|
I'm not able to read all the posts lately, but I did see this one. I
want to make a comment.
Name calling is not wrong or a sin. There are times, in fact, when ad
hominem arguments might actually be helpful to a debate, but only if it is done
properly. For example, using a name and following it with an argument
to support the name is sometimes helpful, better than not using the name at
all. The article you share touches on some of this. In public
preaching, I often use names and labels in effective ways, to make a
point.
Nevertheless, e-mail exchange has characteristics where calling the
participants on the list names generally causes the list to tumble into
tit-for-tat responses that really don't say anything substantial. The
exchange turns into a kind of spitting contest. This is the reason we have
the no ad hominem attack rule. I haven't been able to read the exchange
for the last few days, but from the few posts I have checked on, very little
substance is actually being said. Seems like more spitting contests
between different personalities. Very boring.
I know that Kevin has not agreed with the no ad hominem rule, and neither
has John. I wish I could cause everyone to see the wisdom in it.
Just consider the common sense fact that if you call your neighbor a name, and
they call you one back, then that causes you to volley back at them, while the
two of you might be having some fun at it, the rest of us are bored and
wondering why we are wasting our time reading your posts. In e-mail
exchange, I would much rather read a post that has no name calling but makes
some very good points. It is also a common observation that it is much
easier to look for the right name to hurl at someone rather than address the
issue and avoid the personal insults. Avoiding ad hominem
arguments takes more work, but in the end, it is more rewarding for the
readers.
Kevin and John, the only thing I can think of right now to make my point is
to ask you to consider the writings of Daniel Lee. He is the king of ad
hominem attacks, is he not? Is his method of communication effective or
ineffective? Think about it. He thinks it is very effective. I
think you might agree with me that his e-mail communiqués are ineffective and a
waste of time.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 8:17
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Virtue of Name
Calling
Name Calling is said to be unfair in debate. It is similar to an "Ad
hominim" attack, or an attack on the person instead of the argument. I agree
that the truth stands on its own, and that truths can be spoken by people of
questionable character, and that character attacks might not have anything to
do with the validity of the arguments being presented. Nevertheless, Jesus and
the prophets personally attacked the character of their enemies by calling
them plenty of names such as hypocrites, liars, murderers and worse. The point
should be that unfair name calling should be avoided, but truthful name
calling is certainly appropriate. Accurate and truthful descriptions of
another's bad character are the type of rebuke we are asked to make when
contending for the faith.
1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before
all, that others also may fear.
Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore
rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the
faith;
Judy Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is an interesting article - What say ye
CPL??
The Virtue of
Name-Calling
John W. Robbins
American Christians of the twentieth century are, for
the most part, a pusillanimous bunch. About the only time they shed their
timidity is in order to attack a fellow Christian who is valiant in
defense of the truth. A Christian like that is perceived as a
threat to the "unity of believers" and the "peace of the church."
Confronted with such a manifest threat to unity and peace, some professed
Christians can be quite vindictive and vicious, as J. Gresham Machen
learned earlier in this century and as Harold Lindsell is learning
now.
Some time ago a reader wrote to the editors of
Present Truth (now Verdict) magazine to protest the
magazines attitude toward Karl Barth. In his letter, the reader referred
to Barth as a "monstrous miscreant," thereby violating the first
commandment of polite society: Never call people names (unless, of
course, those people are ignorant fundamentalists). The editor, in a
stern and curt rebuke, reprimanded the reader, saying, "We suggest, sir,
that you stick to judging Barths theology and not his person." That is,
never call people names. Name-calling is not only non-Christian, it is
worse: It is prima facie evidence of bad taste,
and whatever Christians do, they must never, no never, give the
impression that they are of low birth.
Two of the most shocking things for a twentieth-century
American Christian to read are the works of Martin Luther and John Calvin,
for these menwho were valiant for the truthdid not hesitate to call
people names. Are Luther and Calvin wrong and the editors of Present
Truth right? The only way for a Christian to discover the answer is to
examine the Scriptures.
Unfortunately, most professed Christians today seem
never to have gotten past Matthew 7. Thats too bad, for they
should proceed to read Matthew 23. In that chapter alone,
Christ calls the scribes and Pharisees names 16 times.
The names are "hypocrites" (7 times), "son of Hell" (once),"blind guides"
(twice), "fools and blind" (3 times), "whited sepulchres" (once),
"serpents" (once), and "offspring of vipers" (once). Since Christ was
without sin, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence that
name-calling as such is not a sin. Since everything Christ did was
righteous and virtuous, we may deduce by good and necessary consequence
that accurate name-calling is a virtue.
But Christ is not the only example. John, who some
professed Christians love to quote because they misunderstand and
misrepresent what he says about love, calls certain persons known
to his readers "liars" and "antichrists." Those sensitive souls
who flinch when they read chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession
identifying the pope as antichrist should read 1
John 2 and 2 John. John was not talking about someone far off
in Rome; he was referring to persons known to his readers.
