No announcement yet.

My interview with Bob Enyart

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My interview with Bob Enyart

    Jefferson: Bob, I really appreciate you doing this interview.

    Bob: Well, it's a pleasure to talk to you Jeff.

    Jefferson: Let's begin with some of your writing projects. There's a few things that are off the board that you used to sell. You had your sequel to The Plot called, "The Script" that's no longer available. You had your novel called, "The First 100 Days," and also your A.C.M. constitution. What ever happened to those?

    Bob: Okay, let's add, "Exposing The Divorce Myth" the manuscript on divorce and remarriage because that was something we had made available years ago that we've pulled off the market. The primary difficulty with my writing projects is the demands on my time that increased dramatically when I became a pastor back in 2000 when Derby Bible Church in Commerce City planned another Bible Church across town - ours, Denver Bible Church - and I was asked by the pastor and the elders to be the pastor of this new church plan. And it's been a neat time and we've grown from about 30 people to about 90 people. And the church has a neat ministry. But there are time demands, especially in counseling that are pretty serious and I'm having a hard time figuring out how to finish my writing, juggle the daily radio show, being a pastor (sermons, Sunday school, bible studies) and continue the writings. But maybe we could talk about each one of those individually and I'll let you know where we're at with them.

    Jefferson: Alright, let's begin with "The Script" (which is the sequel to The Plot) which was on the subject of the debate between free-will versus predestination.

    Bob: That's very exciting and very near and dear to my heart. And I think it's going to be a sequel that readers will think is at least as good as the first book, the prequel, The Plot. I finished the first 2 chapters and was working on the 3rd chapter. The first chapter of "The Script" was a "hook" to get Calvinists and those who believe in predestination to be interested. And I wanted to show them that people who don't believe in predestination can be just as in awe and fascinated with God's dealings and intricate interventions in man's history as can Calvinists but that free-will is a completely separate matter.

    And I wrote chapter 1 to hook the Calvinist reader. And chapter 2 was on the issue of can God change or does God change - the immutability of God. And then chapter 3 was on the idea of the chosen people. What does it mean to be chosen? And when Israel was chosen and individual priests and prophets were chosen by God to serve Him does that mean that they had salvation and would go to heaven? And we find that most of the chosen people ended up going to Hell. So chosen ends of meaning something different from what we glibly assume.

    Well, The Script was coming along pretty well and I ran into that time constraint of being a pastor. But then a second difficulty occurred to me. I was going to teach through the first 3 chapters of The Script and we started on Sunday nights. And in teaching through chapter 1 I realized I was unhappy with the presentation of how it was coming across. It was a bit too convoluted. So I spent about 3 or 4 weeks in the late summer of 2004, this year, rewriting chapter one. And so I'm really excited that I've just rewritten chapter one and stream-lined it and I think it's more effective and easier to read.

    And It's this awesome study to me. I'm just so excited about it. In Genesis where God switches so many different siblings, mostly brothers taking the younger for the older all as a symbol of Jesus Christ taking the place of Adam. And I believe it opens up the book of Genesis and makes it just come to life with meaning where without understanding that there's mostly confusion. So I'm real excited now that The Script has got a better foundation. And I then turned in September and October trying to steal hours usually early in the morning. I enjoy going to Starbuck's at 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning and trying to take an hour and write. And I do that quite often but not enough.

    Jefferson: Are you going to make each chapter available when they're completed?

    Bob: Well, yes. If anyone wanted the first 2 chapters of The Script from us they can get that from us. And I hope and pray that I'll have chapter 3 done before the end of the year and then be able to move on.

    Jefferson: Let’s move on to, “Exposing the Divorce Myth.” What happened to that project?

    Bob: That was the first thing I had written as a Christian of any length. And my writing was absolutely horrendous. When I began to write I hired a friend who has just a brilliant pen to edit my writings. In fact, I began by paying him $500 to edit a section of text, just a few pages because he’s so good and I desperately wanted his help. And when he would edit I would sit with him and learn how to write. And so I think my writing has improved significantly and that now I may be just an average writer as compared to a really terrible writer 15 years ago.

    Jefferson: So is there any possibility of “Exposing The Divorce Myth” going back on to the market again in the future?

    Bob: Yes, I would love to rewrite “The Divorce Myth” and for now when people do ask for it – because we did sell it for a short time. And people remember it and people who have read it and lost it, ask for it - and we tell them that it’s off the market but to please consider getting the video, “The Bible, Divorce and Remarriage” as it does address the basic Biblical passages and the substantive issues.

    Jefferson: So it’s not off the market because of any theological change you’ve had? You just don’t like all the grammatical errors?

    Bob: It’s terribly written. It’s absolutely terribly written, the whole format, the whole structure of it. It’s written as a rebuttal to another book, a book titled, “The Divorce Myth” by J. Carl Laney and that book should probably just be ignored except that the introduction to the book was written by Charles Ryrie of Dallas Theological Seminary and The Ryrie Study Bible. And my view on divorce and remarriage has not changed, as far as I can recall, from my earliest years as a Christian. And I’m glad for that because I’ve gone through the horror, the nightmare and the failure of divorce. And it’s especially bothersome when people change their theology conveniently to match their lifestyle.

    Jefferson: Another cancelled project was your novel called, "The First 100 Days" which was on the subject of what would happen if a Christian government had total control of the United States and could make any Biblical Law they wanted with the stroke of a pen.

    Bob: Yeah, that's a really fun and exciting project and we sold that for some years under the title of "The First Five Days." We began to sell it chapter by chapter as I was writing them. And again that stopped about when I became a pastor. But we were selling "The First Five Days" which was 250 pages or so, I don't recall. And it was really a fun and exciting novel to read. People gave us the most wonderful input. Even enemies who detested us and our Christian view said that it was a rather well written and exciting page-turner.

    But I realized that some of my beliefs were in error. And I'll describe 2 that forced me to pull "The First 5 Days" off the market. And as with other issues that I feel that I've been wrong about over the years, most of them have been because I haven't carefully rightly-divided the word of God where God in the Bible makes distinctions between the Law for Israel and the law that He's written on all men's hearts so that Israel has many symbolic ordinances that did not apply to the gentiles. And I came to a realization of the Bible rightly-divided about 20 years ago and I've been a Christian for over 30 years and so it takes awhile to reset your thinking. And it also takes effort and consistency and sometimes laziness or temptations or a lack of time cause errors to creep into our thinking.

    So in "The First 5 Days" I was under the false impression that we should reimplement God's Law from Deuteronomy of the year of the Lord's release and that debt should only be legal for a length of 7 years and every seventh year all debts would be forgiven. And I came to realize that was part of Israel's symbolic covenant. And that was a symbol of the freedom that God's people would have in salvation and that that was not to be something that was true and to be implemented in law for all men through all of human history. In fact, Jefferson, on on our home page, I don't know if you've noticed a new link went up about a month ago called, "Errata." Have you seen that?

    Jefferson: No I have not.

    Bob: Okay, that's my new corrections page. And I'm listing there under "Errata" the errors that I've made in my ministry that I've now become aware of and acknowledged. It lists three errors. The first one is the death penalty where I was applying it too broadly and not realizing, as it says in Hebrews 7:12 that the priesthood has changed through Jesus Christ. And Hebrews 7:12 says, "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the Law." So all the laws that were symbolic - of the priesthood pointing to Jesus Christ and the function of Israel and their national covenant as a symbol of Christ's coming and the salvation He would provide - all those prophetic symbols are no longer part of the Law that men should be compelled to follow. And so all those laws have changed. And so the first of the 3 errors I list is the death penalty. I applied it too broadly and I forgot that only in Israel did God outlaw other religions and there are examples where God gives in The Law that certain laws are only applicable only to the Jews and things are different for gentiles.

    Jefferson: Well, I don't recall the other religions being outlawed in your novel.

