Jerry McDonald:
Farrell writes his post with the assumption that a parent who sends
his child to his room and God sentencing a person to eternity in hell
are on the same level. (Assertion no Evidence) They are not. (ANE)
In the first place man is finite and God is infinite. (ANE) Man's abilities
are limited and we are limited as to what we can do. (Obvious) God is
unlimited in his abilities and what he can and cannot do. (ANE)
Secondly there is a vast amount of difference in the sins of a person
being punished eternally in hell and a child doing something for
which he has to be sent to his room. (No , because isn't lying a sin
in this sense) Man is guilty of sin and is responsible for his sin.
(Obvious in literal use of language, not in Xian) A child is
still in the training stages (ANE a child learns, I'll still be learning
if & when I'm 90) and even though he is punished for what
he has done, he does not always understand the difference between
right and wrong (Obvious). Thirdly part of sending a child to his room is
partially training so the child will grow up realizing that there is
punishment for wrong doing. (Most Children can work this out age 2)
There is no such purpose in hell. (so why do it then ?) Hell is strictly
punishment for the devil (Mt. 25:41) and those who know not God and
obey not (use don't know and don't obey this is dreadful grammar)
the gospel will be there as well (ANE using Bible quote) (2 Thess. 1:7-9).
Finally there is a vast difference between the terribleness of sin and the
actions of a child who has done something which caused him to be
sent to his room. (Not using your definition of sin there isn't)
So, Farrell's "fallacy of the heap" doesn't work here because of the
things we have mentioned.
Paul Robson:
I'm now totally convinced Jerry doesn't read these posts. He picks on
key words and churns out the appropriate biblical spiel according to those
key words. If he'd ever bothered to read the post he might have noticed that
this debate is about the argumentative flaw (assuming discrete where
constant
variation) and its use in the debate. The argument Farrell suggested
wouldn't have any value either, the point of it is to demonstrate the flaw
in
the argument the other guy used. The fault is in the argumentative technique
irrelevant of the case being argued.
Jerry McDonald:
Hell is much different than being sent to one's room. Now, if God has
the right to punish a person in hell for one minute (ANE) , then he can
punish men in hell for a thousand years (ANE) , or for all of eternity.
Paul Robson:
This is a huge assumption that God has the right to do this. Personally,
I think God's idea of justice is so dreadful that "Gods Justice" is an
oxymoron.
Jerry McDonald:
Farrell says that he wishes that Flew had tried to nail brother
Warren on this. Till has even stated that he thinks that Flew should
have said many things that he didn't say. I wonder if it ever
occurred to Till that Flew just might have known that if he had made
the statements that Till wanted him to make that brother Warren would
have taken him to pieces on it. (ANE) However, I just have to wonder why
Till didn't say anything to brother Warren then about these matters.
A few years ago Till wanted to debate Warren, but that was after
brother Warren was physically unable to debate. I just have to wonder
where Till was when brother Warren was asking (and even begging)
atheists to debate him.
Paul Robson:
Are you accusing Farrell of cowardice in avoiding debates here ? Is this
a troll or something ?
Jerry McDonald:
Oh, I will tell you where he was: he was in the same place the rest of
the atheists in the world were, "sitting in the darkness keeping his
mouth shut." (meaning ?) Why [?] [B]because he knew better than to
open it then
Paul Robson:
What does this actually mean ?
There isn't a single fact in most of this just statements of the Xian
position "backed up" by quotes from the Bible, and a few spiteful
assertions aimed primarily at Farrell Till.
Paul Robson (autismuk@aol.com)