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 ... > still does today when this servant of His does > the same. I do not see any examples of our Savior discussing matters with others the way that you do. If you would like to discuss this via another thread, I would like that. Our Savior did not always keep on the same subject raised by those who talked with him, and his change of subject sometimes indirectly addressed sinful hearts. Nevertheless, he was not in the habit of casting aspersions upon others, nor was he in the habit of ignoring sincere questions posed by those who followed him. Chris wrote: > I referred to your braggadocio (re "attention to detail", > and "the scientist in me" type of comments). Interesting. I don't consider those to be statements of bragging among theologians who embrace and favor a holistic approach to truth. This is an admission of bias. I am admitting myself to be a student of reductionism, something scorned by the pure holist. Being formally trained in science rather than theology puts me at a disadvantage, don't you think? Chris wrote: > The word braggadocio is a noun identifying what > you did rather than what you are. You never connected the word with any specific thing I said in your original post. I think you are splitting hairs here in an inappropriate way. David Miller wrote: >> and that I am going to burn in the lake of fire, Chris wrote: > I didn't say/write that. Is this dishonesty on > your part? You wrote: > Humble yourself David M. or eternal destruction is your lot. In other words, you are saying that if I stay as I am, then eternal destruction is my lot. Does that not mean that you perceive me as heading to the lake of fire? Chris wrote: > Perhaps you are extrapolating? Yes. Chris wrote: > 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. Chris, this is the best response I think I have ever received from you. You have finally clarified that your perspective is that Jahn used SOME manuscripts that the KJV translators used, but not all of them, whereas Green considered manuscripts that were not available to the KJV translators. This really gets down to the core thing that is important to you. Apparently, you do not agree with the Majority Text position or the Westcott-Hort position or the KJV-Only position. You apparently think it best to concentrate on only a subset of the manuscripts that the KJV translators used. That is very interesting, and this is the first time I have understood you to be saying this. Although I don't understand why you would favor such a thing, at least you are being clear about what seems to be important to you. David Miller wrote: >> I am going to ignore for the moment that you changed >> a proper word within Scripture into a curse word. Chris wrote: > By bringing up this assertion of yours you have made > it an issue - an accusation if you will. Saying, >"I'm going to ignore for the moment that you are ugly" > is an accusation whether you pursue it or not. Chris, you changed the word "dog" to "bitch." It seems to me that it is obvious why you did that, and I don't want to waste too much time talking about it. Chris wrote: > Not pursuing it makes it an unfounded accusation > for starters. Have you done this because you are > dishonest? Are you blind to this? I have simply pointed out that you changed God's Word and what you did is so obvious that I'm not going to spend time addressing it right now. I am just registering with you so that you know that it has not escaped my attention. If you want to address it, fine, but how could you know that it was a problem with me unless I tell you? That is all I was doing... being honest with you about how I felt about your peculiar translation of that text. Chris wrote: > This is not the first time. For instance ... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Miller" > Sent: 05/03/2004 11:13 AM > Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Bible versions - ad hominem arguments > > Let me just be open and honest with you about my > feelings and thoughts when reading something like > the above. When I read such rhetoric which labels > me a fool, and as someone who has exposed himself > as a fool by opening his mouth, I am VERY tempted > to rake you over the coals for such irresponsible > statements. I have knowledge that would very well > prove you wrong in some of what you have said. > My CARNAL reaction is to present this knowledge of > mine, then defame you as a BIG HEAD and BIG MOUTH > full of hot air and without any education at all > concerning translations. Why do I have these feelings > within me? Because I am flesh like everybody else. > I have a sin nature within me that is ever present > and ever wanting to be my master. But I have learned > through the eternal spirit to reject the carnal > impulses of my flesh, so you will not see this kind > of reaction from me. > * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Well, David, you concluded, "you will not see this > kind of reaction from me" right after giving that > kind of reaction -- including assertions not pursued > which makes them unfounded. AGAIN I ASK, have you > done this because you are dishonest? Are you blind > to this? It is amazing to me that I can be so open and honest with you about my innermost temptations to sin, and you consider that honesty to be dishonesty or blindness. I was confessing to you something that I was tempted to do from my flesh. This carnal reaction is inappropriate. Such a reaction, if followed, would be sin. I revealed that which was wrong and unfounded within me, hoping that you would see that others such as myself experience the same temptation as you do. I also hoped that you would see how we must exercise discipline to do what is right. I also hoped that you would see that your writing style provokes the flesh. When you cast aspersions upon others, it causes their flesh to want to stand up for self. So you are a source of temptation to me. I thought you might want to see that. Surely you do not want to be a source of temptation for me, do you? Chris wrote: > Are you familiar with the phrase, "no offense given, > none taken". You have taken much more offense than > any given. Guilty conscience? Pride? Dishonesty? > Blindness? These are questions, David. They are not > accusations, ad hominem, or name calling. My comments to you are not from being offended, but rather they are an effort to help you understand why we would like for you to discuss your knowledge with us rather than spend time casting aspersions upon the character of others. The primary thing that offends me is when I ask you questions like, "which manuscripts did Jahn use" or "did Jahn consult Wycliffe's translation" or "is Jahn fluent in French, Spanish, Italian, Latin, Hebrew and Greek" and you do not answer. This is frustrating because the answers would go straight to the heart of the differences between the KJV translators and Jahn. Nevertheless, if you want to drop the discussion, that is fine with me. David Miller wrote: >> In fact, he never directly called her a dog. >> He spoke a proverb and the woman gave a great >> answer to it. Chris wrote: > THIS IS CLASSIC! I did exactly the same thing! > I wrote a proverb, "Better to be silent and thought > a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." > I "never directly called" you a fool! The difference > here is that you did not give a great answer to it! > The woman was humble in her response. You were proud > in yours! THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT! If I proved your point, then that means you were making the point that I am a fool. So now that we have established that I am a fool, what are we going to do about it? How can we fix this problem? David Miller wrote: >> Did Jesus know before hand that the woman would give a >> good answer? I think he did. Chris wrote: > I am sure that He did not. However, that is a meaty > subject not to be delved into until milk can be readily > handled. Well, whenever you resolve what to do about my foolishness, pride, blindness and dishonesty, please come back to this subject because I would very much like to hear how you believe that Jesus did not know how this woman would respond. Chris wrote: > I just have not seen that as a rule that is observed > on TT with any consistency at all. For instance, as > I've been writing this to you the following came through > TT ... <...snip...> Yes, Chris, you are right. You are not the only one on TruthTalk who is guilty of making ad hominem comments. We all have done so at one time or another. That's why we try and help one another to do better. Pointing out the failures of others does not excuse us for doing it. 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.
