The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1909-11-20

sented-the philosophical, the Scrip
tural, the experimental. They all
converged to the one focus, namely,
there is a hell, and each and all
say, Hell is fact" l did not deal
with the purpose of it, nor adduce
any argument as to the whyfore of
the which of it, as Brother Con
tributed" has attempted to do in his
criticism. However, let me assure
my critic that 1 have respect enough
for myself in my Interpretation of
the Scriptures, and incidentally, of
living experience also, to know that
even as to the purpose of the pun
ishment, the character of the place
and the duration of it, l could give
moderately reasonable and sound
argument in their behalf. If Broth
er Contributed" wishes it, let him
go ahead and take up these features
of the problem in the local press,
and he will pretty soon find out that
there is another side to the problem
that he might have overlooked. The.
gauntlet is down. Let him take it
up.
(4). Shades of Socrates, the
Father of Logic! Please observe the
concluding paragraphs of a nicely,
gently and moderately worded com
munication by Brother Contrib
uted." In the first part of it he
scores me for giving my opinions"
and likens them to dreams" o,
We immortal gods, behold my critic
has been SHARED in the work of his
own hands" He has himself fallen
prey to what he so magnanimously
accused me of, namely, dealing in
mere opinions" Why, bless you,
Brother Contributed" your logic is
bad, very bad, and incidentally, let
me say, your metaphysics is worse.
Here is specimen Of your worse"
metaphysics: Mr.. Powell states
that everything must have a start
ing-point-but while we except time,
God and few other things-we will
agree with him here, only we shall
have a different starting point" Say,
this is confusion worse COMPOUNDED!
What under the blue heavens does
Brother Contributed" mean? Does
he categorize thine, God and a few
other things" as belonging to the
same class? If l were a citing man,
would wager a silk hat that my
critic does not know the real mean
ing of either slime or "things." Is
God "thing?" 1t is even doubtful
if he can give the Christian concep-
ton of God! To confound time,
God and few other things" as hav-
ing no beginning, is to deal in the
grossest absurdities to pirate about
something that logic and philosophy
reduce to sheer nonsense. / will ask
Brother Contributed" to tell us in
the next issue, and over his own
Borden P. Bowen's Metaphysics" or
signature, too, whas few other
things" have no beginning. Hear
me, man. Before you pose as a
critic, read up your logic and some
good treatise on philosophy, or bet
ter, take year off and brush up on
these two subjects, ere you under
take again to criticise even a SER
mon by that crank on hell, called
G. L. Powell, pastor of First Metho-
dist Church, Caldwell, Idaho.
1t is, indeed, exceedingly ludi-
cruous, If the subject were not so
serious, to hear one Brother Con
tributed," writing a criticism on d
subject whose fundamentals he
knows so little about, and dealing in
Opinions" that have been worn
thread-bare from time immemorial.
God is the only Being that is time
less. He is under no temporal or
spatial limitations. He is from
everlasting to everlasting" There
are no timeless things" neither can
you exclude time itself from the I'M
begun. Time is not ontologically
real. Time is only phenomenally
real and as such is only a form of
knowledge. Read Rants "Critique
of the Pure Reason" or Professor
his work on "Epistemology," and in
these great books you will see the
meaning both of time and
things" To have such third-rate
fellow posing as a critic is enough
to make Kant and Socrates turn in
their graves!
My critics position is inconsistent
and illogical, because he does him
self what he points out in my sermon
as mere opinions" guarded
against giving mere opinions" at
the outset, as all viii bear me out
in saying who were present at the