When is personal criticism not an Ad Hominem Fallacy during debate?

[2PhiloVoid]

I had to look Carrier up. So, I agree, this is a more relevant example than the ones I brought up from the article. Whatever moral failings he may have, I would argue the only ones that count in assessing his work are ones that can be related to his ability to speak on the subject matter of Christianity. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that he not only exaggerates the subject matter, in general, but he also is known to tell lies and whopper stories in everyday life (i.e. he has a moral failing of exaggerating, in general). Then that particular moral failing should be taken into account in assessing what he says on the subject matter. If, for the sake of argument, he also likes to down copious amounts of alcohol every day or speaks badly to his wife, these things also speak to character, but I am not sure how relevant they are in assessing his treatment of Christianity.

Well, to some extent I agree, but I also think these kinds of psycho-social factors are, sometimes, relevant in other ways, and this can be seen in the case of someone like, say, Aldous Huxley ... ... and I quote:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”

― Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means​

In general, both sides of the discussion (atheists and theists) are to be taken with a grain of salt, due to the fact they each have a stake in the argument. I can't say to the atheist, "Your assessment of Christianity is not valid because you already reject it." That same critique applies to me, self-referentially. It seems to me, if a conversation is going to happen, both sides come to the table admitting a certain amount of bias.

Good points, and I wouldn't deny that I come to the table with my own built in emotional responses and particular mental conditionings (such as were provided at the university, for instance), etc., etc., but then it is another situation altogether for me to sit down at the debate table, divulge my biases and then hear my opposing interlocutor tell me, "Well, being the rational and objective person that I am, unlike you, I do not bring any biases to the table ..."

Carrier, it seems, is already labeled "fringe" (per wiki). When Ehrman points you out as an anomaly, that is saying something. In-house critiques stick better. So, it appears that maybe he has already shown himself unreliable, not just because he is an atheist, but because he isn't arguing in good faith, e.g. not given the opposition the best reading of their position, not willing to admit weaknesses in his own, etc.

Richard Carrier - Wikipedia

Sure, Carrier can be 'fringe,' but sometimes he does make some good points, even if those good points are diminished by admixtures of additional statements that are contextual exaggeration regarding what he perceives to be the various flaws of Christian thinking.

That's a lot of shoes! Yeah, I agree with all you're saying here.

I have yet to try on my wife's shoes, but seeing what those kinds of shoes do to women's feet, I'm kind of afraid to find out.

I agree. Hypocrisy has to be a factor because it relates to truth-telling. And, it's not about making mistakes in reasoning, or missing some data, or interpreting it wrong. Hypocrisy points to a conscious willingness to misrepresent.

Yes, it very well can.

Great thread!

Again, thank you, PH!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I was trying to say the 'truth' in the ideal or perfect reality, not merely individuals' understandings, which might occasionally align to greater or lesser extents. And not only just a current best known solution, but instead the ideal. Of course, we know a source of perfect truths. Not just in mathematics.

Another wording: "reality will win out", but....I wanted to also include the more ultimate.

Yes, you're right on that, Halbhh! In the Spirit of the Lord, we have insight into a source of perfect truth. Thanks for expounding a little further on that very valid point.

 

[Josheb]

I hate to say this, but I think you've missed my point of the OP. There's a WHOLE lot more to this issue than the simple, dichotomous delineation(s) you've framed this into, here. But, that's alright I guess, since I'm not here to argue with fellow Christians anyway.

I understand there's more to this op then the simple point I've broached. I have chosen to speak directly to a specific concern and will build from that point op-relevantly as the responses dictate. My doing so does not negate the veracity of that point.

Take, for example, the comment, "I hate to say this, but I think you've missed my point..." It's not true but it is definitely easier to dismiss my post if and when it is believed I have missed something, especially if the phrase, "you've missed my point" is intended to indicate some deficit in comprehension on my part or, even worse, some cognitive deficit on my part by which I couldn't possibly understand the point supposedly missed.


So by speaking to me about me a digression from the point has occurred. Unnecessarily. Were I the sort of poster who took things personally I'd then post defensively or, even worse, post and openly adversarial, possibly hostile, reply. What kind of response will that then beget?

So the "simple dichotomous delineation" is important. And there's no need to argue about it, especially when a good vibrant conversation in which I don't have to read negative personal commentary can be so much more persuasive.




What's the thesis of this op, 2PhiloVoid?

I have answered the inquiry of the title.

Should I now address the opening statement of the op? I ask because I will ask what business any Christian here has making "character judgments" about people they've never met, especially if those "character judgments" involve the eternal disposition of other Christians.

To the degree that ad hominems are a "hobby" of atheists it would serve us well not to put ourselves in positions to have that accusation - correct or not - leveled. That would be effective apologetics. An effective apologetic precludes the use of accusations! An effective apologist avoids such bait, or doesn't get distracted by the defenses.

As to the Raley article, I've already addressed a single point that' sitting silently unattended in the discussion. I could go through the article line by line if you like, affirming that which bears integrity with both scripture and reason, questioning that which is unclear, and refuting that which contradicts scripture and reason.

In doing any of these things the method or process becomes as valid as the goal. Part of your method, 2PhiloVoid, is to post content like telling others they have missed the point when they haven't.

Feel free to discuss this and the ways in which it may apply to rhetorical interactions which take place in Christian Apologetics.

Yes, you too, please do feel free to discuss the ways.....


Start, if you will and without arguing, with this:

What's your thesis?

 

[Erik Nelson]

I'd instead offer that our willingness to interact with, trust, listen to, and take 'the truth' from another individual should be accepted only AFTER we know their intentions, their motivations, and their social bent. It's not enough to merely offer up something we might say is 'the truth' and expect people to just 'take it in.' Besides, one single human sentence which we we offer up as 'a truth' never exhausts the descriptions that can be made about the Reality from which we've drawn the points for our truth statement, and I think we forget this.

Accusations of ulterior motives would boil down to accusations of perjury (for said suggested motive)

If your opponent is lying & deceiving, then you have every right to note that they are in-credible

But anything which distracts from the abstract, logical, rational topic of discussion... would be a deceptive diversionary distraction tactic, boiling down to "follow my winsome smile!"

 

[Erik Nelson]

Sometimes a point in a debate cannot be assessed without considering the source, and in those cases it seems that ad hominem attacks would be appropriate.

For example, how can we assess the claims of Bob Lazar about secret research on UFO technology in Area 51 without assessing Bob Lazar? (not wanting to trash Bob Lazar - I am sure he is a decent person)

Make your case for his bias, falsehood, deception, perjury

But is he promulgating error... because of his eye color?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand there's more to this op then the simple point I've broached. I have chosen to speak directly to a specific concern and will build from that point op-relevantly as the responses dictate. My doing so does not negate the veracity of that point.

Take, for example, the comment, "I hate to say this, but I think you've missed my point..." It's not true but it is definitely easier to dismiss my post if and when it is believed I have missed something, especially if the phrase, "you've missed my point" is intended to indicate some deficit in comprehension on my part or, even worse, some cognitive deficit on my part by which I couldn't possibly understand the point supposedly missed.


So by speaking to me about me a digression from the point has occurred. Unnecessarily. Were I the sort of poster who took things personally I'd then post defensively or, even worse, post and openly adversarial, possibly hostile, reply. What kind of response will that then beget?

So the "simple dichotomous delineation" is important. And there's no need to argue about it, especially when a good vibrant conversation in which I don't have to read negative personal commentary can be so much more persuasive.




What's the thesis of this op, 2PhiloVoid?

I have answered the inquiry of the title.

Should I now address the opening statement of the op? I ask because I will ask what business any Christian here has making "character judgments" about people they've never met, especially if those "character judgments" involve the eternal disposition of other Christians.

And this is where you miss the point. I, in no way, have intended for this OP to be directed specifically at fellow Christians, even though it may at times apply. No, if you noticed from the overall context that I began with in the OP, it is mostly directed at skeptics, atheists, apostates and other, more resistant (and possibly antagonistic) non-believers.

To the degree that ad hominems are a "hobby" of atheists it would serve us well not to put ourselves in positions to have that accusation - correct or not - leveled. That would be effective apologetics. An effective apologetic precludes the use of accusations! An effective apologist avoids such bait, or doesn't get distracted by the defenses.

I'm sorry, but as long as the Bible shows Jesus and His Apostles doing this very thing, I will, at times, and in rational ways, do so .... too! And if people don't like it, that's too bad!

