User Tag List

Page 4 of 42 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 621

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

  1. #46
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    207
    Right on cheezy, that is just what I was thinking.
    I agree with hilston for the most part.

    Jim,
    It's good to see somebody that knows Van Till's/Bahnsen's apologetics. I understand what you are getting at in your posts because I've spent a lot of time studying presuppositional apologetics. I see the need for epistemic consciousness everywhere. I don't think the points you are making are that clear to most of the people reading them though. I don't think Scrimshaw or Lion or the Cheezydude have any previous knowledge of the topic.
    I think now would be a good time to bust out a quick presuppositional apologetics 101 class. Maybe that will clear up some of this "strife", and accusations of slander will be put to rest.
    What do you say?

    Scrimshaw and lion,
    I don't think Jim has any problem with using science in a debate to point to God's existence, I just think that he wants it put in the right place. His main disagreement with Mr. Enyart isn't that he uses science to prove his points, but that he has conceded to the position of neutrality.
    The Bible specifically says that man isn't neutral. It says that man is bent against God, and that his reason has become corrupt and twisted. Bob is playing on thin ice here. How can he expect to win a debate when he is founding his arguments on faulty parameters?
    The ancient Greeks perceived themselves as approaching the tough philosophical questions with the neutral eyes of an infant (supposing infants are even neutral). That is where they went wrong.
    All their philosophy was based on a faulty fundamental presupposition. Zakath is suffering from the same delusion.
    That's why his reason leads him to the place of declaring that there is no God. Why is Bob Enyart succumbing to the same error?
    Born after 1973?
    |
    |
    \/
    www.survivors.la

  2. #47
    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
    NATE isn't it true you are biased against Bob because you do not like his stance on the openness of God?????

    Would it be fair of me to withhold my monthly donations to "Survivors" because I knew you were a hard core "closed theist"?

    I wouldn't do that. That would be counterproductive wouldn't it?

    I sense this same type of counter productiveness emanating out of every post you make.
    Freedom of choice is what you want, Freedom of choice is what you got.


  3. #48
    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 Scrimshaw ...

    To Lion:

    Lion writes:
    Jim, by your own standard Bob’s arguments are perfectly in standing with what Paul did on Mars Hill. ...
    Really? Has Bob preached the risen Christ to Zakath? Has Bob declared to Zakath that, despite Zakath's claims to the contrary, that he really does already know that God exists? If not, then he is feeding into Zakath's lie and self-delusion, not to mention the violation of scriptural principles regarding the anti-theist worldview.

    Lion writes:
    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?
    The difference is Paul showed the Athenians that they could not claim to be unaware of God's existence or claim they have insufficient proof of God's existence (Read Acts 17:18ff with this in mind). Zakath does both, and unlike Paul, Bob Enyart has failed to call him on it. What is worse, Bob Enyart perpetuates the myth of atheism and of insufficient evidence by enabling Zakath to continue with his lie and self-delusion.

    Lion writes:
    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?
    If that's how you really understand the Proverbs 26 passage, then aren't you doing the same thing? What is your defense, Lion?

    To Scrimshaw:

    Scrimshaw writes:
    What? You mean God would need YOU to elaborate Proverbs 26:4,5??
    Of course not. Did you see that part where I said, "I really should not have to explain this to you"?

    Jim previously wrote: 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.

    Scrimshaw writes:
    Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, ...
    All forms? No exclusions? Does the Bible allow for even unbiblical forms of reasoning and argumentation? Perhaps you can give an example of this: The Bible says "Answer NOT a fool according to his folly." Applying your understanding of 1Co 9:19, give me an example of how NOT to answer a fool according to his folly. Don't skip this, Scrimshaw. Your integrity is at stake here.

    Scrimshaw writes:
    ... as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared.
    Really? Cool. A guy down the street says he wishes he could have a ministry sharing the gospel with Playboy centerfolds and exotic dancers. I'll tell him that Paul says it OK as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared.

    Scrimshaw writes:
    ... 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."
    I'm going to ask you a question, and please think carefully before you answer: Do you think, when Paul says, "all possible means" that there any any exclusions to that statement? If yes, then what exclusions? If no, then do you think Paul is saying it would be OK for someone to become a prostitute in order to save prostitutes?

