Friday, October 13, 2017

New Ministry: Apologetics Afield

Update: The goal for the ministry has been met. Thank you!

**


As some of you are aware, I formally closed down Tekton as a 501(c)(3) organization in 2016. The reason I did this will be discussed later and elsewhere. However, the close-down fit well into plans I had anyway, and allowed me to begin a new ministry devoted to something I have had a heart for, for a long time: Bringing apologetics to the mission field. 

As I explain in the 2018 Ministry Manifesto, Tekton’s old missions have been split into two parts. In formal terms, my writing of ebooks (and production of audio books), and the production of videos, are now strictly personal pursuits. There are ways to support those missions, but they do not involve tax-deductible donations.

The other aspects of the former Tekton mission, have been subsumed by a new ministry I have named Apologetics Afield. Unlike Tekton, Apologetics Afield will have no online presence and will not publish anything, other than a blog which may be found linked below. This blog announces specific projects of Apologetics Afield and specifies fundraising for those projects. It has not published, and will not publish, anything else or anywhere else. 

The goal of Apologetics Afield will be to go on apologetics “missions” in the field. This will include such things are the apologetics boot camp for youth, but it also will include ventures to churches and other organizations out in the field, whether within America or (eventually) overseas. 

For 2018, we have fixed a commitment to visit a church in Philadelphia associated with an Indonesian fellowship I regularly attend, and I plan to add at least one more such event before the end of the ministry year. I have instituted a fundraising goal of $4,000 for the coming ministry year; as of this writing, between pledges and gifts, that goal has been met about halfway.

If you’d like to assist in the meeting of this goal, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the Apologetics Afield ministry via the link found at


Friday, September 15, 2017

Irma Postmortem

I appreciate the many concerned contacts and questions from those who ask how things went for us with Hurricane Irma. Here's the sum of it.


By the time Irma reached us, it had been significantly weakened by its trip over land and by an influx of dry air (in hurricane terms, cyanide) from the west. The south half of the storm virtually disappeared as a hurricane. The ragged remnants of the north eye wall went right over us, but by then much of its force had been spent.


Our home suffered no damage. The only sign on our property that the storm had passed was that several of our trees had lost many of their leaves, and one oleander in the back lost a limb.


Our power went out at 9:50 PM on Sunday night and was restored around 5 PM on Tuesday. I'm not sure why it was restored so quickly, but it may have to do with our proximity to two major east-west thoroughfares and a hospital.


Since I had no idea how long power might be out, I elected to find us a cheap but clean dog-friendly motel to stay in the next two nights. My thought had been that if we had to be away longer, I'd look for a place where I could set up shop and still do work. It proved unnecessary. Irma personally cost us maybe $200 in motel rates and food purchases in the end.


Orlando as a whole was not as seriously affected by the storm as locations you will see in the news like Naples and Fort Myers. There is no massive scale of suffering here. A few low-lying areas are flooded; none are near me. Lakes and ponds that had been nearly dry in May due to a drought are now full or near overflowing. Some 15-20% of my county (Orange) remained without power as of last night. Many gas stations are closed, but fuel is available if you don't mind waiting a few minutes behind 1-2 people. (Having a Prius is a good feeling at times like this.)


Grocery stores are short on a few necessities like bread and milk, but only the crowd addicted to caviar and crème fresh is "suffering" for this lack. A fair number of volunteers are stepping up to serve those in need. Ice is also hard to get; we helped one of Mrs. H's co-workers by freezing some water in gallon bags for them. Cocoa's favorite park for a walk was closed because of trees being down.


The sum of it is, Irma was an inconvenience here for us personally, not a disaster. I encourage you to give to help those in need in other areas.


I have some major news upcoming, and this blog will next be updated when I have that news ready. In the meantime, I will post on the Christian CADRE blog when I have something to write about.













Friday, September 8, 2017

The Hurricane and the Trollstorm

I’m in the Cone of Doom for Hurricane Irma here in Central Florida; it’s probably about the 10th time in my life I’ve been in that range for a hurricane, and this is probably the 40th time in my life I’ve experienced the dance that goes with one of these. Such are the perils of Florida nativehood and residence. But today I want to mention another associated peril that isn’t life-threatening, although it rates as high on the Saffir-Simpson scale as Irma does. I’m talking about long-winded blowhard fundamentalist and fundamentalist-atheist trolls.

