ARCHIVE: Zakath is Genuine!

[ApologeticJedi]

And you still can't get over the fact that your precious St. Bob the Broadcaster agreed to debate an anonymous Internet persona... all for the opportunity to line his pockets by publishing the debate. You people are pathetic...

Zakath, you have to be one of the ultimate sore-losers I've known. :baby:

I think he did plan on publishing the debate.... how is that a bad thing? I mean it's not like he twisted your arm to debate him, or to head for the hills when it became apparent you were over matched.

 

[drbrumley]

AJ,

Bob made Zak :think:. When Zak refused to, he ran. Pretty simple.

 

[The Edge]

Well, edge that’s not exactly what you said to begin with. You said 1) it’s wrong to make accusations without knowing someone; then 2) you made several accusations with some falsehoods mixed in with some truth, and then 3) you claimed that we shouldn’t bother bringing it up because you didn’t want to talk about it. I’ll admit I phrased it in a different way than you did. I cut out the fluff from your post, and whittled it down to the impression you left me and likely others with.

I agree that you have the right to answer false charges. I’m referring to your two-faced and hypocritical approach of telling someone they are a bad person for doing exactly what you did, and then telling us that you were actually “chivalrous” despite the current evidence to the contrary.

AJ,
I never told Erin she was a bad person. I would not do something like that. What she did was inconsistant with the pleasant character that I usually see her display.

The difference is simple: she made accusations and judgements based on assumptions she has made about me, my personality, and my motives based on very, very limited evidence. I made accusations at her based on exactly what I saw. I did not judge her personality or motives. I simply called her on her mistake, presented facts, and asked for an apology. She was trying to destroy my reputation on this board. I'm surprised she didn't try to use the rep system. And when I looked at the Bob Enyart thread she showed me, I read it, then I looked up Bob's credentials, and came across those child abuse charges and his bad radio ratings. So that is where I was coming from. Nothing two-faced about it. As for chivalry, I never lost respect for her as a lady, I never insulted her, called her names, or accused her of prancing around this board looking for sexual favors, as the word "pander" means. I never said I was tired of her or she had no right to be here, but she told me she was tired of me pandering around this board. That was out of line. My offer for friendship still stands, and always will. Again, not a two face.

This post is not to draw Erin out; it's to respond to AJ. I am not trying to continue because I said that as far as the issue was, it's over. Water over the dam.

 

[drbrumley]

:darwinsm:

So you read Bob was convicted. And that shapes your opinion of him how?

You going to be like loser Zak and condemn Bob too?

 

[The Edge]

I'm not condemning Bob. I'm just saying I disagree with him and chose not to follow him. I think it's a little ridonculous to bloody your kid because he wouldn't take a shower. That's a bit extreme. I'm all for spanking but that's too far. Especially when the mother is protesting. Parents have to be consistant and on the same page. If the child sees the parents fighting about how to punish, the kid has already won.

 

[Turbo]

And you still can't get over the fact that your precious St. Bob the Broadcaster agreed to debate an anonymous Internet persona... all for the opportunity to line his pockets by publishing the debate. You people are pathetic...

:darwinsm:

Knight owns the rights to Battle Royale VII, along with the rest of TOL's threads. If he had wanted to allow Bob to publish the debate and deny you the same privilege, he could have. But before BRVII even began, Knight graciously gave you the same rights to publish the finished debate as Bob was, so what's your problem? Don't pretend that anyone pulled a fast one on you. You can still publish the debate in its entirety if you so choose.

