Christian Forums

At what point does disagreeing with some's teaching or position (which is allowed according to the TOS)  become an ad hominem attach (which is not allowed)?

I am concerned with the threads on Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer that they have crossed that line but can find littie guidance in the Rules to say where it is.

Let me offer another forum's description of "Ad Hominem:"

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

      1. Person A makes claim X.
      2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
      3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


Example of Ad Hominem:

       Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
         Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
         Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
         Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that
                 abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe
                 what you say."

Quote from: DaveW on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 09:09:33
At what point does disagreeing with some's teaching or position (which is allowed according to the TOS)  become an ad hominem attach (which is not allowed)?

I am concerned with the threads on Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer that they have crossed that line but can find littie guidance in the Rules to say where it is.

Don't you think Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer have to actually participate in the discussion before it becomes an ad hominem?

Quote from: AVZ on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 09:53:17
Don't you think Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer have to actually participate in the discussion before it becomes an ad hominem?

Not really.  If they are personally discounted then it becomes ad hominem. 

In fact Catholica (in the Joyce Meyer thread) just warned someone to "Judge the message, not the messenger." 

Judging the messenger is a sign of ad hominem.

I would say that the post that said something like, "Written by...wait for it...a woman" would definitely be an ad hominem attack. It is no different from, "Written by...wait for it...a black man." but misogynists don't see it that way.

When critiquing a Bible teacher/preacher one must sometimes use evidence that seems unrelated.
      1. Person A teaches X.
      2. Person B states that person A also teaches Y, which is heresy/false teaching.
      3. Therefore A's teaching about X is suspect, even though X and Y are completely different issues.

In addition, we must judge the messenger to determine if his lifestyle is consistent with scripture. No matter how scholarly the teaching, if the teacher is dishonest, greedy, proud, a drunk/addict or cheats on his spouse, he shouldn't be trusted to properly teach the word of God. Pointing out those issues could sound like an ad hominem attack.

Quote from: Nevertheless on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 15:02:08In addition, we must judge the messenger to determine if his lifestyle is consistent with scripture.

Ad hominem attacks could as well be mistaken, simply by protecting people who deserve not to be protected because their doctrine and, or, lifestyle is against God's revealed truth. 

Was Paul guilty of this when he said that the Cretians were always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies?   Titus 1:12  How about Acts 13:10?

Was Jesus guilty of this when he called the Pharisees blind guides, hypocrites, generation of vipers, children of hell?  That they were of their father, the devil? Matthew 23; John 8:44 

Between compromising and keeping silence so as not to offend, and being faithful to God first and foremost, sometimes is not easy; and it is not easy to determined what you should do, and if you do it, if you are right or wrong when you have done what you have done.  Does this make any sense?  I need a glass of wine.

Quote from: Nevertheless on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 15:02:08
I would say that the post that said something like, "Written by...wait for it...a woman" would definitely be an ad hominem attack.

Well if anything it would be an ad feminem argument, lol. Hope you can see the humour in that.

But may it be clear that my motive for posting it is not sexism, but the Word of God.

QuoteIt is no different from, "Written by...wait for it...a black man."

I take offense to this comparison. To put sexism on the level of racism is unbiblical. There are biblical reason to distinct between man and woman, even if it is ever so slightly, and seen as discrimination in the world.

Think of the OT, that the Levites were supposed to be the priests. Would you listen to any other preaching if you lived then?

Quotebut misogynists don't see it that way.

I'm not that.

I just think that women teaching the Bible (esp as profession) don't actually obey the same Bible.

I don't necessarily think women are incapable of teaching. God may have other reasons. Like maybe men are more easily deceived by women than by men. People trust women too much. Just thinking out loud.

If I think they may be capable why I do still dismiss their teaching? Because they don't obey the Word. How can I see them as authority then?

When I was just a Christian every time a woman would preach in church it would just come up every time, like 'don't they know that verse?'

Quote from: new creature on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 16:15:59

Quote from: Nevertheless on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 15:02:08
I would say that the post that said something like, "Written by...wait for it...a woman" would definitely be an ad hominem attack.

