Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem defined
John, none of these references say that "begging the question" is the same as an ad hominem argument. The definitions you present all deal with directing attacks at the messenger. Here is a definition for "begging the question." -- From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question "In logic, begging the question is the term for a type of fallacy occurring in deductive reasoning in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. " -- Here is a definition for "ad hominem" -- From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. -- Do you see the difference? David. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem defined From the American Heritage dictionary: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The _expression_ now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in Their recourse to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's lea dership on campus (Donna M. Riley). And a most enlightening comment is this one: A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate. ( S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 198-206.) And finally, this addition: A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). (words from the Nizkor Project). So, David, please stop telling me that I do not know what I am talking about. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > JD wrote: > > Have I gone over your head with the use > > of this phrase? Look up ad hom and you > > will find "begging the question" in there > > somewhere. You have no idea just how > > ridiculous this makes you sound. > > Please stop attacking Judy! PLEASE! > > You are plain wrong about this idea you have that "ad hom" and "begging the &g
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem defined
From the American Heritage dictionary: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The _expression_ now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in Their recourse to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's lea dership on campus (Donna M. Riley). And a most enlightening comment is this one: A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate. ( S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 198-206.) And finally, this addition: A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). (words from the Nizkor Project). So, David, please stop telling me that I do not know what I am talking about. jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > JD wrote: > > Have I gone over your head with the use > > of this phrase? Look up ad hom and you > > will find "begging the question" in there > > somewhere. You have no idea just how > > ridiculous this makes you sound. > > Please stop attacking Judy! PLEASE! > > You are plain wrong about this idea you have that "ad hom" and "begging the > question" are the same thing. THEY ARE NOT. I don't have the time right > now to educate you on the differences. Maybe the moderator can help, or > maybe you can look it up for yourself. Furthermore, "begging the question" > is allowed on TruthTalk. It is not a good form of argumentation, but you > will not find me or any other moderator reprimanding someone on the list for > beggi ng the question. It is up to the TruthTalk members themselves to > recognize it and help others see the problem in their argumentation. The ad > hominem argument is not allowed because e-mail is sensitive to this > fallacious form of argumentation in that it inflames the emotions of others > and causes posts like this one that you just made. > > The reason you might have seen a list with "begging the question" and "ad > hom" together is because these are two different forms of fallacious > argumentation. You were probably reading a list of fallacious arguments. > THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Please correct your misunderstanding of these terms. > Even if your attacks upon Judy were allowed in this forum, you should do so > from an informed and educated position or you will be the one who looks > ridiculous. > > David Miller. > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how > you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
A professional determination, my dear, based on the poorest means of evaluation, admittedly. One of my boys is obsessive - compulsive. it is not ad hom -- it certainly wasn't meant to be. Just an observation from one who is somewhat qualified to make that determination. The fact that DM cannot move on after being accused of ad hom is evidence of my opinion. It explains why he and I cannot ever seem to get past such meaningless tautologies as "yes you did" and "no I did not." JD -Original Message-From: ShieldsFamily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:11:35 -0500Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion Now that?s another ad hom for JD. Still zero for DM. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:14 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion Absolutly nothing here, in this post, has anything to do with matters of significance. You are an obsessive-complusive with an aside for Jesus Christ. Grace to You JD -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:46:51 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion John wrote: > http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php > --- if you must get more complicated. How about we just get more thorough rather than complicated? The word "complicated" has the implication that it cannot be understood by digging in deeper. The word "thorough" implies that we might achieve a better understanding by examining this more closely. John wrote: > This applies to "meaningless tautology" . > I was neither meaningless nor repetitive > in my posted comments. I never said YOU were meaningless, nor did I say that YOU were repetitive. Try reading my post again without taking it so personally. The link you provide tells us how to prove an ad hominem. It said: > Identify the attack and show that the character or > circumstances of the person has nothing to do with > the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended My assertion was that if your definition of "agree" in your statement meant "seeing everything in exactly the same way," then your statement was true but meaningless because I doubt that anybody would ever suggest that two people see everything in exactly the same way. My statement said nothing about your character or person, and my statement has nothing to do with showing your statement to be false or true based upon you, the person saying it, or your character. Whether you or anybody else made the statement, it makes no difference in regards to my response. My statement concerned how you were defining your terms in your statement, and my conclusion of a tautology was not an absolute judgment, but rather it was based upon how you defined your terms. Ergo, my statement about "meaningless tautology" was not an ad hominem argument. How about we get back to the subject now rather than debating whether I was violating the ad hominem rule. We should let Perry make that ruling for us. John wrote: > If DM wants to drag into play my previous posts, he > does himself in with the identical charge of "meaningless > tautology." Yes, let's drag your previous post back into play. I am not creating a "meaningless tautology" by doing so. I am hoping that I can get through to you how to discuss topics rather than people. I hope to help you judge what I say rather than judge me. JD wrote: >>> The fact is this, David, you do not agree in >>> total with anyone - neither do I or Judy or >>> anyone else. David Miller wrote: >> I believe there are many men and women with whom >> I am in total agreement with. This does not mean that >> we see everything identically. If you are trying to say >> that nobody sees everything exactly in the same way, >> then that is another one of your meaningless tautologies, >> a statement which is true but which adds nothing to our >> mutual understanding. If your definition of "agree in total" means "seeing everything exactly in the same way," then your statement is a true based upon how you are defning the word "agree." It is a true because nobody would ever argue that any two people see everything in exactly the same way. It is doubtful that any two people perceive the color of an object in exactly the same way. The problem is that your statement takes us away from what some of the rest of us have in mind, which is how the Bible defines the word "agree." The Biblical model instructs disciples of Christ to agree in total with one another (Joh
RE: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
Now that’s another ad hom for JD. Still zero for DM. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:14 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion Absolutly nothing here, in this post, has anything to do with matters of significance. You are an obsessive-complusive with an aside for Jesus Christ. Grace to You JD -Original Message- From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:46:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion John wrote: > http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php > --- if you must get more complicated. How about we just get more thorough rather than complicated? The word "complicated" has the implication that it cannot be understood by digging in deeper. The word "thorough" implies that we might achieve a better understanding by examining this more closely. John wrote: > This applies to "meaningless tautology" . > I was neither meaningless nor repetitive > in my posted comments. I never said YOU were meaningless, nor did I say that YOU were repetitive. Try reading my post again without taking it so personally. The link you provide tells us how to prove an ad hominem. It said: > Identify the attack and show that the character or > circumstances of the person has nothing to do with > the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended My assertion was that if your definition of "agree" in your statement meant "seeing everything in exactly the same way," then your statement was true but meaningless because I doubt that anybody would ever suggest that two people see everything in exactly the same way. My statement said nothing about your character or person, and my statement has nothing to do with showing your statement to be false or true based upon you, the person saying it, or your character. Whether you or anybody else made the statement, it makes no difference in regards to my response. My statement concerned how you were defining your terms in your statement, and my conclusion of a tautology was not an absolute judgment, but rather it was based upon how you defined your terms. Ergo, my statement about "meaningless tautology" was not an ad hominem argument. How about we get back to the subject now rather than debating whether I was violating the ad hominem rule. We should let Perry make that ruling for us. John wrote: > If DM wants to drag into play my previous posts, he > does himself in with the identical charge of "meaningless > tautology." Yes, let's drag your previous post back into play. I am not creating a "meaningless tautology" by doing so. I am hoping that I can get through to you how to discuss topics rather than people. I hope to help you judge what I say rather than judge me. JD wrote: >>> The fact is this, David, you do not agree in >>> total with anyone - neither do I or Judy or >>> anyone else. David Miller wrote: >> I believe there are many men and women with whom >> I am in total agreement with. This does not mean that >> we see everything identically. If you are trying to say >> that nobody sees everything exactly in the same way, >> then that is another one of your meaningless tautologies, >> a statement which is true but which adds nothing to our >> mutual understanding. If your definition of "agree in total" means "seeing everything exactly in the same way," then your statement is a true based upon how you are defning the word "agree." It is a true because nobody would ever argue that any two people see everything in exactly the same way. It is doubtful that any two people perceive the color of an object in exactly the same way. The problem is that your statement takes us away from what some of the rest of us have in mind, which is how the Bible defines the word "agree." The Biblical model instructs disciples of Christ to agree in total with one another (John 17:21-26, 1 Cor. 1:10, Mat. 18:19, 1 Cor. 12:25). In order to further a profitable discussion about agreement, we need to begin with this perspective, that we are commanded to be in agreement. The task then becomes understanding how this agreement is experienced by us. Many of us on TruthTalk proceed from the premise that we are to be in agreement with one another. You raise the objection that it is impossible and that nobody is in agreement. Many of us on TruthTalk have the testimony that we are in total agreement with other brothers and sisters in Christ. Som
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
If you heard me say that my words make up the sum total of who I am, that was not my intent. Words, honestly spoken, are, nonetheless, an extension of the person. One cannot fully know me without listening to my words (or God's). But, since God does not define His existence (nor do I) in the form of a rough draft, "knowing" Him is a much more involved process. Understanding that He indwells the beleiver on some level adds to the complication. This "complication" is unraveled, over time, via the process of maturity in the Christ of God. God is not something "other than" His words -- but He is something IN ADDITION to His words. Jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:44:13 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion This is really interesting JD. How is it that noone believes the same of God? When it comes to God - you say His Words are doctrine and He is something other On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:41:21 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perry, do you understand that such a defense would arrive at no solution at all!!?? The discussion would just go on and on - as it has in the past. I am not interested in such, any more. In my miond, there is an evil spirit spirit present in such a continue discussion. I have made my point and given at least one defense. Ditto for DM - time to move on. MY words, at least, are an extention of who I am. Maybe no one here on TT agrees but that consideration is of no consequence to my way of thinking on this matter. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John, if you feel that his statement is a fantasy, the proper approach is to refute his assertion. Perry I have done so in the past to no avail. Such a discussion always winds up being a debate over subjective issues. Failure will be the only outcome between opponents. Rather than a protracted discussion of personal issues, I prefer biblical issues since that is the reason why I came to this forum in the first place. JD -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:28:59 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion John, David's wording of "using yet another one of your meaningless tautologies" instead of something less directed, does sound more emotional in nature than had he said simply "using a tautology" [the word "meaningless" is redundant since it is implied by the fact that a tautology is being claimed], and I can understand how you would take it that way. But I do not believe that David intended this as an attack on you, otherwise I feel certain that he would have admitted it and apologized. He has told me himself that he believes people can post things that appear ad-hominem, or that another takes that way, that are not intended to be so. And, since he does not sin, I am sure he would have apologized had he really meant it that way. David, I hope this does not sound like a patronization of your statement that you do not sin, but I believe that if you at all meant it in the sense John is stating that the spirit would have convicted you and you would have apologized. Am I right on this? John, if you feel that his statement is a fantasy, the proper approach is to refute his assertion. Perry >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >There are put downs, Perry, and there are statements of compliment. The >fantasy that "John is using yet another meaningless tautology" is a phrase >that is of the insult variety. In fact, David's whole tone is such. >Webster says what he says. And that is the sense in which I use the >wording. David believes that you can separate the words of an opponent >from the character of the opponent without being guilty of ad hom. I do >not. > >JD > >-Original Message- >From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:15:30 -0700 >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion > > >John, > > I do not think we can separate the ad hominem from logic, John. All >discussion contains some form of logic, some form of argumentation, >especially when our goal is to present and support a point of view. In it's >simplist form the ad hominem argument is merely an appeal to emotion rather >than logic. > > Actually, David's statement is not an ad hominem comment directed at >you. >From www.dictionary.com: > >tau·tol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j) >n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies > >1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy. > b. An instance of such repetition. > >2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a >fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are >factually true or false; for example, the statement "Either it will rain >tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow". > > The point, John, is that a tautology is always true, cannot ever be >false, "states the obvious", adding nothing to an argument. In that sense >it is "meaningless". In mathemetics, a simple example of a tautology is >"1=1". What does that add to your understanding of mathematics? Nothing. In >that sense it is a "meaningless tautology". > >Perry > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >I do not use ad hom in the sense of an issue of logic. I use it in the > >same sense as the dictionary definition I included earlier -- that's my > >story and I am sticking with it. > >JD > >-- >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) >http://www.InnGlory.org > >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
