(Logic for Numskulls is a weekly discussion for people who want to become better thinkers without having to wade through the hubris (excessive pride) of uber-intellectual posturing. You don’t even need to know the definition of “epistemology” or “philology” in order to join us.)

“If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 19:16-19

I often hear from people who are unfamiliar with the Bible and don’t know what it actually says, who believe that because the Old Testament is an ancient and anachronistic document it has zero relevance for life in the 21st century. “Only a fool would take the Bible seriously,” as the popular sentiment goes. This perspective is exasperating and ignorant for the sheer fact that God gave us his word precisely so we would take it seriously. Adherence to the Bible is what brings us blessing upon blessing and showers us with marvelous wisdom from above.

“Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long.

Your commands are always with me

and make me wiser than my enemies.

I have more insight than all my teachers,

for I meditate on your statutes.

I have more understanding than the elders,

for I obey your precepts” (Psalm 119:97-100)

Take, for instance, the command by God in Deuteronomy 19:16-19 not to bear false witness against your brother. If we as a collective community took this mandate seriously, our politics, public discourse, social media, news outlets, and general everyday friendships would be cleansed of so much toxic nonsense. But with much sorrow and lamentation, we must all admit that bearing false witness has become part and parcel of modern-day life. You can expect that everything you hear today is “spin”. Fraud and duplicity is just the way things are. People purposely and knowingly misrepresent themselves and others for the purpose of coming out on top, and if necessary, even destroying one another.

No one is truly ashamed of bearing false witness anymore, in fact learning the fine art of lying is now something to be proud of. It is not considered as an evil to be purged, but rather, it is seen as gamesmanship played well. As a result, it is being done in the full light of day and no one even tries to hide it, “If I can gain an advantage and even hurt my opponent, regardless if I am honest or not, I will win and that is all that matters.” So if the end result of bearing false witness boosts television ratings, gains a seat in Congress, helps a person write a popular op-ed piece, increases blog traffic, or secures a better paying job, most people will gladly distort and lie about what someone has said in order to get what they want. Bearing false witness brings great results, and there are no consequences to be feared as Deuteronomy once insisted upon. Remember, “the Bible is just the ramblings of old senile patriarchal men, we are done listening to such nonsense,” as the popular chorus goes.

You most likely have been swept up into this mindset too. And if you doubt me, let me explain how lying is casually done these days. By using the good old “Straw Man” argument.

THE “STRAW MAN” EXPLAINED

Once upon a time, armies fought each other up close and personal. Not like today where missiles can be fired from thousands of miles away or fully armored mechanical drones are sent to the front lines to kill the enemy instead of sending flesh and blood human beings. But back in the day, hand to hand combat was how people fought, and if you were not careful or skillful at fighting, chances were high that you would lose an arm, be stabbed in the spleen, had an eye poked out, or you may even have been scalped by a wild Indian. (Oops, sorry that may sound like culturally insensitive language, but two-hundred years ago people didn’t care how you talked about the enemy because being scalped was worse than being politically incorrect.) So in order to become a better fighter who would live longer, it was necessary that a soldier was trained.

But training with swords, knives, and clubs could also be very dangerous. So instead of having a live human being to spar with, ancient military training would employ men made of straw. This was done for a number of reasons, not only were they easy to defeat, obviously, they also couldn’t fight back. That is where the concept of the “Straw Man” came from.

In terms of “Straw Man” argumentation and discussion, instead of addressing a person’s actual opinion and differing ideas directly, the best way to defeat them is to create false arguments, or “Straw Man” instead. “Straw Men” are created precisely because they are easy to knock down, and so are reframed arguments that are false. If I want to easily defeat you without putting myself in harm’s way, all I have to do is distort what you are actually saying to make it easy to win. I can do this one of two ways: By either exaggerating your point to a ridiculous level or over-simplifying your main argument so I can sound smart and easily defeat what is being said.

Politicians, community organizers, people at rallies, morning talk show hosts, popular kids in high school, and atheists use this rather boorish approach to argumentation all the time. As a matter of fact, it is being used everywhere! Instead of listening to the other side, people who want to win will falsely reframe the person’s opinion and attack a position their opponent never made in the first place. Let me give you a few examples of how this is especially done against Christians.

HELL: “Why do people believe in hell?”

The topic of hell is a very scary topic, one that should not be taken lightly. Considering the dreadful possibility that people will suffer eternally in torment for rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a popular nor heart-warming concept. And yet for many conservative evangelicals – the camp which I am affiliated with – belief in this basic orthodox teaching is both necessary and urgent because darkness and burning fire is something people should try to avoid at all costs.

My personal belief in hell has been formed for a number of forthright, and I believe solemn, reasons: I am convinced through years of study and serious theological exploration, that the inspired scriptures affirm its existence (Isaiah 66:24), I know that willful rebellion against the Eternal Almighty God of perfect holiness, requires just punishment (2 Thessalonians 1:6-11), and I am certain (I have heard it with my own ears) that many people simply would rather not want to be in the presence of God for all eternity (Isaiah 26:10). I believe these reasons, though I do not have the time to flesh them out fully here, are logical and biblically supportable.