Well if anything it would be an ad feminem argument, lol. Hope you can see the humour in that.

Ha ha. **eyeroll**



This is probably pointless, but . . .
Actually, your joke demonstrates a lack of understanding of our language. Too many people have the idea that "man" always means "male". Now we have this PC garbage mangling our language with words such as "chairperson". [gag!]

"Man" often means "human of either gender," especially when it is part of a compound word, such as "salesman." This is actually demonstrated in scripture. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27

"Hominem" is properly understood as "man", but not as "male".



But you should probably disregard everything I write. After all, I am a woman, and "everyone knows" that God doesn't want a woman to teach a man.

Quote from: Nevertheless on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 22:05:23
"Hominem" is properly understood as "man", but not as "male".

"Hominem" is the Latin word for man as opposed to beast. (in the form of object of a preposition)
"Vir" is the Latin word for man as opposed to woman.

Quote from: new creature on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 16:15:59

Quote from: Nevertheless on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 15:02:08
I would say that the post that said something like, "Written by...wait for it...a woman" would definitely be an ad hominem attack.

Well if anything it would be an ad feminem argument, lol. Hope you can see the humour in that.

But may it be clear that my motive for posting it is not sexism, but the Word of God.

QuoteIt is no different from, "Written by...wait for it...a black man."

I take offense to this comparison. To put sexism on the level of racism is unbiblical. There are biblical reason to distinct between man and woman, even if it is ever so slightly, and seen as discrimination in the world.

Think of the OT, that the Levites were supposed to be the priests. Would you listen to any other preaching if you lived then?

Quotebut misogynists don't see it that way.

I'm not that.

I just think that women teaching the Bible (esp as profession) don't actually obey the same Bible.

I don't necessarily think women are incapable of teaching. God may have other reasons. Like maybe men are more easily deceived by women than by men. People trust women too much. Just thinking out loud.

If I think they may be capable why I do still dismiss their teaching? Because they don't obey the Word. How can I see them as authority then?

When I was just a Christian every time a woman would preach in church it would just come up every time, like 'don't they know that verse?'

The women teachers I have heard have been incredible. Very knowledgeable about the Bible and so gifted spiritually. In fact my husband and I have been helped far more by female teachers than male. In the UK we are blessed to have so many very anointed women teachers.

Quote from: Nevertheless on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 22:05:23

Quote from: new creature on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 16:15:59

Quote from: Nevertheless on Thu Aug 07, 2014 - 15:02:08
I would say that the post that said something like, "Written by...wait for it...a woman" would definitely be an ad hominem attack.

Well if anything it would be an ad feminem argument, lol. Hope you can see the humour in that.

Ha ha. **eyeroll**



This is probably pointless, but . . .
Actually, your joke demonstrates a lack of understanding of our language. Too many people have the idea that "man" always means "male". Now we have this PC garbage mangling our language with words such as "chairperson". [gag!]

Lol. Didn't know Latin was your language.

It also feels like an ad hominem. Btw ad hominem argument is what it's called in my native language too.

Quote"Man" often means "human of either gender," especially when it is part of a compound word, such as "salesman." This is actually demonstrated in scripture. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27

"Hominem" is properly understood as "man", but not as "male".

Actually you're right. I either didn't realize or forgot that hominis is a conjugation of homo, which we all know from expressions such as homo sapiens etc.

Maybe also a little bit due to the French "hommes" and "femmes".

QuoteBut you should probably disregard everything I write. After all, I am a woman, and "everyone knows" that God doesn't want a woman to teach a man.

Another ad hominem, eh?

Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

By the way "everyone knows" is also a form of a fallacy. I know you ascribe it to me but I try not to use them.

Interestingly enough, you're selective in replying to what I wrote, not the other way around.

Quote from: new creature on Fri Aug 08, 2014 - 08:29:13
Interestingly enough, you're selective in replying to what I wrote, not the other way around.

Congratulations, you win.


That's the thing about message boards. If you find yourself caught in a pointless argument you have only yourself to blame. I learned many years ago to just let the other person be wrong. Answering every point of every post is not required.