OUCH can you see the new jd? Grace and peace to all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Absolutly nothing here, in this post, has anything to do with matters > of significance. You are an obsessive-complusive with an aside for > Jesus Christ. > > Grace to You > > JD > > > > -Original Message- > From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:46:51 -0400 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion > > > John wrote: > > http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php > > --- if you must get more complicated. > > How about we just get more thorough rather than complicated? The > word > "complicated" has the implication that it cannot be understood by > digging in > deeper. The word "thorough" implies that we might achieve a better > understanding by examining this more closely. > > John wrote: > > This applies to "meaningless tautology" . > > I was neither meaningless nor repetitive > > in my posted comments. > > I never said YOU were meaningless, nor did I say that YOU were > repetitive. > Try reading my post again without taking it so personally. > > The link you provide tells us how to prove an ad hominem. It said: > > > Identify the attack and show that the character or > > circumstances of the person has nothing to do with > > the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended > > My assertion was that if your definition of "agree" in your statement > meant > "seeing everything in exactly the same way," then your statement was > true > but meaningless because I doubt that anybody would ever suggest that > two > people see everything in exactly the same way. My statement said > nothing > about your character or person, and my statement has nothing to do > with > showing your statement to be false or true based upon you, the person > saying > it, or your character. Whether you or anybody else made the > statement, it > makes no difference in regards to my response. My statement > concerned how > you were defining your terms in your statement, and my conclusion of > a > tautology was not an absolute judgment, but rather it was based upon > how you > defined your terms. Ergo, my statement about "meaningless tautology" > was > not an ad hominem argument. > > How about we get back to the subject now rather than debating whether > I was > violating the ad hominem rule. We should let Perry make that ruling > for us. > > John wrote: > > If DM wants to drag into play my previous posts, he > > does himself in with the identical charge of "meaningless > > tautology." > > Yes, let's drag your previous post back into play. I am not creating > a > "meaningless tautology" by doing so. I am hoping that I can get > through to > you how to discuss topics rather than people. I hope to help you > judge what > I say rather than judge me. > > JD wrote: > >>> The fact is this, David, you do not agree in > >>> total with anyone - neither do I or Judy or > >>> anyone else. > > David Miller wrote: > >> I believe there are many men and women with whom > >> I am in total agreement with. This does not mean that > >> we see everything identically. If you are trying to say > >> that nobody sees everything exactly in the same way, > >> then that is another one of your meaningless tautologies, > >> a statement which is true but which adds nothing to our > >> mutual understanding. > > If your definition of "agree in total" means "seeing everything > exactly in > the same way," then your statement is a true based upon how you are > defning > the word "agree." It is a true because nobody would ever argue that > any two > people see everything in exactly the same way. It is doubtful that > any two > people perceive the color of an object in exactly the same way. The > problem > is that your statement takes us away from what some of the rest of us > have > in mind, which is how the Bible defines the word "agree." The > Biblical > model instructs disciples of Christ to agree in total with one > another (John > 17:21-26, 1 Cor. 1:10, Mat. 18:19, 1 Cor. 12:25). In order to > further a > profitable discussion about agreement, we need to begin with this > perspective, that we are commanded to be in agreement. The task then > > becomes understanding how this agreement i
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
Meaningless - Tautology I believe DM stated it as stated ; ) for those of us that are slow of thought --- Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John, > >David's wording of "using yet another one of your meaningless > tautologies" instead of something less directed, does sound more > emotional > in nature than had he said simply "using a tautology" [the word > "meaningless" is redundant since it is implied by the fact that a > tautology > is being claimed], and I can understand how you would take it that > way. But > I do not believe that David intended this as an attack on you, > otherwise I > feel certain that he would have admitted it and apologized. He has > told me > himself that he believes people can post things that appear > ad-hominem, or > that another takes that way, that are not intended to be so. And, > since he > does not sin, I am sure he would have apologized had he really meant > it that > way. > > David, I hope this does not sound like a patronization of your > statement > that you do not sin, but I believe that if you at all meant it in the > sense > John is stating that the spirit would have convicted you and you > would have > apologized. Am I right on this? > >John, if you feel that his statement is a fantasy, the proper > approach is > to refute his assertion. > > Perry > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >There are put downs, Perry, and there are statements of compliment. > The > >fantasy that "John is using yet another meaningless tautology" is a > phrase > >that is of the insult variety. In fact, David's whole tone is > such. > >Webster says what he says. And that is the sense in which I use > the > >wording. David believes that you can separate the words of an > opponent > >from the character of the opponent without being guilty of ad hom. > I do > >not. > > > >JD > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org > >Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:15:30 -0700 > >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion > > > > > >John, > > > > I do not think we can separate the ad hominem from logic, John. > All > >discussion contains some form of logic, some form of argumentation, > >especially when our goal is to present and support a point of view. > In it's > >simplist form the ad hominem argument is merely an appeal to emotion > rather > >than logic. > > > > Actually, David's statement is not an ad hominem comment directed > at > >you. >From www.dictionary.com: > > > >tau·tol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j) > >n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies > > > >1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; > redundancy. > > b. An instance of such repetition. > > > >2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler > statements in a > >fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements > are > >factually true or false; for example, the statement "Either it will > rain > >tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow". > > > > The point, John, is that a tautology is always true, cannot ever > be > >false, "states the obvious", adding nothing to an argument. In that > sense > >it is "meaningless". In mathemetics, a simple example of a tautology > is > >"1=1". What does that add to your understanding of mathematics? > Nothing. In > >that sense it is a "meaningless tautology". > > > >Perry > > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >I do not use ad hom in the sense of an issue of logic. I use it in > the > > >same sense as the dictionary definition I included earlier -- > that's my > > >story and I am sticking with it. > > >JD > > > >-- > >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you > may > >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > >http://www.InnGlory.org > > > >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you > have a > >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you > may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
Sorry, there will be no resolution as stated by JD in another POST, he sees others as his "OPPONENTS" Game Set Match... --- Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ... I was neither meaningless nor repetitive in my posted > comments. > > John, > >Your statement above is a good start at resolving this issue. I > think your best defense would be to argue the point that your comment was not a "meaningless tautology", bringing in evidence to refute David's assertion, rather then arguing that calling it such was an ad-hominem attack. > > Perry > > > -- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you > may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you > have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John, David's wording of "using yet another one of your meaningless tautologies" instead of something less directed, does sound more emotional in nature than had he said simply "using a tautology" [the word "meaningless" is redundant since it is implied by the fact that a tautology is being claimed], and I can understand how you would take it that way. But I do not believe that David intended this as an attack on you, otherwise I feel certain that he would have admitted it and apologized. He has told me himself that he believes people can post things that appear ad-hominem, or that another takes that way, that are not intended to be so. And, since he does not sin, I am sure he would have apologized had he really meant it that way. David, I hope this does not sound like a patronization of your statement that you do not sin, but I believe that if you at all meant it in the sense John is stating that the spirit would have convicted you and you would have apologized. Am I right on this? John, if you feel that his statement is a fantasy, the proper approach is to refute his assertion. Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are put downs, Perry, and there are statements of compliment. The fantasy that "John is using yet another meaningless tautology" is a phrase that is of the insult variety. In fact, David's whole tone is such. Webster says what he says. And that is the sense in which I use the wording. David believes that you can separate the words of an opponent from the character of the opponent without being guilty of ad hom.I do not. JD -Original Message- From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:15:30 -0700 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion John, I do not think we can separate the ad hominem from logic, John. All discussion contains some form of logic, some form of argumentation, especially when our goal is to present and support a point of view. In it's simplist form the ad hominem argument is merely an appeal to emotion rather than logic. Actually, David's statement is not an ad hominem comment directed at you. >From www.dictionary.com: tau·tol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j) n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies 1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy. b. An instance of such repetition. 2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement "Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow". The point, John, is that a tautology is always true, cannot ever be false, "states the obvious", adding nothing to an argument. In that sense it is "meaningless". In mathemetics, a simple example of a tautology is "1=1". What does that add to your understanding of mathematics? Nothing. In that sense it is a "meaningless tautology". Perry >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >I do not use ad hom in the sense of an issue of logic. I use it in the >same sense as the dictionary definition I included earlier -- that's my >story and I am sticking with it. >JD -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
This is really interesting JD. How is it that noone believes the same of God? When it comes to God - you say His Words are doctrine and He is something other On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:41:21 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perry, do you understand that such a defense would arrive at no solution at all!!?? The discussion would just go on and on - as it has in the past. I am not interested in such, any more. In my miond, there is an evil spirit spirit present in such a continue discussion. I have made my point and given at least one defense. Ditto for DM - time to move on. MY words, at least, are an extention of who I am. Maybe no one here on TT agrees but that consideration is of no consequence to my way of thinking on this matter. Jd
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
Perry, do you understand that such a defense would arrive at no solution at all!!?? The discussion would just go on and on - as it has in the past. I am not interested in such, any more. In my miond, there is an evil spirit spirit present in such a continue discussion. I have made my point and given at least one defense. Ditto for DM - time to move on. MY words, at least, are an extention of who I am. Maybe no one here on TT agrees but that consideration is of no consequence to my way of thinking on this matter. Jd -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:27:04 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ... I was neither meaningless nor repetitive in my posted comments. John, Your statement above is a good start at resolving this issue. I think your best defense would be to argue the point that your comment was not a "meaningless tautology", bringing in evidence to refute David's assertion, rather then arguing that calling it such was an ad-hominem attack. Perry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
There are put downs, Perry, and there are statements of compliment. The fantasy that "John is using yet another meaningless tautology" is a phrase that is of the insult variety. In fact, David's whole tone is such. Webster says what he says. And that is the sense in which I use the wording. David believes that you can separate the words of an opponent from the character of the opponent without being guilty of ad hom. I do not. JD -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:15:30 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion John, I do not think we can separate the ad hominem from logic, John. All discussion contains some form of logic, some form of argumentation, especially when our goal is to present and support a point of view. In it's simplist form the ad hominem argument is merely an appeal to emotion rather than logic. Actually, David's statement is not an ad hominem comment directed at you. >From www.dictionary.com: tau·tol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j) n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies 1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy. b. An instance of such repetition. 2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement "Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow". The point, John, is that a tautology is always true, cannot ever be false, "states the obvious", adding nothing to an argument. In that sense it is "meaningless". In mathemetics, a simple example of a tautology is "1=1". What does that add to your understanding of mathematics? Nothing. In that sense it is a "meaningless tautology". Perry >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >I do not use ad hom in the sense of an issue of logic. I use it in the >same sense as the dictionary definition I included earlier -- that's my >story and I am sticking with it. >JD -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... I was neither meaningless nor repetitive in my posted comments. John, Your statement above is a good start at resolving this issue. I think your best defense would be to argue the point that your comment was not a "meaningless tautology", bringing in evidence to refute David's assertion, rather then arguing that calling it such was an ad-hominem attack. Perry -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
