Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

[ttxpress]

if you don't want moderation here, why are you tryg to entrench a post in moderatorese: 'ad hominem'?     On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:03:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ad hominem?   the hair splitting distinctions you resort to elicit serious critiques of your sup/posed dichotomies in (e.g.) wisdom, sin, and resurrection..mismanaged Bib language yields cult lang/logic persuasive for certain 'peasants' who'd be reasong at '~8th gr level'--that's not a critique of you; that ppl'd be publically persuadd to take advantage of them may be..   ftr, i requstd your 'hermeneutic'--you pointd me to the KJV per se which is to deny TT any info abt your coalesced theory of its interpretation    in synch with that you publically ban theologians and theology inquisitiv access to your mental HoH, but you frequently employ private theology rootd in undeclard hermenuetic against (e.g.) my critique/s of myth--e.g. Wesleys view of sinless perf; in the process you indicatd a bias toward Wesley's error which you avoidd owning up to    it is no ad hominem to call attention to such privatizd interpretation/s on a public forum--participants don't seem to mind demythologizing ideogical associates engrossd in private vendettas..guys like KD are worth their weight in gold   On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:06:42 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: There was no question about ad hominem when G accused me of writing on an 8th grade level. which is both personal and unflattering along with the ongoing cult and myth accusations...