Just AD HOMS?
Then there is Paul, who in 1 Corinthians
corrected those at Corinth who denied the resurrection. In chapter 15,
verse 36, he refers to one objector as a fool. And can we
not conclude from Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 that Madalyn OHair, for
example, is a fool? Further, in 1 Timothy 4:2 Paul refers to
"hypocritical liars" and in 5:13 he writes of
"gossips and busybodies." Those who object to
name-calling must object to the practice of Jesus, Paul, and John, among
many others.
The obvious question, which the perceptive reader has
already asked, is, what shall we do with Matthew 5:22:"Whosoever
shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the Sanhedrin; but
whoever shall say, Fool, shall be liable to the fire of Hell." Does not
this verse, just as Matthew 7:1does with judging and Matthew
5:34-37 do with swearing, prohibit all name-calling? The
answer, equally obvious, is no. Such an interpretation would create
irreconcilable contradictions in the Bible. Just as Matthew 7:1
does not prohibit accurate judging and Matthew 5:34-37 do not
prohibit legitimate swearing, neither does Matthew 5:22 prohibit
accurate name-calling. It is not name-calling per se that is proscribed,
but inaccurate name-calling. Jesus, John, and Paul used
names accurately and achieved a specific purpose: telling the truth.
Name-calling, accurately done, is not only not a sin,
it is a virtue. It is identifying a person for what he
is, and this cannot be done except by doing it. Anyone who
studies the examples quoted here or any of the many other examples in the
Bible will find that the name is used in conjunction with stated reasons
for using it. The reasons constitute an argument, and the name is
a conclusion. Those who deny that
Jesus came in the flesh are antichrists and liars.
Those who deny the resurrection are fools, and so on.
The reluctance to call names is a type of reluctance to draw valid
conclusions from the evidence; it is an attempt to "curb logic,"
to use the neo-orthodox phrase. As such, it is but another example of the
anti rationalism of our age.
To return to our original example, the editors of
Present Truth suggested that a separation
be made between Karl Barths theology and his person,
indicating that it is permissible to judge his theology, but not his
person. Such a separation is foreign to the Scriptures. The reason one is
not to call a brother Raca or Fool is that his theology is basically
correct: He is a brother and has been regenerated by God. His theology is
his person; as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he. Not only are we not
to make a separation between a persons theology and his person, we are
commanded to judge another person by his theology. John, in 2
John, does not say that the theology of certain people is
antichristian (though it is) nor does he say they speak
lies (though they do). He calls the people antichrists
and liars. He judges their persons by their
theologies, and he commands the elect lady and her children to do the
same. Worse still, from the point of view of the twentieth centurythe
bloodiest and most polite century in historyJohn commands the elect lady
and her children not to show any hospitality to such liars and
antichrists. It is not without significance that John first gives his
reasons, then calls names, and then gives the command. Accurate
identification is necessary to appropriate action. Unless that
identification is made, the appropriate action will not follow.
Witness the reluctance of denominations and institutions in
twentieth-century America to dismiss employees and officers who deny the
faith.
What, then, shall we say of Barth? Is he really a
"monstrous miscreant"? Well, the Oxford English
Dictionary says that "monstrous" means "outrageously wrong or absurd,"
and "miscreant" means "a misbeliever, heretic; an unbeliever,
infidel." Is this phrase an accurate description of Barth? What does
Barth say?
The prophets and apostles as such, even in their
office,
were real historical men as we are, and
Actually guilty of
error in their spoken and written word (Church Dogmatics, I, 2,
528-529).
Like all ancient literature the Old and New Testaments
know nothing of the distinction of fact and value
between history on the
one hand and saga and legend on the other (I, 2, 509).
The vulnerability of the Bible, i.e., its capacity for
error, also extends to its religious or theological content (I,
1,509).
In common with the creation story
the history of the
resurrection has to be regarded
. as "saga" or "legend." The death of
Jesus Christ can certainly be thought of as history in the modern sense,
but not the resurrection (IV, 1, 336).
The "legend" of the finding of the empty tomb is not of
itself and as such the attestation of Jesus Christ as he showed himself
alive after his death. It is ancillary to this attestation. The one can be
as little verified "historically" as the other. Certainly the empty tomb
cannot serve as an "historical" proof (IV, 1, 341).
These quotations, and there are many more, are
sufficient to justify calling Barth a monstrous miscreantor, in Biblical
terms, a fool and a liar. To
refuse to draw this conclusion about a man with the stature of Barth would
be a sin, for only such an identification serves to warn the faithful.
False teachers must be named, and the pusillanimous habits of Christians
broken. Good etiquette, like peace and unity, must yield to the primacy of
truth. Accurate name-calling is a virtue, not a sin.