Absolutly nothing here, in this post, has anything to do with matters of significance. You are an obsessive-complusive with an aside for Jesus Christ. Grace to You JD -Original Message-From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 04:46:51 -0400Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion John wrote: > http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php > --- if you must get more complicated. How about we just get more thorough rather than complicated? The word "complicated" has the implication that it cannot be understood by digging in deeper. The word "thorough" implies that we might achieve a better understanding by examining this more closely. John wrote: > This applies to "meaningless tautology" . > I was neither meaningless nor repetitive > in my posted comments. I never said YOU were meaningless, nor did I say that YOU were repetitive. Try reading my post again without taking it so personally. The link you provide tells us how to prove an ad hominem. It said: > Identify the attack and show that the character or > circumstances of the person has nothing to do with > the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended My assertion was that if your definition of "agree" in your statement meant "seeing everything in exactly the same way," then your statement was true but meaningless because I doubt that anybody would ever suggest that two people see everything in exactly the same way. My statement said nothing about your character or person, and my statement has nothing to do with showing your statement to be false or true based upon you, the person saying it, or your character. Whether you or anybody else made the statement, it makes no difference in regards to my response. My statement concerned how you were defining your terms in your statement, and my conclusion of a tautology was not an absolute judgment, but rather it was based upon how you defined your terms. Ergo, my statement about "meaningless tautology" was not an ad hominem argument. How about we get back to the subject now rather than debating whether I was violating the ad hominem rule. We should let Perry make that ruling for us. John wrote: > If DM wants to drag into play my previous posts, he > does himself in with the identical charge of "meaningless > tautology." Yes, let's drag your previous post back into play. I am not creating a "meaningless tautology" by doing so. I am hoping that I can get through to you how to discuss topics rather than people. I hope to help you judge what I say rather than judge me. JD wrote: >>> The fact is this, David, you do not agree in >>> total with anyone - neither do I or Judy or >>> anyone else. David Miller wrote: >> I believe there are many men and women with whom >> I am in total agreement with. This does not mean that >> we see everything identically. If you are trying to say >> that nobody sees everything exactly in the same way, >> then that is another one of your meaningless tautologies, >> a statement which is true but which adds nothing to our >> mutual understanding. If your definition of "agree in total" means "seeing everything exactly in the same way," then your statement is a true based upon how you are defning the word "agree." It is a true because nobody would ever argue that any two people see everything in exactly the same way. It is doubtful that any two people perceive the color of an object in exactly the same way. The problem is that your statement takes us away from what some of the rest of us have in mind, which is how the Bible defines the word "agree." The Biblical model instructs disciples of Christ to agree in total with one another (John 17:21-26, 1 Cor. 1:10, Mat. 18:19, 1 Cor. 12:25). In order to further a profitable discussion about agreement, we need to begin with this perspective, that we are commanded to be in agreement. The task then becomes understanding how this agreement is experienced by us. Many of us on TruthTalk proceed from the premise that we are to be in agreement with one another. You raise the objection that it is impossible and that nobody is in agreement. Many of us on TruthTalk have the testimony that we are in total agreement with other brothers and sisters in Christ. Someone suggested that issues you might raise as "differences" are minor and not considered of such a level as to be "disagreements." You can either seek to understand us and our perspective, or you can continue to claim that nobody is in agreement by defining the word "agreement" in some non-Biblical way that lets you feel confident that you have proved the rest of us wrong. Note, ho
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John, I do not think we can separate the ad hominem from logic, John. All discussion contains some form of logic, some form of argumentation, especially when our goal is to present and support a point of view. In it's simplist form the ad hominem argument is merely an appeal to emotion rather than logic. Actually, David's statement is not an ad hominem comment directed at you. From www.dictionary.com: tau·tol·o·gy( P ) Pronunciation Key (tô-tl-j) n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies 1. a. Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy. b. An instance of such repetition. 2. Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement "Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow". The point, John, is that a tautology is always true, cannot ever be false, "states the obvious", adding nothing to an argument. In that sense it is "meaningless". In mathemetics, a simple example of a tautology is "1=1". What does that add to your understanding of mathematics? Nothing. In that sense it is a "meaningless tautology". Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do not use ad hom in the sense of an issue of logic.I use it in the same sense as the dictionary definition I included earlier -- that's my story and I am sticking with it. JD -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
John wrote: > http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php > --- if you must get more complicated. How about we just get more thorough rather than complicated? The word "complicated" has the implication that it cannot be understood by digging in deeper. The word "thorough" implies that we might achieve a better understanding by examining this more closely. John wrote: > This applies to "meaningless tautology" . > I was neither meaningless nor repetitive > in my posted comments. I never said YOU were meaningless, nor did I say that YOU were repetitive. Try reading my post again without taking it so personally. The link you provide tells us how to prove an ad hominem. It said: > Identify the attack and show that the character or > circumstances of the person has nothing to do with > the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended My assertion was that if your definition of "agree" in your statement meant "seeing everything in exactly the same way," then your statement was true but meaningless because I doubt that anybody would ever suggest that two people see everything in exactly the same way. My statement said nothing about your character or person, and my statement has nothing to do with showing your statement to be false or true based upon you, the person saying it, or your character. Whether you or anybody else made the statement, it makes no difference in regards to my response. My statement concerned how you were defining your terms in your statement, and my conclusion of a tautology was not an absolute judgment, but rather it was based upon how you defined your terms. Ergo, my statement about "meaningless tautology" was not an ad hominem argument. How about we get back to the subject now rather than debating whether I was violating the ad hominem rule. We should let Perry make that ruling for us. John wrote: > If DM wants to drag into play my previous posts, he > does himself in with the identical charge of "meaningless > tautology." Yes, let's drag your previous post back into play. I am not creating a "meaningless tautology" by doing so. I am hoping that I can get through to you how to discuss topics rather than people. I hope to help you judge what I say rather than judge me. JD wrote: >>> The fact is this, David, you do not agree in >>> total with anyone - neither do I or Judy or >>> anyone else. David Miller wrote: >> I believe there are many men and women with whom >> I am in total agreement with. This does not mean that >> we see everything identically. If you are trying to say >> that nobody sees everything exactly in the same way, >> then that is another one of your meaningless tautologies, >> a statement which is true but which adds nothing to our >> mutual understanding. If your definition of "agree in total" means "seeing everything exactly in the same way," then your statement is a true based upon how you are defning the word "agree." It is a true because nobody would ever argue that any two people see everything in exactly the same way. It is doubtful that any two people perceive the color of an object in exactly the same way. The problem is that your statement takes us away from what some of the rest of us have in mind, which is how the Bible defines the word "agree." The Biblical model instructs disciples of Christ to agree in total with one another (John 17:21-26, 1 Cor. 1:10, Mat. 18:19, 1 Cor. 12:25). In order to further a profitable discussion about agreement, we need to begin with this perspective, that we are commanded to be in agreement. The task then becomes understanding how this agreement is experienced by us. Many of us on TruthTalk proceed from the premise that we are to be in agreement with one another. You raise the objection that it is impossible and that nobody is in agreement. Many of us on TruthTalk have the testimony that we are in total agreement with other brothers and sisters in Christ. Someone suggested that issues you might raise as "differences" are minor and not considered of such a level as to be "disagreements." You can either seek to understand us and our perspective, or you can continue to claim that nobody is in agreement by defining the word "agreement" in some non-Biblical way that lets you feel confident that you have proved the rest of us wrong. Note, however, that if you take the latter approach, those of us who take the Bible as the supreme authority in this matter will choose to reject your testimony because we cannot reconcile your statement with the Biblical model. You may feel like you have found a clever way to win a debate, but you have lost your audience if we cannot agree on the Biblical definition of "agreement" and how we experience that agreement. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlor
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php --- if you must get more complicated. This applies to "meaningless tautology" . I was neither meaningless nor repetitive in my posted comments. If DM wants to drag into play my previous posts, he does himself in with the identical charge of "meaningless tautology." JD -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:54:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion One of the best discussions I have read on ad-hominem is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem. Perry >From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 >Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:56:11 -0400 > >John wrote: > > For the record, David, you haven't a clue as > > to what is ad hom -- haven't had one since > > I have been a part of TT. Here is a dictionary > > definition of that concept (yes, I know how > > to use one too): > > "an argument directed to the personality, prejudices, > > previous words and actions of an opponent rather > > than an appeal to pure reason." Webster. > > Your "...another one of your meaningless tautologies" > > most certainly fits the definition. > >LOL. We had better request the help of the moderator on this one John. >Perry, please try and help John understand what an ad hominem argument is. >He perhaps needs to understand this more than anybody else on the list. > >The word "tautology" speaks to the rhetorical value of what you said. It >does not fit this Webster definition at all. You take things way too >personal. You might be offended that I suggested your statement was >logically true but meaningless, but that does not make it an ad hominem >remark. Again, it all comes down to addressing what you are saying rather >than you. If I said that you are a meaningless tautology or that you are >dumb or that you are lying or that you are dishonest, any of this would be >ad hominem arguments. Pointing out the logical validity and rhetorical >value of your statement is not. > >John wrote: > > this is in addition to the fact that you use the word > > "tautologies" without regard to what the word means. > > If, in fact, you did not use a dictionary, my I suggest > > that you do so. > >The word "tautology" might be new for you, but I have been using it for >half >my life. Why would I need to consult a dictionary? I could write a better >definition than any dictionary definition you could come up with. > >If you need some help understanding my point in using the word tautology, >let me suggest the following link: >http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/t/ta/tautology.htm > >Here's another one: >http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-1.html#Tautologies > >And another: >http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm< /SPAN> > >Peace be with you. >David Miller. > >-- >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) >http://www.InnGlory.org > >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
I do not use ad hom in the sense of an issue of logic. I use it in the same sense as the dictionary definition I included earlier -- that's my story and I am sticking with it. JD -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke <cpl2602@hotmail.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 21:54:43 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion One of the best discussions I have read on ad-hominem is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem. Perry >From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 >Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:56:11 -0400 > >John wrote: > > For the record, David, you haven't a clue as > > to what is ad hom -- haven't had one since > > I have been a part of TT. Here is a dictionary > > definition of that concept (yes, I know how > > to use one too): > > "an argument directed to the personality, prejudices, > > previous words and actions of an opponent rather > > than an appeal to pure reason." Webster. > > Your "...another one of your meaningless tautologies" > > most certainly fits the definition. > >LOL. We had better request the help of the moderator on this one John. >Perry, please try and help John understand what an ad hominem argument is. >He perhaps needs to understand this more than anybody else on the list. > >The word "tautology" speaks to the rhetorical value of what you said. It >does not fit this Webster definition at all. You take things way too >personal. You might be offended that I suggested your statement was >logically true but meaningless, but that does not make it an ad hominem >remark. Again, it all comes down to addressing what you are saying rather >than you. If I said that you are a meaningless tautology or that you are >dumb or that you are lying or that you are dishonest, any of this would be >ad hominem arguments. Pointing out the logical validity and rhetorical >value of your statement is not. > >John wrote: > > this is in addition to the fact that you use the word > > "tautologies" without regard to what the word means. > > If, in fact, you did not use a dictionary, my I suggest > > that you do so. > >The word "tautology" might be new for you, but I have been using it for >half >my life. Why would I need to consult a dictionary? I could write a better >definition than any dictionary definition you could come up with. > >If you need some help understanding my point in using the word tautology, >let me suggest the following link: >http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/t/ta/tautology.htm > >Here's another one: >http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-1.html#Tautologies > >And another: >http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm< /SPAN> > >Peace be with you. >David Miller. > >-- >"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may >know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) >http://www.InnGlory.org > >If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a >friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad-hominem discussion
One of the best discussions I have read on ad-hominem is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_Hominem. Perry From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14 Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:56:11 -0400 John wrote: > For the record, David, you haven't a clue as > to what is ad hom -- haven't had one since > I have been a part of TT. Here is a dictionary > definition of that concept (yes, I know how > to use one too): > "an argument directed to the personality, prejudices, > previous words and actions of an opponent rather > than an appeal to pure reason." Webster. > Your "...another one of your meaningless tautologies" > most certainly fits the definition. LOL. We had better request the help of the moderator on this one John. Perry, please try and help John understand what an ad hominem argument is. He perhaps needs to understand this more than anybody else on the list. The word "tautology" speaks to the rhetorical value of what you said. It does not fit this Webster definition at all. You take things way too personal. You might be offended that I suggested your statement was logically true but meaningless, but that does not make it an ad hominem remark. Again, it all comes down to addressing what you are saying rather than you. If I said that you are a meaningless tautology or that you are dumb or that you are lying or that you are dishonest, any of this would be ad hominem arguments. Pointing out the logical validity and rhetorical value of your statement is not. John wrote: > this is in addition to the fact that you use the word > "tautologies" without regard to what the word means. > If, in fact, you did not use a dictionary, my I suggest > that you do so. The word "tautology" might be new for you, but I have been using it for half my life. Why would I need to consult a dictionary? I could write a better definition than any dictionary definition you could come up with. If you need some help understanding my point in using the word tautology, let me suggest the following link: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/t/ta/tautology.htm Here's another one: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Debating-1.html#Tautologies And another: http://www.wcdebate.com/1parli/29truism.htm Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
myth (there is no basis for this comment outside of subjectivity in terms of a priori, radical philosophical dualism' : (e.g.) 'i, individually, not as part of any school of thought oppose you for the sole reason that my reading of reality is totally correct while and you can't grasp its absolute correctness; the workings of my mind alone are as absolute as God--if the Bible was written for you to understand you'd agree with only my understanding with no discussion-- Selah') On Sun, 29 May 2005 05:24:16 -0400 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: God's Word says black to me..says white to you.