    Scrimshaw writes:
    So let's recap. 1st step = *existence* of the Creator, ...
    Why do you feed into the anti-theist lie? You don't have to prove what they already know and are lying about.

    Scrimshaw writes:
    I said that simply saying the "Bible says so" is not a good form of ARGUMENT when talking to unbelievers.
    I would not say so simplistically "The Bible says so" (although it's not a bad start) but rather, "Here is what the Bible says about that." Would you be averse to that kind of answer?

    Scrimshaw writes:
    That is a useless and ineffective argument because the person you are speaking to does not believe the Bible is true.
    I don't know a single person who became a believer because someone proved to them that the Bible is true. But more importantly, the Bible does not allow for this form of argument when it comes to confronting the anti-theist with truth.

    Scrimshaw writes:
    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.
    It wouldn't mean anything ultimately even if I DID believe the Q'uran were true. The Muslim argument is incoherent regardless of who believes the Q'uran is true. It says a lot that you see no superiority between the claims of the Bible and the claims of the Q'uran as long as both parties believe in the book in question.

    Jim previously wrote: 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:
    Gee, and what would God do without Mr. Hilston to straighten out all the Mr. Enyarts and Scrimshaws for Him!!
    You comparing apples and oranges, Scrimshaw. I am critiquing Bob Enyart for using unbiblical argumentation. I don't fault God's word at all. It sufficiently condemns this form of reasoning, and I am pointing it out. Bob Enyart, however, is suggesting by his words that God was not truthful when He said that anti-theists already know and have been given sufficient evidence for God's existence. There is a difference between acting as if God's word is sufficient by adding to it (as Bob Enyart is doing) and simply pointing out the fact that someone is doing this (as I am doing).

    Jim

  4. #49
    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

    Is it possible?

    cheeezywheeezy writes:
    Here is your chance to prove, using your method, that God exists.
    My chance? Don't you already know that God exists? How is it possible that God does NOT exist? Do you view that as a real possibility?

    Jim

  5. #50
    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

    Resistance and desperation ...

    Hi Natedog,

    You write:
    I don't think the points you are making are that clear to most of the people reading them though.
    I realize that. Everytime I get into this kind of discussion, I find that only a few really get it. I've seen one post on this thread that shows promise. There's such a difference in attitude, and a clear openness to how compelling the scriptures are on this issue.

    Natedog writes:
    I don't think Scrimshaw or Lion or the Cheezydude have any previous knowledge of the topic.
    I don't think it should matter. The scriptures should suffice to make the case. I don't think the resistance is due to a lack of understanding. It smacks more of desperation that they do not want to let go of their pet methods of autonomy and neutrality and brute fact argumentation. I mean, why else do people bring up the kinds of things we've seen so far in this exchange, except out of desperation?

    Natedog writes:
    I think now would be a good time to bust out a quick presuppositional apologetics 101 class.
    I think part of the problem with apologetics is that it is too often treated as an "anything goes" free for all. I wish that a quick intro course would clear this up, but as I said above, I don't think the resistance comes from a misunderstanding. When I first read Bahnsen on apologetics, I knew it was true and heartily embraced it. Why don't others have the same reaction? I don't know, but I have my suspicions.

    As to anyone desiring further background on the differences between presuppositional and evidential argumentation, here are some links:

    http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF991.htm
    http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF995.htm
    http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/matrix.htm
    http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/bootcamp/pb13apol.htm

  6. #51
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    207
    NATE isn't it true you are biased against Bob because you do not like his stance on the openness of God?????
    It's true I disagree with Bob Enyarts openness of God stance, I say that loudly. I'm not biased against Bob.

    Would it be fair of me to withhold my monthly donations to "Survivors" because I knew you were a hard core "closed theist"?
    Survivors is a ministry designed to provide young people the opportunity to share with their peers the truth about abortion.
    I don't see why you would withhold a monthly donation based on an individual in the groups theological beliefs. However, I wouldn't expect you to donate to the Closed Theist Seminar.

    I wouldn't do that. That would be counterproductive wouldn't it?
    I guess maybe a little counterproductive, but more pointless than anything.