Quote from: Nevertheless on Fri Aug 08, 2014 - 08:49:09

That's the thing about message boards. If you find yourself caught in a pointless argument you have only yourself to blame. I learned many years ago to just let the other person be wrong.

Awesome! This made me laugh...thanks.

Nothing personal, NC, Never's post was just funnay!

Interestingly, (it seems after reading) the ad hominem attack is a typical response to the appeal to authority fallacy.  So if someone were to say (for example) that "Joyce Meyer is anointed" and at least thereby imply that she is teaching the truth, the common attack for that fallacy is the ad hominem attack.  In that case the ad hominem attack is no longer fallacious(?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Personally if someone says that someone "is anointed" the better argument still would be to point out something that they are teaching which is patently false or manufactured.

Quote from: Catholica on Fri Aug 08, 2014 - 10:52:01
Personally if someone says that someone "is anointed" the better argument still would be to point out something that they are teaching which is patently false or manufactured.

And that would be keeping entirely within the spirit of disputing the doctrine, not the person.

Quote from: Catholica on Fri Aug 08, 2014 - 10:52:01
Interestingly, (it seems after reading) the ad hominem attack is a typical response to the appeal to authority fallacy.  So if someone were to say (for example) that "Joyce Meyer is anointed" and at least thereby imply that she is teaching the truth, the common attack for that fallacy is the ad hominem attack.  In that case the ad hominem attack is no longer fallacious(?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Personally if someone says that someone "is anointed" the better argument still would be to point out something that they are teaching which is patently false or manufactured.

You are saying that an anointed person can never make a mistake? I think that most anointed people are well aware of their fallibility.   
Its usually pretty clear which teachers are anointed and which arent. Even if they have made mistakes in the past(as we all have).

I suspect the "anointing" can come in different areas. 

John McArthur had some absolutley wonderful teachings on family relationships but was was an adamant cessationist.

Quote from: DaveW on Fri Aug 08, 2014 - 11:10:43
I suspect the "anointing" can come in different areas. 

John McArthur had some absolutley wonderful teachings on family relationships but was was an adamant cessationist.

Yes thats a good point.

Quote from: chosenone on Fri Aug 08, 2014 - 11:15:13

Quote from: DaveW on Fri Aug 08, 2014 - 11:10:43
I suspect the "anointing" can come in different areas. 

John McArthur had some absolutley wonderful teachings on family relationships but was was an adamant cessationist.

Yes thats a good point.

That is probably because an anointing is a "Spirit Upon" phenomenon and not "Spirit Within."  That is why A. A. Allen had such an anointed healing ministry but off-stage was a fall-down drunk who died of liver failure.

Quote from: chosenone on Fri Aug 08, 2014 - 10:58:45

Quote from: Catholica on Fri Aug 08, 2014 - 10:52:01
Interestingly, (it seems after reading) the ad hominem attack is a typical response to the appeal to authority fallacy.  So if someone were to say (for example) that "Joyce Meyer is anointed" and at least thereby imply that she is teaching the truth, the common attack for that fallacy is the ad hominem attack.  In that case the ad hominem attack is no longer fallacious(?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Personally if someone says that someone "is anointed" the better argument still would be to point out something that they are teaching which is patently false or manufactured.

You are saying that an anointed person can never make a mistake? I think that most anointed people are well aware of their fallibility.   
Its usually pretty clear which teachers are anointed and which arent. Even if they have made mistakes in the past(as we all have).

I guess the term "anointed" really has to do with someone else's opinion that they are a really good teacher, or that they really like them.  Not whether they were sent by God or protected in teaching by God.  If someone is "anointed" and fallible, then what does their being "anointed" even mean?  Did God send them forth to proclaim error to the world?

Sure a person can have a gift of the Holy Spirit for preaching and teaching and not be infallible.  But even good gifts can be used in a bad way, and an "anointed" person with the gift of preaching who is preaching heresy is a very dangerous person.  Not that I am referring to anyone in particular.

Bottom line, this idea that someone is "anointed" has more significance toward a person's emotional feelings toward someone than actually makes any difference spiritually.  It's basically an empty term, in my opinion, but thrown around as if it had great significance.