As to the Raley article, I've already addressed a single point that' sitting silently unattended in the discussion. I could go through the article line by line if you like, affirming that which bears integrity with both scripture and reason, questioning that which is unclear, and refuting that which contradicts scripture and reason.

You could if you like, but again, since my qualm here isn't really with fellow Christians like yourself, I'm not sure what the overall use of that would be.

In doing any of these things the method or process becomes as valid as the goal. Part of your method, 2PhiloVoid, is to post content like telling others they have missed the point when they haven't.

I don't assume everyone and all has "missed a point"; I only address this as a possibility and if the shoe fits, then I by all means will not overlook it, just as I expect others to not overlook what they might think are my 'trespasses.'

Yes, you too, please do feel free to discuss the ways.....

Not in a way that is specifically against other Christians in this apologetics forum, I won't, or at least not against those who aren't guilty.

Start, if you will and without arguing, with this:

What's your thesis?

I've already provided this above in posts I wrote yesterday.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand there's more to this op then the simple point I've broached. I have chosen to speak directly to a specific concern and will build from that point op-relevantly as the responses dictate. My doing so does not negate the veracity of that point.

Take, for example, the comment, "I hate to say this, but I think you've missed my point..." It's not true but it is definitely easier to dismiss my post if and when it is believed I have missed something, especially if the phrase, "you've missed my point" is intended to indicate some deficit in comprehension on my part or, even worse, some cognitive deficit on my part by which I couldn't possibly understand the point supposedly missed.


So by speaking to me about me a digression from the point has occurred. Unnecessarily. Were I the sort of poster who took things personally I'd then post defensively or, even worse, post and openly adversarial, possibly hostile, reply. What kind of response will that then beget?

So the "simple dichotomous delineation" is important. And there's no need to argue about it, especially when a good vibrant conversation in which I don't have to read negative personal commentary can be so much more persuasive.




What's the thesis of this op, 2PhiloVoid?

I have answered the inquiry of the title.

Should I now address the opening statement of the op? I ask because I will ask what business any Christian here has making "character judgments" about people they've never met, especially if those "character judgments" involve the eternal disposition of other Christians.

To the degree that ad hominems are a "hobby" of atheists it would serve us well not to put ourselves in positions to have that accusation - correct or not - leveled. That would be effective apologetics. An effective apologetic precludes the use of accusations! An effective apologist avoids such bait, or doesn't get distracted by the defenses.

As to the Raley article, I've already addressed a single point that' sitting silently unattended in the discussion. I could go through the article line by line if you like, affirming that which bears integrity with both scripture and reason, questioning that which is unclear, and refuting that which contradicts scripture and reason.

In doing any of these things the method or process becomes as valid as the goal. Part of your method, 2PhiloVoid, is to post content like telling others they have missed the point when they haven't.

Yes, you too, please do feel free to discuss the ways.....


Start, if you will and without arguing, with this:

What's your thesis?

...one last note here, brother Josheb. If you'd like to have the right hand of fellowship from me, all you need do is but ask, and I'm here for you! THAT, and that only, is the kind of Christian I am, even though I am prone to fighting the good fight in the way that I feel led to do.

Of course, this invitation is one that I extend to ANY and ALL fellow Trinitarian Christians, no matter how exactly or inexactly we interpret our commonly shared Sacred Scriptures... if Jesus is truly Lord and Savior of your life, then you're a friend of mine.

So, keep this in mind going forward. It is something I make no pretenses about.

Below is also something we should keep in mind and that I make no pretenses about :

New Body
Audio Adrenaline
**********************************************************
(I've) Never been accused
Or been confused
For a model on a cover page

Never could have been
A superstar in the NBA

Can't run that fast,
Never could breakdance,
Can't jump a building in a single bound

Anticipating,
Can't wait until I hear that sound
The sky splits
I'm moving
I let it freely take me
This must be
The moment
God picked to rearrange me

You and I
Want a new body
You and I
Want to fly

Crutches left on the ground
Body parts are lost and found
Everybody gets to walk today

No more tears
And we will feel no pain

The sky splits
I'm moving
I let it freely take me
This must be
The moment God picked to rearrange me

You and I
Want a new body
You and I
Want to fly
You and I
Can get a new…

 

[Josheb]

And this is where you miss the point. I, in no way, have intended for this OP to be directed specifically at fellow Christians, even though it may at times apply.