Just as Adam was given the task of naming the animals as an
exercise of his rational faculties, so Christians are called upon to
identify correctly the false teachers who prey upon the innocent and
unlearned. Charles Perry Locke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What
do I think? Well, I still think both the "barf" reference and the
"Jezebel" reference are ad hominem references.
One aspect of
the meaning on "jezebel" may include a characteristic that you
feel
applies to Judy, but since there are many dimensions to the word, other
uses of the word will undoubtedly come to mind. This is no different
than
Lance's saying that Judy would make a good Muslim. While he may
feel that
one of the characteristics of muslims applies to Judy, to
say that she would
make a good muslim brings to mind many other
undesirable characteristics.
Did you like it when Jim Elsman
called you "butterball"? There may of been
some nuance of that which
Elsman felt was true, but I did not feel like it
gave him a right to
call you that.
I think it all amounts to name-calling, which is
ad-hominem in nature.
Perry
>From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To:
[email protected]
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy
once again employing the ad hom (Barf
>for Karl
Barth)
>Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:54:27
-0500
>
>Comments concerning Webster are correct, I am sure.
But I included the
>only definition Webster entertains in the
referenced work. One simply
>cannot say that the writing "is just
plain stupid" without casting doubt on
>the intellectual
abilities of the author. "Barf" is not the man's name
>and Judy
speaks these words as would a well trained parrot. She has so
>committed herself to the disgracing of Barth as to render her
comments
>bigoted and biased -- words and judgments written
without personal
>knowing. I regard these words as both ignorant
and stupid -- and the
>glory of it all is that I get to say such
things without crossing the line
>of "ad hom" because I have
limited my attack to her words and not to her
>person. Asinine.
Such a line solves no problems and allows the kind of
>negative
immaturity that typifies TT discussions .
>
>"Barf" is
vomit, Perry. It no more is beyond "ad hom" than calling Judy
>Jezebel. She is not a whore and Barth is not a pile of vomit. If
you
>disagree, then I will argue that Jezebel decribes the
whoring words of one
>who has prostituted the truth for a
lie.................and it will become
>a part of my
presentations here on TT. I will use it to describe Judy in
>the
same sense that The Revelations uses the word.
>
>What do
you think?
>
>jd
>
>-----Original
Message-----
>From: Charles Perry Locke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To:
[email protected]
>Sent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:36:14
-0800
>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again employing
the ad hom (Barf
>for Karl Barth)
>
>
>John,
there are many dimensions to the ad-hominem argument on which
>Webster's does not elaborate. In fact, the way the ad hominem
attack is
>most often used on TT is to demean the opponent for 1)
hoping to discredit
>them to the point that their arguments seem
untrustworthy, 2) to throw a
>red herring into the argument to
avoid answering the opponent's argument,
>and 3) is almost alays
a sign of defeat in the argument.
>
>...and "Jezebel" is one
such ad-hominem.
>
>While "Barf" for "Barth" is indeed an ad
hominem, it is meant to discredit
>a third party to which the
opponent has referred as an authority. However,
>it is not
intended to demean the opponent him/herself. Terry did the same
>by saying Calvin would make a good Muslim. I do not consider
these critical
>ad-hominems since they are not intended to hurt
or demean other TT members,
>although they are still a poor
technique in argumentation.
>
>Side bar...in my recent
survey of the ad-hominem reference I was surprised
>to find that
it is, in some types of arguments, regarded as an effective
>argument...and that was exclusively in political
debate.
>
>Perry
>
> >From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To:
[email protected]
> >To:
[email protected]
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On
Judy once again employing the ad hom (Barf
> >for Karl
Barth)
> >Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:12:22 -0500
>
>
> >Total chunky style barnyard. By the same logic, I can
call you Jezebel
> >Taylor and Kevin "Dunce Deegan" and and so
on. And "ad hom" has no such
> >limitations except here on TT.
Ad hom is an attack on the person or words
> >of an individual
"rather than an appeal to pure reason" (Webster's
>
>Encyclopedic Dictionary.)
> >
> >-----Original
Message-----
> >From: Judy Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To:
[email protected]
> >Cc:
[email protected]
> >Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 07:53:12
-0500
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:On Judy once again
employing the ad hom (Barf
> >for Karl Barth)
>
>
> >
> >Oh Lance, I forgot to mention that I can
not take credit for your
> >descriptive subject line
>
>It is an original Kevinism (if I remember correctly) but after
perusing
> >some of the subject's
> >theological
ideas I found it appropriate.
> >
> >Remember ad hom
is against the person. I don't know the man; my comment
>
>reflects my
> >response to his theology which has been made
very public..
> >
>
>----------
>"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.
Yahoo!
DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Yahoo! Personals
Single? There's someone we'd like you to
meet.
Lots of someones, actually. Try
Yahoo! Personals
|
