User Tag List

Page 3 of 42 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 621

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

  1. #31
    King of the jungle Lion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    541
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    223

    White cat, not black.

    Hilston- The ends do not justify the means.
    True, but just because the means are not Jim’s means, in no way shows they are not God’s means.
    Please repent and apologize to Bob for your evil backbiting.
    Or show where Bob has in any way blasphemed God during this debate or spoken something untrue about God.
    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.
    What a stupid comparison.
    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."
    He did, Gen 1:1 In the beginning…
    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.
    Just because you don’t understand science (as evidenced by your replacant theory) doesn’t mean it is unbiblical to persuade someone to God by explaining science. Bob uses the scriptures when appropriate, and at other times the princibles behind scripture that, show that God is God, at others.

    Tell, me, what biblical references are you using in your replacant theory? Aren’t you trying, in that thread, to show what you think to be a biblical concept through unbiblical means? Are you now playing the hypocrite?
    Last edited by Lion; June 23rd, 2003 at 12:07 PM.
    In service of the
    Lion and the Lamb

  2. #32
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

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


    Rep Power
    1707

    To Lion and cheeezywheeezy

    Combined reply to Lion and cheeeezywheeeezy.

    To Lion

    Lion writes:
    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.
    Vindictive? For what could I possibly want to take revenge against Bob Enyart?

    Lion writes:
    I think you are judging a brother wrongly and should repent.
    I would be remiss if I didn't point it out. I am obligated to defend the scriptures and to condemn the misuse of them.

    Lion writes:
    Otherwise, state what Bob has said to ZaKath that is unbiblical.
    See above and previous page.

    To cheeezywheeezy

    cheeezywheeezy writes:
    ... the review of The Plot...and you just don't like Bob do you.
    You're wrong, cheeezywheeezy. I like him a lot. I was debating someone who kindly sent me a complimentary copy of The Plot. He wanted to know what I thought, so I felt obliged to critique it. Your kneejerk assumptions make me curious. I could be wrong about you, cheeezywheeezy, but this kind of false assumption (i.e. that a critique implies disdain) is a pattern I find among sycophants. It's gross.

    As to your tortured efforts to understand Prov. 26:4,5, you seem to be missing a major grammatical point of the verses. The verses no doubt appear to be contradictory. One says "answer a fool according to his folly." The other says "answer NOT a fool according to his folly." So it must be that either (a) the Bible is a bunch of hooey, or (b) this verse is talking about ways, manners, methods of answering the fool. It should be obvious to the reader that the verse is describing a manner of answering the fool correctly and a manner of not answering the fool correctly, and warns against doing either incorrectly. I really should not have to explain this to you. But with this in mind, please go back and read what I wrote and it will all make sense to you.

    Jim

  3. #33
    King of the jungle Lion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    541
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    223
    Jim,
    You forgot to answer this part of my post?
    Tell, me, what biblical references are you using in your replacant theory? Aren’t you trying, in that thread, to show what you think to be a biblical concept through unbiblical means? Are you now playing the hypocrite?
    In service of the
    Lion and the Lamb

  4. #34
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

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


    Rep Power
    1707

    I must have my revenge !!!

    Lion -- I just read that post. It showed up after I posted my previous.

    Here is my answer to that post now:

    Lion writes:
    Please repent and apologize to Bob for your evil backbiting.
    It's not backbiting. Bob Enyart is well aware of my position on this.

    Lion writes:
    Or show where Bob has in any way blasphemed God during this debate or spoken something untrue about God.
    Mr. Enyart doesn't have to blaspheme God or speak an untruth about God to lose this debate and to be wrong in his apologetic method.

    Jim previously wrote: 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:
    He did, Gen 1:1 In the beginning…
    In the beginning ... what? "In the beginning, an intelligent eternal creator thing or things ..."?

    Lion writes:
    ... doesn’t mean it is unbiblical to persuade someone to God by explaining science.
    Has Bob explained science? Show me where. It is apparent that he, like Zakath, assumes the verity of science without explaining it. If Bob did explain science to Zakath, it would have been made clear to Zakath that he has no justifiable grounds to appeal to science anti-theistically.

    Lion writes:
    Tell, me, what biblical references are you using in your replacant theory? Aren’t you trying, in that thread, to show what you think to be a biblical concept through unbiblical means?
    Nope. The purpose of that thread is made clear in the opening post.

    Lion writes:
    Are you now playing the hypocrite?
    Nope. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God or anything about God in that thread.

  5. #35
    Old Timer LightSon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    490
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5991
    Dear James,

    Good thread! You have brought up an issue that I have often wondered about in my attempts at using apologetics.