You do know that nowhere in the op is the intent stated? You do realize that you are continuing to blame another for that lapse? You do understand neither works?

No, if you noticed from the overall context that I began with in the OP, it is mostly directed at skeptics, atheists, apostates and other, more resistant (and possibly antagonistic) non-believers.

Yes, I did notice that and nothing I have posted should be construed otherwise.

I'm sorry, but as long as the Bible shows Jesus and His Apostles doing this very thing, I will, at times, and in rational ways, do so .... too! And if people don't like it, that's too bad!

God doesn't like it.

This is a common error among Christians. They incorrectly believe "Because Jesus was harsh I can be harsh," or "Because Paul was confrontational I can be confrontational." The problem is neither you nor I are Jesus. When the Bible tells us to be Christlike it does so in very specific ways and it expressly prohibits some common practices....... like ad hominem. Neither are you nor I apostles. Jesus' mission was very specific during the incarnation. When he returns in judgment his conduct will look much different. Different purpose; different behavior. Different words.

The truth is most of us are sheep, not shepherds. We often act like shepherds and we do so imposing ourselves over others without 1) divine mandate, or 2) others' consent. This is all disobedience.

Take, for example, Ephesians 4. In Ephesians 4:11-16 we read Jesus gave some as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. It is common in some sects of Christianity to call this the "five-fold ministry" and teach the premise everyone has one of these "gifts," but that is not what the text teaches. The text specifically states some are given these roles. The roles are positions of various authority and they are given for very specific purposes: unity, maturity, and Christlikeness.

If we read further then we find Paul segues to matters applicable to all believers, not just apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. For example in verse 29 we are told to let nothing unwholesome come out of our mouths but only that which is edifying.

Ad hominems are unwholesome.
Ad hominems are not edifying.

So..... if you are Jesus, or if you are an apostles, prophet, evangelist, pastor, or teacher then perhaps there are certain rules you can break, but in an international internet discussion board you, 2PhiloVoid, are no one's authority. You're just another poster, one of thousands.

Another passage for you to consider is Roma 12:9-21. In this passage Paul writes several instructions. He tells us to be loving and to have our love be without hypocrisy. He directs us to abhor evil and be devoted to one another. He states quite plainly our job is to love and God's job is vengeance. Our job is not vengeance. It is not our job to be vengeful. He then proceeds to speak about our conduct toward our enemies, which would be the aforementioned skeptic, atheist, and apostate. To them Paul directs you and I to be feeding and nourishing. Many people don't undertand that part about "heaping burning coals."

In ancient times people heated their homes and cooked with fire. If your fire went out it was a problem because there were no matches or Bic lighters. You either went to a neighbors house or to the center of town where a municipal fire was kept burning 24/7. Coals were carried in special pots with insulation at the bottom. The phrase "you will heap burning coals on his head" is an idiom. The idiom means,

Romans 12:19-21 ESV
"Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' To the contrary, 'if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will [rekindle his warmth and sustenance].' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."​

Look it up if you do not believe what just posted.

Ad hominems are evil. You are not Jesus, nor Paul. You do not have a mandate from God to be rude in any way. You do have many, many mandates from God to love your enemies AND how to do that.

I've already provided this above in posts I wrote yesterday.

Yes, I understand that. I have read through the posts. I am asking you to state your thesis for a given purpose relevant to this exchange you are having with me. Implicit in my request is the understanding you want to have a polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical discussion based on well-rendered scripture. So indulge me.



What is the thesis of this op?

 

[Josheb]

...one last note here, brother Josheb. If you'd like to have the right hand of fellowship from me, all you need do is but ask, and I'm here for you! THAT, and that only, is the kind of Christian I am, even though I am prone to fighting the good fight in the way that I feel led to do.

Of course, this invitation is one that I extend to ANY and ALL fellow Trinitarian Christians, no matter how exactly or inexactly we interpret our commonly shared Sacred Scriptures... if Jesus is truly Lord and Savior of your life, then you're a friend of mine.

So, keep this in mind going forward. It is something I make no pretenses about.

To what degree do you think it is reasonable and rational for readers to base their understanding of your knowledge and practice, perhaps your maturity in Christ, on the contents of your posts here in this op?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To what degree do you think it is reasonable and rational for readers to base their understanding of your knowledge and practice, perhaps your maturity in Christ, on the contents of your posts here in this op?

