Straw man eschatology

[Shocker]

A straw man argument is a deviation from the original context of the subject matter to enforce the opinion of the one using the logical fallacy to begin with.

The purpose of this fallacy is to misrepresent the original statement in a way that the proponent is unaware, and thus, makes the person easier to attack.. This is not how you want to try and win a debate. Its quite deceptive..


For example.

a. "I love my wife"
b. "If you really loved her, you would buy her flowers everyday"

Notice how the reply attacks my "love" by insinuating that love is tied to flowers.

B. is a strawman argument.



Here is another.

a. "The Jews will build their 3rd temple."
b. "The Jews can NEVER build the 3rd temple because God WILL NOT accept it!

As you can see, my position was never that God must accept it in order for the Jews to build their temple, or that he would just because they built it.

B. is a strawman argument.


I see it used QUITE OFTEN around here...

Readers beware..



Educate...

 

[tranquil]

A straw man argument is a deviation from the original context of the subject matter to enforce the opinion of the one using the logical fallacy to begin with.

The purpose of this fallacy is to misrepresent the original statement in a way that the proponent is unaware, and thus, makes the person easier to attack.. This is not how you want to try and win a debate. Its quite deceptive..


For example.

a. "I love my wife"
b. "If you really loved her, you would buy her flowers everyday"

Notice how the reply attacks my "love" by insinuating that love is tied to flowers.

B. is a strawman argument.



Here is another.

a. "The Jews will build their 3rd temple."
b. "The Jews can NEVER build the 3rd temple because God WILL NOT accept it!

As you can see, my position was never that God must accept it in order for the Jews to build their temple, or that he would just because they built it.

B. is a strawman argument.


I see it used QUITE OFTEN around here...

Readers beware..



Educate...

Yep. Nice to see others seeing those posts for what they are.

Another similar example: "re-framing" the question/ debate, such as framing the discussion of the rapture to be a question of timing (pre-trib, mid-trib, post trib) rather than "what" the rapture is (gathered in the wilderness after the fall of Babylon as opposed to magically being whisked away). When you discuss the "what" of the rapture, it automatically dispenses with questions over timing because it is inherent in what it is - when Babylon falls, the mark of the beast is offered to "get back in" to Babylon. What other "timing" could even make sense under this scenario?

I'm sure there are many more examples of these kinds of misdirections.

 

[parousia70]

How about this one:

Q."do you believe Was Nero the Anitchrist of Revelation"

Straw Man, since Revelation does not mention antichrist, ever.

 

[Shocker]

How about this one:

Q."do you believe Was Nero the Anitchrist of Revelation"

Straw Man, since Revelation does not mention antichrist, ever.

That is a question, its not a strawman fallacy.


If I was to reply say like this for example:

"Nero couldn't be the antichrist because he knew John personally and banished him to the isle of Patmos!"

That is a strawman fallacy, you asked if Nero was the antichrist, not what his relationship is with the prophet John.



Im just showing the preferred method of how preterists defend their doctrine.


Attacking a strawman or throwing fish is a deceptive way of debating, Im simply observing how you guys get down on this forum, others may not understand how you debate, but Im on to you..