Ad Hominem: Revisited

ad hominem: adjective 

1) appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather to one's intellect or reason
2) attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument

Ref: Dictionary dot com

In the wake of posting my last article, it seems that there was a bit of backlash from the female Christian blogger who read and remarked on another article by a Christian Pastor, an article which was essentially Pt. 1 of a sermon titled, "The Pathology of False Disciples".

Putting that sermon aside for a sec', said Christian blogger evidently saw something I had written on her own blog, subsequently leading her back to my blog.

**I now interject that I have gone on record many times to say that Christians and Christian beliefs are a big source of my blogging subject matter. I mean, there is always plenty of material to work with, and recently had been one such time** 

Moving on, the Christian blogger came here and took issue with what I had written on my last blog post, suggesting that I overlooked the context of who the bible verse was talking about. But instead of addressing it here, she did so on her own blog. Note, I don't mind being straightened out if I'm actually in error, as trust me, I'm the last guy on earth who wants to sit here and defend my errors.

So, the Christian blogger contended that in "John 6" there is a "crowd" that (supposedly) witnessed Jesus and his (alleged) "miracles", and these people "spiritually defect", despite (allegedly) having seen those "miracles" firsthand.

Cutting to the chase---there are 9 points that were referenced on this Christian blogger's post, each one describing characteristics of "false disciples", AKA, "spiritual defectors". Again, as to not defend my errors, I am willing to concede that "John 6" deals with the people of that time period, and specifically, the "crowd" mentioned. Let the record show that "Atheists" are not... repeat, NOT mentioned.

Now, here's what I'm not willing to concede: I'm not willing to concede this notion that the sermon in question isn't talking to today's Christians about today's "spiritual defectors", E.g...what signs to look for. It most certainly is. What I'm also not willing to concede is that, of those whom today's Christians count as "spiritual defectors", former believers who've turned "atheist" aren't included. Christians most certainly do include the former-believer-turned-atheist as a "spiritual defector", as I've been told, point-blank, that I was never a "True Christian" by many a believer. Thus, my conclusion on this matter is that there was some equivocation going on in my being corrected.

But right now I want to get back to "ad hominem": In the Christian blogger's retort, which BTW, consisted of three short paragraphs, I count three ad hominem attacks. She could have corrected my "context" error without saying that my "outraged reaction" was "set on 11". She could have pointed out the "context" without calling me a "sneering internet atheist". And lastly, she could have pointed out the "context" of the biblical passage without telling me that I should not expect to use her blog as a "forum" for my "expertise on all things", and BTW, the latter is both ad hominem and a strawman fallacy.

An expert on all things? Hardly. But do I know my fallacies? Yes. And I have a good reason to know them. And if there's any "expert" on my own experiences with Christianity and its "Christ", mark my words that this would be me, not you(Christian blogger). That, in a nutshell, is my argument against this lecture on the "spiritual defectors".

And BTW, I don't moderate comments here. Anyone is invited to use reasoned arguments to contend a point or make their case.