Re: Bob Enyart

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Nang,

Here is a summary of your efforts:

Nang: "It looks like Bob has not been on here since 2005. I want to talk to Bob NOW."

TOL members: "Sorry Nang, but this isn't Bob's forum...just a place where Bob sometimes shows up. And by the way...it hasn't been since 2005"

Nang: "Why is Bob avoiding me? I want to talk to Bob NOW!"

TOL member: "Look, if you really want to talk to Bob, he makes himself available everyday...and here is the number where you can talk to him."

Nang: "Quit giving me the runaround...I want to talk to Bob NOW!"

TOL members: "You are being a baby."

Nang: "Fine...I refuse to respond to anyone other than Bob Enyart himself!"

(During the time you stated the above you responded to several posts...odd:hammer: )

Finally.....

Bob: "Hey Nang, I am really busy and wish I could have a discussion with all the 100's of TOL memebers...but I just can't. However, I am available if you just cal me. I tell you what. Since you indicated that you were interested in Open vs. Closed....and since I had a lengthy exchange on the same topic...go ahead and read the entire thread...and then answers my questions. If you do that...I will personally respond to you."

Nang: "Quit making such demands on me...I want to talk to Bob NOW!"

:bang:

:rotfl:
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Lazy bumms!
Call the show!

Not only do you get to flaunt it in your sig (click on the I II III IV) but with some extra effort you might get a sticky archive thread named after you http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=42

TOL fame here you come:Slippery:

Bob's not a bad guy, if you stay cool he'll stay cool.
Well said fool! :up:

fool has demonstrated he is willing to put his foot where his mouth is errrrrrrrrrrr..... his money where his mouth is.


;)


(I kid because I care) :)
 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Well said fool! :up:

fool has demonstrated he is willing to put his foot where his mouth is errrrrrrrrrrr..... his money where his mouth is.


;)


(I kid because I care) :)

I was going to mention this earlier. I admire fool for at least making the effort and calling in. How many here who disagree have done that?

Listen to the shows that are linked in fool's signature. Bob is very easy to get along with if and the dialog will go very smoothly if you have a point and you can answer questions. Avoid obfuscation though!
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Dear Ask Mr. Religion,

I wrote:
...if you would, post all 50 questions (full text of each), with your answers (please be direct, I directly answered all of Lamerson's questions), in a single post, and I'll make a commitment to reply.
Agreed!

I am happy to oblige you on your request not to consult with others.
I will hold you to your word.

However, I am not offering to get into a debate with you, and I would expect that for you to answer all fifty questions in the context of BR X, you'd have to spend quite a few hours. I asked you to include the full text of my questions, and then your *direct* answers, all in a single post. Then I'll reply. I imagine this would take me only a fraction of the time it takes you. I've already put hundreds of hours into that debate.
No problem. We are in agreement.

That's it AMR, you can accept that offer, or call the show (and Nang, you too).
No, I will post. No home court advantages will be conceded.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
AMR when you are ready to post please make your post in the One on One forum. I will temporarily make you and Bob "One on One" status for the couple of posts that get made in this mini-exchange. Then I will open up another thread so that all of your answers and Bob's response can be discussed by the rest of us.

Sound fair?
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Oh, I guess I should have said why I wanted to set it up that way.

I don't want AMR's answers to Bob BR X questions and then Bob's subsequent response, to get lost in the shuffle of dozens of other off-topic posts.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
AMR when you are ready to post please make your post in the One on One forum. I will temporarily make you and Bob "One on One" status for the couple of posts that get made in this mini-exchange. Then I will open up another thread so that all of your answers and Bob's response can be discussed by the rest of us.

Sound fair?
Sounds fine. I was going to suggest the same thing to keep things isolated.

The hoi polloi can post elsewhere. :D Just had to use the word again.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
I think Nang asked me to answer these fairly simple questions. If I've erred, please let me know.