    Shall I argue strictly from my "God is" position,
    or do I try to argue from their "God is not" position and try to lead them where I might go where I actually in that position or else to lead them to the illogic of their position.

    I am still trying to understand the nuances of your position. I don't think all of us here fully understand the dynamics and boundaries of a biblical approach as you perceive it.

    Please note that I haven't bought into your position necessarily. There are some hazy areas (perhaps in my brain only) for me to think through first. It does seem that Paul went to Mars hill and reasoned from their "UNKNOWN GOD" position to bring them to the truth.

    Thanks for stirring up an interesting hornets nest.
    That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
    Philippians 2:15

  6. #36
    Over 2000 post club One Eyed Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,093
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 20 Times in 13 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3705

    Re: I must have my revenge !!!

    Originally posted by Hilston
    Nope. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God or anything about God in that thread.
    Then why did you post it in the Attributes of God forum?

  7. #37
    King of the jungle Lion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    541
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    223
    In the beginning ... what? "In the beginning, an intelligent eternal creator thing or things ..."?
    Hmmmm… are you saying you think God is not the intellgeant, eternal Creator? “In the beginning, God created”. And that is what Bob is proving to Zaaaakath in this debate. And he is doing it using the science that God created and has shown us through His creation. There is nothing wrong about that in any way shape or form.
    Has Bob explained science? Show me where. It is apparent that he, like Zakath, assumes the verity of science without explaining it. If Bob did explain science to Zakath, it would have been made clear to Zakath that he has no justifiable grounds to appeal to science anti-theistically.
    What are you talking about? He is very carefully taking Zaaaakath through the princibles of science (IE the scientific method) and proving there is a God, using the facts of the creation as a guid. Does this mean Zaaaakath will believe? No, of course not, (although I believe it is far more likely that he might turn using Bob’s approach than yours, just as I did) but there are countless others that can read these posts and learn about God’s wonders. It will also give others valuable tools for combating atheistic beliefs.
    Nope. The purpose of that thread is made clear in the opening post.
    Oh, so then you don’t believe that we are hard wired human beings with free will? You don’t believe that this is a biblical concept? Is that what you are saying?

    About playing the hypocrite you said;
    Nope. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God or anything about God in that thread.
    What you are trying to do with that thread is to show how God could create a hard wired being that still has free will, and you think this is a biblical concept. Therefore you are playing the hypocrite because you are using a non biblical argument to support what you consider to be a biblical concept. Just as Bob is doing.
    In service of the
    Lion and the Lamb

  8. #38
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

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


    Rep Power
    1707

    The Unknown God ...

    Hi LightSon,

    LightSon writes:
    Shall I argue strictly from my "God is" position,
    or do I try to argue from their "God is not" position and try to lead them where I might go where I actually in that position or else to lead them to the illogic of their position.
    You should do both, but biblically. This is what Prov. 26:4,5 is saying.

    LightSon writes:
    I am still trying to understand the nuances of your position. I don't think all of us here fully understand the dynamics and boundaries of a biblical approach as you perceive it.
    I've encountered this sentiment before. I think the reason is that we don't immediately see the harm in trying to prove things that anti-theists deny. But the attempt to make these proofs neglects a vital, but often hidden fact, which is that the anti-theist is a liar and self-deluded. When we do not immediately confront this fact, the anti-theist is allowed to continue his lie and self-delusion.

    LightSon writes:
    It does seem that Paul went to Mars hill and reasoned from their "UNKNOWN GOD" position to bring them to the truth.
    At first blush, it does appear that Paul is violating Proverbs 26 and his own teaching in Romans 1. A closer look at the context shows more: Note that the disputants on Mars Hill have already heard Paul's preaching about Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Scrimshaw would say that Paul was mistaken in doing this. By the time Paul is on Mars Hill debating the Athenians, Paul has already directly and unabashedly preached Christ (not some creative intelligent thing or things that created rocks and fires).

    Acts 17:18 "Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."

    Note further that Paul specifically identifies the Unknown God: He is Jesus Christ, the very God whom the disputants worshiped in deliberate ignorance (v. 23); that is to say, the Athenians suppressed the truth in their unrighteousness, just as Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans.

    Paul then goes on to further declare the God they already know and His prerogative over their lives, and even quotes one of their own poets to affirm they already know this God (v. 28).

    Thanks for bringing this up, LightSon. It's an excellent example of what I've been talking abut.

    Jim

  9. #39
    King of the jungle Lion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    541
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    223

    Exclamation Bark! Bark! Woof! Woof!

