User Tag List

Page 6 of 45 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 665

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

  1. #76
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    66
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    It matters but not more than the substance of the debate. If someone was being ridiculously verbose just for the sake of making a long post, using excessively long posts as a tactic where an endless array of red herrings are presented then the word count provision would be there to control that. But is clear that it was never anyone's intention to worry about the word count more than the substance of the issues being debated.

    Resting in Him,
    Clete
    So then why didn't the rules state that as long as the topic was being addressed, there was no word limit? Sorry, but this is ethically questionable at best. Both sides should have been made aware of the disposal of the word limit earlier in the debate- not 1 post before the end. In fact, Knight even mentioned the 6,000 word limit after Round 3.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight- Post #15
    The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.
    This decision is highly questionable.....

  2. #77
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,852
    Thanks
    1,282
    Thanked 8,742 Times in 5,737 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147840
    Bob Enyart said earlier:
    But for all the true reversals and changes God exhibited in the Old Testament, the most harm results when Calvinist and Arminian Settled Viewers overlook God changing His course in the New Testament!
    Bob then gives the following instances where he thinks that the predictions of the Lord Jesus did not come true:
    Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return).
    • “There are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
    • “I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
    “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things [Second Coming prophecies] take place.”
    However,even Bob admits that the promise of His coming was “conditional” on whether or not the nation of Israel would accept their King:
    God explicitly declares that some of His promises are conditional, including that He would establish Israel’s kingdom if they obeyed their king, not otherwise! Thus Jesus did not return to establish that Kingdom.
    If the setting up the the kingdom and the return of the Lord Jesus was conditional then why would the Lord Jesus be promising to return to set up His kingdom before Israel made a choice as to whether or not to accept the King?

    The Lord would not be promising anything about His return without knowing whether or not Israel would accept the King.But despite this Bob is quick to assert that the Lord broke His promise.

    In His grace,--Jerry
    ”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
    http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shuga...made_easy.html

  3. #78
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,686
    Thanks
    661
    Thanked 6,961 Times in 3,706 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by defcon
    So then why didn't the rules state that as long as the topic was being addressed, there was no word limit? Sorry, but this is ethically questionable at best. Both sides should have been made aware of the disposal of the word limit earlier in the debate- not 1 post before the end. In fact, Knight even mentioned the 6,000 word limit after Round 3.
    I think that the rule could have been stated more clearly but "ethically questionable at best"? Come on, now. It seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the rule was to keep people from getting out of control. If the intent had been to create a hard and fast word count limitation the word "recommended" would not have been put in there.

    This decision is highly questionable.....
    On what grounds? Because you don't like it, is that it?

    "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

  4. #79
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    66
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    I think that the rule could have been stated more clearly but "ethically questionable at best"? Come on, now. It seems pretty clear to me that the intent of the rule was to keep people from getting out of control. If the intent had been to create a hard and fast word count limitation the word "recommended" would not have been put in there.


    On what grounds? Because you don't like it, is that it?
    It taints the debate. Sam has been stating for a few posts that he was keeping track of the word limit, then all of the sudden it doesn't matter? Why not tell Sam, "Post as much as you want, this debate is fruitful and we're not worried about word limits. There is no need to keep track of Bob's word count anymore." This wasn't the case, and as I've shown, Knight even mentioned the "extremely tight" 6,000 word limit after the 3rd Round. You know this questionable. Let me ask you - Are you in favor of the ruling because you like it?

  5. #80
    Over 5000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,724
    Thanks
    440
    Thanked 1,095 Times in 749 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    309187
    Rules are rules, unless you're a relativist, like Knight.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

  6. #81
    Silver Member Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    9,686
    Thanks
    661
    Thanked 6,961 Times in 3,706 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147776
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart
    If the setting up the the kingdom and the return of the Lord Jesus was conditional then why would the Lord Jesus be promising to return to set up His kingdom before Israel made a choice as to whether or not to accept the King?
    Because He knew of the comming "fertilization" of the Holy Spirit and expected the fig tree to bare it's fruit. But it did not and so God cut it down and grafted in the gentiles instead.

