J P Holding Talks About Us

[webmdave]

This is interesting: http://www.equip.org/free/JAW220.htm

[Japedo]

 

From the Article:

 

Those persons who wear their “ex-Christianity” on their sleeve pose a serious challenge to Christian evangelists. If we present the truth in love, and it is rejected with open hostility or even profane derision, there will come a point after which we are obliged to heed Jesus’ counsel to shake the dust from our feet and move on (Mark 6:11). We may keep a door open for later discussion, but Jesus clearly indicates that we are not required to indulge those who harbor irrational resentment at the expense of those who seek honest intellectual resolution.

 

 

 

and just WTF is the "Truth" I wonder? If people are hostile toward the Christ cult, its not because we fear the truth, it's because their version of the truth/faith is so warped and twisted it makes no sense to the simplest of rational thinkers. When, Oh when will they understand that Faith doesn't equal Truth? One can not have the same creditability as the other. I really hold objection to the fact that ex-Christians maybe a little to emotional there for Christians don't have to indulge debate. The real reason for this is the Christians will get their ass handed to them on a gold platter time and time again, their " Faith/Truth" doesn't hold up to scrutiny and should be mocked and ridiculed accordingly. Until these people can tell the difference between "faith" and truth, their will be no honest intellectual discussion on the matter.

[Vigile]

and just WTF is the "Truth" I wonder? If people are hostile toward the Christ cult, its not because we fear the truth, it's because their version of the truth/faith is so warped and twisted it makes no sense to the simplest of rational thinkers. When, Oh when will they understand that Faith doesn't equal Truth? One can not have the same creditability as the other. I really hold objection to the fact that ex-Christians maybe a little to emotional there for Christians don't have to indulge debate. The real reason for this is the Christians will get their ass handed to them on a gold platter time and time again, their " Faith/Truth" doesn't hold up to scrutiny and should be mocked and ridiculed accordingly. Until these people can tell the difference between "faith" and truth, their will be no honest intellectual discussion on the matter.

 

You're just hostile because you were never really a committed xtian.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ouroboros]

Interesting article. Yet another arrogant know-it-all claiming he can solve the problems. All in the name of his personal religion. "All come to me, because I know the truth, and you don't!"

[Gobbler]

I know, that I know, that I know, that I know, it's true!!!!!! Because I know it in my heart!

[Mike D]

He considers it "unreasonable" to reject Christianity on the grounds that there's so many different religions in the world and so many different denominations of Christianity that disagree? I guess using that line of reasoning, if 5 different people report 5 different versions of being abducted by aliens it's reasonable to conclude one version is probably true

[Ouroboros]

Thanks Mike D. I was upset over that statement too.

 

It's not a bad argument, and he doesn't give a reason why he thinks it's bad! He only say "A person who cites diversity of religious faith as a reason for having no faith at all is merely cutting off his nose to spite his face." And I'd like to respond to him "Why?" (In a truly Asimov way I learned a lot from you Asimov. Hehe)

 

It's just as bad as the argument Descartes did for infinite regression of God has a God has a God... His answer was "it's ridiculous." Huh? If a logical argument is refuted by "it's ridiculous", then why can't I use that against the argument that God exists? "God Exists?" - "No, that's ridiculous."

 

-edit-

 

Another side to his thoughts about hostility, he never considered that some ex-christians hostility is a reaction to the hostility we get from Christians? It's just a defense mechanism. We didn't start the fight.

[Mike D]

Well actually I think the line that stood out the most to me was this:

 

The professing ex-Christian poses a significant challenge for the Christian evangelist, but it is a challenge that can be met successfully

 

Define "successful"? How many ex-Christians to they honestly think are going to go back?

[Ouroboros]

Define "successful"? How many ex-Christians to they honestly think are going to go back?

Do we know anyone that has gone back? I know a few (from this site) that did once, but the fell out again, fast. Isn't what we did the unforgivable sin? We're lost forever, so Christians ... Give it UP!

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

One final factor to consider, especially in our age of postmodern thought, is the presentation of religious diversity as a factor in deconversion. Ex-Christians may cite differing views of various Christian denominations as a reason for their dissatisfaction, reasoning that a body that does not have its own house in order certainly cannot be trusted to put others’ houses in order. On a larger scale, they may argue that humanity itself has too many differing religious orientations, making it more likely that none at all are correct.

