I totally agree the other side and sides use the "straw man" Universalist pitch and it is as shallow as could ever be. Is there not more depth in conversation except to revert to "straw men", granted we have most likely all used them, I have, but we must move away from this phony labeling and substantiate our words with reasonable facts or argument? Such constant use directed a non Calvinist for me means that one has passed from honestly lookings at issues to diverting the conversation to shallowness.
But the fact is, those who object to the false portrayals of Calvinism are taking their opponents words at face value, and extrapolating their logical conclusion. Straw men are the refuge of those who do not know correctly what they think to oppose, so they post what they
imagine the opposition believes, which coincidentally happens to make their own position look better, and try to pass it off as fact. Then when they are called on it, they whine that they are being misrepresented.
Straw men have no place in serious discussion, as they are logical fallacies.
Easystreet said:
When a book has this "JUNK" in it regardless of view I have a hard time respecting the writer.
That's a pot-kettle-black situation all around. No one can claim that they have not employed such tactics. No One.
Easystreet said:
There are times when "straw men/man" is appropriate but I doubt that the thousands of times it is use on this forum it has legitimate credentials to validate its constructive use, verses its demeaning use.
I cannot think of single instance where a straw man argument is appropriate or legitimate. It is a cop-out, pure and simple.
Easystreet said:
Those of us that are not Calvinist are constantly labeled Universalist by many, not all. Just maybe this straw man approach specifically in this forum will vanish. I think the forum is headed in the right direction and we may all stray from time to time.
Perhaps we can tone down the universalist label where there are no substantive factual data that can be interacted with. If one sees a view as Universalist perhaps one can, instead of calling one a Universalist, simply say what you understand a Universalist is. Lay out your view instead of belittling others.
Any such charges are not made willy-nilly, or "constantly", they may be brought up based on another poster's own words which logically point to Universalism. "if it quacks like a duck, etc." Either the poster did not adequately express themselves, or they really do hold to such a view, even if they are not consciously aware of that fact, in which case, pointing it out may actually be doing them a kindness.
Easystreet said:
Example: Someone makes a statement to you or me that sounds or lends to me or you as universalism. Lay your case out but don't belittle the comment that lends itself to confront your personal view. There is a difference. I am a Universalist in a number of things and I am not a Calvinist. I am not a Universalist when it comes to salvation because not all will believe regardless of ones theology, Arminian, Molinist, Calvinist or other. A Universalist is simply one that believes all will be saved in the end and if a theology in their way does not believe this then for Heavens sake stop using this term against brothers and sisters in Christ, it is disingenuous and wrong.
Unlike straw man arguments, there is an appropriate and legitimate use of the term in relation to another's statements, and it can be done in a respectful manner (which often isn't done, as some think they have to score points, as though this were some sort of competition). We cannot be afraid to call things what they are. If we are proven wrong, then we need to have the grace to admit it, be corrected, and move on. That applies to everyone here, not just the Calvinists. But we can do it respectfully, as becomes Christians.