    Bob: No, that's true. I'm giving more of a broad foundation for my answer. So then to get to the forgiveness of debt. That's the second bullet in our Errata. I forgot to rightly-divide the Mosaic Law and I wrongly supported a return to the Bible's year of the Lord's release whereby all debts would be forgiven every 7 years.

    Jefferson: What about the law of Jubilee; every 50 years.

    Bob: Yeah, I think that's also in error in applying that to today's society. I think those were symbolic of the freedom that would come in Christ in that they're not inherently moral issues. They're symbolic. And I can give evidence for that. God says in Deuteronomy 25 that the Jews should forgive debt every 7 years. That's in verse 1 of that chapter. In verse 3 He says but you don't have to do that with foreigners but you do have to do that with your brothers. And so God would never say it's okay to kidnap gentiles or rape unbelievers or murder Orientals, you just can't murder or steal from Jews because those are fundamental moral issues and there are no exceptions as far as what class of people you can murder or you can steal from.

    Jefferson: Wouldn't this throw a bit of a monkey-wrench into your novel if you had to rewrite it? For example, in the novel there was going to be a big protest, a big revolution by the agnostics and atheists against the new Christian government and one of the main things that put a stop to it was this forgiveness of the debts.

    Bob: Exactly. And I do think that our society can benefit from a bit of a rethinking of our economic policies. It was the government that stepped in and authorized 30-year mortgages when 7-year and 15-year mortgages had been the norm. And in Japan they have 100-year mortgages. And debt is pretty close to slavery. Debt is quite a burden for human beings to bear. And our credit card debt and our laws regarding bankruptcy - I think our bankruptcy laws are corrupt and they're one of the main reasons why people so flippantly get into serious debt because there's an easy out if necessary. So I think that our economic laws do need to be reformed but it's an error to say we can take the Bible's symbolic ordinances and impose it on people.

    Jefferson: Well, yeah if you want to call a 5 percent income tax an "imposition."

    Bob: Well, yeah that would be a relief. I don't believe all of the Bible's teachings on economics are dispensationally specific. For example, "Thou shall not steal" is not dispensationally different between law and grace. It's wrong today when Christians are saved by grace. It's wrong for Christians or unbelievers to steal. And the government should not allow people to steal without punishment. The same thing with taxes. If we can see that a 50 percent tax rate or a 10 percent tax rate is onerous, it's plunder, then that's still wrong. So I'm not saying that we need to ignore the Bible's teachings on economics when we devise public policy. What I'm saying is that we have to rightly-divide and not just ignorantly apply every economic principle in Israel's law to today's government.

    Jefferson: Why was the first 5 days in "The First 100 Days" cut down to the first 3 days?

    Bob: Because I believe chapter 4 is where I got into trouble with economic policy.

    Jefferson: Are you ever going to pick up the project again?

    Bob: I would love to. It’s a huge time constraint stopping me. That novel is so enjoyable to write. So many people told us that reading it – you know, I guess good fiction will take you away and let you enjoy the things that you can explore, exploring ideas and plumbing the depths of creativity of different human authors. It’s an enjoyable practice and it’s intellectually stimulating and it allows you to explore ideas through novels. So there’s a real value there. And I think it’s a worthwhile testing ground for Biblical principles.

    Jefferson: I think if you rewrite it, the potential revolution against the Christian government could just as easily be thwarted by the proclamation of the 5 percent income tax.

    Bob: That’s a very good point because that would effectively double everyone’s income. And doubling your income, if you’ve worked hard the last 15 years and you’re making $42,000 a year and all of a sudden your effective income is now $84,000, you’d see a lot of stress and burden relieved.

    Jefferson: Exactly. Okay, let’s move on to your other project, the A.C.M. constitution which was your idea of a totally Biblical constitution.

    Bob: It’s interesting you bring that up. The previous 2 shows, the election of 2004 when Bush was reelected was just held 2 days ago. And on the day of the election I was using the documents that we previously posted on the internet along with the constitution. We had what I believe was a more Biblical constitution, a constitutional monarchy.