Do you mean, in this one OP alone? Or do you mean to infer that readers could (and I'd suggest "should") base their understanding about me by engaging a more wholistic measure of me from my overall history here on Christian Forums?

But since you're here, and you seem to want to play the role of 'be his new conscience,' feel free to criticize me as your heart sees fit to do, brother Josheb!

While you're doing THAT, I'll take a deeper look at the context of 1 Peter 3:15-18 and see to what extent the current interpretation of this bit from Peter then contrasts with what we find Jesus and His Apostles (and other Christians) doing in their various interpersonal interactions with other diverse people in the New Testament history ..................

 

[zippy2006]

And you've nicely honed in on the general point that I've intended for this thread to resolve to, Zippy, so I thank you for your further support and discernment on this matter, and what follows isn't a direct address to you, but rather a building upon what you've already surmised, and I'm directing it at almost everyone else here [almost ]: that although skeptics (and occasionally Christians, too) will resist the fact that character and motivations should be seen as relevant to the quality of truth statements that any one person can make, an appropriately evidenced ad hominem EXPOSITION may be integral not only to the VERACITY OF a truth claim itself, but it may also be applicable to the ways in which it could or should be used by other people in society. And why is this? Partly, it's because a truth statement of any kind doesn't sit in an autonomous vacuum all by itself, disconnected from any other social, ethical and various rational factors. The other part in why the above is the case is that 'Virtue Epistemology' also comes into play as a proper dynamic of any one person's act of being rational; it's not enough to just claim one has justified some statement as truth and then claim for it the renown of "knowledge."

People will try to assert that 'truth is truth' and we just have to bow down to it when it finds us and we face it, but the truth of the larger reality up and beyond our mere human statements is, no we don't, and not if the use of a truth is poisoned with the intention of using it for deliberate subterfuge, sabotage or other intended deceptions. Truth can be used as a weapon every bit as much as it can be used as a beneficial tool to better our well-being, and it is this state of reality about "human truth statements" that some people (both some Skeptics and some Christians) can't seem to wrap their minds around and thus realize they may very well have some additional accountability involved in 'how' their asserted truths are used.

No, of late, all some folks seem to think is that being accountable for truth statements is such that all one has to do is ... be rationally correct and be 'nice' about it. If this were the case, then Jesus and His Apostles are guilty of making the ad hominem fallacy as well about other people, skeptical people whom they had to face off against...

Interesting post, Philo. I just want to point to two of Public Hermit's threads that are very much related to what you say here:

• Epistemic Virtues: Is it better to know, or to seek to know?
  
• Should there be research on the possibility of genetic differences underlying intelligence?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting post, Philo. I just want to point to two of Public Hermit's threads that are very much related to what you say here:

• Epistemic Virtues: Is it better to know, or to seek to know?
  
• Should there be research on the possibility of genetic differences underlying intelligence?

Oh yeah! And those are great threads for all of us to consider!

 

[Josheb]

Do you mean, in this one OP alone? Or do you mean to infer that readers could (and I'd suggest "should") base their understanding about me by engaging a more wholistic measure of me from my overall history here on Christian Forums?

I meant what I posted. Yes, I might get a greater understanding of you from posts on a diversity of subjects but each conversation is a reflect of who you are and what you do, according to Luke 6:45.

But since you're here, and you seem to want to play the role of 'be his new conscience,'

Nice ad hominem.

Please do not put words into my posts I did not write. It's rude and disrespectful. I am quite capable of articulating my positions and I will thank you not to presume to speak for me, especially when it contradicts things I have previously stated. No one is the judge of your person but you and God.

However, anyone and everyone can objectively judge what is posted. Posts, not poster.

Any defensiveness on your part is unnecessary.

....feel free to criticize me as your heart sees fit to do, brother Josheb!

Posts, not poster.

While you're doing THAT, I'll take a deeper look at the context of 1 Peter 3:15-18 and see to what extent the current interpretation of this bit from Peter then contrasts with what we find Jesus and His Apostles (and other Christians) doing in their various interpersonal interactions with other diverse people in the New Testament history ..................

No, you'll have to find what they teach others to do in peer-oriented relationships, not what they themselves do, and not what they teach other leaders to do.


Let's get back to my prior inquiry now that I have clarified it.

To what degree do you think it is reasonable and rational for readers to base their understanding of your knowledge and practice, perhaps your maturity in Christ, on the contents of your posts here in this op?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I meant what I posted. Yes, I might get a greater understanding of you from posts on a diversity of subjects but each conversation is a reflect of who you are and what you do, according to Luke 6:45.

Nice ad hominem.

Please do not put words into my posts I did not write. It's rude and disrespectful. I am quite capable of articulating my positions and I will thank you not to presume to speak for me, especially when it contradicts things I have previously stated. No one is the judge of your person but you and God.

However, anyone and everyone can objectively judge what is posted. Posts, not poster.

Any defensiveness on your part is unnecessary.

Posts, not poster.

No, you'll have to find what they teach others to do in peer-oriented relationships, not what they themselves do, and not what they teach other leaders to do.


Let's get back to my prior inquiry now that I have clarified it.

To what degree do you think it is reasonable and rational for readers to base their understanding of your knowledge and practice, perhaps your maturity in Christ, on the contents of your posts here in this op?

Personally, I would think that unless I specifically denounce a person and verbally tell her in no uncertain terms that I think she's going to eternal destruction (and/or Hell), or unless I specifically show up and blurt out some sheer nonsense like "God is an immoral schmuck and his Jesus is a fake, " then those other persons who read a post or thread of mine for the first time would have very, very little by which to assume a more coherent, let alone cogent, evaluation about me.

Now, are you going to begin to abide by the rules of this forum, .... or do you think you're going to be the one to show up here and somehow assert spiritual authority over me and tell me which way is up, brother Josheb? I'm just waiting for you to push this over the line. I'd suggest you don't. Not for my sake, but so that the mods don't erase your intrusive posts here in a forum where Christians aren't to become entangled.

Word to the wise, bro! Back off! You're not going to castigate me on your terms. Not here. Not today, and not before the face of God.

We've had thus no occasion to 'confront' each other on any issue, so I'd appreciate some mutual consideration on this front. Thank you!

Your brother in Christ,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lets take Anti American Sentiment for an example.

If a person is always attacking Americans, post after post, at some point one must suppose the reason for the umpteenth Anti-American thread is not because of any one issue, but rather a deeper underlying issue with the thread creator themselves that is the root cause of what begins to appear as hate.

Likewise the opposite then also holds true. If someone is always pro-America in every post and never seems to question anything "America" does, you can suppose there is an underlying issue that is the root cause of what begins to appear as blindness to any potential problems or issues.

While the adage debate the post and not the poster is a good one, most especially on online forums where things can get rowdy if it remains unchecked, there are times posting history begins to become more apparent, and this light of experience gives way to question a posters underlying motives for the posting, whether in reply or in OP.

I'd like to agree with this...because I think I get what you're saying.

When speaking about opinions, it's worth considering what someone's opinion has been. When speaking about facts though...I would expect a person to stick with the same position whether right or wrong. So it's not always easy for people to see the difference.

 

[Josheb]

Personally, I would think...

I've showed what a few scriptures say. I can show many more. Will there be mutual agreement with scripture? Whatever the answer is, it will be evidenced in the posts.

We've had thus no occasion to 'confront' each other on any issue...

That is incorrect. Here is what I have read directed at me:

• "...I think you've missed my point of the OP."
• "And this is where you miss the point."
• "if people don't like it, that's too bad!"
• "I only address this as a possibility and if the shoe fits..."
• "...then I by all means will not overlook it..."
• "...just as I expect others to not overlook what they might think are my 'trespasses.'"
• 2"If you'd like to have the right hand of fellowship from me, all you need do is but ask, and I'm here for you!"
• "...you seem to want to play the role of 'be his new conscience,'..."
• "...I'm not here to argue with fellow Christians anyway."
• "Word to the wise, bro! Back off!"
• "You're not going to castigate me on your terms."

Luke 6:45. The fact is the hand of fellowship was extended to you and everyone else here in post #23 and it was not received. The fact is the only one arguing here is you. I had to ask several times to get what should be an ordinary answer: what is your thesis? The fact is telling people you've never met they've missed the point is rude and disrespectful because you don't have idea what people have or haven't missed. It is, however, and excellent means of avoiding and ignoring the op-relevant content of post 23. the facts in evidence a double standard.

