Rethinking Hell contributor Ronnie Demler delivers his presentation, “Persuasive or Evasive? Subtle and Not-So-Subtle Shifts in Traditionalist Dialectics,” at the inaugural Rethinking Hell Conference, 2014.
Episode 58: Persuasive or Evasive? Subtle and Not-So-Subtle Shifts in Traditionalist Dialectics, with Ronnie Demler [ 58:42 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadA simple, classic example of a logical fallacy is the red herring. As traditionalist Matt Slick (of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) defines it, it is “introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand.” This fallacy is closely related to the non-sequitur, as discussed in Part 1. What distinguishes the red herring from the non-sequitur is that the red herring has an element of distraction. Rather than simply not addressing the issue, a red herring gives an answer that distracts from the actual issue at hand but poses as a legitimate response.
Before Rethinking Hell was forged—which is now more than two years ago—our own Dr. Glenn Peoples had already been writing and speaking on this topic for a number of years. With surprising frequency these days, one hears from those who credit Glenn with having been instrumental in their journey toward conditionalism. As a matter of fact, this includes a number of others on our team.
One of the many perks for those attending the Rethinking Hell 2014 Conference will be the opportunity to meet and hear from Glenn in person. If you were thinking of joining us in Houston on July 11-12 but haven’t yet secured your registration, don’t leave it too late!
Continue reading
Rethinking Hell contributor Joey Dear discusses the meaning of death, what the Bible means when it speaks of living people as if dead, and what it all means for conditionalism. Stay tuned for part two in an upcoming episode!
Episode 57: Death, Adam and Eve, and Ephesians 2:1, with Joey Dear (Part 1) [ 51:00 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadEquivocation is a form of logical fallacy where an argument is made that uses different meanings of a word as though they were the same. An example would be something like this:
1. Sharp things cause balloons to pop.
2. John is a really sharp dresser.
3. Therefore, John causes balloons to pop.
Two different meanings of the word “sharp” are being confused, which causes us to come to a false conclusion. The fact that John dresses handsomely (making him a “sharp” dresser) doesn’t mean he pops balloons. Here, the metaphorical, idiomatic definition of sharp (“sharp dresser”) is confused with literal sharpness.
