Ad hominem?

Right & Wrong
User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Ad hominem?

Post by Homer » Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:07 am

This forum has not been much fun lately. A bit (OK, maybe much) too intense. I feel like I want to participate and yet I feel a bit of dread when I come on the forum to see what has been posted. We have not been as kind to one another as we should be as followers of Christ, and I am as much to blame as anyone. Just the other day when I tried to access the forum and was unable to I felt a sense of relief, and actually hoped the forum would be down a few days to let things cool down. And then I ran across the following examples thought to be insults and/or ad hominem at another site:
You don't seem to be giving your arguments much thought before you post them.

As bad as ________'s latest post is, it's at least more substantive than most of what he writes, though that isn't saying much.

You've been corrected on this point more than once. You're either careless or dishonest.

The concept that I would need to cite a creed in order to define my terms is ridiculous.

The idea that the means of attaining justification is a "minor" issue is ridiculous.

Your claim that I only gave you "mere phrases", without any information defining those phrases, is absurd.

________ is a poor communicator. It's often difficult to determine what he's trying to say. I suspect that he hasn't done much research and hasn't given these issues much thought.

You don't know much about Evangelical theology, do you?

Your response above is another illustration of why I refer to "Roman Catholic desperation".

Again, you don't seem to know much about Evangelical theology.

Once again, you've shown your ignorance of Evangelical theology.

But it is absurd to read the concept into Luke 18 when nothing suggests it.

But it would be ridiculous to argue that all of these passages are exceptions to a rule.

Readers ought to note that ______ needs to have these things explained to him. What does that suggest about his level of discernment and how much effort he's given to thinking through his arguments?

________ keeps repeating bad arguments that have already been refuted:

If you're so ignorant of the subject as to be unfamiliar with Josephus' comments against the Apocrypha (much as you didn't know that Jerome and Rufinus included Esther in the canon), then shouldn't you first familiarize yourself with that sort of information? Why are you posting on these issues you know so little about?

You don't seem to have much familiarity with the issues involved.

For you to act as though I hadn't mentioned these things before is absurd.

That's not the issue, and the fact that you keep trying to make it the issue, even after being corrected so many times, doesn't reflect well on you.

And your claim that Josephus doesn't exclude the Apocrypha is absurd. It's reminiscent of your ridiculous claim that Jerome and Rufinus excluded Esther, even though both men include Esther. Do you consult these sources before you make claims about them?

Are you suggesting that the evidence doesn't favor either conclusion? If so, that's a ridiculous position to take.

Asking for a list from somebody like Aquila or Josephus, as if only a list would be relevant to this discussion, is ridiculous, and you've been corrected on this issue repeatedly.

For you to now act as though you've been asking for documentation on these issues, but wasn't given any, is ridiculous.

Again, how could you make such a ridiculous comment if you had read the passage in Josephus?
Sound familiar?

Cheryl
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:23 pm

Re: Ad hominem?

Post by Cheryl » Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:20 am

Homer,

I'm with you! I've been reading the forum less and less frequently and have stopped reading some topics completely because of the downard spiral of courteousness.

Anyone who is about to use the word "ridiculous" should backspace and find a more tactful word.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Ad hominem?

Post by Singalphile » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:55 am

I haven't been here so long, but I know I've written at least one post that I shouldn't have and wish I hadn't, and I'm sorry about that. I will make an effort to be more careful. Thanks for the reminder.

There's also the danger of being too sensitive, I guess. I've also abandoned a thread that was too much for me, but I think some people like a good rough-n-tumble debate more than others, and that's alright.

Btw, I heard you, Homer, on an old archived TNP show the other day. That was pretty neat.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Ad hominem?

Post by steve7150 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:59 am

This forum has not been much fun lately. A bit (OK, maybe much) too intense. I feel like I want to participate and yet I feel a bit of dread when I come on the forum to see what has been posted. We have not been as kind to one another as we should be as followers of Christ, and I am as much to blame as anyone







I agree Homer we should disagree yet not be disagreeable. Yet i think it's important to portray the other points of view accurately so as to not elicit an emotional response. For example i think you have portrayed Christian Universalism as believing unbelievers will be in literal flames of fire before being coerced to confess Christ as Lord and i have responded many times whatever the lake of fire is , i think it is spiritual and not literal.
Yet you seem to have such contempt for this viewpoint that you seem to gravitate to portraying it inaccurately at every opportunity. I only ask not that you agree with it, but at least portray it accurately.
Additionally many believers have not had to believe only by faith like Paul or Mary,Peter,John,Thomas,James, the 500 and others so this is not an absolute rule with God. Certainly faith pleases God yet he seems to be merciful enough to not make "being pleased" a barrier to salvation. This scenario could also be applicable to postmortem salvation where Christ presides over those in the lake of fire.
Note that Christ presides over those in the lake of fire so that is why it is indeed Christian Universalism not so called Universalism.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Ad hominem?

Post by Homer » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:08 am

steve7150,
Lord and i have responded many times whatever the lake of fire is , i think it is spiritual and not literal.
But others (universalist) have likened it to smelting gold in fire and that it will last for an "age". Are you saying you think the process does not involve suffering?

