But, after reflecting on it, it makes sense to write as clearly as possible, so the “it could be argued”, habit, isn’t the best way to phrase things, so you make a good point.

And, I believe you, when you say you care about persons. But wouldn’t it be better to explicitly state that, initially, rather than say they’re “credibility suffers”? after all, what you’ll generally accomplish with this, is not the conveyance of your caring, but rather that you may wish to offend.

I am especially not interested in arguing for argument’s sake. That’s why I asked for some clarification that you really believed what you were writing.

I am not only concerned with arguments. I care about persons, too.

I must confess, that I find it unusual that you would be concerned, as to what my personal views are, and not about the issue i address. After all, my personal views, are irrelevant, to the soundness of the arguments.

also, my credibility is not the issue. You’re wrong to say my credibility is at issue, for using language, that could be construed to mean I don’t really mean what I write. This is irrelevant.

My credibility would suffer, only if my arguments were unsound.

And, as I pointed out, I believe what I write. I believe Universalism is true.

My hope is that, you will decide to address the arguments presented, so we can have a debate.

“your credibility suffers badly from this.” Really? Perhaps you could address the actual arguments, I’ve provided, for universalism, and show where the flaw is?

But I was not saying (this time) that your argument was flawed. I said your credibility suffers from:

(a) not owning the arguments you make, and
(b) arguing in favor of positions that contradict each other.

It is those two factors in your comments here that led me to wonder whether you believe what you write. You present what appears from your own language to be someone else’s position, or at least a position you are not committed to (“one could argue” or “some argue”); and then you present an argument that disagrees with it (although see my concession below). How are we to believe that either position is your own?

Now you have revealed for us,

“one could argue”, is merely my writing style. I think it’s clear that these are my views.

Sometimes, yes. But I’m sure you know the actual English meaning of one could argue is not, this is the argument I am committed to. It is, I am aware of an argument to the effect that x, and I think there could be some credibility to it. That’s a much weaker commitment to the argument, and it is the actual meaning of one could argue. As I’m sure you know, the phrase is frequently used in constructions of the form:

One could argue x, but on the other hand one could argue y, and I’m not committing either to x or y, since as far as I know at this time, either argument might be credible.

You might want to take more careful note of that. Otherwise we’ll continue to have reason to wonder whether you yourself believe what you’re writing.

You write,

Certainly one can believe that mormons are Christian, and believe that everyone is saved. Where’s the contradiction?

Now on this point I will concede my own error. You never argued that Mormonism is true. If you had, then your support now for universalism would be self-contradictory. If Mormonism is true, then universalism cannot be true, and vice-versa; for Mormonism denies universalism. Instead you were taking up a position that Mormons are Christian. How that fits into your stance of not committing to Mormonism being true, I don’t know.

I don’t want to start debating Mormonism again. I’m just calling on you to be more clear about what your own position actually is.

Similarly, if one “chooses” to not accept Christ, this is sufficient evidence to show that this person is incapable of deciphering what’s in his best interests (since it cannot possibly be in anyone’s interest to deny Christ, or choose Hell). Therefore, it would be unjust for God to grant this person permenant residence in Hell, because, to do so, presupposes that this person can rationally determine what’s in his own interests, but to deny Christ, shows he’s incapable of it, at least with respect to his eternal fate.

Tom, this is my argument, I own it, and please consider addressing what you consider the flaw, or flaws, so we can have a debate. I’m confident in it.

How about you adress my arguments, for universalism? “one could argue”, is merely my writing style. I think it’s clear that these are my views.

Arguments speak for themselves. Whether one “owns” them, is irrelevant to their credibility. And, for the record, if I present a case for something, rest assured that I believe it.