Heelllooo reeaadderrs! If you look at Ed Babbelinski's mouth you'll notice it looks like it's decaying. There is a reason why he has a rotten mouth my friends (although he has fairly straight teeth) - it's because he likes to hack and argue just for the sake of arguing. He does this so much as a matter of fact, it has since riddled his mouth with gum disease, gingivitis, cavities, etc. As a matter of fact, we caught Ed Babbelinski hacking again. Since then, his stanky breath has not improved:

Ed Babbelinski: Mon, 04 Apr 2005

Cheers,
Edward T. Babinski (former born again Christian)

Frank Walton: Mon, 4 Apr 2005

Holding is an influence. We defend him against Farrell Till here: www.oocities.org/atheismsucks/farrelltillhasnoshame.htm

Thanks for visiting. Interesting website you have ;o)

FW

Ed Babbelinski: Tue, 05 Apr 2005

Thanks for writing.

But what's your major? I'm just curious.

And since atheism sucks, what about people who join other religions, or believe lots of different contrasting things about what the Bible "really says," since there are thousands of different Christian denominations and separate missionary organizations, including conservative, moderate and liberal scholars in each major denomination. Even Evangelical inerrantists can't agree on what the Bible teaches about these issues:

Books by InterVarsity Press:
Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialog
Four Views on Divine sovereignty and Human Freedom
Four Christian Views of Economics
Four Theologians Debate the Major Millennial Views
Women in Ministry: Four Views
Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views
Theologians and Philosophers Examine Four Approaches to War

Books by Zondervan Press, part of their Counterpoints Series:
Two Views on Women in Ministry
Three Views on the Rapture
Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond
Three Views on Creation and Evolution
Are Miraculous Gifts for Today: Four Views
Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and Canaanite Genocide
Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World
Four Views on the Book of Revelation
Four Views on Eternal Security
Four Views on Hell
Five Views of Law and Gospel
Five Views on Sanctification
Five Views on Apologetics

The Society of Christian Philosophers has also published a debate book: Contemporary Debate in the Philosophy of Religion (Section III. features debates between Christian/theistic philosophers on questions such as "Can Only One Religion Be True?" "Does God Take Risks in Governing the World?" "Does God Respond to Petitionary Prayer?" "Is Eternal Damnation Compatible with the Christian Concept of God?" "Is Morality Based on God’s Commands?" "Should a Christian Be a Mind–Body Dualist?" Concerning such questions, none of the Christian/theistic philosophers were convinced by the others' arguments.)

And lots of scholars who began their careers as fundamentalists grew more moderate, even liberal as they learned more. Even whole seminaries tend to grow more moderate and liberal. Calvin's college of Geneva was founded to teach Calvinism but two hundred years later it was run by devil denying Deists. Yale was founded due to the "theological excesses" of Harvard. The tale of Fuller Seminary is another. Even DTS is turning out graduates who doubt the numbers of the Exodus. And Westminster, which was founded due to the theological excesses of Princeton, is turning out graduates who get articles published in their own theological journal that admit the Biblical authors assumed the earth was flat and the tower of Babel never happened.

Folks like Bart Ehrman attended Wheaton, Billy Graham's alma mater, graduating with high honors, but look at Bart now and his popular New Testament textbook in its third edition, as well as his other writings and papers.

Or William Dever, who was the son of a fundamentalist preacher, and attended Bob Jones fundamentalist college and learned to resist Biblical critical ideas, yet in 1960 Dever continued his studies at Harvard and obtained a doctorate in Biblical theology. For thirty-five years he worked as an archaeologist, excavating in the Near East, and he is now professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona. In his book, What Did the Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, he writes, "While the Hebrew Bible in its present, heavily edited form cannot be taken at face value as history in the modern sense, it nevertheless contains much history." He adds: "After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible 'historical figures.'"

He writes of archaeological investigations of Moses and the Exodus as having been "discarded as a fruitless pursuit." He is not saying that the Biblical Moses was entirely mythical, though he does admit that "…the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the Biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region." About Leviticus and Numbers he writes that these are "clearly additions to the 'pre-history' by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the 'promised land,' and other literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying much less historical." Dever writes that "the whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term 'myth': perhaps 'historical fiction,' but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs."