Could you be so kind as to explain your confidence in the eschaton and the realization of God's ultimate glory given unsettled theism's tenets regarding God's exhaustive foreknowledge?

Given that God's intent is to have a people for Himself (Eph 1:4), and God's efforts since the fall to ensure that He does, and the fact that no one is able to prevent God from resurrecting any that He chooses gives me assurance that God will accomplish His purpose.

In short, it is God's omniscience AND His omnipotence.

If God is genuinely responsive to humans and to the course of history, and if God cannot infallibly know the future free decisions of man, it is in principle impossible for God to know infallibly what He will do in the future as well.

But it is possible for God to know what He would do in a given possible future.

Where then lies your confidence that God's ultimate purposes will be realized?

God's knowledge, wisdom, power and love.

EDIT: Also, some unsettled theists hold that God can occasionally overrule the free will of His creatures. That is, God can coercively make some things happen to ensure that His ultimate glory is realized. What is your position on this? Do you believe that God will always respect the free will of His creatures or that God will, albeit rarely, overrule the free will of a person or persons?

I don't think God overrides anyone's free will, although God can certainly directly or indirectly create circumstances in which people will choose a particular direction.

Muz
 

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
Why would you need to worry about any of this if Calvinism is true?

A person who knows truth can take on any committee of liars.

You see, AMR believes that every thought he has and everything he does was ordained by God. So when thinking, "should I nag Bob to hold true to his offer", instead of realizing that God has already decided how Bob will reply and accepting it, he believes that God put the thought into his head to question Bob so that he would be sure to make doubly sure that God ordained him to answer, because if God didn't ordain Bob to answer all the time spent asking would have been a waste and then AMR would have to spend time contemplating why God ordained that he should waste his time asking, only to realize that while he was at his computer making the post about whether or not Bob would reply substantively a squirrel lept from the tree outside his window onto the table on the back porch to the left of the newspaper that he left there earlier which is exactly where he would have placed his coffee had he taken a break from TOL, which would have resulted in him having to go back to the kitchen to replenish his mug where a "conveniently" placed clock on the coffee machine exposed that it just happened to be 3:31PM which is the exact time (or at least as far as he can remember) that his mother told him she'd be going to the library that day. Since library rhymes with arbitrary it's obvious that God had ordained that arbitrary rhyme with library so at that exact moment he'd have realized that everything he just thought about was pointless. Or maybe Calvinists are just retarded.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I think Nang asked me to answer these fairly simple questions. If I've erred, please let me know.
You have.;)

BTW, best not to clutter up this thread with topics that have been discussed in other threads, such as the OT Archive Part 2 thread.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
You have.;)

BTW, best not to clutter up this thread with topics that have been discussed in other threads, such as the OT Archive Part 2 thread.

AMR,

Muz did not err. He and I were discussing the subject of your very questions to Bob, and so I invited him to take a stab at answering them.

I apologize to both of you if I did wrong. :dead:

Nang
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
AMR,

Muz did not err. He and I were discussing the subject of your very questions to Bob, and so I invited him to take a stab at answering them.

I apologize to both of you if I did wrong. :dead:

Nang
No, he erred in the content of his response. ;)

My second comment was to point out that he could have responded elsewhere, like in the forum where you pointed out the question to him. I just don't want to have discussions about theology in a thread that is "All About Bob". :chuckle:
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
No, he erred in the content of his response. ;)

My second comment was to point out that he could have responded elsewhere, like in the forum where you pointed out the question to him. I just don't want to have discussions about theology in a thread that is "All About Bob". :chuckle:

It's Nang's thread. She's the one who ought to decide what belongs here and what does not.

Why do you feel the need to control everything?

Muz
 

Chileice

New member
Hey AMR,
I am actually looking forward to your responses to Enyart. I hope you will be able to answer his questions in a way that will stimulate thinking by all of us. Though I don't always agree with you, I do think you are capable of challenging Bob in a positive way.
 
Top