    The Lord would not be promising anything about His return without knowing whether or not Israel would accept the King.But despite this Bob is quick to assert that the Lord broke His promise.
    This is intellectually dishonest Jerry and you know it. God does not break His promises and Bob did not assert anything of the sort. If you want to debate Open Theism and you think your position is superior to it, why do you feel it necessary to intentionally mischaracterize the Open View? If your position is superior then stand toe to toe with the real issue and confront it like a man. Tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared.

    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

  7. #82
    Maximeee's Husband death2impiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2333
    Quote Originally Posted by defcon
    It taints the debate. Sam has been stating for a few posts that he was keeping track of the word limit, then all of the sudden it doesn't matter? Why not tell Sam, "Post as much as you want, this debate is fruitful and we're not worried about word limits. There is no need to keep track of Bob's word count anymore." This wasn't the case, and as I've shown, Knight even mentioned the "extremely tight" 6,000 word limit after the 3rd Round. You know this questionable. Let me ask you - Are you in favor of the ruling because you like it?
    Sam didn't seem too concerned with posting at length anyway...if the suggested limit was set at 10,000 words it's likely he'd have used the same amount of space.

    All this hooplah about words is so silly. Do you want knowledge and info or not? To limit Bob is to limit your own understanding of the opposition and the truth

  8. #83
    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
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by defcon
    So then why didn't the rules state that as long as the topic was being addressed, there was no word limit? Sorry, but this is ethically questionable at best. Both sides should have been made aware of the disposal of the word limit earlier in the debate- not 1 post before the end. In fact, Knight even mentioned the 6,000 word limit after Round 3.



    This decision is highly questionable.....
    With a heavy heart, I have to agree here. Unless I am missing something, the rules were a little ambiguous (I agree on that part), but then Knight clarified after round 3 by saying:

    Also please do not waste valuable space commenting on why a question wasn't responded to if that question was not in your official question list. The 6,000 word limit is extremely tight in a debate of this complexity therefore we want to save as much space as possible for actual content.
    Emphasis mine.

    I wish it wasn't so, but this is clearly a judgment by the moderator as to the interpretation of the rules. Consequently, this new decision I can view as nothing else but biased and suspect. I do not enjoy saying this in the least, as I'm sure anyone can guess.

    Even if Knight "misspoke" in the above quote, it is unfair to Dr. Lamerson at this point to pull such a switcheroo on a technicality, when clearly the reasonable understanding of the rules was at best an average word count of 6,000, rather than just a "recommendation." What was Sam supposed to take this to mean? C'mon, the rules combined with Knight's statement after round 3 clearly infer that massive posts 50% over the "recommended" word limit not only aren't within an "extremely tight" limit of 6,000 words but aren't in the spirit of it, either.

    I was fine with the "average word count" interpretation. I don't think that violates anything we've seen on this. But now to just say it was a recommendation?

    I wouldn't call the phrase "limit is extremely tight" as a recommendation. Again, I have not had time to pour over every word in the entire debate right now in regards to this specific question, and so if I'm wrong, please let me know, cuz I want to be wrong. But as far as I can tell, Defcon is absolutely right, here.

    Sorry, friends.
    1 Corinthians 13:2
    And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

  9. #84
    Over 5000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,724
    Thanks
    440
    Thanked 1,095 Times in 749 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    309187
    Right idea RightIdea.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

  10. #85
    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
    205
    At this point, I believe Bob should rescind his post, and have some limited amount of time to reformulate his submission. This would be necessary because he made his post based on the decision of Knight, so it wouldn't exactly be fair to Bob to retroactively take away his post while keeping the time limit, making it impossible for him to post. Bob posted that in good faith (albeit some poor judgment, as I also think Bob should have likewise questioned Knight's decision, as a man of honor). Perhaps one day would be appropriate.

