It is, however, a fallacious form of argumentation.
It's called "bagging the questions" and , as such, it is ad
hom.
What on earth are you talking about JD, I never bagged
any of
his questions. I answered one and the other is on
hold until
he responds to mine.
Whether you agree with accepted definition or not, the simple fact
that you admit such statements to be "fallacious form[s] of argumentation"
should be enough to cause one to be more consistent in one's
presentation.
I have not dismissed anyone because of association,
identifying the
source of something as being the Church Fathers rather
than the
Word of God is not exactly doing this even if Bill
thinks it so.
Regarding the use of the word "Moromon:" if such application
takes one
from the subject at hand , it is ad hom. In Judy's mind, attaching
one to the
early church fathers is a bad thing (for starters)
and forces Bill to leave
the subject at hand and make explanation or defend himself on a matter
that is off subject.
You have no idea what goes on in Judy's mind JD and I
thought we had
agreed that I would not be the topic of your
discussions or rantings.
The truth of the debated questions has nothing to do with the chruch
fathers
and whether or not Bill appreciateds their value. jd
There were no debated questions It began as
follows about this hypostatic union
which came out of the Council at Nicea. What is so
offensive about calling it what
it is?. None of the apostles taught this, nor did
Jesus say it of Himself.
From: Taylor
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:30 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate GodAn interesting aside, perhaps, on the terminology of "hypostatic union": The Greek word hupostasis is a compound of hupos which means "under" and stasis which means "to stand"; hence in this phrase we have the "understanding" union. That understanding may not be exhaustive, but it is real and true nonetheless. This is the case with all our understanding of God: because we are finite and he infinite, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend him, but that is not to say that we can know him to our fullest potential; that is, to really know him.By the way, I don't want to leave yous thinking that hupostasis meant the same to the patristics that "understanding" means to us. To them, this word came closer to meaning "standing-under." The humanity of Christ stood under his divinity by way of union. Were it not for that standing-under union, his humanity, along with all humanity, would have fallen.Bill
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bill wrote:
> > If you do like the label, then please cease with
> > the ad hominem arguments, attaching me to
> > the fathers and dismissing my comments on
> > the basis of that association; for when you do
> > that, you are employing a fallacious form of
> > argumentation.
>
> Attaching you to the fathers is not an ad hominem argument. It is no
> different than calling the LDS adherents in this forum "Mormons." It is,
> however, a fallacious form of argumentation. You are no more wrong for
> reading the church fathers and accepting some of what they say than DaveH is
> wrong for reading the Book of Mormon. It would be fallacious for someone to
> argue with DaveH by saying, "but the Book of Mormon taught you that, or the
&g t; Mormon church taught you that, so you must be wrong!"
>
> Bill wrote:
> > Judy, I am asking you to please address the
> > content of my statements. Rebut them if you
> > wish -- with Scripture or whatever other source
> > you would like to use ...
>
> Yes, Judy, please oblige Bill in this regard. Thanks.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
> ----------
> "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.
