Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Grinding axes, chopping down trees ...

    Originally posted by Hilston
    The Bible says Zakath has no argument, no defense.
    Dude, beating Zakath over the head with something he doesn't believe to be true isn't going to make him accept it. You need to cross a step over into his world and entertain his fallacious logic to really get the point across. You can't debate very well with a book. It's a book! A debate requires a living opponent.
    --philosophizer--

    Make good choices!

    2 Corinthians 10:5 -- casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Fire and rocks ...

      I said:
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Bob Enyart is discussing philosophy with an atheist.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Originally posted by Hilston
      Is that all this is? A philosophy discussion? Why then is it called the Battle Royale and a Debate: Does God Exist?? This is no mere "discussion," as evidenced by the hundreds of posts of specific discussion related to this battle/debate. Your bent toward minimizing the importance of the exchange is noteworthy.
      Yes, its both a discussion AND debate. Don't get tripped up over semantics. If you are reading the same thread I am, Zakath and Bob are currently discussing numerous philosophical issues, such as: what is truth, the absoluteness of right and wrong, evidence regarding the origin of the universe, etc. Those are questions that philosophers (both Christian and non-Christian) have been debating for centuries.


      I said:
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      What Enyart is doing is discussing philosophy with an atheist, which is something that you just agreed was not prohibited by the Bible.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Let me clear up your confusion. There is no prohibition against discussing philosophy with anti-theists in scripture. But there are prohibitions against discussing philosophy unbiblically, which is what Mr. Enyart is doing.
      Please show me the chapter and verse that states a prohibition against discussing philosophy "unbiblically"......it's important that the passage from the Bible you present also defines what method is of discussion is "unbiblical", and why.



      I said:
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      I don't follow your logic here at all. Are you saying that Jesus is NOT an intelligent designer? Do you think he is an UN-intelligent designer? Do you think he is NOT creator? The uncaused first cause of the universe?
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      I didn't say any of those things. It's puzzling you would even ask those questions.
      Eh, you just cast aspersions on Bob for referring to God in those terms.....but you apparently agree that those terms apply to God.

      The last time someone asked you, "What do you think will happen to you when you die?," did you begin your reply: "Well, my hope is in heaven, and here's why: According to the evidence I've amassed, it appears there must have been some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things ..."?
      Actually, it would start off that way. You build a case for general theism, and once that case is built, you can then go further and begin sharing the reasons for why you believe the Christian God is the true God. It certainly beats your answer, which would be - "I'm going to heaven because the Bible says so". That answer might work for 6 year-olds, but in the realm of educated adults - it ain't gonna fly.


      I said:
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Bob only pointed to the laws of physics to show that the naturalistic origin theories *violate* them.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Michael Shermer asked Mr. Enyart (paraphrasing), "Why do you believe in God?" Mr. Enyart's answer was, "A rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever." Dr. Shermer replied, "Your faith is based on fire and rocks?" Mr. Enyart rejoined: "Yeah, what's YOUR faith based on?" Dr. Shermer replied, "I don't have faith."
      In Romans chapter 1, Paul says " [20] For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made". So the Bible teaches that our belief in God is based on the evidence we see in "what has been made" - which is the universe and it's laws. So when Enyart says that his belief in God is based on the laws of the universe, he is basing his belief in God on "what has been made". Thus, Bob's answer is in total agreement with Romans 1:20.

      Sorry, but your arguments are ill-considered.
      Last edited by Scrimshaw; June 23rd, 2003, 09:55 AM.
      SCRIMSHAW

      "Passions act as winds to propel our vessel; our reason is the pilot that steers her, without the winds she would not move; and without the pilot she would be lost". - The French

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Thank you cheezwhizz!

        Originally posted by Hilston
        I've downloaded the series, cheezywheeezy.
        I wasn't aware that it was freely available for download. Do you have a link? I'd like to listen to it myself. Thanks.

        Comment


        • #19
          If you do not tell them, how will they know?

          Hilston;

          Brother, you could not be more wrong about Bob’s approach. I am living proof of this. I was an adamant atheist and only started watching Bob’s old TV show because of his conservative bent. I remember saying, to my then also atheist wife, that I liked the show, but I sure wish he would leave all that stupid biblical stuff out of it.