    The Constitution of America presents a constitutional monarchy and I have a constitution that I’ve been working on with input with many others for some years and that constitution is not quite done but then there are other supporting documents including the Biblical rational, the Biblical apologetic for that constitution. In other words, does the Bible support a monarchy and what should the laws of the land be based on Biblical principles. And then also there’s a political rationale for a constitutional monarchy.

    And I’ve been quoting extensively from those documents on the last 2 shows. On election day I quoted from the material in the political rationale for a monarchy against democracy and why democracy is a bad idea. And the day after the election I quoted from the section of the Biblical apologetic and the political rational for a monarchy. I quoted the arguments defending a monarchy, why a monarchy is actually a really good idea. So I strongly support the ideas in that constitution but it’s not done. And again it’s time constraints that keep me from finishing it and posting it.

    Jefferson: Was it taken off-line because of the revamping of your ideas on the year of Jubilee for example?

    Bob: I can’t recall. Jefferson, do you recall if that was in the documents in the constitution?

    Jefferson: You know, I don’t think it was. But if that wasn’t the reason then what was the reason?

    Bob: I think it’s literally a lack of time and energy and resources. Even just webmastering it. There were maybe problems with length. I actually would put it back up if I had a little bit of help if somebody would take over that project of at least webmastering it.

    Jefferson: One of the Biblical Laws is the subject of the law that requires the death penalty for a rebellious son. In a previous show you had mentioned that that law is a symbolic law and not a moral law therefore it would not be applied in the 21st century. My question is: Symbolic laws always symbolize something. For example, the laws requiring the sacrificing of animals symbolized Christ’s sacrifice for us. Therefore, if the law requiring a rebellious son to be executed was symbolic, my question is what did it symbolize?

    Bob: I think that God’s covenant with Israel was designed to teach all of mankind throughout all history important spiritual and eternal truths. And one of those truths is that it’s God’s way or death. There is no other way. If you disagree with God on even the most minor issue, you will die. And Israel is God’s “son.” He called His son out of Egypt. [Hosea 11:1] So that a rebellious son is very easily a symbol of God’s people being in rebellion against Him. And so a rebellious son is a symbol of God’s children who rebel against God and the penalty for that is death. If someone is rebelling against God and does not hold themselves to repent they will die not only in this life but eternally.

    Once I realized that I was too glib in taking Israel’s Law and applying them to today’s public policy issues it forced me to reconsider. And when I began to acknowledge that God had passed many laws for Israel that reinforced their symbolic covenant, that’s when I came to believe that I had been too aggressive.

    Jefferson: That’s a good point. I didn’t think about that. For example the verse says nothing about the rebellious daughter.

    Bob: Yeah, well that’s a great point too.

    Jefferson: Another verse on this subject would be Deuteronomy chapter 25 verses 11 and 12 which reads, “If two men fight together and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals then you shall cut off her hand and your eye shall not pity her.”

    Bob: That’s the passage immediately after the levirate marriages?

    Jefferson: Yes, the marriage duty of the surviving brother.

    Bob: Yes, if a man dies without a child, then his brother or his near kin should be willing to take the widow and raise up a son to the dead brother. Okay, so let’s think through this. It’s so interesting, Jefferson, that if you look at verse by verse commentaries of the whole Bible or the Pentateuch, so many of them will go verse by verse through this chapter until they get to verse 10 and then continue to verse 13 and just completely skip 11 and 12 which frustrates me somewhat. I think at least I get a kick out of it. So many Bible commentators just skip the hard verses.

    And here, what I think is going on is I don’t think it’s a coincidence that that passage immediately follows the one of levirate marriages. Okay, let’s talk through it. The general thought is that this is against immodesty and a woman should not be immodest. But I think that is a distant second to the more significant reason that this is in the text. I think it immediately follows this other passage about this desire and need to raise up a child for the deceased brother suggesting that there’s a relationship to the man being able to produce offspring because the woman grabs the man (in an immodest way but) in a way that at least symbolically if not physically could affect his ability to reproduce. And Israel’s national covenant was sealed by circumcision, the cutting off of the flesh. And that’s, I guess in a sense, what she is threatening to do, to mutilate him to stop this fight. So Israel’s national covenant is symbolized by circumcision, the cutting off of the flesh.