Re: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]com>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]innglory.orgSent: Sun, 29 May 2005 05:24:16 -0400Subject: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments I am totally different from you JD in many areas; in fact at times I think the only thing we have in common is the name of Jesus itself but with totally different concepts. Fancy me quoting from a Dake Bible and a Strongs Concordance. Wow! That is major - while you OTOH have all those years of indoctrination and pastoring in the CofC Movement followed by Aimee Semple McPherson and now your seemingly total embrace of Lance and Bill's aberrent "incarnational" theory so that when God's Word says black to me it says white to you. You may have book, chapter, and verse for everything you believe JD but so does every cult out there. Nor do I believe it is just me and the Word; there are a lot of ppl who believe the way I do but they are not following me and I don't follow them. jt I agree with your opening thought, Judy. We are very different. You play down the influences of those whom you read while making those whom I enjoy much more the force in my life than is true. If truth as it regards John /smithson important to you? Are you aware that I have left behind the Church of Christ? Ae you aware that my thinking is so different from those people, that the last three or four years within that fellowship found me disfellowship by a seminary, a church in Texas where I served effectively (I might add) as youth pastor, the entire Central Valley of Churches of Christ (a valley in which I continue to live)? Are you aware that I have never read Aimee Simple about anything? Cults do not have b, c and v for all that they believe. At least, I have not encountered one to date. Is the fact that we share the name of Jesus and serve Him and no other, is that enough to claim that we are in the same family? JD On Sun, 29 May 2005 01:24:37 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is no reason for rejecting thoughtful consideration of the revealed text. But you seem to be afraid of such. "Hermeneutic" is not an evil word -- even your mentor, DM, would agree with this. I have book, chapter and verse for everything I believe in matters religious ---everything. You are as much influenced by "outside" thoughts as anyone. It is not just you and the Word. You have quoted too many writers (Dake, Strong and several others) for any of us to believe otherwise. You are not different for us. From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]com Meaningless religious mumbo jumbo Gary; I don't have any such "hermeneutic" in fact I totally reject the Gk god Hermes along with the dualistic philosophy of Plato that you have accused me of endlessly. If you would follow hard after God and seek Him with your whole heart rather than give Him some kind of religious lip service then these things would not be such a mystery. How sad that you and JD focus so much on what you "think" other are saying and categorizing them rather than on God and His living and eternal Word. jt On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:25:42 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: good question; ftr, tt evidence suggests parallelism betw his hermeneutic and (e.g.) jt's; the/ir bed rock is philosophical while the Bible is evaluated (conformed to) dualistic bias which yields a religious ideology..biblical theology has no priority with them, no native respect given to it for its demolition of philosophical religion which is the worldly prerequisite: antiChrist, it calls it On Sat, 28 May 2005 20:56:25 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: By the way, [DavidM] -- what is your hermeneutic? ||
Re: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
John wrote: > These problems -- did they include Deegan > and his use of the word "liar?" Yes. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments
These problems -- did they include Deegan and his use of the word "liar?" -Original Message-From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:48:53 -0400Subject: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem arguments Izzy wrote: >> Calling DM “nuts” is an ad hom attack, >> and entirely uncalled for. Lance wrote: > IFF he is not nuts. It is an ad hominem argument even if it were true. The truthfulness of the statement does not matter. What matters is whether he is "speaking to the man" or addressing the point under discussion. We have been having problems with having the moderator enforce the no ad hominem arguments rule that we have on TruthTalk. The enforcement of this rule is meant to minimize the problems that caused people like Debbie to leave. I have been trying to write Gary privately about this, but have not been getting much response. I'm going to wait until the end of the day to see if he decides to communicate directly with me about this, but if he does not, I see no option but to have a changing of the guards regarding the moderating of this list. More on this tomorrow. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem arguments
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of David Miller Sent: Tuesday, 21 December, 2004 11.24 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] ad hominem arguments This is why we have a moderator. Ideally, we want the moderator to be the only one to address these problems of ad hominem arguments. If you step in more and identify the ad hominem arguments from both sides and try to guide both parties away from it, then the discussion can get back on track. I have addressed some of these problems because you are new to moderating and I am trying to help out, but ideally you should be the only one to address these problems. Obviously, correcting an "ad hominem" argument is itself "ad hominem" which is why the moderator should designate his post as being one from the moderator when he issues a correction. This is a signal to the rest of us not to argue with that particular post of correction on the list itself. -- The impossible job. I will be responding to almost every post. Ok. are you ready, Guys-n-Gals? I think I'll just create two canned responses and I'll begin when I get home from work. I will respond to ONLY the first ad hominem I see in a post. -- slade -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem
ad hominem adv. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37% of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The _expression_ now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65% of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley). -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Monday, 20 December, 2004 12.44To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] TOE revisited Slade, could you please re-post your definition of ad hominem? I can’t find it.
Re: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"?
ShieldsFamily wrote: Slade, Thanks for the perspective about clean/unclean. How do you think that translates to today? Are we to cast the bread of the word out to anyone/everyone? Or was that just for Jesus to discriminate? Izzy Just a quick thought Iz. From the beginning, the Gospel was always meant to be for everyone, but it was "first" to the Jews, then to everyone. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"?
Slade, Thanks for the perspective about clean/unclean. How do you think that translates to today? Are we to cast the bread of the word out to anyone/everyone? Or was that just for Jesus to discriminate? Izzy Was Yeshua calling the woman a dog? No. Please note she was no longer a member of the unbelieving community (even though she was non-Jewish) because her faith elevated her from the stature of a Gentile. Yeshua was speaking specifically of the unbelieving members of humanity with His less-than-enduring term. His message (i.e., bread) is not meant for them, for they will trample it underfoot -- much like pearls. Instead, the message is for the believing community of humanity. Your friend (hopefully)... -- slade
RE: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"?
Hello, David. I would like to point out something here in this thread. A mistake made in this thread was taking an event that occurred 2,000 years ago and removing the cultural significance behind it (replacing it with modern culture from the USA). By doing so, the "threader" risks causing someone to misunderstand Yeshua. Never was He indicating that she was a b*tch. Our Redeemer never called an individual names (that I can recall... with the possible exception of "the Fox") ... especially those seeking truth. He did, however, call [generally small] groups of religious hypocrites names. The Hebraic understanding at the time was similar to this (I am by no means an expert): The Temple was up and running at the time -- and one is NEVER allowed to enter the Temple in a state of uncleanness (notice I chose to exclude the term "ceremonially") In order to make one's life much easier (because life in Jerusalem centered around the Temple), most people were very concerned with cleanliness and holiness The Gentiles (specifically: unbelieving members of humanity) did not worry about cleanliness so they were usually in a constant state of uncleanness Uncleanness was transferable, making one's entrance into the Temple impossible if one fell in contact with uncleanness (especially uncleanness in regards to the dead) Gentiles (specifically: unbelieving members of humanity) were oft called dogs because dogs were unclean and always are in a state of uncleanness [especially] because their [the dogs'] licking and eating habits. Was Yeshua calling the woman a dog? No. Please note she was no longer a member of the unbelieving community (even though she was non-Jewish) because her faith elevated her from the stature of a Gentile. Yeshua was speaking specifically of the unbelieving members of humanity with His less-than-enduring term. His message (i.e., bread) is not meant for them, for they will trample it underfoot -- much like pearls. Instead, the message is for the believing community of humanity. Your friend (hopefully)... -- slade
RE: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"?
To all: This post focuses much on the personalities of Chris and myself. I apologize in advance if it is boring to many of you. Just hit the delete key before proceeding if you don't have time for this. I simply feel that I must at least give an effort to communicate with Chris, especially about what an ad hominem argument is. Chris wrote: > I wasn't talkin' 'bout 'Jesus' or any specific > individual. ... I only get to being specific > and bring in The Saviour later in my writing. > I was addressing "y'all" in reference to > "li'l ol' me" at this juncture. Your whole post was justifying name calling on this list by suggesting that Jesus called a woman a bitch. That's what I was addressing. Chris wrote: > What names have I called you besides David > M. in recent posts? In the course of discussing Biblical Texts underlying the KJV, Jahn's translation, and Green's translations, you characterized me as: Dishonest Blind Proud Braggadocio In other posts you referred to me as a fool. None of these comments have anything to do with the subjects we are talking about. They only detract from the substance of our discussion. That is why we encourage each other to avoid authoring such posts. Chris wrote: > My understanding on this matter is perfect. What > you have submitted is what I have been trying to > tell you and this list. You either know this and > are therefore dishonest or you don't know this which > relates to blindness. That is not name calling, > rather that is identifying the relevant matters. Saying that I am either dishonest or blind does not help the discussion. What you are doing here is casting aspersions upon my character rather than arguing the premises. The premise put forth is that you commit ad hominem arguments by characterizing me as dishonest, blind, etc. Rather than show how you have not cast aspersions upon my character, you have suggested that these are not ad hominem arguments, and that I must be either dishonest or blind not to recognize that. So I offer you a definition from an encyclopedia, and rather than show how the definition supports your premise that you have not cast aspersions upon my character, you simply state that the definition supports what you have been trying to say, and that I am either dishonest or blind not to see that. If there is something like a pathological ad hominem arguer, you are that person. The article said the following: > When they are stated in a natural language, some > arguments appear to give support to their conclusions > or to confute a thesis. Such a defective, although > apparently correct, argument is called a fallacy. Your argument has some appearance of confuting my thesis and to support your perspective, but as this definition shows subsequently, it is a fallacy. Instead of discussing the premises directly and dealing with them, you cast aspersions upon me, characterizing me as dishonest or blind. The article defined the ad hominem fallacy as follows: > ... if one were to attack the premises of an > argument by casting aspersions on the character > of the proponent of the argument, this would be > characterized as committing an ad hominem fallacy. You attacked my premise that Green and Jahn appear to rely on similar manuscripts by characterizing me as dishonest, blind, proud, and bragging. You avoided questions posed to you that would get to the heart of the matter, such as, "what exact manuscripts did Jahn use" or "did Jahn use Wycliffe's translation," etc. Chris wrote: > That is not name calling, rather that is > identifying the relevant matters. You basically changed the subject from being about Green and Jahn's methods of translation to being about the evils of David Miller. This is the classic ad hominem fallacy. You may propose that my pride, blindness, dishonesty, etc. is relevant for why you are right and I am wrong, but this whole line of argumentation is considered a fallacy by logicians. It only appears superficially to be relevant, but it really is not. What you have done is changed the subject to being about my inability to understand you. You are giving possible reasons concerning your judgment of my character for why I might be someone that others should not listen to, but you are not dealing with the subject at hand. David Miller wrote: > So the point is that instead of casting aspersions upon > the character of list members, we want you to discuss > the subject matter. Chris wrote: > That is a non sequitur a la "Do you walk to school or > do you carry your lunch?" I do discuss the subject > matter. The problem 'round here is that I stick to > the subject matter and don't go down the rabbit trails > ... at least until the subject matter is addressed and > concluded. It only appears to you to be a non sequitur because you do not recognize the logical fallacy of the ad hominem argument. Chris wrote: > That drove folks nuts when The Saviour did it ... >
Re: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"?