    Jim, by your own standard Bob’s arguments are perfectly in standing with what Paul did on Mars Hill. You said;
    At first blush, it does appear that Paul is violating Proverbs 26 and his own teaching in Romans 1. A closer look at the context shows more: Note that the disputants on Mars Hill have already heard Paul's preaching about Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Scrimshaw would say that Paul was mistaken in doing this. By the time Paul is on Mars Hill debating the Athenians, Paul has already directly and unabashedly preached Christ (not some creative intelligent thing or things that created rocks and fires).
    Acts 17:18 "Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."
    Bob constantly preaches on Christ being God, and Zaaaakath already knows his position on this issue, just as you say the Greeks did on the hill. So what’s the difference?

    Oh, and as to the Proverbs 26 passage, aren’t you violating one of its concepts by putting in your two cents in a topic that you aren’t involved in?

    Prov 26:17 He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears.
    In service of the
    Lion and the Lamb

  10. #40
    Journeyman Scrimshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    NV
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    206

    Re: Combined replies ...

    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.
    What? You mean God would need YOU to elaborate Proverbs 26:4,5?? Gee, what would God do without Mr. Hilston elaborations!! (See how your ridiculous logic backfires on your own arguments??)

    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.
    Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared. You forget what Paul said here:

    1 COR 9:19 -- "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."


    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.
    LOL!! The Apostle Paul just gave you the Biblical methodology for presenting the truth! In case you didn't catch it the first time, here it is again:

    "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

    You have been soundly refuted. Suck it up, take your correction, and let's move on.


    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).
    So your entire quibble is over calling God "an" intelligent designer instead of "the" intelligent designer? Wow, what a powerful argument!! <-----Note extreme sarcasm.


    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.
    No duh. That's why I went on to explain that the second step is to explain why the Creator is Jesus. The first step is to establish the necessity for the existence of "the" Creator, and the second step is to establish the IDENTITY of the Creator. So let's recap. 1st step = *existence* of the Creator, 2nd step = *identity* of the Creator. It's that simple. Why you would want to quibble about this is beyond me.


    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.
    That's not what I said. I said that simply saying the "Bible says so" is not a good form of ARGUMENT when talking to unbelievers. You are mangling my words and slandering me in the process. Are you aware of what the Bible says about slanderers??

    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.
    Again, if you would kindly remove your words from my mouth I'd much appreciate it. We do rely on the Bible for our HOPE, however, when you are talking to somone who does not believe in the Bible, it is a useless argument to say - "God is real because my Bible says so". That is a useless and ineffective argument because the person you are speaking to does not believe the Bible is true. It would be the same as if a Muslim told you that Muhammad was greater than Jesus because his "Quran told him so". His argument means nothing to you unless you believe the Quran is true.

    Now do you see how idiotic your argument is or need I go on??


    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.
    I never made that claim. You are twisting and misapplying my words. You are slandering me. Since you are so keen on Proverbs, do you want me to start quoting all the passages that condemn slanderers??

    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.
    Gee, and what would God do without Mr. Hilston to straighten out all the Mr. Enyarts and Scrimshaws for Him!! Yes, it appears that God's Word wasn't good enough, so God needs Mr. Hilton to straighten everybody out!

    Your own idiotic arguments backfire on you and you don't even realize it.
    Last edited by Scrimshaw; June 23rd, 2003 at 02:20 PM.
    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

  11. #41
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    1099924
    Originally posted by Lion
    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.
    Very telling, no?
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  12. #42
    King of the jungle Lion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    541
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    223
    Scrimshaw,
    Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared. You forget what Paul said here:

    1 COR 9:19 -- "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
    Awesome! That should be the end to this argument. What more uis there to say?

    I hope he takes this to heart and sees the error of his ways.
    Prov 9:8...Rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
    In service of the
    Lion and the Lamb

  13. #43
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    44
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    OK...OK...OK...here we go. The coin is up and it is heads. That means Jim get's to go first.

    So...Jim Hilston,

    Here is your chance to prove, using your method, that God exists. What would your posts say. Lay the whole thing out right now.

  14. #44
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,337 Times in 1,101 Posts

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


    Rep Power
    1099924

    Re: Re: Combined replies ...

    Originally posted by Scrimshaw
    Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared. You forget what Paul said here:

    1 COR 9:19 -- "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
    Great post!
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  15. #45
    Documenting mans devolution DEVO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Waddling in the modern primordial soup.
    Posts
    150
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1039
    OK fess up, is Hilston Malcolm????
    Freedom of choice is what you want, Freedom of choice is what you got.


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