    And that’s similar to what just happened in the previous 6 verses as in the man who died without children. He was cut off in the flesh. His flesh ended with his death. That was it. Israel’s covenant led to Christ, not by some mystical way but through the centuries through reproduction. And Christ would eventually be cut off in the flesh. So I think that primarily what’s going on here is a reinforcement of this idea which was at the heart of the Abrahamic covenant; the covenant of circumcision that the nation was there to enable generation after generation to lead to the Messiah. And that would come about through their ethnic reproduction. And circumcision was a sign of that so that this is a somewhat peculiar reinforcement of that national covenant.

    Now think about this. When there are laws in the Bible that seem completely inane, that seem to have no relevance, they often scream out for symbolic interpretation. For example, the cities of refuge. You know Moses was around before we had heavy industry and before we were making automobiles and airplanes and high voltage lines. So how did they accidentally kill someone? The cities of refuge were designed. God regulated them and created them and said they had to implement these cities of refuge for the case where someone accidentally killed his neighbor. So how often are you swinging to chop down a tree and the axe-head flies off and it happens to hit your neighbor and hit him in the head and kill him? That’s got to be a somewhat rare occurrence. There weren’t cars driving at 60 miles an hour accidentally killing people. So it had to be pretty rare to accidentally someone. Yet God not only at length addressed that matter in the Bible but He said you need to implement cities of refuge for these people to flee to and there should be 7 of them, almost as though you are preparing for an epidemic of accidental manslayers.

    So what I think what is happening is that screams out for symbolic interpretation. And what you realize is when Jesus spoke about Abraham’s bosom that that was a place where the righteous, (those who trusted in God before the crucifixion), could go and be safe from the avenger of blood. And they had to stay there until the death of (Jesus Christ symbolically), the one who was high priest in those days. And that’s what the text says in Joshua and in the Mosaic Law. It says that if you’re the accidental manslayer you have to flee to the city of refuge and you stay there until the death of the one who is high priest in those days.

    Jefferson: And the fact that there were 7 cities and not 6 or 8.

    Bob: Yeah, that’s symbolic. Right. And similar to the year of the Lord’s release. Every seventh year. And seven is the day of rest. You rest on the seventh day because God created for 6 days, He rested on the seventh. And the book of Hebrews shows that that Sabbath rest is a symbol of the salvation we have in Christ. And that Christ did it. We can’t do it. Christ did it.

    And so I think that type of Bible interpretation where when we see something that seems to be addressing very unusual circumstances, we have to consider what if we put Christ in the middle of the story. Could the story be pointing to Him and the whole purpose for the Mosaic law and Israel’s covenant?

    And so when we look at this story, I mean how often does this happen? How often does it happen that a woman is needed to intervene in a fight and she does this to try to protect her husband. I’ve never seen or heard of it in my lifetime of observations, not in news accounts, not in history and not in the bizarre movies that come out of Hollywood that I was all too much a consumer of for many years. So I think that this passage screams out for a symbolic interpretation.

    And this law would reinforce modesty when the masses would read it and people who don’t understand the depth of the meaning of God’s Law and God’s symbols. And so it would reinforce modesty and thereby the chastity of women and hence of the nation, because if women are more modest and chaste then men of necessity will be and that modesty was likely I’d say a distant concern to God as compared to the symbolic content.

    Jefferson: Alright, the last question I have for you today, Bob, would be the fact that several months ago you were talking on the subject of homosexuality. And you had mentioned to Doug McBurney that you were revising your tactic on dealing with homosexuals. And I was wondering if you could please elaborate on that.

