|
No authority here, Kevin. I figure if any are
righteous enough to pass the scrutiny of this test, it's the least he or she
could do to tell me the answer. By the way, please explain to me the
"foolishness" of my words, or are yours just a marble short of
another lazy ad hom?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator
commant **
A perfect illustration of foolishness.
Could some one out line the "objective test" used to identify an
"infraction"
And unless you are claiming to be our spiritual Authority over us,
why "any Christian who feels justified in using ad homs against
another needs to explain to me" ? Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The Moderator writes > Bill, I
don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a
biblical character that matches the characteristics you listed, . .
.
And Judy writes > You didn't mention names but one does not have to be a rocket
scientist to figure out who is implied here. . . .
My point in using this character as my example
was to demonstrate that whether it be Calvin or a king, none of us can
withstand the scrutiny of God's microscope apart from the cleansing blood of
Christ -- not even if that king be David. If our own moral perfection is the
criterion by which we speak, then none of us could utter a
word.
Yes, we believe by
faith that David's words are inspired. Is that why we abstain
from blasting him? What about those who don't yet have our view of
inspiration? Are they justified in dismissing his words on the basis of
his actions? I hope they do not.
And how about the Apostle Paul: Are they
justified in dismissing his words on the basis of his actions? Or ought they
rather determine the truthfulness of his claims by an examination of his
words?
You tell me: Is there a single human
author in Scripture whose words can withstand the scrutiny of an ad hom
attack? If anyone ought to know that personal transgressions do not
determine the truthfulness of statements pertaining to God in Christ, it is
the Christian. And any Christian who feels justified in using ad
homs against another needs to explain to me why God chose to use sinful men
to record the truest words ever spoken. Ad homs are a fallacy because none
of us can withstand their attack. The truth
is, it is on the basis of who Christ is and Christ alone that we speak
(and that means any of us: be it Calvin, King David, Paul, you, me, Judy, or
the vielest offender). If statements are true, they are true because Christ
is the Truth. Apart from him there is not enough truth among us all
to utter a single word. Hence if it is true, it is Christ's truth,
sinners that we are. And if it is true it will stand upon the substance
of who he is, regardless of who speaks the words. And so Christians who feel
justified in resorting to ad homs in dismissing arguments, should shut
their mouths and repent -- because if they have once sinned, there is
no getting the plank out of those eyes.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:55
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant
**
> Bill, I don't really think one has to be omniscient to imagine a
biblical
> character that matches the characteristics you listed,
although I did see a
> three musketeer movie once in which King Louis
did exactly the same thing.
> To which were you referring?
:-)
>
> Just use good taste. I have called Joseph Smith a lot
of things through the
> years, and have used those ad hominem
arguments to discount his prophetic
> position. That is not good
debate style because even if he was a
> money-digging stone-peeping
plaigerizing, philandering huckster, those
> things should have no
bearing on arguments about the mormon church.
>
> Perry
>
>
> >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: <[email protected]>
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant
**
> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:16:23 -0600
> >
>
>I don't recall mentioning any names, Judy. Hey Perry: what about those
of
> >us who are not omniscient, should we avoid the ad homs
against the
> >theologians, prophets, and kings of another's
argumentation?
> >
> >Bill
> > -----
Original Message -----
> > From: Judy Taylor
>
> To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:17 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
>
>
> >
> > The problem here is huge since
the person described below is not a
> >theologian. Rather he is a
prophet/king
> > chosen by God whose recorded words are
inspired by the Spirit of God.
> >Big
difference. jt
> >
> > On Mon, 27
Jun 2005 10:04:12 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>writes:
> > The Moderator
responds > . . .those arguments, too, should have to
>
>stand on the facts of Calvin's argument, not on personal attacks on
Calvin.
> >
> > You don't say!
Hmmmmmm. If you were ever to enforce this one, it would
> >render
some of us speechless. Just think how it would affect the traffic
>
>here on TruthTalk if participants were required to actually research,
> >contemplate, and address the substance of theological
statements, instead
> >of dismissing them out-of-hand simply
because the theologian seduced and
> >slept with another man's
wife and then, to cover his crime, had him sent to
> >the front
lines to be murdered -- I think you should go for it.
> >
>
> Bill
> >
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005
9:03 AM
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] **
Moderator commant **
> >
> >
>
> > Bill,
> >
>
> > > In TT we are
trying to prevent discussions from becoming emotional
>
>in
> > > nature because of demeaning
and hurtful statements, so it applies
> >directly
>
> > to the persons with whom we are immeditaly
engaging in debate.