Every time we get a hurricane, you see members of this crowd show up in the comments section of news stories. On the fundamentalist side, you’ll get the loonies who say that we’re getting hit with this thing because we approved gay marriage, or because we voted for Donald Trump, or because we let the Seminole Indians open bingo parlors. On the fundy atheist side, you’ll get the crackpot troll who savages each and any expression of prayer by taking a few moments of his valuable time to copy and paste (mentally, if not actually) an extended rant about how your sky daddy isn’t going to save you from a Category 5.

These two pests are two sides of the same coin. They’re both immature trolls with a theology that wouldn’t pass muster in a pre-K setting. They also clearly need something better to do, because they’re spending too much time evangelizing for their cause, and they’re doing it in a way that’s not much different than the guy with the Chick tract whose initial friendly greeting to you is, “Hello, do you realize you’re going to hell?”

They also have this in common: They’re both too dense to see why they are trolls. The fundy thinks he’s helping save you from Satan. The fundy atheist thinks he’s helping save you from spiritual immaturity (and in some cases, from voting for Trump again in 2020). You have to ask yourself why they bother. The likely answer is that they are vultures who are far too concerned with inserting ideology into every discussion, no matter how inappropriate it may be in context. These are guys who would make tactless rats of themselves in a funeral parlor, to the point of slipping the latest Jack Chick or Dan Barker tract into the casket at the viewing, just in case.

Anyway, with the current forecast, I expect to be out of power for at least a day or two; so if you don’t hear from me next week, there’s a good reason for it.

I’m out hunting trolls.

Friday, August 11, 2017

Tracking the Ten Year Turkel Trap



Yesterday, a milestone was reached. It has been more than 10 years since I legally changed my name to James Patrick Holding. And yesterday, a fundy atheist on TheologyWeb called me by my old name, Robert Turkel. After more than ten years.

I have a thread started on TheologyWeb about this. An original version of the thread was lost when TWeb crashed; but the idea was to keep track of fundy atheists and others who refused to acknowledge the change.


After the change in July 2007, I started a thread with a poll with this question and options:


How long will fundy atheists continue calling me by my old name?


One year


5 years


10 years


Farrell Till will still be calling me “Turkel” in hell

At the time, I figured the last two were a joke. Now it looks like the last option is as much reality TV as Live PD.

Why fundy atheists persist in this foolishness is anyone’s guess. One suggestion made on TWeb is this one:

I'm pretty sure the main reason they do it is because "Turkel" makes 10-year-olds giggle.

That’s probably true. I also expect that some of these people who can’t go of “Turkel” are mentally ill and can’t handle change; or, they keep using it because they think it bothers me. It’s all the more ironic because James Patrick Holding was actually my name at birth. It’s “Robert Turkel” who is the intruder, so to speak.

So then! In observation of this milestone, here’s an edited re-release of something I wrote back in July 2007 to celebrate the name change. It’s funny how much of it still applies today.

**


Warning: Heavily Sarcastic Content Ahead.

The loud thumps you hear at selected spots across the country are the sound of people like John Till, Brooks Trubee, Brian Holtz, and other cartoon-character Skeptics I have sliced and diced over the years, falling to the ground after having coronaries.
Why? Because they just lost their best (and in some cases, only) "argument" against myself and this ministry.

About a decade ago when I logged myself online as a writer with the Christian Apologetics Bookshelf, I decided that it would be a good idea, for the sake of personal safety (not from Skeptics, who are almost uniformly 98 pound wimps, but from released prison inmates I formerly worked with, to make use of a writing psuedonym. It didn't take long to decide what to use, because it was the name I was born with. 

Yes, the name I was born with. Not that it's anyone's business, especially not the business of gutter-sweeping atheists like the above who spell "scholarship" with a K, but that WAS the name I was given at birth, and I have the legal paperwork to prove it: The original Social Security card; a copy of the original birth certificate; the original, onionskin court order (dated 1969) changing my name from JPH to the other name as part of an inside-the-family adoption process. So for those whose minds are as bent as Acharya S and thought I was making it all up, choose your brand of mustard when you decide what foot you want to eat.

