A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view (but is easier to refute), and then attribute that position to the opponent. It deliberately misrepresents and weakens the argument of the opposing side. This can be done by leaving out key points of an opposing argument, quoting a person's words out of context, or presenting a particular person's poor defense as the entire defense of an opposing side. In the worst case, a straw man is literally an imagined person who weakly defends an argument and can be easily defeated.
It has been said that the term "straw man arguement" has been derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow was made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it. Such a target was, naturally, immobile and did not fight back. It was, therefore, not a realistic test of skill compared to training with a live and armed opponent. A straw man arguement has also been...
I am a youth leader in my church, and as such spend a lot of ministry time on myspace (I know, sounds odd)... Well, as part of my account, I uploaded an edited viewing of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" that was shown at our youth group last for Easter '07. To date, it has been viewed over 30,000 times... and I have people leave comments on the video.
One such occassion, a young guy posted a comment which said, "this movie was nothing but a snuff film that made us concentrate on the suffering jesus went through instead of all the great things he did , thats what we should be looking at, and not be forced into being good christians with graphic violence"
Now I appreciate honest commentary from people. But for those who really know me, I occassionally like to challenge what people believe in order to a) have a better understanding of why they believe it, or b) to show that their way of thinking is a flawed.
I have posted my reply to this guy's comment below, and I would appreciate your comment- as it's tied to an issue that goes way...
Over the course of my life I have seen the rise and rise of one Oprah Gail Winfrey. Through her incredible acumen with the media of television, she has risen to arguably one of the world's most influential (and - according to Forbes, Winfrey is worth over $2.5 billion, as of September, 2007- richest) women. And this is something that has been printed time and again...
Winfrey was called "arguably the World's most powerful woman" by CNN and Time.com, "arguably the most influential woman in the World" by the American Spectator, "one of the 100 people who most influenced the 20th Century" and "one of the most influential people" of 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 by Time. Winfrey is the only person in the World to have made all five lists. At the end of the 20th Century Life listed Winfrey as both the most influential woman and the most influential black person of her generation... And Vanity Fair wrote, "Oprah Winfrey arguably has more influence on the culture than any university president, politician, or religious leader, except perhaps the Pope."
As, arguably, the world's most powerful and influential women, people are obviosuly listening to...
When you preach salvation, people come to know Jesus. When you preach about loving Jesus, people become better lovers of Jesus. When you preach prosperity, people want to be prosperous. When you preach about the second coming, people get ready. When you preach healing, people will be healed. When you preach hope, people are more hopeful. When you preach about tithing, people tithe.
What you talk about is what people are going to respond to. In other words, you get what you preach for.
This is not about communication manipulation. This is about communication transformation.
So, friends, what are you preaching for? What are you communicating for?
Do you have any obscure hobby that people don't really know about? I do. As strange as it may sound, I actually love to read quotes and to ponder on them. It doesn't matter if they're intellegent, or comedic, insightful, or just plain rhetoric- as long as there's something that I can consider, I'll check it out. And then, if I've found it to be particularly good, I'll jot it down somewhere (or nowadays, put it into a word document).
So today, I wanted to ponder a quote from a very famous 20th century Christian author by the name of C.S. Lewis. For those who don't actually know any more about Lewis than him being the author of the Narnia series of books, he was a whole lot more. If you're interested in finding out more about the man, just Google or Wiki him.
Now, on to the quote!
"It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.
In the words of one of my old Bible College Principle's, Dr Wayne Richards, "There is a lot of qualified garbage out there." He was talking specifically about Christian books and the premise that general western Christian will believe that something is of good quality based on no more qualification than a) it's something has been published, and b) it is being sold in a Christian bookstore.
I believe that the same principle can be held true of Christian blogs. Just because a person has a blog, and just because a person says that they are Christian does not automatically qualify them to be able to speak into the lives of people. For anyone to have the right of speaking into our life, trust ought to be established first.
And that is why I am writing a blog that discusses myself. It's an opportunity to expose myself to your scrutiny, to allow you to get a real sense (as real as one can get through cyber-space) of who I am and whether I am someone whom you can trust. Then, if you are comfortable with letting me speak into your life, I trust that my blogs shall do so.
How do we know that the Bible we have today is even close to the original? Haven't copiers down through the centuries inserted and deleted and embellished the documents so that the original message of the Bible has been obscured? These questions are frequently asked to discredit the sources of information from which the Christian faith has come to us.
Three Errors To Avoid
Do not assume inspiration or infallibility of the documents, with the intent of attempting to prove the inspiration or infallibility of the documents. Do not say the bible is inspired or infallible simply because it claims to be. This is circular reasoning.
When considering the original documents, forget about the present form of your Bible and regard them as the collection of ancient source documents that they are.
Do not start with modern "authorities" and then move to the documents to see if the authorities were right. Begin with the documents themselves.
Procedure for Testing a Document's Validity
In his book, Introduction in Research in English Literary History, C. Sanders sets forth three tests of reliability employed in general historiography and literary criticism.(1) These tests are:
Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the...
I don't know about you- but I personally find Facebook has been a great way to keep some fun contact with my friends, both at home and abroad, as well as being a fantastic tool with which I have found my old school and youth group friends from over a decade ago. And to a lesser extent, Myspace has also been great for this.
What has bothered me recently though has been something my wife said. She is openly defiant of virtual social networking sites such as Myspace and Facebook. For her, if someone is a friend and when they want to talk to her, they can call her up on the phone or meet up somewhere for a chat. And I can see the validity in such a line of thought.
One of my favourite TV shows is "Bones". Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan is a highly skilled forensic anthropologist who works at the Jeffersonian Institute in Washington, DC. For those who don't know, anthropology is the science that deals with the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind. And I like that. Down the track, I may even become an anthropologist (what...
This is a phenomenal clip to watch. The clarity with which this gentleman talks of the Christian faith is quite impressive. What is more impressive though is the fact that he is an atheist That's right. He is not a Christian. He is not a theist. He is not an agnostic. He’s an atheist (someone who chooses to live a life that denies the provable existence of a god [assuming a moderate atheistic view]).
The amazing thing for me is that this seems to have “fallen into my lap” as the popular vernacular goes. I simply did a You Tube search for “Christianity”- and this video was on the top of the list. The reason I find this amazing is that it ties in with what I wrote in yesterday’s blog (see “Making Promises”).
So again, it appears that there is a call for our churches to be mobilised to get out beyond the four walls of our buildings- to be what the church was always called to be: a city on a hill:
"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no...
