Also Johnny,
Smack a dog in the mouth and then smack a person in the mouth. When the judge gives you a more severe penalty for smacking the human tell him he’s using the sharp shooter fallacy. See what happens.
Hi Michael
I’m sorry, I don’t understand where you’re coming from here. Earlier you were arguing in favour of the Thomist idea that because God is infinite, all sins against him are deserving of infinite punishment - hence justifying eternal punishment in hell. You complained to Steve that he hadn’t shown how Aquinas’s argument was flawed. I have done so, using both logic and scripture.
Of course, I may be wrong 
. But if I am, you need to show that my arguments are flawed, which as yet you have not done. You say “Nothing you or Steve or anybody else has said invalidates the principle that our justice systems use. Steve thinks it’s strange. But thinking something is strange doesn’t show logical inconsistency or invalidity.” That may well be right. But we are not questioning the principles on which human justice systems operate, are we? We are questioning the validity of the Thomist argument in favour of eternal punishment - a different thing entirely.
All the best
Johnny
Hi Cole (sorry, I called you Michael earlier, got mixed up )
I repeat, I’m not questioning the principles of human justice systems. You’re right, the courts hand out more severe penalties for hurting humans than for hurting animals, and that is all right and proper. Ultimately, an animal’s life cannot be put on a par with a human’s - certainly not by a Christian, for the idea that humans are made in the image of God while animals are not is foundational to what we believe. And I believe we shouldn’t smack any sentient creature in the mouth. (Except, perhaps, a certain Seattle-based pastor. Oh, hang on, he’s not sentient 
.)
And to be fair, I used the sharpshooter fallacy in challenging the idea that because God is infinite, all sin against him is deserving of infinite punishment - not the idea of the relative gravity of sins against different types of beings.
Cheers
J
I answered your objections above.
Johnny,
Part of what determines the weight of a sin doesn’t depend on the greatness of the person sinned against but on the greatness of the type of being sinned against. Smacking a tree, a dog, and a human would have increasing penalties. This is so because humans are made in God’s image. Sin grieves God and God is an infinitely greater type of being than any other being. Therefore, sin against Him merits an infinitely greater penalty than any other type of being. It downgrades His glory. People downgrade the glory of God all the time. I can treat someone like trash. But this doesn’t mean they are trash. There is no fallacy going on here. It’s simply the way reality is and the way justice operates. While this model may or may not be true, it does make sense.
Hi Cole
Thanks for clarifying your views. I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one . But it’s been interesting debating it with you, cheers.
All the best
Johnny