There are probably few who know or remember that it was John Till who first made an issue of this. He pretends that it was some great detective discovery he made; the fact is that I told him about the pseudonym issue myself, not knowing at the time that rather than being an honest person, he was in fact a pathetically self-righteous specimen still working out his frustrations over being laughed out of Catholic quarters of France…

But to the point of this item. Some time ago I proposed to make a legal change to my name, and that is now done. As of this morning (7/3/07) the paperwork is approved by a judge and filed away in my county clerk's office. The free ride for the pedantic, loser-for-life crowd is over now, and they're all going to have to pay the piper for their own prior pedantry in which they figured they could avoid some heavy reading and research by just using the pseudo-who-nanny-nanny-boo-boo as a substitute for substance. They'll either have to change all their articles (Till will likely go to his grave doing the editing, unless he burns his cortical motors off trying to figure out how to do a universal search and replace command), or else look bigger fools than they do now refusing to acknowledge it (which many may not mind anyway, being as insensate to their own foolishness as they are). Then they'll have to do some real arguing for a change, and which of those will be harder for that kiddie keptic crowd is hard to say.

My reasons for the change are partly professional, partly personal. There is the matter of that I am so well known as JPH that it makes good sense to make the legal change. On a more personal level, I have lately rediscovered some family heritage that has motivated the change as a way of honoring lost relations I never knew, but now wish I had discovered and known earlier. Suffice to say that I was not the first Holding to be interested in apologetics. (I also wasn't the first with an artistic bent, but that's another matter.).

But anyway, now that you guys have to abandon the name fetish, it's time to move on.

You heard me. Don't just sit there with your jaw hanging slack to the floor. Go.

Oh, there is one more thing....

I'm thinking of using the other name from now on as a writing pseudonym.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Incurious Apostates

This past week I issued an updated version of part of my past book on the so-called "Jesus Myth" (the thesis that Jesus did not exist, not even as a person on Earth). The focus of the update was references to Jesus in extra-biblical sources like Josephus and Tacitus. 

The update reminded me that one of my chief gauges for whether an atheist is worth any serious attention is their treatment of the reference to Jesus in Tacitus' Annals. I don't think I'm overstating it when I say that my discussion of this reference is the most thorough out there from the perspective of debunking the Jesus Myth thesis. I pulled in works of multiple Tacitean scholars (Syme, Ash, Mendell, etc.) as well as Christian scholars, and I scoured atheist works for any and all arguments I could find. I also keep up on any new ones, if any pop up.

So, whenever I pick up a book by an atheist that I need to review, I immediately turn to the index (or use an online search method) to see what they have to say about Tacitus. That gives me an idea whether to expect a volume worthy of at least some respect, or something better suited for rolling on to a cardboard tube.

By way of example, John Loftus has been giving props to an atheist work by an author named David Chumney, titled Jesus Eclipsed. Now on first glance, this Chumney doesn't seem like your garden variety fundy atheist. Yes, he's an apostate minister, but he was a minister in the Presbyterian church for 30 years. So in that time, you'd think he'd have picked up some notion of how to do things the right way. Right?

Wrong.

 Here's a screenshot of his ENTIRE analysis of Tacitus' reference to Jesus, plus a list of the sources he uses. (It does not include background information Chumney provides, like the quote itself.)



To say this was a pathetic treatment of the issue would be too kind. The two arguments Chumney gives -- that Jesus is called "Christ" and not "Jesus," and that Tacitus based his report on what Christians said -- have been repeatedly debunked; France's assessment is NOT shared by anyone with any level of expertise on Tacitus; Tacitean scholars do NOT regard Tacitus as someone who would be that blase' about his sourcework. Chumney has no sources from Tacitean scholarship. This is a botch job of the worst order, but it is apparently the best Chumney can do on this subject.

So, why is that the case? Is Chumney lazy? Ignorant? Incompetent? A victim of confirmation bias? All of the above? I have no idea, but I do know that anyone who descends to this level of incompetence does not deserve serious attention. Chumney and other atheists/apostates grind out this sort of stuff like clockwork, and in turn it is vacuously promoted by the likes of Loftus. Why? Do they not know or care how this makes them look? Do they not realize that it makes them look as incurious and as uneducated as the Christians they so happily depict as 24/7 Homer Simpson headslap performers?

Maybe it doesn't matter to them as long as they can continue sell their books to each other and sit in their ever-growing circle of mutual high fivers.