    If anyone can think of a better solution, please suggest one! But I do not think it should stand as it is. This is clearly unfair to Dr. Lamerson.
    1 Corinthians 13:2
    And though I have ... all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing.

  11. #86
    Formerly Shimei! Servo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    3,047
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 15 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11237
    If the word count between participants was the other way around, would people even notice or care?

  12. #87
    TOL Legend Jerry Shugart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    San Luis Potosi,Mexico
    Posts
    13,852
    Thanks
    1,282
    Thanked 8,742 Times in 5,737 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete
    Because He knew of the comming "fertilization" of the Holy Spirit and expected the fig tree to bare it's fruit. But it did not and so God cut it down and grafted in the gentiles instead.
    Clete,

    If the Lord Jesus "expected" that the fig tree would bear fruit then He obviously "believed" that.

    But Bob Enyart said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.Sam asked Bob the following question:
    Does God hold any beliefs that are or might prove to be false?
    And Bob answered,saying:
    No.
    So according to you the Lord believed that "the fig tree would bear its fruit" but He was wrong about that belief.But Bob said that God cannot hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.
    This is intellectually dishonest Jerry and you know it. God does not break His promises and Bob did not assert anything of the sort.
    Who is being intellectually dishonest here?You say that the Lord Jesus was wrong in His belief that the fig tree would bear fruit despite the fact that Bob himself said that God does not hold any beliefs that might prove to be false.

    Clete,before you start accusing others of being intellectually dishonest perhaps you should consider Bob's own words.Here he lists a "promise" that the Lord did not keep according to him:

    Jesus repeatedly promised to return soon (giving the apostles the hope they displayed in Acts of His imminent return).[emphasis mine]
    It is you who is either ignorant of what Bob said previously or it is you who is being intellectually dishonest.

    If the Lord Jesus promised to return soon,and then He did not return soon then He broke His promise.But you say that God does not break His promises.If Bob is correct in his interpretation of these verses then it is evident that He did break a promise.
    If you want to debate Open Theism and you think your position is superior to it, why do you feel it necessary to intentionally mischaracterize the Open View?
    I have not mischaracterized a thing that Bob Enyart has said.
    If your position is superior then stand toe to toe with the real issue and confront it like a man. Tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared.
    Why is it that when no one defending Bob Enyart has an "intelligent" answer they always end up saying things like "tactics like this only make you out to be childish and scared"?

    In His grace,--Jerry
    ”Dispensationalism Made Easy”
    http://gracebeacon.net/studies/shuga...made_easy.html
    Last edited by Jerry Shugart; September 13th, 2005 at 02:17 PM.

  13. #88
    Over 5000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,724
    Thanks
    440
    Thanked 1,095 Times in 749 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    309187
    Dr. Lamerson should declare victory in light of the obvious jerrymandering that has taken place. I think he was unwise to agree to a debate in his opponents freinds forum.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

  14. #89
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    66
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Shimei
    If the word count between participants was the other way around, would people even notice or care?
    We'll never know. But in the interest of keeping the Battle Royale debates alive, and having qualified individuals participate in the debate, it is best to act with integrity. I'm ok with RightIdea's idea (sounds redundant for some reason) on letting Bob repost. I think probably the best solution is to temporarily remove Bob's post and have Knight get in touch with Bob and Sam to work out a resolution both sides agree on.

  15. #90
    Just livin' life one day at a time. Poly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,607
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 516 Times in 261 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)





    Rep Power
    420477
    Funny that there wasn't this kind of uproar when Sam failed to comply by the rules. Was he asked to go back and reformulate his post? No. Instead Bob used some of his word count to emphasize again the part of the rules that Sam seemed to overlook (after acknowledging that he had read them) which caused confusion in his post.
    "The most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan



    Check out the "rightest" of all right wing moms. FarRightMom


    Upgrade your TOL membership.

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