I bought a copy from Bob last week. :up: I would have bought the Zakath edition, but for some reason, you haven't publish it as of yet. You've never so much as had a link to the debate in your profile or your signature. :think:


From Bob's 9th round post:

Before this debate began, I requested from and offered to Zakath a reciprocal agreement by which either party could publish this Does God Exist? Battle Royale VII, which Zakath agreed to. I want to thank Zakath for his eight rounds, and express my concern that he has decided to forfeit these last two and thus the Battle itself. Regarding my concern for Zakath, Jesus Christ reinforced the Old Testament teaching that man’s rebellion against God is the great cause of human suffering. And since the world is filled with pain that we humans inflict upon one another, then Zakath’s lack of humility before God means that he is not part of the solution but part of the problem. And the problem includes the extraordinary heartache of human suffering and ruined lives. This is why Jesus spoke so much about punishment for unbelievers. Therein lies my concern.

...

Now, after round eight and the repeated deadline extensions offered to Zakath, Knight informs us that Zakath “is just fine,” but that he will not be finishing the Battle. Knight has called the battle “an official TKO” (technical knock out), stating that “Zakath has been knocked out in the 8th round.” We offered to be even more flexible, and Zakath has chosen not to accept that offer, preferring to quit, and indicating that he will be back on the boards soon. Just like old times!

And from Bob Enyart's 10th round post:

Who wins this Battle Royale VII on Does God Exist? Often in debates, both sides claim victory. In the Grandstands early in the debate I made a challenge to Zakath, acknowledging that we might both claim victory. I suggested that eventually we will reveal our own true opinions as the participants, as to whether we have won or not. One rule of thumb for discerning if an opponent really believes his own claim of victory is to see if he promotes the finished debate to a wider audience or not. If the one who claims victory puts a permanent link to the debate on his website or in his forum signature, or somehow attempts to publicize the contest in his own sphere of influence, then that is evidence that at least this opponent really does believe he won. On the other hand, if one side claims victory, but makes no effort to promote the completed debate, and even would rather everyone forget it ever occurred (Zakath, are you listening?), then that provides evidence that this opponent does not believe his own claim of victory. Knowing who truly believes he won or lost of course does not ultimately decide whether a certain opponent was right or wrong on the matter being debated, but if the debaters have significant experience in the subject, and one opponent believes his side lost (or showed poorly), that of course is of interest to those evaluating the debate. It appears obvious as Zakath has been posting casually on the boards recently, that he would rather we forget about the debate and just get on with life. (Zakath, I directly challenge you, put a link to BRVII in your signature!) And while the atheists in the Grandstands have proclaimed boldly all along that the atheist side was winning the debate and the theist side was offering no arguments whatsoever, I challenge you all collectively to promote this debate in your own sphere of influence. After all, if I offered nothing in evidence and Zakath so deftly refuted my arguments, then his abbreviated effort would easily outshine my lengthier one, and more so by his succinctness. So TheologyOnline.com atheists, you are challenged to link to this debate in your signatures. After all, it is probably your loyalty to Zakath that kept most of you from making a composite post for the tenth round, so why not publicize his work? Of course, I will promote the debate as I have said I would from the beginning, because I truly believe that the theist side won, while the actions of the atheists will speak louder than their words.

 

[drbrumley]

I didn't hear anyone say follow him. And just for the record, no matter what Zakass says, Bob is just a minister who loves God and the Lord Jesus and patterns his life based on God's word. His conviction was based on this principal. The government chose to convict him, not God. So my friend, before you attempt to say really dumb things about someone and form opinions about a particular person, know the facts. This is twice now you entered into debates here without knowing a damn thing and it really makes you look stupid. Kind of like Zakath. And it is becoming tiresome.

Have a good night.

 

[The Edge]

Think what you want, Doc.

 

[julie21]

I The government chose to convict him, not God. So my friend, before you attempt to say really dumb things about someone and form opinions about a particular person, know the facts.
Have a good night.

One question dr...how can you tell that God hasn't chosen to 'convict' him? No-one can predict what jugement God will make on another on the Day of the Lord.
In this world, it is true that BE was convicted by the 'authority of the government'...it remains to be seen if he will be convicted or aquitted by the Authority who has the greatest power. For now, that's an unknown. It is a fact as stated that he was convicted by man, yet it is not a fact, as you state, that God hasn't chosen to convict him. The latter is merely your personal opinion.

