstick is perfection, there is no 'second chance' -- and we would maintain as well, no person in eternal punishment who would want to honestly repent, but would keep their rebellious state intact." Naturally Brooks does not follow the link to answer either; it's Glenn Miller's article, and Miller scares him to death.He also fails to note my updated position.

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html

"The question remains: What on earth could possess otherwise intelligent and educated people to be so uncritical in their beliefs regarding the existence of Jesus? Here is my advice in the matter: If you have encountered people like this, I highly recommend that you provide a clear presentation of the Gospel, then leave them alone. It is a waste of time to deal with such people (except to the extent that they are deceiving others), we perform no service any time that we so much as imply that their views should be taken seriously. Their views are the result of a fallen and sinful human nature, of rampant egotism and arrogance, and nothing more."

comment: Holding is referring to those who believe that Jesus Christ is a copy of earlier godmen. No, that is NOT what this is from. It is from my article on people who do not believe Jesus existed, period. As a fundamentalist Bible inerrantist, Holding vehemently rejects this idea, In fact, I have a whole series on it Brooks won't touch but, interestingly enough, the first Christian apologists were well aware of the similarities between Jesus and the earlier godmen and believed that these parallels had to be intentional. They attributed the similarities to a satanic plot, or "diabolical mimicry." As TWeb member GakeusiDon has told Brooks more than once, though, it is obvious from this that writers like Justin are arguing this point, it is obvious that it is something that pagans do NOT believe, and so the pagans themselves do not recognize the parallels. Justin is actually trying to get around the pagan disregard for anything new by making Christian concepts "older" -- but then he has to appeal to Satan to explain why these parallels exist. In other words, he created his own problem with his own solution to the "newness" problem. Don has called Brooks on this sort of mistake, and Brooks doesn't get it. A more plausible explanation, of course, is that Jesus Christ was indeed modeled on earlier godmen. Phud. For a rebuttal to Brooks' favorite site by a know-nothing on this topic, go here.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?...

"It's interesting how challenges to put up or shut up are spun out into 'dominance issues' or 'ego'. Yes, I admit it: I have a desire to crush the ignorant who take life from others. I guess the police have 'dominance issues' too...as do firefighters, editorialists, and journalists....and we should always accuse them of such to reassure us that we aren't deficient in the intellect and knowledge department after all..." Boo hoo hoo. So Brooks, do the police have "dominance issues" or not?

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/mcfall/1.html

"If you're in hellfire, that's your choice. Getting disturbed about it won't help, but at least if you want to remain stubborn we can keep you from dragging others with you....deceive others into jumping into hellfire with you? I have a REAL problem with that!" Ditto. So in other words, firefighters have dominace problems. All of this from Brooks' enormously begged question of Christianity being untrue; but rather than engage real arguments on the subject, he'd rather collect sound bites.

web.archive...http://www.tektonics.org/saurhead2.htm

"As if you gave a crap how any Christian behaved, based on your own emasculated standards and a strawman Jesus. No, your stock in trade is lying, deception, ripping faith from others to comfort yourself, and playing the victim, Crybaby."

comment: By promoting Christianity, Holding thinks that he is saving people from hell. In his own mind, he is a heroic figure. comment: By rejecting Christianity, Brooks thinks that I am not any sort of heroic figure. Now when will he get down to actually making some sound arguments showing otherwise? Never.

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_D12_TFH.html

"Here's a little Freudian slipknot of my own in reply: I have stated previously that with the proposition of the Christ myth there always comes an extreme egomania and an inability to admit one has been wrong."

comment: Irony meter just blew up. comment: Whatever, Brooks. We'll wait for you to get the nerve up to prove me wrong on something.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?...

question: "Mary’s family, and really, entire town must have accepted AT HER WORD ONLY that God had made her pregnant, not some man she had been sleeping with. Now I admit that I have an anti-supernatural bias, but really, anyone that would believe this story, is flat out gullible."

Holding: "Anyone who would think you were capable of speaking with authority on this subject is even more gullible that you imagine! The social conditions of the period were such that a girl like Mary would be under the constrant watchcare of her guardians -- precisely in order to avoid the scandal and disgrace of an illegitimate birth! That means that inevitably, her pregnancy WOULD be investigated, and man after man would be examined and rule out. So much for 'gullible'! Now why don't you explain to us how your thesis is falsifiable and therefore actually worth consideration? If God actually did make her pregnant, how would your (guffaw) worldview be able to admit it?"

comment: Apparently Holding believes that a claim that a woman was impregnated by a god-a claim found in an anonymous ancient story filled with similarly ridiculous claims-is perfectly reasonable, and that those who are skeptical of the claim have the responsiblity to disprove it. comment: Apparently Brooks is a bigot who thinks that ancient people were stupid, and an ignoramus who won't answer my arguments about determining authorship of documents, and a naturalist who thinks begging the question is all you have to do. In his comments, Holding's displays his hypocrisy. Holding asks, "Now why don't you explain to us how your thesis is falsifiable and therefore actually worth consideration?" Brooks can find so little that he has to use two comments of mine twice now. Holding has been asked just this question in regard to his foundational "thesis" that the Bible is inerrant: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/holding2.html "In Part 1 of this reply, I accused Mr. Holding and his inerrantist ilk of being trapped in a mindset that will simply not allow the Bible to be wrong, no matter how obvious the error or inconsistency, and posed them the following question: 'What would it take to convince you that you were wrong? What, hypothetically, would the Bible have to say to be contradictory? Can you give an imaginary example of two discrepant verses that you would accept as impossible to resolve?'" "To my total lack of surprise, Mr. Holding's answer to these questions completely sidesteps the thrust of them; he totally ignores the latter two and replies to the first with a response that is essentially, 'More than you've provided.' This is exactly as we should expect from one who has made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused by the facts. He has set his burden of proof infinitely high, so that no evidence real or imaginary could ever meet it - whatever any skeptic poses to him, his answer will always be 'That isn't good enough.'" Holding nevers provides an example of what would falsify his "thesis." It's up to you guys to provide the example, Brooks -- not me. I gave you the rules for finding one, and we don't do your homework for you.

web.archive...http://www.tektonics.org/saurhead2.htm

"You have yet to do more than posture, kick, scream, whine, and pass gas, as if you were some worthwhile expert in minerals who could respond to an expert like Shanks who has been examining artifacts since before you pooped in your first diaper. Meanwhile talk to the gem experts, the carver, and the geologist. A road gang that beats the crap out of you."

comment: What is extremely humorous about this rant and countless ones like it in the linked page is that Holding was using them in a quixotic effort to defend the idea that the so-called "James Ossuary" was actually the burial urn of the brother of Jesus. However, the ossuary was not the burial urn of Jesus' brother but was instead an ossuary with a forged inscription on it. The claim that the ossuary was genuine was highly questionable from the start, yet Holding ignored this and worked himself into a frenzy defending the ossuary as a genuine biblical artifact. What Brooks fails to mention is 1) the opponent, Saurhead, referred to me often as "JayPeeHolding" -- so one wonders who Brooks' fetish for excrement didn't kick in there; 2) Saurhead himself insulted credentialed experts in fields suited to know that arguments against authenticity were wrong (the carver, the geologist, and a gemologist) and neither he nor Brooks have any answers other than positing conspiracies and calling people incompetent. Here is a recent news article on the "James Ossuary." You have to register. Me, I don't check newspaper; I read Biblical Archaeology Review, where I am still waiting for information. Here are some comments about Farrell Till on my "defense" of the James Ossuary.

web.archive...http://www.tektonics.org/saurhead2.htm

"...I beat him to a pulp..." And I did. Note, please, how many of these come from the same "saurhead" page, by the way. Saurhead had decided he wanted a full riposte contest, and I gave him one. But Brooks won't show you all the insults Saurhead threw around.

http://www.tektonics.org/brooksbonked.html

"These guys, if they were plopped down in the ANE, would get a spear run through their guts because they offended everyone just asking where the bathroom was." And it's true. Brooks thinks Paine is a genius, but the guy's comment on taking your breeches and sandals off would have had a smuarai taking his head off in feudal Japan. The curse of the arrogant American.

web.archive...http://www.tektonics.org/saurhead2.htm

"You're nothing but a grease-stained, filthy, runny-nosed burger flipper at a fast food joint who rapes popular news articles for rumors and slander that give you cheap jollies." Which is exactly what Saurhead did. So what's the issue, Brooks? How about answering the "why" I gave for this?

web.archive...http://www.tektonics.org/saurhead2.htm

"No. I am expert with multi-dimensional thinking and also very good at detecting piles of smelly, reeking bulldada coming from the mouths of Saury little losers who use obfuscation to deceive the gullible and cover their embarrassment at having overstated their case and being caught at it...My brain ate yours, spat it out, kicked it around, blew it up with explosives, and scattered it to the four corners of the world." Poor baby, again. Nothing new needs to be said here.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?...

"Since you merely play psychology games of this sort, and have been exposed as a manipulator, it's little wonder I was able to get you sucked in. You're an amateur at this, Gargamel. Prison inmates are far better at it. Seeing through blatant manipulations, word games, and bluff assertions like the above are just another day at the office. Sorry -- a former fundy preacher who used the same tactics on himself to make excuses for problems he could not solve, is no match for JPH in the analysis department." And he isn't. Case closed.

http://web.archive.org/...

"As far as the 'mind already made up' issue - that is absolutely correct! Hopefully, the whole reason the non-professional evangelist is wanting to witness is because he KNOWS JESUS CHRIST personally. Their mind IS made up - and why else would you witness?!? The personal experience of Christ is so much more convincing than academic and intellectual discussions!" Oops. Poor Brooks. He's the second one to fall for this one. It was written FOR me by Glenn Miller, who edited the article in question.

http://christianwebsite.com/...CWS Talk! > The Lobby > Open Forum > John 1:18

"I like the analogy of myself to a hurricane..." I guess Brooks has serious issues with the University of Miami too.

"Sweet stuff. Hits the nail right on your head. :D Incidentally with over 800 articles on my site, over 1500 books read, my 'armchair' is one of those types made of oxblood leather; in the meantime, ye who sit on the stool in your undershirt burping and spilling potato chips on the floor hasn't got your first credit." Again, why Brooks thinks this is "illuminating" is a mystery. The scholarship of the average such as Brooks is below potato chip level.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s...

"You did lie, if you said what you said you did, and if you don't want to be called one, don't misrepresent my position." So what's "illuminating" here? Someone let me know. I caught a man in a barefaced lie, and did so multiple times. Brookee's only comment:

comment: Hypocrisy alert. Um hm. But he's not too good at finding "lies" by me, is he?

web.archive...http://www.tektonics.org/saurhead2.htm

"It's been demonstrated at every turn, corner, square, circle, and moment that all you do is mouth off in ignorance, picking and choosing reports you like and then concocting rationalized defenses and shifting burdens of proof to save your bacon."

comment: Hypocrisy alert. comment: Uh, yeah, whatever. Non-example alert.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s...

"I am finding you an extraordinary waste of otherwise productive time. Loaded questions like 'Are you acknowledging defeat?' are transparent manipulation attempts by you, and, along with postures like 'that's not in the Bible, bah' make you an opponent unworthy of someone of my caliber."

comment: As you can see, Holding is quite impressed with himself and is happy to let people know it. comment: Never mind who the opponent was, Brooks would think this a problem if I were debating a rock. As you can see, Brooks is quite immersed in problems with self-esteem and is happy to cry and whine about it. Of course he thinks comments like "that's not in the Bible" are top notch, as are coloring books.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?...

Islamic Gorilla: "Scholarly argument? I haven't seen you actually make any yet."

Holding: "No need to unsheath any real weapons here when all there are is ants to step on." Ditto.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php...

"I took Brooks Trubee to heck and back and laid him out like a gutted fish on this one ages ago." Ditto. I did this. Next?

question: "Would you go on war raids with specific orders to kill women and children?"

Holding: "Yup. Pass me my Hackenstabber 3 Iron, boy." All the answer Brooks deserved for his non-argument "preaching". See here.

web.archive...http://www.tektonics.org/saurhead2.htm

"It's also a debate where you're being slammed, hammered, beaten to a pulp, whipped, canned, processed, poured out, and horribly mutilated." Isn't that sad. Don't read the inscriptions of Ramses III, whatever you do.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s...