Yep I do brother.
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting anargument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
I am not making an argument against someone. Your trying to make an argument against the OP that is not true. It is your side not mine.
let me help you out
the OP says:
Where does it say God's Sabbath is abolished and we are commanded to keep Sunday as a Holy day?
You are implicitly starting an argument with 2 sides.
Argument 1: "God's Sabbath is not abolished and we are not commanded to keep Sunday as a Holy Day"
Argument 2: "God's Sabbath is abolished and we are commanded to keep Sunday as a Holy day"
You are defending argument 1 and are trying to refute argument 2. Argument 2 is an informal fallacy. It's an informal fallacy because what it states cannot be proven and will always be false. You present Argument 2 like it is your opponent's argument but no one actually asserts this so you're trying to refute an argument that was never presented in the first place. Argument 2 is set up from the onset to fail because it is an informal fallacy since it crumbles easily (think of a straw man falling over) all that is left standing is argument 1 which then is presented as the only right position. Argument 1's thesis is correct (what I wrote above) but the meat of what you wrote in the OP would be hotly refuted. This is a straw man and it is a textbook example of it.
Remember, you build an argument for your opponent that is weak but something your opponent never actually asserts. because it is weak you can easily knock it down just like a straw man.
Let me fix your argument:
you say:
Where does it say God's Sabbath is abolished and we are commanded to keep Sunday as a Holy day?
again it's a straw man because no one says the Sabbath is abolished, and no one says there is a command to keep Sunday as a Holy Day but let's fix it so it's no longer a straw man.
The issue here is that people are not keeping the Sabbath and seem to be keeping another day (Sunday) but this is not the same as asserting your opponent claims the Sabbath is abolished or that keeping the Sunday is a command (this is why it's a straw man argument). so to represent your opponent better you could say:
Where does it say God's Sabbath is [fulfilled or no longer needs to be observed] and we [now value worship on] Sunday?
this is not a straw man because it is an actual assertion from your assumed opponent and it can be properly engaged. So it's up to you. continue with your straw man or change your language to respect and accurately represent your opponent. Also, listen to your opponent and use their language to refute their position rather than change their words to something easier for you to reject. Doing the latter is what changes it to a straw man argument.
I'll be clear, I'm targetting your words "abolish" and "command" and am telling you no one uses these words so I challenge you to use the words your opponent is actually using.
