ad hominem argument

[Blammo]

Bob, I will be happy to continue to discuss this. Are you interested in discussion of doctrine?

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.

 

[TheWinDork]

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

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

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

 

[Dave]

I really think that you should include yourselves in this debate. You have used every tatic known to try and get your point across. You do not even consider a Scripture when it goes against Calvinism but come up with some explanation of that Scripture that makes no sense at all. Now, I am not leaving myself out of this either, I will carry my weight, but don't talk like you are free what you are accusing others of doing. I gave you several Scriptures to which you would give no answer and if you did you ran to the Greek and found a definition that suited your case when we know that each word has different difinitions in the Greek language. So at least be willing to include yourselves in this "wanting to win" post of yours.

Luke, chapter 11

"46": And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

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.

 

[Jarthur001]

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

This post will prove that I sin. I lied ...in fact, for I said I had posted my last post on this tread.

Here I am again. Please forgive me...I must reply.

What we see above is another mis-understanding of Calvinism. Though I would not call this a ad hominem argument, it does touch on other areas of how not to debate, which we have already seen before. Using hate words and wishing those that disagree with you to leave, really says nothing about the doctrine of grace and is pointless.

The poster claims "THIS IS THE BAPTIST BOARD! NOT THE CALVINIST BOARD!"

This is a very true statement.

But this statement is like saying.."my computer screen color is blue and not a rock".
This statement is also true, but it also shows vast differences of the objects being compared. Maybe some insight would be helpful. Calvinism is not a denomination as you seem to imply. On the other hand a Baptist is a denomination of which I am one. Calvinism is a systematic theology doctrine dealing with the doctrine of grace and is held across denominational lines.

It may also surprise the poster that in the beginning most Baptist were in fact Calvinist. Please see the link below.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

Though I’m sure that those that hate us, would wish we be gone, It is our duty to God to stand for the truth. At the same time, we uphold what nearly all Baptist once believed.

Being that you "WinDork" do not believe as I, I do not wish you to go. Stay and express your views freely as we all do.


In Christ..James

 

[Brother Bob]

I find it interesting that the debate about calvinism vs. free-will strongly resembles the debate about creation vs. evolution. People will make up facts out of thin air to support their views because they can't bear to part with their final conclusion no matter how clearly the data refutes their position. The fossil record doesn't support gradualism? Okay, then make up a theory called punctuated equilibrium. God forbid (oh, sorry, it's not permissible to factor God into science) that one might actually look at the data and realize it simply doesn't support your assumption that evolution is true.

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:

 

[Brother Bob]

Yet another example of ad-hominem:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
Are you the little boy who follows after the master.:laugh: :laugh: :applause:

His point was to start trouble and he sure accomplished that and it is plain for all to see. He has a problem. He is too full of himself. And I didn't say you told false.

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

 

[Dave]

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:

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.

 

[Brother Bob]

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:

 

[ituttut]

I have seen this many times in the last few months from posters in a debate when all other arguments have been debunked. In most cases, in the debate world, those that fall into ad hominem are viewed as having lost the real debate and trying to get as many hits in as they can before being closed down by the other side. Or as a means that while they are losing the real debate, by using ad hominem argument, they may change the subject of the debate in order to hide weak areas in their argument there by dodge the subject and place focus on areas that they feel they have the upper hand.

Where as this is a given tool and strong tool in the debate arena to use to win debates at all cost, what does it say about us as believers when it comes to doctrine? Are we to “win” at all cost? Is our focus even to be toward winning? When it comes to doctrine, are we to win the game, or look for the truth?

We should all know the source. It is our DUTY to know what was said by the man, in the context of the subject. As believers, what is our final source? What context must we make SURE we understand to be right? If it is said by a man that red is red and no matter who it was that said red is red, if we find in our final source red is green and we understand this to be true in full context of our source, the one that said red is red is wrong. Yet on the other hand if we see from our final source that indeed just as the one that claimed red to be red, it is in fact red, and we understand this to be true in full context, it is our DUTY to agree and not attack the man that said this, for if we do attack the man, we are really attacking our final source, which did agree with the man.

Should we play the ad hominem card in doctrine? Should not our final source be Gods Word, no matter who said it? What do you think?

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.

 

[Blammo]

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.

 

[canadyjd]

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:

 

[ituttut]

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.

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.

 

[Blammo]

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.

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.

 

[Blammo]

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

peace to youraise:

Just knocked my hair off is all. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Brother Bob]

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

 

[canadyjd]

Just knocked my hair off is all. :smilewinkgrin:

I resemble that remark:laugh:

peace to youraise:

 

[ituttut]

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.

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.

 

[Blammo]

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.

 

[webdog]

Reading this page has made my head spin :laugh: