ARCHIVE: apology for the manner of my attack on Bob Enyart

[Nathon Detroit]

I dunno, it was more fun watching them chew on each other when Sozo was here - he could really get them riled up....

What drug are you on?

Me and Sozo are tight!

I love Sozo. We didn't "chew on each other" over Sozo!

Sozo is in our camp you dimwit! Sozo's problem is he gets too angry and cannot control himself and his language which is why he was ultimately banned (which he desired).

 

[drbrumley]

Ok Edge,

Since you want to obfuscate.

Hey Knight, what thread is The edge talking about?

 

[The Edge]

So... I take all that time to compose a response and you going to just ignore it???? :nono:

Happens to me all the time. :yawn:

Actually I didn't ignore it. If I want to say any more I'll say it.


Dr Brumley, it's the "zakath is genuine" thread. My rebuke to Erin is what started this all. Actually, Erin started it because if she didn't attack me out of the blue like she did, then I would never have even had cause to investigate Bob Enyart.

 

[drbrumley]

Happens to me all the time. :yawn:

Actually I didn't ignore it. If I want to say any more I'll say it.


Dr Brumley, it's the "zakath is genuine" thread. My rebuke to Erin is what started this all. Actually, Erin started it because if she didn't attack me out of the blue like she did, then I would never have even had cause to investigate Bob Enyart.

You know Edge, it wasn't until you started a thread about Terry Shiavo and how ricidoulous that case became and how she shouldn't live and how far it came that you put yourself on christians radar screen.Then people saw you for who you were. Then when you were called on it, you attempted to duck the issue. It's the same thing now. You don't want to discuss right and wrong thru the lens of scripture. You have a problem being called on your own words. You say don't judge me, but yet you yourself judge Bob Enyart. Maybe you need to find a dictionary and find out what hypocrite means.

AS Knight said, if we, meaning those who share with Bob's views, is in error, we will be happy to to listen to you prove our error, so we can repent. Instead of taking us up on the offer, you again duck the issue and refuse to put your money where your mouth is.

 

[The Edge]

You know Edge, it wasn't until you started a thread about Terry Shiavo and how ricidoulous that case became and how she shouldn't live and how far it came that you put yourself on christians radar screen.Then people saw you for who you were. Then when you were called on it, you attempted to duck the issue. It's the same thing now. You don't want to discuss right and wrong thru the lens of scripture. You have a problem being called on your own words. You say don't judge me, but yet you yourself judge Bob Enyart. Maybe you need to find a dictionary and find out what hypocrite means.

AS Knight said, if we, meaning those who share with Bob's views, is in error, we will be happy to to listen to you prove our error, so we can repent. Instead of taking us up on the offer, you again duck the issue and refuse to put your money where your mouth is.

Well, Doc, I don't exactly see you acting through the lens of Scripture.

In the Terri thread, I spoke without research. If you were smart enough to read on, you would find that I later retracted what I said and admitted I had no stance on the issue either way. But you are just wanting to remain on the war path, so you only remember the things I said that you don't like so you can continue in your attempts to use them against me. I'm not falling for it, Doc. You come across as a self righteous, angry man, and I know you probably aren't in real life, but your anger towards me is making yourself look bad. You need to stop slinging insults and whining and crying and start paying closer attention. Just as you accuse me of speaking without knowing, you are posting without reading followups.

 

[Delmar]

Who gets to decide whether the line between discipline and abuse has been crossed ? The perpetrator ?

Fair question. To start with, it would be my opinion that any one who would claim that all spanking is abuse would not be qualified to make that judgment.

 

[The Edge]

Fair question. To start with, it would be my opinion that any one who would claim that all spanking is abuse would not be qualified to make that judgment.

I agree.

I would also say, on the other side, that anyone who says all spanking is ok and it's impossible to go too far is also unqualified.

 

[Delmar]

I agree.

I would also say, on the other side, that anyone who says all spanking is ok and it's impossible to go too far is also unqualified.

Yup. I don't know too many that would make that case.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Actually I didn't ignore it. If I want to say any more I'll say it.

Ok.

I guess there is no need for me to respond to you anymore is there?

You are kind of rude don't you think ?

 

[drbrumley]

Well, Doc, I don't exactly see you acting through the lens of Scripture.

In the Terri thread, I spoke without research. If you were smart enough to read on, you would find that I later retracted what I said and admitted I had no stance on the issue either way. But you are just wanting to remain on the war path, so you only remember the things I said that you don't like so you can continue in your attempts to use them against me. I'm not falling for it, Doc. You come across as a self righteous, angry man, and I know you probably aren't in real life, but your anger towards me is making yourself look bad. You need to stop slinging insults and whining and crying and start paying closer attention. Just as you accuse me of speaking without knowing, you are posting without reading followups.

Well, thats a blantant fabrication.

 

[The Edge]

So is nearly all of what you say about me, Doc.

 

[drbrumley]

How so? What do I say about you?

That you indeed made false comments regarding Terry?

That you indeed made false comments regarding Bob Enyart?

That you indeed make drive-by postings and when called on it, refuse to answer?

That indeed you judge us for judging, when you do the same thing?

Tell me where I am wrong.

Or could it be the appearance of your so-called devotion to the Edge? You say your not devoted to him, great, I'll take your word for it.

I do know when caught in a pickle jar, you hide cause you don't want to discuss it. You would rather discuss trivial things and stay out of major disputes. Knight has been very good to you and even offered a discussion to what you imply as wrong teaching from the Bible, but instead of discuss it, if your right, we are living a lie so to speak. Shows how much you care about other people's souls.

 

[The Edge]

How so? What do I say about you?

That you indeed made false comments regarding Terry?

That you indeed made false comments regarding Bob Enyart?

That you indeed make drive-by postings and when called on it, refuse to answer?

That indeed you judge us for judging, when you do the same thing?

Tell me where I am wrong.

Or could it be the appearance of your so-called devotion to the Edge? You say your not devoted to him, great, I'll take your word for it.

I do know when caught in a pickle jar, you hide cause you don't want to discuss it. You would rather discuss trivial things and stay out of major disputes. Knight has been very good to you and even offered a discussion to what you imply as wrong teaching from the Bible, but instead of discuss it, if your right, we are living a lie so to speak. Shows how much you care about other people's souls.

Knight has been very good to me, but behind the scenes he docs me 75 rep points every chance he gets. I applaud Knight for running this fantastic board. The bottom line is I'm allowed to have my feelings without being forced to debate them. And I choose not to debate for two simple reasons:
1) I just suck at debating; I have not developed the skills for good, tasteful debating style and I'm afraid I would resort to rudeness and insults like Doctor Brumley has
2) I choose not to debate with people that exhibit the same character that I want to restrain myself from exhibiting.

No debate is necessary Doc. And that is because I can actually see truth on both sides. This is an issue based on opinion, and there's nothing you guys can say to make me follow Bob Enyart, and you guys are just going to have to accept that. Doc, this has nothing to do with the destiny of your soul, because I am sure Bob Enyart has the fundamentals of salvation correct. So don't worry about it. You just want to draw me into a formal debate so you can use your tactics to humiliate me more, and I won't subscribe to that.

You continue to fail to pay attention, and would rather put words in my mouth and then accuse me for speaking them. Read, Doctor, read. Read what has been posted. Then think a little bit. I know you can think; you did graduate from medical school if I am not mistaken. Maybe you'll figure it out some day.

 

[Servo]

This is an issue based on opinion, and there's nothing you guys can say to make me follow Bob Enyart, and you guys are just going to have to accept that.

Nobody here at TOL would do that, that would be plain weird.

 

[The Edge]

Doc,

The character of your next post to me will determine whether I put you on my ignore list or keep listening to what you have to say. Chose your words carefully.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight has been very good to me, but behind the scenes he docs me 75 rep points every chance he gets.

I do not appreciate you purposefully ignoring my response to you which I invested a certain amount of time into. Which is the very purpose of reputation points, it allows users to show their pleasure or displeasure with the posts made by others here at TOL. For you to blatantly disregard my efforts is just plain rude.

This is an issue based on opinion, and there's nothing you guys can say to make me follow Bob Enyart, and you guys are just going to have to accept that.

Oh please..... Edge.... you are a knucklehead! Do you honestly think anyone here cares if you like Bob Enyart or not???

That isn't even the issue!

The issue is...
Was the spanking Bob gave his stepson actually child abuse? And what are these unknown "other things" things that Bob Enyart teaches that are in error as you suggest? And as it turns out when you finally gave some examples of these "errors" you didn't even have the courtesy to address my response!

You are indeed reaping what you sow.

 

[The Edge]

ok ok i'll respond sometime tonight. but be cool and don't hurl insults.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

ok ok i'll respond sometime tonight. but be cool and don't hurl insults.

If the insult fits....

 

[The Edge]

The issue is...
Was the spanking Bob gave his stepson actually child abuse? And what are these unknown "other things" things that Bob Enyart teaches that are in error as you suggest? And as it turns out when you finally gave some examples of these "errors" you didn't even have the courtesy to address my response!

Ok....
The spanking Bob Enyart gave his [not son at the time] was child abuse if it was done out of anger and if he did not explain to the kid what he did wrong. It was child abuse if he indeed broke the skin and made welts that lasted long enough for police to take pictures later and use them as evidence in court. However, I have been unable to find the photographs on the net of the actual injury, so I am afraid I can't provide proof of my own. However, someone obviously thought it was child abuse, and in our country, child abuse is illegal. God tells us in Romans 13 to obey the government, and since Bob broke the law and got caught, he deserved to serve his jail term. So while the Bible says corporal punishment is ok (which I agree with) we are also to obey the government God ordained over us, which has laws protecting children against excessive abuse. I don't believe spanking a child is abuse as long as there's no evidence that the government could possibly use to convict someone. Therefore, it's my opinion that we should use corporal punishment, but to be careful. Therefore, we uphold the Bible, and we obey the government, which is also in the Bible.