Earlier this month the New York Times wrote an op-ed piece on why they think people believe in hell. Instead of seriously considering the arguments of Christians – which requires genuine listening and viewing their intentions without malice – the writer of the article immediately jumped to an oversimplified view of Christianity and belittled thousands of years of intense scholarship on the subject. And instead, he offers a completely juvenile take on why people believe in hell. Essentially the article posits the idea that Christians believe in hell because they harbor a secret pleasure in thinking they are better than those dirty rotten people we consider beneath us. Listen to this quote by David Bentley Hart:

“Still, none of that accounts for the deep emotional need many modern Christians seem to have for an eternal hell. And I don’t mean those who ruefully accept the idea out of religious allegiance, or whose sense of justice demands that Hitler and Pol Pot get their proper comeuppance, or who think they need the prospect of hell to keep themselves on the straight and narrow. Those aren’t the ones who scream and foam in rage at the thought that hell might be only a stage along the way to final universal reconciliation. In those who do, something else is at work.

Theological history can boast few ideas more chilling than the claim (of, among others, Thomas Aquinas) that the beatitude of the saved in heaven will be increased by their direct vision of the torments of the damned (as this will allow them to savor their own immunity from sin’s consequences). But as awful as that sounds, it may be more honest in its sheer cold impersonality than is the secret pleasure that many of us, at one time or another, hope to derive not from seeing but from being seen by those we leave behind.

How can we be winners, after all, if there are no losers? Where’s the joy in getting into the gated community and the private academy if it turns out that the gates are merely decorative and the academy has an inexhaustible scholarship program for the underprivileged? What success can there be that isn’t validated by another’s failure? What heaven can there be for us without an eternity in which to relish the impotent envy of those outside its walls?”

So what this writer is saying is that he believes a large portion of Christians believe in hell because as a tribal group we are competing to be better than all the other tribes (religious groups), it is a “deep emotional need” we have. And he believes that the only way we can relish in our position of superiority over the other tribes is if we can watch them being tortured in their failure and defeat. So the concept of hell for us becomes an everlasting schadenfreude, eternally delighting in other people’s horrid misfortune.

This is sick! If we are to take his argument seriously you will have no other choice then to see the majority of evangelical Christians as narcissistic homicidal monsters. And there is only one thing to do with bloodthirsty monsters, chase them out of town with pitchforks and torches, lead them to a stone quarry and chop off their heads. So if you believe in hell, you are actually the one who deserves hell, if such a thing existed. This opinion about why people believe in hell is a complete, perverted and warped “Straw Man”! Not only is this position a completely false allegation of our motives and intentions, but it tarnishes the whole gospel message of love.

Listen to Romans 5:8-9: “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” So it was love that caused Jesus to die to save us from wrath, hell, and eternal condemnation (John 3:17-18).

It is love which compels me to warn. I don’t believe in hell because I am a monster, and to impune my motives is bearing false witness. This “Straw Man” needs to be killed. And yet, there are so many “Straw men” walking around these days you would think that scarecrows are finally getting their revenge after all these years of being forced to stand alone in cornfields.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Here are some more “Straw Men” just to name a few without going into detail:

• I am not against homosexuality because I am a hater, (Straw Man); I am against homo-sexuality because the design for procreation that Jesus perfectly explains in Mark 10:7 is to be between a man and a woman. It is best.
• I am not against abortion because I want to take away women’s rights and keep them barefoot and pregnant, (Straw Man); I am against abortion because a child in the womb is made in the image of God and deserves protection (Genesis 9:5-6, Exodus 21:22-23, Psalm 139:14-15).
• I am not against socialism and communism because I lack compassion for the poor, (Straw Man); I am against both of them because they destroy dignity, agency, and encourage dependency which kills a soul (2 Thessalonians 3:7-10).
• I disagree with Greta Thunberg not because I am in favor of destroying the planet and polluting clean water, (Straw Man); I disagree with her because she is being used as a pawn by special interest groups who are simplifying the world’s problems in political soundbites that do nothing but divide and conquer.

“Straw Men” arguments at the core are lies, bearing false witness in order to destroy the other. They are the opposite of love. If you really want to love your opponent, Jesus said to love your enemy, you must do four things:

(1) Listen to what they have to say before you have your mind made up if they are right or wrong.

(2) Be able to articulate their opinion so well, that you can say it back to them better than they said it to you.

(3) Argue points of facts and logic, not slander character and motive.

(4) And when you are wrong, admit it.

If we could learn to do that the world would work better. The question is, will we ever learn? To conclude I was going to say something profound, but I am not sure we think lying for personal gain is that big a deal. So I don’t have much hope to convince you “Straw Men” are to be avoided.

But at least I can try.