Dever's conclusions about what archaeology tells us about the Bible are not very pleasing to fundamentalists or conservative Evangelicals, and I gather that Dever and his colleagues of high standing likewise dismiss fundamentalists and hard-core conservative Evangelicals who want to consider themselves scholars without accepting that which good scholars must do: engage in extensive critical analysis. Those testifying for Dever's book (on the back cover) are: Paul D. Hanson, Professor of Divinity and Old Testament at Harvard University; David Noel Freedman, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of Michigan; Philip M. King, Professor at Boston College and author of Jeremiah; William W. Hallo, Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature at Yale University; and Bernhard W. Anderson, Professor of Old Testament, Boston University and Professor Emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary. Like Dever, these are not a bunch of radical revisionists, but moderates in the field of Christian archeology. Dever's latest book is, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Conservative and fundamentalist Christians who interpret the Bible literally will gain no encouragement after reading it.

Frank Walton: Wed, 6 Apr 2005

Good luck,
Frank

Ed Babbelinski: Wed, 06 Apr 2005

Hmm, I wonder why you REALLY wrote us. *Sigh* honestly, Ed, many of the "questions" and "genuine" concerns you have have been dealt with at length. So, I'm not so sure how original my response to them would be. On the other hand, and with all due respect, the Intervarsity press books (not all of them are IVP some are Zondervan for your information - which makes me conclude you haven't even read all these books!) you cited don't all disagree with each other when it comes to fine biblical doctrines (what CS Lewis calls "mere Christianity"). True there are many differing views and what not but the same can go for atheism. I have yet to find two atheists who agree with each other on everything. Are they materialists? Or aren't they? Atheist Dr. Michael Martin believes that morality is absolute yet many atheists don't believe that. The very definition of atheism can't be defined among atheists either (whether it's a belief there is no God or a non-belief in God)! Anyway, I seriously doubt you wouldn't be able to find the answers to the hefty copying and pasting of these concerns you have. And if you found these answers dissatisfying, oh well... 'Til then I wholeheartedly believe that atheism sucks.

ED: I am not an atheist. I also distinguished which of the books I mentioned were IVP and which were Zondy below. But you never replied what type of Christian you were, what franchise, what you were studying. I don't even know your personal story of how you got involved with Christianity. My story is part of a collection of three dozen testimonies titled, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists, check amazon, or your local library, or inter-library loan desk.

I see people as people. Many prefer labels and feel lost without one. Maybe get attracted or absorbed with various philosophical ideas or by moving stories told my others. During my Christian years I read all of Lewis's theological books and fiction and nearly all of his essays as well; consumed about 30 works by Chesterton whom Lewis credits with showing him the way with The Everlasting Man. I also read two spiritual novels, and several short stories and sermons by Lewis's "spiritual mentor" George Macdonald, and read Charles Williams' spiritual novels and two theological works. I was a huge Inklings fan. I also ran across tonight, prior to even opening this email, another Lewis and Inklings fan, but who became an atheist: http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2005/04/leaving-fold-and-losing-faith-in-lewis.html

As for wishing me "good luck," I have met many compassionate people of different beliefs and faiths, and read many wonderful things in books other than the Bible, including books about the experiences of Christian monks who have fellowshiped with priests and monks of other religions. Dom Bede Griffiths, C. S. Lewis's lifelong friend comes to mind in this respect, because Griffiths set up a Christian-Hindu ashram in India and fellowshiped with people of other faiths for many decades and wrote about it in his books. I have also read about the history of Deism, and of Unitarian Christianity, and about famous Unitarian Christians who helped found the institution of modern nursing (Florence Nightingale) and the American Red Cross (Clara Barton). I have also read about the history and contributions of freethinking individuals both Christians and non-Christians throughout history. I have read about the debates between the "heretics" Castellio and John Calvin on the subject of "heresy/heretics;" and I have read the new book, Freethinkers : A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby that details the contributions of freethinkers to American society from the days of the Founding Fathers to today. I am long past fearing "hell for unbelievers," or, fearing what might happen to the world if everyone believed in evolution: http://intelligentdesign.edwardtbabinski.us/belief_evolution.html

Frank Walton: Wed, 6 Apr 2005

Ed Babbelinski: Fri, 08 Apr 2005

Here's our suggestions to Ed Babbelinski to freshen up his stanky mouth:
#1 - Don't speak until spoken to. That way, you can save your breath.
#2 - Stop asking repetitive questions you already know the answer to.
#3 - Quit changing the subject.
#4 - Take your opponent's word for it.
#5 - Realize that you need to brush your teeth after each meal.
#6 - Realize that you need to brush before and after you sleep.
#7 - Go see a dentist.

Frank Walton: Mon, 11 Apr 2005

*Sigh* Ed... Ed.... Ed.... Please, you're not even being honest with me. Besides, did you mean these original questions:

>>>Hi Frank and Friends, I was wondering, what college are you attending? What are your majors? What are your testimonies? Has J. P. Holding had a large or small influence on the style of apologetics you employ? <<<

Or these:

>>>And since atheism sucks, what about people who join other religions, or believe lots of different contrasting things about what the Bible "really says," since there are thousands of different Christian denominations and separate missionary organizations, including conservative, moderate and liberal scholars in each major denomination. Even Evangelical inerrantists can't agree on what the Bible teaches about these issues: Books by InterVarsity Press: Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialog Four Views on Divine sovereignty and Human Freedom Four Christian Views of Economics Four Theologians Debate the Major Millennial Views Women in Ministry: Four Views Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views Theologians and Philosophers Examine Four Approaches to War Books by Zondervan Press, part of their Counterpoints Series: Two Views on Women in Ministry Three Views on the Rapture Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond Three Views on Creation and Evolution Are Miraculous Gifts for Today: Four Views Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and Canaanite Genocide Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World Four Views on the Book of Revelation Four Views on Eternal Security Four Views on Hell Five Views of Law and Gospel Five Views on Sanctification Five Views on Apologetics The Society of Christian Philosophers has also published a debate book: Contemporary Debate in the Philosophy of Religion (Section III. features debates between Christian/theistic philosophers on questions such as "Can Only One Religion Be True?" "Does God Take Risks in Governing the World?" "Does God Respond to Petitionary Prayer?" "Is Eternal Damnation Compatible with the Christian Concept of God?" "Is Morality Based on God’s Commands?" "Should a Christian Be a Mind–Body Dualist?" Concerning such questions, none of the Christian/theistic philosophers were convinced by the others' arguments.) And lots of scholars who began their careers as fundamentalists grew more moderate, even liberal as they learned more. Even whole seminaries tend to grow more moderate and liberal. Calvin's college of Geneva was founded to teach Calvinism but two hundred years later it was run by devil denying Deists. Yale was founded due to the "theological excesses" of Harvard. The tale of Fuller Seminary is another. Even DTS is turning out graduates who doubt the numbers of the Exodus. And Westminster, which was founded due to the theological excesses of Princeton, is turning out graduates who get articles published in their own theological journal that admit the Biblical authors assumed the earth was flat and the tower of Babel never happened. Folks like Bart Ehrman attended Wheaton, Billy Graham's alma mater, graduating with high honors, but look at Bart now and his popular New Testament textbook in its third edition, as well as his other writings and papers. Or William Dever, who was the son of a fundamentalist preacher, and attended Bob Jones fundamentalist college and learned to resist Biblical critical ideas, yet in 1960 Dever continued his studies at Harvard and obtained a doctorate in Biblical theology. For thirty-five years he worked as an archaeologist, excavating in the Near East, and he is now professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona. In his book, What Did the Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, he writes, "While the Hebrew Bible in its present, heavily edited form cannot be taken at face value as history in the modern sense, it nevertheless contains much history." He adds: "After a century of exhaustive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible 'historical figures.'" He writes of archaeological investigations of Moses and the Exodus as having been "discarded as a fruitless pursuit." He is not saying that the Biblical Moses was entirely mythical, though he does admit that "…the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late13th century B.C., where many scholars think the Biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite region." About Leviticus and Numbers he writes that these are "clearly additions to the 'pre-history' by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the 'promised land,' and other literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying much less historical." Dever writes that "the whole 'Exodus-Conquest' cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term 'myth': perhaps 'historical fiction,' but tales told primarily to validate religious beliefs." Dever's conclusions about what archaeology tells us about the Bible are not very pleasing to fundamentalists or conservative Evangelicals, and I gather that Dever and his colleagues of high standing likewise dismiss fundamentalists and hard-core conservative Evangelicals who want to consider themselves scholars without accepting that which good scholars must do: engage in extensive critical analysis. Those testifying for Dever's book (on the back cover) are: Paul D. Hanson, Professor of Divinity and Old Testament at Harvard University; David Noel Freedman, Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at the University of Michigan; Philip M. King, Professor at Boston College and author of Jeremiah; William W. Hallo, Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature at Yale University; and Bernhard W. Anderson, Professor of Old Testament, Boston University and Professor Emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary. Like Dever, these are not a bunch of radical revisionists, but moderates in the field of Christian archeology. Dever's latest book is, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Conservative and fundamentalist Christians who interpret the Bible literally will gain no encouragement after reading it.<<<

