James P. Holding:
I can not confirm or
deny that!
Part 3.
[Intro][part 1] [part 2] part
3
Here is my response to JPH's
3rd response. I was hoping James Patrick Holding (JPH) would debate
me in public on this topic, but it appears that JPH was not confident enough
and refused to debate. Although, Doug Beaumont of souldevice.org did have the
courage to debate, and filled the void left by JPH. Click here for the debate:
Nadir Ahmed vs. Doug Beaumont Debate Biblical Morality
Thus far, James P. Holding has been running around like a chicken with
his head cut off. This debate, has gone on far too long. JPH should just do the
right thing, and admit that Girls Gone
Wild or MTV Spring Break falls
well within the confines of Biblical morality. The Bible does not condemn this
lifestyle at all. But rather than admitting the obvious truth, he has decided
to raise tons and tons of ridiculous arguments, in which I have to chase after
them and correct them. This cat and mouse game has taken up a lot of paper and
is becoming a burden on those have to read all of this. But, perhaps, this is
his strategy? Because he knows he can not win, so he has decided to engage in a
war of attrition, and drag this relatively simple debate into a quagmire.
JPH has also raised some questions to challenge Islam, which I fully
welcome. This will provide an excellent opportunity to demonstrate how Islam
answers today’s issues, and clearly condemns Girls Gone Wild lifestyle.
Here are my responses to JPH:
Answering James P.
Holding’s challenging questions on Islam
I have asked some very simple
straight forward questions to him, and he has refused to answer my questions
with clear answers. A lot of paper and writing has been exhausted in an attempt
to corner JPH with these real-time issues, but JPH has been ducking and dodging
them all through out. Rather, he has been spinng intellectual webs out of thin
air, which can not be applied and has no real meaning. My challenge stated:
So, what was JPH’s response? He stated:
"bare breasts are not
considered immodest in Toga Toga," but before using that as a starter to
get bare breasts going as an American fad, please note that in Toga Toga, it
may be that bare breasts are not immodest because the Toga Togans possess moral
and sexual restraint that we do not; or that immodesty may be found in some
other activity.
Response:
Who cares? Notice how this response does not even begin to address my challenges. This response will never tell you how low your neckline is supposed to be according to Jesus. Or how high/low your skirt has to be. This will not tell you what you can or can not buy at
the gap.com, abercrombie.com, J.Crew, or BannanaRepublic.com.
Therefore, JPH has clearly evaded my challenges. How can he even begin to
condemn Girls Gone Wild when he can’t
even tell us what clothing is right and wrong according to Jesus? From the
onset, JPH has maintained one consistent position regarding any piece of
clothing I ask him to comment on, which is:
I can not
confirm or deny that!
And what the hec does he mean by “moral restraint”? When people watch Girls Gone Wild commercials on TV, or MTV spring break, the vast majority of
humans have restraint. They don’t commit rape or find the first hooker and have
sex with her. This is more meaningless theoretical nonsense from JPH. Don’t be
fooled into thinking JPH addressed my challenges.
JPH stated:
but it has already been made clear
that if any problem exists -- with Spears, or Janet, or even Don Knotts -- it
would have to do with a) them knowing
by what means they may dress or act to provoke licentiousness among their
fellow citizens; b) then deliberately
dressing or acting that specific way. How hard is this to figure?
Response:
The problem is not it being hard to figure out, but rather, hard to
stomach. I am going to assume that licentiousness is referring to sexual
excitement. There are problems with this canard, which I will expose here:
Therefore, it should be clear that basing women’s dressing on “fellow
citizens” libido is an absurd theory, and the Bible does not teach this.
JPH wrote:
Not being aware of this reflects
rather poorly on Mr. Ahmed's grasp of the philosophy of ethics, as he cannot
even figure out how one figures "how much cleavage you can show according to Jesus".
Poor Mr. Ahmed's conundrum is the inevitable result of diversity meeting with
bigotry; if he cannot conceive of a society like Toga Toga, in which no amount
of shown cleavage will be taken as sexual license; or to the opposite extreme,
a society so concerned to control sexuality that women must be kept in homes
constantly and covered completely when outside, not even being able to show
more than a single eye, then he simply needs more cultural education. As it is
he shows all the cultural tolerance of certain atheists we have known.
Response:
JPH has avoided answering my question, which is highlighted in
yellow. Rather, he began to engage in
an ad homonym attack against me. But, I can be the worst un-diverse, bigoted
person in the world, but that still won’t answer the question. Again, this is
some more of JPH’s:
I
can not confirm that or deny that!
