Posted by:
atouchscreendarkly
(
)
Date: August 20, 2014 01:05PM
My father was a professor of logic and literature before he became a lawyer. I had lessons upon lessons on how to argue drilled into me since I could talk. I won't pretend to know how to formulate the best argument here, but I can join my voice to the others here who say that your SP's argument is a bad one.
My advice would be to attack his premises:
1. He assumed that you sent him the CES letter link because it was that letter that convinced you. Unless this is the case, you should disabuse him of that first: "it's just a convenient list of problems, not the founding doctrine of my new belief system. I don't care how he said it, I care whether the church is false."
2. Arguments that have been used before are of no merit. (This is only true if the previous cases have been disproven)
3. "He builds an argument on his unexplained speculation"
3.1 it is not okay to build an argument on speculation. Such an argument cannot possibly have any merit.
3.2 all speculation must be explained.
4. (Everything he says about Mr. Runnels is slanderously inaccurate, but don't defend Runnels, because:)
5. "Do you believe in Jeremy Runnels?" <---that right there is an enormous leap.
5.1 you must have an ideological leader.
5.2 your ideological leader is, in this case, Jeremy Runnels.
5.3 you should not believe Jeremy Runnels.
5.4 you are disaffected, or concerned, or offended because of what Jeremy Runnels said, and not because of any particular inconsistencies.
(As an aside, "I have a personal witness that Jeremy Runnels lives. You too can read his words, see his picture, and send him emails. I know that if you pray to him (via his gmail account), he will manifest himself to you." Pardon the obvious comical appeal to the audience---a practice I absolutely condemn---but I can't stand the phrasing of whether you "believe in Jeremy Runnels" I too hope for a loving Father, but I'll not condone bad rhetoric.)
(Edit: I forgot one: going back to a foundation is sufficient to repair problems. The first and second law do not prove anything, and even if you do believe there is a creator, you have the same 'foundation' as any other belief "...thou doest well. The devils also believe and tremble.")
6. All persons cited in a letter are role models. "Is he who you would pattern your life after?"
7. Jeremy Runnels is not a good role model. (How does he know?)
8. Your doubts mean that you do not accept Jesus as a good role model. (Maybe you don't, or maybe you do, but why assume that?
9. Your doubts mean you don't think there is, or could be, a God. ( you may have addressed this already with him)
Remember, though, that the inability to formulate a perfect argument is independent of the validity of the subject; just because we can shoot his argument to pieces doesn't make him wrong, it merely makes him a fallible orator. We still might be wrong in our doubts. I no longer hold out hope for it, but I'll gladly conform if somebody can explain the hell out of a ton of issues. I guess what I'm trying to say is: don't discount him because of his argument style, because that's what he did to Runnels unfairly.
Also, you'll want to make careful note that he quotes Korihor in the third article of his version of Runnels' letter. He (SP) believes you have been deceived by one or more antichrists. He probably believes that *we* are all antichrists. My BP sure does.
He is not ready to have a debate with you. He *knows* you're wrong. If you're going to speak to him at all, I advise that you only ask for his clarification on points if doctrine you think he can actually comment on.
Good luck. I hope my rant helps or at least entertains. I feel better now, anyway.