I'm a night person myself too, that's where the bulk of my writing work goes, so I feel you.
Description-wise:
1. In my opinion, the definitions you can bring it up in your argument #1 and proceed from there? Since in your thing about main points, that was what you intend to showcase.
2. There was no need to re-iterate the paragraph that begins with "I will reiterate that I am only “Protestant” in the essence...". You made that clear at the start about your background.
3. Maybe reduce the rounds to 4? First one for introduction, and the next three for rebuttal (with the last, ofc, also featuring a conclusion). I'm not seeing where 5 rounds is necessary, maybe because from your bit about the solas (which, btw, if you are concerned about bringing those up uneccessarily, we can debate that instead, like sola scriptura)
As for response, if I am good to go up with you you can expect a response from me by 27 June at latest, in case I need to review.
Maybe, if time permits on my end. Looking at the debate description though, I see that my opponent wishes to address not one but TWO topics: re justification and the alleged misrepresentations of the five solas. I'm not okay with this description - why not just debate one topic? For that matter, if it was to resolve only "sola scriptura", it would be acceptable but to include it in the context of another topic appears waaaaay too loaded.
I do have another request, but I'll mention that if I decide to accept.
Would you accept if I brought up the National Enquirer or The Onion as a source to back up the existence of aliens on Mars? I don't think you would. You'd say "duhhh give me CNN or NASA u retard".
So my standard is historical sources from an accredited researcher of Christianity. An example would be Adrian Hastings' "World History of Christianity"; he was a historian with a degree from Worcester College in Oxford. Or Diarmaid McCulloch's (St. Cross' College, Oxford) book on such.
A Jewish-backed fraud like Jack Chick or his Mexican buddy, "Trail of Blood" by James Milton Carroll, or something similar DOES NOT COUNT.
I can almost guarantee you your sources are not by peer-reviewed historians. But that's fine with me if you don't want to engage further.
The point is if you cite smth as historical fact without backing it up, well... to quote Hitchens "Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". "Bigfoot is real" and "6 million Jews died in the Holocaust" would be valid historical facts even if they are kooky
I never said you were Jewish, I merely said that you make the same arguments as one would. Really? If it's so obvious then surely there should be a few peer-reviewed historical articles that speak to it. Provide or bust
Appreciate your objectivity in assessing the debate though, I can respect that.
Funny you say I'm cooked in your last "argument" (which hardly counts as a refutation)! The reality is, you haven't even bothered to defend against my charges that you pick-and-choose Scripture without harmonizing it 😂
Thanks for at least showing up to the debate, unlike most Andersonites I know! I intend to post this debate on Twitter (feel free to do so as well on your account). I hope you don't mind that.
That's not an argument. That's like saying that just because there's a chance that you won't get caught for stealing, you can do it. Will you really take that gamble?
However, sin in and of itself is an action that causes spiritual wounding (Psalm 41:3-4), and as a result, depending on the gravity of it, can either diminish or separate our relationship with God. It is the second part that I am concerned with: hence, that whosoever continues to wilfully sin, and not repent - make amends of that relationship with God - no hope of Heaven is available for them.
Then why does He frequently warn of eternal punishment for the wicked all throughout Scripture? If as you say God can admit someone who died in a state of sin to Heaven, that leads to salient problems with what the fullness of Scripture teaches. Even if He could, it's an unwise gamble in light of the above.
Respectfully, you sound like a Jew here, claiming Christianity first started from a pagan source with no historical citation other than your own ipse dixit (or, maybe Dr. Fraudci's crack stash). You do know that the Jews of the Temple era (who were Christians) also had the same thing going on right?
I'm a night person myself too, that's where the bulk of my writing work goes, so I feel you.
Description-wise:
1. In my opinion, the definitions you can bring it up in your argument #1 and proceed from there? Since in your thing about main points, that was what you intend to showcase.
2. There was no need to re-iterate the paragraph that begins with "I will reiterate that I am only “Protestant” in the essence...". You made that clear at the start about your background.
3. Maybe reduce the rounds to 4? First one for introduction, and the next three for rebuttal (with the last, ofc, also featuring a conclusion). I'm not seeing where 5 rounds is necessary, maybe because from your bit about the solas (which, btw, if you are concerned about bringing those up uneccessarily, we can debate that instead, like sola scriptura)
As for response, if I am good to go up with you you can expect a response from me by 27 June at latest, in case I need to review.
Maybe, if time permits on my end. Looking at the debate description though, I see that my opponent wishes to address not one but TWO topics: re justification and the alleged misrepresentations of the five solas. I'm not okay with this description - why not just debate one topic? For that matter, if it was to resolve only "sola scriptura", it would be acceptable but to include it in the context of another topic appears waaaaay too loaded.
I do have another request, but I'll mention that if I decide to accept.
Would you accept if I brought up the National Enquirer or The Onion as a source to back up the existence of aliens on Mars? I don't think you would. You'd say "duhhh give me CNN or NASA u retard".
So my standard is historical sources from an accredited researcher of Christianity. An example would be Adrian Hastings' "World History of Christianity"; he was a historian with a degree from Worcester College in Oxford. Or Diarmaid McCulloch's (St. Cross' College, Oxford) book on such.
A Jewish-backed fraud like Jack Chick or his Mexican buddy, "Trail of Blood" by James Milton Carroll, or something similar DOES NOT COUNT.
I can almost guarantee you your sources are not by peer-reviewed historians. But that's fine with me if you don't want to engage further.
The point is if you cite smth as historical fact without backing it up, well... to quote Hitchens "Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". "Bigfoot is real" and "6 million Jews died in the Holocaust" would be valid historical facts even if they are kooky
I never said you were Jewish, I merely said that you make the same arguments as one would. Really? If it's so obvious then surely there should be a few peer-reviewed historical articles that speak to it. Provide or bust
Appreciate your objectivity in assessing the debate though, I can respect that.
Funny you say I'm cooked in your last "argument" (which hardly counts as a refutation)! The reality is, you haven't even bothered to defend against my charges that you pick-and-choose Scripture without harmonizing it 😂
Thanks for at least showing up to the debate, unlike most Andersonites I know! I intend to post this debate on Twitter (feel free to do so as well on your account). I hope you don't mind that.
That's not an argument. That's like saying that just because there's a chance that you won't get caught for stealing, you can do it. Will you really take that gamble?
However, sin in and of itself is an action that causes spiritual wounding (Psalm 41:3-4), and as a result, depending on the gravity of it, can either diminish or separate our relationship with God. It is the second part that I am concerned with: hence, that whosoever continues to wilfully sin, and not repent - make amends of that relationship with God - no hope of Heaven is available for them.
Then why does He frequently warn of eternal punishment for the wicked all throughout Scripture? If as you say God can admit someone who died in a state of sin to Heaven, that leads to salient problems with what the fullness of Scripture teaches. Even if He could, it's an unwise gamble in light of the above.
Respectfully, you sound like a Jew here, claiming Christianity first started from a pagan source with no historical citation other than your own ipse dixit (or, maybe Dr. Fraudci's crack stash). You do know that the Jews of the Temple era (who were Christians) also had the same thing going on right?