Have I reasoned or argued circularly? Show me where.

The fact that you equate disagreement with closed-mindedness is very circular. The fact that you equate "reason" with agreement is also circular.

Forbear, if by mistake I answer your objections more than once, as I stated I would, because, now, I'm somewhat obligated, and beside that, lost in such audience, and also, I don't know all your names!

That's acceptable, not reasonable, but acceptable.

You've not disrespected a person, but an opinion, which to me, is perfectly acceptable.

As to the several statements that I've presumed your closed-mindedness, I'll give you this:
I'll concede that I reacted somewhat rashly if you'll admit that most of you have been prejudiced, by being predisposed to object to what I say.

So if people admit to closed-mindedness, then you'll admit you were wrong to accuse them of closed-mindedness? Is that what you just said?

You have no idea if anyone is "predisposed to object" to what you would say. What you do know is that everyone here treated you fairly and considered your points carefully after you've made them. You've seen no evidence of prejudice.

If not all of your points were accepted, then rather than presuming prejudice, you should consider instead that your points weren't strong enough. Of course, telling yourself that people wouldn't have listened anyway makes you feel better, even though it's obvious from the thread that that is not the case.

You know what is evidence of prejudice? Telling people that they're being unreasonable the minute they disagree with you. Which is what you did. Up front.

I amend my statement that I will only answer one objection per person. From now on, I will answer questions and challenges that I, or someone here, deems, with support, can become constructive, and as long as I have strength. If I've overlooked something you hold valuable, don't hesitate to bring it to my attention.

You are accurate sundial, and yes, I am embarrassed that the majority of by brothers and sisters in Christ, do argue circularly, and are not diligent in the wider scheme of things.

By what authority do you place such limits on other participants while still purporting to desire an intellectually valid discussion?

I understood the quoted part not as placing limits on the other participants, but as placing limits on himself.

Questions about his intentions with that are still valid.

I would also question whether he ever "purported to desire an intellectually valid discussion." It looks to me more like he wanted to "share the good news" (i.e. preach) unchallenged. The fact that his knee-jerk response to any disagreement is to accuse people of closed mindedness would support this.

You would be absolutely right, if our only basis was content, yet, as I've mentioned already, we also should consider tone.

For the sake of further argument in this vein, I'll concede, without reservation, I reacted abruptly to his initial challenge--"Please present your evidence." It was a challenge--wasn't it? And will you admit, or will someone from your school of reason admit you've been prejudiced, having already made up your mind before hearing me out?

The correct answer to your question is to turn it around. I haven't yet given you my answer, but your sentence construction shows that you've clearly made up your mind before hearing me out. By your own logic, you are clearly the prejudiced one ;)

The straight answer is: no, that was not the case with me, and you saw no reason to deduce that it was the case with anyone else. And anyway, "your mind was already made up!" is what people say when their points prove not to be strong enough, which was the case here.

I've answered below. I'm still just beginning page 3!

Not when predisposed to object, which can be taken from your tones, if inductively.

I'm not equating the two, except when disagreement is prejudiced. See my immediately prior comment.

There was no reason to believe that anyone who disagreed with you you was prejudiced. You've convinced yourself otherwise, but if you want to convince anyone else, then you're going to need a better reason than "can be taken from your tones, if inductively."