Or even these:

>>>But you never replied what type of Christian you were, what franchise, what you were studying. I don't even know your personal story of how you got involved with Christianity. My story is part of a collection of three dozen testimonies titled, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists, check amazon, or your local library, or inter-library loan desk. I see people as people. Many prefer labels and feel lost without one. Maybe get attracted or absorbed with various philosophical ideas or by moving stories told my others. During my Christian years I read all of Lewis's theological books and fiction and nearly all of his essays as well; consumed about 30 works by Chesterton whom Lewis credits with showing him the way with The Everlasting Man. I also read two spiritual novels, and several short stories and sermons by Lewis's "spiritual mentor" George Macdonald, and read Charles Williams' spiritual novels and two theological works. I was a huge Inklings fan. I also ran across tonight, prior to even opening this email, another Lewis and Inklings fan, but who became an atheist: http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2005/04/leaving-fold-and-losing-faith-in-lewis.html As for wishing me "good luck," I have met many compassionate people of different beliefs and faiths, and read many wonderful things in books other than the Bible, including books about the experiences of Christian monks who have fellowshiped with priests and monks of other religions. Dom Bede Griffiths, C. S. Lewis's lifelong friend comes to mind in this respect, because Griffiths set up a Christian-Hindu ashram in India and fellowshiped with people of other faiths for many decades and wrote about it in his books. I have also read about the history of Deism, and of Unitarian Christianity, and about famous Unitarian Christians who helped found the institution of modern nursing (Florence Nightingale) and the American Red Cross (Clara Barton). I have also read about the history and contributions of freethinking individuals both Christians and non-Christians throughout history. I have read about the debates between the "heretics" Castellio and John Calvin on the subject of "heresy/heretics;" and I have read the new book, Freethinkers : A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby that details the contributions of freethinkers to American society from the days of the Founding Fathers to today. I am long past fearing "hell for unbelievers," or, fearing what might happen to the world if everyone believed in evolution: http://intelligentdesign.edwardtbabinski.us/belief_evolution.html<<<

If you mean the first e-mail you sent me why all the other e-mails? I mean, your third and fourth e-mails are nothing more than venting your concerns and frustrations that stray far from your first e-mail which was about who we were personally. I've answered some of your questions by the way. I didn't answer the others for the sake of keeping any cyber-stalking fascist non-Christians from finding any of us. Happy? Please, Ed, unload your anger on somebody else. Don't insult our intelligence and try to be more honest in your e-mails next time.

Always,

Frank

Ed Babbelinski: Mon, 11 Apr 2005

You needn't mention the college by name, but I am curious what general type of college it is, what general type of religiosity it might or might not be affiliated with, how conservative it is religiously speaking or not (I attended nothing but secular colleges myself when I was born again), and you could relate your testimonies without giving away any vital information as to your location(s), nor the names of other people involved.

