RE: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To Get To The Truth

[ShieldsFamily]

Slade, I don’t think “everyone” on TT is doing this.  However, those who are into “Community” do seem to be the worst offenders. Also, I think telling someone they are using the wrong interpretative models is a bit supercilious, don’t you.  Where in the Bible does it say what “models” we “should” use? And where does that leave room for guidance from the Holy Spirit?  And how does giving credence to “holy, learned men” differ from Catholicism’s bias of tradition over scripture? (A sincere question,  looking forward to a kindly answer.)  I realize this is where you are now spiritually in your particular seminary, but not everyone has been called to do what you are presently doing.  Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 4:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To Get To The Truth   Is a "carcophany" when you're sitting at a stop light and all the hip hip base-o-matic car stereos are blasting all around you -- all playing a different song?   You are probably correct in this assumption regarding ad hominem. Please accept my apologies. This is why.....   I decided to get a definition for this phrase and if I assume the base interpretation/definition of ad hominem is to be maintained on TT, I'll be banning everyone by weeks' end... including myself. 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). However, my concern is still very real. You do not use proper Biblical Interpretative models to come to the conclusions you do (the standards are called the laws of Hermeneutics -- which have nothing to do with the god Hermes, contrary to the cacophony of inflammatory posts in the past). This is why it's so important to sit at the feet of holy, learned men who've been given the gift of teaching from the Holy One.   -- slade    -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Sunday, 19 December, 2004 16.11 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Right Way To Get To The Truth jt: Slade are you also joining the carcophany of ad hominems now?