11,153
edits
Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
=Straw Man= | =Straw Man= | ||
The basic form of a strawman argument is: | |||
*Person 1 holds a specific belief. | |||
*Person 2 restates person 1’s position in a distorted way. | |||
*Person 2 attacks the distorted version of Person 1's belief. | |||
*Therefore, Person 1's belief is false. | |||
Person 2 attempts to argue against a belief by attacking a different position than the one his opponent actually holds - one that is easier to refute. | |||
An example of a person defending the message against criticisms raised on this website: | |||
::“''These people attacking the message would have you believe that you should go back to the harlot… back to the denominational slop you came out of''.” | |||
This is not the position of any message critic that I am aware of. The truth is simply that people in the message are following a false prophet and therefore are in error. Where they go when and if they leave the message is a matter of prayerful consideration, and is inherently individual. By the way, equating all churches with harlots and slop for the simple fact that they belong to a denomination is also fallacious - in case common sense didn’t kick in automatically, as it should. | |||
Some examples of specific straw man arguments that we have encountered: | |||
*[[The_Trinity#William Branham's Critique of the Trinity|William Branham's Critique of the Trinity]] | |||
*[[Is God fair?|Argument against Christianity]] | |||
{{Bottom of Page}} | {{Bottom of Page}} |