          Over the next year and half I watched Bob go against atheist after atheist, and little by little my stubborn, pride filled heart, was convicted to the truth. First my wife fell (only to rise with God). It took me another six months before I gave in and humbled myself. If Bob hadn’t taken the time and effort to break down my barriers I have no doubt my wife, my children and I would still be lost.

          You of course are absolutely right that atheist are suppressing the truth and rejecting God rather than having the excuse of ignorance, however, the truth was the same for those following Christ and His apostles but still they debated and reproved and taught. Remember that God says Himself, “Come, let us reason together… though your sins were as scarlet they will be as white as snow.”

          I thank God for Bob Enyart and his ministry.
          In service of the
          Lion and the Lamb

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: If you do not tell them, how will they know?

            Originally posted by Lion

            I thank God for Bob Enyart and his ministry.
            I also thank God for his service to Christ. It reminds me of the ministry of Apollos.

            He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
            When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

            Comment


            • #21
              Freak said-I also thank God for his service to Christ. It reminds me of the ministry of Apollos.
              Amen!
              In service of the
              Lion and the Lamb

              Comment


              • #22
                Combined replies ...

                Combined reply to Philosophizer, Scrimshaw and OneEye Jack:

                To Philosophizer

                Originally posted by Hilston : The Bible says Zakath has no argument, no defense.

                Philosophizer writes:
                Dude, beating Zakath over the head with something he doesn't believe to be true isn't going to make him accept it.
                I agree completely. So why is Mr. Enyart doing this? Why are you telling me this and not Mr. Enyart?

                Philosophizer writes:
                You need to cross a step over into his world and entertain his fallacious logic to really get the point across.
                I have nothing against that as long as it is done biblically.

                To Scrimshaw

                Scrimshaw writes:
                If you are reading the same thread I am, Zakath and Bob are currently discussing numerous philosophical issues, such as: what is truth, the absoluteness of right and wrong, evidence regarding the origin of the universe, etc. Those are questions that philosophers (both Christian and non-Christian) have been debating for centuries.
                So what. It doesn't justify a Christian using unbiblical and godless reasoning to try to persuade an anti-theist of what he already knows to be true.

                Scrimshaw writes:
                Please show me the chapter and verse that states a prohibition against discussing philosophy "unbiblically"......it's important that the passage from the Bible you present also defines what method is of discussion is "unbiblical", and why.
                See my discussion above on Proverbs 26:4,5. If you want further elaboration, let me know. Also consider the fact that we have numerous examples of confrontations with gainsayers in scripture. Not one of them describes or presents an example of someone arguing for the existence of some "creator thing" that might exist. The Bible doesn't allow this kind of argumentation. Furthermore, the corollary truth of Romans 1, describing the anti-theist as already knowing, having sufficient evidence, yet suppressing the truth emphatically underscores this principle. Let me hasten to say that I'm not claiming we must use the exact words as the Bible, as it has been alleged, but that we employ the biblical methodology when presenting the truth.

                Scrimshaw writes:
                Eh, you just cast aspersions on Bob for referring to God in those terms
                It's not a question of terms, but of method.

                Scrimshaw writes:
                .....but you apparently agree that those terms apply to God.
                I would never refer to the Creator as an intelligent designer". He is THE Creator, Jesus Christ. It really sounds as if you're ashamed to say Who He is, which is particularly noteworthy given the passage I cited and its context, in which Paul says that he is not ashamed of the gospel (Ro 1).

                Jim previously asked: The last time someone asked you, "What do you think will happen to you when you die?," did you begin your reply: "Well, my hope is in heaven, and here's why: According to the evidence I've amassed, it appears there must have been some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things ..."?

                Scrimshaw writes:
                Actually, it would start off that way. You build a case for general theism, ...
                General theism? Where is that principle taught in scripture? There is nothing "general" about the Lord or Truth. He is specifically the true God among countless false ones. To refer a god or gods, who is/are intelligent, eternal, and wise is anti-biblical.

