User Tag List

Page 4 of 45 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 665

Thread: BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 8 thru 10)

  1. #46
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,769
    Thanks
    689
    Thanked 7,101 Times in 3,781 Posts

    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147777
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
    I wish! -Bob
    So do I!

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  2. #47
    Over 1000 post club RobE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,256
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    183

    Question We figured it out in Armenia...

    Just because the playwright/director knows the plot doesn't mean he doesn't watch and wonder how the actors will play their roles. Often he will coach the actors as they play their parts and replace actors who can't play the part correctly. All of which takes a lot of thought, planning, and intervention on HIS part; as well as, a lot of foresight to get the desired results. The plan is perfected through his vision(foresight) combined with his work(relationships). His own personality requires NO change and remains perfect(without mistakes/flaws) forever no matter how many of the actors believe he's not handling things correctly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
    I think the average Settler would quickly say that God cannot think, IF HE FEARED that admitting the opposite would threaten his defense of immutability.

    -Bob

  3. #48
    Old Timer RightIdea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    369
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    206
    Quote Originally Posted by RobE
    Just because the playwright/director knows the plot doesn't mean he doesn't watch and wonder how the actors will play their roles. Often he will coach the actors as they play their parts and replace actors who can't play the part correctly. All of which takes a lot of thought, planning, and intervention on HIS part; as well as, a lot of foresight to get the desired results. The plan is perfected through his vision(foresight) combined with his work(relationships). His own personality requires NO change and remains perfect(without mistakes/flaws) forever no matter how many of the actors believe he's not handling things correctly.
    1 Soap Operas 13:13
    And the director said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the latest script draft of the LORD your God, which He commanded you. For now the LORD would have established your starring role on "Days of Our Kingdom" forever.
    1 Corinthians 13:2
    And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

  4. #49
    Old Timer Chileice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    395
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2345
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    Well it would appear that Dr. Lamerson actually showed up to do battle in the next to last round. Better late then never I suppose but this would have been a much more exciting debate had he given as much substantive thought to the rest of the debate.


    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    I think lamerson's round 9 post was the best of the debate. I'm not sure what took him so long but I think it leaves Bob with several difficult questions to answer. The Jesus who saves me doesn't make mistakes. If He does, how will I know he didn't make a mistake and then change his mind some day. I think Isaiah 40-48 presents some very strong ammo for the SV side because it was God's unequivocable foreknowledge that was the key to the entire "debate" in those chapters against the false gods who could not and did not know the future. It will be interesting to see if Bob can answer with a limited word count.
    Blessings of Peace,Chileice
    "Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit." Romans 15.13

  5. #50
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74377

    .25 * 3b = ??

    Quote Originally Posted by Chileice
    I think Isaiah 40-48 presents some very strong ammo for the SV side because it was God's unequivocal foreknowledge that was the key to the entire "debate" in those chapters against the false gods who could not and did not know the future. It will be interesting to see if Bob can answer with a limited word count.
    Chileice, I know that there are many threads (thousands) in TOL (and millions) on the web. So perhaps you've stumbled in here accidentally and are unaware that there is a debate between two people going on, one presenting the Open View and the other the Settled View. And in Round Three, the Open View side addressed at length Isaiah 40-48.

    Have a great day!

    -Bob

    ps. If you ever get around to actually reading the debate itself, it would be wonderful if you could comment on the Open View understanding of Isaiah 40-48 as presented about 2/3s of the way into Post 3B, because it seems that you'd have an exclusive, since apparently nobody else will !
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  6. #51
    Over 750 post club lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    903
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    229
    Hi everyone,

    Chileice: The Jesus who saves me doesn't make mistakes. If He does, how will I know he didn't make a mistake and then change his mind some day.
    Amen to the first part! And yes, if God can make mistakes, that puts every promise that depends in any way on free-will decisions in question, what are the limits? And what about heaven, if free-will is essential to a human being, can people sin there? Is eternity eternally uncertain?