 

[drbrumley]

One question dr...how can you tell that God hasn't chosen to 'convict' him? No-one can predict what jugement God will make on another on the Day of the Lord.
In this world, it is true that BE was convicted by the 'authority of the government'...it remains to be seen if he will be convicted or aquitted by the Authority who has the greatest power. For now, that's an unknown. It is a fact as stated that he was convicted by man, yet it is not a fact, as you state, that God hasn't chosen to convict him. The latter is merely your personal opinion.

Does God go against His own word?

 

[drbrumley]

And please tell me what crime was committed? Biblically speaking or man given.

 

[The Edge]

We are supposed to submit to the government for it's God's ordained authority on earth, as long as it does not directly violate God's word.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Are you implying that I'm contrary?!
And you still can't get over the fact that your precious St. Bob the Broadcaster agreed to debate an anonymous Internet persona... all for the opportunity to line his pockets by publishing the debate. You people are pathetic...

:darwinsm:

So... Zakath's point here is what? Bob is a loser, because he agreed to debate me who is even a bigger loser????? :think:

 

[drbrumley]

We are supposed to submit to the government for it's God's ordained authority on earth, as long as it does not directly violate God's word.

Ok, how did BE violate the government WITHOUT violating God's word?

Child abuse is a crime is it not? Child abuse is covered in the bible is it not?

Just because you don't have sense to dicipline your children, and when someone diciplines thier own, you have to form a negative opinion as Zak does on the subject, oh nevermind....
I have to ask though, what do you know about this case? Alot, next to nothing?

 

[drbrumley]

So... Zakath's point here is what? Bob is a loser, because he agreed to debate me who is even a bigger loser????? :think:

:doh: That deserves a rep.

 

[SOTK]

So... Zakath's point here is what? Bob is a loser, because he agreed to debate me who is even a bigger loser????? :think:

:darwinsm:

 

[The Edge]

Ok, how did BE violate the government WITHOUT violating God's word?

Child abuse is a crime is it not? Child abuse is covered in the bible is it not?

Just because you don't have sense to dicipline your children, and when someone diciplines thier own, you have to form a negative opinion as Zak does on the subject, oh nevermind....
I have to ask though, what do you know about this case? Alot, next to nothing?

Doc you talk tough yet you failed to interpret what I wrote correctly.
We - are - supposed - to - submit - to - the - government - as - long - as - the - government - doesn't - tell - us - to - do - something - contrary - to - His - Word.

Got it? I didn't mean that Bob broke the law without violating the Word of God. Bob Enyart broke the law, and God tells us to obey the government so long as the government is not telling you to do something directly contrary to the Word of God.

 

[drbrumley]

Doc you talk tough yet you failed to interpret what I wrote correctly.
We - are - supposed - to - submit - to - the - government - as - long - as - the - government - doesn't - tell - us - to - do - something - contrary - to - His - Word.

Got it? I didn't mean that Bob broke the law without violating the Word of God. Bob Enyart broke the law, and God tells us to obey the government so long as the government is not telling you to do something directly contrary to the Word of God.

Edge,

I'm just saying I disagree with him and chose not to follow him. I think it's a little ridonculous to bloody your kid because he wouldn't take a shower. That's a bit extreme. I'm all for spanking but that's too far. Especially when the mother is protesting. Parents have to be consistant and on the same page. If the child sees the parents fighting about how to punish, the kid has already won.

If it doesn't violate God's word, then how can you be in disagreement? Do you even think before you post? In all seriousness. I did intrept what you wrote correctly. You sir like to side step your way thru debates.Sounds like you say I meant to say this instead. Thats you.

Your 2nd quote is proof in the pudding.

 

[The Edge]

The Word says "Do not provoke your children to anger."

 

[The Edge]

Doctor,
Are you saying it is reasonable to beat your child until he bleeds for refusing to take a shower? If so, God help your kids if they really misbehave.