Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Royale XI suggestions

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by K$
    You don't think anyone else on here is capable of defending disp?

    I'm sure many of you have copies of The Plot, just post those!
    I had a man with a slightly different dispensational perspective in mind, K$, from a man who I believe isn't familiar with TOL. It's a long shot, but I've made stone cold phone calls before. It all depends on who's going to be representing the Covenant side.




    SS

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Redfin
      I like the universal salvation topic.

      It would likely have to be Logos-X to defend it, although there may be some others who would be competent.
      Who would like to present eternal torment if this were pursued? No one seemed interested.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Sozo
        Never.

        I only question the bizarre idea that foreknowledge would equal causation.
        oh ok, I mixed it up.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by logos_x
          Who would like to present eternal torment if this were pursued? No one seemed interested.
          Me. I am very, very eager to show why, when you die, you are going to be thrown into the fiery pits of hell, ravished by demons, and skewered over a burning lake.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Sozo
            Never.

            I only question the bizarre idea that foreknowledge would equal causation.
            Bizzarre in that no one holds to this silly idea.
            sigpic
            "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Apologist
              Me. I am very, very eager to show why, when you die, you are going to be thrown into the fiery pits of hell, ravished by demons, and skewered over a burning lake.
              Go to hell.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by sentientsynth
                Who do we have in mind to represent the Covenantal side?


                SS
                Good question! I have no idea who would be qualified. Most people don't even understand what Covenant Theology is! In fact, the only person I've ever heard give a cogent definition of the term was a dispensationalist.
                sigpic
                "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by logos_x
                  Go to hell.
                  to the hell you don't believe in? Not only are you a heretic, but a hypocrite as well!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    "Seperation of Church and State - to be or not to be?"

                    OR

                    "WAR: UnChristian or Crusade?"

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      I believe in hell...you don't even know what you want to refute!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by logos_x
                        I believe in hell...you don't even know what you want to refute!
                        But your understanding of it is extremely flawed. The debate, from what i understand, would be this:

                        I, Apologist, would present an argument clearly showing that it is possible to be "unsaved" and that the "unsaved" shall burn forever in fiery torment.

                        You, Logos, shall attempt to refute my arguments while, at the same time, showing that all souls are eventually saved.

                        I, apologist, will show why your refutations are bull, and why your argument is fallacious.

                        And so forth and so on.

                        If you will have said debate OKed by the moderation, and set a date, i shall begin researching the topic and formulating my argument.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Apologist
                          But your understanding of it is extremely flawed. The debate, from what i understand, would be this:

                          I, Apologist, would present an argument clearly showing that it is possible to be "unsaved" and that the "unsaved" shall burn forever in fiery torment.

                          You, Logos, shall attempt to refute my arguments while, at the same time, showing that all souls are eventually saved.

                          I, apologist, will show why your refutations are bull, and why your argument is fallacious.

                          And so forth and so on.

                          If you will have said debate OKed by the moderation, and set a date, i shall begin researching the topic and formulating my argument.
                          Pretty sure of yourself aren't you?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by logos_x
                            Pretty sure of yourself aren't you?

                            do you accept my challenge or not? If so, then i formally challenge you with the permission of the moderation.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Yes. I accept your challenge. If the moderation approves.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                'I can't imagine kids not being taught about sex in school. It's so common; we know it works. What sometimes doesn't work are the occasional weirdo parents who either refuse to talk to their kids at all or else teach them some ridiculous unnatural BS.

                                Imagine bisexual or homosexual parents teaching their teenage son that he should "explore" freely and openly. Or an ultra-conservative home where kids are taught masturbation will send you straight to Hell. It seems to me that we need scholastic sex ed to counter any such harms."


                                Quote taken from the x-rated childrens book thread. Maybe not B. Royal material, but definately fightin' words. The 'we know it works' part especially. Just a thought....
                                Today's fortune cookie say: " The mighty oak was once a little nut that stood its ground."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X