    Bob Enyart: In these nine chapters, I can only find two passages that need an Open View defense, first, that “I am God… declaring the end from the beginning,” and second, that God named a yet future king, Cyrus, that He would use toward accomplishing His ends.
    Well, I think the claim Sam mentioned, of God saying "The idols fail at this," in general, is the most important point of the passage. How can this claim be distinctive, if God is only estimating like everyone else? And with Jonah, God's estimate seems to be worse than Jonah's! Jonah thought the Ninevites would repent, and God, apparently, did not, for he had to change his mind.

    Also, should we always take God's advice, if he can be mistaken? Some other choice might turn out better, even from God's perspective, thus we need not always do what he says. Only the Bible says differently, complete obedience is the way:

    Luke 6:46 Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?

    Because he can be wrong sometimes, even in his own estimation?

    Bob: Unlike God’s declarations “from the beginning,” which are unavailable to us, He does give some specific prophecies in historical times...
    But surely these "from the beginning" statements are known statements, and the next verse gives an example:

    Isaiah 46:11 From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do.

    Which must refer to Cyrus, and thus "declare the end from the beginning" is another claim of the distinctive of being able to really tell the future, unlike the idols, as in the prior verse:

    Isaiah 46:9 I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

    Why should anyone pretend that God didn’t use some kind of influence in naming Cyrus...
    But influence is not a guarantee! Couldn't God be wrong here, according to the Open View? As he could have been (we are told) with Peter? Well, we can't have it both ways, both a sure prediction, and a possible mistake...

    Blessings,
    Lee
    Last edited by lee_merrill; September 11th, 2005 at 09:28 PM.
    "Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions from which we receive no word to bring away." (George MacDonald)

  7. #52
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    I'm a transplant -- from East Tennessee to the High [Mojave] Desert in California.
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    . . . Further, the word limit rules read as follows...

    The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer.

    That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.

    Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    How true it is that an individual's or group's doctrine will define their walk!

    From the first through the seventh round of Battle Royale X -- the OVers have announced that Bob will certainly triumph (that is, as soon as he gets going); Bob has already bested his opponent (and is presently just mopping up); Bob is winning hands down (as will soon be evident); and Bob will win by a landslide (although “the other side” might not acknowledge it to be so). . . .

    Moreover, they have not hesitated to add that they’re champing at the bit for the end of the contest, so they can document Bob’s victory by publishing the “debate” manuscript far and wide!

    But now, in the middle of the eighth round, the accolades have ground to a stop. And the group who just a short while ago were so confident (not to say egotistical or self-important) – those who were so confident, I say, of Bob’s overwhelming victory are now scrambling to post a slew of whiny, little notes (see one example, quoted above), grumbling about how few words poor Bob has left . . . how put upon Bob is . . . how Bob was forced to “waste” a lot of “his” word count . . . how unfair the word distribution rules are in general, and how they should specifically be reinterpreted or changed to give Bobby a better chance . . . how the big, bad Sam has beat up on little Bobby and his mommy wasn’t there to help him . . . .

    Not surprising. This behavior is much like that of the OVers’ god, who -- they do not hesitate to proclaim -- can and often does make mistakes.

    All I can say is: I hope when their god sees his mistakes, he tries to pull himself up by his bootstraps and at least put up a facade of fair sportsmanship and manliness.

    M. K. Nawojski
    http://twilight-tales.com

  8. #53
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    The Battle Of Words????

    Greeting All,

    Theology On Line had rules in place for the Battle Royal X debate. One of which was the number of words that each participant was to use. The debate could not begin until Bob Enyart and Sam Lamerson agreed to the rules and in particular the number of words to be used in the debate. Please read the definition below.

    Agreement: a : the act or fact of agreeing b : harmony of opinion, action, or character : CONCORD
    2 a : an arrangement as to a course of action b : COMPACT, TREATY
    3 a : a contract duly executed and legally binding b : the language or instrument embodying such a contract

    From: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary


    Now that it comes to the end of the debate and Bob Enyart has nearly used up his allotment of words for the debate there is a great yell to put aside the agreement.

