BobVigneault
Bawberator
argumentum ad ridiculum
Last but not least is the weapon of the loser and that is argumentum ad ridiculum or in plain English appeal to mockery and horse laugh. This of course has no intellectual value and serves only as a feel good factor for the loser. (A definition from the web)
JD recently spoke about his disillusionment with modern puritans -
"...and my disillusionment varies by the winsomeness diplayed here by the modern day proponents of Puritanism..."
I hope I'm not misrepresenting him but it seems he's saying that the puritan way was, and therefore, the neo-puritan way ought to be more edgy and mocking.
This reminded me of a recent interview that Gene Cook did with Dr. Robert Morey on Natural Theology. It was a fascinating piece and in it Dr. Morey brought up this same sentiment. He said that Jesus, in his dealings with the pharisees, used argumentum ad ridiculum. (Blind leading the blind, baby snakes, white washed graves) Elijah was doing the same with the prophets of Baal. Dr. Morey said that avoiding ridicule in defending the faith comes from following the authority of Aristotle and not Christ.
Dr. Morey for example refers to R.C. Sproul as Roman Catholic Sproul, and Norman Geisler as Roman Geisler. Dr. Morey doesn't hold back.
We certainly are aware of Calvin and Luther being quite forward and cutting in their speech at times. Reading in Turretin, he uses the test of whether or not we are dealing with a 'weaker brother' or a pharisee. If a weaker brother then we should not be a stumbling block, but if we are dealing with the pharasee then it's no holds barred.
As an ambassador of Christ I have cultivated a gentle approach to people but I think JD is correct in saying that the puritan way opens up the occassional need to blast your opponent with ridicule.
What do you think? Is there a proper and historical use of ridicule amongst the puritans and neo-puritans?
Please contribute to this post or take gas and die you fence sitting lurker!
Last but not least is the weapon of the loser and that is argumentum ad ridiculum or in plain English appeal to mockery and horse laugh. This of course has no intellectual value and serves only as a feel good factor for the loser. (A definition from the web)
JD recently spoke about his disillusionment with modern puritans -
"...and my disillusionment varies by the winsomeness diplayed here by the modern day proponents of Puritanism..."
I hope I'm not misrepresenting him but it seems he's saying that the puritan way was, and therefore, the neo-puritan way ought to be more edgy and mocking.
This reminded me of a recent interview that Gene Cook did with Dr. Robert Morey on Natural Theology. It was a fascinating piece and in it Dr. Morey brought up this same sentiment. He said that Jesus, in his dealings with the pharisees, used argumentum ad ridiculum. (Blind leading the blind, baby snakes, white washed graves) Elijah was doing the same with the prophets of Baal. Dr. Morey said that avoiding ridicule in defending the faith comes from following the authority of Aristotle and not Christ.
Dr. Morey for example refers to R.C. Sproul as Roman Catholic Sproul, and Norman Geisler as Roman Geisler. Dr. Morey doesn't hold back.
We certainly are aware of Calvin and Luther being quite forward and cutting in their speech at times. Reading in Turretin, he uses the test of whether or not we are dealing with a 'weaker brother' or a pharisee. If a weaker brother then we should not be a stumbling block, but if we are dealing with the pharasee then it's no holds barred.
As an ambassador of Christ I have cultivated a gentle approach to people but I think JD is correct in saying that the puritan way opens up the occassional need to blast your opponent with ridicule.
What do you think? Is there a proper and historical use of ridicule amongst the puritans and neo-puritans?
Please contribute to this post or take gas and die you fence sitting lurker!