As for myself, people know my testimony from Leaving the Fold, and they also know where I live and work, and twice people have shown up where I work to speak with me concerning my book, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. One time the edwardtbabinski.us website was attacked by a hacker who did some damage to the message board. So I agree there are some "stalking fascist" freaks out there, both Christian and non-Christian, and I am relieved that none have done me any physical harm. But you have a steadfast faith, so why shouldn't you exhibit yet more openness and less fear than I?

Mat 10:31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Isa 54:14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee.

Frank Walton: Tue, 12 Apr 2005

Still hacking away I see. Holding was right about you. I totally share his sentiments: "Well, here we go again. Ed Babinski never knows when to keep his mouth shut..." Yeah, I know you're concerned that he's an influence on me but he has you figured out like a children's puzzle. Trust me, he does. You may not know it because you're just plain angry at him... and me, too.

Ookkaaay! So NNOOOWW the purpose of your e-mails was about your first e-mail and not the other ones. I guess those other e-mails that had nothing to do with the subject at hand just slipped from your mind, huh? No surprise. After all what is mind but a biproduct of random matter mixed up in that thick head of yours. It's hard I know. But, being a Christian will definitely screw your head on right. Speaking of which, I seriously doubt you were a Christian to begin with. Who in their right mind would use verses Matt. 10:28, 10:31, and Is. 54:14 in the context you're using it? Last I read, Isaiah 54 was about the fertility of Zion. But, normally when you quote those verses the best thing to do is quote Matt. 10:28 first before verse 31. The numbers should go in order. And for that matter Isaiah should have gone first before Matthew. Strange how you don't believe in the Bible anyway, but feel the need to quote it. More randomness in your head I see. Yeah, I know I'm being picky. But not nearly as picky as you. You like to nitpick through the e-mails and read what you want them to mean. Just more randomness, huh?

I'm glad you followed my advice - "it's not good to be dishonest." So let's get to the point, shall we? And it's about time too. It took you 2 useless e-mails to finally get to the point. So let's go through all the hackiness of your e-mails and go to the original questions: "Hi Frank and Friends, I was wondering, what college are you attending? What are your majors? What are your testimonies? Has J. P. Holding had a large or small influence on the style of apologetics you employ?" I answered the last question but I'm not so sure why you keep insisting on my having to answer the other questions. Try this, Ed, read my last e-mail again, then again, then again, you might realize I wrote: "I didn't answer the others for the sake of keeping any cyber-stalking fascist non-Christians from finding any of us. Happy?" Got it? Good, here it is again: "I didn't answer the others for the sake of keeping any cyber-stalking fascist non-Christians from finding any of us. Happy?" Here it is in slow-motion: "IIIIIII dddddiiiiiddddnnn'ttt aaaannnnssswwweeerrr ttthhhheee oootttthhhheeerrrssss ffffoooorrr tttthhheeee sssaaakkkkeeee oooffff kkkeeeppppiiiinnngggg aaaannnnyyyy ccccyyybbbbeeerrrr-ssstttaaalllkkkiiinnnggg ffffaaassscccciiissstttt nnnooonnn-Cccchhhrrriiissstttiiaaannnss fffrrroooommmm fffiiinnndddiiinnngg aaannnyyy oooffff uuuussss. Hhhhhaaaappppppyyy?" Obviously, you're not happy. And nothing makes me more happier than to make a hack unhappy! But you should read my website on Farrell Till and your pal JP Holding on the dangers of cyber-stalking and what not: www.oocities.org/atheismsucks/farrelltillhasnoshame.htm

I said it once and I'll say it again: "Please, Ed, unload your anger on somebody else. Don't insult our intelligence and try to be more honest in your e-mails next time." But for my sake please return this e-mail. I'm having a ball. Hack away!

As always evolution sucks as much as atheism,

Frank

Ed Babbelinski (afer 22 days!): Wed, 04 May 2005

You sound like Holding. Why you haven't the desire or courage to share even a cursory personal testimony by simply divesting your college of its name/location and describing everyone without naming names, including presenting turning-point conversations in the most general terms, I don't know. Dr. Conrad Hyers was able to tell his story without naming names or colleges in my book, Leaving the Fold.

