Cofty said- Objecting to foolish assertions that a person's opinions have just been spoken by the almighty is not ad hominem.
We've covered that recently in another thread: it's a variety of ad hominem (circumstantial). I remember you even posted the info that indicated the countering the claim (which relies on an appeal to Divine Authority) may reduce the evidenciary value of whatever argument she's trying to us it to support, but that should be obvious: there's MILLIONS of people who claim to hear God, Jesus, Allah, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, and they're usually standing on street corners or in sporting events holding signs (John 3:14, or whatever it is they cite).
BTW, you also jumped the gun in that other thread, since she hadn't even stated her goading claim yet (AKA a false start).
Regardless, a hot-headed authoritarian response only side-tracks the thread(s), since the topic IMMEDIATELY jumps to TEC: that one's been done to death.
BOTR asked- What can one say to a claim of auditory hallucinations?
All it takes is for one person to counter by calmly explaining to lurkers that TEC seemingly is experiencing the relatively-common phenomena of 'auditory hallucinations' (maybe give a link to http://www.hearing-voices.org/ if you want to educate readers and back up your claim), and she's had it checked out by a doctor who's ruled out schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, brain tumors, etc, and she's A-OK. Most people in the general public do not know that it's not unusual for normal people to experience auditory hallucinations, and up to 10% of the population will experience them in their lifetimes (and some of those people DO have mental illness, but there's many people who live a productive happy life where their voices don't interfere: it's a brain-wiring issue, where they have the inability to discern that the source is coming from inside their own head, not an external source).
Then move on to the actual argument(s) TEC presents, just like we would with any other poster, trying to climb as high on the pyramid as we're able:
Cofty said- How about reasonable intelligent believers? People like Jgnat who started an excellent thread a few days ago that still hasn't been fully explored.
Surely there are others who would want to argue for deism or process theology or open theism or panentheism? How about somebody who would like to defend the liberal position of theologians like John Shelby Spong? People who are wrestling with the big questions and still see value in what faith traditions have to say about them. Wouldn't it be interesting to have challenging conversations like that?
The problem is this site has people who are struggling with recognizing basic logical fallacies (i.e. what circular arguments are, etc), and the average reader wouldn't likely BE in the JWs right now if they had been able to recognize what deceptive methods the WT uses, or the insidious elements and subtle methods of social control they exert on their members.
I think of my neices and nephews in the JWs, and try to write stuff to their level of understanding: they're NOT concerned in the least with who John Shelby Spong is, as 99% of other readers aren't (heck, I could give a rats pattootie about who he is, since like you, I tend to be bored with theological wiffle-waffle and/or philosophical navel-gazing, LOL! A little goes a LONG way).
Cofty said- Instead we get the same old sophomoric, "my lord says come... blah blah" and your walls of self-indulgent text that add fuel to the fire.
You seemingly forgot about YOUR brusque curt one-liner dismissals of others?
That's even MORE self-indulgent, since you apparently don't feel the need to back up your argument with supportive evidence, relying on your never-gets-old 'appeal to authority' (which ironicially is the same fallacy which you protest in TEC, since she's using the 'appeal to Divine authority).
Anyway, what better way to protect these unknown lurkers that you're so concerned about protecting from getting swept into another cult, than to calmly and easily counter TEC's claims right here? Or do you think that JWs who are vulnerable and looking for answers WON'T encounter TECs on the street, or in real-life?
See, TECs not the problem, but only a symptom of the problem.