To what degree can we understand you by your own posts' content? Your answer is as long as you're not denouncing the person and sending them to hell they "have very, very little by which to assume a more coherent, let alone cogent, evaluation" about you. That is incorrect.

And the next post I receive will likely be an effort to defend the list above, when what I should receive is a return to the op.


So perhaps going back to post 23 would be good because I think we should be having a much different exchange; one characterized by the standards of God's word correctly rendered and not this mess.

...so I'd appreciate some mutual consideration on this front. Thank you!

Your brother in Christ,
2PhiloVoid

A great deal of respect has been extended but how much is someone who begins conversation with, "I think you've missed my point of the OP," and posts by the metric, "If you don't like it, that's too bad!"


Think about the op before responding because with the exception of the fact this is happening between two Christians "the Ad Hominem 'complaint' is dragged out quite often and applied to Christians who make character judgements about their interlocutors during debate," is being walked out right here in this exchange.

Maybe now the reasons not to make ad hominems are better understood.

 

[Josheb]

Personally, I would think that unless I specifically denounce a person and verbally tell her in no uncertain terms that I think she's going to eternal destruction (and/or Hell), or unless I specifically show up and blurt out some sheer nonsense like "God is an immoral schmuck and his Jesus is a fake, " then those other persons who read a post or thread of mine for the first time would have very, very little by which to assume a more coherent, let alone cogent, evaluation about me.

You have been clear in expressing the concern this op is about believers' interactions with non-believers of a certain ilk. Here's what scripture directs:

Colossians 4:5-6
"5Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person."​

Proverbs 15:1
"A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger."​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've showed what a few scriptures say. I can show many more. Will there be mutual agreement with scripture? Whatever the answer is, it will be evidenced in the posts.

That is incorrect. Here is what I have read directed at me:

• "...I think you've missed my point of the OP."
• "And this is where you miss the point."
• "if people don't like it, that's too bad!"
• "I only address this as a possibility and if the shoe fits..."
• "...then I by all means will not overlook it..."
• "...just as I expect others to not overlook what they might think are my 'trespasses.'"
• 2"If you'd like to have the right hand of fellowship from me, all you need do is but ask, and I'm here for you!"
• "...you seem to want to play the role of 'be his new conscience,'..."
• "...I'm not here to argue with fellow Christians anyway."
• "Word to the wise, bro! Back off!"
• "You're not going to castigate me on your terms."

Josheb, allow me to clarify what I intended to "mean" when I stated previously that "we've had thus no occasion to 'confront' each other on any issue..." In that statement, I was referring to the fact that, as far as I can remember, you and I have had no occasion to 'confront' each other over any issues PRIOR TO this specific thread. Do we have a mutual understanding on this point?

Sure, if you want to now cite the above as an occasion for me to have a 'learning moment,' then that is fine by me if you wish to define it in that way.

Luke 6:45. The fact is the hand of fellowship was extended to you and everyone else here in post #23 and it was not received. The fact is the only one arguing here is you. I had to ask several times to get what should be an ordinary answer: what is your thesis? The fact is telling people you've never met they've missed the point is rude and disrespectful because you don't have idea what people have or haven't missed. It is, however, and excellent means of avoiding and ignoring the op-relevant content of post 23. the facts in evidence a double standard.

My OP doesn't have a thesis. It was an OP presented for a somewhat open, exploratory discussion, yet one that because of the nature of the argument of the chosen article in the OP will, by itself, readily present a twist in the usual arguments are resorted to by which the Ad Hominem Fallacy is often defined.

To what degree can we understand you by your own posts' content? Your answer is as long as you're not denouncing the person and sending them to hell they "have very, very little by which to assume a more coherent, let alone cogent, evaluation" about you. That is incorrect.

That is "incorrect"? Alright, you apparently would like for me to listen and consider your point of view. Alright. Let's listen to your point of view. In the midst of doing so, may I assume that as we engage further in discussion that you will likewise consider my point of view, and that you'll consider me as a peer to yourself?

And the next post I receive will likely be an effort to defend the list above, when what I should receive is a return to the op.

You might want to consider my 'mental' and educational history in order to better understand me, if indeed you're a MH counselor, brother Josheb.