                Scrimshaw writes:
                ... and once that case is built, you can then go further and begin sharing the reasons for why you believe the Christian God is the true God.
                Paul says we are to be casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of a general deity. No wait ... every thought captive to a creative, intelligent designer thing or things. No wait ... every thought captive to whom? Christ, specifically. (2Co 10:5).

                Scrimshaw writes:
                It certainly beats your answer, which would be - "I'm going to heaven because the Bible says so".
                Your answer beats the one the Bible gives? Amazing. Who would have thought the day would come when a Christian would ridicule another for relying on the claims of the Bible for their Hope.

                Scrimshaw writes:
                That answer might work for 6 year-olds, but in the realm of educated adults - it ain't gonna fly.
                Yeah, educated people know better than to rely on the Bible. You'd have to be an idiot, or a someone with the mind of a 6-year-old to be persuaded by the words of scripture. Good thing there are people in the world like Mr. Enyart and Scrimshaw who come along and take up the slack where God's word has fallen short.

                Scrimshaw writes:
                In Romans chapter 1, Paul says " [20] For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made". So the Bible teaches that our belief in God is based on the evidence we see in "what has been made" - which is the universe and it's laws.
                This is talking about anti-theists, Scrimshaw. Are you including yourself among them? It says that the knowledge of God's existence and attributes are understood -- that is, already sufficiently proven -- by the anti-theist via the creation. God doesn't need your or Bob's help in this.

                Scrimshaw writes:
                So when Enyart says that his belief in God is based on the laws of the universe, he is basing his belief in God on "what has been made". Thus, Bob's answer is in total agreement with Romans 1:20.
                No, if his answer were in agreement with Romans 1:20, he would have said to Zakath, "You already know this, but you suppress it in unrighteousness."

                To OneEye

                OneEye writes:
                I wasn't aware that it was freely available for download. Do you have a link? I'd like to listen to it myself. Thanks.
                It was way back in October of 2000. I don't think the current archives at KGOV.com go back that far.

                Jim
                Last edited by Hilston; June 23rd, 2003, 11:20 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Combined replies ...

                  Originally posted by Hilston
                  I agree completely. So why is Mr. Enyart doing this? Why are you telling me this and not Mr. Enyart?
                  Bob is appealing to the tools of reason that Zakath claims to favor: science and logic. Zakath does trust these things. So Bob is just trying to lead him through the truth using the tools that Zakath favors. That is biblical. Paul did it all the time, using elements of each culture he visited to teach the Word.
                  --philosophizer--

                  Make good choices!

                  2 Corinthians 10:5 -- casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Ends justify means?

                    Lion writes:
                    Hilston;
                    Please call me Jim.

                    Lion writes:
                    Brother, you could not be more wrong about Bob’s approach. I am living proof of this. I was an adamant atheist and only started watching Bob’s old TV show because of his conservative bent. I remember saying, to my then also atheist wife, that I liked the show, but I sure wish he would leave all that stupid biblical stuff out of it.
                    The ends do not justify the means. I know someone who was actually influenced by Madonna's music to pursue Christ and became a zealous witness for the Lord. That doesn't justify Madonna's music. I myself came to Christ through studying Mormonism. That doesn't justify the false doctrine of the LDS.

                    Lion writes:
                    You of course are absolutely right that atheist are suppressing the truth and rejecting God rather than having the excuse of ignorance, however, the truth was the same for those following Christ and His apostles but still they debated and reproved and taught.
                    There's nothing wrong with debating and reproving and teaching, but it must be done biblically. It's also good to distribute Bibles, but not if you stole them from the local bookstore.

                    Lion writes:
                    Remember that God says Himself, “Come, let us reason together… though your sins were as scarlet they will be as white as snow.”
                    Indeed. Wonder why God didn't say, "Come, let us reason together ... though you think I don't exist, rocks cannot create themselves and fires don't burn forever."

                    Lion writes:
                    Freak said - "I also thank God for his service to Christ. It reminds me of the ministry of Apollos." Amen.
                    Here is how Apollos preached: "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." It doesn't say, "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by anti-theistic reasoning that a rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever." Apollos reasoned from the scriptures. Mr. Enyart is not doing that. Anyway, Scrimshaw thinks the Jews would have to have had the minds of 6-year-olds to be persuaded Apollos's method.