    This is Bob Enyart’s problem. He chose what strategy to use and now he has to live with it.

    The moderator should quell these “spoil sports” by addressing the forum in writing for these to cease and desist from such remarks. It lessens the integrity of the debate and by extension the reputation of Theology On Line.

    Stop and Consider.

    Leonard A

  9. #54
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,769
    Thanks
    689
    Thanked 7,101 Times in 3,781 Posts

    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147777
    Quote Originally Posted by M. K. Nawojski
    How true it is that an individual's or group's doctrine will define their walk!

    From the first through the seventh round of Battle Royale X -- the OVers have announced that Bob will certainly triumph (that is, as soon as he gets going); Bob has already bested his opponent (and is presently just mopping up); Bob is winning hands down (as will soon be evident); and Bob will win by a landslide (although “the other side” might not acknowledge it to be so). . . .

    Moreover, they have not hesitated to add that they’re champing at the bit for the end of the contest, so they can document Bob’s victory by publishing the “debate” manuscript far and wide!

    But now, in the middle of the eighth round, the accolades have ground to a stop. And the group who just a short while ago were so confident (not to say egotistical or self-important) – those who were so confident, I say, of Bob’s overwhelming victory are now scrambling to post a slew of whiny, little notes (see one example, quoted above), grumbling about how few words poor Bob has left . . . how put upon Bob is . . . how Bob was forced to “waste” a lot of “his” word count . . . how unfair the word distribution rules are in general, and how they should specifically be reinterpreted or changed to give Bobby a better chance . . . how the big, bad Sam has beat up on little Bobby and his mommy wasn’t there to help him . . . .

    Not surprising. This behavior is much like that of the OVers’ god, who -- they do not hesitate to proclaim -- can and often does make mistakes.

    All I can say is: I hope when their god sees his mistakes, he tries to pull himself up by his bootstraps and at least put up a facade of fair sportsmanship and manliness.

    M. K. Nawojski
    http://twilight-tales.com


    Bob won this debate in round one as far as I am concerned and I am the only one I know of who said that it would be sweet if Bob actually took the Dr. up on his dare to end the debate. My point wasn't to actually suggest that Bob be given some 20,000+ more words to use (although I would read them all if he wrote them and enjoy every syllable). The point was to point out that the Dr. is being ridiculous with his silly warning about holding to the word count rule when he has barely participated in the debate since round three and has had to have the rules explained to him on more than one occasion by the very man who's feet he's now holding to the rule following fire. It's disingenuous at best (as have been most of his responses to Bob's posts) and outright hypocritical at worst.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  10. #55
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    The Battle Of Words????

    Greetings All,

    I had mistakenly posted my remarks on the "THE BATTLE OF WORDS???" on the Rounds 4 though 7 area. Clete, responded to that post. I replied to that post in that area. I have reproduced my reply to Clete in this area.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    Don't be an idiot, alright?
    Is this how you address a civil, logical, and polite observation to the point revising the number of words that will be assigned to Bob Enyart?

    Col 4:6 Let your speech [be] alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

    I would suggest the you review James 3 about controlling the tongue and its application to our written communications.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    Bob Enyart isn't as stupid as you might think. He's perfectly aware of the rules and how many more words he has to use. Probably the only question in his mind is whether or not he can legitimately reclaim the 800+ words he used requoting the rules to Dr. Lamerson, which I think is a no brainer but whether it is or not, the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone.
    As you said “ the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone.”

    Bob Enyart, as you said used 800 + words. However, he could have referenced the rules which would have taken no more that a dozen or so words. Again, this was part of Bob Enyart’s choice to the debate to be verbose in the explanation of the rules.