\o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! OK, now for some "attention to detail" in case any legitimate scientists or scholars are paying any attention ... - Original Message - From: "David Miller" Sent: 05/13/2004 4:05 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"? > Chris wrote:> > Y'all have such great difficulty even knowing > > what "ad hominem" is. Y'all identify "name > > calling" as "ad hominem" ... 'tain't necessarily > > so. Y'all identify "calling a spade a spade" as > > "ad hominem" ... t'ain't never so.> David M. wrote: > Whether or not Jesus called people names is not the issue here. cb responds: I wasn't talkin' 'bout 'Jesus' or any specific individual. Maybe you need a southern dictionary to know what 'y'all' means? I only get to being specific and bring in The Saviour later in my writing. I was addressing "y'all" in reference to "li'l ol' me" at this juncture. > Nobody> is telling you that you cannot call people names in other forums. What> we are saying is that on this e-mail list, we find name calling and ad> hominem arguments unproductive with regards to intelligent discussion. Your actions from my first day on TT and those of many others on this e-mail list speak much louder than your words. > Your recent posts are a classic example, because you seem to think that> you have added something to the conversation by calling me names. > What names have I called you besides David M. in recent posts? > In regards to ad hominem arguments, please consider the following from> the encyclopedia britannica. It might help you understand it better.> My understanding on this matter is perfect. What you have submitted is what I have been trying to tell you and this list. You either know this and are therefore dishonest or you don't know this which relates to blindness. That is not name calling, rather that is identifying the relevant matters. > So the point is that instead of casting aspersions upon the character of> list members, we want you to discuss the subject matter. That is a non sequitur a la "Do you walk to school or do you carry your lunch?" I do discuss the subject matter. The problem 'round here is that I stick to the subject matter and don't go down the rabbit trails ... at least until the subject matter is addressed and concluded. That drove folks nuts when The Saviour did it ... still does today when this servant of His does the same. > For example,> rather than saying that I am braggadocios You have written inaccurately here. I didn't say that you are braggadocios. I referred to your braggadocio (re "attention to detail", and "the scientist in me" type of comments). The word braggadocio is a noun identifying what you did rather than what you are. Now if you are of the school that "one lie a liar makes" then I understand your inaccuracy in this regard. > and that I am going to burn in> the lake of fire, I didn't say/write that. Is this dishonesty on your part? Exaggeration is a form of lying. Perhaps you are extrapolating? Perhaps you just don't see at all? That would be a matter of blindness. That relates to your comments following: > try just telling us the manuscripts that Jahn used.> You claimed to know what they were. Why can't you tell us what he used?> Did he consult Wycliffe's translation? Why won't you answer?> I have given answer. You are the one who has refused answer so I'm not chasing you down any rabbit trails. Even though it seems about as futile as trying to describe color to a blind man I'll try one more time. Jahn used ONLY manuscripts used by King Jimmy's boys. That was my WHOLE and ONLY point. I didn't say Jahn used ALL those used by King Jimmy's boys. I only noted that Jahn did not use any that King Jimmy's boys didn't. You said that is the same as Green. Green used other manuscripts than those of King Jimmy's boys. Do you remember early math instruction on intersecting and non-intersecting sets? There is some intersecting between Jahn and Green re King Jimmy's boys, but Green went beyond that. If you can't/won't see the plainness of that then I'm not going any further. > Concerning what Jesus said to the woman, I have a few things to say.> > Chris wrote:> > "Truth, Adonay, yet bitches eat of the crumbs > > which fall from their masters' table."> > Was that an "ad hominem" from The Saviour? No.> > Was that an
RE: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"?
Note: Another point I forgot to make - this women got some crumbs and we who are God's Covenant people through Christ are not even getting that these days. Anytime you've got to depend on food additives etc. you're not walking in Covenant blessings. In fact you're no better off than the world out there. judyt Chris wrote: > "Truth, Adonay, yet bitches eat of the crumbs > which fall from their masters' table." > Was that an "ad hominem" from The Saviour? No. > Was that an insult from The Saviour. Yes, and > one of a very degrading nature. Apparently I missed this one but you've done it again. I'd throw out whatever translation you got this out of. The woman is just acknowledging the fact that she is outside the Covenant God has with Israel. Why do you want to make it something other than what it is? Jesus was not into insulting or degrading. He spoke the truth in love as he expects us to do. Fact is she was not included in the Covenant but he healed her daughter anyway because of the respect and faith with which she approached him. judyt -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"?
Chris wrote: > "Truth, Adonay, yet bitches eat of the crumbs > which fall from their masters' table." > Was that an "ad hominem" from The Saviour? No. > Was that an insult from The Saviour. Yes, and > one of a very degrading nature. Apparently I missed this one but you've done it again. I'd throw out whatever translation you got this out of. The woman is just acknowledging the fact that she is outside the Covenant God has with Israel. Why do you want to make it something other than what it is? Jesus was not into insulting or degrading. He spoke the truth in love as he expects us to do. Fact is she was not included in the Covenant but he healed her daughter anyway because of the respect and faith with which she approached him. judyt -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"?
Chris wrote: > Y'all have such great difficulty even knowing > what "ad hominem" is. Y'all identify "name > calling" as "ad hominem" ... 'tain't necessarily > so. Y'all identify "calling a spade a spade" as > "ad hominem" ... t'ain't never so. Whether or not Jesus called people names is not the issue here. Nobody is telling you that you cannot call people names in other forums. What we are saying is that on this e-mail list, we find name calling and ad hominem arguments unproductive with regards to intelligent discussion. Your recent posts are a classic example, because you seem to think that you have added something to the conversation by calling me names. In regards to ad hominem arguments, please consider the following from the encyclopedia britannica. It might help you understand it better. --- When they are stated in a natural language, some arguments appear to give support to their conclusions or to confute a thesis. Such a defective, although apparently correct, argument is called a fallacy. Some of these errors in argument occur often enough that types of such fallacies are given special names. For example, if one were to attack the premises of an argument by casting aspersions on the character of the proponent of the argument, this would be characterized as committing an ad hominem fallacy. The character of the proponent of an argument has no relevance to the validity of the argument. There are several other fallacies of relevance, such as threatening the audience (argumentum ad baculum) or appealing to their feelings of pity (argumentum ad misericordiam). --- So the point is that instead of casting aspersions upon the character of list members, we want you to discuss the subject matter. For example, rather than saying that I am braggadocios and that I am going to burn in the lake of fire, try just telling us the manuscripts that Jahn used. You claimed to know what they were. Why can't you tell us what he used? Did he consult Wycliffe's translation? Why won't you answer? Concerning what Jesus said to the woman, I have a few things to say. Chris wrote: > "Truth, Adonay, yet bitches eat of the crumbs > which fall from their masters' table." > Was that an "ad hominem" from The Saviour? No. > Was that an insult from The Saviour. Yes, and > one of a very degrading nature. I am going to ignore for the moment that you changed a proper word within Scripture into a curse word. I want to point out to you that Jesus did not speak to this woman the way that you have spoken to me on this list. If Jesus had your attitude, he would have said something like, "You lousy dog, how dare you think that you can ask for healing when I am sent only to the house of Israel. You are such a stupid dog, you idiot. GET OUT OF MY SIGHT. By the way, you are going to burn in hell fire too, so have a nice day." Jesus did not do that at all. In fact, he never directly called her a dog. He spoke a proverb and the woman gave a great answer to it. Did Jesus know before hand that the woman would give a good answer? I think he did. In other words, he answered her as he did, knowing that he was not pushing her too far with his words. The interaction was beautiful and profitable for all, and was recorded for all posterity in God's Holy Word. This is not at all the same thing as someone insulting another person and it resulting in offenses by others and all discussion coming to a halt. Nevertheless, if God calls you to rebuke and call people names, we are not telling you that you are not allowed to do it. We are only saying that such is not productive on this list. Such should be done face to face if it is done at all. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"?
I'm neither in nor from Arkansas. Not that it matters ... you're talking to me about backwoods health care folk tales and you want to denigrate Arkansas! ROTFLMHO!!! jt: I'm not denigrating anything, just saying that your way is the cultural norm in that State. Could be wrong about where you live but noted an AR address at your website. CBarr: High blood pressure is caused by excess cadmium. Stroking neither animals nor anything else will deal with the cadmium excess. jt: HBP has roots in anxiety and fear. Your emphasis on supplements for every known ailment is also over the top Chris. Illness/disease has spiritual roots in sin - either sin of the person involved or that of their ancestors. It is stated clearly in Deuteronomy 28,29. Blessings for obedience and the curse (sickness) for disobedience. You can try and by-pass the curse with alternative medicine if you want. I would rather deal with the sin issue. It's the more excellent way. CBarr: You go right ahead being kissy-kissy with dogs, but as for me I'll just miss out on that -- I know where that mouth and tongue has been so I'll just leave that to the filthy wretches that just don't know any better (see Romans 1). jt: You have a wild imagination Chris. I don't kiss on dogs and have never advocated such. I like them though (and they like me). A good dog is a real asset. Fun, company, and you don't have to walk alone. CBarr: Also, "unconditional love" is not Scriptural (again see Romans 1 re "without natural affection", "vile affections"). jt: There you go again - and you claim to think like the Father? Not so! Romans 1 is written to people who hold the truth in unrighteousness. IOW people who know the truth but will not do it. God empowers you Chris to look in your own backyard, take care of your own mess and that of those you are responsible for at home. PS Jesus died to set us free so that we could LOVE. judyt -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"?
\o/ !HALALU Yah! \o/ Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua ! ROTFLMHO No holiday declared today ... I'm neither in nor from Arkansas. Not that it matters ... you're talking to me about backwoods health care folk tales and you want to denigrate Arkansas! ROTFLMHO!!! High blood pressure is caused by excess cadmium. Stroking neither animals nor anything else will deal with the cadmium excess. You go right ahead being kissy-kissy with dogs, but as for me I'll just miss out on that -- I know where that mouth and tongue has been so I'll just leave that to the filthy wretches that just don't know any better (see Romans 1). Also, "unconditional love" is not Scriptural (again see Romans 1 re "without natural affection", "vile affections"). Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, (Bless The LORD) Chris Barr a servant of YHVH - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 05/13/2004 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"? > Got to be careful not to add meaning that was never intended here and at the same time denigrate man's best friend :).> > PS: Your attitude toward dogs and cats is the Arkansas cultural one. My father-in-law only kept working dogs who would keep the yard clear of varmints and didn't like cats but if they were around they would have to work. However, yesterday there was a touching scene at the airport. A young woman with what looked like a baby carrier hanging on the front of her was meeting an elderly lady; she opened up the carrier and a little white poodle got so excited to see the older women that it about turned itself inside out. That is love. People don't know how to unconditionally love like that and this is why they are so attached to their pets. In our area they take domestic animals to Nursing Homes as they believe it lowers the blood pressure in old folks to stroke them. So look at what you are missing out on in Arkansas.> > judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] "ad hominem"?