Come to think of it, I don't recall ever reading Holding's testimony either.

Meanwhile my testimony is in Leaving the Fold.

By the way, have you seen this short video?

[snipped inappropriate video]

Cheers,

Ed

You should know that Ed Babbelinski sent me two more e-mails[!] after the one above. I decided to not post them on this website because Babbelinski is propagandizing himself. Something tells me I should have because it proves my case that he’s a hack with an agenda but, oh well... Anyway, before I can even respond, Mr. Ed, sent me yet another e-mail the next day[!] and guess what? He thinks I'm JP Holding[!!]:

Ed Babbelinski: Thu, 05 May 2005

Dear Frank,

Judging from what you wrote me below, and by the contents of your website (http://www.oocities.org/atheismsucks/) you must be quite a LARGE fan of Holding's words/works/attitude/modus operandi, even to the extent of

1) Reading Holding's recent replies to me at tweb, such as the recent remark you cited from tweb in which I was told by Holding to "shut up." Indeed, you cited the remark verbatim, not just the words "shut up."

2) Like Holding, you demure concerning your personal testimony, supplying nothing near a conversion story.

3) Like Holding, you mistake mockery for strength of opinion, and indulge in hyperbole and cartoon outrage, even animated cartoons, and assume everyone else is fuming and packed with more heavy artillery more than you.

4) Your manner of discussion and use of drawn out spellings (viz., "Hhhhhaaaappppppyyy?") is also something Holding employs.

5) Also, you go to great lengths at your website to attack each and every one of Holding's major detractors as if they were your own. Indeed, at your website you go to great lengths to defend Holding against Till, going over lots of detailed information, even including a map of where Holding's prison job was located in Florida, and prisoner photos and details of their sentencing.

6) And yet when I asked you about the influence Holding had on you, you replied almost demurely, as if it was very little. I say, reading about the depth of your defense of Holding in all areas, and your attention to details of what Holding has said and deprication of what others have said about him, and your attention to details of what Holding said about me, and your use of Holding-speech, etc., might soon conclude that you were obssessed in some way with Holding, and defending him and identifying with him in far more ways that most people identify with their favorite Christian apologists. You are not just a fan. None of Holdings "fans" that I know of on the web is so focused on Holding and repeats his language and characteristics and defends him in so many specific ways as you have done.

So I suspect you are one of two things, an extremely large fan of Holding, verging on the point of obsession.

Or, you are Holding himself.

Why do I suspect this? Because Holding is accustomed to creating aliases (like "Holding," for instance), and because Holding has poisoned the well in his conversations with a number of people such that an alias would come in handy should he wish to strike up new conversations with other people without the prior baggage of being recognized, i.e., to give himself a fresh start so to speak. And because you don't supply any story of your conversion, and don't seem eager to, which is unlike most born again Christians.

So, which are you?

Ed

If you want you can send him an e-mail: ed.babinski@furman.edu or leonardo3@msn.com.

Help us out! Send Ed Babbelinski a message for us...

When you meet Ed Babbelinski stay about five feet from his breath, toss him a stick of gum, and say it's from Frank Walton.

o Ed Babinski bangs his head against a Holding article regarding Genesis, Part 1
o Ed Babinski bangs his head against a Holding article regarding Genesis, Part 2
o JP Holding takes on Ed Babinski at Theologyweb.com
o Response to Ed Babinski by Victor Reppert
o Criticism of ‘Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust’
o Ed's Attempt to Enlist an Ancient Near East Scholar in Support Backfires
o Reply to "The Problem of Pain and the Egomania of the Psalms" (by Agnostic Ed Babinski)
o Second Reply to Agnostic Ed Babinski on the Supposed Irrationality and Immorality of the Psalms & the Christian Worldview
o How and Why Discussions With Agnostics and Atheists Often (Sadly) Collapse / The Many Logical Fallacies of Ed Babinski and Friends
o Round III With Ed Babinski On Profound Christian Ignorance, & Every Subject Under the Sun Except the Topic (The Psalms) -- Expanded

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Home