    I sense this same type of counter productiveness emanating out of every post you make.
    I don't get what you're saying here. I don't think that what Bob Enyart is doing is an unworthy endeavor. I think he's trying very hard to reach an admirable goal, but I do think that he's engaging in sword play using a pocketknife (and holding up quiet well because his opponent is fighting with a pocketknife as well) when he's carrying a broadsword at his side. If Mr. Enyart continues to follow the same line of reasoning that he has so far I expect to see a tie.

    Are you trying to say that me withholding my kudo's for his method of debate= you withholding money from a pro-life ministry based on the theological beliefs of one member?
    Born after 1973?
    |
    |
    \/
    www.survivors.la

  7. #52
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    207
    Greg Bahnsen's book "Always Ready" is read worthy whether you agree or disagree with it. I recommend it.
    Born after 1973?
    |
    |
    \/
    www.survivors.la

  8. #53
    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
    Originally posted by NATEDOG
    I don't see why you would withhold a monthly donation based on an individual in the groups theological beliefs.
    BINGO.

    I dont see why a Christian would side with an atheist in a debate regarding the existence of God because of a theological difference.
    Freedom of choice is what you want, Freedom of choice is what you got.


  9. #54
    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

    Must-reads and must-avoids ...

    Natedog: You are correct. "Always Ready" is a must-read, especially for those who disagree. On the other hand, "Classical Apologetics" by Lindsley, Sproul and Gerstner is to be avoided even by those who agree with them. Are you familiar with that title?

    Jim

  10. #55
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    207
    I dont see why a Christian would side with an atheist in a debate regarding the existence of God because of a theological difference.
    I'm not siding with Zakath on this. Many atheists have suffered crushing defeats at the hands of Christian apologists, because of their faulty logic and blind faith. Many Christians have lost debates to atheists by immersing themselves in the muddy water that is unregenerate reason.

    Saying that Zakath is winning this debate does not validate atheism. Saying Bob Enyart is winning the debate does not validate Christianity. It merely says that so and so presented a stronger case for their position.
    If Enyart presents a compelling case for the existence of God based on how ludicrous it would have to be for him not to exist, then I would say he wins.
    If Zakath succeeds in reducing this debate to a bunch of "ifs", "ands", "buts", then I would say it supports his chaotic worldview more so than Bob's worldview.


    Like I said, I think what Mr. Enyart is doing is a worthy endeavor.
    I just don't know why he would choose to combat a giant deadly robot in hand to hand combat when he could simply unplug his cord from it's power socket.
    Born after 1973?
    |
    |
    \/
    www.survivors.la

  11. #56
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    67
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    207
    I've heard of Classical Apologetics, but have never read it.
    Was it written by RC Sproul Jr. or Sr.?
    Born after 1973?
    |
    |
    \/
    www.survivors.la

  12. #57
    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

    A step further ...

    Natedog writes:
    I just don't know why he would choose to combat a giant deadly robot in hand to hand combat when he could simply unplug his cord from it's power socket.
    To go a step further, it is unbiblical to use anti-theistic methods and condemned by Scripture. Biblically, we ought to be pulling the plug by critiquing the anti-theistic methodology at a fundamental level, just as Paul did in Athens.

    Excellent comments, Natedog. I especially like how you state the transcendental argument "... how ludicrous it would have to be for God not to exist." Kudos to you.

    Jim

  13. #58
    Who is the stooge now? novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Ordained to be here
    Posts
    459
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    224
    Originally posted by NATEDOG
    I just don't know why he would choose to combat a giant deadly robot in hand to hand combat when he could simply unplug his cord from it's power socket.
    Gee what an advantage you have running around just unplugging robots!

    Although I am not sure how our friend Hilston would like that!

  14. #59
    ...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
    Praise the Lord Bob evangelizes his way and not NATEDOG's and Jim's!

    I was an atheist just like Zakath! The first step in me becomming a Christian was watching Bob destroy an atheistic evolutionist on his TV show one night using the exact same arguments he is using in the BR VII.

    Now me, my wife and all of our 5 children, my sister her husband all of their children (some are grown up) and even my father will be with the Lord in heaven! Thank you Bob!
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  15. #60
    Friendly Neighborhood Admin Turbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5,316
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    1037
    I agree! Thank God for Bob Enyart and his ministry.

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