Dogs have been considered in the same manner as by my African brother going back into antiquity. It is actually a strong precept from ScriptureA mother in Scripture had a daughter possessed by a demon. The mother sought YahShua to cast out the demon. Wouldn't you think that The Saviour would leap to the occasion to cast out a foul, evil spirit? He didn't. The Saviour told this loving mother seeking for Spiritual relief for her daughter, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast to dogs." jt: The reason he didn't has nothing to do with canine beasts at all Chris. It has to do with Covenant. The woman was a Greek (syro-phonecian) and a "dog" in the sense used by our Savior here describes someone who is outside the Covenant. Healing is the "children's" bread - that is, the children of the covenant - and not very young believers. Got to be careful not to add meaning that was never intended here and at the same time denigrate man's best friend :). PS: Your attitude toward dogs and cats is the Arkansas cultural one. My father-in-law only kept working dogs who would keep the yard clear of varmints and didn't like cats but if they were around they would have to work. However, yesterday there was a touching scene at the airport. A young woman with what looked like a baby carrier hanging on the front of her was meeting an elderly lady; she opened up the carrier and a little white poodle got so excited to see the older women that it about turned itself inside out. That is love. People don't know how to unconditionally love like that and this is why they are so attached to their pets. In our area they take domestic animals to Nursing Homes as they believe it lowers the blood pressure in old folks to stroke them. So look at what you are missing out on in Arkansas. judyt judyt -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] 'ad hominem'
Chris wrote: > An ad hominem argument is one where the presenter > is addressed rather than the message. > Joe: 1 + 1 = 3 > John: Joe is an idiot. > THAT is ad hominem. > If John responded with the mathematical theorem that > exposes the error of Joe's statement and thereby reveals > Joe to be erroneous in a very simple truth AND CLOSES > with, "Joe is an idiot", then it is no longer an ad > hominem. > If the message is addressed AND the presenter is also > exposed/addressed therein then THAT is NOT ad hominem. Hi Chris. Thank you for raising this topic. What you have presented is a valid argument PLUS an ad hominem argument. Even if a post gives the logic that proves a point, that does not give the presenter a license to attack the person. So, I disagree with your assessment above. If the man proves mathematically that 1 + 1 does not equal three, he still should not say, "you are an idiot." Such does not promote discussion, nor does it lead the person who is in error to say, "oh, you are right and I was wrong. Thanks for pointing that out." Don't you think it is enough to prove the error and let people make up their own minds about who is right and who is wrong? Also, the word "idiot" is not being used technically right in this case. Sometimes people are not idiots and yet make mistakes like this in a post. The word "idiot" communicates more than the fact that the person is wrong. It communicates the idea that the person does not have the intellectual capacity for understanding any corrections given to him. So what do you think about my comments? Are we able to come to agreement about this? Do you understand how using epithets like "you idiot" only stirs the person up to defending himself and his reputation rather? I would prefer that we see ourselves in the pursuit of truth together as a team, and that we work together to help one another cast off false ideas and false notions so that in the end, truth shines bright. It is kind of like working a car over with a rag, finding every blemish, cleaning it off, and polishing every area to make the car shine. If we work together as a team, we will get more done quickly, but if we are fighting with each other, telling each other how stupid the other person is, the work might just grind to a halt. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Ad-hominem attacks was Christian Perfection
Judy: He was wrong when he said that "short people got no reason for livin'" However when the consensus is that you are vertically challenged and you live in denial, well...Lance PS: How does it go? If the shoe fits.. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 12, 2004 09:04 Subject: [TruthTalk] Ad-hominem attacks was Christian Perfection Izzy, it would be nice if you would take a lesson out of your own book IOW practice what you preach. I've been giving you some space in not responding to your messages but you have really gone over the top here. Where is your kind and tender heart in any of this? You really need to let God be God because He and He alone sees the heart and it is He who will declare who is and who is not "righteous" you may like and respect DavidM but this is not your call. Are you aware that taking up an offence for DavidM puts you in a worse position than he is in? God gives grace to the one under attack (if this is the case) but when you revile others in taking up for him you put yourself out there with no cover/protection because vengeance belongs to God and He is the one who will repay. Yesterday you were thanking Lance for taking up for you when he announced that someone (I forget who) owed you an apology. Repentance is also in order for this mess. I can't help it if you misunderstand just about everything I write but you are responsible for your reaction and this is a personal attack which if ignored by DavidM and Perry will cause them to be remiss. judyt Izzy writes: Here is a lesson for us on discernment when it comes to negative, accusing, evil-speaking, reviling, hateful people: To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. (Titus 1:15) You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. (Matt 12: 34-36) May God have mercy on the merciless! [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lance, What is too much for me is people like Elsman who hate David Miller because he is a truly righteous man. (Trust me, I know him personally.) Or people like Chris, who hates all Catholics, Protestants, (not just their doctrines, but them) and doctors to boot. And people like Judyt whose elbows must be out of joint from constantly pointing out the flaws, sins, ulterior evil intents (even of the most innocent children), and incorrect doctrines of others while simultaneously patting herself on the back for her own superior discernment. (Have you ever heard her say anything KIND about ANYONE? And yet how eager she is to seek out and forward evil reports about anyone who is mentioned favorably by someone on TT!!!). But you learn to expect that from certain people who project their unconscious self-hatred of their own evil onto others, and then persecute them for it. What is really too much for me to take is when you expect something better of someone who should be above all that, and then are entirely let down. Thats just more than I can deal with, even on a good day. I just dont have the stomach for any of it anymore. You have to suffer through too much pride and self-aggrandizement here to enjoy the simple goodness of the sweet-but-imperfect ones. And you know who you are. I love you. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Monday, April 12, 2004 5:35 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Izzy:Please don't allow TT to become "too much" for you. I'd miss your tender heart in the mix. This won't lead to anyone being burned at the stake! A steak might be in order but, the kind over which differences might be disscussed and hugs might follow. Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 12, 2004 07:26 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Christian Perfection Bill, Funny, I thought the discussion between you and David was about Greek translations, but now I realize it was really all about you. Guess that shows what I know. You have no idea how shocking and hurtful your words, below, are. I am literally
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
If you did post that prior to your stament to Judy that non-beleivers can go to heaven, then I missed it, and in that case apologize for saying you did not explain it. From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 00:53:26 -0800 Charles Perry Locke wrote: > Blaine, > >Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH > said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that he > knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS > believe there are three. He did not point this out...and since non-Mormons > go to a different LDS heaven than Mormons, in this sense he was > intentionally misleading TT'rs who may not know that LDS consider there to > be three heavens. DAVEH: Perry..I can only hope that you failed to read all my posts when you made this comment. I specifically addressed this within the past month by pointing out that we do view heaven differently, and to put it in perspective of the heaven/hell scenario believed by most Christians, I explained that many non-LDS folks would not go to the lake of fire and brimstone as Christians perceive hell to be. Do you recall that post? If I wasn't so tired, I'd dig it up and post it again. But it is way past my bedtime, and this'll be my last post tonight. > The effect is to appear to agree with Christians, while > secretly having a hidden meaning that you are using. I do not think that > either you or DaveH are naive enough to not know what is going on. > >When missionaries do this, I can find room to excuse them, because I > believe they may be naive. But, when seasoned LDS apologists like yourselves > who hang out with Christians do it, you are intentionally "not telling the > whole story". DAVEH: Something to consider..The Mormon boys in TT have several times been accused of trying to take over TT by posting too much stuff. Seems like we can't win either way..either we post too much, or we post too little! :-) > Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. _ There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1 -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Charles Perry Locke wrote: > Blaine, > >Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH > said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that he > knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS > believe there are three. He did not point this out...and since non-Mormons > go to a different LDS heaven than Mormons, in this sense he was > intentionally misleading TT'rs who may not know that LDS consider there to > be three heavens. DAVEH: Perry..I can only hope that you failed to read all my posts when you made this comment. I specifically addressed this within the past month by pointing out that we do view heaven differently, and to put it in perspective of the heaven/hell scenario believed by most Christians, I explained that many non-LDS folks would not go to the lake of fire and brimstone as Christians perceive hell to be. Do you recall that post? If I wasn't so tired, I'd dig it up and post it again. But it is way past my bedtime, and this'll be my last post tonight. > The effect is to appear to agree with Christians, while > secretly having a hidden meaning that you are using. I do not think that > either you or DaveH are naive enough to not know what is going on. > >When missionaries do this, I can find room to excuse them, because I > believe they may be naive. But, when seasoned LDS apologists like yourselves > who hang out with Christians do it, you are intentionally "not telling the > whole story". DAVEH: Something to consider..The Mormon boys in TT have several times been accused of trying to take over TT by posting too much stuff. Seems like we can't win either way..either we post too much, or we post too little! :-) > Perry -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule MTSA
MTSA (Mormon Truth Shading Alert) You will not usurp god because he is only god of this world. You will be come a god of some other world You are trying to imply you will be god like but not a god (MTSA) You will be subordinate because he started progressing before you. Since you will eventually reach the point he is at right now, you will be equal to where he has progressed to at this moment. But by then he has progressed some more so you are subordinate (MTSA) Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:31 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule > Blaine wrote to Perry: > > Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? > > You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, > > and particularly this one.> > Blaine, if it is ok with you and Perry, I would like to extend a little> latitude about the ad hominem rule to explore this idea a little.> Personally, I have found Perry's "definition alerts" helpful. > > Perry has the opinion that both you and DaveH knowingly mislead us by> using these definitions. I'm not sure that is true, but it does seem> like he might have a valid point. For example, if non-Mormons going to> heaven does not mean the same thing to Mormons as it does to non-Mormons> because Mormons believe in three heavens with very few people going to> hell, that needs to be explained for proper communication to occur. Blaine: I appreciate your intervention in helping to clarify the problem--it does seem to be one of communicatiion. I have posted a post which covers my viewpoint on the problem, hopefully it will help. > Likewise, if "like God" means becoming God instead of becoming more like> God in moral character, then that also should be explained. I wrote a post on this before, some time ago. We only believe we will be like God--not God himself. If we believed we could become God, it would put us in the position of being usurpers, as was Satan. (Unfortunately, this has not been what Protestants have been led to believe--there seem to be organized efforts to lead people to believe otherwise--there is even a movie out there somewhere called the Godmakers, which I understand is an attempt to represent what we believe in a very negative light--drawing conclusions from statements made by authorities that are not fully justified.) We believe, in other words, we will ALWAYS be subordinate to God and to His Son, and to the Holy Ghost (I think in my previous post, I even used that word--subordinate.) > So the question to you and DaveH is, do you knowingly use terms that you> know mislead others, or are you so engrossed within Mormonism that you> don't really think about how others on this list might be> misunderstanding you? Blaine: There might be a few words which have more than one meaning for us, such as Gentile, but on the whole most of our words mean about the same as with anyone of any other religion. Basically, we use the term 'God" to refer to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They are one God to us, as their purpose is the same. But it needs to be clarified that we believe the Father and the Son have physical bodies, literally. The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. As I understand Protestant beliefs, God is a spirit--not a person with flesh and bones. So, there does seem to be a difference in belief. "God" can also refer to what we hope to become in our own right if we prove faithful, keeping in mind however, that we will remain throughout all eternity a subordinate of our present God as I have defined Him above. In a little-used sense, "a god" could refer to someone in a position of spiritual power and influence, such as Moses--since he had a great deal of God's delegated authority and was the chief decision maker over the Children of Israel, so was like a god to them. I don't think we ever refer to Joseph Smith in that way, but I supppose he could be thought of as being a god in the same spiritual sense as Moses was. A big misunderstanding seems to come from the Godmakers presentation, which leads people to believe we intend to supplant God. I have no respect for this kind of thing, and I hope TT'rs will realize it is just another effort to discredit Mormonism and take advantage of ignorance, and fear of that which is unfamiliar. The subject of Hell is apparently another point of contention. Most Protestants seem to believe the fires of hell are literal, whereas we believe them to be more or less symbolic what Jesus Christ suffered when he bled at every pore in Gethsemane,and died on the cross. That will happen to unrepentant sinners when they are finally brought before the bar of God for j
