I only replied with the Christianity Today article because it was relevant to the discussion you had decided was no longer worth rebuttal. Unfortunately, since that point (and even a few posts before it), you have contributed nothing to the conversation except for remarks like "Now *that's* hard-headed."
Claiming "lack of energy," you have made no effort to answer my contentions and have resorted to parroting "You're wrong" without substantiating just why I am wrong in your eyes.
Sadly, my part in this 'discussion' is done.
“Ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.”
It’s only an argumentum ad hominem if it pretends to be an argument. Ordinary pokes in the eye are not included.
“Claiming “lack of energy,” you have made no effort to answer my contentions and have resorted to parroting “You’re wrong” without substantiating just why I am wrong in your eyes.”
Parroting would imply a number of repetitions. It’s not right to use hyperbole to exaggerate a complaint.
Just a note or two above I gave three arguments, and you didn’t make any effort to answer those.
“Sadly, my part in this ‘discussion’ is done.”
You can’t quit; I already fired you.