The reason why JPH refused to answer this question, is because he does
not want you to know what the Bible’s position on this is. The truth is, the
Bible does not condemn a woman for displaying a large amount of cleavage, or
anything else for that matter. This type of clothing falls well within the
confines of Biblical morality. Therefore, the Girls Gone Wild lifestyle is not condemned by Jesus. A Christian
may freely engage in as much of this lifestyle has he wants.
Furthermore, JPH’s has kept dead silent on the question of “how much
physical contact is permitted between men and women”. As I have pointed out,
the Bible only condemns sexual intercourse, but all other kinds of physical
contacts are permissible, use your imagination.
Therefore, there can be no doubt, that the Girls Gone Wild falls well within the confines of Biblical Morality.
The Girls Gone Wild lifestyle is the
Bible’s major marketing tool. This party life awaits you if you bow down and
accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Will you let him into your heart today?
JPH wrote:
Mr. Ahmed asks, "Why did you
exclude Britney Spears?????????????" I dealt with Spears rather earlier
when I noted the difference in intention
Response:
Again? I have already stated here, that the issue of judging intentions behind the actions is not Biblical,
but rather, this idea is borrowed from Islam. JPH then stated, that according
to his personal opinion, it is common sense, therefore, he can make it to be a
Biblical teaching, even though the Bible does not teach it.
But in reality, this Islamic teaching can create a lot of controversy.
For example, for those who believe in original sin this would cause a problem,
because a child can not be born sinful because if he did not have the intention
to sin. Thus a human can not be held accountable for committing a sin, without
a intention.
But, the problem gets a lot worse. Because there are MANY intentions
which are not sinful as to why a person would dress like Britney Spears, here
are just some of these intentions:
JPH is not going to condemn any of these intentions as being sinful.
Therefore, by James Patrick Holding’s own admission, it is ok to dress like
Britney Spears.
Now let’s say that a Britney Spears decides to dress this way to incite
“lust” in men. As I have already pointed out in this article,
lust in the Bible only means to desire something which does not belong to you.
A man can desire a woman without thinking of sex. Every half way decent looking
woman is going to cause a man to “lust” after her by simply saying, “Hi, nice
to meet you.” Therefore, if any and every woman incites lust in men, then why
do we discriminate against Britney Spears, when she is not guilty of anything
else other than what all woman are guilty of according to the Bible?
THAT’S
HYPOCRISY.
And this type of discrimination and abuse of women needs to come to and
end. Therefore, Britney Spears incites lust just like any other woman in the
world, no matter how conservative they are.
JPH wrote:
Mr. Ahmed also blindsidedly misses
the point (using indeed partial quoting) that Galatians 5:20 is not used by me
as a direct address to modern drugs, but a verse which, using common sense,
takes its application to that day's sorcery, and realizes that the purpose of
it, being much the same (to induce an altered state of consciousness) has
direct application to today's use of cocaine, etc
Response:
This is not “common sense”, but a complete fabrication. JPH baselessly
asserted that pharmakeia leads to an “altered state of
consciousness”, and this is one of the reasons why the Bible authors condemned
it. There is no evidence for this concoction of JPH. This only shows that he is
desperate. But if JPH can simply make up stuff, then so can
“Pharmakeia, the purpose of it, is to bring
wealth to an individual. And because pharmakeia brings wealth to people, the
Bible authors condemned it for this reason. Therefore, a direct application to
today’s business world is that anything which causes wealth is condemned.”
Now of course, this type of reasoning is absurd. But this is JPH’s
reasoning. The truth is, there are several reasons we can hypothesize as to
what pharmakeia would bring to an individual.
Therefore, the Bible does not condemn drugs use like marijuana, or cocaine, so
long as you do not go over board with it. But the Islam clearly condemns drug
use as I documented in my references.
I Therefore, the question begs: How can a false religion condemn one of
Satan’s greatest vices, while God’s true religion, does not condemn it, making
it permissible? That is outrageous nonsense. Rather it should be the other way
around, it is God’s true religion which condemns drugs, while Satan’s religion
does not condemn it. Therefore, from this debate, it has been proven, that when
it comes to Islam and Christianity, Islam is indeed the true religion.
In conclusion, I don’t believe there is any need to respond to the rest
of JPH’s rants, as they are quite irrelevant.