Jesus said "i and my father are one"
God said "this is my beloved son in whom i am pleased"
So yes. The father dwelled in the man Christ Jesus.
Jesus mean YHWH our salvation or who has become/put on salvation.
Christ means anointed one/vessel
Summation. God was in the man christ Jesus. And Jesus did all in obedience to God, therefore God dwells in him forever.
"He that hath seen me hath seen the father;"
Thats the topic rubric.
Voting rubric is designed for ultra, but there is nothing wrong with using it in rated or unrated if you are able to.
Voting rubric updated.
5:Votes based on a framework provided in the debate, or, if none was given, weighs arguments case by case.
6:If disagreeing with the debate's framing, the voter clearly establishes why their interpretation is more faithful and how it influences their vote.
Yes. Romans 1:20-21
Psalms 19:1-7
(https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2019%3A1-7%2Cromans%201%3A20-21&version=KJV)
Preachers, yes. Pastors? No.
The qualifications to be a deacon and bishop apply to men.
And bible says a woman is to not usurp authority and teach men.
A woman can be anything except a pastor, deacon, bishop or a teacher over men (children and other women are fine) literally.
Poem and rap battles arent serious, its just personal preference.
Why make it rated is beyond me.
No need to insinuate greatfulgoy is a coward in the first opening statement.
Come on man.
Im guessing you didnt read my vote? Cause he didnt lose the debate over the nuance of hiearchy.
Understandable. I do the same thing sometimes. I see a value so apparent i forget others dont see like i do.
Seems like a semantic trap. Yall need to stop debating mal.
If there is no consensus within half the debate on the metric, yes i can.
And i did.
You defined nothing in r1 and by r2 instigator already made half his arguements without an agreed upon metric. You gave your observations, not defintions.
Your r2:
"2: arbitrarily decided what defines ‘best villain’
The best villain according to Pro seems to be the one that is simply scariest. It clearly comes about in his ‘fear factor’ argument later that because Lalo for Pro, induced most direct fear during his scenes on a consistent basis, that this makes him the best villain.
GF is scary in a literal sense, meaning that other characters fear him as much as LS or potentially more. As Pro points out, LS feared GF from day 1 or at least respected him as a highly formidable threat. Let’s not forget that in the end GF himself ended up killing LS.
The definition of best villain, in my eyes, is the villain that has the MOST OVERALL incredible DEPTH and LEGACY in the series."
His r3
"First and foremost, what defines a villain?:
“a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime.” Villain - Wikipedia"
There is no consensus. You cannot use that against me.
I recommend that in all r1 or discriptions you lay groundwork, metrics and definitions.
"It is not automatic that a villain that showed up more is better but what is automatic is that one that shows up less surely has to have far more to compensate for lack of screentime and legacy."
You are gaslighting me. Nowhere in r1 did you define "best" i see no definitions.
You didnt even use the word "best" one time.
You used the phrase "is better" but never defined it.
You were the one that complained that no metric was given. Why didnt you give some in r1? Im not responsible for someone who refuses to set the bounds of their debate or argumentation.
You could have defined it or had instigator clarify it.
Since no one did till r2. How would either of you known to set the dialogue of a metric?
I didnt say he had superior morality. If anything i indicated he had no morality.
There is a difference between someone who violates their conscience and someone who has no conscience.
Im pretty sure i addressed the legacy as well.
Also i ranked saul and gus as having less aura than lalo.
The legacy has to do with familarity, not aura. And aura is affected by shift, impact, consistency or lack thereof.
I explained in my vote there was no metrics for determining better villian in description or r1. I cant in good faith takes something that is non foundational and backtrack based on 1 person's standards.
Was a tough debate. I havent seen either of the shows and i dont plan to.
I will say i noticed a consistent pattern in leaning when it comes to government and rewritting things. He mentions the possibility of it, but often times forgets to tell us why it should be done.
Give incentives for supposed reasons. Give detriments to supposed reasons.
The heckdoes strong mean? Dont pull the same move you did to lynch.
So each side has to prove 3 things right?
1:Harmed/helped society
2:benefits do/dont outweigh risks
3:better off with/without it.
Im making vote ruling on the following premise.
1: there are 3 rounds
2: it is reasonable for people to assume opponents will utilize 3 rounds, especially if they see a forfeit.
3: with 1&2 considered, it is reasonable to expect instigator to defend against contendors arguement.
4: if 3 and neither side did so, it is logical to weigh the debate on the superior arguementation.
5: if forfeits are equal, it is reasonable to weigh arguements as if to expect a counter arguement considering 2&3
If 5,2,3 are true, then 4 is true.
I put this in premise method for kohai. But also so others understand why i voted contendor.
Some say its a mental disorder. Im curious in what sense he means disorder
Like in what sense? Romans 1 addresses that its when God gives people over to a reprobate mind to do things inconvienent, so technically its a disorder? Or spiritually?
Well i ignored the third round and i apologize for not putting more effort into reading yalls debate. It took yall a while to get this stuff and argue about it.
Dont like my vote? Its ok. Remove it. I explained the dread i had in trying to do this.
The bible doesnt say a man cannot remarry if his wife is in adultery, but it does say the wife cannot.
Why do you say i am sexist for showing God's word?
Show me where it says it. There are precepts for men, and precepts for women. There are precepts for the physical marriage, and precepts for the spiritual.
Show verses.
So ephesians 5 is sexist? Genesis 2 is sexist?
What precepts i speak are based on them.
Should i refer to how God divorced israel because they committed adultery and married the gentiles to provoke his people to jealousy?
"You think that a human can destroy what God has joined together?"
If a person couldn't why would Jesus say
mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
?
Marriage is a vow and covenant. It is 2 flesh becoming 1.(see ephesians 5:22-32)
And i just repeated what scripture said. It said fornication is sin against their own body. And when 2 marry, they become 1 flesh.
Else why would jesus permit divorce for the sake of fornication?
Im not referring to unbeliever and believer, but remarriage after fornication.
Yes. The woman is not allowed to remarried. But the man is. The man is the foundation, the head, once she is joined to the man, her identity is in that man all her days till he dies.
That is why customs show the last name of the man is given to the wife, for she is now his.
Sorry i got it backwards. Proverbs 8:36 talks about how we sin against our own soul.(proverbs 8:12-36 is wisdom of God)
Fornication is sin against the body. 1 corinthians 6:18.
God joins a man and woman together and they become 1 flesh genesis 2:24.
So fornication destroys the body.
And the soul also proverbs 6:32.
In doing this they disolve the covenant of God, because they brought death to their relationship. (Till death we do part) and death is seperation of God from a body. And they destroy the 1 flesh God joined them as.
And they are made 2 flesh again, unless there is a repentance and reconciliation. And they renew their vow.
(Assuming they didnt marry someone else)
Proverbs 6:33 the word for wound is nega. Which can be an affliction, spot, sore, mark or wound.