I found an article in "Westword" that detailed Bob Enyart thorugh this story. I don't know how reliable this press is because Westword described itself as an alternative newspaper. However this was the most detailed account I could find, and it stated that there was broken skin, several welts, and the belt was even damaged in the beating. The boy's brother called the police. The paper also said that Bob lead people to Christ while in jail....that is to be applauded. The article also says that Bob gleefully makes money at his son's expense. I am not putting complete stock in this paper since it is an alternative paper, but from this we can glean two things....
1) Stephen's brother was concerned enough to call the police, and
2) There was damage to the belt and apparently enough injury to the boy to warrant this investigation which lead to a conviction.

As for what else I disagree with? There's no scriptural support, but I think he focuses way to much on homophobia and I think he should not be advocating overthrow of the US government. While I do agree with you, Knight, that a theological monarchy is the Biblical government of choice, that is not what God as placed over us right now, and we are called by Romans 13 to be in submission to the government that God has ordained over us. We are given the right to vote in the people we like, and since that is part of government we should do that. And we can speak and peacefully protest, but not overthrow. If I am misunderstanding his writings here, let me know. But this is how I feel. I think he should focus more on leading people to Christ and teaching Bible and less on slammnig gays and writing strange essays about overthrowing the government. I see a lot of good in Bob, but I think some of it is misguided.

So Knight, is this affecting your eternal destiny? I don't think so. Are you in serious error? Probably not. You seem to be more focused on theology, and that is good, in my opinion.

Well, I believe this sufficiently covers it. It reponds to your post that I didn't write to earlier. I hope this helps you see where I am coming from.

d

 

[drbrumley]

Ok....
The spanking Bob Enyart gave his [not son at the time] was child abuse if it was done out of anger and if he did not explain to the kid what he did wrong.

Bob did this. Yet you still have a problem with it.

It was child abuse if he indeed broke the skin and made welts that lasted long enough for police to take pictures later and use them as evidence in court.

The boys father in question was a policeman. He was called by his other son. He took the photos immediately after the spanking.

However, I have been unable to find the photographs on the net of the actual injury, so I am afraid I can't provide proof of my own.

Because there is no proof except the fact the boys BIOLOGICAL father took the photos immediately after the spanking.

However, someone obviously thought it was child abuse, and in our country, child abuse is illegal.

Yes, the father. God tells us in Romans 13 to obey the government, and since Bob broke the law and got caught, he deserved to serve his jail term.

Got caught doing what? Spamking his soon to be stepson. Plus, it is opinion based on the father. opinion is not law.

So while the Bible says corporal punishment is ok (which I agree with) we are also to obey the government God ordained over us, which has laws protecting children against excessive abuse.

With this line of thought, Hitler told Germany to kill Jews would be ok cause we are following the governments rule.

I don't believe spanking a child is abuse as long as there's no evidence that the government could possibly use to convict someone. Therefore, it's my opinion that we should use corporal punishment, but to be careful. Therefore, we uphold the Bible, and we obey the government, which is also in the Bible.

See above

I found an article in "Westword" that detailed Bob Enyart thorugh this story. I don't know how reliable this press is because Westword described itself as an alternative newspaper. However this was the most detailed account I could find, and it stated that there was broken skin, several welts, and the belt was even damaged in the beating. The boy's brother called the police. The paper also said that Bob lead people to Christ while in jail....that is to be applauded. The article also says that Bob gleefully makes money at his son's expense. I am not putting complete stock in this paper since it is an alternative paper, but from this we can glean two things....
1) Stephen's brother was concerned enough to call the police, and
2) There was damage to the belt and apparently enough injury to the boy to warrant this investigation which lead to a conviction.

Wrong again. Your trust in newspapers is amazing.

As for what else I disagree with? There's no scriptural support, but I think he focuses way to much on homophobia and I think he should not be advocating overthrow of the US government.

He advocates a military overthrow of the government? Link please.

While I do agree with you, Knight, that a theological monarchy is the Biblical government of choice, that is not what God as placed over us right now, and we are called by Romans 13 to be in submission to the government that God has ordained over us.

So God Predestined our government is what your saying?

We are given the right to vote in the people we like, and since that is part of government we should do that. And we can speak and peacefully protest, but not overthrow. If I am misunderstanding his writings here, let me know. But this is how I feel. I think he should focus more on leading people to Christ and teaching Bible and less on slammnig gays and writing strange essays about overthrowing the government. I see a lot of good in Bob, but I think some of it is misguided.

See above

So Knight, is this affecting your eternal destiny? I don't think so. Are you in serious error? Probably not. You seem to be more focused on theology, and that is good, in my opinion.

Well, I believe this sufficiently covers it. It reponds to your post that I didn't write to earlier. I hope this helps you see where I am coming from.

d]