    Bob: Okay. Let me make an analogy and then directly bring it to homosexuality. When we were fighting abortion Operation Rescue had a window of opportunity to try to, by force, use our bodies to stop the ability of abortionists to kill unborn children. And 50,000 arrests were made in a period of a few years which actually dwarfs the scope of the civil rights movement. The difference between the two was the media was on the side of the civil rights movement and against the rescue movement. But that was the tactic. Rescue was a tactic that could have been effective and was properly used at that time.

    But the rescue movement fell apart. And I think it fell apart due to the immaturity and even the sinfulness of the rescue leadership. And I was the director of Operation Rescue Colorado so I’m including myself in that. We were doing something that was beyond our ability. And if we were stronger, wiser, godlier men leading the movement it may have succeeded. But it failed.

    And once it failed, the enemy put together a law, the FACE law, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances. And so now it’s a federal offense and you will go to jail (for, what’s the first offense, 5 years in a federal penitentiary, I don’t recall), if you are in the slightest way convicted of impeding access to an abortion clinic. So that for people who have wives or children to take care of it becomes extremely difficult to go and block the doors of an abortion mill. So that tactic is no longer widely available.

    And in a similar way I think there was a window of opportunity a decade ago to try to stop the advance of the homosexual agenda. And that was to remind people that homosexuality was perverse, immoral and disgusting and that it truly sickened people.

    But instead what happened was the Christian community dealt with homosexuality in the abstract. They didn’t allow their congregation or their audience to remember that homosexuality involved men kissing one another or physically having sex with one another. And they separated the reality of homosexuality from an idealized version of “it’s just another sin.” And so the Christian community poured on the love and respect and tolerance of homosexuality. And it’s become the politically correct sin within the Christian community. It’s the only sin that cannot be mentioned without complementing the sinner.

    And just to show how absurd that is. Imagine that we’re going to condemn the NAZI’s and their slaughter of the innocent but we refuse to it without complementing them in the same breath. Or the same thing with adulterers or murderers.

    So that we, I think, desire to be liked and accepted especially by the mainstream. And we think that if we compliment homosexuals and say how wonderful they are that we will be respected. But it’s not true. The media in our culture hates James Dobson with a passion. And they hate him mostly because of his stance on abortion and homosexuality. And those are the two issues where he goes out of his way to say how the women who aborted their children are loved by God and homosexuals are people that we love and respect. And, of course, I have a hard time imagining he would say that about child abusers or child molesters or people who make child pornography. I don’t think he’d go out of his way to say that we love and respect child pornographers. We have enough love for them to warn them to repent and to arrest them and prosecute them. But I think it’s bizarre to go out of your way to say you respect them or to say you respect murderers or rapists.

    And so what’s happened is because of the political concerns of the day, homosexuality has become this politically correct, sacrosanct sin. And it’s no longer considered a crime and it’s not even stigmatized.

    So what I saw was that there was a window of opportunity to remind the Christian community that homosexuality has a heavy stigma against it. We should remember that it is disgusting, that it’s vile. It’s not only wrong, it’s utterly disgusting. And it’s that disgust that God gave us to perversion as a blessing and a merciful response so that our children would not freely experiment with these disgusting things.

    And, you know the law has quite an effect. The law can be very effective. But public opinion can be way more effective. For example, in the classic book, “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” there’s a section on beards in Europe where monarchs had outlawed beards. And the harder they tried to enforce outlawing beards the more people were determined to grow them. So then there were beard taxes. And you had to pay high taxes to have a beard. And that all fell apart but almost overnight it became unfashionable to have a beard. And the beards disappeared across Europe. That’s according to the author of that extraordinary book from 1841.

    And I think the same is true with homosexuality. When the Christian leaders are piling on respect for homosexuals that only invites rebellious young people to experiment. I had a 3-pronged approach toward fighting homosexuality: to recriminalize the behavior, to restigmatize it and to get them to repent. Whereas the Christian community only has a 1-pronged approach: to get them to repent. And without the stigma and without the law you have a somewhat weak strategy.