So perhaps going back to post 23 would be good because I think we should be having a much different exchange; one characterized by the standards of God's word correctly rendered and not this mess.

Sure, we can go back to post 23 if that is what you'd like to do. However, when you say that you'd like to have a discussion "characterized by the standard of God's word correctly rendered," by which Hermeneutical sources (and/or authorities) are you drawing your own Hermeneutical Praxis? I'm just wondering. I have to ask so that I can engage your sources and see how they compare with mine.

A great deal of respect has been extended but how much is someone who begins conversation with, "I think you've missed my point of the OP," and posts by the metric, "If you don't like it, that's too bad!"

Being the philosopher that I attempt to be, however Existentially tempered, I might conceptualize and define what a "great deal of respect" amounts to in different ways. But regardless, let's hear what you'd like for me to hear, especially since I have "ears to hear" God's Truth and have for quite some time.

Think about the op before responding because with the exception of the fact this is happening between two Christians "the Ad Hominem 'complaint' is dragged out quite often and applied to Christians who make character judgements about their interlocutors during debate," is being walked out right here in this exchange.

Oh?

Maybe now the reasons not to make ad hominems are better understood.

No, not yet, brother Josheb! Not yet!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is never not fallacious.

Let's begin ... here! You state, "It is never not fallacious." Please tell me something? Is this through a particular Axiological frame that you're making this evaluation, or a Metaphysical one?

All posters are supposedly discussing topics, not the posters authoring or initiating discussion of those topics.

Please help me to understand this statement, because for the life of me, I don't think it's intuitively obvious as to what this is even suppose to mean precisely or as to what it's supposed to point out. You then follow it up with the next set of statements which also don't seem, on an intuitive level (let alone a Deductive one), follow:

Posts, not posters. It's a very simple concept. Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.
Many discussion board have statements in their tou specifically stating prohibitions about discussing any poster.​

Logically speaking, I could be the most depraved reprehensible person on the planet and still post a factual statement. I could be eating live baby brains in a warm bath of bear droppings and horse vomit with my orifices filled with.......... (you get the idea?) and still post a rational case for my position. This is inherently implicit in the adage, "even a broken clock is correct twice each day.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the silliest analogies I think I've ever heard. I think you'll need to offer up a lot of support this pick this one up off of the ground so that we might all benefit from what you're implying is its inherent wisdom.

Thank you.

You being a stupid cretin who doesn't understand the basics of logic doesn't mean you can't form cogent discourse .

Oh, I don't know about that. While I like to hold out the hope of educational development for just about anyone, surely you and I can agree that folks with mental states involving sociopathy and/or psychopathy, as well as other disorders, might not be the best to speak to in learning something significant, and wholistically, in our difficult lives and world.

Are you starting to understand now?

I don't know. Being the philosopher that I am, like Pascal and Kierkegaard, I'd probably have to say, "very likely, I'm not understanding you, now."

The rest of your statement in post #23 we can pick up on later ...

Are you ready to begin to speak to me as a peer?

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, allow me to clarify what I intended to "mean" when I stated previously that "we've had thus no occasion to 'confront' each other on any issue..." In that statement, I was referring to the fact that, as far as I can remember, you and I have had no occasion to 'confront' each other over any issues PRIOR TO this specific thread. Do we have a mutual understanding on this point?

I think so, mainly because I do not recall any specific interactions of the past. I did not the marking of one of my posts on another op as "friendly."No conflict there.

Sure, if you want to now cite the above as an occasion for me to have a 'learning moment,' then that is fine by me if you wish to define it in that way.

The problem here is the "if you want to define it that way." Most of us here are quite capable of expressing ourselves articulately. We don't need anyone telling us what we mean or how what we write should be understood, or whether our posts are okay with you. That's a problem to be solved, 2Philo.

My OP doesn't have a thesis.

How about that.

So.... I purportedly missed the point in an op that doesn't have a thesis. AND I and everyone here was explicitly told to feel free "to discuss this and the ways in which it may apply to rhetorical interactions which take place in Christian Apologetics."

Apparently we weren't free.

Everything I have posted is op-relevant, posted with the freedom given explicitly in the op. And I still don't have a cogent response to my op-reply. In the future I would encourage the inclusion of a thesis statement, or at least some expression of the specific concern to be discussed or the inquiry to be answered and addressed.