Re: Hell (was The Wall)

Chuck Stamford wrote:
> "**Rowland Croucher**" <rccroucher@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message 
> news:48223b55$0$30466$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>Chuck Stamford wrote:
>><>
>>
>>>Given those two statements, and taking them as making literally true 
>>>statements, unless you can find Billy Graham saying he believes all
come 
>>>to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, what you've got here isn't
really 
>>>all that strong a case for him being a universalist like Rowland is;
>>
>>Where have I said categorically that I'm a universalist?
> 
> 
> Where have you categorically ever said that you are anything?  It takes 
> integrity to make a categorical statement of one's beliefs, integrity to

> say, this is what I believe, and then stand and defend it against its 
> challengers, 

Nonsense. Anyone can parrot off a statement of beliefs, without actually 
believing a word of it. Integrity is the living out of those beliefs, 
even while not necessarily believing them.

> 
> No, Rowland, you've never "categorically" stated you are a universalist.

> You've just taken every op****tunity you ever had to either argue for
that 
> belief yourself, or provide article after article by others who either
do, 
> or express sympathy for that belief.  That makes you worse than a 
> universalist, Rowland, for a universalist is "either warm or cold" (they

> TAKE A STAND), and you are neither.
> 
>
See above. Rowland takes many "stands" as you call them, and I would 
never call him either warm or cold. He is definitely in the "hot"
category!


> 
> Chuck  Stamford
> 
> 

Chris