Homer wrote:
Never admit to a fault, do you, even when given the opportunity.
I assume this statement is directed toward me, and not toward JR—though I am not sure why. A "fault" ought to be named and demonstrated—not simply accused or alluded to in vague terms. That is why I have labored to name and document the faults in your argumentation (and in JRs). I, myself, have many faults to which I freely admit when I am made aware of them. Do you find fault with my analysis above? JR, you are welcome to answer this as well.
For those reading this thread in isolation, it should be pointed out that Homer opened this thread in frustration over the arguments presented in the first 10 pages of another thread on hell, which can be found here:
http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... &sk=t&sd=a (where a number of people, in addition to myself, expressed frustration at the irresponsible manner in which JR was conducting himself in debate). I would invite the reader to scan that thread, see the extent of my involvement, how I entered, what I said, and what both JR and Homer wrote there. It seems clear that Homer and JR were both corrected (gently enough, it seems to me) concerning some of their misstatements. Instead of either recanting or defending his errors, Homer decided to complain (at this new thread) that he was not being treated very nicely. If this is correct, then I apologize for any unkindness that might have been perceived from me. However, this is very different from the impression I get reading that thread, and others, where JR and Homer continually launch their attacks against restorationism and restorationists.
JR wrote:
I actually cannot think of one other person here besides you Steve that uses ad hominem statements to try and tarnish another poster.
And so the ad hominem continues.......(Homer, 12/22/13, 9:21 PM)
And on and on the ad hominem rolls. The implication is clear; JR and I are stupid. (Homer, 12/24/13, 9:26 PM)
The latter comment was made by Homer in response to a comment by another poster (who later says that he is in general agreement with Homer and JR). It is not made about me.
While I have made critical statements about some involved in this controversy, I have never, to my knowledge, resorted to the use of
ad hominem in order to tarnish a poster. Making unflattering observations about a person concerning the traits they demonstrate in public discourse is not the same thing as
ad hominem argumentation.
To use
ad hominem would mean that one,
in lieu of sound arguments to support his position, simply attacks the character, intelligence, associations or motivations of his opponent in a debate. For example, if someone were to say, "While I cannot argue against universalism by appeal to reasonable arguments, my opponent is demonstrably soft on universalism because he has friends and relatives who are not saved," this would be a typical example of
ad hominem argumentation.
To point out that one's opponent is writing nonsense and exhibiting an inability to conduct meaningful debate would not, in itself, be an example of
ad hominem argumentation, unless he is depending on such observations, in some way, to carry his argument at a weak point. If one defends his position by solid exegetical arguments, and expresses frustration with an opponent who consistently demonstrates either the inability or unwillingness to do the same, this is not what I would recognize as the fallacy of the
ad hominem. It is the leveling of a personal criticism.