I don't believe that anyone walking in blatant sin is capable of speaking the oracles of God, let alone writing a new "prophetic" bible. Prove me otherwise. Izzy
Matt 7: 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 6:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant ** Izzy, This will sound strange coming from me, but I am afraid that, although JS was an adulterer, to use that fact to disqualify him from the status as prophet would committing an "ad hominem argumentum" fallacy. David was an adulterer, and he was still a man after God's own heart, wasn't he? However, JS's false prophecies DO disqualify him as a prophet since that is the biblical test, and deals with the facts of the argument rather than his sexual exploits with young women and other men's wives. Perry >From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator commant ** >Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:42:34 -0500 > >Perry, how does that relate to JSmith and the mormons? I believe the fact >that he was an adulterer totally discredits his credentials as a prophet of >god. Izzy > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Perry Locke >Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 9:03 AM >To: [email protected] >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. ---------- "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.