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:31 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule > Blaine wrote to Perry: > > Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? > > You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, > > and particularly this one.> > Blaine, if it is ok with you and Perry, I would like to extend a little> latitude about the ad hominem rule to explore this idea a little.> Personally, I have found Perry's "definition alerts" helpful. > > Perry has the opinion that both you and DaveH knowingly mislead us by> using these definitions. I'm not sure that is true, but it does seem> like he might have a valid point. For example, if non-Mormons going to> heaven does not mean the same thing to Mormons as it does to non-Mormons> because Mormons believe in three heavens with very few people going to> hell, that needs to be explained for proper communication to occur. Blaine: I appreciate your intervention in helping to clarify the problem--it does seem to be one of communicatiion. I have posted a post which covers my viewpoint on the problem, hopefully it will help. > Likewise, if "like God" means becoming God instead of becoming more like> God in moral character, then that also should be explained. I wrote a post on this before, some time ago. We only believe we will be like God--not God himself. If we believed we could become God, it would put us in the position of being usurpers, as was Satan. (Unfortunately, this has not been what Protestants have been led to believe--there seem to be organized efforts to lead people to believe otherwise--there is even a movie out there somewhere called the Godmakers, which I understand is an attempt to represent what we believe in a very negative light--drawing conclusions from statements made by authorities that are not fully justified.) We believe, in other words, we will ALWAYS be subordinate to God and to His Son, and to the Holy Ghost (I think in my previous post, I even used that word--subordinate.) > So the question to you and DaveH is, do you knowingly use terms that you> know mislead others, or are you so engrossed within Mormonism that you> don't really think about how others on this list might be> misunderstanding you? Blaine: There might be a few words which have more than one meaning for us, such as Gentile, but on the whole most of our words mean about the same as with anyone of any other religion. Basically, we use the term 'God" to refer to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They are one God to us, as their purpose is the same. But it needs to be clarified that we believe the Father and the Son have physical bodies, literally. The Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. As I understand Protestant beliefs, God is a spirit--not a person with flesh and bones. So, there does seem to be a difference in belief. "God" can also refer to what we hope to become in our own right if we prove faithful, keeping in mind however, that we will remain throughout all eternity a subordinate of our present God as I have defined Him above. In a little-used sense, "a god" could refer to someone in a position of spiritual power and influence, such as Moses--since he had a great deal of God's delegated authority and was the chief decision maker over the Children of Israel, so was like a god to them. I don't think we ever refer to Joseph Smith in that way, but I supppose he could be thought of as being a god in the same spiritual sense as Moses was. A big misunderstanding seems to come from the Godmakers presentation, which leads people to believe we intend to supplant God. I have no respect for this kind of thing, and I hope TT'rs will realize it is just another effort to discredit Mormonism and take advantage of ignorance, and fear of that which is unfamiliar. The subject of Hell is apparently another point of contention. Most Protestants seem to believe the fires of hell are literal, whereas we believe them to be more or less symbolic what Jesus Christ suffered when he bled at every pore in Gethsemane,and died on the cross. That will happen to unrepentant sinners when they are finally brought before the bar of God for judgement. We believe Hell is an internal condition, not necessarily an external condition or place, although there may be a place reserved for those suffering the "flames" of Hell. Certainly the parable of the begger being in the arms of Abraham and the rich man not being able to get there because of a great gulf separating them would suggest there is an actual place, but we believe the burning is within. As might be noted, the rich
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
"if it is not digestible now" "New truths are always hard to digest anyway" Translation you can only digest milk, later you will get the meat.Blaine Borrowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine: Hmm, I understand what you are saying Perry, and I sense yourfrustration. Maybe we have really been throwing you guys some curves, itsounds like. LOL But, we do not deliberately mislead, and that is mypoint. We tell others whatever they really really want to know--but do nottell them what they want to hear, necessarily, as you seem to think we do.We do have a message, and if it is not digestible now, we hope it will belater when you guys get a little further along the path of eternalprogression. We love you guys, so we may try to insure that what we sendout does not overload the spiritual preparedmess that you bring to thesituation. New truths are always hard to digest anyway, so we don't want tomake them any harder than necessary. Eternal progression is essentially aprocess of moving from one horizon to a higher one, ad infinitum. If youtry to push to the higher level before you are ready to fully appreciatewhat it has in store for you, you may just end up aborting the entireprocess. That is what we often see happening on TT, unfortunately, as someindividuals push to try to understand the higher level without first fullyunderstanding the principles upon which that level is built. We try veryhard to build that foundation of understanding but receive a lot ofresistence in the process. May I suggest again that if you exercise faitheven to a small degree, called belief, as the grain of a mustard seed, thetruth will then take root in you and will grow--but if you resist the truthswe try to convey to you, you will naturally never get to the point ofunderstanding you need to be at in order to receive the higher truths, whichboth Dave and I understand as far as they have been revealed to us at thistime. That is not to say we ourselves know all and are all wise--we justhave achieved most of the understanding that God has allowed for us to knowfor now, and he has assured us that is sufficient for his grace to operate.I personally believe knowledge and understanding are the keys to the Kingdomof God, and without it, noone can either function in that Kingdom or evenfully appreciate it. But to gain the knowledge that is needed, one mustconstantly pray and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ--and that faithwill give us hope, and that hope will enlarge the soul without hypocrisy,unto the perfect day when we will know as we are known and see as we areseen. But the key is understanding, and that as you undoubtedly alreadyknow, is built level by level, or as the Lord would say, grace for grace.- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:57 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule> Blaine,>> Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH> said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident thathe> knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS> believe there are three. He did not point this out...and since non-Mormons> go to a different LDS heaven than Mormons, in this sense he was> intentionally misleading TT'rs who may not know that LDS consider there to> be three heavens. The effect is to appear to agree with Christians, while> secretly having a hidden meaning that you are using. I do not think that> either you or DaveH are naive enough to not know what is going on.>> When missionaries do this, I can find room to excuse them, because I> believe they may be naive. But, when seasoned LDS apologists likeyourselves> who hang out with Christians do it, you are intentionally "not telling the> whole story".>> Perry>> >From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "TT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >Subject: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule> >Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:09:04 -0700> >> >Perry wrote: > > I do not want Christians who> > > > do not know the LDS meanings to be mislead into thinking that the> > >Mormons> > > > think or believe the same way Christians do. Call me protective, butI> > >feel> > > > it is my duty, if I know that someone is being mislead by words, to> > >correct> > > > that. You certainly aren't going to tell them that you meansomething> > > > different.> >> >Blaine wrote: Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead?You> >seem to be implying this in some of your posts, and particularly thisone.> >In fact, this post seems to be a thinly veiled attack on the ch
RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
ROTFLOL! I can see it now. If the LDS were deliberately using words with double meanings would they when questioned about it, turn around and say: "OK we fess up we are using SUBTERFUGE" For Blaine, attacking false doctrine is comparable to a "personal attack" In general, I have found LDS to be fair & industrious people. But when it comes to the LDS belief system, I have encountered obfuscation, half-truths and even deliberate mendacity. Any one who is opposed to Mormonism is an "Anti-Mormon" When I post quotes from LDS leaders I am "mean-spirited and dishonest" LDS vehemently stand for the right to define themselves & their beliefs, but are quick to compartmentalize all others! Of course LDS theology makes "perfect sense" but Orthodox beliefs are vague, senseless, impossible to comprehend and ridiculous. Somehow no one has authority to speak & delineate LDS beliefs. Even if we appeal to the highest LDS authorities, it is labeled "opinions" By labeling others as ill-informed LDS hope to eliminate the voices of those best positioned to expose their most heretical doctrines. Sounds like a persecution complex to me. "the endless subterfuges and prevarications which our present condition impose . . . threaten to make our rising generation a race of deceivers." Charles W. Penrose to LDS President John Taylor, 1887 Gospel Teachings About Lying by Elder Dallin H. OaksThis fireside address was given to faculty, students, and alumni of BYU on September 12, 1993."Some have suggested that it is morally permissible to lie to promote a good cause. For example, some Mormons have taught or implied that lying is okay if you are lying for the Lord." President James E. Faust, Second Counselor in the First Presidency of the LDS church There are different shades of truth-telling. When we tell little white lies we become progressively color blind. It is better to remain silent than to mislead. The degree to which each of us tells the whole truth and nothing but the truth depends on our conscience. "Subterfuge and cunning are often better allies than a fierce heart and a strong back." - Count Fenring from Dune 2000 by Frank Herbert Apostle Dallin H. Oaks:"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." (Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii f28) LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer gave an address to the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators Symposium, in Provo, Utah at Brigham Young University. In his talk titled The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect, Packer opines that there are events in LDS history that should be repressed, because they are not faith-building:You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now. Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.Some things that are true are not very useful.That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Blaine wrote to Perry: > Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? > You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, > and particularly this one.Blaine, if it is ok with you and Perry, I would like to extend a littlelatitude about the ad hominem rule to explore this idea a little.Personally, I have found Perry's "definition alerts" helpful. Perry has the opinion that both you and DaveH knowingly mislead us byusing these definitions. I'm not sure that is true, but it does seemlike he might have a valid point. For example, if non-Mormons going toheaven does not mean the same thing to Mormons as it does to
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Blaine, Thanks for the well-tempered explanation. You see, I do believe in and have faith in Christ, and I have prayed to be led to the truth, and I have read Mormon works seeking to see if any of it is true, and all I get out of it is that it is a false religion. I have found find lies, deceit, cultic activities, secret Masonic-like ceremonies, signs, grips, penalties, and tokerns, secret names, adultery, plaigerism, contradiction, occultic symbols, men who become gods who are from other planets, angels that become men, then angels, then men, then angels, and basically use the same symbols and methods that all cults routinely use. What am I to think? Am I to go against my gut, against what scripture says, and against common sense to try to accept as factual something that is so hideous and repulsive to me? I can understand that you were raised in the LDS belief system, and that you have accepted it all as pure truth, light, and beauty. I cannot, and as long as the scripture, the Spirit, and common sense continue to rail against what I have learned about the LDS, I will not accept it as being from God, but from men. I apologize that I do not have a higher opinioin of the LDS church. LDS are wonderful people who believe strongly and deeply in their church, and I have nothing personally against any of them, especially you and DaveH. Much of the doctrine of the LDS is hidden beneath layers of secrecy and slowly revealed to converts. You call this "moving to a higher horizon", but is little more than an indoctrination into the cult. The secrecy is primarily to protect the convert from repulsion until they have effectively been programmed into the current level. LDS are not the only ones that operate this way. All cults do, and the Masoons do, and many other "fraternal" organizations. Why is it that the LDS church operates using the same principals that all cults use, but Christianity does not? Ask me anything about Christianity. Although I might be able to answer it, I can go to the scripture and find out. There is nothing hidden. Nothing we have to prepare you for to understand it. Nothing we cannot reveal to you, as it is all laid out plainly in scripture. Christ himself told all, and admitted that he hid nothing. No secret handshakes, no secret names, none of those functions that for centuries have identified cults. I sincerely pray that someday the Mormons realize that the veil has been rent, and that they may go directly to God, through Jesus Christ, and without all of the cultic trappings of the Mormon church. Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:58:21 -0700 Blaine: Hmm, I understand what you are saying Perry, and I sense your frustration. Maybe we have really been throwing you guys some curves, it sounds like. LOLBut, we do not deliberately mislead, and that is my point. We tell others whatever they really really want to know--but do not tell them what they want to hear, necessarily, as you seem to think we do. We do have a message, and if it is not digestible now, we hope it will be later when you guys get a little further along the path of eternal progression. We love you guys, so we may try to insure that what we send out does not overload the spiritual preparedmess that you bring to the situation. New truths are always hard to digest anyway, so we don't want to make them any harder than necessary. Eternal progression is essentially a process of moving from one horizon to a higher one, ad infinitum. If you try to push to the higher level before you are ready to fully appreciate what it has in store for you, you may just end up aborting the entire process. That is what we often see happening on TT, unfortunately, as some individuals push to try to understand the higher level without first fully understanding the principles upon which that level is built. We try very hard to build that foundation of understanding but receive a lot of resistence in the process. May I suggest again that if you exercise faith even to a small degree, called belief, as the grain of a mustard seed, the truth will then take root in you and will grow--but if you resist the truths we try to convey to you, you will naturally never get to the point of understanding you need to be at in order to receive the higher truths, which both Dave and I understand as far as they have been revealed to us at this time. That is not to say we ourselves know all and are all wise--we just have achieved most of the understanding that God has allowed for us to know for now, and he has assured us that is sufficient for his grace to operate. I personally believe knowledge and understanding are the keys to the Kingdom of God, and without it, noone can either function in that Kingdom or even fully ap