> > >
>
> > However, from a debating
point of view if one chooses to bring in
>
> > arguments made by another, say Calvin,
those arguments, too, should
> >have to
>
> > stand on the facts of Calvin's argument,
not on personal attacks on
> >Calvin.
>
> >
> > >
Perry
> > >
>
> > >From: "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > >Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > >To: <[email protected]>
> > > >Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >
> >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:29:28 -0600
>
> > >
> >
> >Hi Perry, I am impressed by your sincerity and humility. Thanks for
> >the
> > > >great example
to the rest of us.
> > > >
>
> > >I have a question for you. You write
that "Specifically, 'ad
> >hominem
>
> > >argumentum', [which is what is
mentioned on the TT discussions
> >guidelines
>
> > >page] refers to trying to gain
an edge in an argument by attacking
> >the
>
> > >person rather than the topic, again,
regardless whether it is true
> >or
>
> > >false.' Does this apply only to the
one with whom one is arguing,
> >or does
>
> > >it
>
> > >apply as well to attacks against the
person of persons whom one
> >might
>
> > >reference in constructing ones
arguments. For example, a dismissal
> >of John
>
> > >Calvin's views on election via an
attack against him as a person,
> >i.e., his
>
> > >dealings with Servatis; or a dismissal
of the content and substance
> >of the
>
> > >Nicene Creed because it was formulated
by supposedly corrupt Roman
> > >
>Catholics -- are these ad hominem arguments acceptable forms of
>
> > >argumentation on TruthTalk?
>
> > >
> >
> >Bill
> > > >----- Original
Message -----
> > > >From: "Charles
Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: <[email protected]>
> > > >Sent: Monday, June
27, 2005 8:03 AM
> > > >Subject:
[TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant **
> >
> >
> > > >
>
> > > > TT members,
>
> > > >
>
> > > > I have been
contacted by email privately and informed that my
>
> > >referring
>
> > > > to DaveH as a "sly ol' mormon
boy" was an ad hominem reference.
> >After
>
> > >some
>
> > > > discussion back and forth, and
some research, I am convinced
> >that it is
>
> > >so
>
> > > > and that I need to apologize to
Dave.
> > > > >
>
> > > > I previously
thought that if one merely stated a belief about
>
>someone
> > > > > that was
true, that it was not an ad hominem statement, but upon
> >doing
a
> > > > > little researh I
discovered that it does not matter whether it
> >is true
>
> > >or
>
> > > > not...an ad hominem reference is
a comment "to the man", so
> >saying
>
> > >anything
>
> > > > about anyone personally, whether
true or not, positive or
> >negative, is
>
> > >an
>
> > >ad
>
> > > > hominem reference. If I were to
say, "John, I really think you
> >are a
>
> > >smart
>
> > > > guy", that is an ad hominem
reference, too, because it is
> >directed at
>
> > > > someone personally.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > However,
on TT I think it is a little more specific in that
> >TT
>
> > >wishes
>
> > >to
>
> > > > avoid the NEGATIVE ad hominem
reference, that is, one that the
> >receiver
>
> > >of
>
> > > > the comment would find
insulting. Dave indicated in a post that
> >he
>
> > >thought
>
> > > > "sly ol' mormon boy" was an ad
hominem reference.
> > > >
>
> > > > >
So, with this in mind, Dave, I apologize to you for making an
>
> > >ad-hominem
>
> > > > reference.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > The above is a
very general interpretation of "ad hominem".
>
> > >Specifically,
>
> > > > "ad hominem argumentum", [which
is what is mentioned on the TT
> > >
>discussions
> > > > >
guidelines page] refers to trying to gain an edge in an
>
>argument by
> > > > >
attacking the person rather than the topic, again, regardless
>
>whether it
> > > >is
>
> > > > true or false.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Even though I
am acting as moderator, I, too, am prone to
> >making
>
> > > > inappropriate remarks at times,
and I welcome private email from
> >anyone
>
> > >that
>
> > > > would like to point out such
comments. If we have only one
> >watcher, who
>
> > > > watches the watcher? While I
moderate the group, the group
> >moderates me.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Perry the Moderator
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > ----------
>
> > > > "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.
>
> >
> >
>
> > > ----------
>
> > "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.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You
Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|
