Straw Man Walking

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
#1
According to Wikipedia: (in blue, my emp)

A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.


EXAMPLE


Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position that is harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants". It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim.

=========================================================================================

Using the above example from Wikipedia, some common straw man's that regularly appear on this debate forum:

A: One's sins are cleansed away by the blood of Christ in water baptism
B: (Straw man) No, you are saying water is what washes away sins > when person A never said/claimed such.

A: Obedience to Gods will is necessary to being saved and obedience to God cannot/does not earn salvation.
B: (Straw man) No, you are trying to earn salvation by your obedience to God > when person A never said/claimed such.

A: Doing God's righteousness saves, man cannot be saved by doing his own righteousness
B: (Straw man) No, you are trying to earn your salvation by doing your own righteous works > when person A never said/claimed such.




 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#2
The defenition given by Wikipedia sounds like alot of your arguments, and the way you respond to people.

But you will not listen to that any more than you will listen to scripture. or anyone who talks with you (as you always say they say things they have never said) so I am not sure why your promoting something which works against you?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,050
2,538
113
#3
I am impressed. First time I ever saw a straw fish argument.

Deception to defend deception.

Words are symbols of thought. Choose what you say carefully. Be specific and articulate your position with proper terms and stay consistent with the recognized definitions of those terms.

In biblical terms one must possess the Holy Spirit indwelling in them to be able to comprehend what the doctrines of the faith are actually teaching. The thoughts of a million men cannot outweigh one thought of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
#4
The defenition given by Wikipedia sounds like alot of your arguments, and the way you respond to people.

But you will not listen to that any more than you will listen to scripture. or anyone who talks with you (as you always say they say things they have never said) so I am not sure why your promoting something which works against you?

....if I had a nickel for every time I was accused of saying one is earning his salvation by obeying God......or that I am trying to save myself by doing my own righteousness.....
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
#5
I am impressed. First time I ever saw a straw fish argument.

Deception to defend deception.

Words are symbols of thought. Choose what you say carefully. Be specific and articulate your position with proper terms and stay consistent with the recognized definitions of those terms.

In biblical terms one must possess the Holy Spirit indwelling in them to be able to comprehend what the doctrines of the faith are actually teaching. The thoughts of a million men cannot outweigh one thought of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Peter's listeners in Acts 2; Stephen's listeners in Acts 7 and Paul's listeners in Acts 22 all heard and understood what was preached to them without a personal, direct indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
 

Jon4TheCross

Senior Member
Oct 19, 2012
1,864
7
38
#6
Peter's listeners in Acts 2; Stephen's listeners in Acts 7 and Paul's listeners in Acts 22 all heard and understood what was preached to them without a personal, direct indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit was with them...even though perhaps not in them at that particular time.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#7
Peter's listeners in Acts 2; Stephen's listeners in Acts 7 and Paul's listeners in Acts 22 all heard and understood what was preached to them without a personal, direct indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
True but the Holy Spirit was 'sanctifying them' UNTO the obedience of Jesus Christ and the sprinkling of His blood (1 Pet 1.2), at which point they would be indwelt by the Spirit.
 
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
#8
The Holy Spirit was with them...even though perhaps not in them at that particular time.

Yes, the Holy Spirit was not with them. The gospel is for the lost and the lost have no indwelling of the Holy Spirit yet the lost can understand the gospel when it's preached just as they can hear/read understand newspapers, magazines, tv, etc.
 
Mar 12, 2014
6,433
29
0
#9
True but the Holy Spirit was 'sanctifying them' UNTO the obedience of Jesus Christ and the sprinkling of His blood (1 Pet 1.2), at which point they would be indwelt by the Spirit.

Those hearers in Acts 7 and 22 were not sanctified unto obedience but rejected what they heard/understood and in Acts 7 murdered Stephen and tried to murder Paul.
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
#10
I am impressed. First time I ever saw a straw fish argument.

Deception to defend deception.

Words are symbols of thought. Choose what you say carefully. Be specific and articulate your position with proper terms and stay consistent with the recognized definitions of those terms.

In biblical terms one must possess the Holy Spirit indwelling in them to be able to comprehend what the doctrines of the faith are actually teaching. The thoughts of a million men cannot outweigh one thought of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
HAHAHHAHAHHHAHAH now that was funny for sure.....and so true as well.....!
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
#11
....if I had a nickel for every time I was accused of saying one is earning his salvation by obeying God......or that I am trying to save myself by doing my own righteousness.....
Look it is a matter of deductive reasoning.....

1. Do you teach you can lose salvation? YES
2. Do you teach assured salvation is based upon
a) Water baptism which is a work of righteousness? YES
b) Works? YES

The above tells the tale.......No matter how you slice and dice...the end result of your doctrine = salvation that is gained, kept and maintained by works.....why do you deny this?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#12
....if I had a nickel for every time I was accused of saying one is earning his salvation by obeying God......or that I am trying to save myself by doing my own righteousness.....

you would be a rich man. Because everyone who reads what you post KNOWS this is exactly what your preaching, the only one blind to this fact seems to be you.
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#13
I am impressed. First time I ever saw a straw fish argument.