Re: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Blaine: Hmm, I understand what you are saying Perry, and I sense your frustration. Maybe we have really been throwing you guys some curves, it sounds like. LOLBut, we do not deliberately mislead, and that is my point. We tell others whatever they really really want to know--but do not tell them what they want to hear, necessarily, as you seem to think we do. We do have a message, and if it is not digestible now, we hope it will be later when you guys get a little further along the path of eternal progression. We love you guys, so we may try to insure that what we send out does not overload the spiritual preparedmess that you bring to the situation. New truths are always hard to digest anyway, so we don't want to make them any harder than necessary. Eternal progression is essentially a process of moving from one horizon to a higher one, ad infinitum. If you try to push to the higher level before you are ready to fully appreciate what it has in store for you, you may just end up aborting the entire process. That is what we often see happening on TT, unfortunately, as some individuals push to try to understand the higher level without first fully understanding the principles upon which that level is built. We try very hard to build that foundation of understanding but receive a lot of resistence in the process. May I suggest again that if you exercise faith even to a small degree, called belief, as the grain of a mustard seed, the truth will then take root in you and will grow--but if you resist the truths we try to convey to you, you will naturally never get to the point of understanding you need to be at in order to receive the higher truths, which both Dave and I understand as far as they have been revealed to us at this time. That is not to say we ourselves know all and are all wise--we just have achieved most of the understanding that God has allowed for us to know for now, and he has assured us that is sufficient for his grace to operate. I personally believe knowledge and understanding are the keys to the Kingdom of God, and without it, noone can either function in that Kingdom or even fully appreciate it. But to gain the knowledge that is needed, one must constantly pray and exercise faith in the Lord Jesus Christ--and that faith will give us hope, and that hope will enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, unto the perfect day when we will know as we are known and see as we are seen. But the key is understanding, and that as you undoubtedly already know, is built level by level, or as the Lord would say, grace for grace. - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 12:57 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule > Blaine, > >Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH > said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that he > knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS > believe there are three. He did not point this out...and since non-Mormons > go to a different LDS heaven than Mormons, in this sense he was > intentionally misleading TT'rs who may not know that LDS consider there to > be three heavens. The effect is to appear to agree with Christians, while > secretly having a hidden meaning that you are using. I do not think that > either you or DaveH are naive enough to not know what is going on. > >When missionaries do this, I can find room to excuse them, because I > believe they may be naive. But, when seasoned LDS apologists like yourselves > who hang out with Christians do it, you are intentionally "not telling the > whole story". > > Perry > > >From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: "TT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule > >Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:09:04 -0700 > > > >Perry wrote: > > I do not want Christians who > > > > do not know the LDS meanings to be mislead into thinking that the > > >Mormons > > > > think or believe the same way Christians do. Call me protective, but I > > >feel > > > > it is my duty, if I know that someone is being mislead by words, to > > >correct > > > > that. You certainly aren't going to tell them that you mean something > > > > different. > > > >Blaine wrote: Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? You > >seem to be implying this in some of your posts, and particularly this one. > >In fact, this post seems to be a thinly veiled attack on the character of > >Mormons in general, and since we are the only two Mormons on TT to read > >your posts, an attack on us personally? I sense you a
RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Blaine wrote to Perry: > Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? > You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, > and particularly this one. Blaine, if it is ok with you and Perry, I would like to extend a little latitude about the ad hominem rule to explore this idea a little. Personally, I have found Perry's "definition alerts" helpful. Perry has the opinion that both you and DaveH knowingly mislead us by using these definitions. I'm not sure that is true, but it does seem like he might have a valid point. For example, if non-Mormons going to heaven does not mean the same thing to Mormons as it does to non-Mormons because Mormons believe in three heavens with very few people going to hell, that needs to be explained for proper communication to occur. Likewise, if "like God" means becoming God instead of becoming more like God in moral character, then that also should be explained. So the question to you and DaveH is, do you knowingly use terms that you know mislead others, or are you so engrossed within Mormonism that you don't really think about how others on this list might be misunderstanding you? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule
Blaine, Yes. Either that, or you both are extremely naive. For example, DavidH said that he believes non-Mormons can go to heaven. I feel confident that he knows that Christians believe there is one place called heaven, and LDS believe there are three. He did not point this out...and since non-Mormons go to a different LDS heaven than Mormons, in this sense he was intentionally misleading TT'rs who may not know that LDS consider there to be three heavens. The effect is to appear to agree with Christians, while secretly having a hidden meaning that you are using. I do not think that either you or DaveH are naive enough to not know what is going on. When missionaries do this, I can find room to excuse them, because I believe they may be naive. But, when seasoned LDS apologists like yourselves who hang out with Christians do it, you are intentionally "not telling the whole story". Perry From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "TT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [TruthTalk] ad hominem rule Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:09:04 -0700 Perry wrote: > > I do not want Christians who > > do not know the LDS meanings to be mislead into thinking that the >Mormons > > think or believe the same way Christians do. Call me protective, but I >feel > > it is my duty, if I know that someone is being mislead by words, to >correct > > that. You certainly aren't going to tell them that you mean something > > different. Blaine wrote: Are you saying either DaveH or I deliberately mislead? You seem to be implying this in some of your posts, and particularly this one. In fact, this post seems to be a thinly veiled attack on the character of Mormons in general, and since we are the only two Mormons on TT to read your posts, an attack on us personally? I sense you are getting tired of having to account for what you write, but one more answer is due here, it appears. Yes, I am putting you on the spot, in light of the ad hominem rule of TT. _ Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418 -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem remarks
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 7:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem remarks Marlin, liars go to hell. I am calling you a liar. I did not accuse you of being a Hitler lover. Glenn, Perhaps you have forgotten what you wrote to Marlin on 12/19/02: I take it you think Hitler was a good guy. Your pious arrogance gives me this impression. Since I would never accuse you of being a liar, I can only assume that your memory has failed you. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem remarks
Izzy, with all due respect. You are blinded to your double standard. If someone is in favor of Saturday worship, even to the point of requiring it in order to be in right standing with God, you see no problem in how they write. But if one strands for the Biblical view against Judaizers, then you think they are rude. Jesus would be rude by your double standard. JESUS RAN THEM OUT OF THE TEMPLE. The problem with TT is the same problem I had many years ago with a discussion group that kicked DavidM, Gary, and me out. Tell DavidM he is not a prophet and watch him start posting like I do to Marlin. TT has been taken over by far out doctrines that are not even close to the Bible. Just "normal" Christians are overwhelmed by false doctrines. Just "normal" Christians are not welcome here. Ah, they are told they are, but in reality they are not welcome on TT. Sometimes one learns to just ignore negative behavior than try to reason with an (explosive) brick wall. (And Glenn isn’t the only one!) I believe that TT should be a forum where it is SAFE to openly discuss spiritual issues, without fear of being shouted down, insulted, or “cast into hell”. Unfortunately, there are some here that treat others with such disrespect that it makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion. Perhaps we can talk above the fray? Slade, I’d love to hear your testimony. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem remarks
Glenn to Marlin - I stand by what I said about you. Furthermore, below is false doctrine too. Jesus used ad hominem remarks. So that would make Jesus lacking proof for His claims. Ad hominem remarks and name calling come from those who lack proof for their claims.
Re: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem remarks
Marlin, liars go to hell. I am calling you a liar. I did not accuse you of being a Hitler lover. You see to be uneducated. You didn't seem to know much about him. You refused to take a stand against him and wrote things about him. You were given many chances to rebuke Hitler and you would not. Something stupid about Christians and Hitler being alike. Now you are a Judaizer as you require Saturday worship in order to be in right standing before God. Gal. 5:4. I beg you to repent of your lies. You use Scripture just like Satan used Scripture. Dear Slade, Long before you came on board, I dealt with the same incoherence. Glen was accusing me of being a judaiser who supports Hitler before he left. Go figure. Ad hominem remarks and name calling come from those who lack proof for their claims. The practice of placing words in the mouths of others who never said them is simply a violation of the commandment that says not to bear false witness against one's neighbor. It was interesting to see how long such a false witness would be banted about before some list contributors would realize who fabricated it. I found dealing with this to be a waste of precious time. I encourage list members to always ask Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? This strikes at the heart of the truth. There is "truth" and there is "the truth." That is what I seek after. For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. 3JO 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 2JO 1:3 --Marlin
RE: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem remarks
Sometimes one learns to just ignore negative behavior than try to reason with an (explosive) brick wall. (And Glenn isn’t the only one!) I believe that TT should be a forum where it is SAFE to openly discuss spiritual issues, without fear of being shouted down, insulted, or “cast into hell”. Unfortunately, there are some here that treat others with such disrespect that it makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion. Perhaps we can talk above the fray? Slade, I’d love to hear your testimony. Izzy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 1:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem remarks Thank you, Brother... and Shalom! -- slade Do not hit the REPLY button when responding to this email. Please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] directly. My hotmail account is used exclusively for out-going email. Thank you. - Original Message - From: Marlin Halverson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 23 March, 2003 00:50 Subject: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem remarks Dear Slade, Long before you came on board, I dealt with the same incoherence. Glen was accusing me of being a judaiser who supports Hitler before he left. Go figure. Ad hominem remarks and name calling come from those who lack proof for their claims. The practice of placing words in the mouths of others who never said them is simply a violation of the commandment that says not to bear false witness against one's neighbor. It was interesting to see how long such a false witness would be banted about before some list contributors would realize who fabricated it. I found dealing with this to be a waste of precious time. I encourage list members to always ask Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? This strikes at the heart of the truth. There is "truth" and there is "the truth." That is what I seek after. For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. 3JO 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 2JO 1:3 --Marlin
Re: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem remarks
Thank you, Brother... and Shalom! -- slade Do not hit the REPLY button when responding to this email. Please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] directly. My hotmail account is used exclusively for out-going email. Thank you. - Original Message - From: Marlin Halverson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 23 March, 2003 00:50 Subject: [TruthTalk] Ad hominem remarks Dear Slade, Long before you came on board, I dealt with the same incoherence. Glen was accusing me of being a judaiser who supports Hitler before he left. Go figure. Ad hominem remarks and name calling come from those who lack proof for their claims. The practice of placing words in the mouths of others who never said them is simply a violation of the commandment that says not to bear false witness against one's neighbor. It was interesting to see how long such a false witness would be banted about before some list contributors would realize who fabricated it. I found dealing with this to be a waste of precious time. I encourage list members to always ask Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? This strikes at the heart of the truth. There is "truth" and there is "the truth." That is what I seek after. For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. 3JO 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love. 2JO 1:3 --Marlin