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Ad hominem?

Post by steve7150 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:43 am

But others (universalist) have likened it to smelting gold in fire and that it will last for an "age". Are you saying you think the process does not involve suffering?





I don't recall Paidion saying it was actual literal fire although the smelting gold description may have been an symbolic analogy. I do believe there is punishment which very well may involve suffering , but for the sake of justice not to coerce anyone to confess Christ.

Whenever this opportunity may happen to confess Christ the punishment/suffering/correction will be over and the sinner will know Christ and freely may commit or be annihilated IMHO.

Christ as judge can read the heart and knows if the confession is real or not.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Ad hominem?

Post by Paidion » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:17 am

Homer,

I'm with you! I've been reading the forum less and less frequently and have stopped reading some topics completely because of the downard spiral of courteousness.

Anyone who is about to use the word "ridiculous" should backspace and find a more tactful word.
Ludicrous! :lol:
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Ad hominem?

Post by steve » Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:28 pm

I think Homer, jriccitelli and I have been the most heated in our discussions of the universalist position—and this despite the fact that I have no ultimate investment in the position, because I do not espouse it. I have had the same feeling as Homer mentioned, somewhat dreading the continued debate—not because I dislike debate, nor because of any hostility I feel coming from the other parties, but because I feel I am debating people who do not wish to change their minds about the subject, and upon whom continued argumentation can only be exhausting without fruit.

I commonly re-read my posts multiple times before posting, and go back the next day and read them again to make sure that I am not speaking to another in any way other than I would wish to be spoken to. I guess I'm one of those who feels comfortable with rough 'n tumble debates. I can not imagine being offended by someone telling me that my statements are "ridiculous" or that an argument is "absurd." The critic is either right or wrong. These are good English words which carry perfectly non-abusive meanings.

If someone says that something I have said is "absurd," I look at my statements again to see if the criticism is justified. If so, I can hardly object to someone being so kind as to point this out. If not, then I can come back and demonstrate my arguments to be valid.

I apologize if I have seemed abusive to anyone here.

This may be a good time for me to clarify where I am at in almost every debate that occurs at this forum. I have my opinions, and I am happy to defend them. However, I do not care particularly whether others come over to my way of seeing things. What I care about is good and valid biblical argumentation.

This is not due to a love for argument, but rather a love of the truth, which I think will always have the best biblical arguments on its side. Therefore, I am the enemy of invalid biblical arguments. They prevent acknowledgement of the truth.

If someone shows up here with an opinion different from mine, and his/her arguments are less flawed than are mine, I have to consider that that person may have the truth. They have served me well by pointing it out, since what I love is the truth. On the other hand, if a person brings up flawed arguments—whether in support of my own position or in support of an opposite viewpoint—I want to take them to task, and show that, if they love the truth, they will have to show better respect for the scriptures and for the discipline of defending a point.

I like the universalist view—I would not deny that for a second. I also think it has some very good arguments on its side. However, I lived happily enough with the traditional view for decades, and never would have questioned it, had not its biblical arguments been shown to be so invalid, and had not better biblical arguments been presented for alternative views. My dialogues with jriccitelli and Homer on this subject have been efforts to show that their arguments do not follow logically from the scriptures they are using, nor even from the premises that they happily affirm.

This is the purpose of my 16 propositions quiz (to which neither of the correspondents to whom it was addressed have deigned to respond). It begins with affirmations, which I think they would be happy to make. It follows what I consider to be a seamless logic (if there are flaws in it, I would be obliged to have them pointed out to me). It ends up where they obviously do not want to go. If they never respond, it will not be because the propositions were too ambiguous or biblically questionable.

Homer and jriccitelli, I want you to know that I have nothing personal against either of you. It is your arguments that I am critiquing. If it was someone other than you presenting them, I would critique them in just the same manner. If you feel any frustration from me in my posts to you, it would only be due to my impression that you are dodging the arguments. Why anyone would dodge an argument, I can only speculate, since, as a lover of the truth, I can not relate with a desire to suppress any argument that might prove damaging to my position.

User avatar
look2jesus
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:18 pm
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Ad hominem?

Post by look2jesus » Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:54 am

I thought it curious that no one answered your list of 16 affirmations/denials. Not answering causes a lot of unnecessary speculations in the minds of those looking on. I hope they will engage the issue you brought up before continuing on with with other arguments elsewhere. That would be to concede the argument, it seems to me.
And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowlege and discernment...Philippians 1:9 ESV

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Ad hominem?

Post by steve » Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:29 pm

There were, of course, a few who responded (Paidion and Bud), which I appreciate. Homer has begun to answer. jriccitelli seems to have disappeared. But in all fairness, it IS Christmas. It is understandable if someone is either too busy at this time, or simply finds debate an unpleasantness that they wish to put aside until after the festivities.

P.S. At the time of this writing, many of us are watching this thread as well as that which contained the 16 propositions. However, in the future, the two threads may become separated from each other in discussion so that later readers here may not know what we are here alluding to. The link to that other thread is here: http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &start=120 Scroll down to where it says AN ORIGINAL QUIZ FOR STUDENTS OF THE BIBLE:

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”