Deception to defend deception.

Words are symbols of thought. Choose what you say carefully. Be specific and articulate your position with proper terms and stay consistent with the recognized definitions of those terms.

In biblical terms one must possess the Holy Spirit indwelling in them to be able to comprehend what the doctrines of the faith are actually teaching. The thoughts of a million men cannot outweigh one thought of God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
The fish is actually a red herring...

Description of Red Herring


A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).Topic A is abandoned.


This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim. -Nizkor

red-herring.jpg
 
Last edited:

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,645
13,120
113
#14
i think it floats, but i doubt it swims.

fish.jpg

see how different a fish that is made by human hands is?
it has no life in it, though it resembles in appearance the true thing.

only by the Living God does any creature live and breathe; even our righteousness is not our own, but the Lord that works in us, to will and to do His good pleasure. these things are too high for me; i cannot reach them - instead the Mighty God stooped down and stretched out His own hand to touch me, to mold and make me.

buoyancy. that's what floats my boat.

i'm sorry that we bite at each other -- it's against ideas and spirits we make our warfare, that warfare is made through us. we pollute the battle with the vestiges of our crucified carnality; again, sorry.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,645
13,120
113
#15
True but the Holy Spirit was 'sanctifying them' UNTO the obedience of Jesus Christ and the sprinkling of His blood (1 Pet 1.2), at which point they would be indwelt by the Spirit.
praise God for the example of Cornelius and his household!

so we know that our circumcision is one not made by human hands, that none may boast, that all glory should belong to the Lord!

:)

​casts crowns
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,324
2,413
113
#16
According to Wikipedia: (in blue, my emp)

A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.


EXAMPLE


Straw man arguments often arise in public debates such as a (hypothetical) prohibition debate:

A: We should relax the laws on beer.
B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position that is harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants". It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim.

=========================================================================================

Using the above example from Wikipedia, some common straw man's that regularly appear on this debate forum:

A: One's sins are cleansed away by the blood of Christ in water baptism
B: (Straw man) No, you are saying water is what washes away sins > when person A never said/claimed such.

A: Obedience to Gods will is necessary to being saved and obedience to God cannot/does not earn salvation.
B: (Straw man) No, you are trying to earn salvation by your obedience to God > when person A never said/claimed such.

A: Doing God's righteousness saves, man cannot be saved by doing his own righteousness
B: (Straw man) No, you are trying to earn your salvation by doing your own righteous works > when person A never said/claimed such.




When you gave examples of straw man arguments... errrr...
some of those propositions were illogical and self-contradictory.

When you make a self-contradictory claim,
and somebody points it out,
you don't get a pass by accusing the other person of creating a straw man.

If you start with an absurd proposition... well... it's still absurd.
You don't get a pass because you read about a fallacy on wikipedia,
and think you get to hide behind it whenever you say something self-contradictory.

When you state a proposition, you will have to stand behind it, and defend it.
If it's a bad proposition, or poorly stated... you don't get to blame your detractors.
 
Last edited:

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,324
2,413
113
#17
Seabass,

I'm tired and my last post may have come off wrong.
I apologize if it sounded rude.

My point is just that when we state a proposition,
if it is poorly stated, or in any way appears self-contradictory...
we have to expect the opposition to poke holes in it.
We don't always get to accuse them of a fallacy when they poke holes in a poorly stated proposition.
 
Dec 26, 2012
5,853
137
0
#18
Look it is a matter of deductive reasoning.....

1. Do you teach you can lose salvation? YES
2. Do you teach assured salvation is based upon
a) Water baptism which is a work of righteousness? YES
b) Works? YES

The above tells the tale.......No matter how you slice and dice...the end result of your doctrine = salvation that is gained, kept and maintained by works.....why do you deny this?

Question Would Noah have lived or died if he did NOT build the ark? Was Noah REQUIRED to build the ark to be saved? Or was Noah saved by saying the Magic words "I believe you Lord" to be saved or did Noah by faith build the ark to be saved?
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#19

Question Would Noah have lived or died if he did NOT build the ark? Was Noah REQUIRED to build the ark to be saved? Or was Noah saved by saying the Magic words "I believe you Lord" to be saved or did Noah by faith build the ark to be saved?

Like abraham, who was declared righteous before God before he did one work. Abraham was saved the moment he trusted God, and said ok God I believe you I trust you. lets do this.

the work was a result of his faith. not a cause of it.

salvation is the cause of our work, not the other way around.

true faith works, a psuedo, or false faith will not.

If noah had a pseudo or false faith, he may have started the ark, if he even did that, but he never would have finished it.
 
Dec 26, 2012
5,853
137
0
#20

Like abraham, who was declared righteous before God before he did one work. Abraham was saved the moment he trusted God, and said ok God I believe you I trust you. lets do this.

the work was a result of his faith. not a cause of it.

salvation is the cause of our work, not the other way around.

true faith works, a psuedo, or false faith will not.

If noah had a pseudo or false faith, he may have started the ark, if he even did that, but he never would have finished it.

So did Noah obey God and was saved by a living faith or did he not obey God?