    The moderator is the one who has the serious task to enforce the rules no matter how unpopular they my be the majority or minority of the group. Honesty and integrity must be the hallmark of his decision. If it not, it will have grave consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    Besides, who here has called for the rules to be "put aside" anyway?
    You did. Please review your words

    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    . . . Further, the word limit rules read as follows...

    The debate will last for ten rounds. The recommended maximum word limit for the average post is 6,000 words, but any or all posts could be much briefer.

    That sounds to me like it could easily be interpreted to mean that we have a ten round debate, two posts per round for a total of 20 posts with an average word length of 6000 words per post. That's a total word limit for the entire debate of 120,000 words, which we are nowhere remotely close to reaching because Dr. Lamerson has basically chosen to barely participate since round three. In fact, according to my count there have been approximately 87,719 words used thus far in the debate. That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded.

    Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not but my point is that it is laughable that Dr. Lamerson wants to hold the rules over Bob's head after Bob was required to expend nearly a thousand words explaining the rules to him.
    Any unilateral slanted request to change even one iota of an agreement is “putting aside” said agreement. It is up to the participants along with the moderator to come to a consensus.

    Stop and Consider.

    Leonard A.

  11. #56
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74377

    deja vu

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonard A
    Any unilateral slanted request to change even one iota of an agreement is “putting aside” said agreement.
    Leonard, how can a request be a "putting aside?"

    Stop and Consider.

    Bob E.
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  12. #57
    Old Timer geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Auckland NZ
    Posts
    377
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    223
    I so wanted to reply and say something nasty..

    but all i'll say is.. neither side has one. Enyart has only proven he'd made a great policitian/word spinner. And Lamerson has done nothing to further the cause of his view. It was always going to be that way. Over here, we call it a hiding to nothing.

    I wonder at the sense of having the equivalent of rabid right wing fundy Christians debating muslim fanatics... because thats about how extreme the two views are. And about the same likelihood either side is going to listen/learn/be objective from or about the other.
    Show me someone who is expressing in anger his views of God, and I will show you someone who is deeply afraid of losing control of God- Peter Enns

  13. #58
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    48
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Bob wrote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Enyart
    Leonard, how can a request be a "putting aside?"
    When rules have been established and both sides have agreed to them with a clear understanding that these will govern the Battle Royal X debate and subsequently there is a request to reinterpret or change any of the rules that WOULD constitute a “putting aside” of the original agreement.


    Stop and Consider.

    Leonard A.

  14. #59
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74377
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  15. #60
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    I'm a transplant -- from East Tennessee to the High [Mojave] Desert in California.
    Posts
    45
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete


    . . . My point wasn't to actually suggest that Bob be given some 20,000+ more words to use. . . . The point was to point out that the Dr. is being ridiculous with his silly warning about holding to the word count rule. . . .
    Oh really?

    After Dr. Lamerson's eighth post had been published to the Web -- and before Mr. Enyart's eight, ninth, and tenth posts were due -- in the “Battle Talk Round 8” thread, in Post #44, you wrote: “ . . . That means that unless all three of the remaining posts exceed 10,760 each, the word limit for this debate will not have been exceeded. Of course it will be up to the moderator to decide whether such a reading of the rules is a valid one or not. . . .”

    In Post #45, Bob responded: “I wish!”

    In Post #46, you said: “So do I.”

    On the same topic, in the "Battle Talk Rounds 4 – 7" thread, you said to Leonard A: “Bob Enyart isn't as stupid as you might think. He's perfectly aware of the rules and how many more words he has to use. PROBABLY THE ONLY QUESTION IN HIS MIND IS WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN LEGITIMATELY RECLAIM THE 800+ WORDS HE USED REQUOTING THE RULES TO DR. LAMERSON, WHICH I THINK IS A NO BRAINER but whether it is or not, the decision is completely up to Knight and Knight alone [emphasis mine]."

    Based on those remarks on the topic, it appeared to me that you were scrambling to filch whatever extra words you could for Enyart to use in his final three posts.

    MK

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us