Posted on 07/11/2010 10:58:32 AM PDT by NYer
I was going to ask what makes something a strawman argument. But I see now, when one can’t answer.
lol! It means “I’ve dug a hole here. And why dig further...” At least that what always seems to happen when the straw man argument is played.
"And be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, WHICH IS OF THE LAW , but this which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith;"(Philippians 3:9).
Thank you. I was enriched reading your posts.
Some here are unaware of the gift that was given with your posts and some are very aware.
Thank you, again.
AMEN! It it had not been COMPLETLY FINISHED God could not have raised Him from the dead. That is His GUARANTEE to us that it was ENOUGH!
As I see it, there was more. The knowledge of good and evil. The deception was that she would not die if she ate the fruit.
AMEN - ONCE FOR ALL.
It’s all about deception which is evil and brings death.
Yes!
Christianity 101
Actually, it's not that at all. But, the fact that you seem to not know even the basic concepts of logic and the logical fallacies makes discussion a waste of time.
When I see a term that I do not understand, I make use of internet search engines to get at least some knowledge. For example, I just recently learned about Bullingerism - a k a - ultra dispensationalism by that method.
A simple quote will do. I repeat my question: Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?
Here is the “straw man fallacy” from wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an infallible source, but it does do some things well.
******************************************************
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.[1]
2. Quoting an opponent’s words out of context – i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments – thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
*******************************************************
What don-o said was accurate. At times, I don’t understand an opponent’s argument; there is no shame in asking for clarification. There is also no shame in making an error. Pretense, however, is always rather lame.
Here is the wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
No its not. Adam was not deceived.
And the ultimate act was CHOICE. she CHOSE to eat of the apple. As did Adam. They both chose, of their own will which way they would go. God has always given us the choice. To follow Him, or follow Satan.
Why does scripture point out that Eve was deceived and Adam was not deceived? Perhaps Eve did not know that she was following Satan.
I see you have a NEED to continue. He knew what God said about the tree - and he did it anyway - he put ‘man’ before God. Do want to put that into the plus category? You think he believed there would be consequences?
Again, Christianity 101
BELIEVE and OBEY HIS Word.
God told Adam not to eat of the fruit BEFORE there was an Eve.
JA LOL!! I don’t need the link - or the research. I’m well aware.
Talking about the personal reason for the use.
Okay, if you say so. But making things personal is against the RF rules, so....
Instead of prying into someone’s motive, how about just answering the argument, without using straw men?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.