Who’s interpretation is true?

[mjrhealth]

So don't be too good or too wise! Why destroy yourself?
Be not over-righteous, nor show thyself too wise, why art thou desolate?

Wise, do you think a wise man would contend with teh learned, much a foolish thing to do, dont you think...

 

[bbyrd009]

Wise, do you think a wise man would contend with teh learned, much a foolish thing to do, dont you think...

Why are you desolate, then, mjr?

 

[OzSpen]

I ask you to respond to my statements and not to Calvinism and you say 'I' am erecting a straw man?

Stranger

Stranger,

What is a strawman logical fallacy? It is 'substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument' (source).

This is how you committed the strawman fallacy:

Stranger wrote in #304: 'Please understand what I have written. If you want to argue with Calvin, fine. I am not Calvin. Don't try and force his Calvinism on me'.

Oz responded to Stranger's comment in #291, 'God doesn't pick who are to be saved. God saves those who are His' with, 'So you do believe in unconditional election' (#292).

Stranger: 'I don't know what you mean by "unconditional election"' (#294).

Oz: I explained unconditional election (#297).

Stranger: 'If you want to argue with Calvin, fine. I am not Calvin. Don't try and force his Calvinism on me' (#304).

Oz: 'I'm not. You are the one who said you didn't understand unconditional election and I sought to share some information about it. I would never force any theological system on anyone, and certainly not Calvinism' (#315).

Stranger: 'I understand perfectly what you wrote and are trying to do. You want to align me with Calvinism because you believe you have a ready set argument against Calvinism. If your understanding of who the elect are differs from mine, then show me. Don't try and teach me Calvinism. You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote' (#317).

Oz: 'You're erecting a strawman' (#318).

Stranger: 'I ask you to respond to my statements and not to Calvinism and you say 'I' am erecting a straw man?' (#319)


Here's why your argument commits fallacious reasoning with a strawman fallacy. This is its logical form:

Oz explains unconditional election as Stranger didn't know what I meant by it.

Stranger responds that he doesn't want Calvinism forced on him.

Stranger provides a distorted version of what Oz stated.

Stranger claims the definition of unconditional election is trying to teach Calvinism and force it on him.

So, a strawman fallacy has been committed by Stranger. We can't have a reasonable discussion when erroneous reasoning (logical fallacy) is used.

Oz

 

[Stranger]

OzSpen

Stranger didn't know, or care, what Calvinism says about unconditional election.

Stranger doesn't know or care what all Calvinism teaches.

Stranger didn't distort anything OzSpen said.

Stranger is not interested in Calvins unconditional election.

Stranger would like some discussion on what Stranger said, instead of what Calvin said.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Wise, do you think a wise man would contend with teh learned, much a foolish thing to do, dont you think...

 

[DPMartin]

Stranger,

What is a strawman logical fallacy? It is 'substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument' (source).

This is how you committed the strawman fallacy:

Stranger wrote in #304: 'Please understand what I have written. If you want to argue with Calvin, fine. I am not Calvin. Don't try and force his Calvinism on me'.

Oz responded to Stranger's comment in #291, 'God doesn't pick who are to be saved. God saves those who are His' with, 'So you do believe in unconditional election' (#292).

Stranger: 'I don't know what you mean by "unconditional election"' (#294).

Oz: I explained unconditional election (#297).

Stranger: 'If you want to argue with Calvin, fine. I am not Calvin. Don't try and force his Calvinism on me' (#304).

Oz: 'I'm not. You are the one who said you didn't understand unconditional election and I sought to share some information about it. I would never force any theological system on anyone, and certainly not Calvinism' (#315).

Stranger: 'I understand perfectly what you wrote and are trying to do. You want to align me with Calvinism because you believe you have a ready set argument against Calvinism. If your understanding of who the elect are differs from mine, then show me. Don't try and teach me Calvinism. You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote' (#317).

Oz: 'You're erecting a strawman' (#318).

Stranger: 'I ask you to respond to my statements and not to Calvinism and you say 'I' am erecting a straw man?' (#319)


Here's why your argument commits fallacious reasoning with a strawman fallacy. This is its logical form:

Oz explains unconditional election as Stranger didn't know what I meant by it.

Stranger responds that he doesn't want Calvinism forced on him.

Stranger provides a distorted version of what Oz stated.

Stranger claims the definition of unconditional election is trying to teach Calvinism and force it on him.

So, a strawman fallacy has been committed by Stranger. We can't have a reasonable discussion when erroneous reasoning (logical fallacy) is used.

Oz

DPMartin OZ is acting like a nut job

DPMartin

 

[OzSpen]

DPMartin OZ is acting like a nut job

DPMartin

I beg your pardon!

 

[OzSpen]

OzSpen

Stranger didn't know, or care, what Calvinism says about unconditional election.

Stranger doesn't know or care what all Calvinism teaches.

Stranger didn't distort anything OzSpen said.

Stranger is not interested in Calvins unconditional election.

Stranger would like some discussion on what Stranger said, instead of what Calvin said.

Stranger

Now please tell me 2 points about doctrine that you promote and have done so on CyB.

 

[bbyrd009]

DPMartin OZ is acting like a nut job

DPMartin

ooh, red herring + strawman, nice!

 

[DPMartin]

I beg your pardon!

you don't have to beg, you're pardoned, I'll let it slide this time, but next time I don't know. ah well I'll probably let it slide again.

lighten up oz, you don't have to be right, it is the Lord that is correct all the time 24/7, and forever, not you, not me, not anybody but the Lord.

 

[Stranger]

Now please tell me 2 points about doctrine that you promote and have done so on CyB.

I am not opposed to doctrine. I am opposed to you trying to fit me in the Calvinist mode and then you argue against Calvinism. Can't you just argue with what I have said and forget Calvin.

If you disagree with what I have said, then show me why, and show your Scripture to prove it.

Stranger