The Vision of the Age, the Ministry of the Age, and the Minister of the Age

[Drake]

Originally Posted by A little brother

I spoke what I have to. It's up to you to hear or not.

Pardon my ignorance. I have to look up Ad Hominem from wikipedia. I don't think that's what I intended. But anyway, interesting definition, especially the last part...

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

Correct alb.

When you say that the person you are debating is delusional , that is an ad hominem attack having nothing to do with the argument itself. You are attacking the person, not the argument. Other ad hominem include but not limited to saying someone is dishonest, unintelligent, a liar, devious, bad motives, etc. all intended to dismiss the person rather than create a compelling argument.

You may think those things about someone, and you may even say them but they are fallacies in argument. When fallacies in argumentum are used it often indicates that the person advancing them has run out of convincing points in an argument. In other words, unable to convince others of their point of view they resort to attacking the motives, intelligence, truthfulness, or sanity of their opponents. Thinking their arguments were compelling yet still ineffective it must then be a problem with the person who remains unconvinced. Therein lies the fallacy. When you charged me with being delusional, though you may believe it, it was a fallacy in your argument and remains such until you can first prove I am delusional or was at some point in the past. My not accepting your argument is in and of itself insufficient to establish my being delusional.

Hope that helps.

Drake

[Drake]

-2>”Drake should be more concerned about violating God's word and stumbling His children, than some supposed "ad hominem" that hurt his feelings.”

Brother Ohio

Don’t concern yourself about my feelings. I can assure they are not hurt.

However, I am very concerned about the brazen violation of Gods Word on display in this forum in attacking brothers and sisters in the Lords Recovery. I am also concerned about the stumbling of His children that also goes on here day by day. Case in point, someone accuses coworkers of making assertions to establish and maintain global control over the local churches and cannot provide a single instance of the so-called assertion!

Now, that is pathetic!

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

-2>”Drake should be more concerned about violating God's word and stumbling His children, than some supposed "ad hominem" that hurt his feelings.”

Brother Ohio

Don’t concern yourself about my feelings. I can assure they are not hurt.

However, I am very concerned about the brazen violation of Gods Word on display in this forum in attacking brothers and sisters in the Lords Recovery. I am also concerned about the stumbling of His children that also goes on here day by day. Case in point, someone accuses coworkers of making assertions to establish and maintain global control over the local churches and cannot provide a single instance of the so-called assertion!

Now, that is pathetic!

Drake

I'm not attacking any bro/sis in the Recovery. You are delusional just like a little brother said. Besides, are you asserting that Philip Lee was saved? Can you prove it? He molested multiple sisters and Daddy protected him. And you want us all to be silent?

Concerning the global takeover and control of LC's: Read the accounts. The Lord said 2 or 3 witnesses establish these words. We have hundreds of witnesses. Yesterday I posted John So's testimony. I have testified of LSM takeovers in Ohio and Canada. John Ingalls' account is another. Don Rutledge spoke of Lee's initial takeover in the Jan 1974 elders meetings with Lee and Lee's intimidation tactics. The Feb 1986 Loyalty Pledge where all were coerced to sign under threat of expulsion. The list goes on.

OK, maybe we should not call you delusional. But your posts sure are.

[Drake]

-1

Ohio,

Okay, you don’t have a reference. Therefore, it is what it is. Just another example of an accusation made without a shred of evidence to substantiate it.

Indiana>” the blended co-workers (Brother We) assert that they are the global authority over “the local churches”,

But then, why would you want or expect proof of the accusation? Why would you care whether one was provided or not? Is it a standard in the forum that posters provide references to substantiate their accusations? No, it is not and no, you wouldn’t care. You have the results you say. and that validates the accusation. Circular reasoning.

Sorry brother. It does not validate the accusation. That does not even meet the minimum standard.

Perhaps Indiana has the reference. Let’s see.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio,

Okay, you don’t have a reference. Therefore, it is what it is. Just another example of an accusation made without a shred of evidence to substantiate it.

Dear Drake,

Do you have any idea how arrogant this sounds? Let me get this straight -- If it's not in one of your ministry books, then it can't be true?

Obviously you have so long been removed from the scriptures and from the reality, that the Bible itself has no more authority over you. Only Lee's books will do for you.

The Bible says accusations against leaders require witnesses. (I Tim. 5.19) This forum has hundreds of witnesses, but that means nothing to you because you must read it in an official Lee-and-Blended-sanctioned book, only available thru LSM's standing order.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sorry brother. It does not validate the accusation. That does not even meet the minimum standard.

Brother Drake - may I suggest you take the weekend and collect yourself? James 1:19

[Drake]

Ohio>”If it's not in one of your ministry books, then it can't be true?”

Brother Ohio,

It is not about whether it is in a ministry book, it is whether it exists anywhere!

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio>”If it's not in one of your ministry books, then it can't be true?”

Brother Ohio,

It is not about whether it is in a ministry book, it is whether it exists anywhere!

Drake

I understand completely!

Just call them all lepers, and you don't have to listen to these witnesses.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Brother Drake - may I suggest you take the weekend and collect yourself? James 1:19

LofT,

Hmmmm...

So if I take the weekend off, collect myself, then after the weekend i look at this again, then I will see things differently, maybe the way you do..... then all will be well.

Nah... I think it is reasonable for someone to provide a reference for an accusation involving world domination.

Thanks and have a calm, collective, and safe weekend,
Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

LofT,

Hmmmm...

So if I take the weekend off, collect myself, then after the weekend i look at this again, then I will see things differently, maybe the way you do..... then all will be well.

Nah... I think it is reasonable for someone to provide a reference for an accusation involving world domination.

Thanks and have a calm, collective, and safe weekend,
Drake

I think it would serve you well