 

This argument is problematic on many points; but we may illustrate its unreasonableness by appealing to an area in which the person who is making it is committed. If the person is a political activist, for example, we might point out that differing views between political parties, and even within parties, certainly should not compel someone to reject being a political activist or standing for a political cause in which he or she believes! In the final analysis, an argument like this is not a search for truth, but a case of surrendering because searching for the truth has proven to be more work than was desired. A person who cites diversity of religious faith as a reason for having no faith at all is merely cutting off his nose to spite his face.

 

 

Oooh, he'll have a big problem with me then. I've bounced around different

political philosophies over the years and concluded that something is wrong

to varying degrees with all of them. Unfortunately for this doofus, "none

of the above" is a valid choice, even in politics. And the part about us being

"lazy" in our "search for the truth"......exactly how many other religions has

this bloviating windbag actually studied? If he's like your typical christian,

he's studied all the christian arguments against other religions, but he

has probably never studied these other religions themselves.

[Kryten]

The line I find the hardest to believe is the last one (the signature).

 

I've read tons of crap from Robert Turkel (a.k.a. JP Holding) and this is niether his level or style. The editors must have cut out about half of the original article in order to make it less offensive and childish.

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

The line I find the hardest to believe is the last one (the signature).

 

I've read tons of crap from Robert Turkel (a.k.a. JP Holding) and this is niether his level or style. The editors must have cut out about half of the original article in order to make it less offensive and childish.

 

 

 

Maybe JP plagiarized this article from someone else....

[white_raven23]

Ooooh. That was smart! An article letting questioners of the faith know that not only are they not alone, but that there is easy to reach support available!

 

The intentions for articles like this so frequently backfire.....

 

Much in the way books that the fundies take issue with, somehow wind up becoming bestsellers.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

We will sometimes encounter ex-Christians who manifest extremist reactions toward those who present the gospel message.

 

Ha, he should try encountering gospel messengers when questioned about their faith, they used to kill you, now they just give "extremist reactions" called fundamentalism.

 

They may dismiss even sound or scholarly arguments as “excuses,” or as biased or insufficient, either without rational justification or with a preemptive ad hoc argument.

 

I have yet to see a sound or scholarly argument from a Christian regarding their religion. Their soundness and scholarliness is based upon faith alone. Science gives them the ammunition to compose something scholarly-yet they condemn science.

 

 

They may assume that their “liberation” is a sign of advanced reasoning skills, and thus presume themselves to be the intellectual superior of any person still in faith; thus, they automatically think a Christian will have nothing of value to say to them.

 

Ok, now he's talking about me. You want a war? You want a war!? I'll give you a war!? Gee, like I've never seen a Christian look down their nose at me.

 

This attitude manifests itself in a variety of ways. Some ex-Christians are openly hostile and gratuitously profane. Some become “anti-evangelists” who attempt to deconvert others.

 

And this isn't as bad as converting non or ex christians? Historically by any means necessary?

 

 

Those persons who wear their “ex-Christianity” on their sleeve pose a serious challenge to Christian evangelists.

 

Makes me want to get a T-Shirt that says XC on the sleeve, maybe a tattoo. Ok, Han and Dave lets see the merchandise link for XC.net

 

If we present the truth in love, and it is rejected with open hostility or even profane derision, there will come a point after which we are obliged to heed Jesus’ counsel to shake the dust from our feet and move on (Mark 6:11). We may keep a door open for later discussion, but Jesus clearly indicates that we are not required to indulge those who harbor irrational resentment at the expense of those who seek honest intellectual resolution.

 

Oh man, the things I could say...the stories I could tell about this happening the other way around. Like the Jehova's Witness who tried to strangle me...

 

I have never acted with open hostility towards a Christian. I'm all for letting them believe what they want, but when they start evangelizing to me, I'll de-evangelize right back.

[Guest Emerson]

the freedom I feel now compared to the prison i used to be under the christian umbrella, well let's just say that i'll never go back. i'm tired of being abused by religion and i like my freedom now, thank you very much. I rather like being a heathen.

[Ouroboros]

Makes me want to get a T-Shirt that says XC on the sleeve, maybe a tattoo. Ok, Han and Dave lets see the merchandise link for XC.net

http://www.cafepress.com/exchristian

(And it's not me on the picture. I don't have a sixpack, I have a kegg.)

[♦ nivek ♦]

Fer fucks sake folks...

 

CRI???

 

Cranial

 

Rectal

 

Inversion

 

 

Heads up their asses for JeeeeBuz!

 

from CRI: Those persons who wear their “ex-Christianity” on their sleeve pose a serious challenge to Christian evangelists. If we present the truth in love, and it is rejected with open hostility or even profane derision, there will come a point after which we are obliged to heed Jesus’ counsel to shake the dust from our feet and move on (Mark 6:11). We may keep a door open for later discussion, but Jesus clearly indicates that we are not required to indulge those who harbor irrational resentment at the expense of those who seek honest intellectual resolution.

 

In daFatman-ease, "If you can't re-baffle them with bullshit and make things all pretty with cool stories and hand tooled exotic leather bible covers, don't fuck with these pissants, they aint'a worth the time to try and impress!"

 

 

BuwHAHAHhahAHAAHHA!

 

Catch a Clue from the Clue Tree "Holding", no_one_cares_but_your_flock_of_scairedity_widdle_pissants.

 

k, fucking bad attitude today, L

[waynus]

I like the article. At least he has some idea of why people leave and that the number leaving is growing.

 

The anti-evangelist lines were also funny, almost like he could not understand how this could happen.

 

Maybe some time in the future Christians might be ready to see that not everyone who once chose Christ will continue with that choice for perfectly valid reasons?

 

Probably not.

[Padreko]

One final factor to consider, especially in our age of postmodern thought, is the presentation of religious diversity as a factor in deconversion. Ex-Christians may cite differing views of various Christian denominations as a reason for their dissatisfaction, reasoning that a body that does not have its own house in order certainly cannot be trusted to put others’ houses in order. On a larger scale, they may argue that humanity itself has too many differing religious orientations, making it more likely that none at all are correct.

 

This argument is problematic on many points; but we may illustrate its unreasonableness by appealing to an area in which the person who is making it is committed. If the person is a political activist, for example, we might point out that differing views between political parties, and even within parties, certainly should not compel someone to reject being a political activist or standing for a political cause in which he or she believes! In the final analysis, an argument like this is not a search for truth, but a case of surrendering because searching for the truth has proven to be more work than was desired. A person who cites diversity of religious faith as a reason for having no faith at all is merely cutting off his nose to spite his face.

 

 

Oooh, he'll have a big problem with me then. I've bounced around different

political philosophies over the years and concluded that something is wrong

to varying degrees with all of them. Unfortunately for this doofus, "none

of the above" is a valid choice, even in politics. And the part about us being

"lazy" in our "search for the truth"......exactly how many other religions has

this bloviating windbag actually studied? If he's like your typical christian,

he's studied all the christian arguments against other religions, but he

has probably never studied these other religions themselves.

 

 

Damn, you got to this before me :*( lol....

 

Honestly, I hate it when people compare apples to oranges. Choosing a political party is nothing like choosing a religion. The obvious different is the fact that religions are retarded and political parties are not. The set of beliefs one has in a political party has some reasoning behind them, regardless of whether they're good or not. In a religion you just believe what some self-appointed Cough douchebag Cough, I mean prophet or psyco preacher tells you to believe and give them your money. It has no bearing on public relations with neighboring countries, new laws, school funding, or taxes - things that are IN REALITY affect you.

 

I feel like that is a perfect stance for someone to take against religion : he still doens't anwer the key questionin that argument, how do you know which one to pick?

I'll tell you the answer: the one that makes the most fucking sense, none of them. Take a european history class and see how retared the christians where back in the dark/middle ages.

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

I feel like that is a perfect stance for someone to take against religion : he still doens't anwer the key questionin that argument, how do you know which one to pick?

 

You didn't really expect him to answer the question, did you? His argument was

an irrational red herring: "Which one do you pick?" "Oh, oh, you people are being

intellectually lazy for asking!!!"

