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.
