Actually, again, there was no ad homiem involved at all in Will's sharing. He did not attack you personally, nor did he say that your position was invalid because of personal failings of yours, either moral or doctrinal. Will simply pointed out en passant a doctrinal connection of interest to the conversation.
And all this proves is that you, like many people, don't have the slightest clue what the term "
ad hominem fallacy" means.
To begin with, most people use
ad hominem to mean name-calling, usually thinking that their use of a Greek phrase gives their complaint added strength. In fact, the
ad hominem fallacy is any appeal to the person's character, background, or affiliation as a point to refute the person's argument. It does not have to (and often does not) involve an insult.
Brandplucked's statement was a textbook example of
ad hominem: the other guy didn't believe in the Trinity so his argument about the Johannine Comma was invalid or should be rejected. If you poke around a while on the Internet, you'll find explanations of the
ad hominem fallacy that use examples exactly like that of Brandplucked.
In fact, to link doctrinal views and textual views is not ad hominem at all, whether the linkage is 100% true and accurate and broad-based or not.
You are quite wrong. Embarrassingly so. The doctrinal views of a poster are relevant only in assessing the value of the poster's "testimony" or the poster's argument as an authority. To use them to as a reason why the poster's reasoning or argumentation is wrong is 100% pure, textbook
ad hominem.
e.g. If we point out that opponents of the King James Bible as fully pure are often textual liberals and higher critics who see 2 Peter and/or the Pastorals (e.g. Bruce Metzger) as defacto forgeries (and maybe even other Bible writings) that is opening up an important discussion and understanding of positions. Yet there is no ad hominem involved in sharing about such a frequent linkage.
Such "pointings-out" are only relevant if we are relying on the expert testimony of those people. When a scholar says that
in his opinion the Johannine Comma is spurious, and does so without laying out sufficient reason for such an assertion, then it is proper to argue that the full reason includes a personal bias, such as a religious belief.
And it is perfectly proper for the anti-KJB-as-pure-scripture person to give examples that do not fit the frequent mold for counterpoint, and to state their own position.
Stating one's position is fine. If it isn't presented as a logical argument, then for an opponent to state that the affirmer's opinion is due to a theological bias is NOT to commit the
ad hominem fallacy. If, however, the affirmer lays out evidence and reasoning to define and defend his position, it would certainly be an
ad hominem fallacy for the opponent to drag in the affirmer's religious beliefs as a counterargument.
So the linkage is simply an attempt to place views in wider context. You would do well to understand logical fallacies a bit better before you repeatedly falsely accuse.
Before you come onto the board and start in on someone, I would suggest that you more carefully understand the overall situation. I am going to guess here, not knowing for certain of course, that I will be adequately able to reference any logical fallacy issue you would like to raise.
Returning to the Johannine Comma, in fact one of the strongest stances historically for the Johannine Comma was by a biblical unitarian who saw the Johannine Comma as God's pure word. So we should avoid assuming too much all the time about doctrinal linkages, they are often helpful but can be overdone in textual matters.
So you are saying that a non-Trinitarian supported the authenticity of the Johannine Comma? That, of course, is irrelevant except that he may have been less likely to falsify his evidence.
But since the Johannine Comma is a great proof-text for modalists as well as Social Trinitarians, and since it can easily be interpreted by Biblical Unitarians to fit their doctrine as well, I don't put much weight on the religious views of the people on either side of the argument. The Johannine Comma fits in perfectly with LDS doctrine too, something that Brandplucked can't seem to understand. So not only is his frequent reference to his opponents' religious beliefs
ad hominem, it doesn't even support his contention.
The fundamental issue is whether God has given us his pure and perfect word, the plumbline for all doctrine and faith. If we do not have his pure word, ultimately everything is negotiable.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. You and Brandplucked are starting out assuming that the evidence MUST point to the Johannine Comma being part of the autograph. That explains why the evidence is being ignored and why certain conclusions are being drawn in the absence of, or in contradiction to, evidence.
Interestingly, in my case, it was actually studying the Johannine Comma closely, textually and historically and grammatical and seeking consistency and reading the church writers and comparing the paradigmic theories of the text -- that helped bring me to the acceptance of the King James Bible as the pure word of God.
I'm glad for you that you had that experience. My experience was exactly the opposite. I started out believing absolutely that the Johannine Comma was authentic, and I was led by the evidence to conclude that it was a later addition.
So your fallacy claim above (as often used by many) would be towards me, would be a form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc, fallacy.
No. You seem to misunderstand that fallacy as well.
By the way, welcome to the board... :wave:
