BenJasher said:
It should’ve been obvious that I hadn’t been follow this thread UNTIL you sent me the pm, as for avoiding you, yes I do tend to avoid heretics but not in this case…as I accepted the challenge.
We will need one person to act as a moderator, he will be the Judge. I would nominate Vic. The biggest reason being that this case will be tried on the forum he supplied. It is his forum, let him be the Judge.
Anyone of the mod will do, Vic is a fine with me, the admin's can remove my status as a mod of that forum if you wish until our debate is over.
Would you like a jury to be present to decide the merits of our discussion?
A jury? :roll: I really don't care.
Not that I want to debate with you so badly, but I really don't think you know as much as you claim to know about Universalism. I don't mind someone saying negative things about Universalism, as long as they are speaking from a precursory background knowledge of what they are talking about.
Rules are a good thing. But we will decide what they are here.
I know of three forms of UR so you'll need to post first so I have an idea of what I'm dealing with.
No emotional pleas. None will be needed, and therefore not used.
No getting into the Greek without posting your credentials and training in the Greek language FIRST.
I am qualified to use the Greek. And I don't need to present any credentials to you. As they say, the proof is in the pudding.
No cut and pastes from heretical sources without listing that source.
The term heretical would be a subjective term in this context. And I will cut and paste anything I wish as long as it meets the requirements of #2 as I stated in an earlier post.
If you haven't studied Biblical Hebrew or Greek, you need to post the source, can we at least agree on that? I don't want any half baked exegesis based on faulty Greek. There is no proof that you know what you're talking about without posting your background in the topic you're discussing.
Read the next point again, I didn't say we couldn't use cut and pastes, only that you list your souces...as for the use of heretical...historically speaking your view is heretical.
No need to be insulting. But I know you can't help yourself. You naturally perceive yourself to be of superior intellect to most others you encounter.
Assertions are not facts.
I have another idea. Let's ratchet the stakes up a notch or two. let's put this discussion into a courtroom setting shall we? I will even let you take the position of prosecutor.
You present your opening statement using any type of information you see fit. Use emotionalism, fairy tales, traditions of men...whatever. Just remember the 5 minute rule. Then I will do the same.
Nope. We need a level playing ground...and I reject the 5 min. rule. I could spend 5min on one passage. I suggest no more then 10,000 - 15,000 words using word count from MircoSoft Word.
Once the opening statements are completed, present your questions. I will answer your questions one at a time.
I know that right now I could ask you 25 question in the presentation of the defense. So why stop at 5 questions? Let's put a cap on the number of questions at 15.
15 Questions are fine with me. See, I can be fair.
After I have answered your questions, you can present any scriptural exegetical evidence you think may be pertinent to your case. When that is done, you will rest your case. At that time I will present the defense under the same guidelines.
I would like to modify my original guidelines to include not only exegetics of scripture, but to also include historical evidence as well.
I thought you didn't want to include historical evidence...but I say sure, lets.
j