 

 

I'll tell you the answer: the one that makes the most fucking sense, none of them. Take a european history class and see how retared the christians where back in the dark/middle ages.

 

I think most of them are still pretty damned retarded now.

[Open_Minded]

Two things caught my eye:

 

...and the sort of intellectual problems these persons faced, as related in exemplary antitestimonies from the same Web site, reveal familiar questions....

 

Too bad he didn't read your exemplary antitestimonies in order to simply understand and let it be. But, hey, at least he acknowledged the quality of your writing.

 

And then there is the following disclaimer at the end of the piece....

 

1. The question of whether a Christian is “once saved, always saved,” and the salvation of purported Christians prior to their deconversion, is beyond the scope of this article.

 

 

I mean ... what is it with the literalists? WHY is that such an issue ... whether there can even BE an ex-Christian, or not. I've seen so many fundies come in here with that one. And all through the article I was thinking, well at least he's acknowledging the fact that there can indeed be an ex-Christian, or he wouldn't give two minutes to writing the article. And then ... I run into his disclaimer.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, why is the OSAS such an issue? I never had that problem myself when I was Christian. But my problem with them claiming that idea, is that it implies that I'm lying. Either about me being an ex-christian, or me once was a Christian. I don't respect people that call me a liar.

[Thurisaz]

I've read that article yesterday evening but didn't want to log back in just to post once in this thread, so...

 

...the usual bullshit babble, really. JP Halfbrain tiptoes around the issue most of the time, with the standard "they're wrong, they aren't lost, yadda blah yadda" lacking any real substance. Where he (by chance I trust...) happens to make a point, it's a standard PRATT.

 

In other words, just some more evidence why every ex-christian has made the right choice. At least inasmuch as halfbrain is supposed to represent True Christianity™.

[Bongo]

I went and read other articles on his site.

 

He sure thinks he knows a lot, and thinks he is very helpful. But his articles are all about as deep as a puddle. He likes to talk, but has little to say, and nothing at all new to contribute. All the old tired worthless apologetics.

 

--How we know Jesus was resurrected:

 

Blah blah blah, romans wouldn't have taken the body, jewish leadership wouldn't have taken the body, disciples wouldn't have taken the body and then died for a lie.blah blah blah.

 

How about this, Mr Answerman, the bible is bullshit, Jesus was a myth, and his disciples were too. Riddle me that one batman.

[Saviourmachine]

I found it an interesting article. If I was still a christian I could have written it myself I guess. Although I never was into "once a christian, always a christian" belief statement. Also interesting how he suggests to bring someone into the discussion that converted from a non-christian to a christian viewpoint. In general people that go to such a paradigm shift are more willing to accept another point of view. It depends however how committed they were to their previous world view. I went through two of these paradigm shifts. Fundamentally raised, bit by bit walking away from church, a very powerful conversion to christianity and a few years ago an entire deconversion to agnosticism. I don't think it would be easy "to get me back".

 

People overhere are in general not the "Minimal Investment" people he is talking about. Quite the opposite! I think one of the most important psychological observations I have done is that a christian in general is somebody of this "Minimal Investment" school. First I have to tell them what they should believe, and subsequently I'm ready to give objections. I have to tell them what genesis and the deluge means in a scientific way, and subsequently I've to say why these things are genetically and geologically almost unbelieveable. I have to tell them about differences and similarities with religions and to tell them which points in their belief are better, and which are worse. Who is reading Calvin, Augustine, Pascal? And they were the most famous christians ever!

 

I would like to add one "Subjective Objection": why is god so indifferent? I would rather like him to hate me and make that apparent to me, than having such a wonderful and almighty being there upstairs mocking and staring silently into nothing. I'm a social beast, I need to communicate. The reformed tradition I grew up, had terms for these episodes: being in the desert. Except for my overwhelming conversion experience and the usual "butterflies" in my belly when I pray or meditate, there is nothing. Is that the same being that created the intense emotion of pain or sexual satisfaction? I would like him to be more concrete! I would like to touch him.

 

Fuck you! Fuck sex!

I wanna know you god.

I wanna touch you god.

I wanna feel you with my hands.

I want you. I need you.

Or else I will forget you

without regret,

I pin you down on that!