                    Jim

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hilston asks;
                      General theism? Where is that principle taught in scripture?
                      Acts 17:22-23Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an alter with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you.

                      To the atheist who places science as his god, Bob shows them that the true Creator of science is the one they are worshiping without knowing it. It is Him that Bob is declaring to them.
                      Scrimshaw said-It certainly beats your answer, which would be - "I'm going to heaven because the Bible says so".

                      Hilston answered-Your answer beats the one the Bible gives? Amazing. Who would have thought the day would come when a Christian would ridicule another for relying on the claims of the Bible for their Hope.
                      No, what he is saying is that you would just say “The bible says so!” Where as he shows them where and how the bible tells them. Because if someone will not guid them, (Acts 8:27-35 how will they learn?
                      In service of the
                      Lion and the Lamb

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Man dude...I just visited your site, read some of the stuff i.e., the review of The Plot...and you just don't like Bob do you.

                        Anyway...

                        Ok...let me get this straight...

                        proverbs 26:4 says:

                        "Do not answer a fool according to his folly..."

                        and proverbs 26:5 says:

                        "Answer a fool according to his folly..."

                        You then claim how although they may appear to be apparent contradictions they are actually a method to debate. First we don't answer a fool according to his folly...and then we do. And that's good.

                        You then say...

                        "Mr. Enyart has answered the fool according to his folly,..."

                        And you claim that is bad! Bob answers a fool according to his folly and you say he has done wrong...you then claim how, according to scripture, one must answer a fool according to his folly. You just don't like the way Bob has done it. He has done that which you claim should be done...but since it isn't like you would have done it...Bob is a fool. How foolish.

                        I think Proverbs 26:11 describes you best...

                        "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly"

                        You repeatedly show your folly in everyone elses folly because they don't folly the way you would folly.
                        Last edited by cheeezywheeezy; June 23rd, 2003, 11:45 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Jim,
                          It seems very strange to me that you would take such a vindictive attitude to a brother in Christ and the way in which he is led by the Holy Spirit to bring people to the Lord. I think you are judging a brother wrongly and should repent. Otherwise, state what Bob has said to ZaaaKath that is unbiblical.
                          In service of the
                          Lion and the Lamb

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Shooting at the leaves ...

                            Philosophizer writes:
                            Bob is appealing to the tools of reason that Zakath claims to favor: science and logic. Zakath does trust these things. So Bob is just trying to lead him through the truth using the tools that Zakath favors.
                            That's the wrong method. You said yourself that "beating Zakath over the head with something he doesn't believe to be true isn't going to make him accept it." So instead of using what he already trusts, Mr. Enyart should be dismantling Zakath's anti-theistic trust in those very things. That would be answering the fool according to his folly. Mr. Enyart would then show that Zakath trusts logic and science irrationally. That is the Biblical critique of Zakath that Mr. Enyart should be using. Instead of "Do you believe in truth?", the question should be "How, on your worldview, do you even claim to engage in a debate?" Make Zakath justify his use of logic and science (exclusively theistic principles). The atheist can't do it. But rather than excavating the very root upon which Zakath's anti-theistic worldview rests, Mr. Enyart chooses instead to shoot at the leaves. "That's OK," the anti-theist says, "I can grow more."

                            Philosophizer writes:
                            Paul did it all the time, using elements of each culture he visited to teach the Word.
                            Sure, but he didn't use unbiblical methods or compromise the Word the way Mr. Enyart is doing.

                            Jim

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              BigCheese!
                              I think Proverbs 26:11 describes you best...

                              "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly"

                              You repeatedly show your folly in everyone elses folly because they don't folly the way you would folly.
                              ROTFL!!!!

                              GREAT!
                              In service of the
                              Lion and the Lamb

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hokey smokes...I just read Hilston's interest and they tell a lot. For example I have come to the conlcusion that you are a rock-n-roll, alcoholic with lung cancer. You talk about foolish.

                                How is one that destroys his God given body able to tell everyone else how things should be done?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X