[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

I never intended to try to hold up this example as a perfect illustration. It was to illustrate the faulty reasoning that was being employed to say that since God gave man the ability to choose (Pre-Fall), that since man chose poorly, God caused him to do so (set him up, so to speak). The analogy was to address that faulty reasoning, by giving an example that employed the same faulty reasoning to show how faulty it was. It was analogous to a parent allowing a child to do something, the child getting into trouble, and then saying that the parent CAUSED the trouble the child got into. There is a direct line of reasoning between the two that I was attempting to refute.

Sorry you didn't see it that way...

i thought that particular example might have been used for another purpose, That is why i "hedged" a bit in my comments.

The fact of the matter is that it was never a question of how you or i understood the example, rather how the intended reader of your post did so.

Perhaps i committed a breach of FR ediquette (spell?) when i replied, and apologised for the clarity of somebody else's post. If this is the case, i offer you my apologies for getting tangled up in your feet.

[nobdysfool]

The fact of the matter is that it was never a question of how you or i understood the example, rather how the intended reader of your post did so.

Oh, I'm quite sure he understood it perfectly, but didn't like how it pointed out the fault in his reasoning. It wasn't hard to understand. The fact that several other posters referred to it is proof that it was understood by anyone who read it. That the intended recipient chose not to is his problem.

Hey, we all have stepped on someone else's toes in here, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. No harm done!