ad hominem argument

From the man who said he doesn't know what TULIP stands for. :laugh:

"Do you want to discuss the T?" :thumbs:

I have read everything in this thread and have concluded:

1) Both sides were using ad-hominem almost exclusively. (I'd excuse Brother Bob as it appears he was on the defensive)

2) Calvinists don't seem to understand Calvinism any more than a non-Calvanist. Yet they will defend the man as if he were diety.

BTW, if Calvin were ever right about anything, the Bible had it right first. So instead of the Institutes being the "primary source", I think I will continue to look to the Bible as my final authority.

 

advice to the Calvinists

if you all are so ate up with your doctrines of grace... why don't you all go to this board...:


http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/

AND STAY THERE!


This is the BAPTIST BOARD! NOT THE CALVINIST BOARD!

-WTD

 

Thank you Dork. I think I will check that board out. However, since I am a Baptist, and I have been here looooooooooooong before you, I think I will stay. If that offends you, maybe you should be the one who leaves and doesn't come back. I know a great board where there are very few people ate up with the doctrines of grace that you might enjoy a lot more than this place. Here it is.

Enjoy.:wavey:

Joseph Botwinick

 

Sorry BB, but it appears yours was the first post that brought up C/A debate. Unfair tactics to then say that others attacked first.

 

You accused me falsely Dave for this is the first C/A mentioned and its before mine.:thumbs:

What if you accuse yourself of being a liar is that ad hominem argument? Just wondering since that was the OP.:laugh:

 

Is the truth a ad-hominem. Just wondering so I will know.:laugh:

 

I don't agree, for that post was not specifically targeted at one or the other and did not argue a doctinal point. It was simply making the point that many of the C/A arguments degenerate into ad hominem attacks, which is true and can be attributed to certain people on both sides, as I've observed. If fact the specific example given was of a creation/evolution argument, not C/A.

Your's was the first that was specifically starting a C/A debate in the thread, imho. So I believe I was correct.

 

If you say so. Every man must bear his own burdens and if its mine I wiil bear them but still don't think so. I would not even thought of the C/A except for the previous post. You have no idea what the previous post triggered in my mine. He said that for a reason and told what the reason was. But so be it, don't matter at all to me.:laugh:

 

Fully agree. But we must first determine How we know what we know is true. When we know this we know we have the correct position and forces our opposer into the ad hominem argument mode, or into agreement, or to the position of wanting to know more. Ad hominem argument is the preferred course.

We are to look at What was said and Who said it. When did Who say it, and Where was Who When it was said. Why would Who say such a thing? We will now know How we know what we know, and know it must be truth.

Example is - Red speaks from Jerusalem. Then another Red - speaks from Antioch. Today which Red are we to believe? We cannot believe both doctrines, but most do. Both are true, but only one can be true today, yet Red of Jerusalem, or Red of Antioch combine, endeavoring to keep both doctrines. Enter ad hominem argument mixed Red against Red of A. Experience shows Ad hominem almost always rises against Red of A. It is to be expected.

 

If I know what I know is not what you know I know, and what you know is not the same as what I know, then what you know I know is different than what I know you know I know, cause I know what you know is not what I know so that's what we both know. Who said what I know you said when you said what you know I said, where I knew you said what you know I was going to say. So if when he who says what I know where he is going to say it, says what he who is saying it says, he is not saying what I know.

 

I think you've hit yourself too often in the head with your mallet.:tongue3:

peace to youraise:

 

But one knows what scripture is written to them and what is not, and another doesn't know what is written to them, so the one that knows what is written to them, knows the other is reading what is written to someone else. The one understanding what is written to someone else does not know what is written for their benefit. That one is saying what they know, but what they know doesn't agree with what was written to them.

Gotta' go mow the yard.

 

Great point!

But, If when I read what is written to someone who may know what I know and they read something that is also written to the same person that knows what we both know, this doesn't negate what we all know to be written to those who know what is written to them and others. However, some people know what is written to who it is written to even when they don't know why it was written to the ones who knew it was not previously known by them.

 

Just knocked my hair off is all. :smilewinkgrin:

 

ain't that the truth.:laugh: :laugh:

 

I resemble that remark:laugh:

peace to youraise:

 

Way to go: When we know this we know what is written to us and what is written to them, but some know why it is written them while others hold what was previously known for all to know not knowing it is not now written to them, but to those.

 

Brilliant!!!

I would add: Not knowing what isn't written to those who don't know what was not written, will never be understood by those who do not know what was to be written when it had been written before. All things are not understood by those who understand what others do not. But, some who do understand what those who do not, also know what those who do not understand do not know.

 

Reading this page has made my head spin :laugh: