This Blog's purpose is to draw the attention of search engines so that people can come here and find out about J.P. Holding (a.k.a. Robert Turkle) for themselves. This will be a clearing house of sorts, with links to his tactics and views. Some of the best links can be found under his picture. It will be updated periodically as time permits and as new sites are found.
This Blog is not attacking him and his views because he is so effective (as he will deceptively claim). It is to alert unsuspecting Christians who may consider contributing to him, quoting from him, or looking for his approval. He's not worth it. He riles atheists and agnostics because he is an obnoxious know-it-all who treats those who disagree with distain. He's spread his cancerous type of Christianity over at Theology Web, which he says is his "exclusive place to debate". Any skeptic who dares to challenge his views there will not be able to take the ridicule and abuse he and his followers heap on them. It will not be a free discussion of the ideas. Expect to be mocked. This is his version of Christianity at its best, and it's very ugly. You will feel as though you're back in High School trying to carry on a reasonable discussion with a gang of adolescents who don't care, but who mimic their hero J.P. Holding. And Holding likes it this way, because then he doesn't really have to deal with the opposing arguments.
Chris Hallquist responds to J.P. Holding here. Hallquist said, "The consensus seemed to be that he was an arrogant, inflammatory, buffoon, not worth taking seriously. I think Matthew in particular nailed him on his ridiculous attempts to belittle the intelligence of scholars who specialize in ancient history/Biblical scholarship, when Holding only has a degree in library science." And then, "Holding has demonstrated that he simply cannot be trusted to accurately represent his sources."
Matthew Green writes off J.P. Holding here. Matthew says, "My friends, I am sorry I defended Holding. My opinion of him now is that he is an arrogant spin-doctor of questionable honesty who enjoys insulting people and arrogantly scoffing at those who disagrees with him. I cannot believe that I even wrote a response to a blog post on here trying to defend him by asking blog members on here not to take him so seriously. I would like to offer a bit of friendly advice to people here: don't take him seriously at all. He's a sad joke!"
J.P. Holding's dishonesty is exposed here. There we read, "Robert Turkel uses a number of deceptive and dishonest rhetorical tactics in his efforts to "win" religious debates. Among other things, Turkel will make up answers off the top of his head; he will hide damaging information from his readers; he will take another person's argument, make a caricature of it, and attack the other person on the basis of his misrepresentation; he will distort and misrepresent the writings of scholars and historians to support his position, he will use insults to minimize those who disagree with him (see here); he will employ insults and bluster to dodge troublesome questions; he will respond to questions with questions; he will make unreasonable demands in exchange for answering a question or questions that he does not want to answer; he will rewrite his responses in debates after the other person has already responded; he will claim to have answered a question or to have addressed an issue when in fact he has not; and so on and so forth. Not all of these actions are blatantly dishonest-but many of them are and all of them, taken together, reveal a basic dishonesty in his approach to discussion and debate."
Jim Lippard points out J.P. Holding's dishonesty here. He says, "In Turkel's response to "The Jury Is In," he criticizes me on the basis of arguments I never made, writing that I "botched" three points. I pointed out that I hadn't made those arguments, but rather a different argument that he doesn't address." Then after a response from Holding Lippard says, "He still doesn't get it. No, I don't mean he misunderstood my arguments, I mean he mistakenly attributed statements to me which I did not author and which were not attributed to me by Robby Berry--the error is Turkel's, but it's unlikely he'll ever own up to it, since he doesn't care."
Keith Parsons replies to J.P Holding here. He says, "Apparently, attacking a straw man whenever he pleases is a convenience that Mr. Holding likes to take advantage of."
Farrell Till responds to J.P Holding here, and here, and here. Till says this of Holding: "He has a habit of either removing or revising articles after errors in them have been exposed or he has been caught with his pants down on some issue."
Kyle Gerkin responds to J.P Holding here. Gerkins writes, "Holding starts out with ad hominem attacks, lampooning me as an author in an effort to denigrate my credibility. These are cheap rhetorical tricks, that have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the propositions laid out in my article. This is certainly not the tone of an objective analysis."
Brian Holtz responds to J.P. Holding here. Holtz wrote: "In our debate over the Trilemma (that Jesus was liar, lunatic, or lord), Robert Turkel's latest response to me contained no less than 137 polemical blunders, each categorized and separately identified below...."
G.A. Wells responds to J.P. Holding here. He wrote, "Most of Holding's article is devoted to appraisal of the pagan and Jewish testimony to Jesus. This is not, and never has been, my position." And he says, "Holding begins his criticisms, as do many of my critics, by questioning my qualifications to say anything on the subject at all. His final dismissal of my views as "the result of a fallen and sinful human nature, and nothing more" is just childish. His case is not improved by his accusations of "outright misrepresentation to get round the evidence", of ignoring "a great deal" of it, and of treating what is left "most unfairly". Characterization of me as "a measly professor of German spouting balderdash dug up from old books by F.C. Baur" well illustrates the abusive and vituperative material that dominates these responses. One cannot expect to find much in such writing that is worthy of serious attention..."
Richard Carrier responds to J.P. Holding here. In response to Holding's argument Carrier says this, "Holding does not make any effort to answer these questions even vaguely. Thus, his conclusion can only be vaguely certain at best." In responding to Holdings' counter argument, Carrier says, "Most of Holding's criticisms worth responding to are not important enough to warrant emending the text of my critique. Rather than identifying actual errors of fact or critical omissions that significantly affect my arguments, or clear flaws in my reasoning or manner of expression, most responses amount to an unjustified misunderstanding of what I actually wrote, or new groundless assertions or even outright false claims."
See also here as well.