    So now my approach has now changed in that I’m playing down the restigmatizing. I’m still attempting to do it but not nearly in as a bold and outrageous way because it’s so utterly ineffective. It’s so completely ineffective because the Christian community has so thouroughly conferred respect onto homosexuals that I lose the audience with the first syllable. I no longer get the sentence out. I lose them immediately. And so I do attempt to restigmatize homosexuality but in a more subtle way.

    Jefferson: So, no more “Gay-Away” and “Dyke-Off”?

    Bob: I think I mentioned “Gay-Away” and “Dyke-Off” once in the last two years. And it’s not that I would not but when I do, I have to go to lengths to explain it.

    Jefferson: Bob, I really appreciated this interview. It was very enlightening, especially your commentary on Deuteronomy 25. It’s taken me a quarter of a century of being a Christian to get a clear answer on that verse.

    Bob: Well, praise the Lord.
    Last edited by Jefferson; November 13, 2004, 08:06 AM.
    WARNING: Graphic video here.

  • #2
    Thanks for posting this, Jefferson. A lot of people (myself included) are familiar with Bob's debate style from writings and the radio, but not really familiar with his personality. Most people, I think, have a one-sided view of Bob from his debates. But I think a lot of other features of his personality come out in this interview. I enjoyed reading it and enjoyed his points about the symbolic nature of some laws.

    Make good choices!

    2 Corinthians 10:5 -- casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ


    • #3
      "But we were selling 'The First Five Days' which was 250 pages or so, I don't recall. And it was really a fun and exciting novel to read. People gave us the most wonderful input. Even enemies who detested us and our Christian view said that it was a rather well written and exciting page-turner."


      • #4


        • #5
          Outstanding Jefferson. I didnt know you were a reporter.
          The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.


          • #6
            I figure you will read this, so: I was one of those Christians who "respected" homos. Because of you, and those who respect you on this board, I am no longer an idiot.


            • #7
              Good interview, Jefferson.


              • #8
                Originally posted by granite1010

                "But we were selling 'The First Five Days' which was 250 pages or so, I don't recall. And it was really a fun and exciting novel to read. People gave us the most wonderful input. Even enemies who detested us and our Christian view said that it was a rather well written and exciting page-turner."

                If a man laughs in the forest and there's no one there to hear him is he an idiot?

                "If you look upon ham and eggs and lust, you have already committed breakfast in your heart." - C.S. Lewis


                • #9
                  Have you ever tried to read Enyart's stupefying fiction, On Fire?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by granite1010

                    Have you ever tried to read Enyart's stupefying fiction, On Fire?

                    "If you look upon ham and eggs and lust, you have already committed breakfast in your heart." - C.S. Lewis


                    • #11
                      Good. Then you don't know what you're talking about. Enyart's a hack and can't write to save his life.


                      • #12
                        A pen is a tool for artistic expression in some hands. In others it is a tool for conveying ideas. A race drive and a delivery driver use their vehicles in different ways because they have different goals.

                        Bob Enyart doesn't have the flow and style in his writing that one finds in some works.

                        He communucates ideas well. I bought The Plot as an atheist who had been raised Christian and was so disgusted and discouraged by the goofy schizophrenic versions of God that had been presented to me by Christians.

                        I chose Christ as my savior because of that particular manuscript.

                        I truly don't care if it has a pleasing construction or not.


                        • #13
                          I was referring to his forays into fiction. For what it is "The Plot" isn't a bad read.


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Crow
                            I bought The Plot as an atheist . . .
                            What or who convinced you to do such a thing as an atheist?
                            WARNING: Graphic video here.


                            • #15
                              Lighthouse, I doubt you ever were...

                              LH: Bob- I figure you will read this, so: I was one of those Christians who "respected" homos. Because of you, and those who respect you on this board, I am no longer an idiot.

                              Lighthouse, thanks for your encouragement. I'm glad we're in the fight together. -Bob E.

                              Also, Jefferson, I don't know how to compliment you on the interview without complimenting myself. It's a bit of a dilemma, but hey, Thanks. You did a great job! And it was fun. -Bob
                              The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.